European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 59, Issue 5, pp 675–682 | Cite as

Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) as a predictor of forage availability for ungulates in forest and field habitats

  • Tomasz Borowik
  • Nathalie Pettorelli
  • Leif Sönnichsen
  • Bogumiła Jędrzejewska
Original Paper

Abstract

Quantifying available plant biomass is a crucial step towards improving our understanding of herbivore ecology and trophic interactions. Thanks to the development of satellite-derived vegetation indices such as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), ecologists have been provided with indirect estimates of primary production at various temporal and spatial scales. When it comes to forested ecosystems, most mammalian herbivores predominantly rely on the ground vegetation, yet little is known regarding the suitability of NDVI to predict this component of forest vegetation cover. This study compares the relationship between NDVI and ground vegetation biomass in two contrasting habitats (field and forest) in Eastern Poland over the spring and summer seasons (2007–2008). Results indicate that seasonality shapes the relationship between NDVI and ground vegetation biomass for each habitat type. In the field habitat, NDVI and ground vegetation biomass were positively related, with a stronger correlation between the two variables occurring in summer. In the forest habitat, a switch in the direction of the correlation between biomass and NDVI (from positive in spring to negative in summer) was detected. The timing of the switch was related to the timing of full development of tree and shrub leaves (late May–early June). This suggests that the usefulness of NDVI as a predictor of ground vegetation biomass is dependent upon the habitat considered and the targeted season.

Keywords

Satellite-derived indices Ground biomass sampling Herbivores Linear mixed models 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Prof. W. Jędrzejewski for his advice concerning biomass collection and all the students who help in the fieldwork. The work of the first author during analyzing data and writing the manuscript was supported by a Marie Curie Transfer of Knowledge Fellowship BIORESC of European Community's Sixth Framework Programme under contract number MTKDCT-2005-029957. Field work was financed by a grant 2 P04F 028 29 from the Polish Ministry of Sciences and Higher Education and Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany. We are grateful to Dr. Mathieu Garel and one anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Asrar G, Fuchs M, Kanemasu E, Hatfield J (1984) Estimating absorbed photosynthetic radiation and leaf area index from spectral reflectance in wheat. Agron J 76:300–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker ES, Ritchie ME, Olff H, Milchunas DG, Knops JMH (2006) Herbivore impact on grassland plant diversity depends on habitat productivity and herbivore size. Ecol Lett 9:780–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball JP, Danell K, Sunesson P (2000) Response of a herbivore community to increased food quality and quantity: an experiment with nitrogen fertilizer in a boreal forest. J Appl Ecol 37:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Begon M, Haper JL, Townsend CR (1996) Ecology, 3rd edn. Blackwell Science Ltd., OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Box EO, Holben BN, Kalb V (1989) Accuracy of the AVHRR vegetation index as a predictor of biomass, primary productivity and net CO2 flux. Plant Ecol 80:71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell JB (2007) Introduction to remote sensing, 4th edn. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Chastain RA, Townsend PA (2007) Use of Landsat ETM and topographic data to characterize evergreen understory communities in Appalachian deciduous forests. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens 73:563–575Google Scholar
  9. Côté SD, Festa-Bianchet M (2001) Birthdate, mass and survival in mountain goat kids: effects of maternal characteristics and forage quality. Oecologia 127:230–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. R Development Core Team (2012) R language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN: 3-900051-07-0, http:/www.R-project.org
