The Methods Guide helps you find the field and remote-sensing methods most useful for your rangeland assessment and monitoring needs. It provides ratings, based on expert and user reviews, on how well each method performs to answer specific questions as well as descriptions, relative costs, references to rangeland applications, and contact information for the different techniques. To learn more about the Methods Guide please visit www.rangelandmethods.org.
Date: Printed on 09/09/2010
Topic: Ecological site presence or distribution
Chosen scale: Small landscape(25,000 to 250,000ac)
Chosen date range:
Field methods applicable to your question are listed below. The field methods have been rated by experts according to their precision in answering the question you chose and the feasibility of implementing them. Deciding which method is best for your application will require more in depth comparison tables available with the compare button and consideration of details contained in the full abstracts of each method.
Sample design: Where you sample is every bit as important as how you sample. Sample design will determine whether or not your observations can address your overall objectives and question. An effective number and distribution of samples is required to make valid inferences from field data. Values for costs and level of required effort provided in the comparison tables are relative because the actual cost will depend on sample design. Visit our page on sample design.
| Precision | Effort/Cost | Potential for Bias | Name |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Ecological Site Identification |
Remote sensing methods applicable to your question are listed below. They are ranked by experts according to how well they can answer the question you selected as part of a complete analysis process. Sensors that work with a particular method or methods that work with data from a particular sensor will be highlighted by clicking on the items in the list. Deciding which method is best for your application will require more in depth comparisons available with the compare button and consideration of details contained in the full abstracts of each method.
| Name | Owner | Cost | Platform | Swath Width (km) | Resolution (m) | Return Interval | Image Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quickbird | DigitalGlobe | $$$ | Satellite | 16.5 | 2.5 | 1 to 3.5 days | Multispectral |
| SPOT5 | Spot Image | $$$ | Satellite | 60 | 2.5 | 1 to 4 days | Panchromatic |
| IKONOS | GeoEye | $$$ | Satellite | 11.3 | 4.0 | 3 days | Multispectral |
| RapidEye | RapidEye | $$$ | Satellite | 77 | 5.0 | Daily | Multispectral |
| FORMOSAT-2 | National Space Agency, Republic of China/Spot Image | $$$ | Satellite | 24 | 8.0 | Daily | Multispectral |
| SPOT5 | Spot Image | $$$ | Satellite | 120 | 10.0 | 1 to 4 days | Multispectral |
| SPOT1-4 | Spot Image | $$$ | Satellite | 60 | 10.0 | 1 to 4 days | Panchromatic |
| ASTER | NASA | $$$ | Satellite | 60 | 15.0 | On demand | Multispectral |
| TM7 | NASA | $$$ | Satellite | 185 | 15.0 | 16 days | Panchromatic |
| AVIRIS | NASA | $$$ | Aircraft | 2, 11 | 17.0 | On demand | Hyperspectral |
| SPOT1-4 | Spot Image | $$$ | Satellite | 60 | 20.0 | 1 to 4 days | Multispectral |
| TM7 | NASA | $$$ | Satellite | 185 | 30.0 | 16 days | Multispectral |
| TM5 | NASA | $$$ | Satellite | 185 | 30.0 | 16 days | Multispectral |
| ASTER | NASA | $$$ | Satellite | 60 | 30.0 | On demand | Multispectral |
| Radarsat-1 | Canadian Space Agency | $$$ | Satellite | 50 - 500 | 50.0 | 4 to 6 days | Synthetic-aperature radar |
| Radarsat-2 | Canadian Space Agency | $$$ | Satellite | 20 - 500 | 50.0 | On demand | Synthetic-aperature radar |
| TM5 | NASA | $$$ | Satellite | 185 | 60.0 | 16 days | Multispectral |
| TM7 | NASA | $$$ | Satellite | 185 | 60.0 | 16 days | Multispectral |
| MSS | NASA | $$$ | Satellite | 185 | 80.0 | 18 days | Multispectral |
| ASTER | NASA | $$$ | Satellite | 60 | 90.0 | On demand | Multispectral |
| Name | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Unsupervised Classification |  |
| Change Detection | |
| Object-based Classification | |
| Spectral Mixture Analysis | |
| Supervised Classification | |
| Regression Kriging |  |
| Normalized Difference Vegetation Index | |
| Soil-adjusted Vegetation Index | |
| Soil-adjusted Total Vegetation Index | |
| Net Primary Productivity Estimate | |
| Modified Soil-adjusted Vegetation Index | |
| Canopy/Texture Mapping | |
| Fractional Cover Estimate | |
| Fraction of Photosynthetically Active Radiation (fPAR) | |
| Enhanced Vegetation Index | |
| Leaf-area Index | |
| Tasseled-cap Transformation | |