| Literature DB >> 27879833 |
Alkan Günlü1, Emin Zeki Baskent2, Ali İhsan Kadiogullari3, İlker Ercanli4.
Abstract
Determining the productivity of forest sites through various classification techniques is important for making appropriate forest management decisions. Forest sites were classified using direct and indirect (site index) and remote sensing (Landsat 7 ETM and Quickbird satellite image) methods. In the direct method, forest site classifications were assigned according to edafic (soil properties), climate (precipitation and temperature) and topographic (altitude, slope, aspect and landform) factors. Five different forest site classes (dry, moderate fresh, fresh, moist and highly moist) were determined. In the indirect method, the guiding curve was used to generate anamorphic site index (SI) equations resulting in three classes; good (SI=I-II), medium (SI=III) and poor (SI=IV-V). Forest sites were also determined with a remote sensing method (RSM) using supervised classification of Landsat 7 ETM and Quickbird satellite images with a 0.67 kappa statistic value and 73.3% accuracy assessments; 0.88 kappa statistic value and 90.7% accuracy assessments, respectively. Forest sites polygon themes obtained from the three methods were overlaid and areas in the same classes were computed with Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The results indicated that direct and SI methods were consistent as a 3% dry site (19.0 ha) was exactly determined by both the direct and SI methods as a site class IV. Comparison of SI and RMS methods indicated a small difference as the area was highly homogeneous and unmanaged. While 15.4 ha area (open and degraded areas) was not determined by SI but RSM. A 19.0 ha (100%) poor site was determined by the SI method, 14.9 ha (78%) poor site was in Landsat 7 ETM satellite image and 17.4 ha (92%) poor site in Quickbird satellite image. The relationship between direct and SI methods were statistically analyzed using chi-square test. The test indicated a statistically significant relationships between forest sites determined by direct method and Quicbird satellite image (χ² = 36.794; df = 16; p = 0.002), but no significant relationships with Landsat 7 ETM satellite image (χ² = 22.291; df = 16; p = 0.134). Moderate association was found between SI method and direct method (χ² = 16.724; df = 8; p = 0.033).Entities:
Keywords: Forest site classification; GIS; Landsat 7 ETM satellite image; Quickbird satellite image
Year: 2008 PMID: 27879833 PMCID: PMC3673429 DOI: 10.3390/s8042526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.The geographic location of the study area surrounded with solid red lines.
Figure 2.The water balance of the second elevation climate zone over a year.
Forest site classification and corresponding site index values.
| Index value | Forest site classification | Site index |
|---|---|---|
| < 8 | Very Dry (VD) | IV-V |
| 8-15 | Dry (D) | |
|
| ||
| 15-23 | Moderate Fresh (MF) | III |
| 23-40 | Fresh (F) | |
|
| ||
| 40-55 | Humid (H) | I-II |
| >55 | Hygric (Hy) | |
Figure 3.Ecological soil units map.
Figure 4.Forest site classes according to topographic factors.
Figure 5.Illustrations of forest sites determined with a) direct method, b) SI method, c) RSM (Quickbird satellite image) method and d) RSM (Landsat 7 ETM satellite image).
Distribution of forest sites determined by three methods; direct, SI and RS (Landsat 7 ETM satellite image).
| Direct Method | Total (ha) | RSM | SI Method | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Forest Site | Forest Site | |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||
| D | MF | F | M | HM | I | II | III | IV | V | ND | ||
| D | 19.0 | 14.9 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 1.4 | - | - | - | - | 19.0 | - | |
| MF | 29.2 | 2.5 | 10.4 | 11.2 | 3.2 | 1.9 | 10.7 | - | 18.5 | - | - | |
| F | 338.8 | 32.8 | 56.7 | 168.1 | 58.7 | 22.5 | 29.6 | 53.3 | 240.5 | - | - | 15.4 |
| M | 171.0 | 15.2 | 30.5 | 55.0 | 55.9 | 14.4 | 125.2 | 24.2 | 21.6 | - | - | |
|
| ||||||||||||
| HM | 42.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 8.6 | 15.0 | 6.4 | 20.4 | - | 21.6 | - | - | |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Total (ha) | 600.0 | 69.4 | 106.4 | 244.8 | 134.2 | 45.2 | 185.9 | 77.5 | 302.2 | 19.0 | 15.4 | |
Forest Site: Moist and Highly Moist (good site), fresh and moderate fresh site (moderate site), dry site (poor site)
SI: I and II (good site), SI: III (moderate site) and SI: IV and V (poor site)., ND: Not Determined.
Distribution of forest sites determined by three methods: direct, SI and RS (Quickbird satellite image).
| Direct Method | Forest Site | Total (ha) | RSM | SI Method | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||
| Forest Site | |||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||
| D | MF | F | M | HM | I | II | III | IV | V | ND | |||
| D | 19.0 | 17.4 | 1.6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 19.0 | - | ||
| MF | 29.2 | 3.2 | 10.9 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 3.3 | 10.7 | - | 18.5 | - | - | ||
| F | 338.8 | 60.0 | 41.0 | 154.2 | 75.8 | 7.8 | 29.6 | 53.3 | 240.5 | - | - | 15.4 | |
| M | 171.0 | 18.5 | 13.8 | 52.4 | 70.7 | 15.6 | 125.2 | 24.2 | 21.6 | - | - | ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| HM | 42.0 | - | 6.1 | 5.4 | 19.9 | 10.6 | 20.4 | - | 21.6 | - | - | ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Total (ha) | 600.0 | 99.1 | 73.4 | 218.0 | 172.2 | 37.3 | 185.9 | 77.5 | 302.2 | 19.0 | 15.4 | ||
Contingency table showing the distribution of sample plots by forest sites determined by three methods; direct, SI and RS (Landsat 7 ETM satellite image and Quickbird satellite image).
| Direct Method | Total (N) | RSM | SI Method | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Landsat ETM satellite image | Quickbird satellite image | Site Class | ||||||||||||
| Forest Site | Forest Site | |||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| D | MF | F | M | HM | D | MF | F | M | HM | Good Site | Moderate Site | Poor Site | ||
| D | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
| MF | 22 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 14 |
| F | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | - | - | 1 | 1 | 3 | - | - | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| M | 30 | 2 | 8 | 10 | 6 | 4 | - | 4 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 10 | 12 | 8 |
| HM | 12 | 1 | - | 4 | 6 | 1 | - | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 2 |
| Total (N) | 70 | 10 | 15 | 19 | 17 | 9 | 3 | 15 | 20 | 22 | 10 | 24 | 18 | 28 |