ArticlePDF Available

Elevated growth and biomass along temperate forest edges

Springer Nature
Nature Communications
Authors:
  • CUNY Advanced Science Research Center

Abstract and Figures

Fragmentation transforms the environment along forest edges. The prevailing narrative, driven by research in tropical systems, suggests that edge environments increase tree mortality and structural degradation resulting in net decreases in ecosystem productivity. We show that, in contrast to tropical systems, temperate forest edges exhibit increased forest growth and biomass with no change in total mortality relative to the forest interior. We analyze >48,000 forest inventory plots across the north-eastern US using a quasi-experimental matching design. At forest edges adjacent to anthropogenic land covers, we report increases of 36.3% and 24.1% in forest growth and biomass, respectively. Inclusion of edge impacts increases estimates of forest productivity by up to 23% in agriculture-dominated areas, 15% in the metropolitan coast, and +2% in the least-fragmented regions. We also quantify forest fragmentation globally, at 30-m resolution, showing that temperate forests contain 52% more edge forest area than tropical forests. Our analyses upend the conventional wisdom of forest edges as less productive than intact forest and call for a reassessment of the conservation value of forest fragments. Studies from tropical regions indicate that fragmented forests are less productive. Here, the authors report higher growth and biomass in temperate forest edges in North America, and show that temperate forests are more fragmented than tropical forests globally.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
ARTICLE
Elevated growth and biomass along temperate
forest edges
Luca L. Morreale 1,2, Jonathan R. Thompson2, Xiaojing Tang 1, Andrew B. Reinmann3,4,5 & Lucy R. Hutyra1
Fragmentation transforms the environment along forest edges. The prevailing narrative,
driven by research in tropical systems, suggests that edge environments increase tree
mortality and structural degradation resulting in net decreases in ecosystem productivity. We
show that, in contrast to tropical systems, temperate forest edges exhibit increased forest
growth and biomass with no change in total mortality relative to the forest interior. We
analyze >48,000 forest inventory plots across the north-eastern US using a quasi-
experimental matching design. At forest edges adjacent to anthropogenic land covers, we
report increases of 36.3% and 24.1% in forest growth and biomass, respectively. Inclusion of
edge impacts increases estimates of forest productivity by up to 23% in agriculture-
dominated areas, 15% in the metropolitan coast, and +2% in the least-fragmented regions.
We also quantify forest fragmentation globally, at 30-m resolution, showing that temperate
forests contain 52% more edge forest area than tropical forests. Our analyses upend the
conventional wisdom of forest edges as less productive than intact forest and call for a
reassessment of the conservation value of forest fragments.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 OPEN
1Department of Earth & Environment, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. 2Harvard Forest, Harvard University, Petersham, MA, USA. 3Environmental
Science Initiative, CUNY Advanced Science Research Center, New York, NY, USA. 4Graduate Program in Earth and Environmental Sciences and Biology,
CUNY Graduate Center, New York, NY, USA. 5Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Hunter College, New York, NY, USA.
email: lmorreal@bu.edu
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:7181 | https://doi.org /10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 | www.nature.com /naturecommunications 1
1234567890():,;
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Deforestation is a pervasive consequence of land-use
change1and is impactful not just due to what is lost,
but also due to its effects on the forest fragments that
remain. Forest fragmentation is globally ubiquitous, with over
70% of forests located less than 1 km from a non-forest edge2.
Fundamental constraints on forest growth3,4and carbon cycling
are altered near edges relative to interior forests5,6, with increases
in light availability, temperature, wind, and reactive nitrogen
deposition, as well as altered water availability7,8. While frag-
mentation occurs across biomes, reported effects of these per-
turbations on higher-order dynamics in fragmented forests (i.e.,
structure, composition, function, and mortality) have largely
focused on tropical ecosystems, where sharp increases in mor-
tality and long-term forest degradation are reported at the forest
edge913. Expanded analyses suggest signicant reductions in
tropical ecosystem net carbon sequestration and, more broadly,
the terrestrial carbon sink10,11,14. However, environmental con-
trols on temperate forests differ from the tropics, and temperate
forest fragmentation studies are both fewer and more limited in
scale, c.f. 15,16. Temperate forest edges have similar microclimatic
differences, but contrasting biomass and productivity responses,
emphasizing a need for a better understanding of edge ecosystems
in non-tropical biomes6,15,17,18.
Here, we offer a large-scale estimation of fragmentation
impacts on temperate forest growth and structure along forest
edges, with broader implications for global evaluation of frag-
mented forests. Hereafter, we use the term edge to refer to forest
area bounded, in part, by a non-forest land cover and, conversely,
interior as a designation of forest area bounded fully by forest. We
report differences in tree basal area (BA; a metric of forest
structure, strongly correlated with biomass), BA increment (BAI;
a measure of forest growth), tree mortality, and average stem
density and diameter, between the forest edge (edge plots; <15 m
from a non-forest land cover) and forest interior (interior plots;
nonadjacent to non-forest land cover). We show that the tem-
perate forest edges within our study area exhibit dramatically
increased growth, tree stem density, and total BA, with negligible
changes in mortality. We then scale these results to estimate
regional increases in forest growth attributable to the distinct
forest edge environment. Finally, we place our results in context
of global patterns of forest fragmentation.
Results and discussion
Distinct characteristics of forest edges. To examine forest edges
in the northeastern US, we used inventory data from the US
Department of Agriculture Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
program. The FIA program has established permanent, xed-area
(675 m2), forest plots in a hexagonal grid across the United
States19. This national forest inventory includes measurements of
tree size, growth, and land use; re-measuring every 57 years in
our study area. Using >48,000 FIA plots distributed throughout
20 northeastern US states (Supplementary Fig. 1), we compared
structural and growth dynamics along temperate forest edges to
those of interior forests. Individual tree measurements are col-
lected within four xed-radius subplots (168.7 m2area) with a
xed orientation; subplot characteristics are recorded even if the
subplot contains partially forested or non-forest area. We leverage
partially forested subplots to identify forest edges within the FIA
database.
Using a quasi-experimental statistical matching framework
followed by a generalized linear model (GLM) regression analysis,
we compared BA, BAI, and tree mortality on FIA subplots that
are adjacent to a non-forest land cover, to matched subplots
within the forest interior. Matching approximates an experi-
mental design where control plots (interior) were selected based
on similarity to the treatment plots (edge) in relation to
confounding predictors (light, water, temperature, nitrogen
deposition, and forest type; Supplementary Fig. 5)20. We report
the results from GLM regression models as percent differences
with signicance derived from Wald tests on regression
coefcients and we include Nagelkerke Pseudo-R2from the most
parsimonious models as a goodness-of-t metric21. Detailed
descriptions of plot ltering, statistical matching, GLM selection
and analysis are provided in the Methods section.
Edges come in many forms. Natural edges exist as both
transitions in growing conditions (e.g., forestgrassland ecotones,
and wetlands) and sharp boundaries (e.g., lakes, rivers, and
geologic features) with variable effects on forest growth. In
contrast, anthropogenic edges often exist as abrupt transitions in
areas that were once fully forested (e.g., agricultural elds, roads,
and developments). Average BAI along anthropogenically formed
edges is 36.3% greater (p< 0.001; R2=0.149) than interior forest,
while BAI along all edges (encompassing anthropogenic, natural,
and unspecied edges) is 24.1% greater (p< 0.001; R2=0.153)
than interior forest (Fig. 1). BA exhibits smaller differences, but
the same trend: anthropogenic edges have 21.0% greater
(p < 0.001; R2=0.059) BA and along all edges BA is 13.9%
greater (p< 0.001; R2=0.069) than the forest interior. Notably,
our analyses exclude trees smaller than 12.7 cm in diameter.
Given that densities of small diameter woody vegetation are
typically higher along forest edges6, it follows that the differences
in BA and BAI between edge and interior forests observed here
represent a conservative estimate.
There are just three pathways to increased BA in edge forests:
more trees, larger trees, or some combination thereof. We nd no
signicant difference in the average tree diameter between the
forest edge and interior, even when comparing with only
anthropogenic edges. In contrast, by averaging individual tree
measurements within each subplot, we nd a mean increase of 58
trees per hectare (p< 0.001) across all edges as compared with the
forest interior (Fig. 2). Along anthropogenic edges, the difference
increases to 82.6 additional trees per hectare (p< 0.001), which is
consistent with the observed patterns of BA in all versus
anthropogenic edges.
