Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 141–157

Mapping changes in tidal wetland vegetation composition and pattern across a salinity gradient using high spatial resolution imagery

  • Karin Tuxen
  • Lisa Schile
  • Diana Stralberg
  • Stuart Siegel
  • Tom Parker
  • Michael Vasey
  • John Callaway
  • Maggi Kelly
Original Paper

Abstract

Detailed vegetation mapping of wetlands, both natural and restored, can offer valuable information about vegetation diversity and community structure and provides the means for examining vegetation change over time. We mapped vegetation at six tidal marshes (two natural, four restored) in the San Francisco Estuary, CA, USA, between 2003 and 2004 using detailed vegetation field surveys and high spatial-resolution color-infrared aerial photography. Vegetation classes were determined by performing hierarchical agglomerative clustering on the field data collected from each tidal marsh. Supervised classification of the CIR photography resulted in vegetation class mapping accuracies ranging from 70 to 92%; 10 out of 12 classification accuracies were above 80%, demonstrating the potential to map emergent wetland vegetation. The number of vegetation classes decreased with salinity, and increased with size and age. In general, landscape diversity, as measured by the Shannon’s diversity index, also decreased with salinity, with an exception for the most saline site, a newly restored marsh. Vegetation change between years is evident, but the differences across sites in composition and pattern were larger than change within sites over two growing seasons.

