Remote sensing and forest inventory for wildlife habitat assessment

Researchers and managers undertaking wildlife habitat assessments commonly require spatially explicit environmental map layers such as those derived from forest inventory and remote sensing. However, end users of geospatial products must often make choices regarding the source and level of detail re...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Forest ecology and management 2009-05, Vol.257 (11), p.2262-2269
Hauptverfasser: McDermid, G.J., Hall, R.J., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A., Franklin, S.E., Stenhouse, G.B., Kobliuk, T., LeDrew, E.F.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2269
container_issue 11
container_start_page 2262
container_title Forest ecology and management
container_volume 257
creator McDermid, G.J.
Hall, R.J.
Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A.
Franklin, S.E.
Stenhouse, G.B.
Kobliuk, T.
LeDrew, E.F.
description Researchers and managers undertaking wildlife habitat assessments commonly require spatially explicit environmental map layers such as those derived from forest inventory and remote sensing. However, end users of geospatial products must often make choices regarding the source and level of detail required for characterizing habitat elements, with few published resources available for guidance. We appraised three environmental data sources that represent options often available to researchers and managers in wildlife ecological studies: (i) a pre-existing forest inventory; (ii) a general-purpose, single-attribute remote sensing land cover map; and (iii) a specific-purpose, multi-attribute remote sensing database. The three information sources were evaluated with two complementary analyses: the first designed to appraise levels of map quality (assessed on the basis of accuracy, vagueness, completion, consistency, level of measurement, and detail) and the second designed to assess their relative capacity to explain patterns of grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos) telemetry locations across a 100,000-km 2 study area in west-central Alberta, Canada. We found the forest inventory database to be reasonably functional in its ability to support resource selection analysis in regions where coverage was available, but overall, the data suffered from quality issues related to completeness accuracy, and consistency. The general-purpose remote sensing land cover product ranked higher in terms of overall map quality, but demonstrated a lower capacity for explaining observed patterns of grizzly bear habitat use. We found the best results using the specific-purpose, multi-attribute remote sensing database, and recommend that similar information sources be used as the foundation for wildlife habitat studies whenever possible, particularly those involving large areas that span jurisdictional boundaries.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.005
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_903644452</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0378112709001595</els_id><sourcerecordid>903644452</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-54eb2e899c425e9747f099aec186cf6dab7491e2ce24d1f080cc06a81c1f36093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0U2LFDEQBuAgCo6j_0CwL-qp26ok_ZGLIINfsCCoew6ZdGXN0NNZU70r--9N04vH9RQIT72pVAnxEqFBwO7dqQkpk0-NBDANqAagfSR2OPSy7kHLx2IHqh9qRNk_Fc-YT1BEq4edOHync1qoYpo5zleVm8dqDeOlivMtzUvKd-tF9SdO4xQDVb_cMS5uqRwzMZ8LeS6eBDcxvbg_9-Ly08efhy_1xbfPXw8fLmqvW73UraajpMEYr2VLptd9AGMceRw6H7rRHXttkKQnqUcMMID30LkBPQbVgVF78XbLvc7p901p0Z4je5omN1O6YWtAdVrrVhb55kGpigIjh_9CCa3UaLBAvUGfE3OmYK9zPLt8ZxHsugR7stsS7LoEC8qWEZey1_f5jr2bQnazj_yvVqq-M2hW92pzwSXrrnIxlz8koCrJUmL52V683wSVCd9GypZ9pNnTGMurix1TfLiVv4S5p6k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>20524191</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Remote sensing and forest inventory for wildlife habitat assessment</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>McDermid, G.J. ; Hall, R.J. ; Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A. ; Franklin, S.E. ; Stenhouse, G.B. ; Kobliuk, T. ; LeDrew, E.F.</creator><creatorcontrib>McDermid, G.J. ; Hall, R.J. ; Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A. ; Franklin, S.E. ; Stenhouse, G.B. ; Kobliuk, T. ; LeDrew, E.F.</creatorcontrib><description>Researchers and managers undertaking wildlife habitat assessments commonly require spatially explicit environmental map layers such as those derived from forest inventory and remote sensing. However, end users of geospatial products must often make choices regarding the source and level of detail required for characterizing habitat elements, with few published resources available for guidance. We appraised three environmental data sources that represent options often available to researchers and managers in wildlife ecological studies: (i) a pre-existing forest inventory; (ii) a general-purpose, single-attribute remote sensing land cover map; and (iii) a specific-purpose, multi-attribute remote sensing database. The three information sources were evaluated with two complementary analyses: the first designed to appraise levels of map quality (assessed on the basis of accuracy, vagueness, completion, consistency, level of measurement, and detail) and the second designed to assess their relative capacity to explain patterns of grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos) telemetry locations across a 100,000-km 2 study area in west-central Alberta, Canada. We found the forest inventory database to be reasonably functional in its ability to support resource selection analysis in regions where coverage was available, but overall, the data suffered from quality issues related to completeness accuracy, and consistency. The general-purpose remote sensing land cover product ranked higher in terms of overall map quality, but demonstrated a lower capacity for explaining observed patterns of grizzly bear habitat use. We found the best results using the specific-purpose, multi-attribute remote sensing database, and recommend that similar information sources be used as the foundation for wildlife habitat studies whenever possible, particularly those involving large areas that span jurisdictional boundaries.