Typological Up-Scaling of Wooded Peatlands

Chapter
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 212)

Abstract

About 29% of peat coverage of eight European peat-rich countries is drained for forestry, resulting in (a) increased expansion of forest to the other opened parts of the peatlands, (b) increased variety of the peatland surface structure, and (c) different ecohydrological conditions of formed mire ecotopes in the same landscape. Despite modern spatial monitoring systems ortophoto-based spatial datasets are still favourable due to: (a) improved quality and quantity of datasets, and (b) user-friendly availability both from a technical and a financial point of view. Results of typological up-scaling of disturbed mire ecotopes were ecotope structure dependent, i.e. varying wooded conditions resulted in different up-scaling hierarchies. The ground level study of the radial increment of Scots pine (Pinus Sylvestris L.) revealed important information about changes in mire environmental conditions of different ecotopes, being also important for the ground-level interpretation of up-scaled spatial datasets.

Keywords

Aerial Photograph Tree Ring Tree Coverage Tree Plot Radial Increment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was prepared in the framework of the COST Action FP0601 “Forman” project, a collaboration of the University of Tartu (Department of Geography), Estonia, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Department of Soil and Environment) and the Institute of Ecology of Tallinn University, Estonia. Financial sources were; the Estonian basic research foundation of SF0280009s07 project of “Impact of disturbances on wetland ecosystems in Estonia” and SF0180127s08 “Material cycling of landscapes in changing climate and land use conditions and ecotechnological control thereof” integrated with FP0601.

