Comparing grass biomass estimation methods for management decisions in a semi‐arid landscape

Aims Environmental managers require reliable and cost‐efficient monitoring methods for effective decision‐making. Understanding forage availability is important for managing wild, vertebrate herbivore populations. We developed a process for exploring the accuracy and cost efficiency of various bioma...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Applied vegetation science 2024-07, Vol.27 (3), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Riquelme, Linda, Rumpff, Libby, Duncan, David H., Vesk, Peter A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 3
container_start_page
container_title Applied vegetation science
container_volume 27
creator Riquelme, Linda
Rumpff, Libby
Duncan, David H.
Vesk, Peter A.
description Aims Environmental managers require reliable and cost‐efficient monitoring methods for effective decision‐making. Understanding forage availability is important for managing wild, vertebrate herbivore populations. We developed a process for exploring the accuracy and cost efficiency of various biomass estimation techniques for a case study where semi‐arid woodland restoration is threatened by kangaroo grazing, with the aim of determining which method was most fit for purpose in a given decision context. Location Wyperfeld National Park, southeastern Australia. Methods Grass biomass was estimated using a variety of methods, then compared to clipped biomass using linear models. Biomass estimation methods were either field‐based (i.e., rising plate meter, multispectral radiometer) or satellite‐based (i.e., Landsat satellite imagery, AussieGRASS forage production model). Sampling occurred across open and wooded semi‐arid vegetation types. We compared methods based on accuracy, the ability of each method to accurately predict a ‘forage‐switch’ threshold, cost, and the suitability for the management context. Results For this case study, the multispectral radiometer was the most precise, yet most expensive, biomass estimation method over a single survey. However, satellite imagery proved to be the most cost‐efficient and fit for purpose, as it was inexpensive and most accurately estimated biomass around a forage‐switch threshold, second only to the multispectral radiometer. Accuracy of all methods was improved by including tree cover in the regression models. Conclusions We demonstrate a process for exploring which biomass estimation tool might be preferred for a given decision context, highlighting accuracy, consideration of tolerance to uncertainty and risk, the spatial and temporal scale of information required, and budget constraints. We compared the performance, cost, and suitability of multiple field and satellite‐based grass biomass estimation methods. We demonstrated a process for method selection for a case study of kangaroo management for semi‐arid woodland restoration in south‐eastern Australia. The choice of method will ultimately depend on accuracy, cost, the scale of information required, and managers' tolerance to uncertainty and risk.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/avsc.12792
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3109599963</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3109599963</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1902-a2d4a6b717773c2569a951ddf43868f3f16f299966eb68f5ddd2245864362ded3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtOwzAQhi0EEqWw4QSW2CGlxHbs1Msq4iVVYsFDrLCc2C6uGjvYKag7jsAZOQkOYc1sZkbzzesH4BTlM5TsQr7HZoZwyfEemCBGiwzl_Hk_xUWOM5zn6BAcxbhOQckpn4CXyredDNat4CrIGGFtfTt4HXvbyt56B1vdv3oVofEBttLJlW6166HSjY2pHqF1UMKoW_v9-ZVmKbiRTsVGdvoYHBi5ifrkz0_B49XlQ3WTLe-ub6vFMmsQT4dJrArJ6hKVZUkaTBmXnCKlTEHmbG6IQcxgzjljuk45VUphXNA5KwjDSisyBWfj3C74t226Xaz9Nri0UpCkAB16SaLOR6oJPsagjehCejLsBMrFoJ8Y9BO_-iUYjfCH3ejdP6RYPN1XY88P3v10SQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3109599963</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing grass biomass estimation methods for management decisions in a semi‐arid landscape</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Riquelme, Linda ; Rumpff, Libby ; Duncan, David H. ; Vesk, Peter A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Riquelme, Linda ; Rumpff, Libby ; Duncan, David H. ; Vesk, Peter A.