Received: 29 April 2023 | Revised: 21 December 2023 | Accepted: 5 January 2024

DOI: 10.1111/geb.13804

REVIEW ARTICLE

Remote sensing biodiversity monitoring in Latin America:

Emerging need for sustained local research and regional
collaboration to achieve global goals

Carol X. Garzon-­Lopez1 | Alejandro Miranda2,3 | Daniel Moya4 | Veronica Andreo5,6

1
Knowledge Infrastructures Department,
Campus Fryslân, University of Groningen, Abstract
Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
Aim: Biodiversity monitoring at global scales has been identified as one of the priori-
2
Laboratorio de Ecología del Paisaje y
Conservación, Departamento de Ciencias
ties to halt biodiversity loss. In this context, Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC),
Forestales, Universidad de La Frontera, home to 60% of the global biodiversity, play an important role in the development
Temuco, Chile
3
of an integrative biodiversity monitoring platform. In this review, we explore to what
Center for Climate and Resilience
Research (CR)2, Universidad de Chile, extent LAC has advanced in the adoption of remote sensing for biodiversity monitor-
Santiago, Chile ing and what are the gaps and opportunities to integrate local monitoring into global
4
Forest Ecology Research Group
efforts to halt biodiversity loss.
(ECOFOR), Higher Technical School
of Biotechnology and Agricultural and Location: Latin America and the Caribbean.
Forestry Engineers, University of Castilla-­
Time period: 1995 to 2022.
La Mancha, Albacete, Spain
5
Instituto de Altos Estudios Espaciales Taxa studied: Terrestrial organisms.
“Mario Gulich”, CONAE-­UNC, Cordoba, Methods: We reviewed the application of remote sensing for biodiversity monitoring
Argentina
6 in LAC aiming to identify gaps and opportunities across countries, ecosystem types
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones
Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos and research networks.
Aires, Argentina
Results: Our analysis illustrates how the use of remote sensing in LAC is dispropor-
Correspondence tionately low in relation to the biodiversity it supports.
Carol X. Garzon-­Lopez, Knowledge
Main conclusions: Build upon this analysis, we present, discuss and offer perspectives
Infrastructures Department, Campus
Fryslân, University of Groningen, regarding four gaps identified in the application of remote sensing for biodiversity
Wirdumerdijk 34, 8911 CE Leeuwarden,
monitoring in Latin America and the Caribbean, namely (1) alignment between remote
The Netherlands.
Email: [email protected] sensing data resolution and ecosystem structure; (2) investment in research, institu-
tions and capacity building within researchers and stakeholders; (3) decolonized prac-
Handling Editor: Franziska Schrodt
tices that promote access to publishing outlets and pluralistic participation among
countries that facilitate exchange of experiences and capacity building; and (4) devel-
opment of networks within and across regions to advance in ground surveys, ensure
access and to foster the use of remote sensing data.

KEYWORDS
biodiversity monitoring, essential biodiversity variables, Latin American and the Caribbean,
pluralism, remote sensing, research networks

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2024 The Authors. Global Ecology and Biogeography published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Global Ecol Biogeogr. 2024;00:1–16.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/geb | 1

 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 GARZON-­LOPEZ et al.

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N access to, on the one hand, researchers that collected biodiversity
data at those areas (Wade, 2018) and, on the other, investors that
Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) support around 60% of the since have intensified land transformation to an alarming increase
global biodiversity including biodiversity hotspots of global impor- in deforestation rate of 177% post-­conflict (Clerici et al., 2020).
tance (Myers et al., 2000). At the same time, the region is one of Like Colombia, other countries in LAC continuously face complex
the most threatened areas of the globe in terms of overexploita- situations; Venezuela with a lack of government investment in sci-
tion, climate change, pollution and land use change, among others entific research (Dannemann, 2019); Chiles' political instability and
(FAO, 2020). LAC biodiversity is distributed across a range of eco- long drought (Bowman et al., 2019), increasing safety concerns
systems—from the high-­elevation endemic species in the Andes to for researchers in Mexico (Arellano, 2023), the recent referendum
the highly diverse areas of tropical forest—and supports the liveli- to stop oil drilling in Ecuador (Collyns, 2023), and the list goes on.
hood of millions of people in urban and rural areas (IPBES, 2018). In Such a unique combination of social and ecological factors across
addition, the region has some of the largest socioeconomic inequi- countries, with shared ecoregions, determines the characteristics
ties in the world (Laterra et al., 2019). These inequities are derived and implementation process of a robust biodiversity monitoring
from (and reinforced by) unsustainable practices in the use of natural scheme urgently needed, as approved by Kunming-­Montreal Global
resources that have resulted in an alarming rate of biodiversity loss Biodiversity Framework (MK-­GBF), and impacts the likelihood of
(IPBES, 2019). In this context, protecting LAC ecosystems is a pri- implementing timely measures to sustainable manage and preserve
ority and one of the keys to achieve the Sustainable Development their biodiversity (Gonzalez & Londoño, 2022).
Goals (SDG), especially goals on ecosystem protection (13, 14 and In this context, the availability of free global satellite data has
15) and sustainability (6, 11 and 12), and mitigate climate change emerged as an opportunity for research and biodiversity moni-
(Opoku, 2019). toring especially in the region where data is scarce and clustered
Biodiversity is defined as the variety of life on Earth and the around regions with more investments in data collection and ac-
ecological complex which they are a part of, including its genetic cessible to researchers (Hughes et al., 2021; Ramírez-­Barahona
variation and functional attributes, and changes in abundance et al., 2023). The region has witnessed significant progress in remote
and distribution over space and time from species to the ecosys- sensing development, utilizing globally approved methodologies
tems they form (IPBES, 2019). Biodiversity monitoring over space that can help circumvent scientific data and monitoring challenges
and time, critical for the implementation of the Kunming-­Montreal amidst internal political conflicts. In 2019, the Instituto Nacional de
Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD Secretariat, 2022), is a chal- Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) published preliminary data showing an
lenging endeavour that requires research on a wide range of envi- alarming 88% increase in forest loss compared to the previous year.
ronmental and social factors, and collaboration in a diverse network Regrettably, political persecution by the Bolsonaro government led
of stakeholders with varying degrees of expertise and multiple ways to the expulsion of scientific staff from the institution (Deutsch &
of knowing from all over the world (IPBES, 2022). Consequently, ef- Fletcher, 2022). A similar controversy arose concerning the dis-
fective biodiversity conservation and management requires moni- crepancy between official government data reported to the Food
toring schemes that provide accurate assessments on the current and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and scientific evidence. The
status, trends and interdependencies between biodiversity and FAO's official report indicated a national increase in native forests
society at relevant levels for implementation (Navarro et al., 2017; (FAO, 2014), while contrary evidence from Miranda et al. (2017) re-
Pascual et al., 2021). vealed a declining trend. This divergence was primarily attributed to
Biodiversity hotspots worldwide, like the Amazon, Central applying different monitoring methodologies for the Global Forest
Chile or the Andes in LAC, are mostly coincident with low-­income Resources Assessments (FRA) reported by national agencies to FAO
countries (Barrett et al., 2011), that further drives biodiversity loss (Miranda et al., 2018). Efforts are being made to standardize meth-
while preventing financial resources and technologies needed from odologies between public agencies and academia; however, having
being invested in biodiversity monitoring (Carpenter et al., 2006; globally validated methodologies to facilitate effective communi-
IPBES, 2019; Mikkelson et al., 2007). Even though biodiversity cation among stakeholders at multiple scales could avoid internal
monitoring schemes are meant to be global, their implementation conflict and could help the global community to watch the national
is local and depends on multiple factors (Proença et al., 2017). In compliance of international agreements.
the case of Latin America, the factors vary among and within coun- Advancements in the use of remote sensing for biodiversity have
tries and include government agenda, investments, access to remote been instrumental in the growth of research on multiple biodiver-
locations, environmental and social conflicts and access to tech- sity indicators (Petrou et al., 2015; Skidmore et al., 2021). These ad-
nology. Colombia, for example, endured 60 years of armed conflict vancements include cameras and sensors with higher resolution and
that limited the access to vast areas of the territory for biodiversity more portable and autonomous Unoccupied Aerial Vehicles (UAV)
research and data collection until 2016, when the government of as well as the deployment of new satellite missions. In terms of bio-
Colombia signed a peace agreement with one of the largest rebel diversity monitoring, the Group of Earth Observation Biodiversity
groups Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) Observation Network (GEOBON) has worked on the development
(Mesa de conversaciones, 2016). The peace agreement allowed of Biodiversity Observation Networks (BON) and the identification
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GARZON-­LOPEZ et al. 3

