4.3 Article

Using Satellite Imagery to Assess Macrophyte Response to Water-level Manipulations in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Manitoba

期刊

WETLANDS
卷 32, 期 6, 页码 1091-1102

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13157-012-0339-z

关键词

Remote sensing; Emergent macrophyte mapping; Water-level manipulations; Object-based; Saskatchewan River Delta

资金

  1. Manitoba Hydro
  2. Ducks Unlimited Canada
  3. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship
  4. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  5. Kelsey Conservation District

向作者/读者索取更多资源

QuickBird satellite imagery and object-based classification were used to map emergent macrophyte response in wetlands that were partially drawn down during a three-year period (2007-2010) in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Manitoba, Canada. Generalized logistic models were used to classify vegetation genera in three drawdown and three high-water (control) wetlands. User accuracy of models averaged 74 %, and was lower in partial drawdown wetlands (72 %) than in high-water wetlands (77 %). In partial drawdown wetlands, emergent macrophytes (especially Typha spp. and Carex spp.) senesced significantly after the first year of lowered water levels but senescent areas decreased over following years. Plants were not completely dead in dewatered areas and emergent stands recovered by the third year after drawdown. Open water area in the partial drawdown wetlands gradually decreased due to clonal expansion of Sparganium spp. Vegetation areas in high-water wetlands remained unchanged throughout the study period. Although partial water-level drawdowns temporarily influenced the growth of emergent macrophytes they did not expose the seed bank and did not result in substantial, prolonged changes in spatial arrangement of vegetation areas. The combination of high-resolution satellite imagery, object-based classification and logistic modeling was useful for documenting vegetation response to management in these remote, boreal wetland systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据