60 likes | 188 Views
Landscape group Anett Trebitz, Tom Hollenhorst, Roger Gauthier, Ric Lopez, Mary Moffett, Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, George Host. We are very good at monitoring the insides of wetlands We are not very good at monitoring expansion, contraction, or loss of coastal wetlands
E N D
Landscape groupAnett Trebitz, Tom Hollenhorst, Roger Gauthier, Ric Lopez, Mary Moffett, Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, George Host • We are very good at monitoring the insides of wetlands • We are not very good at monitoring expansion, contraction, or loss of coastal wetlands • We know how to summarize landscape, but timeliness for landscape imagery is an issue • We need both landscape data & wetland inventory
Monitoring changes in coastal wetland extent and composition requires imagery that is: • Multi-temporal @ 2 temporal scales • Intra-annual (capture phenological change) • Inter-annual • Periodic (5 yr minimum), but need to pay attention to differences in water level and sample accordingly • Multispectral (3-12) band • High resolution (1-5 m) • Amenable to automated analyses • Platforms: airborne or spaceborne?
Monitoring changes in watersheds of coastal wetland requires • Common watershed analytical framework • Better to start at fine scale and aggregate • A basin-wide ArcHydro analysis is within reach • US side complete • Lake Erie completed by April 07 • GLNPO proposal for Lake Superior is outstanding • Stressor Data • GLEI stressors are available (but need to add Canadian side) • Maintaining up-to-date land use – 30 m or better – how? • What is the fate of Landsat? • MODIS with sharpening? • Monitoring water levels in wetlands • SAR data
Monitoring, continued • Independent of data source, we have info on how to summarize landscape (e.g., percent watershed in agriculture) • Is this a goal of this report? • Wetland inventory: • States/tribes will want inventory • GLCWC has huge piece of this done • But…desired improvements: • topographically defined, • ability to update, • additional attribute data (e.g., all wetland types in complex) • SAR to identify forested wetlands • Higher resolution DEMs (10 m <1 m) • Functional classification (not just geo. History) • Detailed mapping of wetlands and surrounding buffer
Key Players • 1. Who are the key players in the future? (certainly, this is NOT an exclusive list…just some immediate limited applications/thoughts – all in the room are definitely ‘the key players’) • A. State resource managers (the actual for coordination on useful endpoints to target, at fine-to-moderate scales • B. GLNPO/SOLEC/GLC for coordination on useful endpoints to target, at moderate-to-coarse scales, satisfying the understood GLCWC goal = basin-wide strategy • C. USEPA Duluth – wetland inventory work, additional applications • D. GLEI Stressor/Landscape analysis group – watershed delineation, stressor data development and analysis, data delivery • E. USEPA, Las Vegas – innovative remote-sensing/GIS/other data applications, statistical approached to indicator development in a data-poor (for broad-scale) research environment, field-validated landscape indicator development, landscape ecology metric production/interpretation • 2. How will this be completed in the allotted timeframe?
Segmentsheds were great They proved to be most useful Now we shall move on