of a set of Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) that comprise the between global efforts and the current state-­of-­the-­art science and
multiple dimensions of biodiversity in the context of ecosystem working orientation in LAC. Moreover, we seek to understand these
functioning like species traits, abundance and distribution (Navarro gaps within the context of local realities, considering the regional
et al., 2017; Skidmore et al., 2021). Further research has identified disparities in economic development. Ultimately, this review en-
a subset of the EBVs that can readily be measured through remote deavours to foster regional collaboration and agreement by empha-
sensing from local to global levels like ecosystem primary produc- sizing the significance of local action within global remote sensing
tivity, phenology and disturbances using multispectral, LiDAR and endeavours. Through this approach, we hope to promote equity,
radar data, and spectral and trait diversity including hyperspec- technological advancements, pluralism and fruitful collaborations
tral data (Asner & Martin, 2016; Rocchini et al., 2021; Skidmore that contribute to the progress of remote sensing applications for
et al., 2021). However, remote sensing alone is not enough, ground biodiversity monitoring in the LAC region.
data is required to calibrate and validate the measurements and ac-
curately provide the baseline for a global scale biodiversity monitor-
ing platform (Cavender-­Bares et al., 2022). Therefore, researchers 2 | M E TH O D S
have developed methods to assess biodiversity in situ. The in-­situ
efforts include collated data from multiple sources, e.g. monitoring The aim of this survey was to assess the state of the art in the use
schemes like the forest dynamics research sites (CTFS Forest-­GEO), of remote sensing for terrestrial biodiversity monitoring includ-
museums and herbaria like the Mesoamerican Network of Herbaria, ing all taxa and approaches to measure biodiversity (e.g. presence,
and citizen science efforts like iNaturalist, organized and often made abundance, taxonomical, functional, etc.). The approach used was
available online at the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). a formal systematic review based on the guidelines provided by the
Multiple researchers have pointed out that monitoring biodiver- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-­Analysis
sity, as well as identifying the drivers of change, is a complex task (PRISMA), to ensure transparency and create standardized proce-
because its estimates and indicators of change are modulated by dures that allow robust synthesis reports (PRISMA-­EcoEvo) (O'Dea
the spatio-­temporal scales at which they are measured and across et al., 2021). The data sources used in this review consisted of peer-­
regions, and because its dynamics depend on a myriad of environ- reviewed articles, on terrestrial biodiversity and all taxa, published
mental, ecological and socioeconomic factors that vary in distribu- over a 27-­year period (1995–2022), since the appearance of the first
tion and magnitude from one ecosystem to another (Cavender-­Bares publication on biodiversity using remote sensing in Latin America.
et al., 2022; Chase et al., 2019; Gonzalez et al., 2023; Petrou We included documents in all languages. A search string that in-
et al., 2015; Reddy, 2021; Thompson et al., 2021). Therefore, har- cluded terms related to biodiversity indicators, remote sensing prod-
nessing the expertise of local communities and researchers is crucial ucts and LAC country names was used to identify peer-­reviewed
to ensure robust biodiversity monitoring and effective implemen- articles in Scopus and Scielo databases. To include a wide range of
tation of frameworks. Consequently, to involve all parts of society indicators of biodiversity we used the following keywords: biodiver-
as active participants of a network of biodiversity monitoring plat- sity, richness, redundancy, evenness, diversity, similarity, divergence or
forms, united in a global observing system (GBiOS), as recently pro- abundance, using the OR connector to include all types of biodiver-
posed by Gonzalez et al. (2023), it is key to understand if and to sity namely, taxonomic, functional and ecosystems, and to search for
what extent LAC has advanced in local remote sensing biodiversity papers using any type of measurements and indicators (e.g. essen-
monitoring, the needs in terms of cooperation and capacity building, tial biodiversity variables). To capture a wide set of remote sensing
and the opportunities to integrate local monitoring into global ef- products, we included remote sensing, satellite, UAV, Landsat, Sentinel,
forts to achieve the SDGs, halt biodiversity loss and mitigate climate earth observation, aerial images, LiDAR, hyperspectral, multispectral,
change (UNEP-­WCMC, 2016). If we are to recognize and harness MODIS, SAR, radar or drone. The survey was limited to research per-
the uniqueness of the region and identify the importance of remote formed in the countries part of Latin America and the Caribbean and
sensing in biodiversity monitoring in LAC, guided by the Kunming-­ members of the Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL
Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, to mobilize timely and in Spanish), namely Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Panamá, Perú, Argentina,
aligned action the question we need to answer is: what needs to be Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Barbados, Honduras,
known and how? Puerto Rico, Uruguay, Paraguay, Guatemala, Belize, Nicaragua, Guiana,
To answer this question, we performed a systematic literature Cuba, República Dominicana, Haiti, Guadalupe, Bahamas, Curacao, El
review exploring biodiversity indicators, research trends, collab- Salvador, Aruba, Trinidad, Martinique, Antigua, Caicos and Cayman
oration among researchers and spatio-­temporal coverage of bio- (Appendix S1).
diversity monitoring using remote sensing in LAC. In addition, we The query resulted in 182 peer-­reviewed articles, in three lan-
assessed the gaps, obstacles and opportunities that need to be tack- guages (Spanish, English and Portuguese), that were imported into
led. With that aim, we applied a formal systematic review approach. the reference manager program Zotero (https://​w ww.​zotero.​org/​)
This review aims to lay the groundwork for a novel compre- (Figure 1). Different criteria to include/exclude articles were then
hension of remote sensing advancements on the topic of biodiver- applied to evaluate the suitability of the documents according to
sity monitoring, with a specific focus on identifying the disparities the scope of this study. To be included, articles should: (1) focus on
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 GARZON-­LOPEZ et al.

(a list of data sources is found in Appendix S3). Of the total, 42 arti-

cles (43.2% of the total) were authored (first author) by a researcher
affiliated to an institution in LAC, while from the remaining 55 arti-
cles authored by non-­L AC affiliated only 29 articles (52,7%) included
a local co-­author (Tables S2.1 and S2.2).
According to an assessment on the history and applications
of remote sensing for plant biodiversity from Wang and Gamon
(Wang & Gamon, 2019), publications applying remote sensing to
assess plant biodiversity started appearing in 1990 (Westman
et al., 1989). According to our study, in the case of Latin America
and the Caribbean and including all organisms, the first publi-
cation appeared 5 years later in 1995—one out of five publica-
tions in the world that year—, from a research institution based
in Europe (Rey-­B enayas & Pope, 1995). The studies explored the
use of multispectral imagery (Landsat) to estimate plant diversity
in Guatemala (Rey-­B enayas & Pope, 1995). The first studies from
local researchers appeared in 2005. One article from researchers
affiliated to a Mexican institution and another from researchers
affiliated to a Colombian institution, using Landsat imagery to ex-
plore the effect of land cover changes across space (i.e. fragmen-
tation), in the case of Mexico (Hernandez-­Stefanoni, 2005); and
across time (i.e. 56-­year chronosequence), in the case of Colombia
(Ruiz et al., 2005), on plant richness, both in tropical dry forests.
F I G U R E 1 Workflow of the criteria for the literature review.
Since 1995 the number of publications on biodiversity monitor-
ing using remote sensing worldwide has been increasing, but in
terrestrial systems, (2) have their study sites located in the countries LAC this increase has been mild and not steady, ranging between
within LAC, (3) focus on estimating biodiversity indicators including, 2 (1 article) and 8% (6 articles) of the world publications (Figure 2).
but not limited to, functional, taxonomical and ecosystem, and (4) Noteworthy, the total share of publications from LAC is expected
use remote sensing products at some point in the research. In a first to be even lower if we compare them to the number of publica-
instance, the title and document abstract were reviewed using the tions including all organisms and not only the subset of plant bio-
inclusion criteria, and in a second instance the full text. The doc- diversity explored in Wang and Gamon (2019).
uments that did not meet the criteria were excluded. Documents
excluded after examining the title focused on satellite DNA, satellite
clusters of species or belonged to astronomy. Other documents ex- 2.2 | Remote sensing data and
cluded were synthesis and commentary papers, research performed biodiversity indicators
at biodiversity hotspots but not estimating biodiversity, and studies
performed in aquatic ecosystems. The resulting set of articles were Biodiversity patterns occur at genetic, taxonomic, functional and
analysed using two approaches: a bibliometric analysis (R package ecosystem levels and across a wide range of spatio-­temporal scales.
Bibliometrix [Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017]) including a social network As such, according to the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs),
analysis to identify scientific collaboration networks and most rele- they can be measured by the genetic composition, species' popula-
vant authors (Isfandyari-­Moghaddam et al., 2023), and an in-­depth tions, species traits, community composition, ecosystem structure
exploration of biodiversity indicators grouped following the EBV and ecosystem function (Skidmore et al., 2021). At the same time,
framework, ecosystems and taxonomic groups, remote sensing biodiversity patterns are affected by human activities at multi-
products and research topics covered. ple scales—from local patterns at the border of a forest fragment
to the global context of species range shifts due to climate change
(Anderson, 2018; Levin, 1992), making the task of finding drivers of
2.1 | Remote sensing for biodiversity in Latin biodiversity change even more challenging (Gonzalez et al., 2023).
America and the Caribbean: State of the art Such a diverse set of dimensions in which biodiversity patterns can
be observed and the dynamics that affect them results in an equally
The bibliometric analysis allowed us to disentangle the scientific col- diverse set of tools to measure it. On the one hand, there are ground
laboration and publication patterns of studies on the topic of bio- surveys that collect biodiversity data at high resolution (~1 m plots)
diversity monitoring using remote sensing in LAC. The 97 articles and small extents (~50 ha). On the other hand, we have satellite-­
matching the selection criteria comprised a total of 490 researchers borne sensors that provide data at lower resolution (>1 km) and
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GARZON-­LOPEZ et al. 5

F I G U R E 2 (a) Number of publications

on remote sensing of plant biodiversity,
combining the search terms “biodiversity”
and “remote sensing” from Wang and
Gamon (2019) for the period of 1990 to
2018, and adding our survey in Scopus
and Scielo, of the same terms for all
organism's biodiversity, from 1990 to
2022 for the world and for the production
in LAC. (b) The percentages of the total
number of publications in LAC from the
total (figure b) from 1990 to 2021 in the
Scopus collection (World—this study) are
presented.