</creatorcontrib><description>Aims Environmental managers require reliable and cost‐efficient monitoring methods for effective decision‐making. Understanding forage availability is important for managing wild, vertebrate herbivore populations. We developed a process for exploring the accuracy and cost efficiency of various biomass estimation techniques for a case study where semi‐arid woodland restoration is threatened by kangaroo grazing, with the aim of determining which method was most fit for purpose in a given decision context. Location Wyperfeld National Park, southeastern Australia. Methods Grass biomass was estimated using a variety of methods, then compared to clipped biomass using linear models. Biomass estimation methods were either field‐based (i.e., rising plate meter, multispectral radiometer) or satellite‐based (i.e., Landsat satellite imagery, AussieGRASS forage production model). Sampling occurred across open and wooded semi‐arid vegetation types. We compared methods based on accuracy, the ability of each method to accurately predict a ‘forage‐switch’ threshold, cost, and the suitability for the management context. Results For this case study, the multispectral radiometer was the most precise, yet most expensive, biomass estimation method over a single survey. However, satellite imagery proved to be the most cost‐efficient and fit for purpose, as it was inexpensive and most accurately estimated biomass around a forage‐switch threshold, second only to the multispectral radiometer. Accuracy of all methods was improved by including tree cover in the regression models. Conclusions We demonstrate a process for exploring which biomass estimation tool might be preferred for a given decision context, highlighting accuracy, consideration of tolerance to uncertainty and risk, the spatial and temporal scale of information required, and budget constraints. We compared the performance, cost, and suitability of multiple field and satellite‐based grass biomass estimation methods. We demonstrated a process for method selection for a case study of kangaroo management for semi‐arid woodland restoration in south‐eastern Australia. The choice of method will ultimately depend on accuracy, cost, the scale of information required, and managers' tolerance to uncertainty and risk.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1402-2001</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1654-109X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/avsc.12792</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>above‐ground understorey biomass ; Accuracy ; Arid environments ; Aridity ; Biomass ; Case studies ; Context ; Decision making ; Environmental management ; Environmental monitoring ; Forage ; Grasses ; grazing management ; kangaroo herbivory ; Landsat ; Landsat satellites ; Management decisions ; Management methods ; monitoring ; Monitoring methods ; National parks ; non‐destructive biomass sampling ; Population studies ; Radiometers ; rangelands ; Regression analysis ; Regression models ; Remote sensing ; Satellite imagery ; semi‐arid woodlands ; total grazing pressure ; Vertebrates ; Woodlands</subject><ispartof>Applied vegetation science, 2024-07, Vol.27 (3), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2024 The Author(s). published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of International Association for Vegetation Science.</rights><rights>2024. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1902-a2d4a6b717773c2569a951ddf43868f3f16f299966eb68f5ddd2245864362ded3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4411-8214 ; 0000-0003-2008-7062 ; 0000-0001-5742-8364 ; 0000-0001-9400-8086</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Favsc.12792$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Favsc.12792$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Riquelme, Linda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rumpff, Libby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duncan, David H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vesk, Peter A.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing grass biomass estimation methods for management decisions in a semi‐arid landscape</title><title>Applied vegetation science</title><description>Aims Environmental managers require reliable and cost‐efficient monitoring methods for effective decision‐making. Understanding forage availability is important for managing wild, vertebrate herbivore populations. We developed a process for exploring the accuracy and cost efficiency of various biomass estimation techniques for a case study where semi‐arid woodland restoration is threatened by kangaroo grazing, with the aim of determining which method was most fit for purpose in a given decision context. Location Wyperfeld National Park, southeastern Australia. Methods Grass biomass was estimated using a variety of methods, then compared to clipped biomass using linear models. Biomass estimation methods were either field‐based (i.e., rising plate meter, multispectral radiometer) or satellite‐based (i.e., Landsat satellite imagery, AussieGRASS forage production model). Sampling occurred across open and wooded semi‐arid vegetation types. We compared methods based on accuracy, the ability of each method to accurately predict a ‘forage‐switch’ threshold, cost, and the suitability for the management context. Results For this case