Along tropical edges, the primary driver of decreased
productivity is heightened tree mortality, frequently attributed
to increased impacts of wind, lianas, and more frequent
droughts22. In contrast, we nd no signicant differences in
biogenic mortality between edge and interior forests (Supple-
mentary Fig. 3b). Within our study area, the largest cause of
mortality in forests is anthropogenic removals23. While we do
nd a statistically signicant (p< 0.001) increase in anthropo-
genic removals in both edge groups compared to the interior
(Supplementary Fig. 3c), there is no difference in overall total
mortality (Supplementary Fig. 3a). Given the prevalence of forest
management in this region, we performed a robustness test of our
main result to quantify any potential impacts of harvesting. We
withheld all plots that had a record of tree removal (n=3642)
within the FIA inventory and found no changes in the overall
pattern between edge and interior in either BA or BAI.
Tree species composition mediates forest response to anthro-
pogenic environmental perturbations24. Individual species
responses to altered energy and biogeochemical inputs at the
edge can vary due to climatic tolerance and successional
characteristics25. Therefore, we quantied differences in structure
and growth responses to edges by species composition groups23
(Fig. 1). In most compositional groups, BAI increases signicantly
at all forest edges, but with varying magnitudes: Northern Pines
Hemlock forests exhibit the smallest increase in BAI, 16.9%
(p< 0.001); OakPine forests have the largest, 32.5% (p< 0.001).
The effect size increases across almost all compositional groups
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7
2NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:7181 | https://doi.org /10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 | www.nature.c om/naturecommunications
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
when comparing BAI specically along anthropogenic edges with
forest interiors. Of the eight forest type groups, only the Southern
Conifers group has no statistically signicant difference in BAI.
The increase in BAI ranges from 25.5% (p< 0.001) in Northern
PinesHemlock, to 67.7% in SpruceFir. The OakHickory
group exhibits 41.1% (p< 0.001) higher tree growth at anthro-
pogenic edges than the forest interior, an effect >28% larger than
when all edges are pooled. Interior-to-edge enhancements of BA
are smaller than BAI, but ve compositional groups have
signicantly greater BA along edges: OakHickory (16.5%;
p< 0.001), Northern Hardwood (16.1%; p< 0.001), Northern
PinesHemlock (15.1%; p< 0.001), OakPine (18.5%;
p< 0.001), and Bottomland Forests (12.5%; p< 0.001). When
comparing anthropogenic edges with the interior, the effect is
again stronger, and ve compositional groups exhibit signicant
increases in edge BA. Of these groups, AspenBirch have the
largest increase in BA (31.7%; p< 0.001); Northern Hardwoods
have the smallest (19.5%; p< 0.001).
Estimating the regional impact of enhanced growth. To scale
the edge impacts on growth across our study area, we coupled the
results from the GLM regression analysis with a land-cover map26
and a forest-type map27. We aggregate our results to ecoregions,
geographic areas that are ecologically and climatically similar, to
account for mismatches in spatial resolution between our gridded
inputs28,29. For these analyses, we focused on the effects of
anthropogenic edges. The increases in growth and biomass we
observe at temperate forest edges are greatest adjacent to
anthropogenic edges and are evidence of a largely unrecognized
impact of the ongoing process of forest fragmentation. Large
variability was observed in fragmentation patterns across our
Fig. 1 Forest edges have elevated growth and basal area. BAI (a) and BA (b) show the average marginal effects of edge-class and forest-type from GLM
outputs. Results are presented in Interior, All edges, and Anthropogenic edge groups and ordered by forest type abundance (Supplementary Fig. 5). Interior
and All Edge groups have n=6607 independent subplots, anthropogenic edges have n=4327 independent subplots. Data are presented as the mean
marginal effects with inner error bars showing 95% condence intervals on the marginal effects; outer error bars on interior group are for comparison with
anthropogenic edges.
*
*
*
**
a
b
Fig. 2 Temperate forest edges have higher mean stem density than the
forest interior but exhibit no difference in mean tree diameter.
aDistributions of mean subplot stem density (# of trees per hectare).
bDistributions of mean subplot tree diameter (diameter in centimeters).
Dashed lines show mean values of all subplots within each edge class.
Asterisks denote signicance (*p< .00001; **p=0.0078) as calculated
with two-sided pairwise ttests using a Bonferroni adjustment. Interior and
all edge groups have n=6607 independent subplots, anthropogenic edges
have n=4327 independent subplots.
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:7181 | https://doi.org /10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 | www.nature.com /naturecommunications 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
study region. The proportion of forest area within 30 m of an
edge varies across ecoregions from <5 to 68% of all forest area,
with an area-weighted average of 18.5% (Fig. 3a). We quantied
the expected difference between interior and edge forest based on
ecoregion-specic forest composition (Fig. 3b) and abiotic pre-
dictors, then combined the proportion of forest within 30 m of an
edge with ecoregion BAI differences to quantify the effect of edges
on overall forest productivity. We estimated the total increase in
annual BAI within each ecoregion associated with increased
growth at anthropogenic forest edges (Supplementary Fig. 5).
Estimates determined that elevated BAI found at anthropogenic
forest edges represents a >6% increase in total forest growth
across the entire region (Fig. 3c). The BAI response varied across
our study domain; increases in forest growth range from 23%
increase in agricultural-dominated areas (region shown in Sup-
plementary Fig. 6b), a 2% increase in the least-fragmented
northern regions (region shown in Supplementary Fig. 6c), and a
15% increase within the metropolitan east coast (region shown in
Supplementary Fig. 6d).
Our ndings contrast with the conventional narrative based on
tropical forest studies, that forest edges decrease net forest
productivity and, consequently, lower forest aboveground carbon
storage. Temperate and tropical forests have distinct ecologies
and climate; it follows that similar perturbations can have
markedly different effects. The absence of any increase in tree
mortality, as repeatedly observed in tropical forest edges, suggests
that temperate forest edges are less wind-threatened and less
sensitive to the elevated temperatures and water stress that occur
along all forest edges. Rather, increases in radiation may release
the most-limiting biogeochemical constraints on temperate
forests (temperature and light)3,6,18. The growth response is
almost certainly related to greater light availability, which affects
tree canopy architecture and can increase forest leaf area index
and, in turn, stimulate productivity18,30.
The global extent of forest fragmentation. Comparison of our
results and those of previous tropical studies is complicated by
differences in land-use history, specically the time since edge
creation. Forests in our study region and, more broadly, the
temperate forest biome have undergone centuries of deforesta-
tion, forest transitions, and fragmentation. Some forest edges
included in our study have existed for decades. However, research
on newly created edges in this region has shown large growth
increases in remaining trees, without associated increases in
mortality, immediately following edge creation31. Given that
abrupt formation of edges can expose the previously intact forest
to secondary disturbances, individual tree characteristics,
including height, drought tolerance, and rooting depth, may
determine whether the cascading perturbations induce mortality.
Shorter, more wind-rm trees, prevalent in temperate forests,
may not experience altered biogeochemical conditions only as
negative perturbations and, instead, are more likely to be
advantaged by increased resource availability. In contrast, the
taller trees found in temperate forests of the Pacic Northwestern
US, in which fragmentation patterns are characterized by defor-
estation and clear-cut timber harvests, might exhibit a similar
initial mortality response to tropical forests29. However, forestry
research from the same US Pacic Northwest region also nds
large increases in BAI in surviving conifers adjacent to silvi-
cultural treatments32, analogous to the edge enhancements in BAI
that we report. Furthermore, a recent study on European tem-
perate forests similarly found that temperate forest edges exhibit a
95% increase in aboveground carbon stock within 5 m of an
edge33. Together, these results suggest that the pattern of elevated
growth along forest edges holds true across large portions of the
temperate forest biome.
The implications of these ndings on global estimates of tree
growth and carbon storage are proportional to the amount of
fragmentation within temperate and tropical forest biomes. We
quantied forest fragmentation throughout both types of forests
using a 30-meter resolution, global, forest-cover map29,34 (Fig. 4).
a
b
c
Fig. 3 Edges increase productivity in temperate forests. a The percent of
forest area within 30 m of an anthropogenic edge within each ecoregion.
bSpatial distribution of aggregated forest types used in study. cThe
percent increase in ecoregion total BAI attributable to elevated growth at
anthropogenic edges.
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7
4NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:7181 | https://doi.org /10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 | www.nature.c om/naturecommunications
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Temperate forests have >50% more forest area within 30 m of a
forest edge than tropical forests (217 million ha compared to 143
million ha, respectively) (Fig. 4b). Europe has the highest percent
of edge temperate forests (21.5%), while North America has the
highest percent of edge tropical forests (29.1%) (Fig. 4a).
Fragmented forests are often perceived as degraded remnants.
