1 / 14

Assessment of Spatial Metrics to Determine Rangeland Degradation

Assessment of Spatial Metrics to Determine Rangeland Degradation. Riaz Hedayati Mentor: Chandra Holifield Collins USDA-ARS SWRC The University of Arizona April 17, 2010. Background.

tana
Download Presentation

Assessment of Spatial Metrics to Determine Rangeland Degradation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessment of Spatial Metrics to Determine Rangeland Degradation Riaz HedayatiMentor: Chandra Holifield CollinsUSDA-ARS SWRC The University of Arizona April 17, 2010

  2. Background • Soil erosion is a major cause of degradation in rangelands. If erosion patterns can be predicted, rangeland degradation can be more easily prevented. • Traditionally, erosion potential is assessed using one of two ground-based measurements on a 2m x 6m plot: Transect Data (fetch:patch ratio) Point Data

  3. Hypothesis • Accounting for the spatial distribution of vegetation cover will be an improvement over traditional ground-based data for predicting erosion potential.

  4. Study Sites • Data was collected from 5 different field sites within southeastern Arizona. • Each field site had 4 plots, and each plot measured 2m x 6m.

  5. Methods • A rainfall simulator was used on each plot to simulate erosion patterns and collect sediment yield (SYR) data.

  6. SYR Point Interspace Area Methods Point Interspace Area

  7. SYR Fetch:Patch Ratio Methods Fetch:Patch Ratio

  8. Photographs were digitally classified into vegetation and non-vegetation areas. SYR Interspace FPI Methods Interspace FPI

  9. Sediment Yield vs Point Data

  10. Sediment Yield vs Fetch:Patch Ratio

  11. Sediment Yield vs Interspace FPI

  12. Conclusions • Interspace FPI showed a slightly stronger relationship to sediment yield data than the point data or the fetch:patch ratio. • Because it explicitly accounts for the spatial distribution of interspace areas, interspace FPI shows great promise as a tool for assessing degradation of ecological sites in semi-arid rangelands.

  13. Acknowledgements This Project would not have been possible without help from: Dr. Chandra Holifield Collins Dr. Jeffry Stone Rae-Landa Gomez-Pond Leonard Cratic III Jason Wong

  14. Thank You

More Related