the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 02 Jul 2025
Satellite-derived Ecosystem Functional Types capture ecosystem functional heterogeneity at regional scale
Abstract. Assessing ecosystem functioning is crucial for managing and conserving ecosystems and their services. Numerous ways to evaluate ecosystem functioning have been developed, using species traits, such as Plant Functional Types (PFTs), flux measurements with Eddy Covariance (EC) technique, and remote sensing techniques. We propose that the spatial heterogeneity in ecosystem functioning at a regional scale can be assessed and monitored using satellite-derived Ecosystem Functional Types (EFTs): groups of ecosystems or patches of the land surface that share similar dynamics of matter and energy exchanges. We hypothesize that, as observed for PFTs, different EFTs should have distinct patterns and magnitudes of Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE) of carbon dioxide measured using the EC technique. We derived EFTs based on the 2001–2014 time-series of satellite images of the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) and compared them with NEE measurements (derived from in situ field observations using the EC technique) across 50 European sites. Our results show that distinct EFTs classes display significantly different dynamics and magnitudes of NEE and that EFTs perform marginally better than PFTs in explaining NEE regional patterns. Land-cover maps based on PFTs are difficult to update on an annual basis and are not sensitive to changes in ecosystem performance (e.g., droughts or pests) that do involve short-term changes in PFT composition. In contrast, satellite-derived EFTs are sensitive to short-term changes in ecosystem performance. Satellite-derived EFTs are an ecosystem functional classification built from satellite observations that allow the identification of homogeneous land patches in terms of ecosystem functions, e.g., ecosystem net productivity measured on the ground as NEE. Satellite-derived EFTs can be recalculated annually, providing a straightforward way to assess and monitor interannual changes in ecosystem functioning and functional diversity.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Biogeosciences.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(1157 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1659 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 17 Aug 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2835', Simon Besnard, 17 Jul 2025
reply
Reviewer report
Title: Satellite-derived Ecosystem Functional Types capture ecosystem functional heterogeneity at regional scale
Authors: Beatriz P. Cazorla et al.General assessment:
This study presents a timely analysis of ecosystem functional heterogeneity across Europe by testing whether satellite-derived Ecosystem Functional Types (EFTs), defined from MODIS EVI time series, are coupled with Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE) patterns measured at eddy-covariance (EC) sites. By comparing EFTs with conventional Plant Functional Types (PFTs), the authors explore whether remote-sensing-based classifications provide a more dynamic alternative for ecosystem functional monitoring. The paper is well-structured, clearly written, and addresses an important research gap in functional biogeography. The authors provide robust empirical evidence across 50 EC sites and multiple biogeographic zones, reinforcing the potential of EFTs to serve as integrative descriptors of carbon dynamics. The methodological framework is rigorous, and the discussion is thoughtful and comprehensive. However, several methodological choices and interpretative aspects could benefit from clarification, expansion, or further justification.
Major comments:
1. The study focuses exclusively on EVI-derived EFTs as proxies for ecosystem functioning, which primarily capture carbon uptake via vegetation greenness. This focus, while justified, represents only one dimension of ecosystem function. Consider acknowledging more explicitly in the introduction and discussion that EFTs in this implementation reflect carbon-related dynamics. The authors should also consider whether incorporating additional functional attributes (e.g., NDWI for water stress, land surface temperature, albedo, and evapotranspiration) could enhance EFT robustness, particularly in water-limited ecosystems such as the Mediterranean region.
2. The current approach partitions EVI_mean, EVI_SD, and EVI_DMAX into four bins each, generating 64 EFT classes. However, the justification for choosing four intervals remains vague, and it is unclear how sensitive the results are to this choice. Could you please clarify the rationale behind selecting four intervals per metric? Would the patterns hold if three or five bins were used instead? A supporting table defining the intervals or example ranges for each bin would significantly improve interpretability.
3. While visually appealing, the EFT map (Fig. 1) is difficult to interpret due to the high number of classes. The dense legend makes it hard to discern regional patterns or relate the map to key findings. Consider providing a simplified version of the map by aggregating the EFTs into broader clusters (e.g., via PCA, hierarchical clustering, or functional similarity groupings).
4. The authors analyse NEE seasonal dynamics as the basis for comparing EFTs and PFTs. However, ecosystem function varies across multiple temporal scales. Please clarify why only seasonal cycles were analysed. Could complementary metrics, such as daily anomalies, interannual variability, or cumulative annual fluxes, provide additional insight into functional distinctiveness across EFTs?
5. The MODIS spatial resolution (~230 m) does not always match the EC tower footprint (~50–200 m), which varies depending on meteorological conditions and site characteristics. Please address whether a footprint-weighted EVI averaging was considered or feasible. At a minimum, discussing the potential impact of footprint mismatch on EFT-NEE comparisons would enhance methodological transparency.
6. With 64 possible EFTs, only 20 are represented in the EC network. This granularity may be problematic for integration into Earth system models, which typically rely on a smaller number of categories. Have the authors considered simplifying the EFT classification, for example, by grouping rare classes or employing dimension-reduction techniques? Providing a roadmap for EFT integration into models would enhance the study's relevance.
7. The study uses EVI_DMAX as a phenology metric. However, the start and end of the growing season are also informative indicators of functional timing and duration. Please clarify whether metrics such as SOS/EOS (start/end of season) were tested or considered. If not, do the authors anticipate that they could provide complementary or better information than EVI_DMAX?
Minor comments:
L66: Please clarify which method is referenced for estimating EFTs from EC measurements.
L138 144: The sentence describing the naming convention is dense and complex to digest. A schematic or table showing example combinations (e.g., Ba1, Cb2, etc.) and their meaning would be helpful for unfamiliar readers.
Caption of Fig. 1: The caption refers to squared colours, but circles appear to be used instead. Please correct for consistency.
Concluding remarks:
This study makes a valuable contribution to the growing body of literature on remote sensing of ecosystem function. The empirical validation of EFTs against eddy-covariance NEE across Europe is a significant achievement, and the comparisons to PFTs are well-executed and relevant. The manuscript would benefit from more explicit justifications for methodological choices (e.g., the number of intervals), a more nuanced discussion of scale mismatches and model usability, and an exploration of additional dimensions of ecosystem functioning.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2835-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 124 | 20 | 9 | 153 | 8 | 4 | 6 |
- HTML: 124
- PDF: 20
- XML: 9
- Total: 153
- Supplement: 8
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1