However, the prevalence of temperate forest edges and their
distinctive ecosystem functions, demonstrated here, argue for a
reassessment of forest edges and fragments. These are the forests
that people interact with most, they are distinct from interior
forests in ways that need to be better understood, and, in some
functions, are of disproportional value. The large increases in
growth near forest edges that we observe here have major
implications for understanding how these ecosystems will
respond to ongoing fragmentation and climate change.
Emphatically, this research does not argue for proactive forest
fragmentation as a prescription to increase carbon sequestration.
The increased carbon storage along the edges of fragmented
remnants does not come close to offsetting the loss of terrestrial
carbon stocks and future sequestration capacity associated with
forest loss15. Furthermore, there is evidence that the temperate
edge responses are hindered by extreme heat, suggesting that
rising global temperatures may exacerbate heat stress at
temperate forest edges15 and cause them to respond more
similarly to tropical forest edges. Instead, this is a call to
acknowledge the complexity of interactions between global
change drivers across diverse ecosystems. Centuries of fragmen-
tation have created a permanent shift in the microenvironment of
a large and growing proportion of the global temperate forest
area. With rising populations, expanding urban and agricultural
areas, and ongoing deforestation, the critical need to understand
fragmented forests as distinct ecosystems only grows. Any
attempt to predict future forests must account for ongoing
changes in the prevalence of forest edges and the potential
contributions of fragments to terrestrial carbon storage.
Methods
Overview. We used data from the national forest inventory conducted by the US
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
program to quantify tree biomass and growth along forest edges and within the
forest interior. We estimated the causal impact of the forest edge environment on
patterns of tree biomass and growth, while accounting for potentially confounding
variables. We then used the regression models to estimate the aggregate difference
in growth attributable to forest edges throughout the northeastern U.S. Finally, to
better understand the implications of our ndings, we quantied the degree of
forest fragmentation throughout temperate and tropical forest biomes world-wide,
using a 30 m forest cover map.
Study area. Our analyses of edge impacts on forest biomass and growth were
conducted throughout twenty-states (1.7 million km2) in the northeastern and
upper mid-west of the United States (Supplementary Fig. 1). This region contains
765,000 km2of forest and encompasses gradients of dominant land-uses, climatic
conditions, and forest composition while remaining within deciduous, coniferous,
and mixed temperate forest ecosystems.
Identifying edges in forest inventory data. The FIA collects measurements of
tree size, growth, and land-use within a nested plot design across the country19.
Each FIA plot is composed of four individual subplots; within each subplot, the
diameter at breast height (dbh) of every tree >12.7 cm is measured during each
measurement period. The re-measurement frequency for FIA plots in our study
area is between 5 and 7 years, but this can differ between Forest Service regions. In
addition to tree measurements, the database details land-use condition data that
includes the proportion of the area that is forested and, on some plots, the land-
cover class of the non-forest area (FIA Users Manual, Condition Table). FIA plots
are considered forested if some portion of the plot includes a contiguous forest
patch (including potentially outside of the plot area) of greater than 4047 m2that
has more than 10% canopy cover. With a memorandum of understanding between
the USFS and Harvard University, we had access to the true, unfuzzed plot
coordinates, which are not publicly available. Evaluating >48,000 plots in the USFS
Northern Region sampled from 2010 to 2020 and selecting the most recent mea-
surement cycle for each plot, we identied subplots that contained both a forest
and a non-forest condition and categorized these as edges (Supplementary
Table 1). Only subplots that included a forest condition in both the most recent
and previous measurement were included. Subplots where the mapped condition
changed from forest to non-forest were excluded. Changes in the amount of
mapped forest condition were included and are incorporated into the calculation of
response variables using the most recent condition area. We identied FIA plots
where all four subplots were fully forested as interior plots to be used for com-
parison. Subplots located within the same plot as an edge subplot (i.e., edge-
proximate subplots) were excluded from this study due to limitations in our ability
to quantify their distance from an edge. The spatial conguration of subplots is
such that a fully forested subplot may be up to ~65 m away from an identied
forest edge within another subplot. Studies suggest that the distance of edge
inuence in temperate forest does not extend more than 30 m into the forest
interior15,33. Since the FIA does not contain information about the geometry of
non-forest conditions beyond the subplot boundary, we deemed that the large
uncertainty in the relationship between these subplots to a non-forest edge pre-
cluded their inclusion in the study. The FIA plot conguration prevented quan-
tication of the distance of edge inuence in our analysis; the exclusion of subplots
adjacent to edge-subplots may limit direct comparisons with other fragmentation
studies.
We used the FIA condition data to characterize the non-forest land use in edge
subplots. Information on adjacent non-forest land cover is not collected on all FIA
plots (4327 of 6607 edge subplots). We aggregated FIA land-cover classication to
a binary anthropogenic or unknown edge type designation and present results from
all edge subplots and the anthropogenic edge subset (FIA Users Manual Condition
Table, Section 2.4.50).
For each subplot (168 m2in area), we calculated two primary response variables
of interest: total live tree BA and BAI. Notably, trees smaller than <12.7 cm
diameter are only recorded within a small portion of the plot, called the microplot.
Our study design prevented the inclusion of the microplot and therefore excludes
trees beneath this diameter threshold. Trees that grew into the measurement size
class between the previous and most recent measurement are included. The
exclusion of small trees and saplings may result in a conservative estimate of the
difference between edge and interior BA and BAI, as other studies have found a
higher density of small-stemmed woody vegetation along forest edges35.BAis
calculated from a single plot measurement, as the summed BA of all live adult trees
(>12.7 cm dbh) in m2. BAI was calculated on a per-tree basis as the difference
in radial growth of live adult trees between the most recent and previous
measurements, and then divided by the number of years between measurements
(m2yr1). In addition, we aggregated individual tree diameter measurements to
Africa
Asia
Austr alia
Europe
N. America
Oceania
S. America
Temp. Trop. Temp. Trop. Temp. Trop. Temp. Trop. Temp.Trop. Temp.Trop. Temp.Trop.
0
200
400
600
Biome
)
seratce
h n
oillim( aer
A
Interior
Edge
Total
0 500 1000 1500
Temp.
Trop.
Area ( million h ectares )
ab
Fig. 4 Temperate forests are nearly 1.5 times more fragmented than tropical forests. a The percent of temperate and tropical forest area within 30 m of
an anthropogenic edge within each global ecoregion. bThe area (in millions of hectares) of edge and interior forest, grouped by biome and continent.
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:7181 | https://doi.org /10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 | www.nature.com /naturecommunications 5
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
calculate mean stem density (stems ha1) and mean tree diameter for each subplot
(Fig. 2).
We accounted for variable subplot area by normalizing both BA and BAI to a
per-hectare of forested area basis, resulting in units of m2ha1and m2ha1yr1,
respectively. To account for potential small-area bias, we performed a sensitivity
analysis on the relationship between BA and subplot forested area (Supplementary
Fig. 2). We subsequently excluded 1284 subplots under 30 m2in area as the area to
BA relationship asymptotes relationship above this threshold. Finally, we
accounted for errors in eld dbh measurements, sometimes resulting in negative
BAI values, by excluding the <2.5% and >97.5% quantiles of both BA and BAI
distributions.
Given their spatial conguration, FIA subplots are not fully independent
measurements, potentially introducing issues with pseudo-replication and spatial
autocorrelation within our dataset. To test for spatial autocorrelation we examined
the semivariance of model residuals36, and found that there was high correlation
only at distances of less than 1 km. The spatial stratication of the FIA plot design
minimizes issues of plotplot proximity within our study. However, to account for
autocorrelation between subplots, we ltered our pre-matched dataset to only
including one subplot from each FIA plot. For plots containing multiple edge
subplots, we selected the subplot with the largest forested area. For interior plots,
we selected the central subplot and excluded all others.
Isolating the effect of edges on growth
Abiotic controls. To account for environmental controls on forest growth we
included the most critical abiotic predictors of terrestrial vegetation productivity
(light, water, temperature, and nitrogen deposition) as covariates in the regression
models (Supplementary Fig. 4, Supplementary Table 2). Light, water, and tem-
perature data were drawn from spatial raster maps (0.5° resolution) as unit-less
indices of relative limitation on vegetation productivity, ranging from 0 to 13.
Nitrogen data were drawn from the 2018 NADP gridded inorganic wet nitrogen
deposition product (4 km spatial resolution; kg of N ha1)37. To interpolate across
small gaps in the raster data (usually along water bodies), we used the Nibble tool
from ArcGis Pro (ESRI Team). We then used FIA plot locations to extract values
from each raster layer for all FIA subplots.
