Literature DB >> 16001713

The impact of landsat satellite monitoring on conservation biology.

Peter Leimgruber1, Catherine A Christen, Alison Laborderie.   

Abstract

Landsat 7's recent malfunctioning will result in significant gaps in long-term satellite monitoring of Earth, affecting not only the research of the Earth science community but also conservation users of these data. To determine whether or how important Landsat monitoring is for conservation and natural resource management, we reviewed the Landsat program's history with special emphasis on the development of user groups. We also conducted a bibliographic search to determine the extent to which conservation research has been based on Landsat data. Conservation biologists were not an early user group of Landsat data because a) biologists lacked technical capacity--computers and software--to analyze these data; b) Landsat's 1980s commercialization rendered images too costly for biologists' budgets; and c) the broad-scale disciplines of conservation biology and landscape ecology did not develop until the mid-to-late 1980s. All these conditions had changed by the 1990s and Landsat imagery became an important tool for conservation biology. Satellite monitoring and Landsat continuity are mandated by the Land Remote Sensing Act of 1992. This legislation leaves open commercial options. However, past experiments with commercial operations were neither viable nor economical, and severely reduced the quality of monitoring, archiving and data access for academia and the public. Future satellite monitoring programs are essential for conservation and natural resource management, must provide continuity with Landsat, and should be government operated.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16001713     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-005-0763-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  5 in total

1.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.

Authors:  N Myers; R A Mittermeier; C G Mittermeier; G A da Fonseca; J Kent
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-02-24       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Climatic impact of tropical lowland deforestation on nearby montane cloud forests.

Authors:  R O Lawton; U S Nair; R A Pielke; R M Welch
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-10-19       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988.

Authors:  D Skole; C Tucker
Journal:  Science       Date:  1993-06-25       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  The future of biodiversity.

Authors:  S L Pimm; G J Russell; J L Gittleman; T M Brooks
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-07-21       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Surface albedo and desertification.

Authors:  R D Jackson; S B Idso; J Otterman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1975-09-19       Impact factor: 47.728

  5 in total
  2 in total

1.  Geospatial approaches to characterizing agriculture in the Chincoteague Bay subbasin.

Authors:  Frederick W Kutz; John M Morgan; Jeremy Monn; Chad P Petrey
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Modelling Spatial and Temporal Forest Cover Change Patterns (1973-2020): A Case Study from South Western Ghats (India).

Authors:  Amarnath Giriraj; Mohammed Irfan-Ullah; Manchi Sri Ramachandra Murthy; Carl Beierkuhnlein
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 3.576

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.