over global extents, and airborne and UAV-­borne sensors character- assessments and to understand how this structure mediates the
ized by higher resolution and smaller extents (< 25 km2) (Figure 3). presence and distribution of other organisms (e.g. lianas, birds,
As a result, biodiversity data are collected at multiple spatial do- mammals) (Acebes et al., 2021). LiDAR has been used in combina-
mains covering a wide range of dynamics and responses to change tion with hyperspectral, demonstrating the potential of both sensors
(Anderson, 2018). The challenge is to coordinate efforts, identify for biodiversity monitoring, yet it is still a costly combination even
drivers of change and make all sources relevant for their context. in UAV-­borne systems due to the price of the equipment and the
RGB imagery consists of three bands (red, green and blue) and computer processing power required for data processing (Almeida
is often used for manual identification of features like land cover, et al., 2021). Finally, hyperspectral sensors collect data of hundreds
organisms' presence and abundance, among others; it is a low-­cost of spectral bands, often at high resolution, thereby providing infor-
method commonly used mounted in UAV and has gained some track mation on the chemical composition of the sensed object, valuable
for its potential applications for citizen science and conservation in studies of invasive species, species traits and functional diversity
(Ierodiaconou et al., 2022; Sauls et al., 2023). Multispectral and (Asner & Martin, 2016).
thermal imagery, spaceborne imagery like MODIS, Landsat, ASTER In this review, we identified a wide range of remote sensing prod-
or Sentinel, among others; or at higher resolution from WorldView, ucts used for biodiversity monitoring. This results in an equally wide
Quickbird or SPOT (Anderson, 2018); collects data of between three range of spatiotemporal scales of analysis (S1.1 and 1.2) crucial in the
and eleven spectral bands, allowing to capture more information case of LAC, where ecosystems range from highly diverse forests
on the spectral properties of the sensed landscape/objects. It has with tree species of 30 metres in diameter to equally diverse mon-
been classically used for land cover classification, and for biomass, tane grasslands with mosses of less than a centimetre, all affected
moisture and temperature estimations at landscape level (from sat- at various degrees from land transformation, invasive species and
ellite) and in precision farming (from UAV). Because some of the degradation. Almost half of the studies use Landsat imagery (38.1%,
multispectral sensors, like Landsat (started in 1972), have been 37 articles), alone or in combination with other sensors (12.4%,
collecting data since more than 30 years, they are often used in the 12 articles). In the case of Sentinel, one study has used Sentinel-­1
analysis of changes across time (Pettorelli et al., 2014). Radar sen- (Fagua et al, 2021) and four studies have used Sentinel-­2 (Tables S2.1
sors collect data on the structure of the landscape and are import- and S2.2). This has to do with the marked tendency to use satel-
ant in tropical regions as radars are not affected by clouds to the lite data to set up the proxy by which drivers of biodiversity (e.g.
extent that multispectral sensors are, providing an alternative and a land cover, productivity) are collected (Figure 3) or use spectral in-
complement via fusion techniques to multispectral and hyperspec- dices like NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) to predict
tral imagery (Schulte to Bühne & Pettorelli, 2018). Light Detection biodiversity spatial patterns. For example, authors used Landsat to
And Ranging (LiDAR) data provides accurate information on the 3D explore changes in biodiversity in relation to land use change, frag-
structure of the vegetation, information that is often used in biomass mentation, fire and other anthropogenic pressures (see Table S2.2
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 GARZON-­LOPEZ et al.

F I G U R E 3 Log–log plot of the remote sensing sensors across varying spatial and temporal grain sizes and the application in biodiversity
studies in Latin America and the Caribbean. Modified from (Anderson, 2018).

and Figure S4.2). There was, however, a smaller percentage of the that perform temporal analysis, studies range from 0.5 to 60 years,
studies using Landsat to measure biodiversity directly (9.2%, 9 ar- with more than 60% below 2 years and only 13% above 30 years
ticles) and just two articles using Landsat in combination with other in temporal extent, with annual or decadal temporal resolutions
metrics (see Table S1 and Figure S4.1). Larger scales (>5 km) and (Tables S2.1 and S2.2). Despite the variation in spatiotemporal ap-
lower resolution studies utilized MODIS (10.3%, 10 articles), com- proaches and ecosystems studied in the LAC region, our findings
bined with ground-­based metrics to develop indicators of biodiver- suggest potential untapped opportunities for incorporating novel
sity for plants and birds (Table and Figure S1). Airborne approaches data sources, technologies, and analytical methods to enhance
include the use of LiDAR (19.6%, 19 articles) to assess forest struc- biodiversity research and conservation efforts involved in a com-
ture, a proxy of bird species richness (Coddington et al., 2023), alone prehensive and integrated approach to biodiversity monitoring in
or in combination with hyperspectral data, via spectral composition, the LAC region. By embracing a broader range of spatiotemporal
heterogeneity or diversity, as direct estimates of plant diversity resolutions and exploring underutilized products, researchers and
(Table S2.2 and Figure S4.2) demonstrating the potential of hyper- conservationists can gain a more comprehensive understanding
spectral data for biodiversity monitoring in this highly diverse region of the region's biodiversity trends, distribution patterns and eco-
(Asner, 2008). system status. The inclusion of such diverse datasets can aid in
On the spatial dimension, resolution ranges from 0.02 m/pixel, identifying emerging threats, evaluating conservation strategies
to explore biodiversity in restored forests using UAV-­b orne LiDAR and ultimately promoting more effective biodiversity conser-
and hyperspectral data (Almeida et al., 2021), to 1000 m/pixel, vation in the LAC region. However, to ensure that the research
using MODIS data to study changes in tree phenology as proxies needs and specific challenges of biodiversity monitoring in LAC are
of tree species richness from a time series using stacked species tackled, we need to integrate scientific knowledge in policies and
distribution models (Cord et al., 2014). In terms of spatial ex- decision-­making.
2 2
tent, studies range from areas of 0.003 km up to 2,000,000 km , Eleven large terrestrial ecoregions are home to the biodiversity
with the majority of the studies distributed across a range of 5 to found in LAC (Olson et al., 2001). Despite the fact that only half of
70,000 km2 (73%). On the temporal dimension, half of the stud- the LAC ecoregions are forests, in terms of both ecoregion type and
ies (54%) do not include a temporal component, and among those area (54.6%), we found that 80% of the studies published focused on
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GARZON-­LOPEZ et al. 7

F I G U R E 4 Number of papers
published in relation to ecoregion area
size. Ecoregions area size from Olson
et al., 2001.

these areas, with 53% of them specifically set at tropical and sub-
tropical moist broadleaf forest (Figure 4). As a consequence, not only
the applications of remote sensing for biodiversity are limited in all
LAC ecoregions (Figure 3), but there are little to no advances in the
case of remote sensing in biodiversity monitoring in grasslands, wet-
lands and shrublands (Figure 4).
There is little to no overlap among sensors and ecoregions
(Figures S4.1 and S4.2), due to the small number of studies, i.e., in
the tropical moist broadleaf forest a wide range of satellite and air-
borne sensors have been tested (27 sensor types, Tables S2.1 and
S2.2), while for other ecoregions of similar size like the tropical
montane grassland and shrubland, there is only one study published
(Campos et al., 2020). These variations demonstrate the versatility
and complexity of approaches to understand and manage biodiver-
sity, even though there is still a significant number of products that
have not been fully utilized for biodiversity monitoring in the region
(Figure 3). F I G U R E 5 Distribution of publications in relation to the
applications of remote sensing products and the EBV classes.
Pie chart size corresponds to the number of publications per
combination of applications and EBV classes. Pie charts represent
2.3 | Biodiversity indicators and the applications of
the fraction of the publications devoted to plants, ecosystems or
remote sensing other organisms. Applications were categorized as direct, if the RS
product was directly used to quantify an indicator of biodiversity
The EBVs include multiple dimensions of biodiversity some of (e.g. spectral diversity); or proxy, if the RS product was used to
which can be assessed using remote sensing metrics (Pettorelli derive metrics that correlate with diversity indicators and the
et al., 2016; Skidmore et al., 2021). The research in this area fo- attribution of changes over time and/or space (e.g. non-­plant
species diversity, forest cover).
cuses on measuring populations and/or community composition di-
rectly by means of species identification or spectral measurements
(Brabant et al., 2019; Chrysafis et al., 2020; McCarthy et al., 2021; et al., 2017; Balkenhol et al., 2013; Treitler et al., 2016). In LAC, we
Peng et al., 2019). It also involves the use of remote sensing-­derived found studies that use remote sensing products for all of these ap-
metrics as proxy of ecosystem structure and function (Ahuatzin proaches but found many especially focused on plant diversity indi-
et al., 2019; Asner, 2015; Bastos et al., 2016; Paruelo et al., 2004), or cators for direct metrics (Table S2.1), and a smaller percentage using
the use of remote sensing products to provide context on the effect remote sensing to contextualize or as a proxy of diversity of other
of disturbances on ecosystem structure/function (Aguirre-­Gutiérrez organisms (Figure 5, Table S2.2).
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 GARZON-­LOPEZ et al.