  11. Di Bella C, Faivre R, Ruget F, Seguin B, Guerif M, Combal B, Weiss A, Rebella C (2004) Remote sensing capabilities to estimate pasture production in France. Int J Remote Sens 25:5359–5372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diallo O, Diouf A, Hanan N, Ndiaye A, Prevost Y (1991) AVHRR monitoring of savanna primary production in Senegal, West Africa 1987–1988. Int J Remote Sens 12:1259–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diouf A, Lambin EF (2001) Monitoring land-cover changes in semi-arid regions: remote sensing data and field observations in the Ferlo, Senegal. J Arid Environ 48:129–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duffy JP, Pettorelii N (2012) Exploring the relationship between NDVI and African elephant population density in protected areas. Afr J Ecol 50:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dussault C, Ouellet J-P, Courtois R, Huot J, Breton L, Jolicoeur H (2005) Linking moose habitat selection to limiting factors. Ecography 28:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Falińska K (1973) Seasonal dynamics of herb layer in forest communities of Białowieża National Park. Phytocoenosis 2:1–120 (in Polish with English summary)Google Scholar
  17. Faliński JB (1986) Vegetation dynamics in temperate lowland primeval forests. Dr W. Junk, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank DA (1998) Ungulate regulation of ecosystem processes in Yellowstone National Park: direct and feedback effects. Wildlife Soc B 26:410–418Google Scholar
  19. Freitas SR, Mello MCS, Cruz CBM (2005) Relationships between forest structure and vegetation indices in Atlantic Rainforest. Forest Ecol Manag 218:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fryxell JM (1991) Forage quality and aggregation by large herbivores. Am Nat 138:478–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garel M, Solberg EJ, Saether B-E, Herfindal I, Hogda K-A (2006) The length of growing season and adult sex ratio affect sexual size dimorphism in moose. Ecology 87:745–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garel M, Gaillared J-M, Jullien J-M, Dubray D, Maillard D, Loison A (2011) Population abundance and early spring conditions determine variation in body mass of juvenile chamois. J Mammal 92:1112–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garonna I, Fazey I, Brown ME, Pettorelli N (2009) Rapid primary productivity changes in one of the costal rainforests: the case of Kahua, Solomon Islands. Environ Conserv 36:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gebert C, Verheyden-Tixier H (2001) Variations of diet composition of red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) in Europe. Mamm Rev 31:189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilabert M, Gandia S, Melia J (1996) Analyses of spectral-biophysical relationships for a corn canopy. Remote Sens Environ 55:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilliam FS (2007) The ecological significance of the herbaceous layer in temperate forest ecosystems. Bioscience 57:845–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamel S, Garel M, Festa-Bianchet M, Gaillard JM, Côté SD (2009) Spring normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) predicts annual variation in timing of peak faecal crude protein in mountain ungulates. J Appl Ecol 46:582–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanley ME, Lamont BB, Fairbanks MM, Rafferty CM (2007) Plant structural traits and their role in anti-herbivore defence. Perspect Plant Ecol 8:157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hobbs T (1995) The use of NOAA-AVHRR NDVI data to assess herbage production in the arid rangelands of Central Australia. Int J Remote Sens 16:1289–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huete A, Didan K, Miura T, Rodriguez EP, Gao X, Ferreira LG (2002) Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens Environ 83:195–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunter MD, Ohgushi T, Price PW (1992) Effects of resource distribution on animal plant interactions. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  32. Institute of Meteorology and Water Management (2012) IMWM homepage. http://www.imgw.pl. Accessed on 20 June 2012
  33. Jackson RD, Huete AR (1991) Interpreting vegetation indexes. Prev Vet Med 11:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jędrzejewska B, Jędrzejewski W (2005) Large carnivores and ungulates in European temperate forest ecosystems: Bottom-up and top-down control. In: Ray JC, Redford KH, Steneck RS, Berger J (eds) Large carnivores and the conservation of biodiversity. Island, Washington, pp 230–246Google Scholar
  35. Jensen JR (1996) Introductory digital image processing. A remote sensing perspective, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Inc, Upper Sadle RiverGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonasson S (1988) Evaluation of the point intercept method for the estimation of plant biomass. Oikos 52:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Justice C, Townshend J (2002) Special issue on the moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS): a new generation of land surface monitoring. Remote Sens Environ 83:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kerr JT, Ostrovski M (2003) From space to species: ecological application for remote sensing. Trends Ecol Evol 18:299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krasińska M, Krasiński ZA (2007) European bison. The nature monograph. Mammal Research Institute Polish Academy of Sciences, BiałowieżaGoogle Scholar
