Wildl. Biol. Pract., 2013 December 9(2): 40-62 doi:10.2461/wbp.2013.

ORIGINAL PAPER

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets P.W. Saunders
Department of Environment and Conservation, Wildlife Division, P.O. Box 2007 Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, A2H 7S1; e-mail: psaunder@gov.nl.ca. Keywords Spiral transect; Boundary delineation; Fibonacci sequence; Land cover; Scale; Landscape; Caribou. Abstract The availability and utility of spatial datasets, at no cost through webbased data services or government agencies, directly impacts the ability of government and non-governmental wildlife management agencies to delineate land cover use or avoidance for targeted wildlife species. The availability and utility of four datasets; Canada Land Inventory for Ungulates, Earth Observation for Sustainable Development of Forests, Provincial Forest Inventory for the Island of Newfoundland, and the Landsat 7 ETM+ were evaluated for their usefulness in delineating land cover boundaries in areas used by caribou during calving and post-calving. Upon completion of the evaluation it was determined that all datasets, except the Earth Observation for Sustainable Development of Forests, where both the RMSE for random (r) and actual (a) boundary points (r=22.89, a=14.93, error 25meters (m)) was below the associated positional error of the dataset, would be useful for the delineation of land cover boundaries. The Canada Land Inventory (r=86.60, a=30.43, error 35m) was deemed useful only for its ability to provide information on historical location and permanence of boundaries at the landscape scale. To provide land cover delineation for the island of Newfoundland a combination of both the forest inventory (r=64.71, a=39.47, error 35m) and landsat datasets (r=37.02, a=27.92, error 30m) must be used along with a variety of ancillary data sources.

Introduction Responding to dramatic declines in caribou populations on the island of Newfoundland, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador initiated a caribou strategy in 2006. The objectives were to identify possible causes for the decline, and development of recommendations to halt or reverse the populations negative trajectory. A component was the evaluation of existing and historical habitat used by caribou, thereby, identify habitat attributes deemed important to caribou. Research presented in this paper is a sub-component of this habitat evaluation. The yearly association of Newfoundland caribou with habitat types during specific periods in their lifecycle has been well documented [1,2,3,4]. Historical yearly migrations to calving and post calving grounds have also been delineated [5]. It has
Copyright 2013 P.W. Saunders This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Published by: Portuguese Wildlife Society.

Wildlife Biology in Practice 2013, 9(2)

|| 41

been postulated that migration to specific calving and post-calving rearing areas were based on the nutritional needs of the female or an attempt to reduce calf mortality from predation [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. This places a critical importance on areas used by female caribou for calving and post-calving rearing. Given the accumulated evidence regarding the impacts of human development, such as mine development, forest harvesting, and linear development, on woodland caribou [14,15,16,17,18,19,20], there is an increased need for data on the attributes found and their spatial associations for all areas within the woodland caribous range. The occurrence of landcover boundaries in areas used or avoided by woodland caribou on the island of Newfoundland during calving and post-calving were delineated using selected spatial datasets. The aims and objectives of this study were centered on three main tasks, the identification and selection of spatial datasets, the selection of methods for the evaluation of selected datasets that will allow for the identification of landcover boundaries and the evaluation of these datasets utilizing a representative sample of boundaries occurring in areas used or avoided by caribou. The issue of used or avoided sites and the ability to identify boundaries can be problematic in areas occupied by caribou due to the heterogeneous nature of existing landcover, representing some of the most difficult areas for landcover classifications. Without the ability to accurately identify and delineate landcover boundaries it is not possible to quantify the relationship between caribou GPS locations and specific landcover types. Data on species-habitat relationships and the spatial associations of features in areas used or avoided, is required to formulate effective habitat management plans [21,22,23]. Methods Study area Based on GPS locations for individual caribou included in the analysis (N=11, location frequency=2hrs), the study area is comprised of three separate sites totalling 2394 km2 located in the Central Newfoundland Forest Ecoregion, North-central subregion (Fig. 1). A complex of coniferous forests and wetlands characterizes this area [24]. Wetlands are represented by mire complexes, as defined by Rydin and Jeglum [25], often as mixture of bogs and fens. Raised bogs are a common feature in this area. Forests are predominately coniferous and represented by Black Spruce (Picea marianna) and Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea). Fire plays an important role in the occurrence of specific forest types allowing for the establishment of Black Spruce forest in areas previously dominated by Balsam Fir, as well as, the establishment of localized stands of White Birch (Betula papyrifera), Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and Pin Cherry (Prunus pensylcanica) [24]. Alder (Alnus rugosa) is also abundant along the edges of waterways and waterbodies or the transition zones between mires and forests. The region experiences a more continental climate than other areas of the island with an average yearly temperature of 3.5C and 1200 mm of annual precipitation, approximately 30 percent which falls as snow. Warmest temperatures are in July, average 16.2C, and the coldest month is February, average -9.1C. The region experiences 140-160 growing days with green up beginning around mid-May.

42 || P.W. Saunders

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets.

Fig. 1: Study area. The Topsails, Newfoundland, Canada.

Evapotranspiration rates range from 450-500 mm leading to a moisture surplus of 380-630 mm per year [31]. The study area contains approximately 800 km of human-made linear features comprised of roadways, transmission corridors and an old railway bed, all of which have the potential to negatively affect caribou [26]. The majority of these features are unpaved forest access roads used for pulpwood harvesting activities. Forest harvesting has occurred in this area on a regular basis since the 1980s and has resulted in a mosaic of cutovers in various stages of regeneration. Three large forest fires (over 200 ha) have been recorded in the study area occurring in 1964 (393 ha, location 49.0-56.07), 1986 (1399 ha, location 49.031-56.095), and 1999 (3675 ha, location 49.3-56.23) [27]. Topography of the area is characterized by rolling terrain with elevation ranging from 76 - 647 meters. Extreme values are represented by river valleys and rock outcrops, with forests being restricted to higher terrain or areas where the terrain rises above the surrounding mires. Datasets Used One caribou telemetry dataset and five spatial datasets were used in this study. Four spatial datasets were selected based on their accessibility, being available through web data services or from government agencies, and their potential for use in completing landcover boundary delineation for the island of Newfoundland. The selected datasets are represented by, Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) imagery, Earth Observation for Sustainable Development of Forests (EOSD), Newfoundland and Labrador Forest Inventory Dataset, and the Canada Land Inventory for Ungulates (CLI). In addition, landcover boundary data were collected via ground based transects in areas used or unused by collared caribou.

