Spatially Explicit Rangeland Erosion Monitoring Using High-Resolution Digital Aerial Imagery

Gillan, Jeffrey K.; Karl, Jason W.; Barger, Nichole N.; Elaksher, Ahmed; Duniway, Michael C.

doi:10.1016/j.rama.2015.10.012

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a comparison of different fuels reduction methods in a two‐needle piñon ( Pinus edulis ) and Utah juniper ( Juniperus osteosperma ) woodland in southeastern Utah, Gillan et al. () found that near‐surface horizontal eolian sediment flux increased 33‐fold in a pile‐and‐burn and 131‐fold in a broadcast burn treatment. Interestingly, the studies reported by Miller et al.…”

Section: Restoration/reclamationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wind erosion and dust from US drylands: a review of causes, consequences, and solutions in a changing world

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Erosion by wind is one of the principal processes associated with land degradation in drylands and is a significant concern to land managers and policymakers globally. In the drylands of North America, millions of tons of soil are lost to wind erosion annually. Of the 60 million ha in the United States identified as most vulnerable to wind erosion (arid and dominated by fine sandy soils), 64% are managed by federal agencies (37 million ha). Here we review the drivers and consequences of wind erosion and dust emissions on drylands in the United States, with an emphasis on actionable responses available to policymakers and practitioners. We find that while dryland soils are often relatively stable when intact, disturbances including fire, domestic livestock grazing, and off‐highway vehicles can increase horizontal eolian flux by an order of magnitude, in some cases as much as 40‐fold. A growing body of literature documents the large‐scale impacts of deposited dust changing the albedo of mountain snow cover and in some cases reducing regional water supplies by ~5%. Predicted future increases in aridity and extreme weather events, including drought, will likely increase wind erosion and consequent dust generation. Under a drier and more variable future climate, new and existing soil‐ and vegetation‐disturbing practices may interact in synergistic ways, with dire consequences for environments and society that are unforeseen to many but fairly predictable given current scientific understanding. Conventional restoration and reclamation approaches, which often entail surface disturbance and rely on adequate moisture to prevent erosion, also carry considerable erosion risk especially under drought conditions. Innovative approaches to dryland restoration that minimize surface disturbance may accomplish restoration or reclamation goals while limiting wind erosion risk. Finally, multidisciplinary and multijurisdictional approaches and perspectives are necessary to understand the complex processes driving dust emissions and provide timely, context‐specific information for mitigating the drivers and impacts of wind erosion and dust.

show abstract

Section: Restoration/reclamationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…() and Gillan et al. () were both done during an extreme drought period in the southwest United States (2008 to 2010). Grantz et al.…”

Section: Restoration/reclamationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wind erosion and dust from US drylands: a review of causes, consequences, and solutions in a changing world

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, with soil surface DTM differencing it may be possible to view landscape-scale effects of the TRAC driving treatments including cumulative effects downstream of the disturbance. Gillan et al [5], using DTM differencing to estimate soil erosion across the study area following vegetation removal treatments in southern Utah, USA, showed that soil movement to neighboring treatments potentially violated assumptions of treatment independence and was not adequately captured by in-situ soil-surface sampling. The ability to map areas of soil erosion and deposition in landscapes could help increase understanding of soil loss patterns due to road networks and potentially improve our ability to model these dynamic processes.…”

Section: Topographic Surveying For Soil Erosionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Repeat topographic surveys are an important tool for studying and managing dryland ecosystems, particularly for tracking soil erosion and gully formation [1][2][3][4][5]. Other applications include hydrologic erosion modeling [6,7], formulating ecohydrologic models [8], predicting plant species occurrence via The proliferation of unpaved road networks on public lands is a persistent and pressing problem for land managers globally [41], particularly in the western USA [42,43].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fine-Resolution Repeat Topographic Surveying of Dryland Landscapes Using UAS-Based Structure-from-Motion Photogrammetry: Assessing Accuracy and Precision against Traditional Ground-Based Erosion Measurements