Given the relevance of species distribution models (SDMs) for region to improve preservation and sustainable management of the
biodiversity monitoring, it is important to state that only publica- rich and diverse ecosystems found in this part of the world. A major
tions that included remote sensing were retained for this review feature of the application of remote sensing products for biodiver-
(for a review on SDMs in LAC see Urbina-­C ardona et al., 2019). sity monitoring is the development of networks of researchers and
While SDMs are typically associated with (modelled) climate data, institutions that allow for an effective integration of methods and
the use of remote sensing is increasing with the publications from coordination of efforts, and facilitate collaborations with research-
Brazilian case-­s tudies (Brown et al., 2020; Paz et al., 2021), the ers and institutions of high-­income countries that ensure effective
local advances in remote sensing for plant biodiversity (Cavender-­ coordination and standardization (Navarro et al., 2017).
Bares et al., 2022) and the development of online tools that facil- In our review, most research in LAC consisted of scattered
itate the use of remote sensing and foster capacity building, such efforts connected to collaborators (i.e. leading authors and co-­
as Wallace (Kass et al., 2018). In addition, there are several cases authors) either in the United States (34.6%) or in the European
demonstrating how hyperspectral data have already enhanced bio- Union (19.2%) with no linkages identified within the region. In this
diversity monitoring, offering finer spectral resolution and enabling context, the countries with higher number of publications within
more detailed characterization of ecosystems and species (Asner LAC, after the United States and those in the European Union, are
& Martin, 2009). The use of LiDAR and/or hyperspectral at high Mexico (15.5%), Brazil (8.7%) and Argentina (7.8%). Argentina is a
resolution and over large extents results in high dimension datasets unique case for the region (Figure 6), with all the publications au-
that require significant computer power and processing algorithms thored by local researchers and connected to CONICET (in Spanish
able to identify patterns, like spectral diversity or spectral signa- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas), a state
tures of functional groups or species. In this sense, artificial intelli- organization dedicated to promote and fund science and technol-
gence (AI) approaches have proven its potential to identify/classify ogy in Argentina that recognizes the role of local scientific journals
species with high accuracy in both highly diverse forests (Baldeck and promote incentives for researchers which promotes the creation
et al., 2015) and montane grasslands (Garzon-­Lopez & Lasso, 2020). and continuation of research lines as well as the access to less costly
The incursion of deep learning or neural networks AI algorithms per-­reviewed publication outlets (Beigel & Digiampietri, 2023). In
together with the advances in the capabilities of new or planned terms of the areas where the studies take place, however, most of
satellite missions with hyperspectral and LiDAR sensors at higher the studies have been performed in Mexico (26.2%), Brazil (14.6%)
resolution (Aschbacher & Pérez, 2010; Coppo et al., 2017) open up and Chile (11.6%) (Figure 6), which are also countries in the top three
a myriad of possibilities to monitor biodiversity at multiple spatio- on investments in research and innovation in the region according to
temporal scales (Asner & Martin, 2016; Rossi & Gholizadeh, 2023; UNESCO (UNESCO, 2021).
Sadeh et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2023), and at the same time call for Using a social network analysis on the collaboration among the
a renewed interest in ground data to calibrate and validate the re- authors included in our review, we identified nine isolated clusters
mote sensing based assessments. The challenge remains as to how of collaborators. Each cluster was led by an author or institution
to ensure access to these technologies and expertise across the that connected the members inside each cluster. Six of those clus-
LAC ecoregions, as well as to implement ecoregion-­wide proto- ters were distributed among leading authors in the United States,
cols for data collection and facilitate the implementation of such Canada, Spain and the United Kingdom, while only three have lead-
new technologies as standardized and integrative approaches to ing authors located within LAC. The first node is represented by
monitoring. the work in the tropical dry forests of Yucatan (Mexico) from 2005
to 2019 (e.g. Hernandez-­Stefanoni et al., 2011, 2014) the studies
at the temperate forests of Chile from 2015 to 2017 (e.g. Ceballos
2.4 | Research networks and collaborations et al., 2015; Lopatin et al., 2016) and the publications about the
tropical forests of Panama from 2008 to 2015 connected to the
Collaboration in biodiversity monitoring using remote sensing is Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (e.g. Chust et al., 2006;
essential for LAC's sustainable future. By working together, stake- Somers et al., 2015) (Tables S2.1 and S2.2).
holders from various socio-­cultural and ecological backgrounds
can leverage the power of technology, scientific expertise and local
knowledge to develop diverse, tailored and robust monitoring and 3 | N E X T S TE P S , C AV E AT S A N D WAYS
conservation strategies that preserve the region's extraordinary FO RWA R D
biodiversity for generations to come. As stated in the KM-­GBF
(CBD, 2023), the implementation of all parts of the framework, in- LAC is home to some of the world's most diverse and abundant
cluding monitoring and reporting on biodiversity, depends on the ad- ecosystems, including tropical rainforests, dry forests, grasslands
vances in capacity building and technical and scientific cooperation and wetlands. These ecosystems support a wealth of biodiversity,
throughout all the steps of development of the monitoring frame- including numerous endemic species, that are important for both
work. In a pluralistic setting, local stakeholders can work together ecological and cultural reasons. The recognition of the importance
to address the specific challenges of biodiversity monitoring in the of such biodiversity for the livelihoods of society in and outside the
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GARZON-­LOPEZ et al. 9

F I G U R E 6 Map of collaborations
across countries. Collaborations between
countries are depicted as lines connecting
countries of study (in yellow) with
countries of affiliation of researchers (all
colours), and line thickness correlates with
the number of collaborations between the
countries. Collaborations are defined on
the basis of the countries of affiliations of
co-­authors of a single publication.

region, and for its intrinsic and unique values “Living in harmony and community, critical in biodiversity monitoring, depends on spe-
with Nature”, highlights the relevance of harnessing the expertise cies size and spatial distribution, as well as the diversity of ecological
and strengthening the connections across biodiversity realms and phenomena (Rocchini et al., 2015). Together, these conditions result
infrastructures. In this review, we have identified four areas of at- in a mismatch in the minimum sampling scale available and the scale
tention in the application of remote sensing for biodiversity moni- at which species diversity should be accurately measured, for exam-
toring in Latin America and the Caribbean, namely (1) alignment ple in the attribution of the proxies/drivers of biodiversity, a feature
between remote sensing data resolution and ecoregion structure; that is affected by the scale of sampling as shown in the case of
(2) investment in research, institutions and capacity building within tropical trees (Garzon-­Lopez et al., 2014), and is expected to have an
the region to advance in ground surveys, ensure access and to fos- influence in the case of small sized-­species like the grasslands and
ter the use of RS data; (3) decolonized practices that promote access savannas covering the majority of the land surface of LAC (Figure 4).
to publishing outlets and pluralistic participation among countries Such mismatch in other regions has been tackled with the devel-
that facilitate exchange of experiences and capacity building; and opment of approaches using high-­resolution UAV-­borne imagery,
(4) development of networks within and across regions to advance laboratory spectrometry and AI-­based computational techniques
in ground surveys, ensure access and to foster the use of remote to process the big data files resulting from the gain in spatial and
sensing data. spectral resolution (Lausch et al., 2020). The advancement in the ap-
plication of these technologies, or the development of new ones,
requires exploration of its potential in LAC ecosystems, as well as ca-
3.1 | Alignment between remote sensing data pacity building in their use for biodiversity assessments. LAC-­based
features and LAC ecosystem structure publications on this topic have been increasing slowly and mostly
in forest ecosystems, with few examples in grasslands (e.g. cerrado,
Biodiversity monitoring in highly diverse and heterogeneous ecosys- and paramo) (Figures S4.1 and S4.2). Therefore, the relevance and
tems posits a number of challenges for remote sensing data collection, urgency of fostering such research should not be underestimated.
processing and interpretation. On the one hand, the smallest spatial Governments, societal stakeholders and researchers can support
resolution in freely available satellite-­borne imagery imposes a limit these advancements by exploring synergies between biodiversity
to the sampling design (Gamon et al., 2020; Rocchini et al., 2021). On monitoring, precision farming (Velusamy et al., 2022) and urban
the other hand, the operational (ecological) definition of population planning (Lee et al., 2021), among other areas of application.
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 GARZON-­LOPEZ et al.

3.2 | Investment in research, institutions and fees between low-­and high-­income countries (Williams et al., 2023).
capacity building within the region Such conditions have detrimental impacts on performance in the lab
and in the field not only affecting the scope of their research but also
Biodiversity encompasses a wide range of definitions and values for limiting their access and attendance to international journals and
different stakeholders (IPBES, 2022). As such, it is often complex events. The latter being great opportunities for networking and es-
to understand how to invest in biodiversity monitoring. This points tablishing collaborations. Additionally, many LAC countries face dif-
to the importance of creating bridges between governments, in- ficult macroeconomic conditions that complicate the development
stitutions and societal actors to identify what needs to be known of research activities even further. The already small grants vanish in
and how, for each ecosystem and local community context. In this a matter of months with unfavourable exchange rates and inflation
review, we have identified an overall limited investment in biodi- higher than 100% per year in countries like Argentina. Furthermore,
versity monitoring, especially noticeable in the case of grassland while open access policies have allowed LAC scientists to access
ecosystems, and mangroves, with the majority of publications led more published literature than ever before, it also reinforced exist-
by non-­local authors. This signals sources of funding external to LAC ing inequalities as it is virtually impossible for them to pay the high
for those publications. Additionally, there are a number of satellite APC with their degraded funding or monthly wages of much less
sensors available that are not utilized or underutilized for biodiver- than one-­half (in the best cases) of usual open access fees. Last but
sity monitoring (Figure 3), partially due to its limited availability in not least, biodiversity monitoring and local communities suffer from
terms of coverage or costs. This is relevant for biodiversity monitor- colonialist practices identified also in the review, and practices like
ing, given the multiple dimensions and scales it encompasses, and “helicopter science” reduce the involvement with local communi-
the need for multiple sensor types to assess it. ties (e.g. co-­creation, knowledge exchange) and reinforce existing
Local capacity-­building in remote sensing tools and applications inequalities (Baker et al., 2019; Valenzuela-­Toro & Viglino, 2021)
provides the context on which stakeholders can work towards the by excluding their expertise, values, agency and governance of the
development of roadmaps for biodiversity monitoring. Such road- ecosystems.
maps can clearly identify stakeholders, ecosystems and connections Despite these barriers, there is a growing number of local re-
among them. They can inform further investments in research and searchers who advance the use of new technologies, and a myriad
institutions in a decentralized manner, in order to harness local ex- of local communities with diverse and long-­standing knowledge
pertise and ensure co-­creation practices for biodiversity monitoring and values around biodiversity (IPBES, 2022; Pascual et al., 2021;
(Mistry & Berardi, 2016). While not specific for biodiversity moni- Pratson et al., 2023). If we are to develop global (for all) effective bio-
toring, the Argentinian Space Agency (CONAE, https://​w ww.​argen​ diversity monitoring, this can only happen via pluralistic approaches
tina.​gob.​ar/​cienc​ia/​conae​) together with different universities from that promote capacity building, access to resources and anticolonial
Argentina offers basic and advanced remote sensing courses, diplo- practices. In the case of LAC, this is accomplished by creating and
mas, MSc and PhD programs that are open to all LAC countries. This strengthening LAC-­based researchers and stakeholders' networks
is a clear example of long-­term investment in capacity building and and the development of monitoring schemes that not only rely on
networking in remote sensing applications within the region, in a lim- one type of evidence but are open to pluralistic knowledge on bio-
ited resources context. diversity (see Trisos et al., 2021). The result will be schemes that can
robustly inform global assessments, and at the same time, support
the governance of local communities.
3.3 | Decolonized practices that promote access to
publishing outlets and pluralistic participation
3.4 | Development of within and among countries
LAC not only hosts 60% of the world's biodiversity; it also has an networks that facilitate exchange of knowledge and
enormous potential in terms of human capital, a capital that is often experiences
not included due to its diversity in terms of languages and knowl-
edge systems. Scientists from LAC countries as well as scientists At the global scale, GEO-­BON serves as an international consor-
in the Global South face a number of cumulative barriers to carry tium dedicated to standardizing the acquisition, coordination, and
out research. These include but are not limited to language, lack of delivery of biodiversity observations for all countries, aligning with
funding, poor infrastructure, low salaries, etc. For example, the first the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity as expressed in
eight global IPBES assessments had 96% of the references cited in the Global Biodiversity Framework. To fulfil the commitments of
English (Lynch et al., 2021), yet a revision that included all languages this international agreement, it is essential to collect reliable biodi-
found 35% of references in other languages that were excluded versity data to monitor and report on national progress. However,
(Amano et al., 2016). Limited financial resources also hinder scien- bridging the technical and infrastructure gaps between countries re-
tific advancement, namely costs in terms of time and money are mains a crucial challenge that requires attention. A notable example
45% higher when publishing for non-­native English speakers (Amano of a regional network is the MapBiomas project, which originated
et al., 2023) and there are large disparities in income and publication in Brazil with technical support from Google but received funding
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GARZON-­LOPEZ et al. 11