Wildlife Biology in Practice 2013, 9(2)

|| 43

Caribou Locational Data and Study Durations Lotek Wireless Inc. (Newmarket, Ontario) GPS collars, Model 4400, were used in this study being programed to record a location every two hours. The positional error rate associated with recorded locations was 5 m. All locations for the period May 15 to September 10, 2007 were selected which covered three activity periods included in the reproductive and rearing cycle of female caribou (Table 1). It is recognized that post-calving rearing could and does extend beyond September 10, but the study period was terminated due to the opening of the annual caribou hunting season which could have a direct effect on caribou use or avoidance behavior.
Table 1: Female caribou activity patterns during the temporal period covered in this study. Activity cluster identification was designed to provide a sample of landcover boundaries in areas used or avoided during the listed life history periods.

The Identification of Areas Used or Avoided by Female Caribou Evaluation of landcover use requires the identification of a study area from which a sample of used or avoided sites can be drawn. Delineation of the study area has been recognized as a possible source of bias in habitat related studies, especially when unused or avoided areas have to be delineated [28,29]. Bias occurs because of influences from factors outside the boundaries of the study area, or areas being identified as avoided because the temporal duration of animal telemetry was too short to allow for the complete delineation of the range. To eliminate bias in this study used and avoided areas were selected based on known locations of individual caribou. Used areas are identified by employing the space-time permutation scan statistic (STPSS) [30,31]. Developed for the detection of disease outbreaks, the STPSS has seen only limited use in the field of ecology [32]. The statistic involves the use of millions of overlapping cylinders to define the spatial extent of the study, and whose maximum diameter the user has defined. Cylinder size varies via a set of concentric circles, since we do not know the size of existing clusters a priori, allowing for the identification of multiple sized clusters. Cylinder sizes range from 0 to the maximum size specified, and are centered on each of the points contained in the sample. The temporal component of the statistics is represented by the height of the cylinder, which again varies up to a maximum set by the user, with an increase in height translating into the inclusion of points over a longer time period. This leads to the use of cylinders that can vary from short and wide to tall and narrow, depending on the unique space-time variable combination of spatial extent and time period used in their creation. Use of the statistic requires only information on the location of the events and the time of occurrence [33]. The output of the statistic is a value that ranks the importance of the identified cluster found at a specific location and bounded by a given spatial extent and time period. p-values for identified clusters can then be compared using Monte Carlo testing methods [34]. Use of the STPSS allows for the temporal identification of spatial clusters that can then be linked to animal activity or part of their annual lifecycle requirements. An alternate method was developed to identify avoided sites. This was accomplished

44 || P.W. Saunders

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets.

Fig. 2 (left): The construction of cylinders during the use of space-time scan statistics involves the setting of: (a) the spatial extent which dictates the cylinder diameter thus the area over which points are included, and (b) the temporal extent which is represented by the height of the cylinder with increasing height signifying the inclusion of points over a larger temporal period. Fig. 3 (right): Sampling transect centered on the maximum step length for caribou sc2006026. Blue dots indicate the two endpoints that were used to calculate the centroid of the maximum step length.

by calculating the three largest step lengths, for each caribou, using a software program called Hawth Tools v3.27, an extension available for Esri ArcGis 9.2 [35,36]. Avoided areas were then represented by calculating centroids using an ArcGis script created by Pete, based on the endpoints for each of the three maximum step length pairs calculated for each individual caribou Aniello [37] (Fig. 3). This method was based on the assumption that individual caribou would spend the minimum amount of time in areas they perceived as unsuitable and these areas would be represented by the longest step lengths which correspond to the fastest caribou movement rates through the landscape. Indirect confirmation of this assumption was supported by the observation that the maximum step length for some individuals often occurred in the same area. The Selection of Attributes to be recorded during Sampling and Sampling Protocol Design

Data collected will be used to determine the accuracy of boundary delineation of the provincial forestry inventory database and other selected datasets, with the goal of evaluating their usefulness for identification of suitable caribou habitat on the island of

Wildlife Biology in Practice 2013, 9(2)

|| 45

Newfoundland. To make data compatible with existing data on forest cover, attribute selection and associated categories followed the Data Dictionary used by Provincial Forestry personnel as closely as possible, with additional attributes added based on landcover observations in areas where female caribou were known to have occupied during the study period [38]. Attributes of land cover types intersected along transect lines was recorded (Table 2). Forest composition, height, age and canopy cover was measured as per existing forest inventory guidelines for forest stands intersected by transect lines, and measurements taken 50m from the stand edge, or at the center of the stand if stand size does not permit this distance (Table 3).
Table 2: Landcover types recorded during the completion of transect lines. Landcover types were adopted from the forest inventory database with variables pertaining to water and alternate landcover types being added.

Sampling of attributes along a transect line was conducted using the line intercept (intersect) method [29,39,40,41,42,43,44,45] with only those features that were directly intersected by the line being recorded. Site classification codes were adopted from the data dictionary with the required addition of codes related to water bodies and waterways, and alternate cover types, such as grasses. When the landcover type intercepted was a forest stand standard classification codes for species, age class, height class and canopy cover were used with additional codes for site disturbance and understory being added.

46 || P.W. Saunders

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets.

Table 3: Forest stand characteristics recorded for forest stands intersected by transect lines. The variables selected matched those included in the forest inventory database with additions that were deemed important to caribou.

