Literature DB >> 16485162

Measuring plant cover in sagebrush steppe rangelands: a comparison of methods.

Steven S Seefeldt1, D Terrance Booth.   

Abstract

Methods that are more cost-effective and objective are needed to detect important vegetation change within acceptable error rates. The objective of this research was to compare visual estimation to three new methods for determining vegetation cover in the sagebrush steppe. Fourteen management units at the US Sheep Experiment Station were identified for study. In each unit, 20 data collection points were selected for measuring plant cover using visual estimation, laser-point frame (LPF), 2 m above-ground-level (AGL) digital imagery, and 100-m AGL digital imagery. In 11 of 14 management units, determinations of vegetation cover differed (P < 0.05). However, when combined, overall determinations of vegetation cover did not differ. Standard deviation, corrected sums of squares, coefficient of variation, and standard error for the 100 m AGL method were half as large as for the LPF and less than the 2-m AGL and visual estimate. For the purpose of measuring plant cover, all three new methods are as good as or better than visual estimation for speed, standard deviation, and cost. The acquisition of a permanent image of a location is an important advantage of the 2 and 100 m AGL methods because vegetation can be reanalyzed using improved software or to answer different questions, and changes in vegetation over time can be more accurately determined. The reduction in cost per sample, the increased speed of sampling, and the smaller standard deviation associated with the 100-m AGL digital imagery are compelling arguments for adopting this vegetation sampling method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16485162     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-005-0016-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.644


  1 in total

1.  Precision measurements from very-large scale aerial digital imagery.

Authors:  D Terrance Booth; Samuel E Cox; Robert D Berryman
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.513

  1 in total
  4 in total

1.  Ground-cover measurements: assessing correlation among aerial and ground-based methods.

Authors:  D Terrance Booth; Samuel E Cox; Tim Meikle; Hans R Zuuring
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2008-04-30       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Integrating drone imagery with existing rangeland monitoring programs.

Authors:  Jeffrey K Gillan; Jason W Karl; Willem J D van Leeuwen
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Carbon fluxes in ecosystems of Yellowstone National Park predicted from remote sensing data and simulation modeling.

Authors:  Christopher Potter; Steven Klooster; Robert Crabtree; Shengli Huang; Peggy Gross; Vanessa Genovese
Journal:  Carbon Balance Manag       Date:  2011-08-11

4.  The roles of dimensionality, canopies and complexity in ecosystem monitoring.

Authors:  Christopher H R Goatley; David R Bellwood
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.