study, the multispectral radiometer was the most precise, yet most expensive, biomass estimation method over a single survey. However, satellite imagery proved to be the most cost‐efficient and fit for purpose, as it was inexpensive and most accurately estimated biomass around a forage‐switch threshold, second only to the multispectral radiometer. Accuracy of all methods was improved by including tree cover in the regression models. Conclusions We demonstrate a process for exploring which biomass estimation tool might be preferred for a given decision context, highlighting accuracy, consideration of tolerance to uncertainty and risk, the spatial and temporal scale of information required, and budget constraints. We compared the performance, cost, and suitability of multiple field and satellite‐based grass biomass estimation methods. We demonstrated a process for method selection for a case study of kangaroo management for semi‐arid woodland restoration in south‐eastern Australia. The choice of method will ultimately depend on accuracy, cost, the scale of information required, and managers' tolerance to uncertainty and risk.</description><subject>above‐ground understorey biomass</subject><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Arid environments</subject><subject>Aridity</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Context</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Environmental management</subject><subject>Environmental monitoring</subject><subject>Forage</subject><subject>Grasses</subject><subject>grazing management</subject><subject>kangaroo herbivory</subject><subject>Landsat</subject><subject>Landsat satellites</subject><subject>Management decisions</subject><subject>Management methods</subject><subject>monitoring</subject><subject>Monitoring methods</subject><subject>National parks</subject><subject>non‐destructive biomass sampling</subject><subject>Population studies</subject><subject>Radiometers</subject><subject>rangelands</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Regression models</subject><subject>Remote sensing</subject><subject>Satellite imagery</subject><subject>semi‐arid woodlands</subject><subject>total grazing pressure</subject><subject>Vertebrates</subject><subject>Woodlands</subject><issn>1402-2001</issn><issn>1654-109X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtOwzAQhi0EEqWw4QSW2CGlxHbs1Msq4iVVYsFDrLCc2C6uGjvYKag7jsAZOQkOYc1sZkbzzesH4BTlM5TsQr7HZoZwyfEemCBGiwzl_Hk_xUWOM5zn6BAcxbhOQckpn4CXyredDNat4CrIGGFtfTt4HXvbyt56B1vdv3oVofEBttLJlW6166HSjY2pHqF1UMKoW_v9-ZVmKbiRTsVGdvoYHBi5ifrkz0_B49XlQ3WTLe-ub6vFMmsQT4dJrArJ6hKVZUkaTBmXnCKlTEHmbG6IQcxgzjljuk45VUphXNA5KwjDSisyBWfj3C74t226Xaz9Nri0UpCkAB16SaLOR6oJPsagjehCejLsBMrFoJ8Y9BO_-iUYjfCH3ejdP6RYPN1XY88P3v10SQ</recordid><startdate>202407</startdate><enddate>202407</enddate><creator>Riquelme, Linda</creator><creator>Rumpff, Libby</creator><creator>Duncan, David H.</creator><creator>Vesk, Peter A.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4411-8214</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2008-7062</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5742-8364</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9400-8086</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202407</creationdate><title>Comparing grass biomass estimation methods for management decisions in a semi‐arid landscape</title><author>Riquelme, Linda ; Rumpff, Libby ; Duncan, David H. ; Vesk, Peter A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1902-a2d4a6b717773c2569a951ddf43868f3f16f299966eb68f5ddd2245864362ded3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>above‐ground understorey biomass</topic><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Arid environments</topic><topic>Aridity</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Context</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Environmental management</topic><topic>Environmental monitoring</topic><topic>Forage</topic><topic>Grasses</topic><topic>grazing management</topic><topic>kangaroo herbivory</topic><topic>Landsat</topic><topic>Landsat satellites</topic><topic>Management decisions</topic><topic>Management methods</topic><topic>monitoring</topic><topic>Monitoring methods</topic><topic>National parks</topic><topic>non‐destructive biomass sampling</topic><topic>Population studies</topic><topic>Radiometers</topic><topic>rangelands</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Regression models</topic><topic>Remote sensing</topic><topic>Satellite imagery</topic><topic>semi‐arid woodlands</topic><topic>total grazing pressure</topic><topic>Vertebrates</topic><topic>Woodlands</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Riquelme, Linda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rumpff, Libby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duncan, David H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vesk, Peter A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Applied vegetation science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Riquelme, Linda</au><au>Rumpff, Libby</au><au>Duncan, David H.