Forest composition. Tree species may vary in their responses to biogeochemical
changes that occur on forest edges. Overall forest community response emerges
from complex interactions between species. We used aggregations of tree species,
termed forest composition groups (or forest types)38, to assess if species compo-
sition inuenced the response to altered edge condition. Forest type classications
for each subplot are provided by the FIA (FIA Users Manual, Condition Table)
and are dened in Appendix D therein. We aggregated the FIA forest types into
eight broader species groups, following Thompson et al.23, and dened in Sup-
plementary Table 1.
Matching, GLM regressions, and model selection. All statistical analyses and
most of the data processing were conducted in R, version 3.439. Using a causal
inference framework, we created a quasi-experimental statistical design that
included pre-matching followed by a GLM regression analysis40. Matching emu-
lates an experimental design using observational data by identifying control groups
of untreated (forest interior) plots that were as similar as possible to treated (forest
edge) plots in terms of observable confounders. By capturing key differences in
abiotic variables we control for the fundamental drivers of forest productivity,
allowing for a direct estimation of the average treatment effect of edges. Similarity
was dened by nearest-neighbor covariate matching determined by Malahanobis
distance, implemented in the MatchIt library in R41, the simplest and best method
when the dataset is robust enough to nd a match for every treated plot20. This
method excludes forest interior plots that are not matched with an edge plot. Given
differences in sample size between the full edge dataset and the subset designated as
anthropogenic edges, we performed matching separately on the two datasets. To
assess the efcacy of matching on reducing the differences in covariate distribu-
tions, we used summary statistics calculated with the MatchIt library and report the
pre- and post-matched covariate balance in Supplementary Table 4 and Supple-
mentary Table 5 (sensu Schleicher et al.42). Matching was highly successful, largely
eliminating differences in all covariate distributions in both datasets.
Our primary response variables of interest, BA and BAI, were right-skewed,
non-normally distributed and violated the assumptions of normality necessary for
ordinary least squares regression43. We, therefore, used a GLM to better t the
structure of our data. GLMs are an extension of linear regression that allow more
freedom in the choice of probability distribution function through the use of a link
function to model relationships between predictors and response variables44. The
gamma probability distribution is frequently chosen to model BA, given its
assumptions of positive, continuous values and exible model form23,45.We
performed a series of GLM regressions on our post-matched datasets, using a
gamma probability distribution with an inverse link function to model the
relationship of BA and BA with a suite of predictor variables, using the glm
function as implemented in the R Core stats package39. Due to differences in
sample size between the all-edge dataset and the anthropogenic-edge subset, we
modeled these two datasets separately for each of BA and BAI, resulting in four
separate regression analyses. We used a model selection framework to identify the
most parsimonious model within each of the model sets based on the Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC) and residual deviance statistic46,47. We report the
model-selection and model-t results for each of our separate analyses, including
model forms, AIC, Nagelkerke Pseudo-R2, and residual deviance in Supplementary
Table 2. Across all four regression analyses, the best-performing model was one
that included an interaction between the edge-status and forest type categorical
variables, as well as the variables of temperature-limitation, light-limitation, water-
limitation, and nitrogen deposition.
We then used the best performing model from each analysis to compare the
differences in BA and BAI between forest edge and interior across each forest type.
We estimated the treatment effect of edge-state within each forest type using the
ggeffects package48 to calculate marginal effects with the continuous predictors
(temperature, light, water, and nitrogen deposition) held at their within-forest type
regional means. The results of this analysis are displayed in Fig. 1and
Supplementary Table 3; primary error bars on the interior point show the 95%
condence interval of the marginal effect from the full edge model, while secondary
error bars show the CI from the anthropogenic edge model. Due to the smaller
sample size in the anthropogenic model, estimates of the mean marginal effect of
the interior plots vary slightly (though non-signicantly) from those from the full
dataset. The main text description reports outputs from both models, calculated
from separate interior mean estimates. For visual clarity, we only display one set of
interior means in Fig. 1.
Mortality and timber harvest. In tropical forests, large reductions in productivity
along edges are associated with increased tree mortality.9To assess differences in
tree mortality across our study region, we applied a simplied GLM analysis,
including edge-state as our only predictor variable. The FIA differentiates between
mortality attributed to timber harvest and that attributed to other, non-harvest
causes. The results of this analysis are presented as marginal effects of each edge
category in Supplementary Fig. 3. There are no signicant differences in biogenic
mortality between edge groups and no difference in overall mortality (combined
biogenic and anthropogenic); there is a small, but statistically signicant
(p< 0.001), increase in harvested BA within both all-edge and anthropogenic edges
as compared with the forest interior. We note that the exclusion of small-diameter
trees from our study could alter these results if there was differential mortality
between edge and interior in smaller tree size classes.
Temperate forests are heavily impacted by forest management49. We tested the
robustness of the effect of edges on growth and biomass by withholding all subplots
with a record of anthropogenic removals on the full FIA plot (i.e., management;
n=3642). We found no difference in the overall effect of edges nor meaningful
differences within forest type groups.
Scaling edge effects on forest growth across the Northeast. Ecoregions are a
widely used geographic partitioning of ecosystems into coherent spatial units as
dened by abiotic, biotic, and anthropogenic characteristics28. EPA Level IV
ecoregions are delineated by differences in environmental characteristics analogous
to those that we used to model forest growth and thus are a comparable spatial unit
to quantify the aggregated effects of fragmentation.
Quantifying fragmentation. To quantify anthropogenic forest edge area, we identify
forest cover within 30 m of a road, development, or agricultural eld (sensu Smith
et al.6) using a 30 m resolution land-cover product from 2016 of the National Land
Cover Database (NLCD)50. Edge forest was dened as all forest pixels adjacent
(queens rule) to a non-forest cultivated or developed pixel (Supplementary
Fig. 6a). Figure 3a shows the percentage of total forest area classied as edge within
each ecoregion. We report that 18% of the total forest area in our study domain is
adjacent to an anthropogenic edge. Differences from the reported 22% in Smith
et al. are likely attributable to the use of a different NLCD product. Note that the
denition of forest edge here may differ from that of the FIA analysis, given the
constraints on quantication of the distance of edge inuence and the spatial
resolution of the land cover products.
Ecoregion edge impacts. To scale the effects as illustrated in Fig. 3, we quantied
ecoregion forest composition by (1) using a 250 m resolution USFS forest type
map27, we aggregated raw forest type values to the aggregated forest type groups
included in our regression models (Figs. 3b), (2) we calculated the total area of each
forest type group within each ecoregion, then used the average temperature, light,
water, and nitrogen deposition in each ecoregion as inputs to our GLM regression
models to calculate the BAI of edge and interior forest for each forest type. With
the proportional area of each forest type, we calculated an area-weighted mean and
then differenced the estimated edge and interior BAI to produce an expected
difference of forest growth (BAI m2ha1) between edge and interior within each
ecoregion (Supplementary Fig. 5). Finally, we combined the proportion of edge
forest with the expected growth difference to quantify the estimated difference in
percent increases in ecoregion BAI within each ecoregion attributable to increases
of forest growth at the edge (Fig. 3c).
Quantifying global forest fragmentation. We quantied the extent of forest
fragmentation throughout temperate and tropical forests worldwide at the scale of
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7
6NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:7181 | https://doi.org /10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 | www.nature.c om/naturecommunications
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
ecoregions using the Hansen Global Forest Change (v1.7)51 dataset on Google
Earth Engine (GEE)52. Tropical and temperate biomes were delineated in a global
ecoregion map53, analogous to the more detailed ecoregions described earlier. The
tree canopy cover layer from the Hansen dataset provided estimates of percent tree
canopy cover for the year 2000 at 30 m resolution globally produced by time series
analysis of Landsat images51. To calculate the percentage of edge forest in each
ecoregion: (1) a 10% threshold (following the FIA denition of minimum forest
cover19) was applied to the tree canopy cover layer to separate forest and non-
forest pixels, (2) each forest pixel adjacent (queens rule) to a non-forest pixel was
classied as edge forest on GEE, and (3) ArcGIS Zonal Statistics Tool was used to
calculate the percentage of edge forest in each ecoregion. Denitions of forest cover
via % canopy cover vary between studies, therefore we performed a robustness
check on our results to the threshold denition of forest cover by re-analyzing with
a 30% canopy threshold. While there were differences in the calculated raw area of
forest edges, the ratio of area fragmented between temperate and tropical forests
did not change meaningfully (Supplementary Fig. 7). We then compared the
Hansen-derived forest fragmentation to the 2016 NLCD-derived forest fragmen-
tation used in our previous analysis to assess comparability of the two products.
