4.6 Article

Using aerial photographs to remotely assess tree hollow availability

期刊

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 1089-1101

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-011-0018-z

关键词

Aerial photographs; Biodiversity conservation; Forest management; Landscape scale management; Tree cavities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tree hollows provide critical habitat for many species worldwide. The conservation of hollow-bearing trees presents a particular challenge for forest managers, partly due to difficulties in predicting their occurrence across a landscape. We trialled a novel approach for assessing relative hollow availability, by remotely estimating mature crown cover and senescence from aerial photographs in Tasmania, Australia. These estimates were tested against plot-based field assessments of actual occurrence of hollow-bearing trees. In dry forest we conducted ground-based surveys of hollows for all mature trees (> 50 cm dbh) in 37 half-hectare plots. In wet forest, we conducted helicopter-based surveys of hollows for all mature trees in 45 oldgrowth plots (0.29-4.63 ha). Aerial photographs (1:10,000-1:25,000) were used to classify the senescence and cover of mature crowns in each plot. Regression analysis showed that, in dry forest, hollow-bearing tree densities were strongly related to the remote assessment of mature crown cover, with an 8% increase in variability explained if senescence was also included (R (2) = 0.50). In wet forest, mature crown cover alone was the best model (R (2) = 0.53 when outliers were removed). Assessing senescence was less important in dense wet forests than dry forest because trees take longer to form mature-shaped crowns and so mature-shaped crowns are more likely to have hollows. These results suggest that, with skilled photo-interpretation, aerial photographs can be useful for remotely assessing the relative density of hollow-bearing trees. This approach has the potential to greatly improve conservation planning for hollows and hollow-dependent fauna.

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

4.6
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