2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2008.01.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Trend analysis of Landsat-TM and -ETM+ imagery to monitor grazing impact in a rangeland ecosystem in Northern Greece

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
54
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
1
54
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…At present, some principal methods are as follows: (1) Extraction of rangeland degradation information based on remote sensing image classification; (2) Direct comparison. This method takes non-degraded rangeland as a reference through the comparison of characteristic parameters observed directly (such as biomass, vegetation coverage, edible forage, NDVI, NPP, soil physical and chemical properties indices) to analyze the degradation/restoration of rangeland (Numata et al, 2007;Liu and Zha, 2004;Röder et al, 2008); (3) Monitoring rangeland degradation based on time series analysis of remote sensing. In recent years, these methods have caught widespread attention, and mainly include rainfall use efficiency (RUE) (Wessels et al, 2006;Prince et al, 2004;Paruelo et al, 1999;Holm et al, 2003;Gao et al, 2005;Bai et al, 2008a) and residual trends (RESTREND) (Evans and Geerken, 2004;Wessels et al, 2007;Xu et al, 2010;Cao, 2006;Eckert et al, 2015); (4) Local NPP (the actual Net Primary Productivity) Scaling (Wessels et al, 2007;Wessels et al, 2008;Prince et al, 2009).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At present, some principal methods are as follows: (1) Extraction of rangeland degradation information based on remote sensing image classification; (2) Direct comparison. This method takes non-degraded rangeland as a reference through the comparison of characteristic parameters observed directly (such as biomass, vegetation coverage, edible forage, NDVI, NPP, soil physical and chemical properties indices) to analyze the degradation/restoration of rangeland (Numata et al, 2007;Liu and Zha, 2004;Röder et al, 2008); (3) Monitoring rangeland degradation based on time series analysis of remote sensing. In recent years, these methods have caught widespread attention, and mainly include rainfall use efficiency (RUE) (Wessels et al, 2006;Prince et al, 2004;Paruelo et al, 1999;Holm et al, 2003;Gao et al, 2005;Bai et al, 2008a) and residual trends (RESTREND) (Evans and Geerken, 2004;Wessels et al, 2007;Xu et al, 2010;Cao, 2006;Eckert et al, 2015); (4) Local NPP (the actual Net Primary Productivity) Scaling (Wessels et al, 2007;Wessels et al, 2008;Prince et al, 2009).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, the assessment of post-fire vegetation regeneration is of crucial importance 83 for the understanding of the environmental impacts of fire and for supporting sustainable post-84 fire management (e.g. controlled grazing, Roder et al 2008b). In comparison with labor-85 intensive field work, the synoptic nature of remote sensing systems offers a time-and cost-86 effective means to fulfill this duty (Lentile et al 2006).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The TM scenes were downloaded from the USGS EarthExplorer online catalogue as L1T product, consisting of at-sensor radiance single spectral channels orthorectified using a DEM and co-registered. Dense time series, or "stacks", of Landsat scenes have recently been used in temperate environments for detecting both long-term vegetation trends [36] and land cover transitions [37,38]. The main advantage of this approach is that the larger number of observations can allow long-term changes to be detected with greater sensitivity and reliability by comparison to conventional two-date change detection.…”
Section: Study Area and Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%