Remote sensing, or Earth Observation (EO), is increasingly used to understand Earth system dynamics and create continuous and categorical maps of biophysical properties and land cover, especially based on recent advances in machine learning (ML). ML models typically require large, spatially explicit training datasets to make accurate predictions. Training data (TD) are typically generated by digitizing polygons on high spatial-resolution imagery, by collecting in situ data, or by using pre-existing datasets. TD are often assumed to accurately represent the truth, but in practice almost always have error, stemming from (1) sample design, and (2) sample collection errors. The latter is particularly relevant for image-interpreted TD, an increasingly commonly used method due to its practicality and the increasing training sample size requirements of modern ML algorithms. TD errors can cause substantial errors in the maps created using ML algorithms, which may impact map use and interpretation. Despite these potential errors and their real-world consequences for map-based decisions, TD error is often not accounted for or reported in EO research. Here we review the current practices for collecting and handling TD. We identify the sources of TD error, and illustrate their impacts using several case studies representing different EO applications (infrastructure mapping, global surface flux estimates, and agricultural monitoring), and provide guidelines for minimizing and accounting for TD errors. To harmonize terminology, we distinguish TD from three other classes of data that should be used to create and assess ML models: training reference data, used to assess the quality of TD during data generation; validation data, used to iteratively improve models; and map reference data, used only for final accuracy assessment. We focus primarily on TD, but our advice is generally applicable to all four classes, and we ground our review in established best practices for map accuracy assessment literature. EO researchers should start by determining the tolerable levels of map error and appropriate error metrics. Next, TD error should be minimized during sample design by choosing a representative spatio-temporal collection strategy, by using spatially and temporally relevant imagery and ancillary data sources during TD creation, and by selecting a set of legend definitions supported by the data. Furthermore, TD error can be minimized during the collection of individual samples by using consensus-based collection strategies, by directly comparing interpreted training observations against expert-generated training reference data to derive TD error metrics, and by providing image interpreters with thorough application-specific training. We strongly advise that TD error is incorporated in model outputs, either directly in bias and variance estimates or, at a minimum, by documenting the sources and implications of error. TD should be fully documented and made available via an open TD repository, allowing others to replicate and assess its use. To guide researchers in this process, we propose three tiers of TD error accounting standards. Finally, we advise researchers to clearly communicate the magnitude and impacts of TD error on map outputs, with specific consideration given to the likely map audience.

Remote sensing (RS) and Geographic Information Systems (GISs) provide significant opportunities for monitoring and managing natural resources across various temporal, spectral, and spatial resolutions. There is a critical need for natural resource managers to understand the expanding capabilities of image sources, analysis techniques, and in situ validation methods. This article reviews key image analysis tools in natural resource management, highlighting their unique strengths across diverse applications such as agriculture, forestry, water resources, soil management, and natural hazard monitoring. Google Earth Engine (GEE), a cloud-based platform introduced in 2010, stands out for its vast geospatial data catalog and scalability, making it ideal for global-scale analysis and algorithm development. ENVI, known for advanced multi- and hyperspectral image processing, excels in vegetation monitoring, environmental analysis, and feature extraction. ERDAS IMAGINE specializes in radar data analysis and LiDAR processing, offering robust classification and terrain analysis capabilities. Global Mapper is recognized for its versatility, supporting over 300 data formats and excelling in 3D visualization and point cloud processing, especially in UAV applications. eCognition leverages object-based image analysis (OBIA) to enhance classification accuracy by grouping pixels into meaningful objects, making it effective in environmental monitoring and urban planning. Lastly, QGIS integrates these remote sensing tools with powerful spatial analysis functions, supporting decision-making in sustainable resource management. Together, these tools when paired with in situ data provide comprehensive solutions for managing and analyzing natural resources across scales.

Forest fragmentation is ubiquitous across urban and rural areas. While there is mounting evidence that forest fragmentation alters the terrestrial carbon cycle, the extent to which differences in ambient growing conditions between urban and rural landscapes mediate forest response to fragmentation and climate remains unexamined. This study integrates field measurements of forest structure, growth, and soil respiration with climate data and high-resolution land-cover maps to quantify forest carbon storage and sequestration patterns along edge-to-interior gradients. These data were used to contrast the response of temperate broadleaf forests to non-forest edges within rural and urban landscapes. We find that forest growth rates in both rural and urban landscapes nearly double from the forest interior to edge. Additionally, these edge-induced enhancements in forest growth are not offset by concurrent increases in total soil respiration observed across our sites. Forest productivity generally increases near edges because of increases in leaf area, but elevated air temperature at the edge tempers this response and imparts greater sensitivity of forest growth to heat. In particular, the adverse impacts of heat on forest growth are two to three times larger in urban than rural landscapes. We demonstrate that the highly fragmented nature of urban forests compared to rural forests makes them a stronger carbon sink per unit area, but also much more vulnerable to a warming climate. Collectively, our results highlight the need to include the effects of both urbanization and fragmentation when quantifying regional carbon balance and its response to a changing climate.