4.4 Article

Linking vegetation heterogeneity and functional attributes of temperate grasslands through remote sensing

期刊

APPLIED VEGETATION SCIENCE
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 117-130

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2008.tb00210.x

关键词

canopy dynamics; land-cover classification; landsat 5 TM; landscape heterogeneity; MODIS; NDVI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Question: How are plant communities of the Flooding Pampa grasslands spatially distributed? How do canopy dynamics of the different communities vary among seasons and years? Location: Buenos Aires province, Argentina. Methods: We characterized the distribution of communities through a supervised classification based on four Landsat 5 TM images. We sampled species composition of 200 sites, with 130 of them corresponding to natural communities. Of the sampling areas 60% were used to classify, and the remaining areas to assess classification accuracy. We characterized the seasonal and interannual variability of canopy dynamics using NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) data provided by MODIS / Terra images. Results: Overall accuracy of the classification was satisfactory. The resulting maps showed a landscape formed by a matrix of extended lowlands with small patches of mesophytic and humid mesophytic meadows. The October scene (near the peak of productivity) was particularly important in discriminating among communities. The seasonal pattern of NDVI differed among communities and years. Mesophytic meadows had the highest NDVI mean and the lowest interannual coefficient of variation, halophytic steppes had the lowest mean, and vegetated ponds were the most variable. Conclusions: These grasslands have a fine-grained heterogeneity at the landscape scale. Each plant community has distinct seasonal and interannual canopy dynamics. These two features of grassland structure and functioning represent key information for rangeland management that may be obtained through a combination of minor field sampling and remote sensing.

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

4.4
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