Supplementary Fig. 8 shows the agreement between the percent edge forest values
calculated based on the two forest maps for the 247 ecoregions in the Northeast US.
The agreement is strong especially in large and more forested ecoregions. The
Hansen-derived percent edge forest explained 84.5% of the variance in NLCD-
derived percent edge forest with RMSE of 6.1 (%) at ecoregion level. The spatial
aggregation to ecoregion level largely reduced the uncertainty in the mapping of
forest pixels in both products.
Reporting summary. Further information on research design is available in the Nature
Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
The processed, post-matching FIA data generated in this study and used to generate
Figs. 1and 2have been deposited in the Harvard Forest Data Archive under accession
code HF41954. The spatially aggregated estimates of BAI presented in Fig. 3c and
summaries of global forest edge area displayed in Fig. 4a are available in the HF Data
Archive under accession code HF419. The un-fuzzed FIA location data are protected and
are not available due to data privacy laws. Unprocessed FIA inventory data is available at
https://apps.fs.usda.gov/a/datamart/. The National Land Cover Database land cover
layer is at https://www.mrlc.gov/data. The forest cover map we use for the global analysis
is available on Google Earth Engine.
Code availability
Statistical analyses and FIA data-processing were conducted in the R programming
environment, version 3.4. Generalized linear model regressions were performed using the
Rstats package, version 3.4.3. Marginal effect estimates were calculated using R package
ggeffects, version 1.1.1. Other GIS analyses were performed in the ESRI software ArcGIS
Pro, version 2.4. The global analysis of forest fragmentation was performed in Google
Earth Engine. The code used to analyze and process FIA data are not available publicly
due to data privacy laws.
Received: 13 November 2020; Accepted: 8 November 2021;
References
1. Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570574
(2005).
2. Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earths
ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500052e1500052 (2015).
3. Nemani, R. R. et al. Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary
production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300, 15601563 (2003).
4. Wang, Y.-P. & Houlton, B. Z. Nitrogen constraints on terrestrial carbon
uptake: implications for the global carbon-climate feedback. Geophys. Res.
Lett.36, L24403 (2009).
5. Harper, K. A. et al. Edge inuence on forest structure and composition in
fragmented landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 19, 768782 (2005).
6. Smith, I. A., Hutyra, L. R., Reinmann, A. B., Marrs, J. K. & Thompson, J. R.
Piecing together the fragments: elucidating edge effects on forest carbon
dynamics. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 213221 (2018).
7. Matlack, G. R. Microenvironment variation within and among forest edge
sites in the eastern United States. Biol. Conserv. 66, 185194 (1993).
8. Wuyts, K. et al. Patterns of throughfall deposition along a transect in forest
edges of silver birch and Corsican pine. Can. J. Res. 38, 449461 (2008).
9. Laurance, W. F. et al. The fate of Amazonian forest fragments: a 32-year
investigation. Biol. Conserv. 144,5667 (2011).
10. Ordway, E. M. & Asner, G. P. Carbon declines along tropical forest edges
correspond to heterogeneous effects on canopy structure and function. Proc.
Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 78637870 (2020).
11. Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Degradation in carbon stocks near tropical forest
edges. Nat. Commun. 6,16 (2015).
12. Pütz, S. et al. Long-term carbon loss in fragmented Neotropical forests. Nat.
Commun. 5,18 (2014).
13. Dantas de Paula, M., Groeneveld, J. & Huth, A. Tropical forest degradation
and recovery in fragmented landscapessimulating changes in tree
community, forest hydrology and carbon balance. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 3,
664677 (2015).
14. Brinck, K. et al. High resolution analysis of tropical forest fragmentation and
its impact on the global carbon cycle. Nat. Commun.8, 14855 (2017).
15. Reinmann, A. B. & Hutyra, L. R. Edge effects enhance carbon uptake and its
vulnerability to climate change in temperate broadleaf forests. Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 114, 107112 (2017).
16. Remy, E., Wuyts, K., Boeckx, P., Gundersen, P. & Verheyen, K. Edge effects in
temperate forests subjected to high nitrogen deposition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
USA 114, E7032E7032 (2017).
17. Remy, E. et al. Strong gradients in nitrogen and carbon stocks at temperate
forest edges. Ecol. Manag. 376,4558 (2016).
18. Reinmann, A. B., Smith, I. A., Thompson, J. R. & Hutyra, L. R. Urbanization
and fragmentation mediate temperate forest carbon cycle response to climate.
Environ. Res. Lett.15, 114036 (2020).
19. Bechtold, W. A. & Patterson, P. L. The Enhanced Forest Inventory and
Analysis ProgramNational Sampling Design and Estimation Procedures.
USDA Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS 80, 85 (2005).
20. Stuart, E. A. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look
forward. Stat. Sci. 25,121 (2010).
21. Nagelkerke, N. J. D. A note on a general denition of the coefcient of
determination. Biometrika.https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/78.3.691 (1991).
22. Laurance, W. F. et al. The fate of Amazonian forest fragments: a 32-year
investigation. Biol. Conserv. 144,5667 (2011).
23. Thompson, J. R., Canham, C. D., Morreale, L., Kittredge, D. B. & Butler, B.
Social and biophysical variation in regional timber harvest regimes. Ecol. Appl.
27, 942942 (2017).
24. Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. et al. Altered dynamics of forest recovery under a
changing climate. Glob. Chang. Biol. 19, 20012021 (2013).
25. Laurance, W. F. et al. Rain forest fragmentation and the proliferation of
successional trees. Ecology 87, 469482 (2006).
26. Jin, S. et al. Overall methodology design for the United States National Land
Cover Database 2016 Products. Remote Sens. 11, 2971 (2019).
27. Ruefenacht, B. et al. Conterminous U.S. and Alaska forest type mapping using
forest inventory and analysis data. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 74,
13791388 (2008).
28. Omernik, J. M. & Grifth, G. E. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States:
evolution of a hierarchical spatial framework. Environ. Manag. 54, 12491266
(2014).
29. Chen, J., Franklin, J. F. & Spies, T. A. Vegetation responses to edge
environments in old-growth Douglas-Fir forests. Ecol. Appl. 2, 387396
(1992).
30. Mourelle, C., Kellman, M. & Kwon, L. Light occlusion at forest edges: an
analysis of tree architectural characteristics. Ecol. Manag. 154, 179192
(2001).
31. Briber, B. M. et al. Tree productivity enhanced with conversion from forest to
urban land covers. PLoS ONE 10,119 (2015).
32. Walter, S. T. & Maguire, C. C. Conifer response to three silvicultural
treatments in the Oregon Coast Range foothills. Can. J. For. Res.https://
doi.org/10.1139/X04-068 (2004).
33. Meeussen, C. et al. Drivers of carbon stocks in forest edges across Europe. Sci.
Total Environ.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143497 (2020).
34. Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover
change. Science 850, 20112014 (2013).
35. Ziter, C., Bennett, E. M. & Gonzalez, A. Temperate forest fragments maintain
aboveground carbon stocks out to the forest edge despite changes in
community composition. Oecologia 176, 893902 (2014).
36. F. Dormann, C. et al. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the
analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30, 609628 (2007).
37. Ofce, N. P. National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NRSP-3). (2020).
38. Eyre, F. H. Forest cover types. Natl. Atlas USA (1980).
39. R Team, C. R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for
statistical computing. R Found. Stat. Comput. Vienna, Austria.http://www.R-
project.org/ (2019).
40. Enderlein, G., McCullagh, P. & Nelder, J. A. Generalized linear models.
Chapman and Hall LondonNew York 1983, 261 S., £ 16,.Biom. J. 29,
206206 (1987).
41. Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G. & Stuart, E. A. MatchIt: nonparametric
preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J. Stat. Softw. 42,128 (2011).
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:7181 | https://doi.org /10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 | www.nature.com /naturecommunications 7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
42. Schleicher, J., Peres, C. A., Amano, T., Llactayo, W. & Leader-Williams, N.
Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in
the Peruvian Amazon. Sci. Rep. 7,110 (2017).
43. Chambers, J., Hastie, T. & Pregibon, D. Statistical models in S. in Compstat.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-50096-1_48 (1990).
44. Guisan, A., Edward, T. C. Jr & Hastie, T. Generalized linear and generalized
additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene. Ecol.
Modell. 157,89100 (2016).
45. Canham, C., Rogers, N. & Bucholtz, T. Regional variation in forest harvest
regimes in the northeastern United States. Ecol. Appl.https://doi.org/10.1890/
07-1650.1 (2013).
46. Akaike, H. Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood
Principle.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15 (1998).