F I G U R E 7 Conceptual diagram of the general steps identified by GEOBON (Gonzalez et al., 2023), and the ways in which a LAC network
would accelerate the implementation of such multilevel framework for biodiversity monitoring. At the centre of the steps is the map of LAC
with its countries (black boundaries) and the bioregions in colour.

from various institutions. MapBiomas produced annual land cover where mobile networks and data costs limit its applicability (Hughes
maps for Brazil from 1985 to 2021. Furthermore, this initiative is et al., 2021).
expanding to include other countries such as Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Local networks at multiple levels can promote the local appro-
Argentina, Bolivia and more, with the ultimate goal of creating a priation of remote sensing data and methods, and ground-­based bio-
standardized annual land cover map for Latin America fostering local diversity data and monitoring, and build robust assessments based
capacities using the initial experience of Brazil. on shared expertise at the local and regional levels. A LAC network
There is slow progress and disconnection among researchers and has the potential to accelerate implementation at every step of
other stakeholders within LAC regarding the use of remote sensing the development of Biodiversity Observation Networks (Navarro
for biodiversity monitoring. This results in a mismatch in the local et al., 2017, Figure 7) and join forces in a global unified network (Kühl
agenda for biodiversity monitoring at multiple levels (e.g. communi- et al., 2020), but must be prioritized and developed to ensure ro-
ties, regions, countries), the global biodiversity monitoring priorities bustness, participation and interoperability in multiple contexts, and
and tools, and the agency and resources available for local research- informed by the local expertise and needs (Escobar, 1998).
ers. Such mismatch is not only identified in the appropriation of
technologies like remote sensing but also in the biases in ground
biodiversity data collection. One clear example, related to the un- 4 | CO N C LU S I O N S
even distribution of resources resulting in increasing inequalities, is
the case of citizen science mobile apps that have largely increased It cannot be stressed enough that Latin America and the Caribbean
the number of biodiversity observations globally, but at the same is a diverse and heterogeneous region with biodiversity and climate
time, have resulted in higher disparities in the amount of data col- change threats that vary from one ecosystem and social setting to
lected in regions with robust mobile networks compared to regions another. In this review we have explored the state-­of-­the-­art remote
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 GARZON-­LOPEZ et al.

(2021). Monitoring restored tropical forest diversity and struc-

sensing for biodiversity monitoring in LAC and identified its poten- ture through UAV-­borne hyperspectral and LiDAR fusion. Remote
tial and challenges in the region, as well as the gaps to be bridged in Sensing of Environment, 264, 112582. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rse.​
order to overcome them. 2021.​112582
Amano, T., González-­Varo, J. P., & Sutherland, W. J. (2016). Languages
Incorporating LAC into the global effort of biodiversity monitor-
are still a major barrier to global science. PLoS Biology, 14(12),
ing is essential for a comprehensive understanding of biodiversity
e2000933. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pbio.​2000933
patterns and trends on earth, but this effort has to prioritize the Amano, T., Ramírez-­C astañeda, V., Berdejo-­Espinola, V., Borokini, I.,
local. We suggest that, in order to further promote and implement Chowdhury, S., Golivets, M., González-­Trujillo, J. D., Montaño-­
the use of remote sensing for biodiversity monitoring in the region, Centellas, F., Paudel, K., White, R. L., & Veríssimo, D. (2023). The
manifold costs of being a non-­native English speaker in science.
it is critical for global organizations, local governments and socie-
PLoS Biology, 21(7), e3002184. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​
tal stakeholders to tackle these gaps and opportunities from a local pbio.​3 002184
perspective. The aim is to use remote sensing as a tool that mediates Anderson, C. B. (2018). Biodiversity monitoring, earth observations and
in the creation of capacities, networks and infrastructures in the the ecology of scale. Ecology Letters, 21(10), 1572–1585. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ele.​13106​
local context to ultimately answer the questions of what needs to be
Arellano, A. (2023). Killing of U.S. biologist adds to rising violence against
known and how, at the scales and operational levels that ultimately scientists in Mexico. Mongabay Environmental News. https://​news.​
result in sustainable management and conservation of biodiversity. monga​b ay.​com/​2 023/​0 8/​k illi​n g-­​of-­​u-­​s-­​biolo​g ist-­​adds-­​to-­​risin​g-­​
viole​nce-­​again​st-­​scien​tists​-­​in-­​mexico/​
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-­tool for comprehen-
AC K N O​W L E D
​ G E ​M E N T S
sive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–
We acknowledge the contributions of the Latin-­American research- 975. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​joi.​2017.​0 8.​0 07
ers that are represented in this study. We thank Prof. Anne Beaulieu Aschbacher, J., & Pérez, M. P. M. (2010). GMES—Status review and pol-
for the insights and comments on the manuscript. icy developments. In K.-­U. Schrogl, W. Rathgeber, B. Baranes, &
C. Venet (Eds.), Yearbook on space policy 2008/2009: Setting new
trends (pp. 188–207). Springer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-­​3-­​
F U N D I N G I N FO R M AT I O N 7091-­​0318-­​0_​6
Open Access funding enabled by University of Groningen. Asner, G. P. (2008). Hyperspectral remote sensing of canopy chem-
istry, physiology, and biodiversity in tropical rainforests. In
Hyperspectral remote sensing of tropical and sub-­tropical forests.
C O N FL I C T O F I N T E R E S T S TAT E M E N T
CRC Press.
None.
Asner, G. P. (2015). Organismic remote sensing for tropical forest ecol-
ogy and conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden,
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T 100(3), 127–140. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3 417/​2012016
The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the Asner, G. P., & Martin, R. E. (2009). Airborne spectranomics: Mapping
canopy chemical and taxonomic diversity in tropical forests.
supporting material of this article.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(5), 269–276. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1890/​070152
ORCID Asner, G. P., & Martin, R. E. (2016). Spectranomics: Emerging science and
Carol X. Garzon-­Lopez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4099-2740 conservation opportunities at the interface of biodiversity and re-
mote sensing. Global Ecology and Conservation, 8, 212–219. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gecco.​2016.​09.​010
REFERENCES Baker, K., Eichhorn, M. P., & Griffiths, M. (2019). Decolonizing field ecol-
Acebes, P., Lillo, P., & Jaime-­González, C. (2021). Disentangling LiDAR ogy. Biotropica, 51(3), 288–292. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​btp.​12663​
contribution in modelling species–habitat structure relationships in Baldeck, C. A., Asner, G. P., Martin, R. E., Anderson, C. B., Knapp, D. E.,
terrestrial ecosystems worldwide. A systematic review and future Kellner, J. R., & Wright, S. J. (2015). Operational tree species map-
directions. Remote Sensing, 13(17), Article 17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ ping in a diverse tropical forest with airborne imaging spectros-
3390/​rs131​73447​ copy. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0118403.
Aguirre-­Gutiérrez, J., WallisDeVries, M. F., Marshall, L., van't Zelfde, M., Balkenhol, N., Pardini, R., Cornelius, C., Fernandes, F., & Sommer, S.
Villalobos-­Arámbula, A. R., Boekelo, B., Bartholomeus, H., Franzén, (2013). Landscape-­level comparison of genetic diversity and differ-
M., & Biesmeijer, J. C. (2017). Butterflies show different func- entiation in a small mammal inhabiting different fragmented land-
tional and species diversity in relationship to vegetation structure scapes of the Brazilian atlantic forest. Conservation Genetics, 14(2),
and land use. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 26(10), 1126–1137. 355–367. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s1059​2-­​013-­​0454-­​2
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​geb.​12622​ Barrett, C. B., Travis, A. J., & Dasgupta, P. (2011). On biodiversity con-
Ahuatzin, D. A., Corro, E. J., Jaimes, A. A., Valenzuela González, J. E., servation and poverty traps. Proceedings of the National Academy
Feitosa, R. M., Ribeiro, M. C., Acosta, J. C. L., Coates, R., & Dáttilo, of Sciences, 108(34), 13907–13912. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​
W. (2019). Forest cover drives leaf litter ant diversity in primary 10115​21108​
rainforest remnants within human-­modified tropical landscapes. Bastos, R., Monteiro, A. T., Carvalho, D., Gomes, C., Travassos, P.,
Biodiversity and Conservation, 28(5), 1091–1107. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Honrado, J. P., Santos, M., & Cabral, J. A. (2016). Integrating land
1007/​s1053​1-­​019-­​01712​-­​z cover structure and functioning to predict biodiversity patterns: A
Almeida, D. R. A. D., Broadbent, E. N., Ferreira, M. P., Meli, P., Zambrano, hierarchical modelling framework designed for ecosystem manage-
A. M. A., Gorgens, E. B., Faria Resende, A., Torres de Almeida, C., ment. Landscape Ecology, 31(4), 701–710. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
Hummel do Amaral, C., Dalla Corte, A. P., Silva, C. A., Romanelli, s1098​0 -­​015-­​0302-­​5
J. P., Prata, G. A., de Almeida Papa, D., Stark, S. C., Valbuena, R., Beigel, F., & Digiampietri, L. (2023). The battle of the languages
Nelson, B. W., Guillemot, J., Féret, J.-­B., … Brancalion, P. H. S. in national publishing A comparative study of the publishing
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GARZON-­LOPEZ et al. 13

