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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Applied vegetation science 2024-07, Vol.27 (3), p.n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & 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 |