  40. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moges SM, Raun WR, Mullen RW, Freeman KW, Johnson GV, Solie JB (2005) Evaluation of green, red, and near infrared bands for predicting winter wheat biomass, nitrogen uptake, and final grain yield. J Plant Nutr 28:1431–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Myneni RB, Hall FG, Sellers PJ, Marshak AL (1995) The interpretation of spectral vegetation indexes. IEEE T Geosci Remote 33:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mysterud A, Bartoń KA, Jędrzejewska B, Krasiński ZA, Niedziałkowska M, Kamler JF, Yoccoz NG, Stenseth NC (2007) Population ecology and conservation of endangered megafauna: the case of European bison in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland. Anim Conserv 10:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nagelkerke NJD (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78:691–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Naidoo R, Du Preez P, Stuart-Mill G, Weaver LC, Jago M, Wegmann M (2012) Factors affecting intraspecific variation in home range size of large African herbivore. Landscape Ecol 27:1523–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olson KA, Mueller T, Kerby JT, Bolortsetseg S, Leimgruber P, Nicolson CR, Fuller TK (2011) Death by a thousand huts? Effect of household presence on density and distribution of Mongolian gazelles. Conserv Lett 4:304–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paruelo J, Epstein H, Lauenroth W, Burke I (1997) ANPP estimates from NDVI for the Central Grassland Region of the United States. Ecology 78:953–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paruelo J, Lauenroth WK, Roset PA (2000) Technical note: estimating an aboveground plant biomass using photographic technique. J Range Manage 53:190–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peles JD, Barrett GW (1996) Effects of vegetative cover on the population dynamics of meadow voles. J Mammal 77:857–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Persson P, Hallkonyves K, Sjostrom G, Pinzke S (1993) NOAA AVHRR data for crop productivity estimation in Sweden. Adv Space Res 13:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pettorelli N, Gaillard JM, Van Laere G, Duncan P, Kjellander P, Liberg O, Delorme D, Maillard D (2002) Variations in adult body mass in roe deer: the effects of population density at birth and of habitat quality. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 269:747–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pettorelli N, Gaillard JM, Duncan P, Maillard D, Van Laere G, Delorme D (2003) Age and density modify the effects of habitat quality on survival and movements of roe deer. Ecology 84:3307–3316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pettorelli N, Vik JO, Mysterud A, Gaillard JM, Tucker CJ, Stenseth NC (2005) Using the satellite-derived normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) to assess ecological effects of environmental change. Trends Ecol Evol 20:503–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pettorelli N, Gaillard JM, Mysterud A, Duncan P, Stenseth NC, Delorme D, Van Laere G (2006) Using a proxy of plant productivity (NDVI) to track animal performance: the case of roe deer. Oikos 112:565–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pettorelli N, Pelletier F, Von Hardenberg A, Festa-Bianchet M, Côté SD (2007) Early onset of vegetation growth vs. rapid green-up: impacts on juvenile mountain ungulates. Ecology 88:381–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pettorelli N, Bro-Jorgensen J, Durant SM, Blackburn T, Carbone C (2009) Energy availability and density estimates in African ungulates. Am Nat 173:689–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pettorelli N, Ryan S, Mueller T, Bunnefeld N, Jędrzejewska B, Lima M, Kausrud K (2011) The normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI): unforeseen successes in animal ecology. Clim Res 46:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Portier C, Festa-Bianchet M, Gaillard JM, Jorgenson JT, Yoccoz NG (1998) Effects of density and weather on survival of bighorn sheep lambs. J Zool 245:271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Prince SD, Tucker CJ (1986) Satellite remote sensing of rangelands in Botswana II. NOAA AVHRR and herbaceous vegetation. Int J Remote Sens 7:1555–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Resasco J, Hale AN, Henry MC, Gorchov DL (2007) Detecting an invasive shrub