@article{fdi:010082290,
  title = {{G}lobal tropical dry forest extent and cover : a comparative study of bioclimatic definitions using two climatic data sets},
  author = {{O}con, {J}. {P}. and {I}banez, {T}homas and {F}ranklin, {J}. and {P}au, {S}. and {K}eppel, {G}. and {R}ivas-{T}orres, {G}. and {S}hin, {M}. {E}. and {G}illespie, {T}. {W}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{T}here is a debate concerning the definition and extent of tropical dry forest biome and vegetation type at a global spatial scale. {W}e identify the potential extent of the tropical dry forest biome based on bioclimatic definitions and climatic data sets to improve global estimates of distribution, cover, and change. {W}e compared four bioclimatic definitions of the tropical dry forest biome-{M}urphy and {L}ugo, {F}ood and {A}griculture {O}rganization ({FAO}), {D}ry{F}lor, aridity index-using two climatic data sets: {W}orld{C}lim and {C}limatologies at {H}igh-resolution for the {E}arth's {L}and {S}urface {A}reas ({CHELSA}). {W}e then compared each of the eight unique combinations of bioclimatic definitions and climatic data sets using 540 field plots identified as tropical dry forest from a literature search and evaluated the accuracy of {W}orld {W}ildlife {F}und tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forest ecoregions. {W}e used the definition and climate data that most closely matched field data to calculate forest cover in 2000 and change from 2001 to 2020. {G}lobally, there was low agreement (< 58%) between bioclimatic definitions and {WWF} ecoregions and only 40% of field plots fell within these ecoregions. {FAO} using {CHELSA} had the highest agreement with field plots (81%) and was not correlated with the biome extent. {U}sing the {FAO} definition with {CHELSA} climatic data set, we estimate 4,931,414 km(2) of closed canopy (<greater than or equal to> 40% forest cover) tropical dry forest in 2000 and 4,369,695 km(2) in 2020 with a gross loss of 561,719 km(2) (11.4%) from 2001 to 2020. {T}ropical dry forest biome extent varies significantly based on bioclimatic definition used, with nearly half of all tropical dry forest vegetation missed when using ecoregion boundaries alone, especially in {A}frica. {U}sing site-specific field validation, we find that the {FAO} definition using {CHELSA} provides an accurate, standard, and repeatable way to assess tropical dry forest cover and change at a global scale.},
  keywords = {{AFRIQUE} ; {AMERIQUE} ; {ASIE} {DU} {SUD} ; {PACIFIQUE} ; {ZONE} {TROPICALE} ; {ZONE} {ARIDE}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{PL}o{S} {O}ne},
  volume = {16},
  numero = {5},
  pages = {e0252063 [20 p.]},
  ISSN = {1932-6203},
  year = {2021},
  DOI = {10.1371/journal.pone.0252063},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010082290},
}