Biological Invasions

, Volume 1, Issue 2–3, pp 255–267 | Cite as

Using Satellite Images to Classify and Analyze the Health of Hemlock Forests Infested by the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid

  • Laurent R. Bonneau
  • Kathleen S. Shields
  • Daniel L. Civco
Article

Abstract

A method is described to classify stands of eastern hemlock by health condition, at the landscape level, using remote sensing. The hemlock woolly adelgid has been a major cause of hemlock decline in Connecticut since 1985, resulting in varying degrees of defoliation in the region. A 1985 Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) image was classified to develop a base line of once healthy hemlock stands. Radiance normalization and non-hemlock masking techniques were used to pre-process a 1995 TM image. Several techniques were used to transform the 1995 TM image; each was followed by cluster analysis to separate hemlocks into four levels of tree vigor. We evaluated 600 trees at 150 sites across the study area using the USFS Crown Condition Rating Guide. These field data were used to measure the accuracy of various health classification techniques. The Modified Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index-2 (MSAVI2) transform provided the best overall accuracy, 82.1%, for classifying hemlock according to tree vigor. Non-parametric statistics were used to determine if there were any significant variations in distribution of hemlock pixels by health class in association with features in the landscape. Several features were found to be statistically significant at a confidence level of 0.001. These were aspect of slope, hydrology group (infiltration rate), depth to bedrock, soil order, drainage class (hydraulic conductivity), and surface texture.

forest health hemlock woolly adelgid invasive species remote sensing spatial analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benzinger J (1994) Hemlock Decline and Breeding Birds. Records of New Jersey Birds 20(1): 2–12Google Scholar
  2. Chavez PS (1988) An Improved Dark-Object Subtraction Technique for Atmospheric Scattering Correction of Multispectral Data. Remote Sensing of the Environment 24: 459–479Google Scholar
  3. Cliff AD and Ord JK (1973) Spatial Autocorrelation. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Congalton RG (1991) A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sensing of the Environment 37: 35–46Google Scholar
  5. Congalton RG and Green K (1999) Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  6. Crist EP and Cicone RC (1984) Application of the Tasseled Cap concept to simulated Thematic Mapper data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 50: 343–352Google Scholar
  7. Ebdon D (1990) Statistics in Geography, 2nd edn, Billing and Sons Ltd, Worcester, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodman RM and Lancaster K (1990) Tsuga canadensis — Eastern Hemlock in Silvics of North America: Vol 1 Conifers. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 654Google Scholar
  9. Jenkins JC, Aber JD and Canham CD (1999) Hemlock woolly adelgid impacts on community structure and N cycling rates in eastern hemlock forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29: 630–645Google Scholar
  10. Joria PE, Ahearn SC and Connor M (1991) A comparison of the SPOT and Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite systems for detecting gypsy moth defoliation in Michigan. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 57: 1605–1612Google Scholar
  11. Jorgensen N (1978) A Sierra Club Naturalist's Guide — Southern New England. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California, 417 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Legendre P (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: Trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74(6): 1659–1673Google Scholar
  13. Liebhold AM, Hohn E and Gribko LS (1993) Forecasting the spatial dynamics of gypsy moth defoliation using 3-dimensional kriging. In: Liebhold AM and Barrett HR (eds) Proceedings: Spatial Analysis and Forest Pest Management, Mountain Lakes, Virginia, USA, 27–30 April 1992, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-175, pp 150–159Google Scholar
  14. McClure M (1987) Hemlock woolly adelgid may also attack spruce. Frontiers of Plant Science. Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, Connecticut 39: 7–8Google Scholar
  15. McClure M (1989) Evidence of a polymorphic life cycle in the hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae (Homoptera: Adelgidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 82: 50–54Google Scholar
  16. McClure M (1991) Density-dependent feedback and population cycles in Adelges tsugae (Homoptera: Adelgidae) on Tsuga canadensis. Environmental Entomology 20: 258–264Google Scholar
  17. Millers I, Anderson R, Burkman W and Hoffard W (1992) Forest Health Monitoring, Crown Condition Rating Guide. USDA Forest Service. State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area and Southern RegionGoogle Scholar
  18. Muchoney, DM and Haack BN (1994) Change detection for monitoring forest defoliation. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 60: 1243–1251Google Scholar
  19. Orwig DA and Foster DR (1998) Forest response to the introduced hemlock woolly adelgid in southern New England, USA. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 125(1): 60–73Google Scholar
  20. Qi J, Chehbouni A, Huete AR, Kerr YH and Sorooshian S (1994) A modified soil adjusted vegetation index. Remote Sensing of the Environment 48: 119–126Google Scholar
  21. Ray TW (1994) A FAQ on Vegetation in Remote Sensing 〈ftp://kepler.gps.caltech.edu/pub/terrill/rsvegfaq.txt〉 (March 18, 1996)Google Scholar
  22. Reich RM and Geils BW (1993) Review of spatial analysis techniques. In: Liebhold AM and Barrett HR (eds) Proceedings: Spatial Analysis and Forest Pest Management, Mountain Lakes, Virginia, USA, 27–30 April 1992, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-175, pp 142–149Google Scholar
  23. Royle DD and Lathrop RG (1997) Monitoring hemlock forest health in New Jersey using Landsat TM data and change detection techniques. Forest Science 43(3): 327–335Google Scholar
  24. Smith RL (1990) Ecology and Field Biology, 4th edn, HarperCollinsGoogle Scholar
  25. Suoto D, Luther T and Chianese R (1996) Past and current status of HWA in Eastern and Carolina Hemlock Stands, In: Salmon SM, Tigner TC and Reardon RC (eds) Proceedings of the First Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Review, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA, 12 October 1995, USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Team, Morgantown, West Virginia, pp 9–15Google Scholar
  26. Young, RF, Shields KS and Berlyn GP (1995) Hemlock woolly adelgid (Homoptera: Adelgidae): stylet bundle insertion and feeding sites. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 88: 827–835Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurent R. Bonneau
    • 1
  • Kathleen S. Shields
    • 2
  • Daniel L. Civco
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources Management and Engineering, Laboratory for Earth Resources Information SystemsThe University of ConnecticutUSA
  2. 2.Center for Earth Observation, Department of Geology and GeophysicsYale UniversityNew HavenUSA (e-mail: laurent.bonneau@yale.edu; fax: +1-203-432-3134)

Personalised recommendations