</au><au>Vesk, Peter A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing grass biomass estimation methods for management decisions in a semi‐arid landscape</atitle><jtitle>Applied vegetation science</jtitle><date>2024-07</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>3</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>1402-2001</issn><eissn>1654-109X</eissn><abstract>Aims Environmental managers require reliable and cost‐efficient monitoring methods for effective decision‐making. Understanding forage availability is important for managing wild, vertebrate herbivore populations. We developed a process for exploring the accuracy and cost efficiency of various biomass estimation techniques for a case study where semi‐arid woodland restoration is threatened by kangaroo grazing, with the aim of determining which method was most fit for purpose in a given decision context. Location Wyperfeld National Park, southeastern Australia. Methods Grass biomass was estimated using a variety of methods, then compared to clipped biomass using linear models. Biomass estimation methods were either field‐based (i.e., rising plate meter, multispectral radiometer) or satellite‐based (i.e., Landsat satellite imagery, AussieGRASS forage production model). Sampling occurred across open and wooded semi‐arid vegetation types. We compared methods based on accuracy, the ability of each method to accurately predict a ‘forage‐switch’ threshold, cost, and the suitability for the management context. Results For this case study, the multispectral radiometer was the most precise, yet most expensive, biomass estimation method over a single survey. However, satellite imagery proved to be the most cost‐efficient and fit for purpose, as it was inexpensive and most accurately estimated biomass around a forage‐switch threshold, second only to the multispectral radiometer. Accuracy of all methods was improved by including tree cover in the regression models. Conclusions We demonstrate a process for exploring which biomass estimation tool might be preferred for a given decision context, highlighting accuracy, consideration of tolerance to uncertainty and risk, the spatial and temporal scale of information required, and budget constraints. We compared the performance, cost, and suitability of multiple field and satellite‐based grass biomass estimation methods. We demonstrated a process for method selection for a case study of kangaroo management for semi‐arid woodland restoration in south‐eastern Australia. The choice of method will ultimately depend on accuracy, cost, the scale of information required, and managers' tolerance to uncertainty and risk.</abstract><cop>Malden</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/avsc.12792</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4411-8214</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2008-7062</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5742-8364</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9400-8086</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1402-2001
ispartof Applied vegetation science, 2024-07, Vol.27 (3), p.n/a
issn 1402-2001
1654-109X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_3109599963
source Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects above‐ground understorey biomass
Accuracy
Arid environments
Aridity
Biomass
Case studies
Context
Decision making
Environmental management
Environmental monitoring
Forage
Grasses
grazing management
kangaroo herbivory
Landsat
Landsat satellites
Management decisions
Management methods
monitoring
Monitoring methods
National parks
non‐destructive biomass sampling
Population studies
Radiometers
rangelands
Regression analysis
Regression models
Remote sensing
Satellite imagery
semi‐arid woodlands
total grazing pressure
Vertebrates
Woodlands
title Comparing grass biomass estimation methods for management decisions in a semi‐arid landscape
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T18%3A59%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20grass%20biomass%20estimation%20methods%20for%20management%20decisions%20in%20a%20semi%E2%80%90arid%20landscape&rft.jtitle=Applied%20vegetation%20science&rft.au=Riquelme,%20Linda&rft.date=2024-07&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=3&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=1402-2001&rft.eissn=1654-109X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/avsc.12792&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3109599963%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3109599963&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true