The Selection and Use of an Unbiased Sampling Design After identification of used and avoided sites, selection of an unbiased sampling design was required. Bias in sampling can be introduced by the spatial orientation (directionality) and distribution of features (trend or heterogeneity) [45,46]. It was noted during caribou collaring work and while conducting a point sampling pilot project in 2006 that landcover features exhibit both a high degree of directionality and heterogeneity. The sampling design was selected to eliminate or reduce bias that could be introduced by spatial distribution of landcover features. Fortin and Dale [46] describe the use of Fibonacci spirals as a means of avoiding error that may be introduced by directionality and trend. A modified version of the Fibonacci spiral was constructed from straight line segments, with segment lengths based on the Fibonacci number sequence, for use in this study (Fig. 4). The adequacy of a spiral sampling design was emphasized by Kalikhman [45] who also noted that shorter spirals provided the same results as straight or zig-zag lines. Construction of spirals centered on the centriods of location clusters and maximum step lengths was completed using an application markup language (AML) script developed by Carl Marks (unpublished) for use in ArcInfo 9.1 [47]. This method allowed for the creation of sampling transects that could be completed in half a day and were representative of the three behavioral periods listed in Table 1.

Fig. 4: Transect line based on Fibonacci spiral.

Wildlife Biology in Practice 2013, 9(2)

|| 47

The Comparison of Spatial Datasets Line intersect sampling was used for the compilation of a ground truth dataset to allow for the evaluation of all spatial datasets used. Given the diverse techniques used in the creation of each of the selected spatial datasets and differences in the final product, they were evaluated on an individual basis. Evaluation was based on the ability to identify or quantify positional accuracy of boundaries between landcover features identified during the completion of the ground based transects and those shown on selected spatial datasets. The statistical method for the quantification of positional accuracy was the calculation of the root mean square error (RSME) [48]. The RMSE provides a measure of the error between the actual location of a feature (as measured on the ground) and the location specified by a given spatial dataset (Fig. 5). Differences between the x and y coordinates are calculated, then squared and summed giving a combined (error radius)2 value. All (error radius)2 values are summed and divided by the number of point pair comparisons with the square root of this value representing the RMSE of the spatial dataset being evaluated.

Fig. 5: Positional differences between actual and mapped locations. These differences are measurable and form the basis for comparisons between datasets using RMSE calculations. All comparisons rely on a dataset of known boundary locations collected with high accuracy. This was achieved in this study by the completion of ground based transects.

The allowable RMSE is based on a relationship between the absolute positional accuracy of a given dataset and the Z score for a selected confidence interval, therefore the allowable RMSE is dependent on the spatial dataset being evaluated at the level of confidence required by the user. The Selection of Boundaries and Boundary Locations for the Evaluation of Spatial Datasets All currently existing landcover boundaries were identified and delineated using ground based transects. Boundary identification was based on an observed change from one landcover type to another, provided that the new landcover feature intersected by the transect line was > 10m in width (as measured along the transect line), otherwise

48 || P.W. Saunders

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets.

the transition to an alternate landcover feature was not recorded. This was required to avoid recording small patches included in otherwise contiguous landcover, or the transitions zones between distinct landcover features, both of which would not be discernable on datasets used due to their limited resolution. All boundary locations observed during the completion of survey transects were recorded as a point using a handheld GPS. GPS units used in this study had an associated positional error of 3-10 m. Recorded ground transect points were overlaid on the each of the spatial datasets and the boundary closes to the recorded ground point was selected for inclusion in the analysis. Boundaries consisted of either vector based entities or the edge of raster cells that depicted different landcover features. Both types of boundaries were extracted and saved in new shapefiles using ArcGIS. The extraction of boundaries from the Landsat 7 data required additional steps before extraction consisting of pansharpening (increasing image resolution), segmentation (demarcation of land feature boundaries) and vector extraction (exportation of boundaries to a new file). RMSE values were then calculated using distances between the actual boundary location (from ground based surveys) and the location depicted by each dataset. Landsat 7 ETM+ Dataset Preparations The study area is represented by landcover features from three distinct ecosystems, boreal forest, bog and fen complexes, and alpine/upland barrens. This creates the need for the selection of a band, band combination, or combination of band composites, that provides the best separation of landcover features. Boundary delineation of landcover features requires the demarcation of ecotones recorded by landsat imagery. Ecotones can be defined as an identifiable transition between landscape features where one feature changes to another due to underlying biotic or abiotic factors [49]. While completing transects it was noted that most ecotones fell below the 10m limit for feature recording, a factor that could be beneficial for completion of the boundary delineation exercises (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6: An example of the well-defined ecotones that exists between bog and forest in the study area. Ecotones of this type are often driven by the water content of the soil and tend to be highly stable over time.

Wildlife Biology in Practice 2013, 9(2)

|| 49

Boundary demarcation was completed using the image analysis software ENVI. The ENVI Feature Extraction Model is based on object-orientated (OO) segmentation for which additional information can be found in the associated users guide [50]. Segmentation is defined as a process of dividing an image into segments by grouping adjacent pixels with similar feature values (brightness, texture, colour, etc). Landsat 7 ETM+ Band Selection and Segmentation Landsat ETM+ imagery is composed of 8 bands, each of which can be used for the identification and delineation of landcover features based of their ability to reflect or emit energy at a specific band width. Landsat spectral bands have been used individually or in combination, as composite images, for landcover classification of forested and other vegetated areas throughout the world [51,52,53,54]. The selection of specific bands for the completion of a landcover segmentation and\or classification exercise is dependent on the landcover features in the target area. The study area is composed of a mosaic of boreal forest, scrub and shrub combinations, mires, and barren alpine\tundra\taiga landscapes and the reflective properties of each of these landcover types varies, creating the need for the selection of a band or band combination that will provide the highest degree of separation. The resulting image was pansharpened based on an increased usefulness in delineating landcover features used by wildlife [55].

Fig. 7: Landsat bands 1, 4 and 5 represented at: (a) 30m pixel size, (b) pansharpened 15m pixel size and (c) segmented landcover features created using ENVI software. Image is centered on transect line sc2007096H5. Colour shifts in the pansharpened image are a result of the pansharpening process.