47. Nelder, J. A. & Wedderburn, R. W. M. Generalized linear models. J. R. Stat.
Soc. Ser. A 135, 370384 (1972).
48. Lüdecke, D. ggeffects: tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression
models. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 772 (2018).
49. Brown, M. L., Canham, C. D., Murphy, L. & Donovan, T. M. Timber harvest
as the predominant disturbance regime in northeastern U.S. forests: effects of
harvest intensication. Ecosphere 9, e02062 (2018).
50. Yang, L. et al. A new generation of the United States National Land Cover
Database: requirements, research priorities, design, and implementation
strategies. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 146, 108123 (2018).
51. Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover
change. Science 342, 850853 (2013).
52. Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for
everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202,1827 (2017).
53. Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on
Earth. Bioscience 51, 933938 (2001).
54. Morreale L., Thompson J., Tang X., Reinmann A. & Hutyra L. Quantifying
growth and structure along forest edges in the Northeastern USA 2010-2021.
Harvard Forest Data Archive: HF419 (v.1). Environmental Data Initiative,
https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/828f3acff7666a438193e2d51d55ff6f (2021).
Acknowledgements
We thank the many colleagues who gave us friendly feedback throughout this research,
in particular to C. Canham, S.C. Wofsy and D. Foster for their thoughtful suggestions, J.
Holt and A. Kalinin for their statistical guidance. FIA plot location data was made
available via Memorandum of Understanding 09MU11242305123 between the U.S.
Forest Service and Harvard University. Funding: This work was supported, in part, by the
United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Award 2017-67003-26487, the Harvard Forest LTER Program (NSF DEB 18-32210), the
Raki B. Hariri Institute at Boston University and by a National Science Foundation
Research Traineeship (NRT) grant to Boston University (DGE 1735087).
Author contributions
L.M., J.T., L.H., and A.R. conceived the project and designed the study. L.M. processed
the FIA data and performed the subsequent analyses. X.T. and L.M. performed the global
edge analysis. All authors contributed to the writing and intellectual development, and
gave feedback throughout the project.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material
available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Luca L. Morreale.
Peer Review Information Nature Communications thanks Rico Fischer and the other,
anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer
reviewer reports are available.
Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints
Publishers note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional afliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the articles Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
articles Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2021
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7
8NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:7181 | https://doi.org /10.1038/s41467-021-27373-7 | www.nature.c om/naturecommunications
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
... (217 million hectares) of forested area located within 30 m of a non-forest edge (Morreale et al. 2021). Understanding of the impacts of anthropogenic fragmentation on forest structural development, biogeochemical cycling, and forest succession is rooted in modern tropical deforestation (Laurance et al. 2011), often evoking images of large swaths of intact forest being logged, burned, and converted to agriculture or development. ...
... Microclimatic (Zellweger et al. 2019) and nutrient gradients vary from the forest edge to the interior, and meta-analyses suggest that the influence of temperate forest edges can extend from 10 m to 40 m into the interior (Schmidt et al. 2017;Franklin et al. 2021). For our analyses, we defined forest edge area as forest within 30 m of a non-forest land cover (Reinmann and Hutyra 2017;Meeussen et al. 2021;Morreale et al. 2021;Garvey et al. 2023). ...
... In many tropical forests, forest edges exhibit elevated tree mortality and suppressed growth relative to the interior as a result of increased drought stress, elevated wind exposure, and liana invasions (Laurance et al. 2011). Conversely, temperate forest edges are often more productive than their interior counterparts (Remy et al. 2016;Reinmann and Hutyra 2017;Meeussen et al. 2020;Morreale et al. 2021). Increases in leaf area and stem density at the forest edge suggest increased light availability as the mechanism driving increases in biomass and productivity (Reinmann et al. 2020;Morreale et al. 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
Temperate forests are the most fragmented forest biome, yet current understanding of fragmentation effects on ecosystem processes, such as carbon (C) cycling, is rooted in tropical forest research. We review the effects of persistent fragmentation on temperate forest ecosystem processes and quantify the extent to which the US national forest inventory and land‐cover maps represent forest edge area. We found systematic underrepresentation of forest edges across all methods. As compared with very high resolution (1 m) maps, conventional 30‐m resolution forest cover maps underestimated forest edge area by 16.4%, on average. Accounting for all forest edge area and edge effects on forest structure and growth resulted in a 14.8% median increase in aboveground forest C estimates, with 23.8% and 74.2% increases in agriculturally and urban dominated counties, respectively. We conclude by proposing improvements to forest inventories, maps, and models to better represent the fragmented temperate forest landscape.
... However, it's crucial to acknowledge that afforestation in the forest edge may not consistently enhance the core forest's biomass capture capacity due to potential trade-offs or interactions between the edge and interior forest (Morreale et al., 2021;Murcia, 1995;Ren et al., 2023;Smith et al., 2018). Factors like competition for light, water, and nutrients, changes in microclimate and hydrology, and the introduction of new species or genotypes may influence the effectiveness of afforestation in the forest edge (De Frenne et al., 2021;Murcia, 1995). ...
... Factors like competition for light, water, and nutrients, changes in microclimate and hydrology, and the introduction of new species or genotypes may influence the effectiveness of afforestation in the forest edge (De Frenne et al., 2021;Murcia, 1995). The impact on the core forest's biomass capture ability may vary based on climate, soil conditions, previous land use, tree species, plantation age, and management practices (Morreale et al., 2021). Consequently, it is imperative to integrate natural recovery and artificial restoration organically in ecological restoration efforts, striving to find optimal solutions for ecological protection and restoration. ...
... Given that forest fragmentation does not necessarily have adverse effects on all forests (Morreale et al., 2021;Murcia, 1995;Ren et al., 2023), prioritizing forest landscape restoration for different regions becomes crucial (Feng et al., 2019;Lamb et al., 2005). For instance, some research concluded that forest fragmentation and edge effects, by reducing forest patch size and productivity, altering canopy structure and microclimates, and increasing exposure to disturbance and invasive species, can decrease carbon storage in tropical forests (Haddad et al., 2015;Lapola et al., 2023;Nunes et al., 2023). ...
... While tropical forests are often considered more contiguous than other regions, some findings suggest otherwise. For instance, ref. [22] found that temperate forests exhibit 1.5 times more fragmentation when compared to tropical forests. However, some research indicates that tropical forests are experiencing more pronounced fragmentation due to accelerated deforestation in these regions. ...
Article
Full-text available
Forests are critical ecosystems that regulate climate, preserve biodiversity, and support human livelihoods by providing essential resources. However, they are increasingly vulnerable due to the growing impacts of deforestation and habitat fragmentation, which endanger their value and long-term sustainability. Assessing forest and deforestation fragmentation is vital for promoting sustainable logging, guiding ecosystem restoration, and biodiversity conservation. This study introduces an advanced approach that integrates the Local Connected Fractal Dimension (LCFD) with near real-time (NRT) land use and land cover (LULC) data from the Dynamic World dataset (2017–2024) to enhance deforestation monitoring and landscape analysis. By leveraging high-frequency, high-resolution satellite imagery and advanced imaging techniques, this method employs two fractal indices, namely the Fractal Fragmentation Index (FFI) and the Fractal Fragmentation and Disorder Index (FFDI), to analyze spatiotemporal changes in the forest landscape and enhance deforestation monitoring, providing a dynamic, quantitative method for assessing forest fragmentation and connectivity in real time. LCFD provides a refined assessment of spatial complexity, localized connectivity, and self-similarity in fragmented landscapes, improving the understanding of deforestation dynamics. Applied to Nigeria’s Okomu Forest, the analysis revealed significant landscape transformations, with peak fragmentation observed in 2018 and substantial recovery in 2019. FFI and FFDI metrics indicated heightened disturbances in 2018, with FFDI increasing by 75.2% in non-deforested areas and 61.1% in deforested areas before experiencing rapid declines in 2019 (82.6% and 87%, respectively), suggesting improved landscape connectivity. Despite minor fluctuations, cumulative deforestation trends showed a 160.5% rise in FFDI from 2017 to 2024, reflecting long-term stabilization. LCFD patterns highlighted persistent variability, with non-deforested areas recovering 12% connectivity by 2024 after a 38% reduction in 2019. These findings reveal the complex interplay between deforestation and landscape recovery, emphasizing the need for targeted conservation strategies to enhance ecological resilience and connectivity. Fractal indices offer significant potential to generate valuable insights across multiple spatial scales, thereby informing strategies for biodiversity preservation and adaptive landscape management.