performance by cnpq (Brazil) and Conicet (Argentina). Tempo Coddington, C. P. J., Cooper, W. J., Mokross, K., & Luther, D. A. (2023).
Social, 34, 209–230. https://​d oi.​o rg/​10.​11606/​​0103-​2070.​t s.​ Forest structure predicts species richness and functional diversity
2022.​201819 in Amazonian mixed-­species bird flocks. Biotropica, 55(2), 467–479.
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Moreira-­Muñoz, A., Kolden, C. A., Chávez, R. O., https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​btp.​13201​
Muñoz, A. A., Salinas, F., González-­Reyes, Á., Rocco, R., De la Barrera, Collyns, D. (2023). Ecuadorians vote to halt oil drilling in biodiverse
F., Williamson, G. J., Borchers, N., Cifuentes, L. A., Abatzoglou, J. Amazonian national park. The Guardian. https://​w ww.​thegu​ardian.​
T., & Johnston, F. H. (2019). Human–environmental drivers and com/​w orld/​​2 023/​a ug/​21/​e cuad​o r-­​votes​-­​to-­​halt-­​oil-­​drill​i ng-­​in-­​
impacts of the globally extreme 2017 Chilean fires. Ambio, 48(4), amazo​nian-­​biodi​versi​t y-­​hotspot
350–362. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s1328​0 -­​018-­​1084-­​1 Coppo, P., Taiti, A., Pettinato, L., Francois, M., Taccola, M., & Drusch, M.
Brabant, C., Alvarez-­Vanhard, E., Laribi, A., Morin, G., Nguyen, K. T., (2017). Fluorescence imaging spectrometer (FLORIS) for ESA FLEX
Thomas, A., & Houet, T. (2019). Comparison of hyperspectral Mission. Remote Sensing, 9(7), Article 7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
techniques for urban tree diversity classification. Remote Sensing, rs907​0649
11(11), 1269. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​rs111​11269​ Cord, A. F., Klein, D., Gernandt, D. S., de la Rosa, J. A. P., & Dech, S.
Brown, J. L., Paz, A., Reginato, M., Renata, C. A., Assis, C., Lyra, M., (2014). Remote sensing data can improve predictions of species
Caddah, M. K., Aguirre-­Santoro, J., d'Horta, F., Raposo do Amaral, F., richness by stacked species distribution models: A case study for
Goldenberg, R., Silva-­Brandão, K. L., Lucci Freitas, A. V., Rodrigues, Mexican pines. Journal of Biogeography, 41(4), 736–748. https://​doi.​
M. T., Michelangeli, F. A., Miyaki, C. Y., & Carnaval, A. C. (2020). org/​10.​1111/​jbi.​12225​
Seeing the forest through many trees: Multi-­t axon patterns of Dannemann, V. (2019, May 31). Trabajo científico, amenazado en
phylogenetic diversity in the Atlantic Forest hotspot. Diversity and Venezuela. DW. https://​w ww.​dw.​com/​es/​traba​jo-­​cient%​C3%​
Distributions, 26(9), 1160–1176. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ddi.​13116​ ADfic​o-­​amena​zado-­​en-­​venez​uela/​a-­​48993670
Campos, V. E., Cappa, F. M., Gatica, G., & Campos, C. M. (2020). Drivers Deutsch, S., & Fletcher, R. (2022). The ‘Bolsonaro bridge’: Violence, vis-
of plant species richness and structure in dry woodland of Prosopis ibility, and the 2019 Amazon fires. Environmental Science & Policy,
flexuosa. Acta Oecologica, 109, 103654. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ 132, 60–68. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envsci.​2022.​02.​012
actao.​2020.​103654 Escobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, con-
Carpenter, S. R., De Fries, R., Dietz, T., Mooney, H. A., Polasky, S., Reid, servation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of
W. V., & Scholes, R. J. (2006). Millennium ecosystem assessment: Political Ecology, 5(1), Article 1. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2458/​v5i1.​21397​
Research needs. http://​resea​rchsp​ace.​c sir.​co.​za/​dspace/​handle/​ Fagua, J. C., Jantz, P., Burns, P., Massey, R., Buitrago, J. Y., Saatchi, S.,
10204/​​822 Hakkenberg, C., & Goetz, S. J. (2021). Mapping tree diversity in the
Cavender-­Bares, J., Schneider, F. D., Santos, M. J., Armstrong, A., tropical forest region of Chocó-­Colombia. Environmental Research
Carnaval, A., Dahlin, K. M., Fatoyinbo, L., Hurtt, G. C., Schimel, Letters, 16(5), abf58a. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1748-​9326/​abf58a
D., Townsend, P. A., Ustin, S. L., Wang, Z., & Wilson, A. M. (2022). FAO. (2014). Global forest resource assessment 2015, country report Chile.
Integrating remote sensing with ecology and evolution to advance Food and Agriculture Organization.
biodiversity conservation. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 6(5), Article 5. FAO. (2020). Evaluación de los recursos forestales mundiales 2020. FAO.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s 4155​9-­​022-­​01702​-­​5 https://​doi.​org/​10.​4 060/​c a8753es
CBD. (2023). Monitoring framework for the Kunming-­Montreal Global Gamon, J. A., Wang, R., Gholizadeh, H., Zutta, B., Townsend, P. A., &
Biodiversity Framework. Decision 15/5. https://​w ww.​cbd.​int/​doc/​ Cavender-­Bares, J. (2020). Consideration of scale in remote sensing
decis​ions/​cop-­​15/​cop-­​15-­​dec-­​05-­​en.​pdf of biodiversity. In J. Cavender-­Bares, J. A. Gamon, & P. A. Townsend
CBD Secretariat. (2022). Kunming-­Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. (Eds.), Remote sensing of plant biodiversity (pp. 425–447). Springer
CBD/COP/DEC/15/4. https://​w ww.​cbd.​int/​doc/​decis​ions/​cop-­​15/​ International Publishing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-­​3-­​030-­​
cop-­​15-­​dec-­​04-­​en.​pdf 33157​-­​3_​16
Ceballos, A., Hernández, J., Corvalán, P., & Galleguillos, M. (2015). Garzon-­Lopez, C. X., & Lasso, E. (2020). Species classification in a trop-
Comparison of airborne LiDAR and satellite hyperspectral remote ical alpine ecosystem using UAV-­borne RGB and hyperspectral
sensing to estimate vascular plant richness in deciduous mediter- imagery. Drones, 4(4), Article 4. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​drone​
ranean forests of central Chile. Remote Sensing, 7(3), 2692–2714. s4040069
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​rs703​02692​ Garzon-­Lopez, C. X., Jansen, P. A., Bohlman, S. A., Ordonez, A., & Olff,
Chase, J. M., McGill, B. J., Thompson, P. L., Antão, L. H., Bates, A. E., H. (2014). Effects of sampling scale on patterns of habitat associa-
Blowes, S. A., Dornelas, M., Gonzalez, A., Magurran, A. E., Supp, tion in tropical trees. Journal of Vegetation Science, 25(2), 349–362.
S. R., Winter, M., Bjorkman, A. D., Bruelheide, H., Byrnes, J. E. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jvs.​12090​
K., Cabral, J. S., Elahi, R., Gomez, C., Guzman, H. M., Isbell, F., … Gonzalez, A., Chase, J. M., & O'Connor, M. I. (2023). A framework for
O'Connor, M. (2019). Species richness change across spatial scales. the detection and attribution of biodiversity change. Philosophical
Oikos, 128(8), 1079–1091. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​oik.​05968​ Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378(1881),
Chrysafis, I., Korakis, G., Kyriazopoulos, A. P., & Mallinis, G. (2020). 20220182. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​rstb.​2022.​0182
Predicting tree species diversity using geodiversity and Sentinel-­2 Gonzalez, A., & Londoño, M. C. (2022). Monitor biodiversity for action.
multi-­seasonal spectral information. Sustainability, 12(21), Article Science, 378(6625), 1147. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​adg1506
21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su122​19250​ Hernandez-­Stefanoni, J. L. (2005). Relationships between landscape pat-
Chust, G., Chave, J., Condit, R., Aguilar, S., Lao, S., & Pérez, R. (2006). terns and species richness of trees, shrubs and vines in a tropical
Determinants and spatial modeling of tree β-­diversity in a tropi- forest. Plant Ecology, 179(1), 53–65. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s1125​
cal forest landscape in Panama. Journal of Vegetation Science, 17(1), 8-­​004-­​5776-­​1
83–92. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1658/​1100-­​9233(2006)​017[0083:​ Hernandez-­Stefanoni, J. L., Alberto Gallardo-­Cruz, J., Meave, J. A., &
DASMOT]​2.0.​CO;​2 Dupuy, J. M. (2011). Combining geostatistical models and remotely
Clerici, N., Armenteras, D., Kareiva, P., Botero, R., Ramírez-­Delgado, sensed data to improve tropical tree richness mapping. Ecological
J. P., Forero-­Medina, G., Ochoa, J., Pedraza, C., Schneider, L., Indicators, 11(5), 1046–1056. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecoli​nd.​
Lora, C., Gómez, C., Linares, M., Hirashiki, C., & Biggs, D. (2020). 2010.​11.​0 03
Deforestation in Colombian protected areas increased during post-­ Hernandez-­Stefanoni, J. L., Dupuy, J. M., Johnson, K. D., Birdsey, R.,
conflict periods. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 1. https://​doi.​org/​ Tun-­D zul, F., Peduzzi, A., Caamal-­S osa, J. P., Sánchez-­S antos,
10.​1038/​s 4159​8-­​020-­​61861​-­​y G., & López-­M erlín, D. (2014). Improving species diversity and
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14 GARZON-­LOPEZ et al.