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0378-1127</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7042</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.005</identifier><identifier>CODEN: FECMDW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>accuracy ; Animal and plant ecology ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Dendrometry. Forest inventory ; forest habitats ; Forest inventory ; Forestry ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Habitat assessment ; information sources ; Land cover ; land cover maps ; level of detail ; Map quality ; Remote sensing ; Resource selection analysis ; spatial data ; Synecology ; Terrestrial ecosystems ; Ursus arctos ; vegetation cover ; wildlife habitat mapping ; wildlife habitats</subject><ispartof>Forest ecology and management, 2009-05, Vol.257 (11), p.2262-2269</ispartof><rights>2009 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-54eb2e899c425e9747f099aec186cf6dab7491e2ce24d1f080cc06a81c1f36093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-54eb2e899c425e9747f099aec186cf6dab7491e2ce24d1f080cc06a81c1f36093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112709001595$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=23769195$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>McDermid, G.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hall, R.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franklin, S.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stenhouse, G.B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kobliuk, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LeDrew, E.F.</creatorcontrib><title>Remote sensing and forest inventory for wildlife habitat assessment</title><title>Forest ecology and management</title><description>Researchers and managers undertaking wildlife habitat assessments commonly require spatially explicit environmental map layers such as those derived from forest inventory and remote sensing. However, end users of geospatial products must often make choices regarding the source and level of detail required for characterizing habitat elements, with few published resources available for guidance. We appraised three environmental data sources that represent options often available to researchers and managers in wildlife ecological studies: (i) a pre-existing forest inventory; (ii) a general-purpose, single-attribute remote sensing land cover map; and (iii) a specific-purpose, multi-attribute remote sensing database. The three information sources were evaluated with two complementary analyses: the first designed to appraise levels of map quality (assessed on the basis of accuracy, vagueness, completion, consistency, level of measurement, and detail) and the second designed to assess their relative capacity to explain patterns of grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos) telemetry locations across a 100,000-km 2 study area in west-central Alberta, Canada. We found the forest inventory database to be reasonably functional in its ability to support resource selection analysis in regions where coverage was available, but overall, the data suffered from quality issues related to completeness accuracy, and consistency. The general-purpose remote sensing land cover product ranked higher in terms of overall map quality, but demonstrated a lower capacity for explaining observed patterns of grizzly bear habitat use. We found the best results using the specific-purpose, multi-attribute remote sensing database, and recommend that similar information sources be used as the foundation for wildlife habitat studies whenever possible, particularly those involving large areas that span jurisdictional boundaries.</description><subject>accuracy</subject><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Dendrometry. Forest inventory</subject><subject>forest habitats</subject><subject>Forest inventory</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Habitat assessment</subject><subject>information sources</subject><subject>Land cover</subject><subject>land cover maps</subject><subject>level of detail</subject><subject>Map quality</subject><subject>Remote sensing</subject><subject>Resource selection analysis</subject><subject>spatial data</subject><subject>Synecology</subject><subject>Terrestrial ecosystems</subject><subject>Ursus arctos</subject><subject>vegetation cover</subject><subject>wildlife habitat mapping</subject><subject>wildlife habitats</subject><issn>0378-1127</issn><issn>1872-7042</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqF0U2LFDEQBuAgCo6j_0CwL-qp26ok_ZGLIINfsCCoew6ZdGXN0NNZU70r--9N04vH9RQIT72pVAnxEqFBwO7dqQkpk0-NBDANqAagfSR2OPSy7kHLx2IHqh9qRNk_Fc-YT1BEq4edOHync1qoYpo5zleVm8dqDeOlivMtzUvKd-tF9SdO4xQDVb_cMS5uqRwzMZ8LeS6eBDcxvbg_9-Ly08efhy_1xbfPXw8fLmqvW73UraajpMEYr2VLptd9AGMceRw6H7rRHXttkKQnqUcMMID30LkBPQbVgVF78XbLvc7p901p0Z4je5omN1O6YWtAdVrrVhb55kGpigIjh_9CCa3UaLBAvUGfE3OmYK9zPLt8ZxHsugR7stsS7LoEC8qWEZey1_f5jr2bQnazj_yvVqq-M2hW92pzwSXrrnIxlz8koCrJUmL52V683wSVCd9GypZ9pNnTGMurix1TfLiVv4S5p6k</recordid><startdate>20090510</startdate><enddate>20090510</enddate><creator>McDermid, G.J.</creator><creator>Hall, R.J.</creator><creator>Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A.</creator><creator>Franklin, S.E.</creator><creator>Stenhouse, G.B.</creator><creator>Kobliuk, T.</creator><creator>LeDrew, E.F.