Literature DB >> 18446407

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

D Terrance Booth1, Samuel E Cox, Tim Meikle, Hans R Zuuring.   

Abstract

Wyoming's Green Mountain Common Allotment is public land providing livestock forage, wildlife habitat, and unfenced solitude, amid other ecological services. It is also the center of ongoing debate over USDI Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) adjudication of land uses. Monitoring resource use is a BLM responsibility, but conventional monitoring is inadequate for the vast areas encompassed in this and other public-land units. New monitoring methods are needed that will reduce monitoring costs. An understanding of data-set relationships among old and new methods is also needed. This study compared two conventional methods with two remote sensing methods using images captured from two meters and 100 meters above ground level from a camera stand (a ground, image-based method) and a light airplane (an aerial, image-based method). Image analysis used SamplePoint or VegMeasure software. Aerial methods allowed for increased sampling intensity at low cost relative to the time and travel required by ground methods. Costs to acquire the aerial imagery and measure ground cover on 162 aerial samples representing 9000 ha were less than $3000. The four highest correlations among data sets for bare ground--the ground-cover characteristic yielding the highest correlations (r)--ranged from 0.76 to 0.85 and included ground with ground, ground with aerial, and aerial with aerial data-set associations. We conclude that our aerial surveys are a cost-effective monitoring method, that ground with aerial data-set correlations can be equal to, or greater than those among ground-based data sets, and that bare ground should continue to be investigated and tested for use as a key indicator of rangeland health.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18446407     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-008-9110-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  3 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

2.  Point sampling digital imagery with 'SamplePoint'.

Authors:  D Terrance Booth; Samuel E Cox; Robert D Berryman
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.513

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

Authors:  Steven S Seefeldt; D Terrance Booth
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.644

  3 in total
  4 in total

1.  Feature extraction techniques for measuring piñon and juniper tree cover and density, and comparison with field-based management surveys.

Authors:  Matthew D Madsen; Daniel L Zvirzdin; Bracken D Davis; Steven L Petersen; Bruce A Roundy
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Detecting black bear source-sink dynamics using individual-based genetic graphs.

Authors:  Hope M Draheim; Jennifer A Moore; Dwayne Etter; Scott R Winterstein; Kim T Scribner
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  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.  Moving to 3D: relationships between coral planar area, surface area and volume.

Authors:  Jenny E House; Viviana Brambilla; Luc M Bidaut; Alec P Christie; Oscar Pizarro; Joshua S Madin; Maria Dornelas
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 2.984

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.