A 30-year series of global monthly Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) imagery derived from the Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies (GIMMS) NDVI3g archive was analyzed for the presence of trends in changing seasonality. Using the Seasonal Trend Analysis (STA) procedure, over half (56.30%) of land surfaces were found to exhibit significant trends. Almost half (46.10%) of the significant trends belonged to three classes of seasonal trends (or changes). Class 1 consisted of areas that experienced a uniform increase in NDVI throughout the year, and was primarily associated with forested areas, particularly broadleaf forests. Class 2 consisted of areas experiencing an increase in the amplitude of the annual seasonal signal whereby increases in NDVI in the green season were balanced by decreases in the brown season. These areas were found primarily in grassland and shrubland regions. Class 3 was found primarily in the Taiga and Tundra biomes and exhibited increases in the annual summer peak in NDVI. While no single attribution of cause could be determined for each of these classes, it was evident that they are primarily found in natural areas (as opposed to anthropogenic land cover conversions) and that they are consistent with climate-related ameliorations of growing conditions during the study period.

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.

Land change models commonly model the expected quantity of change as a Markov chain. Markov transition probabilities can be estimated by tabulating the relative frequency of change for all transitions between two dates. To estimate the appropriate transition probability matrix for any future date requires the determination of an annualized matrix through eigendecomposition followed by matrix powering. However, the technique yields multiple solutions, commonly with imaginary parts and negative transitions, and possibly with no non-negative real stochastic matrix solution. In addition, the computational burden of the procedure makes it infeasible for practical use with large problems. This paper describes a Regression-Based Markov (RBM) approximation technique based on quadratic regression of individual transitions that is shown to always yield stochastic matrices, with very low error characteristics. Using land cover data for the 48 conterminous US states, median errors in probability for the five states with the highest rates of transition were found to be less than 0.00001 and the maximum error of 0.006 was of the same order of magnitude experienced by the commonly used compromise of forcing small negative transitions estimated by eigendecomposition to 0. Additionally, the technique can solve land change modeling problems of any size with extremely high computational efficiency.