Segmentation involves the selection of the appropriate scale at which pixels are to be viewed during the aggregation process and the degree to which resulting segments are to be merged. Scale selection for landscape analysis was addressed by Burnett and Blaschke [56] who proposed reducing landscape objects to their smallest most basic unit called a holon which were comprised of contiguous landcover features. Segementation at a scale above the holon size would result in objects containing multiple features. Segmentation was conducted at a scale level of 1 based on a range of 0 to 100, 100 being the largest. This was done to ensure that all landcover features detectable within the constraints imposed by the image pixel size, were actually detected. Within the ENVI program a level of segment merging must be selected from a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 representing the least amount of merging. Determination the best merge level for the utilized Landsat imagery, resulted from the visual comparison of

50 || P.W. Saunders

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets.

actual transect boundary locations to the results of multiple segmentation exercises. This resulted in the selection of a merge level of 85 which gave the best agreement with boundaries identified in selected transects (Fig. 7(c)). Results from this exercise were exported to a vector file for use in ArcGIS. Temporal Currency and the Need for Ancillary Data All used datasets were prone to some degree of temporal incongruence. This incongruence had to be taken into account during the calculation of RMSE values for individual datasets failure to do so would introduce a source of bias. Ancillary datasets, such as forest cutover and road layers, were used to allow for the identification of boundaries that may or may not have been present during the creation of a specific dataset. Results and Discussion There is a great cost differential between coarse, medium and high resolution remotely sensed data, which can differ by an order of magnitude in price [57]. This has restricted many government agencies, or nongovernmental organizations, to the use of low resolution, or dated datasets that can be obtained free of cost, and often means using information that was developed for alternate purposes. The use of these datasets often requires a preliminary analysis of their appropriateness for use in a given task. Work presented in this paper involved the evaluation of four datasets for use in the identification and/or delineation of landcover boundaries in areas used or avoided by female caribou. Success in delineating landcover boundaries was used as a proxy to determine the suitability of the dataset for subsequent future classification of landcover features. Observational and Statistical Evaluation of Individual Datasets Canada Land Inventory Five primary landscape limitations were extracted from the CLI data associated with sites avoided or used by female caribou and have been displayed in Figure 8. There was no significant difference between primary landscape variables occurring at used or avoided sites (X2=6.392, df=4, p=0.172). Only two ungulate species, moose and caribou, exist on the island of Newfoundland with data on both species being incorporated into the CLI dataset. All areas of the island were designated as both moose and caribou habitat with an interchange between primary species occurring on a polygon-by-polygon basis. The occurrence of either moose or caribou as the primary species had no effect on whether a site was avoided or used (X2=2.922, df=1, p=0.087). A review of Figure 9 does show a difference between primary species designations and site use, which is significant at the 10% interval, and indicates the need for continued investigation. The CLI for ungulates was developed from a variety of ancillary data, which included ground surveys and air photo interpretation and includes land classification for moose and caribou, the only two ungulates that occur in the study area. Given the

Wildlife Biology in Practice 2013, 9(2)

|| 51

Fig. 8 (left): Landscape limitations associated with sites avoided or used by female caribou, based on the classification scheme used by the CLI dataset. Fig. 9 (right): Primary species designation summary, as classified in the CLI dataset, for each polygon intersected by individual transect lines.

use of fine resolution data in the development of the CLI, a positional error rate of 30m was selected as a buffer around ground based GPS locations. Map boundaries (polygon perimeters) were considered as matching ground based survey data if they fell within a 30m buffer zone around plotted ground-based landcover boundaries. 17 of the transects completed were crossed (one transect passed within 5m of the boundary) by polygon boundaries in the CLI dataset. Boundary detection was deemed successful for 16 of these transects. To confirm boundary detection the RMSE was calculated for all transects that crossed a CLI feature boundary. The accuracy of detection was evaluated through comparison of the obtained RMSE with that obtained from a set of randomly distributed points (Fig. 10). The calculated RMSE values were 30.4322 (C.I. 2.75m, 95%) for transect boundary locations and 86.6044 (C.I. 8.49m, 95%) for randomly selected boundary locations along individual transect lines. Mapping of the CLI data was conducted at a scale of 1:50,000, based on data obtained from multiple sources for which positional error rates have not been stated, leading to the adoption of an arbitrary positional error rate of 33 38m which takes into account GPS based locational error. The RMSE of 30.4322 is reflective of this rate of positional error. Earth Observation for Sustainable Development of Forests The number of feature boundaries was on average 67% greater for the EOSD data when compared to ground based transect surveys and was significant at the .01 level t=-8.08, df=34, P<0.01). The crossing of two boundaries within a distance less than the effective pixel size was counted as only one boundary (see Fig. 11). For the EOSD the effective pixel size was 25m. After accounting for temporal inconsistencies, the RMSE using ground based transect data was 14.93m (C.I. 1.51m, 95%) compared to 22.89m (C.I. 2.25m, 95%) for a set of randomly generated boundary points. Both RMSE values are below the raster effective pixel size of 25m; thus, the EOSD data cannot be used for boundary delineation in the study area. To evaluate possible causes for this outcome the relationship between the numbers

52 || P.W. Saunders

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets.

Fig. 10 (left): Location of the Canada Land Inventory polygon boundary, detected boundaries, and random points for transect sc2006082H3. Fig. 11 (right): The location of ground survey and EOSD boundaries for transect SC2007051L3_07.