... Studies have shown that increasing forest fragmentation has led to enhanced (temperate forests) or degraded (tropical forests) biomass at forest edges compared with biomass in the interior of forest stands, depending on differences in structural characteristics and climate (I. A. Smith et al., 2018). Enhanced biomass at temperate forest edges of 23% (Morreale et al., 2021) up to 64% in temperate broadleaved forests (Reinmann & Hutyra, 2017) in the USA has been attributed to increased availability of irradiance (Chen et al., 1995), increased temperature (Gehlhausen et al., 2000) or increased availability of nutrients (Remy et al., 2016). Garvey and colleagues (2022)showed that temperatures were higher and water availability lower at forest edges compared with conditions in interior of forests. ...
... Fuel wetness. Landscape fragmentation studies across many forested biomes have found that soil temperature and moisture were significantly higher and lower, respectively, at forest patch edge than in the patch interior [47][48][49][50][51] , with subsequent impacts on fuel moisture and fire ignition and spread probabilities. After a review of the literature of edge-to-interior effects on soil moisture, which measure transects of soil moisture from fragment edges to their interior at different depths in the soil, we find that the distance from the edge at which the gradient is effectively zero average at~50 m 48,108 , increasing to hundreds of metres in deeper soils. ...
Article
Full-text available
Landscape fragmentation is statistically correlated with both increases and decreases in wildfire burned area (BA). These different directions-of-impact are not mechanistically understood. Here, road density, a land fragmentation proxy, is implemented in a CMIP6 coupled land-fire model, to represent fragmentation edge effects on fire-relevant environmental variables. Fragmentation caused modelled BA changes of over ±10% in 16% of [0.5°] grid-cells. On average, more fragmentation decreased net BA globally (−1.5%), as estimated empirically. However, in recently-deforested tropical areas, fragmentation drove observationally-consistent BA increases of over 20%. Globally, fragmentation-driven fire BA decreased with increasing population density, but was a hump-shaped function of it in forests. In some areas, fragmentation-driven decreases in BA occurred alongside higher-intensity fires, suggesting the decoupling of fire severity traits. This mechanistic model provides a starting point for quantifying policy-relevant fragmentation-fire impacts, whose results suggest future forest degradation may shift fragmentation from net global fire inhibitor to net fire driver.
... This might be driven by regional differences in the relative trade-off between acquisitive and conservative resource-uptake strategies 9,50,85-87 . In tropical wet forests, seral communities on disturbed forest margins are often dominated by short-lived, light-demanding species which tend to have low wood densities 41,91 , while in tropical dry forests, seral communities often consist of drought-resistant species with dense wood [91][92][93] . Controlled experiments and long-term field observations will be needed to further disentangle the context-dependent responses of wood density to disturbances. ...
Article
Full-text available
The density of wood is a key indicator of the carbon investment strategies of trees, impacting productivity and carbon storage. Despite its importance, the global variation in wood density and its environmental controls remain poorly understood, preventing accurate predictions of global forest carbon stocks. Here we analyse information from 1.1 million forest inventory plots alongside wood density data from 10,703 tree species to create a spatially explicit understanding of the global wood density distribution and its drivers. Our findings reveal a pronounced latitudinal gradient, with wood in tropical forests being up to 30% denser than that in boreal forests. In both angiosperms and gymnosperms, hydrothermal conditions represented by annual mean temperature and soil moisture emerged as the primary factors influencing the variation in wood density globally. This indicates similar environmental filters and evolutionary adaptations among distinct plant groups, underscoring the essential role of abiotic factors in determining wood density in forest ecosystems. Additionally, our study highlights the prominent role of disturbance, such as human modification and fire risk, in influencing wood density at more local scales. Factoring in the spatial variation of wood density notably changes the estimates of forest carbon stocks, leading to differences of up to 21% within biomes. Therefore, our research contributes to a deeper understanding of terrestrial biomass distribution and how environmental changes and disturbances impact forest ecosystems.
Article
This article reviews nine soil carbon interventions to reduce soil carbon losses or increase stocks in grazing management systems, using their potential application in Aotearoa New Zealand (A‐NZ) as a case study. The interventions are classified into three strategies: (1) increasing carbon inputs through deep‐rooting and diverse species grasslands, reducing forage cropping and deferred grazing management; (2) increasing protection of carbon stocks by water table management on organic soils, reducing cropping on organic soils, full inversion tillage grassland renewal, the addition of clay minerals and enhanced rock weathering and (3) the adoption of integrated systems including establishing tree clusters into grasslands and agroforestry. We estimated the land area where these interventions could realistically be implemented in A‐NZ and assessed their potential impact on mitigating national overall agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. The potential impact of each intervention ranged from <1% to 2.5% of national agricultural greenhouse gas emissions over 20 years. However, confidence in these approaches is hindered by a lack of research data where these approaches have been tested for different soil types and conditions. Notably, water table management, which reduces carbon loss from organic soils, was the only intervention that could achieve moderate, short‐ and long‐term impacts with a confidence level assessed as ‘likely’. We conclude that reducing further soil carbon losses and achieving modest increases in soil carbon stocks are possible but will require economic and political incentives that encourage the integration of multiple interventions at the farm scale.
Article
Different land‐use practices in temperate forests strongly affect soil quality and soil microbial communities, whereas the assembly and interactions of soil functional fungal communities provide positive feedback. Therefore, the effects of forest ecosystem degradation on the composition of functional soil fungal community and soil nutrient cycling are of particular importance. We studied forest ecosystems in the Liupanshan Mountains in the northwestern part of the Loess Plateau and analyzed the relationship of soil fungal community and soil nutrient cycling under different land use practices (natural forest [NF], plantation forest, and farmland [FL]). The results showed that soil pH and electrical conductivity were the highest in FL, whereas the soil carbon cycle index and nitrogen cycle index decreased. The soil total phosphorus content did not change significantly with an increase in available phosphorus content. The change from NF to FL significantly increased the number of operational taxonomic units, diversity, and richness of soil fungal communities. The composition of the soil fungal communities was also strongly influenced by carbon and nitrogen cycle indices. In addition, FL reclamation increased the complexity of the soil microorganism co‐occurrence network, and the interrelationships between soil functional fungal community were enhanced. Pathogenic fungal communities were enriched in FLs, and their relative abundance was significantly regulated by environmental factors such as pH and the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus. The soil pathogenic fungal community affected carbon and nitrogen cycle indices to varying degrees.
Article
Full-text available
Forest fragmentation is ubiquitous across urban and rural areas. While there is mounting evidence that forest fragmentation alters the terrestrial carbon cycle, the extent to which differences in ambient growing conditions between urban and rural landscapes mediate forest response to fragmentation and climate remains unexamined. This study integrates field measurements of forest structure, growth, and soil respiration with climate data and high-resolution land-cover maps to quantify forest carbon storage and sequestration patterns along edge-to-interior gradients. These data were used to contrast the response of temperate broadleaf forests to non-forest edges within rural and urban landscapes. We find that forest growth rates in both rural and urban landscapes nearly double from the forest interior to edge. Additionally, these edge-induced enhancements in forest growth are not offset by concurrent increases in total soil respiration observed across our sites. Forest productivity generally increases near edges because of increases in leaf area, but elevated air temperature at the edge tempers this response and imparts greater sensitivity of forest growth to heat. In particular, the adverse impacts of heat on forest growth are two to three times larger in urban than rural landscapes. We demonstrate that the highly fragmented nature of urban forests compared to rural forests makes them a stronger carbon sink per unit area, but also much more vulnerable to a warming climate. Collectively, our results highlight the need to include the effects of both urbanization and fragmentation when quantifying regional carbon balance and its response to a changing climate.
Article
Full-text available
Significance Tropical forests constitute the largest terrestrial component of the global carbon budget. However, rapid agricultural expansion has left these landscapes highly fragmented, calling into question their capacity to cycle and store carbon. We utilized airborne mapping approaches that revealed changes in aboveground carbon and key aspects of ecosystem structure and function in forest edges along oil palm plantations in Malaysian Borneo. We found widespread evidence of significant changes in canopy structure and foliar traits related to light capture, growth, and productivity along forest edges that corresponded to declines in aboveground carbon. These changes underpin carbon declines that varied spatially, with far-reaching implications for the conservation of forest biodiversity and carbon stocks.
