4.5 Article

Applicability of different vegetation indices for pasture biomass estimation in the north-central region of Mongolia

期刊

GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL
卷 37, 期 25, 页码 7415-7430

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10106049.2021.1974956

关键词

Mongolia; pasture biomass; vegetation indices

资金

  1. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan
  2. NUM [P2019-3745]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, linear regression models between above-ground pasture biomass and seven vegetation indices were used, with the atmospherically resistant vegetation index (ARVI) showing the highest fit with above-ground biomass in the specific landscape of Mongolia. It was concluded that ARVI is the most suitable candidate for estimating pasture biomass in a landscape similar to that widely found in north-central Mongolia, which will be applicable for pasture monitoring and natural resource studies in Mongolia.
A dependable pasture biomass estimation is critical to prevent the pasture shortages for decision-makers at all levels in Mongolia. Remote sensing technology is expected to be capable of deriving such estimates. Therefore, in this study, we produced and compared linear regression models between above-ground pasture biomass and seven vegetation indices using close-range spectral measurements in the forest-steppe zone, which is one of six vegetation zones of Mongolia. The results indicated that the atmospherically resistant vegetation index (ARVI) (R-2 = 0.62; p < 0.001) showed the highest fit with above-ground biomass in this particular landscape. The dominant perennial grasses in the sampled areas were Stipa krylovii Roshev. and Artemisia frigida Willd., which are commonly grazed in the summer and winter. Therefore, we concluded that the ARVI is the most suitable candidate for estimating pasture biomass in a landscape similar to that widely found in north-central Mongolia. This research will be applicable for pasture monitoring and natural resource studies in Mongolia.

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

4.5
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