of ground based boundaries identified was compared to the number of boundaries indicated in the EOSD data for individual transects. Using the Pearson productmoment correlation it was indicated that there is a significant positive association between the number of ground-based and EOSD-based boundaries identified along transect lines (r=0.64, df=35, P<0.01). This correlation was further evaluated through the comparison of the number of boundaries detected during ground-based survey activities and the difference between the number of EOSD and transect boundaries identified. The result of a Pearson product-moment correlation indicates a significant positive association between the number of boundaries detected during ground-based transect surveys and the difference between this number and the corresponding number of boundaries derived from the EOSD dataset for individual transects (r=0.42, df=35, P<0.05). Thus, the difference between the number of ground-based survey and EOSD dataset boundaries is dependent on the number of boundaries detected during the ground based survey of a given transect. One explanation for the observed difference could be the effect of landscape variability on the classification of landcover features from remotely sensed data. The classification of landcover features from remotely sensed data can be influenced by the scale at which individual features occur and the spectral properties of those features [58,59]. The resolution of used datasets was taken into account by restricting the recording of landcover features, during ground-based surveys, to those greater than 10m in width, eliminating the recording of landcover features which would have been impossible to detect with datasets used in this study. The 25m resolution of the EOSD dataset could pose problems during classification of landcover features in areas exhibiting high variability. High landcover variability coupled with low resolution can lead to the inclusion of multiple landcover features in individual pixels. The occurrence of mixed pixels can lead to a high degree of spectral swamping, especially when landcover features differ widely in their spectral signatures and the transition between features are abrupt. During the completion of ground based surveys it was noted that ecotones were narrow, in most cases will below the 10m recording cut-off width. This was coupled with transitions between landcover features with very distinct spectral signatures,

Wildlife Biology in Practice 2013, 9(2)

|| 53

such as, forest-bog, bog-water, or shrub-lichen. The combination of high variability in both landcover features and their spectral signatures results a high number of pixels with distinct pixel values over short distances leading to the classification of landcover features often restricted to one pixel in size. Both of these conditions exists in the EOSD data and are evident in Figure 11. With the existence of such features the degree of data smoothing becomes critical, especially where single or small sets of pixels, often referred to noise, are created through misclassification [60]. Provincial Forest Inventory The Provincial forest inventory represents the most temporally current dataset available for the island of Newfoundland. It is maintained by the Department of Natural Resources and was compiled from air photo interpretation, air and ground based surveys and available ancillary data. Classification is based on the Data Dictionary for District Library as published by the Provincial Department of Natural Resources [38]. There was a significant difference between the number of landcover boundaries detected during the ground based surveys and those occurring in the forest inventory dataset (t=-2.344, df=27, P<0.05). Overall there was a 11% increase in the number of boundaries over those found during the ground based surveys (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12: Boundaries detected during a ground based survey of transect SC2007095L1 overlaid on the boundaries found in the Provincial Forest Inventory.

An evaluation of the difference between ground based surveys boundary locations and those portrayed on forest inventory maps undertaken. To determine if correspondence between landcover boundaries on forest inventory maps with those identified on the ground was not a result of chance comparison to a set of randomly generated boundary points, equivalent to the number of boundaries detected during the ground based survey of individual transects, was conducted. It should also be noted that boundaries for features not included in the forest inventory dataset, such as roads, were removed before the analysis was completed. The results of the evaluation produced a RMSE of 39.47 (C.I. 1.82m, 95%) and 64.71 (C.I. 2.88m, 95%) for the ground based survey and random points respectively. These results must be viewed within the context that the positional error inherent in

54 || P.W. Saunders

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets.

the inventory dataset is 30m plus a positional error of 5m for handheld GPS units thus it would not be uncommon to have a boundary positional error of 35m. This number corresponds to the error of 39.47m calculated based on the ground based transect data. The error of 64.71m derived from the evaluation of randomly placed points along the transect represents a 64% increase in positional error over that achieved using the transect dataset. Thus it can be concluded that the forest inventory dataset can be used for the delineation and identification of landcover features used by female caribou. A review of the provincial forest inventory dataset completed by McLaren and Mahoney [61] identified limitations in the delineation of landcover features in areas that have a non-commercial potential. These limitations involve the inclusion of features in a specific classification even though it may form a substantial component of another landcover type. Issues of this nature were also noted for the classification of scrub, where bogs had a tendency to be placed within this category in areas with a large ericaceous cover. This was confirmed during a visual assessment directed at identifying areas, along with the underlying landcover classifications, where the ground truth data and the forest inventory dataset differed. The evaluation suggested that landcover features, other than commercial forests, were not delineated on the scale used for forest stands during creation of the inventory resulting in a blending of features in these areas. The opposite effect was seen in areas comprised of commercial stands where delineation resulted in the differentiation of individual components of contiguous forest stands based on composition, size, density or age. Ground truth data would have produced a listing of fewer landcover features for these areas since the differences in forest stand type was not recorded with this level of detail. Another limitation involved in using Provincial forest inventory for the identification and delineation of caribou landcover usage is shown in Figure 13 and concerns the spatial coverage of the dataset. The lack of coverage is not confined to the study area but occurs at various sites across the province. The areas excluded are often void of commercial forests but nonetheless represent important areas for caribou. This has led to the need for the identification of a spatial data set that could be used to fill the gaps inherent in the forest inventory, thus the inclusion of the Landsat 7 ETM+ dataset in this study.

Fig. 13: Forest Inventory coverage of the area included in this study.

Wildlife Biology in Practice 2013, 9(2)

|| 55

Landsat ETM+ Segmentation File Evaluation A representative band combination was selected through an evaluation of the covariance and correlation matrices for all bands in the landsat image except bands 6a and 6b. Both matrices were calculated using ArcGIS (Tables 4 and 5).
Table 4: Covariance Matrix for Landsat ETM+ bands 1 - 5 and 7.

Table 5: Correlation Matrix for Landsat ETM+ bands 1 - 5 and 7.

Utilizing the covariance and correlation matrix, and the standard deviation associated with each band, the Optimum Index Factor (OIF) was calculated for all band combinations. The OIF calculation is dependent of the standard deviation of the pixel values for individual bands and the value of the correlation between band pairs, being developed to identify the 3 band combination that provides the highest amount of information with the lowest amount of overlap [75,76]. OIF values are calculated using the following equation: Where: Stdi standard deviation of band i; Stdj standard deviation of band j; Stdk standard deviation of band k; Corrij correlation coefficient of band i and band j;Corrik correlation coefficient of band i and band k; Corrjk correlation coefficient of band j and band k. For the six bands included in this study, the band combination 1, 4, 5 was ranked as the highest for use in classification activities (Table 6).
Table 6: Optimum Factor Index for the 6 highest ranked band combinations. For the Landsat imagery used in this study the band combination of 1,4,5 provides the best spectral separation of landcover features in the study area.

