Tracking cropland transitions: A comparative analysis of U.S. land cover change data
There are a growing number of land cover data available for the conterminous United States, supporting various applications ranging from biofuel regulatory decisions to habitat conservation assessments. These datasets vary in their source information, frequency of data collection and reporting, land class definitions, categorical detail, and spatial scale and time intervals of representation. These differences limit direct comparison, contribute to disagreements among studies, confuse stakeholders, and hamper our ability to confidently report key land cover trends in the U.S. Here we assess changes in cropland derived from the Land Change Monitoring, Assessment, and Projection (LCMAP) dataset from the U.S. Geological Survey and compare them with analyses of three established land cover datasets across the coterminous U.S. from 2008-2017: (1) the National Resources Inventory (NRI), (2) a dataset Lark et al. 2020 derived from the Cropland Data Layer (CDL), and (3) a dataset from Potapov et al. 2022. LCMAP reports more stable cropland and less stable noncropland in all comparisons, likely due to its more expansive definition of cropland which includes managed grasslands (pasture and hay). Despite these differences, net cropland expansion from all four datasets was comparable (5.18-6.33 million acres), although the geographic extent and type of conversion differed. LCMAP projected the largest cropland expansion in the southern Great Plains, whereas other datasets projected the largest expansion in the northwestern and central Midwest. Most of the pixel-level disagreements (86%) between LCMAP and Lark et al. 2020 were due to definitional differences among datasets, whereas the remainder (14%) were from a variety of causes. Cropland expansion in the LCMAP likely reflects conversions of more natural areas, whereas cropland expansion in other data sources also captures conversion of managed pasture to cropland. The particular research question considered (e.g., habitat versus soil carbon) should influence which data source is more appropriate.