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>[Amsterdam]: Elsevier Science</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090510</creationdate><title>Remote sensing and forest inventory for wildlife habitat assessment</title><author>McDermid, G.J. ; Hall, R.J. ; Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A. ; Franklin, S.E. ; Stenhouse, G.B. ; Kobliuk, T. ; LeDrew, E.F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-54eb2e899c425e9747f099aec186cf6dab7491e2ce24d1f080cc06a81c1f36093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>accuracy</topic><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Dendrometry. Forest inventory</topic><topic>forest habitats</topic><topic>Forest inventory</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Habitat assessment</topic><topic>information sources</topic><topic>Land cover</topic><topic>land cover maps</topic><topic>level of detail</topic><topic>Map quality</topic><topic>Remote sensing</topic><topic>Resource selection analysis</topic><topic>spatial data</topic><topic>Synecology</topic><topic>Terrestrial ecosystems</topic><topic>Ursus arctos</topic><topic>vegetation cover</topic><topic>wildlife habitat mapping</topic><topic>wildlife habitats</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McDermid, G.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hall, R.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franklin, S.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stenhouse, G.B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kobliuk, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LeDrew, E.F.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Forest ecology and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McDermid, G.J.</au><au>Hall, R.J.</au><au>Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A.</au><au>Franklin, S.E.</au><au>Stenhouse, G.B.</au><au>Kobliuk, T.</au><au>LeDrew, E.F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Remote sensing and forest inventory for wildlife habitat assessment</atitle><jtitle>Forest ecology and management</jtitle><date>2009-05-10</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>257</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>2262</spage><epage>2269</epage><pages>2262-2269</pages><issn>0378-1127</issn><eissn>1872-7042</eissn><coden>FECMDW</coden><abstract>Researchers and managers undertaking wildlife habitat assessments commonly require spatially explicit environmental map layers such as those derived from forest inventory and remote sensing. However, end users of geospatial products must often make choices regarding the source and level of detail required for characterizing habitat elements, with few published resources available for guidance. We appraised three environmental data sources that represent options often available to researchers and managers in wildlife ecological studies: (i) a pre-existing forest inventory; (ii) a general-purpose, single-attribute remote sensing land cover map; and (iii) a specific-purpose, multi-attribute remote sensing database. The three information sources were evaluated with two complementary analyses: the first designed to appraise levels of map quality (assessed on the basis of accuracy, vagueness, completion, consistency, level of measurement, and detail) and the second designed to assess their relative capacity to explain patterns of grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos) telemetry locations across a 100,000-km 2 study area in west-central Alberta, Canada. We found the forest inventory database to be reasonably functional in its ability to support resource selection analysis in regions where coverage was available, but overall, the data suffered from quality issues related to completeness accuracy, and consistency. The general-purpose remote sensing land cover product ranked higher in terms of overall map quality, but demonstrated a lower capacity for explaining observed patterns of grizzly bear habitat use. We found the best results using the specific-purpose, multi-attribute remote sensing database, and recommend that similar information sources be used as the foundation for wildlife habitat studies whenever possible, particularly those involving large areas that span jurisdictional boundaries.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.005</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0378-1127
ispartof Forest ecology and management, 2009-05, Vol.257 (11), p.2262-2269
issn 0378-1127
1872-7042
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_903644452
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects accuracy
Animal and plant ecology
Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Biological and medical sciences
Dendrometry. Forest inventory
forest habitats
Forest inventory
Forestry
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Habitat assessment
information sources
Land cover
land cover maps
level of detail
Map quality
Remote sensing
Resource selection analysis
spatial data
Synecology
Terrestrial ecosystems
Ursus arctos
vegetation cover
wildlife habitat mapping
wildlife habitats
title Remote sensing and forest inventory for wildlife habitat assessment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T08%3A38%3A51IST&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=Remote%20sensing%20and%20forest%20inventory%20for%20wildlife%20habitat%20assessment&rft.jtitle=Forest%20ecology%20and%20management&rft.au=McDermid,%20G.J.&rft.date=2009-05-10&rft.volume=257&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=2262&rft.epage=2269&rft.pages=2262-2269&rft.issn=0378-1127&rft.eissn=1872-7042&rft.coden=FECMDW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E903644452%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=20524191&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0378112709001595&rfr_iscdi=true