The number of feature boundaries was on average 40% greater for the segmented landsat image when compared to ground based transect data and was significant at the .01 level (t=-9.05, df=27, P<0.01). During enumeration the crossing of two

56 || P.W. Saunders

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets.

boundaries within a distance less than the effective pixel size was counted as only one boundary. For the pan-sharpened landsat imagery the effective pixel size was 15m. A portion of the boundary discrepancy was a result of the difficulty to create adequate segmentation in areas covered by bogs and mires which required a reduction in the size of the scaling factor and a small reduction in the merge value used. A consequence of this was the creation of additional segments in forested areas leading to an increase in the number delineated boundaries. Most of these additional segments would be eliminated upon completion of either the rule or supervised based classification of the objects identified. Given that the aim of this study was the identification of boundaries, originally identified during ground-based surveys, using selected datasets, the final step of classification was not required. After accounting for temporal inconsistencies and errors of omission through the use of ancillary datasets, the RMSE using ground based transect data was 27.92m (C.I. 1.14m, 95%) and 37.02m (C.I. 1.52m, 95%) for a set of randomly generated boundary points. The landsat image had a positional error of 20m and when combined with the GPS error of 5m creates an error rate comparable to the RMSE error obtained for the segmented image. The RMSE obtained during the comparison with ground based survey results is within the 25m combined positional error rate thus represents a confirmation that landsat imagery and segmentation can be used to delineate existing and former landscape boundaries. This fact is further supported by the 24.6% difference between the RMSE obtained for ground based survey points and the set of randomly generated boundary points. The implementation of a rule or supervised classification scheme would reduce the number of boundaries in the segmented Landsat image. This would increase the difference between the ground based and random RMSE results, since most of the segments occurring inside contiguous landcover features would be eliminated, thereby increasing the discrepancy between the location of random point and segments. Given these results, segmented, pansharpened, Landsat ETM+ imagery can be used to complement the Provincial Forestry Inventory dataset for the delineation and classification of caribou habitat on the island of Newfoundland. Conclusions Fulfillment of Aims and Objectives As outlined above, the aims and objectives of this study were centered on three main tasks; the identification and selection of spatial datasets, the selection of methods for the evaluation of selected datasets that will allow for the identification of landcover boundaries, and the evaluation of these datasets utilizing a representative sample of boundaries occurring in areas used or avoided by caribou. This analysis was conducted on datasets that were available for free through web-based data sharing sites or from various federal or provincial agencies. Methods for dataset evaluation were selected based on the requirement to obtain a representative sample of landcover boundaries in areas used or avoided by caribou and a mechanism to compare individual datasets. The use of the space-time scan statistics eliminated the need to designate a study boundary providing an unbiased means of identifying representative areas used by caribou, with maximum step length

Wildlife Biology in Practice 2013, 9(2)

|| 57

being used to indicate avoidance. The comparison of the representative sample and selected datasets was completed through the calculation of RMSE values. The CLI, forest inventory and Landsat datasets have been shown as useful for the identification and delineation of landcover boundaries associated with areas used by caribou. Each of these data sources must be used within the constraints inherent in each of the datasets. All datasets suffer from temporal inconsistency and as a result errors of omission or commission. This leads to the need for the use of ancillary data to insure a complete delineation of all features in a specific area. The CLI dataset is prone to a high degree of generalization and as such should only be used for delineation of areas used by caribou at the provincial scale and only if other datasets are not available. One important result obtained was that landcover boundaries were detected during ground based surveys that were also present in the CLI dataset. This outcome indicates the permanence of landcover boundaries and could provide a baseline dataset for landscape change studies relating to caribou habitat. Results of the RMSE evaluation for the forest inventory dataset indicate that it can and should be used for the delineation of landcover features. In some cases, such as the delineation of forest stands, some level of generalization may be warranted. The incompleteness of the forest inventory dataset precludes its usage across the province and demonstrates the need for a complementary data source such as classified Landsat ETM+ imagery. The Landsat ETM+ dataset can be used to complement the forest inventory dataset in those areas currently not covered by the inventory. Although RMSE values indicate that the landsat data can be used to identify existing landcover boundaries at an acceptable level of accuracy, the issue of a 40% difference in the number boundaries when compared to the ground based survey must be addressed. During the segmentation exercise it was noted that scaling and merging levels that produce the best results for forested areas often failed to produce adequate segmentation in areas represented by bogs and mires. In this study a compromise was made during the selection of scaling and merging values such that the level of accuracy within forested areas was sacrificed for a better delineation in bogs and mires. It is recognized that the completion of either rule based of supervised based classification will be able to compensate for this discrepancy. It is not possible to recommend the use of the EOSD dataset for the delineation of caribou habitat unless it is subjected to reclassification or generalization. Since the dataset is supplied only as a platted geotiff file, reclassification will not be possible without access to the original pre-classified files. Generalization of the existing files may produce acceptable results for restricted areas Newfoundland. Summation Through the use of space-time scan statistics, ground transect sampling, segmentation and RMSE evaluations it was determined that the Provincial Forest Inventory and Landsat ETM+ data can be used to delineate boundaries associated with landcover features in areas used or avoided during calving and post-calving on the island of Newfoundland. The CLI dataset can be used to provide information

58 || P.W. Saunders

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets.