Keywords

Remote sensing Color infrared aerial photography San Francisco Bay 

References

  1. Anderson JR, Hardy EH, Roach JT, Whitmer RE (1976) A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensing data. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Report: Geological Survey Professional Paper 964Google Scholar
  2. Andresen T, Mott C, Zimmermann S, Schneider T, Melzer A (2002) Object-oriented information extraction for the monitoring of sensitive aquatic environments. IEEE 3083–3085Google Scholar
  3. AS ERD (1999) Erdas field guide. Erdas Inc, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  4. Belluco E, Camuffo M, Ferrari S, Modenese L, Silvestri S, Marani A, Marani M (2006) Mapping salt-marsh vegetation by multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ 105:54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaschke T (2010) Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 65:2–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaschke T, Strobl J (2001) What’s wrong with pixels? Some recent developments interfacing remote sensing and GIS. GeoBIT/GIS 6:12–17Google Scholar
  7. Byrd K, Kelly M (2006) Salt marsh vegetation response to edaphic and topographic changes from upland sedimentation in a Pacific estuary. Wetlands 26:813–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrd KB, Kelly NM, Dyke EV (2004) Decadal changes in a Pacific estuary: a multi-source remote sensing approach for historical ecology. GIScience Remote Sens 41:347–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callaway JC, Parker TV, Vasey MC, Schile LM (2007) Emerging issues for the restoration of tidal marsh ecosystems in the context of predicted climate change. Madroño 54:234–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chmura GL, Anisfeld SC, Cahoon DR, Lynch JC (2003) Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils. Global Biogeochem Cycles 17:1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Congalton RG (2009) Accuracy assessment of spatial data sets. In: Madden M (ed) Manual of geographic information systems. The American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, pp 225–234Google Scholar
  12. Congalton RC, Green K (1999) Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices. CRC Press, Inc, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  13. Daubenmire RF (1959) Canopy coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northw Sci 33:43–64Google Scholar
  14. Dechka J, Franklin S, Watmough M, Bennett R, Ingstrup D (2002) Classification of wetland habitat and vegetation communities using multitemporal IKONOS imagery in sourthern Saskatchewan. Can J Remote Sens 28:679–685Google Scholar
  15. Devereux BJ, Fuller RM, Carter L, Parsell RJ (1990) Geometric correction of airborne scanner imagery by matching Delaunay triangles. Int J Remote Sens 11:2237–2251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eastwood JA, Yates MG, Thomson AG, Fuller RM (1997) The reliability of vegetation indices for monitoring saltmarsh vegetation cover. Int J Remote Sens 18:3901–3907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engels J, Jensen K (2009) Patterns of wetland plant diversity along estuarine stress gradients of the Elbe (Germany) and Connecticut (USA) Rivers. Plant Ecol Divers 2:301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faith DP, Minchin PR, Belbin L (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frieswyk C, Zedler J (2007) Vegetation change in Great Lakes coastal wetlands: deviation from the historical cycle. J Great Lakes Res 33:366–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garbutt A, Wolters M (2008) The natural regeneration of salt marsh on formerly reclaimed land. Appl Veg Sci 11:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grossinger R, Alexander J, Cohen A, Collins JN (1998) Introduced tidal marsh plants in the San Francisco Estuary: regional distribution and priorities for control. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Hardisky MA, Smart RM, Klemas V (1983) Seasonal spectral characteristics and aboveground biomass of the tidal marsh plant, Spartina alterniflora. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 49:85–92Google Scholar
  23. Hardisky MA, Daiber FC, Roman CT, Klemas V (1984) Remote sensing of biomass and annual net aerial primary productivity of a salt marsh. Remote Sens Environ 16:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hickey D, Bruce E (2010) Examining tidal inundation and salt marsh vegetation distribution patterns using spatial analysis. Botany Bay, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  25. Hinkle RL, Mitsch WJ (2005) Salt marsh vegetation recovery at salt hay farm wetland restoration sites on Delaware Bay. Ecol Eng 25:240–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jensen JR (2000) Remote sensing of the environment: an earth resource perspective, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  27. Jensen JR, Coombs C, Porter D, Jones B, Schill S, White D (1998) Extraction of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) biomass and leaf area index parameters from high resolution imagery. Geocarto Int 13:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jensen JR, Olson G, Schill SR, Porter DE, Morris J (2002) Remote sensing of biomass, leaf-area-index, and chlorophyll a and b content in the ACE Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve using sub-meter digital camera imagery. Geocarto Int 17:25–34Google Scholar
  29. Justice CO, Townshend JRG (1981) Integrating ground data with remote sensing. In: Townshend JRG (ed) Terrain analysis and remote sensing. George Allen & Unwin, London, p 232Google Scholar
  30. Laba M, Tsai F, Ogurcak D, Smith S, Richmond ME (2005) Field determination of optimal dates for the discrimination of invasive wetland plant species using derivative spectral analysis. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 71:603–611Google Scholar
  31. Leica Geosystems Inc (2006) (17 January 2007 URL http://gis.leica-geosystems.com/)
  32. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) PC-ORD for windows. MjM Software Design, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  33. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Pages Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at the following web site: www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
  34. Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H (1974) Aims and methods in vegetation ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Nichols FH, Cloern JE, Luoma SN, Peterson DH (1986) The modification of an estuary. Science 231:567–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ozesmi SL, Bauer ME (2002) Satellite remote sensing of wetlands. Wetl Ecol Manage 10:381–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pennings SC, Bertness MD (2001) Salt marsh communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 289–316Google Scholar
  38. Phinn SR, Stow DA, Zedler JB (1996) Monitoring wetland habitat restoration in southern California using airborne multispectral video data. Restor Ecol 4:412–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pratolongo PD, Kirby JR, Plater A, Brinson MM (2009) Temperate coastal wetlands: morphology, sediment processes, and plant communities. In: Perillo GME, Wolanski E, Cahoon DR, Brinson MM (eds) Coastal wetlands: an integrated ecosystem approach. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 89–118Google Scholar
  40. R_Development_Core_Team (2005) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org/
  41. Ramsey EW III, Laine S (1997) Comparison of Landsat Thematic Mapper and high resolution photography to identify change in complex coastal wetlands. J Coastal Res 13:281–292Google Scholar
  42. Sawyer JO, Keeler-Wolf T (2004) A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  43. Sawyer JO, Keeler Wolf T, Evens JM (2009) A manual of California vegetation, 2nd edn. California Native Plant Society, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmidt KS, Skidmore AK (2003) Spectral discrimination of vegetation types in a coastal wetland. Remote Sens Environ 85:92–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sharpe P, Baldwin A (2009) Patterns of wetland plant species richness across estuarine gradients of Chesapeake Bay. Wetlands 29:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stralberg D, Herzog MP, Nur N, Tuxen KA, Kelly M (2010) Predicting avian abundance within and across tidal marshes using fine-scale vegetation and geomorphic metrics. Wetlands 30:475–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomson AG, Fuller RM, Sparks TH, Yates MG, Eastwood JA (1998) Ground and airborne radiometry over intertidal surfaces: waveband selection for cover classification. Int J Remote Sens 19:1189–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomson AG, Fuller RM, Yates MG, Brown SL, Cox R, Wadsworth RA (2003) The use of airborne remote sensing for extensive mapping of intertidal sediments and saltmarshes in eastern England. Int J Remote Sens 24:2717–2737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomson AG, Huiskes A, Cox R, Wadsworth RA, Boorman LA (2004) Short-term vegetation succession and erosion identified by airborne remote sensing of Westerschelde salt marshes, The Netherlends. Int J Remote Sens 25:4151–4176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trimble Inc (2005) (17 January 2007 URL http://www.trimble.com/)
  51. Tuxen K, Schile L, Kelly M, Siegel S (2008) Vegetation colonization in a restoring tidal marsh: a remote sensing approach. Restor Ecol 16:313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams PB, Faber PM (2001) Salt marsh restoration experience in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. J Coastal Res 27:203–211Google Scholar
  53. Zedler J (2009) How frequent storms affect wetland vegetation: a preview of climate-change impacts. Front Ecol Environ 8:540–547Google Scholar
  54. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Ann Rev Environ Resour 30:39–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang M, Ustin SL, Rejmankova E, Sanderson EW (1997) Monitoring Pacific coast saltmarshes using remote sensing. Ecol Appl 7:1039–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zharikov Y, Skilleter GA, Loneragan NR, Taranto T, Cameron BE (2005) Mapping and characterising subtropical estuarine landscapes using aerial photography and GIS for potential application in wildlife conservation and management. Biol Conserv 125:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin Tuxen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lisa Schile
    • 1
    • 5
  • Diana Stralberg
    • 3
  • Stuart Siegel
    • 4
  • Tom Parker
    • 5
  • Michael Vasey
    • 5
  • John Callaway
    • 6
  • Maggi Kelly
    • 1
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Google IncMountain ViewUSA
  3. 3.PRBO Conservation SciencePetalumaUSA
  4. 4.Wetlands and Water Resources, IncSan RafaelUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiologySan Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA
  6. 6.Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  7. 7.Geospatial Innovation FacilityUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations