4.5 Article

Evaluation of NDVI to assess avian abundance and richness along the upper San Pedro River

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 45-53

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.09.010

关键词

Avian habitat; Arizona; NDVI model; Remote-sensing; Riparian vegetation; San Pedro river

资金

  1. United States Geological Survey through the Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station
  2. T E, Inc.
  3. Sonoran Joint Venture
  4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  5. University of Arizona

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Remote-sensing models have become increasingly popular for identifying, characterizing, monitoring, and predicting avian habitat but have largely focused on single bird species. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) has been shown to positively correlate with avian abundance and richness and has been successfully applied to southwestern riparian systems which are uniquely composed of narrow bands of vegetation in an otherwise dry landscape. Desert riparian ecosystems are important breeding and stopover sites for many bird species but have been degraded due to altered hydrology and land management practices. Here we investigated the use of NDVI, coupled with vegetation, to model the avian community structure along the San Pedro River, Arizona. We also investigated how vegetation and physical features measured locally compared to those data that can be gathered through remote-sensing. We found that NDVI has statistically significant relationships with both avian abundance and species richness, although is better applied at the individual species level. However, the amount of variation explained by even our best models was quite low, suggesting that NDVI habitat models may not presently be an accurate tool for extensive modeling of avian communities. We suggest additional studies in other watersheds to increase our understanding of these bird/NDVI relationships. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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