on the location of permanent boundaries occurring at the landscape scale within the range used by individual caribou. Use of the EOSD dataset cannot be recommended based on the inability to delineate ground based boundaries at the scale used by this study. An attempt was made to generalize the dataset such that it would better reflect the ground based location of boundaries but satisfactory results were not achieved. The methods developed to provide representative sampling have eliminated bias that could be introduced by both the selection of a study area, and the influence of directionality inherent in some landcover features. This was accomplished by the selection of both used and avoided areas through the use of space-time scan statistics based on telemetry data for individual caribou, maximum step length calculations, and the use of non-linear transect sampling. This study represents only a preliminary step in the identification and delineation of landcover features important to caribou. The results of this study and data obtained during the ground based transect survey must now be used to provide a habitat based landcover map for caribou on the island of Newfoundland. This can be achieved through completion of the items outlined in the next section. Recommendations To ensure the completion of knowledge based habitat mapping for caribou during calving and post-calving the following activities are recommended: 1. A combination of both forest inventory and landsat data should be used to provide complete coverage of the island. 2. Ancillary data (roads, waterways, water bodies, rightaways, etc) must be incorporated in all delineation activities 3. Logistic regression must be completed for data collected during the ground based survey to identify landcover features used or avoided by caribou. 4. Reclassification of the forest inventory and classification of the segmented landsat datasets must be based on the logistic regression results. 5. The completed knowledge based habitat map is to be used for the identification of landcover features used by caribou during other periods in the yearly caribou lifecycle. 6. The spatial relationship between landcover features in areas used or avoided by caribou must be quantified and the results applied to classification activities conducted on spatial datasets representing the island of Newfoundland.
References Five key references, selected by the authors, are marked below (Three recommended () and two highly recommended () papers). 1. 2. Davis, S.T. 1895. Caribou shooting in Newfoundland, with a history of Englands oldest colony from 1001 to 1895. The New Era Printing House, Lancaster, PA. Ware, R.D. 1903. Newfoundland caribou. The Outing 43(1): 24-28.

Wildlife Biology in Practice 2013, 9(2)

|| 59

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Sclater, W.A.B. 1905. The Woodland Caribou. The Newfoundland Quarterly 5(1). Dugmore, A.A.R. 1913. The Romance of the Newfoundland Caribou. J. P. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, Pa, USA. Mahoney, S.P. 2000. A synthesis and interpretation of the biology of woodland caribou on the island of Newfoundland. Wildlife Division, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Bergerud, A.T. 1985. Antipredator strategies of caribou: dispersion along shorelines. Can J Zool 63: 1324-1329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z85-199 Bergerud, A.T., Butler, H.E. & Miller, D.R. 1984. Antipredator strategies of caribou: dispersion in mountains. Can J Zool 62: 1566-1575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z84-229 Rettie, W.J. & Messier, F. 2001. Range use and movement rates of woodland caribou in Saskatchewan. Can J Zool 79: 1933-1940. Servheen, G. & Lyon, L.J. 1989. Habitat use by woodland caribou in the Selkirk Mountains. J Wildlife Manage 53(1): 230-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3801340 Mahoney, S.P. and Virgl, J.A. 2003. Habitat selection and demography of a nonmigratory woodland caribou population in Newfoundland. Can J Zool 81: 321-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z02-239 Barten, N.L., Bowyer, R.T. & Jenkins, K.J. 2001. Habitat use by female caribou: tradeoffs associated with parturition. J Wildlife Manage 65(1): 77-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3803279 Crete, M., Huot, J. & Gautheir, L. 1990. Food selection during early lactation by caribou calving on the tundra in Quebec. Arctic 43(1): 60-65. Stuart-Smith, A.K., Bradshaw, C.J.A., Boutin, S., Hebert, D.M. & Rippin, A.B. 1997. Woodland caribou relative to landscape patterns in Northestern Alberta. J Wildlife Manage 61(3): 622633. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3802170 Schaefer, J.A. & Mahoney, S.P. 2007. Effects of progressive clearcut logging on Newfoundland caribou. J Wildlife Manage 71(6): 1753-1757. http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2005-479 Chubbs, T.E., Keith, L.B., Mahoney, S.P. & McGrath, M.J. 1992. Responses of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) to clear-cutting in East-Central Newfoundland. Can J Zool 71: 487-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z93-070 Vistnes, I. & Nellemann, C. 2001. Avoidance of cabins, roads, and power lines by reindeer during calving. J Wildlife Manage 65(4): 915-925. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3803040 Weir, J.N., Mahoney, S.P., McLaren, B. & Ferguson, S.H. 2007. Effects of mine development on woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus) distribution. Wildlife Biol 13(1): 66-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2007)13[66:EOMDOW]2.0.CO;2 McLoughlin, P.D., Dzus, E., Wynes, B. & Boutin, S. 2003. Declines in populations of woodland caribou. J Wildlife Manage 67(4): 755-761. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3802682

14. 15.

16. 17. 18.

60 || P.W. Saunders 19. 20. 21.

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets.

Courtois, R., Ouellt, J., Breton, L., Gingras, A. & Dussault, C. 2007. Effects of forest disturbance on density, space use, and mortality of woodland caribou. Ecoscience 14(4): 491-498. http://dx.doi.org/10.2980/1195-6860(2007)14[491:EOFDOD]2.0.CO;2 Bergerud, A.T. 1974. Decline of caribou in North America following settlement. J Wildlife Manage 38(4): 757-770. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3800042 Rolstad, J. 2005. Landscape ecology and wildlife management. In: Wiens J. A. and Moss M.R. (eds.) Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 208-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614415.022 Loveland, T.R., Gallant, A.L. & Vogelmann, J.E. 2005. Perspectives on the use of land-cover data for ecological studies. In: Wiens J. A. and Moss M.R. (eds.) Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 120-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614415.014

22.