Article
Full-text available
The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2016 provides a suite of data products, including land cover and land cover change of the conterminous United States from 2001 to 2016, at two- to three-year intervals. The development of this product is part of an effort to meet the growing demand for longer temporal duration and more frequent, accurate, and consistent land cover and change information. To accomplish this, we designed a new land cover strategy and developed comprehensive methods, models, and procedures for NLCD 2016 implementation. Major steps in the new procedures consist of data preparation, land cover change detection and classification, theme-based postprocessing, and final integration. Data preparation includes Landsat imagery selection, cloud detection, and cloud filling, as well as compilation and creation of more than 30 national-scale ancillary datasets. Land cover change detection includes single-date water and snow/ice detection algorithms and models, two-date multi-index integrated change detection models, and long-term multi-date change algorithms and models. The land cover classification includes seven-date training data creation and 14-run classifications. Pools of training data for change and no-change areas were created before classification based on integrated information from ancillary data, change-detection results, Landsat spectral and temporal information, and knowledge-based trajectory analysis. In postprocessing, comprehensive models for each land cover theme were developed in a hierarchical order to ensure the spatial and temporal coherence of land cover and land cover changes over 15 years. An initial accuracy assessment on four selected Landsat path/rows classified with this method indicates an overall accuracy of 82.0% at an Anderson Level II classification and 86.6% at the Anderson Level I classification after combining the primary and alternate reference labels. This methodology was used for the operational production of NLCD 2016 for the Conterminous United States, with final produced products available for free download.
Article
Full-text available
Results of regression models, like estimates, are typically presented as tables that are easy to understand. Sometimes pure estimates are not helpful and difficult to interpret. This is especially true for interaction terms in logistic regression or even more complex models, or transformed terms (quadratic or cubic terms, polynomials, splines), where the estimates are no longer interpretable in a direct way. In such cases, marginal effects are far easier to understand. In particular, the visualization of marginal effects makes it possible to intuitively get the idea of how predictors and outcome are associated, even for complex models. ggeffects is an R-package that aims at easily calculating marginal effects for a broad range of different regression models. This is achieved by three core ideas that describe the philosophy of the function design: 1) Functions are type-safe and always return a data frame with the same, consistent structure; 2) there is a simple, unique approach to calculate marginal effects for many different models; 3) the package supports "labelled data" (Lüdecke 2018), which allows human readable annotations for graphical outputs. This means, users do not need to care about any expensive steps after modelling to visualize the results.
Article
Full-text available
Harvesting is the leading cause of adult tree mortality in forests of the northeastern United States. While current rates of timber harvest are generally sustainable, there is considerable pressure to increase the contribution of forest biomass to meet renewable energy goals. We estimated current harvest regimes for different forest types and regions across the U.S. states of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine using data from the U.S. Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. We implemented the harvest regimes in SORTIE‐ND, an individual‐based model of forest dynamics, and simulated the effects of current harvest regimes and five additional harvest scenarios that varied by harvest frequency and intensity over 150 yr. The best statistical model for the harvest regime described the annual probability of harvest as a function of forest type/region, total plot basal area, and distance to the nearest improved road. Forests were predicted to increase in adult aboveground biomass in all harvest scenarios in all forest type and region combinations. The magnitude of the increase, however, varied dramatically—increasing from 3% to 120% above current landscape averages as harvest frequency and intensity decreased. The variation can be largely explained by the disproportionately high harvest rates estimated for Maine as compared with the rest of the region. Despite steady biomass accumulation across the landscape, stands that exhibited old‐growth characteristics (defined as ≥300 metric tons of biomass/hectare) were rare (8% or less of stands). Intensified harvest regimes had little effect on species composition due to widespread partial harvesting in all scenarios, resulting in dominance by late‐successional species over time. Our analyses indicate that forest biomass can represent a sustainable, if small, component of renewable energy portfolios in the region, although there are tradeoffs between carbon sequestration in forest biomass and sustainable feedstock supply. Integrating harvest regimes into a disturbance theory framework is critical to understanding the dynamics of forested landscapes, especially given the predominance of logging as a disturbance agent and the increasing pressure to meet renewable energy needs.
Article
Full-text available
Forest fragmentation is pervasive throughout the world's forests, impacting growing conditions and carbon (C) dynamics through edge effects that produce gradients in microclimate, biogeochemistry, and stand structure. Despite the majority of global forests being <1 km from an edge, our understanding of forest C dynamics is largely derived from intact forest systems. Edge effects on the C cycle vary by biome in their direction and magnitude, but current forest C accounting methods and ecosystem models generally fail to include edge effects. In the mesic northeastern US, large increases in C stocks and productivity are found near the temperate forest edge, with over 23% of the forest area within 30 m of an edge. Changes in the wind, fire, and moisture regimes near tropical forest edges result in decreases in C stocks and productivity. This review explores differences in C dynamics observed across biomes through a trade‐offs framework that considers edge microenvironmental changes and limiting factors to productivity.
Article
Forests play a key role in global carbon cycling and sequestration. However, the potential for carbon drawdown is affected by forest fragmentation and resulting changes in microclimate, nutrient inputs, disturbance and productivity near edges. Up to 20% of the global forested area lies within 100 m of an edge and, even in temperate forests, knowledge on how edge conditions affect carbon stocks and how far this influence penetrates into forest interiors is scarce. Here we studied carbon stocks in the aboveground biomass, forest floor and the mineral topsoil in 225 plots in deciduous forest edges across Europe and tested the impact of macroclimate, nitrogen deposition and smaller-grained drivers (e.g. microclimate) on these stocks. Total carbon and carbon in the aboveground biomass stock were on average 39% and 95% higher at the forest edge than 100 m into the interior. The increase in the aboveground biomass stock close to the edge was mainly related to enhanced nitrogen deposition. No edge influence was found for stocks in the mineral topsoil. Edge-to-interior gradients in forest floor carbon changed across latitude: carbon stocks in the forest floor were higher near the edge in southern Europe. Forest floor carbon decreased with increasing litter quality (i.e. high decomposition rate) and decreasing plant area index, whereas higher soil temperatures negatively affected the mineral topsoil carbon. Based on high-resolution forest fragmentation maps, we estimate that the additional carbon stored in deciduous forest edges across Europe amounts to not less than 183 Tg carbon, which is equivalent to the storage capacity of 1 million ha of additional forest. This study underpins the importance of including edge influences when quantifying the carbon stocks in temperate forests and stresses the importance of preserving natural forest edges and small forest patches with a high edge-to-interior surface area.
Article
State-controlled protected areas (PAs) have dominated conservation strategies globally, yet their performance relative to other governance regimes is rarely assessed comprehensively. Furthermore, performance indicators of forest PAs are typically restricted to deforestation, although the extent of forest degradation is greater. We address these shortfalls through an empirical impact evaluation of state PAs, Indigenous Territories (ITs), and civil society and private Conservation Concessions (CCs) on deforestation and degradation throughout the Peruvian Amazon. We integrated remote-sensing data with environmental and socio-economic datasets, and used propensity-score matching to assess: (i) how deforestation and degradation varied across governance regimes between 2006–2011; (ii) their proximate drivers; and (iii) whether state PAs, CCs and ITs avoided deforestation and degradation compared with logging and mining concessions, and the unprotected landscape. CCs, state PAs, and ITs all avoided deforestation and degradation compared to analogous areas in the unprotected landscape. CCs and ITs were on average more effective in this respect than state PAs, showing that local governance can be equally or more effective than centralized state regimes. However, there were no consistent differences between conservation governance regimes when matched to logging and mining concessions. Future impact assessments would therefore benefit from further disentangling governance regimes across unprotected land.
Article
Multi-temporal land cover and change Methodology Implementation strategies A B S T R A C T The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in partnership with several federal agencies, has developed and released four National Land Cover Database (NLCD) products over the past two decades: NLCD 1992, 2001, 2006, and 2011. These products provide spatially explicit and reliable information on the Nation's land cover and land cover change. To continue the legacy of NLCD and further establish a long-term monitoring capability for the Nation's land resources, the USGS has designed a new generation of NLCD products named NLCD 2016. The NLCD 2016 design aims to provide innovative, consistent, and robust methodologies for production of a multi-temporal land cover and land cover change database from 2001 to 2016 at 2-3-year intervals. Comprehensive research was conducted and resulted in developed strategies for NLCD 2016: a streamlined process for assembling and pre-processing Landsat imagery and geospatial ancillary datasets; a multi-source integrated training data development and decision-tree based land cover classifications; a temporally, spectrally, and spatially integrated land cover change analysis strategy; a hierarchical theme-based post-classification and integration protocol for generating land cover and change products; a continuous fields biophysical parameters modeling method; and an automated scripted operational system for the NLCD 2016 production. The performance of the developed strategies and methods were tested in twenty World Reference System-2 path/row throughout the conterminous U.S. An overall agreement ranging from 71% to 97% between land cover classification and reference data was achieved for all tested area and all years. Results from this study confirm the robustness of this comprehensive and highly automated procedure for NLCD 2016 operational mapping.