in a deciduous forest understory using late-fall Landsat sensor imaginary. Int J Remote Sens 28:3739–3745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roy PS, Ravan SA (1996) Biomass estimation using satellite remote sensing data—an investigation on possible approaches for natural forest. J Biosci 21:535–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Running SW (1990) Estimating terrestrial primary productivity by combining remote sensing and ecosystem simulation. In: Mooney H, Hobbs R (eds) Remote sensing of biosphere functioning. Ecological Studies, Vol. 79. Springer, New York, pp 65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ryan SJ, Cross PC, Winnie J, Hay C, Bowers J, Getz WM (2012) The utility of normalized difference index for predicting African buffalo forage quality. J Wildlife Manage 46:1499–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Santin-Janin H, Garel M, Chapuis JL, Pontier D (2009) Assessing the performance of NDVI as a proxy for plant biomass using non-linear models: a case study on the Kerguelen archipelago. Polar Biol 32:861–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sellers P, Heiser M, Hall F (1992) Relations between surface conductance and spectral vegetation indexes at intermediate (100 m2 to 15 km2) length scales. J Geophys Res 97:19033–19059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sinclair ARE (2003) Mammal population regulation, keystone processes and ecosystem dynamics. Philos T Roy Soc B 358:1729–1740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. WH Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. Somogyi Z, Cienciala Z, Makipaa R, Mukkonen P, Lehtonen A, Weiss P (2007) Indirect methods of large scale forest biomass estimation. Eur J For Res 126:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Todd SW, Hoffer RM, Milchunas DG (1998) Biomass estimation on grazed and ungrazed rangelands using spectral indices. Int J Remote Sens 19:427–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tuanmu MN, Vina A, Bearer S, Xu W, Ouyang Z, Zhang H, Liu J (2010) Mapping understory vegetation using phenological characteristics derived from remotely sensed data. Remote Sens Environ 114:1833–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tucker CJ (1979) Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens Environ 8:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tucker CJ, Holben B, Elgin J (1981) Remote sensing of total dry-matter accumulation in winter wheat. Remote Sens Environ 11:171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tucker CJ, Vanpraet C, Boerwinkel E, Gaston A (1983) Satellite remote sensing of total dry matter production in the Senegalese Sahel. Remote Sens Environ 13:461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tucker CJ, Vanpraet C, Sharman M, Vanittersum G (1985) Satellite remote sensing of total herbaceous biomass production in the Senegalese Sahel—1980–1984. Int J Remote Sens 17:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tucker CJ, Justice C, Prince S (1986) Monitoring the grasslands of the Sahel 1984–1985. Int J Remote Sens 7:1571–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wang Q, Adiku S, Tenhunen J, Granier A (2005) On the relationship of NDVI with leaf area index in a deciduous forest site. Remote Sens Environ 94:244–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang TJ, Skidmore AK, Toxopeus AG, Liu X (2009) Understory bamboo discrimination using a winter image. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens 75:37–47Google Scholar
  79. Waring R (1983) Estimating forest growth and efficiency in relation to canopy leaf area. Adv Ecol Res 13:327–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wesołowski T, Rowiński P (2006) Timing of bud burst and tree-leaf development in a multispecies temperate forest. Forest Ecol Manag 237:387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wessels KJ, Prince SD, Zambatis N, Macfadyen S, Frost PE, Van Zyl D (2006) Relationship between herbaceous biomass and 1-km2 advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) NDVI in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Int J Remote Sens 27:951–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wiegand T, Naves J, Garbulsky M, Fernadez N (2008) Animal habitat quality and ecosystem functioning: exploring seasonal patterns using NDVI. Ecol Monogr 78:87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomasz Borowik
    • 1
  • Nathalie Pettorelli
    • 2
  • Leif Sönnichsen
    • 1
    • 3
  • Bogumiła Jędrzejewska
    • 1
  1. 1.Mammal Research InstitutePolish Academy of SciencesBiałowieżaPoland
  2. 2.Institute of ZoologyZoological Society of LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife ResearchBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations