Spatiotemporal ecological modelling of terrestrial ecosystems relies on climatological and biophysical Earth observations. Due to their increasing availability, global coverage, frequent acquisition and high spatial resolution, satellite remote sensing (SRS) products are frequently integrated to in situ data in the development of ecosystem models (EMs) quantifying the interaction among the vegetation component and the hydrological, energy and nutrient cycles. This review highlights the main advances achieved in the last decade in combining SRS data with EMs, with particular attention to the challenges modellers face for applications at local scales (e.g. small watersheds). We critically review the literature on progress made towards integration of SRS data into terrestrial EMs: (1) as input to define model drivers; (2) as reference to validate model results; and (3) as a tool to sequentially update the state variables, and to quantify and reduce model uncertainty. The number of applications provided in the literature shows that EMs may profit greatly from the inclusion of spatial parameters and forcings provided by vegetation and climatic‐related SRS products. Limiting factors for the application of such models to local scales are: (1) mismatch between the resolution of SRS products and model grid; (2) unavailability of specific products in free and public online repositories; (3) temporal gaps in SRS data; and (4) quantification of model and measurement uncertainties. This review provides examples of possible solutions adopted in recent literature, with particular reference to the spatiotemporal scales of analysis and data accuracy. We propose that analysis methods such as stochastic downscaling techniques and multi‐sensor/multi‐platform fusion approaches are necessary to improve the quality of SRS data for local applications. Moreover, we suggest coupling models with data assimilation techniques to improve their forecast abilities. This review encourages the use of SRS data in EMs for local applications, and underlines the necessity for a closer collaboration among EM developers and remote sensing scientists. With more upcoming satellite missions, especially the Sentinel platforms, concerted efforts to further integrate SRS into modelling are in great demand and these types of applications will certainly proliferate.

The use of Pseudoinvariant Areas (PIA) makes it possible to carry out a reasonably robust and automatic radiometric correction for long time series of remote sensing imagery, as shown in previous studies for large data sets of Landsat MSS, TM, and ETM+ imagery. In addition, they can be employed to obtain more coherence among remote sensing data from different sensors. The present work validates the use of PIA for the radiometric correction of pairs of images acquired almost simultaneously (Landsat-7 (ETM+) or Landsat-8 (OLI) and Sentinel-2A (MSI)). Four pairs of images from a region in SW Spain, corresponding to four different dates, together with field spectroradiometry measurements collected at the time of satellite overpass were used to evaluate a PIA-based radiometric correction. The results show a high coherence between sensors (r² = 0.964) and excellent correlations to in-situ data for the MiraMon implementation (r² > 0.9). Other methodological alternatives, ATCOR3 (ETM+, OLI, MSI), SAC-QGIS (ETM+, OLI, MSI), 6S-LEDAPS (ETM+), 6S-LaSRC (OLI), and Sen2Cor-SNAP (MSI), were also evaluated. Almost all of them, except for SAC-QGIS, provided similar results to the proposed PIA-based approach. Moreover, as the PIA-based approach can be applied to almost any image (even to images lacking of extra atmospheric information), it can also be used to solve the robust integration of data from new platforms, such as Landsat-8 or Sentinel-2, to enrich global data acquired since 1972 in the Landsat program. It thus contributes to the program’s continuity, a goal of great interest for the environmental, scientific, and technical community.

In Europe and elsewhere, agri‐environmental schemes (AES) are designed to reduce agriculture's impacts on the environment. Designing effective schemes requires an understanding of the reasons that drive farmers' decisions whether to adopt AES. Currently, most insights come from individual case studies or structured surveys based on predefined questions. There is a paucity of studies that do not rely on rigid preconceptions about relevant behavioural factors while also offering a geographically and socio‐culturally broad perspective that can address the cultural and institutional context‐specificity of behavioural studies. Also, most studies focus on the adoption decision, while implementation decisions and their consequences for the ecological effectiveness of AES remain understudied. In this article, we present the results from semi‐structured farmer interviews conducted in five agricultural landscapes across Europe. The results are used to uncover reasons for AES adoption as well as the implications of AES implementation decisions for their ecological effectiveness. The main reason for AES adoption that was common across case study regions is the interplay of opportunity costs and payment levels, which has negative implications for the ecological effectiveness of AES as farmers prioritized marginal land or adopted non‐additional AES. Among reasons that vary across regions, tenure relations and the role of ecological reasoning stand out. We find that AES are unlikely to trigger broader shifts towards sustainable management but there is some potential for improvement, mainly by increasing the flexibility, spatial targeting and ecological ambition of the schemes. Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.

In recent years, researchers of different communities have increased their efforts in formalizing a set of measurements regularly collected for analysing changes in Drivers, States, Impacts and Responses of a given discipline. In some cases, different actors have converged in a minimum set of Essential Variables (EVs), such as for Climate, Biodiversity or Oceans. The definition of such EVs is an ongoing evolution and in extension (e.g. EVs for water) although some communities have not even started (e.g. agriculture and energy). This paper characterizes the Earth Observation (EO) networks and creates a graph representation of their relations. Secondly, this graph is enriched with the EVs produced by each network creating a knowledge base. Finally, an effort has been done to identify links between EVs and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) indicators in a way that they indirectly connect the EO. An analysis to detect gaps in EO variables due to a lack of observational networks is performed. Several suggestions for improving SDG indicators framework by considering EVs are exposed, as well as proposing new necessary EVs and suggesting new EO based indicators. The complete graph is available in the ENEON website (http://www.eneon.net/graph-ev-sdg/).