23. Griffith, J.A. 2004. The role of landscape pattern analysis in understanding concepts of land cover change. J Geographical Sciences 14(1): 3-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02873085 24. Damman, A.W.H. 1964. Some forest types of central Newfoundland and their relation to environmental factors. Dept. of Forestry, Canada, (Society of American Foresters). Forest Research Branch Contribution No. 596, Forest Science Monograph No. 8, 62 pp. Rydin, H. & Jeglum, J.K. 2006. Biology of Peatlands. Oxford University Press, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528722.001.0001 Vors, L.V., Schaefer, J.A., Pond, B.A., Rodgers A.R. & Patterson, B.R. 2006. Woodland caribou extirpation and anthropogenic landscape disturbance in Ontario. J Wildlife Manage 71(4): 1249-1256. http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2006-263 Canadian Forest Service 2002. Canadian Large Fire Database (LFDB). [Internet] CFS Fire Research The Canadian Large Fire Data Base. Natural Resources Canada. Available via: http://fire.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/research/climate_change/lfdb/lfdb_download_e.htm Cited 19 Feb 2008. Manly, B.F.J., McDonald, L.L., Thomas, D.L., McDonald, T.L. & Erickson, W.P. 2004. Resource selection by animals, statistical design and analysis of field studies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, USA. Morrison, M.L., Block, W.M. Strickland, M.D. & Kendall, W.L. 2001. Wildlife study design. Springer, New York, USA. Kulldorff, M., Heffernan, R., Hartman, J., Assuncao, R. & Mostashari, F. 2005. A space-time permutation scan statistic for disease outbreak detection. PLoS Medicine 2(3): 216-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020059 Kulldorff M. 1997. A spatial scan statistic. Commun.Statist.: Theory Meth 26(6):1481-1496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03610929708831995 Marj, T., Devis, T. Rafael, T. & Frederic, R. 2006. Forest fires cluster detection with space-time scan statistics. 4th Swiss Geoscience Meeting, Bern, Switzerland; November 24 25, 2006. Kulldorff, M. 2009. SaTScanTM User Guide for Version 8.0. SaTScan - Software for the spatial, temporal, and space-time scan statistics. Available via: http://www.satscan.org/. Cited

25. 26.

27. 28.

29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

Wildlife Biology in Practice 2013, 9(2)

|| 61

20 Mar 2009. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. Dwass, M. 1957. Modified randomization tests for nonparametric hypotheses. Ann Mathematical Statistics 28(1): 181-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177707045 Beyer, H. L. 2004. Hawths Analysis Tools for ArcGIS. SpatialEcology.Com. Available via: http://www.spatialecology.com/htools Cited 25 Nov 2008. ESRI 2006. ArcGis v. 9.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 380 NewYork Street, Redlands, CA, USA. Aniello P. 2003. Get centroid arcscript. ESRI Support Center, Your Online Technical Resource. Available via: http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=12781. Cited 25 Nov 2008. Dept. of Natural Resources 2007. Forest inventory data dictionary. Dept. of Natural Resources, Forestry Division, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Newton, A.C. 2007. Forest Ecology and Conservation, A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford University Press Inc., New York, NY, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198567448.001.0001 Dale, M.R.T. 2004. Spatial Pattern Analysis in Plant Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. Canfield, R.H. 1941. Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation. J Forest 39: 388-394. Buckland, S.T., Borchers, D.L., Johnston, A., Henrys, P.A. & Marques, T.A. 2007. Line transect methods for plant surveys. Biometrics 63: 989-998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00798.x Affleck, D.L.R., Gregoire, T.G. & Valentine H.T. 2005. Design unbiased estimation in line intersect sampling using segmented transects. Environ Ecol Stat 12: 139-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10651-005-1038-1 Manly, B.F.J. 2002. Estimating a resource selection function with line transect sampling. J Appl Math and Decision Sci 6(4): 213-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/S1173912602000159 Kalikhman, I. 2007. Patchy distribution fields: a spiral design and reconstruction adequacy. Environ Monit Assess 124: 243-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-9222-9 Fortin, M. & Dale, M.R.T. 2005. Spatial Analysis, A Guide for Ecologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. ESRI 2005. ArcInfo v. 9.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 380 NewYork Street, Redlands, CA, USA. Worboys, M. & Duckham, M. 2004. GIS A Computing Perspective. CRC Press, Washington D.C. USA. Kark, S. & van Rensburg, B.J. 2006. Ecotones: marginal or central areas of transition? Israel J Ecol Evol 52: 29-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1560/IJEE.52.1.29 ENVI 2008. ENVI Feature Extration Module Users Guide. Feature Extraction Module Version 4.6, December, 2008 Edition, ITT Visual Information Solutions. Boyd, D.S. & Danson, F. M. 2005. Satellite remote sensing of forest resources: three decades

62 || P.W. Saunders

Delineation of Landcover Boundaries in Areas Used or Avoided by Female Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Using Publicly Available Spatial Datasets.

52.

of research development. Pro Phys Geog 29(1): 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0309133305pp432ra Wulder, M., Cranny, M., Dechka, J. & White, J. 2004. An illustrated methodology for landcover mapping of forests with Landsat-7 ETM+ Data: Methods in support of EOSD landcover, version 3. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC, Canada, March 2004. Ramsey, R. D., Wright, Jr. D. L. & McGinty, C. 2004. Evaluating the use of Landsat 30m Enhanced Thematic Mapper to monitor vegetation cover in shrub-steppe environments. Geocarto Int 19(2): 39-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106040408542305 Syed, A. & Abdulla, A. M. S. 2002. Assessing desert vegetation cover using remotely sensed data: a case study from the state of qatar. 23rd Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, Kathmandu, Nepal, November 25-29, 2002. Fox, L., Garrett, M.L., Heasty, R. & Torres, E. 2002. Classifying wildlife habitat with pansharpened Landsat 7 imagery. ISPRS Comission I Mid-Term Symposium in conjunction with Pecora 15/Land Satellite Information IV Conference10-15 November 2002, Denver, CO, USA. Burnett, C. and Blaschke, T. 2003. A multi-scale segmentation/object relationship modelling methodology for landscape analysis. Ecol Model 168: 233-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00139-X Rogan, J. and Chen, D. 2004. Remote sensing technology for mapping and monitoring landcover and land-use change. Prog Plann 61: 301-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-9006(03)00066-7 Fisher, P. 1998. The pixel: a snare and a delusion. Int J Remote Sens 18(3): 679-685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014311697219015 Cracknel, A.P. 1998. Synergy in remote sensing whats in a pixel? Int J Remote Sens 19(11): 2025-2047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014311698214848 Bradshaw, G.A. & Fortin, M.J. 2000. Landscape heterogeneity effects on scaling and monitoring large areas using remote sensing data. Geog Infor Sci 6(1): 61-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10824000009480534 McLaren, B.E. & Mahoney, S.P. 2001. Comparison of forestry-based remote sensing methodologies to evaluate woodland caribou habitat in non-forested areas of Newfoundland. Forest Chron 778(5): 866-873.

53.

54.

55.

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.