Patch size and shape influence the accuracy of mapping small habitat patches with a global positioning system

Abstract

Global positioning systems (GPS) are increasingly being used for habitat mapping because they provide spatially referenced data that can be used to characterize habitat structure across the landscape and document habitat change over time. We evaluated the accuracy of using a GPS for determining the size and location of habitat patches in a riverine environment. We simulated error attributable to a mapping-grade GPS receiver capable of achieving sub-meter accuracy onto discrete macrophyte bed and wood habitat patches (2 to 177 m(2)) that were digitized from an aerial photograph of the Laramie River, Wyoming, USA in a way that emulated field mapping. Patches with simulated error were compared to the original digitized patches. The accuracy in measuring habitat patches was affected most by patch size and less by patch shape and complexity. Perimeter length was consistently overestimated but was less biased for large, elongate patches with complex shapes. Patch area was slightly overestimated for small patches but was unbiased for large patches. Precision of area estimates was highest for large (>100 m(2)), elongate patches. Percent spatial overlap, a measure of the spatial accuracy of patch location, was low and variable for the smallest patches (2 to 5 m(2)). Mean percent spatial overlap was not related to patch shape but the precision of overlap was lower for small, elongate, and complex patches. Mapping habitat patches with a mapping-grade GPS can yield useful data, but research objectives will determine the acceptable amount of error and the smallest habitats that can be reliably measured.

Use of Natural and Added Cover Types by Game and Nongame Fishes in a Great Plains River

“…Two patches of the same cover type <2 m apart were mapped as one patch (Belica and Rahel ). Only habitat patches with surface areas >2 m 2 were recorded as individual polygons to minimize mapping bias of small habitat patches (Dauwalter and Rahel ). After differential correction, average positional accuracy was at least ±0.41 m (O'Connor and Rahel ).…”