biomass estimates of tropical dry forests using airborne LiDAR. teams have yet to bring comprehensive linguistic diversity to inter-
Remote Sensing, 6(6), 4741–4763. https://​d oi.​o rg/​10.​3 390/​r s606​ governmental ecosystem assessments. One Earth, 4(2), 269–278.
4741 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​oneear.​2021.​01.​0 02
Hughes, A. C., Orr, M. C., Ma, K., Costello, M. J., Waller, J., Provoost, P., McCarthy, E. D., Martin, J. M., Boer, M. M., & Welbergen, J. A. (2021).
Yang, Q., Zhu, C., & Qiao, H. (2021). Sampling biases shape our view Drone-­based thermal remote sensing provides an effective new
of the natural world. Ecography, 44(9), 1259–1269. https://​doi.​org/​ tool for monitoring the abundance of roosting fruit bats. Remote
10.​1111/​ecog.​05926​ Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 7(3), 461–474. https://​doi.​org/​
Ierodiaconou, D., Kennedy, D. M., Pucino, N., Allan, B. M., McCarroll, R. 10.​1002/​rse2.​202
J., Ferns, L. W., Carvalho, R. C., Sorrell, K., Leach, C., & Young, M. Mesa de conversaciones. (2016). Acuerdo final para la terminación del
(2022). Citizen science unoccupied aerial vehicles: A technique for conflicto y la construcción de una paz estable y duradera. https://​
advancing coastal data acquisition for management and research. www.​altoc​omisi​onado​paral​apaz.​gov.​co/​Docum​ents/​proce​so-­​paz-­​
Continental Shelf Research, 244, 104800. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ farc-­​acuer​do-­​final.​pdf#​search=​acuer​do%​20de%​20paz​
csr.​2022.​104800 Mikkelson, G. M., Gonzalez, A., & Peterson, G. D. (2007). Economic in-
IPBES. (2018). The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and equality predicts biodiversity loss. PLoS ONE, 2(5), e444. https://​
ecosystem services for the Americas. Zenodo. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​0 000444
5281/​zenodo.​3236253 Miranda, A., Altamirano, A., Cayuela, L., Lara, A., & González, M. (2017).
IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem ser- Native forest loss in the Chilean biodiversity hotspot: Revealing the
vices of the Intergovernmental Science-­Policy Platform on Biodiversity evidence. Regional Environmental Change, 17(1), 285–297. https://​
and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5281/​zenodo.​ doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s1011​3-­​016-­​1010-­​7
6417333 Miranda, A., Lara, A., Altamirano, A., Zamorano-­Elgueta, C., Hernández,
IPBES. (2022). Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment H. J., González, M. E., Pauchard, A., & Promis, Á. (2018). Monitoreo
of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental de la superficie de los bosques nativos de Chile: Un desafío pen-
science-­policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). diente. Bosque (Valdivia), 39(2), 265–275. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4 067/​
Zenodo. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5281/​zenodo.​7075892 S0717​-­​92002​01800​0200265
Isfandyari-­Moghaddam, A., Saberi, M. K., Tahmasebi-­Limoni, S., Mistry, J., & Berardi, A. (2016). Bridging indigenous and scientific knowl-
Mohammadian, S., & Naderbeigi, F. (2023). Global scientific col- edge. Science, 352(6291), 1274–1275. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​
laboration: A social network analysis and data mining of the co-­ scien​ce.​aaf1160
authorship networks. Journal of Information Science, 49(4), 1126– Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B.,
1141. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01655​51521​1040655 & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation prior-
Kühl, H. S., Bowler, D. E., Bösch, L., Bruelheide, H., Dauber, J., ities. Nature, 403(6772), Article 6772. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​
Eichenberg, D., Eisenhauer, N., Fernández, N., Guerra, C. A., Henle, 35002501
K., Herbinger, I., Isaac, N. J. B., Jansen, F., König-­Ries, B., Kuhn, I., Navarro, L. M., Fernández, N., Guerra, C., Guralnick, R., Kissling, W. D.,
Nilsen, E. B., Pe'er, G., Richter, A., Schulte, R., … Bonn, A. (2020). Londoño, M. C., Muller-­Karger, F., Turak, E., Balvanera, P., Costello,
Effective biodiversity monitoring needs a culture of integration. M. J., Delavaud, A., El Serafy, G. Y., Ferrier, S., Geijzendorffer, I.,
One Earth, 3(4), 462–474. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​oneear.​2020.​ Geller, G. N., Jetz, W., Kim, E.-­S., Kim, H., Martin, C. S., … Pereira, H.
09.​010 M. (2017). Monitoring biodiversity change through effective global
Kass, J. M., Vilela, B., Aiello-­L ammens, M. E., Muscarella, R., Merow, C., coordination. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 29,
& Anderson, R. P. (2018). Wallace: A flexible platform for reproduc- 158–169. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cosust.​2018.​02.​0 05
ible modeling of species niches and distributions built for commu- O'Dea, R. E., Lagisz, M., Jennions, M. D., Koricheva, J., Noble, D. W. A.,
nity expansion. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(4), 1151–1156. Parker, T. H., Gurevitch, J., Page, M. J., Stewart, G., Moher, D., &
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​2041-­​210X.​12945​ Nakagawa, S. (2021). Preferred reporting items for systematic re-
Laterra, P., Nahuelhual, L., Vallejos, M., Berrouet, L., Arroyo Pérez, E., views and meta-­analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: A
Enrico, L., Jiménez-­Sierra, C., Mejía, K., Meli, P., Rincón-­Ruíz, A., PRISMA extension. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical
Salas, D., Špirić, J., Villegas, J. C., & Villegas-­Palacio, C. (2019). Society, 96(5), 1695–1722. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​brv.​12721​
Linking inequalities and ecosystem services in Latin America. Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D.,
Ecosystem Services, 36, 100875. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecoser.​ Powell, G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D'amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand,
2018.​12.​0 01 H. E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H.,
Lausch, A., Heurich, M., Magdon, P., Rocchini, D., Schulz, K., Bumberger, Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., & Kassem, K.
J., & King, D. J. (2020). A range of earth observation techniques for R. (2001). Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on
assessing plant diversity. In J. Cavender-­Bares, J. A. Gamon, & P. A. earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an inno-
Townsend (Eds.), Remote sensing of plant biodiversity (pp. 309–348). vative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience, 51(11), 933–938.
Springer International Publishing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-­​3-­​ https://​d oi.​o rg/​10.​1641/​0 006-­​3568(2001)​0 51[0933:​T EOTWA]​
030-­​33157​-­​3_​13 2.0.​CO;​2
Lee, G., Hwang, J., & Cho, S. (2021). A novel index to detect vegeta- Opoku, A. (2019). Biodiversity and the built environment: Implications for
tion in urban areas using UAV-­based multispectral images. Applied the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Resources, Conservation
Sciences, 11(8), Article 8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​app11​0 83472 and Recycling, 141, 1–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​resco​nrec.​2018.​
Levin, S. A. (1992). The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: The 10.​011
Robert H. MacArthur award lecture. Ecology, 73(6), 1943–1967. Paruelo, J. M., Golluscio, R. A., Guerschman, J. P., Cesa, A., Jouve, V. V.,
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​1941447 & Garbulsky, M. F. (2004). Regional scale relationships between
Lopatin, J., Dolos, K., Hernández, H. J., Galleguillos, M., & Fassnacht, F. ecosystem structure and functioning: The case of the Patagonian
E. (2016). Comparing Generalized Linear Models and random for- steppes. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 13(5), 385–395. https://​
est to model vascular plant species richness using LiDAR data in a doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1466-­​822X.​2004.​0 0118.​x
natural forest in central Chile. Remote Sensing of Environment, 173, Pascual, U., Adams, W. M., Díaz, S., Lele, S., Mace, G. M., & Turnhout,
200–210. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rse.​2015.​11.​029 E. (2021). Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nature
Lynch, A. J., Fernandez-­Llamazares, A., Palomo, I., Mwampamba, T. H., Sustainability, 4(7), Article 7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s 4189​3-­​021-­​
Samakov, A., & Selomane, O. (2021). Culturally diverse expert 00694​-­​7
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GARZON-­LOPEZ et al. 15

