Comparison of Laboratory and Field Remote Sensing Methods to Measure Forage Quality

被引:22
|
作者
Guo, Xulin [1 ]
Wilmshurst, John F. [2 ]
Li, Zhaoqin [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Saskatchewan, Dept Geog, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5C8, Canada
[2] Parks Canada, Jasper Natl Pk Canada, Jasper, AB T0E 1E0, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
forage quality; chemical contents; remote sensing; mixed-grass prairie; protein; NDF; ADF; KRUGER-NATIONAL-PARK; BAND-DEPTH ANALYSIS; RED-EDGE; CHEMICAL-COMPOSITION; VEGETATION INDEXES; PASTURE QUALITY; CLIMATE-CHANGE; WATER-STRESS; PLANT; BIOMASS;
D O I
10.3390/ijerph7093513
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Recent research in range ecology has emphasized the importance of forage quality as a key indicator of rangeland condition. However, we lack tools to evaluate forage quality at scales appropriate for management. Using canopy reflectance data to measure forage quality has been conducted at both laboratory and field levels separately, but little work has been conducted to evaluate these methods simultaneously. The objective of this study is to find a reliable way of assessing grassland quality through measuring forage chemistry with reflectance. We studied a mixed grass ecosystem in Grasslands National Park of Canada and surrounding pastures, located in southern Saskatchewan. Spectral reflectance was collected at both in-situ field level and in the laboratory. Vegetation samples were collected at each site, sorted into the green grass portion, and then sent to a chemical company for measuring forage quality variables, including protein, lignin, ash, moisture at 135 degrees C, Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF), Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF), Total Digestible, Digestible Energy, Net Energy for Lactation, Net Energy for Maintenance, and Net Energy for Gain. Reflectance data were processed with the first derivative transformation and continuum removal method. Correlation analysis was conducted on spectral and forage quality variables. A regression model was further built to investigate the possibility of using canopy spectral measurements to predict the grassland quality. Results indicated that field level prediction of protein of mixed grass species was possible (r(2) = 0.63). However, the relationship between canopy reflectance and the other forage quality variables was not strong.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:3513 / 3530
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Development of Nationwide Road Quality Map: Remote Sensing Meets Field Sensing
    Karimzadeh, Sadra
    Matsuoka, Masashi
    SENSORS, 2021, 21 (06)
  • [22] Remote sensing of laboratory rivers
    Leenman, Anya S. S.
    Eaton, Brett C. C.
    EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS, 2024, 49 (01) : 58 - 81
  • [23] Aerosol remote sensing over land: Comparison of two methods
    Vidot, J
    Borde, R
    Santer, R
    OPTICAL REMOTE SENSING OF THE ATMOSPHERE AND CLOUDS III, 2003, 4891 : 535 - 545
  • [24] A comparison of resampling methods for remote sensing classification and accuracy assessment
    Lyons, Mitchell B.
    Keith, David A.
    Phinn, Stuart R.
    Mason, Tanya J.
    Elith, Jane
    REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT, 2018, 208 : 145 - 153
  • [25] Semiactive infrared remote sensing: a practical prototype and field comparison
    Johnson, TJ
    Roberts, BA
    Kelly, JF
    APPLIED OPTICS, 2004, 43 (03) : 638 - 650
  • [26] Comparison of SNR image quality metrics for remote sensing systems
    Fiete, RD
    Tantalo, T
    OPTICAL ENGINEERING, 2001, 40 (04) : 574 - 585
  • [27] Remote sensing reveals the role of forage quality and quantity for summer habitat use in red deer
    Thomas Rempfler
    Christian Rossi
    Jan Schweizer
    Wibke Peters
    Claudio Signer
    Flurin Filli
    Hannes Jenny
    Klaus Hackländer
    Sven Buchmann
    Pia Anderwald
    Movement Ecology, 12 (1)
  • [28] COMPARISON OF FORAGE EVALUATION METHODS
    GILBEROE.RA
    HOFF, BJ
    KLETT, RH
    WHITE, TW
    SCHILLIN.PE
    HEMBRY, FG
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 1971, 33 (01) : 243 - &
  • [29] Comparison of forage drying methods
    White, T. W.
    Phelps, A. J.
    Bateman, H. G.
    Williams, C. C.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2004, 87 : 33 - 33
  • [30] COMPARISON OF FORAGE EVALUATION METHODS
    CABALLERO, H
    MOORE, JE
    GALLI, IO
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 1962, 21 (04) : 1033 - &