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structure-from-motion (SfM) photogrammetry from unmanned aerial system (UAS) imagery is an emerging tool for repeat topographic surveying of dryland erosion. These methods are particularly appealing due to the ability to cover large landscapes compared to field methods and at reduced costs and finer spatial resolution compared to airborne laser scanning. Accuracy and precision of high-resolution digital terrain models (DTMs) derived from UAS imagery have been explored in many studies, typically by comparing image coordinates to surveyed check points or LiDAR datasets. In addition to traditional check points, this study compared 5 cm resolution DTMs derived from fixed-wing UAS imagery with a traditional ground-based method of measuring soil surface change called erosion bridges. We assessed accuracy by comparing the elevation values between DTMs and erosion bridges along thirty topographic transects each 6.1 m long. Comparisons occurred at two points in time (June 2014, February 2015 which enabled us to assess vertical accuracy with 3314 data points and vertical precision (i.e., repeatability) with 1657 data points. We found strong vertical agreement (accuracy) between the methods (RMSE 2.9 and 3.2 cm in June 2014 and February 2015, respectively) and high vertical precision for the DTMs (RMSE 2.8 cm). Our results from comparing SfM-generated DTMs to check points, and strong agreement with erosion bridge measurements suggests repeat UAS imagery and SfM processing could replace erosion bridges for a more synoptic landscape assessment of shifting soil surfaces for some studies. However, while collecting the UAS imagery and generating the SfM DTMs for this study was faster than collecting erosion bridge measurements, technical challenges related to the need for ground control networks and image processing requirements must be addressed before this technique could be applied effectively to large landscapes.

show abstract

“…Marzolff and Poesen (2009) used 3D digital surface models from digital photogrammetric techniques to monitor the gully development. Gillan et al (2016) mapped soil movement following experimental juniper removal treatments by differencing digital surface models from before and after treatments. Recently, a new photogrammetric technique called structure from motion (SfM) has estimated three-dimensional surfaces from sequences of VHR images (Turner et al 2012;Fonstad et al 2013).…”

Section: Developments In Remote-sensing Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring Protocols: Options, Approaches, Implementation, Benefits

Karl

Pyke²

2017

Springer Series on Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring and adaptive management are fundamental concepts to rangeland management across land management agencies and embodied as best management practices for private landowners. Historically, rangeland monitoring was limited to determining impacts or maximizing the potential of specific land uses-typically grazing. Over the past several decades, though, the uses of and disturbances to rangelands have increased dramatically against a backdrop of global climate change that adds uncertainty to predictions of future rangeland conditions. Thus, today's monitoring needs are more complex (or multidimensional) and yet still must be reconciled with the realities of costs to collect requisite data. However, conceptual advances in rangeland ecology and management and changes in natural resource policies and societal values over the past 25 years have facilitated new approaches to monitoring that can support rangeland management's diverse information needs. Additionally, advances in sensor technologies and remote-sensing techniques have broadened the suite of rangeland attributes that can be monitored and the temporal and spatial scales at which they can be monitored. We review some of the conceptual and technological advancements and provide examples of how they have influenced rangeland monitoring. We then discuss implications of these developments for rangeland management and highlight what we see as challenges and opportunities for implementing effective rangeland monitoring. We conclude with a vision for how monitoring can contribute to rangeland information needs in the future.

show abstract

Spatially Explicit Rangeland Erosion Monitoring Using High-Resolution Digital Aerial Imagery

Cited by 24 publications

References 67 publications

Wind erosion and dust from US drylands: a review of causes, consequences, and solutions in a changing world

Wind erosion and dust from US drylands: a review of causes, consequences, and solutions in a changing world

Fine-Resolution Repeat Topographic Surveying of Dryland Landscapes Using UAS-Based Structure-from-Motion Photogrammetry: Assessing Accuracy and Precision against Traditional Ground-Based Erosion Measurements

Monitoring Protocols: Options, Approaches, Implementation, Benefits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About