Paz, A., Brown, J. L., Cordeiro, C. L. O., Aguirre-­Santoro, J., Assis, C., Remote Sensing of Environment, 296, 113734. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Amaro, R. C., Raposo do Amaral, F., Bochorny, T., Bacci, L. F., 1016/j.​rse.​2023.​113734
Caddah, M. K., d'Horta, F., Kaehler, M., Lyra, M., Grohmann, C. H., Ruiz, J., Fandiño, M. C., & Chazdon, R. L. (2005). Vegetation structure,
Reginato, M., Silva-­Brandão, K. L., Lucci Freitas, A. C., Goldenberg, composition, and species richness across a 56-­year chronose-
R., Lohmann, L. G., … Carnaval, A. C. (2021). Environmental cor- quence of dry tropical forest on Providencia Island, Colombia.
relates of taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity in the Atlantic Biotropica, 37(4), 520–530. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1744-­​7429.​
Forest. Journal of Biogeography, 48(6), 1377–1391. https://​doi.​org/​ 2005.​0 0070.​x
10.​1111/​jbi.​14083​ Sadeh, Y., Zhu, X., Dunkerley, D., Walker, J. P., Zhang, Y., Rozenstein, O.,
Peng, Y., Fan, M., Bai, L., Sang, W., Feng, J., Zhao, Z., & Tao, Z. (2019). Manivasagam, V. S., & Chenu, K. (2021). Fusion of Sentinel-­2 and
Identification of the best hyperspectral indices in estimating plant PlanetScope time-­series data into daily 3 m surface reflectance
species richness in sandy grasslands. Remote Sensing, 11(5), Article and wheat LAI monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth
5. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​rs110​50588​ Observation and Geoinformation, 96, 102260. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Petrou, Z. I., Manakos, I., & Stathaki, T. (2015). Remote sensing for biodi- 1016/j.​jag.​2020.​102260
versity monitoring: A review of methods for biodiversity indicator Sauls, L. A., Paneque-­Gálvez, J., Amador-­Jiménez, M., Vargas-­R amírez,
extraction and assessment of progress towards international tar- N., & Laumonier, Y. (2023). Drones, communities and nature:
gets. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(10), 2333–2363. https://​doi.​ Pitfalls and possibilities for conservation and territorial rights.
org/​10.​1007/​s1053​1-­​015-­​0947-­​z Global Social Challenges Journal, 2(1), 24–46. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Pettorelli, N., Wegmann, M., Skidmore, A., Mücher, S., Dawson, T. P., 1332/​A JHA9183
Fernandez, M., Lucas, R., Schaepman, M. E., Wang, T., O'Connor, Schulte to Bühne, H., & Pettorelli, N. (2018). Better together: Integrating
B., Jongman, R. H., Kempeneers, P., Sonnenschein, R., Leidner, A. and fusing multispectral and radar satellite imagery to inform bio-
K., Böhm, M., He, K. S., Nagendra, H., Dubois, G., Fatoyinbo, T., … diversity monitoring, ecological research and conservation science.
Geller, G. N. (2016). Framing the concept of satellite remote sensing Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 849–865. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
essential biodiversity variables: Challenges and future directions. 1111/​2041-­​210X.​12942​
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 2(3), 122–131. https://​ Skidmore, A. K., Coops, N. C., Neinavaz, E., Ali, A., Schaepman, M. E.,
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​rse2.​15 Paganini, M., Kissling, W. D., Vihervaara, P., Darvishzadeh, R.,
Pettorelli, N., Laurance, W. F., O'Brien, T. G., Wegmann, M., Nagendra, Feilhauer, H., Fernandez, M., Gorelick, N., Geijzendorffer, I., Heiden,
H., & Turner, W. (2014). Satellite remote sensing for applied ecol- U., Heurich, M., Hobern, D., Holzwarth, S., Muller-­Karger, F. E., Van
ogists: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Applied Ecology, De Kerchove, R., … Wingate, V. (2021). Priority list of biodiversity
51(4), 839–848. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1365-​2664.​12261​ metrics to observe from space. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 5(7),
Pratson, D. F., Adams, N., & Gould, R. K. (2023). Relational values of na- 896–906. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s 4155​9-­​021-­​01451​-­​x
ture in empirical research: A systematic review. People and Nature, Somers, B., Asner, G. P., Martin, R. E., Anderson, C. B., Knapp, D. E.,
5, 1464–1479. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pan3.​10512​ Wright, S. J., & Van De Kerchove, R. (2015). Mesoscale assessment
Proença, V., Martin, L. J., Pereira, H. M., Fernandez, M., McRae, L., of changes in tropical tree species richness across a bioclimatic
Belnap, J., Böhm, M., Brummitt, N., García-­Moreno, J., Gregory, R. gradient in Panama using airborne imaging spectroscopy. Remote
D., Honrado, J. P., Jürgens, N., Opige, M., Schmeller, D. S., Tiago, Sensing of Environment, 167, 111–120. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rse.​
P., & van Swaay, C. A. M. (2017). Global biodiversity monitoring: 2015.​0 4.​016
From data sources to essential biodiversity variables. Biological Thompson, P. L., Kéfi, S., Zelnik, Y. R., Dee, L. E., Wang, S., de Mazancourt,
Conservation, 213(B), 256–263. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biocon.​ C., Loreau, M., & Gonzalez, A. (2021). Scaling up biodiversity–eco-
2016.​07.​014 system functioning relationships: The role of environmental het-
Ramírez-­Barahona, S., Cuervo-­Robayo, A. P., & Magallón, S. (2023). erogeneity in space and time. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Assessing digital accessible botanical knowledge and priorities for Biological Sciences, 288(1946), 20202779. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​
exploration and discovery of plant diversity across Mesoamerica. rspb.​2020.​2779
New Phytologist, 240, 1659–1672. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​nph.​ Treitler, J. T., Heim, O., Tschapka, M., & Jung, K. (2016). The effect of
19190​ local land use and loss of forests on bats and nocturnal insects.
Reddy, C. S. (2021). Remote sensing of biodiversity: What to measure Ecology and Evolution, 6(13), 4289–4297. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​
and monitor from space to species? Biodiversity and Conservation, ece3.​2160
30(10), 2617–2631. https://​d oi.​o rg/​10.​1007/​s1053​1-­​021-­​02216​ Trisos, C. H., Auerbach, J., & Katti, M. (2021). Decoloniality and anti-­
-­​5 oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nature Ecology
Rey-­Benayas, J. M., & Pope, K. O. (1995). Landscape ecology and di- & Evolution, 5(9), Article 9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s 4155​9-­​021-­​
versity patterns in the seasonal tropics from Landsat TM imagery. 01460​-­​w
Ecological Applications, 5(2), 386–394. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​ UNEP-­WCMC. (2016). The state of biodiversity in Latin America and the
1942029 Caribbean: A mid-­term review of progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity
Rocchini, D., Hernandez-­Stefanoni, J. L., & He, K. S. (2015). Advancing Targets. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
species diversity estimate by remotely sensed proxies: A concep- UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Science Report 2021: The Race Against Time for
tual review. Ecological Informatics, 25, 22–28. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Smarter Development. United Nations. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18356/​​
1016/j.​ecoinf.​2014.​10.​0 06 97892​10058575
Rocchini, D., Salvatori, N., Beierkuhnlein, C., Chiarucci, A., de Boissieu, F., Urbina-­C ardona, N., Blair, M. E., Londoño, M. C., Loyola, R., Velásquez-­
Förster, M., Garzon-­Lopez, C. X., Gillespie, T. W., Hauffe, H. C., He, Tibatá, J., & Morales-­Devia, H. (2019). Species distribution mod-
K. S., Kleinschmit, B., Lenoir, J., Malavasi, M., Moudrý, V., Nagendra, eling in Latin America: A 25-­year retrospective review. Tropical
H., Payne, D., Šímová, P., Torresani, M., Wegmann, M., & Féret, J.-­B. Conservation Science, 12, 1940082919854058. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
(2021). From local spectral species to global spectral communities: 1177/​19400​82919​854058
A benchmark for ecosystem diversity estimate by remote sensing. Valenzuela-­Toro, A. M., & Viglino, M. (2021). It's time to tackle the cumu-
Ecological Informatics, 61, 101195. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecoinf.​ lative barriers in science. Nature, 598(7880), 374–375. https://​doi.​
2020.​101195 org/​10.​1038/​d4158​6-­​021-­​02601​-­​8
Rossi, C., & Gholizadeh, H. (2023). Uncovering the hidden: Leveraging Velusamy, P., Rajendran, S., Mahendran, R. K., Naseer, S., Shafiq, M., &
sub-­pixel spectral diversity to estimate plant diversity from space. Choi, J.-­G . (2022). Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) in precision
 |

14668238, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13804 by Cochrane Chile, Wiley Online Library on [29/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
16 GARZON-­LOPEZ et al.

agriculture: Applications and challenges. Energies, 15(1), Article 1.

https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en150​10217​ B I O S K E TC H
Wade, L. (2018). Colombian scientists race to study once-­forbidden ter-
ritory before it is lost to development—Or new conflict. Science. The research team consists of ecologists with ample expertise in
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​aat9905
remote sensing applications on areas of disease, landscape, bio-
Wang, R., & Gamon, J. A. (2019). Remote sensing of terrestrial plant bio-
diversity and fire ecology from various countries in Latin America
diversity. Remote Sensing of Environment, 231, 111218. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​rse.​2019.​111218 and Europe, and with shared interests in biodiversity monitoring
Westman, W. E., Strong, L. L., & Wilcox, B. A. (1989). Tropical defor- and conservation.
estation and species endangerment: The role of remote sensing.
Landscape Ecology, 3(2), 97–109. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF001​
S U P P O R T I N G I N FO R M AT I O N
31173​
Williams, J. W., Taylor, A., Tolley, K. A., Provete, D. B., Correia, R., Guedes, Additional supporting information can be found online in the
T. B., Farooq, H., Li, Q., Pinheiro, H. T., Vincete Liz, A., Luna, L. W., Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
Matthews, T. J., Palmeirim, A. F., Puglielli, G., Rivadeneira, M. M.,
Robin, V. V., Schrader, J., Shestakova, T. A., Tukiainen, H., … Zizka,
A. (2023). Shifts to open access with high article processing charges
hinder research equity and careers. Journal of Biogeography, 50,
How to cite this article: Garzon-­Lopez, C. X., Miranda, A.,
1485–1489. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jbi.​14697​
Wu, Z., Zhang, C., Gu, X., Duporge, I., Hughey, L. F., Stabach, J. A., Moya, D., & Andreo, V. (2024). Remote sensing biodiversity
Skidmore, A. K., Hopcraft, J. G. C., Lee, S. J., Atkinson, P. M., monitoring in Latin America: Emerging need for sustained
McCauley, D. J., Lamprey, R., Ngene, S., & Wang, T. (2023). Deep local research and regional collaboration to achieve global
learning enables satellite-­based monitoring of large populations
goals. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 00, 1–16. https://doi.
of terrestrial mammals across heterogeneous landscape. Nature
Communications, 14(1), Article 1. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s 4146​7-­​ org/10.1111/geb.13804
023-­​38901​-­​y