References

  1. Åberg E (1992) Tree colonisation of three mires in southern Sweden. In: Bragg OM, Hulme PD, Ingram HAP, Robertsson RA (eds) Peatland ecosystems and man: an impact assessment. Dept of Biological Science, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, pp 268–270Google Scholar
  2. Aaviksoo K, Leivits A, Leivits M (2008) Kaug- ja linnuseire Nigula rabas. In: Väljataga K, Kaukver K (eds) Kaugseire Eestis, artiklikogumik. Keskkonnaministeeriumi info- ja Tehnokeskus, Tallinn, pp 106–122Google Scholar
  3. Adermann V (2007) Eesti metsad 2006. Metsavarude hinnang statistilisel valikmeetodil. Metsakaitse ja Metsauuenduskeksus. SMI osakond. http://www.keskkonnainfo.ee/publications/16270_PDF.pdf05-09-2010
  4. Anderson AR, Ray D, Pyatt DG (2000) Physical and hydrological impacts of blanket bog afforestation at Bad a’Cheo, Caithness: the first 5 years. Forestry 73:467–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop YMM, Fienberg SE, Holland PW (1975) Discrete multivariate analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaschke T, Lang S, Hay G (eds) (2008) Object-based Image Analysis. Spatial concepts for knowledge-driven remote sensing applications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, XVII+817+CDGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandtberg T, Walter F (1998) Automated delineation of individual tree crowns in high spatial resolution aerial images by multiple-scale analysis. Mach Vis Appl 11:64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnett C, Aaviksoo K, Lang S, Langanke T, Blaschke T (2003) An object-based methodology for mapping mires using high resolution imagery. In: Järvet A, Lode E (eds) Ecohydrological processes in northern wetlands. Selected papers. Tartu University Press, Tallinn-Tartu, pp 239–244Google Scholar
  9. Burnett C, Blaschke T (2003) A multi-scale segmentation/object relationship modelling methodology for landscape analysis. Ecol Model 168:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron ED, Miller DR, Ramsay F, Nikolaou I, Clarke GC (2000) Temporal measurement of the loss of native pinewood in Scotland through the analysis of orthorectified aerial photographs. J Environ Manage 58:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eggelsmann R, Heathwaite AL, Grosse-Braukmann G, Küster E, Naucke W, Schuch M, Schweickle V (1993) Physical processes and properties of mires. In: Heathwaite AL, Göttlich Kh (eds) Mires: process, exploitation and conservation. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 171–262Google Scholar
  12. Eastman JR (2006) IDRISI Andes. Guide to GIS and image processing. Clark Labs, Worcester, MA, 327 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Finnish statistical (2006) Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry 2006. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, 435 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Forest Service (2007) National Forest Inventory – Republic of Ireland – results. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Johnstown Castle Estate, Co., WexfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Frankl R, Schmeidl H (2000) Vegetation change in a South German raised bog: ecosystem engineering by plant species, vegetation switch or ecosystem level feedback mechanisms? Flora 195:267–276Google Scholar
  16. Genc L, Dewitt B, Smith S (2004) Determination of Wetland Vegetation Height with LIDAR. Turk J Agric Forestry 28:63–71Google Scholar
  17. Gong P, Biging GS, Lee SM, Mei X, Sheng Y, Pu R, Xu B, Schwarz K-P, Mostafa M (1999) Photo econometrics for forest inventory. Geogr Inform Sci 5(1):9–14Google Scholar
  18. Groom G, Mücher CA, Ihse M, Wrbka T (2006) Remote sensing in landscape ecology: experiences and perspectives in a European context. Landsc Ecol 21:391–408. doi: 10.1007/s10980-004-4212-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gunnarsson U, Malmer N, Rydin H (2002) Dynamics of constancy inSphagnum dominated mire ecosystems? A 40-year study. Ecography 25:685–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gunnarsson U, Rydin H (1998) Demography and recruitment of Scots pine on raised bogs in eastern Sweden and relationships to microhabitat differentiation. Wetlands 18:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hardisky MA, Klemas V, Smart M (1983) The influence of soil salinity, growth form and leaf moisture on the spectral radiance of Spartina-Alterniflora canopies. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 49:77–83Google Scholar
  22. Heikurainen L (1967) On the possibilities of optimum drainage in peat lands. 14th IUFRO Cong Papers 4:264–277Google Scholar
  23. Hopkinson C, Chasmer LE, Zsigovics G, Creed IF, Sitar M, Treitz P, Maher RV (2004) Errors in LiDAR ground elevation and wetland vegetation height estimates. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sensing Spatial Inf Syst XXXVI(8/W2):108–113Google Scholar
  24. Hånell B, Magnusson T (2005) An evaluation of land suitability for forest fertilization with biofuel ash on organic soils in Sweden. Forest Ecol Manage 2009:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ihse M (2007) Colour infrared aerial photography as a tool for vegetation mapping and change detection in environmental studies of Nordic ecosystems: A review. Nor Geogr Tidsskr 62(4):170–191Google Scholar
  26. Ihse M, Malmer N, Alm G (1992) Remote sensing and image analysis for study of small changes of vegetation and microtopography, applied on mires in southern Sweden. In: Bragg OM, Hulme PD, Ingram HAP, Robertsson RA (eds) Peatland ecosystems and man: an impact assessment. Dept of Biological Science, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, pp 283–286Google Scholar
  27. Ivanov KE (1953) Gidrologija bolot. In: Sokolov AA (ed) Gidrometeorologitcheskoe Izdatelstvo, Leningrad, 295 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. Ivanov KE (1975) Vodoobmen v bolotnykh landshaftakh. Gidrometeoizdat, LeningradGoogle Scholar
  29. Ivanov KE (1981) Water movement in Mirelands. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. James LA, Watson DG, Hansen WF (2007) Using LIDAR data to map gullies and headwater streams under forest canopy: South Carolina, USA. Catena 71:132–144,www.elsevier.com/locate/catena, Doi:10.1016/j.catena.2006.10.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jauhiainen S, Holopainen M, Rasinmäki A (2007) Monitoring peatland vegetation by means of digitized aerial photographs. Scand J Forest Res 22:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Komura R, Kamata N, Kubo M, Muramoto K (2005) Identification of dead tree of Japanese oak wilt (JOW) using high spatial resolution satellite imagery. Proc IEEE Int Geosci Remote Sensing Symp (IGARSS) 1(8):4351–4354Google Scholar
  33. Laine J, Laiho R, Minkkinen K, Vasander H (2006) Forestry and boreal peatlands. Ecol Stud 188:331–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Langanke T, Burnett C, Lang S (2007) Assessing the mire conservation status of a raised bog site in Salzburg using object-based monitoring and structural analysis. Landsc Urban Plann 79:160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liblik V, Pensa M, Rätsep A (2003) Air pollution zones and harmful pollution levels of alkaline dust for plants. Water Air Soil Poll: Focus 3(5–6):193–209Google Scholar
  36. Liira J, Püssa K, Peterson U (2006) The radiance contrast of forest-to-clearcut edges on a medium resolution Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper satellite winter image. Int J Remote Sensing 27(13):2753–2766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lillesand TM, Kiefer RW, Chipman JW (2008) Remote sensing and image interpretation, 6th edn. Wiley, New York, 768 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Linderholm HW, Leine M (2004) An assessment of twentieth century tree-cover changes on a southern Swedish peatland combining dendrochronology and aerial photograph analysis. Wetlands 24(2):357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leckie DG, Gougeon FA, Walsworth N, Paradine D (2003) Stand delineation and composition using semi-automated individual tree crown analysis. Remote Sensing Environ 85:355–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. LSTATS (2009) http://www.geo.ut.ee/LSTATS/2009-09-10
  41. Malmer N (1988) Patterns in the growth and the accumulation of inorganic constituents in theSphagnum cover on ombrotrophic bogs in Scandinavia. Oikos 53:105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Masing V (1982) Structure and productivity of the bog plant cover. In: Masing V (ed) Peatland ecosystems. Researchers into the plant cover of Estonian bogs and their productivity. Tallinn, Valgus, pp 50–92Google Scholar
  43. Masing V (1998) Multilevel approach in mire mapping, research, and classification. Contribution to the IMCG Classification Workshop, March 25–29, Greisfswald. http://www.imcg.net/docum/greifswa/masing.htm 2009-05-15
  44. Milton EJ, Hughes PD, Anderson K, Schulz J, Lindsay R, Kelday SB, Hill CT (2005) Remote sensing of bog surfaces. JNCC Report No. 366: 166 ppGoogle Scholar
  45. Montanarella L, Jones RJA, Hiederer R (2006) The distribution of peatland in Europe. Mires and Peat 1: Article 1. Int Mire Cons Group and Int Peat Society. http://www.mires-and-peat.net2009-08-22
  46. NESDIS (2009) Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer – AVHRR. http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/avhrr.html 2009-09-18
  47. Ohlson M, Økland RH, Nordbakken J-F, Dahlberg B (2001) Fatal interactions between Scots pine andSphagnum mosses in bog ecosystems. Oikos 94:425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oleszczuk R, Regina K, Szajdak L, Höper H, Maryganova V (2008) Impacts of agricultural utilization of peat pails on the greenhouse gas balance. In: Strack M (ed) Peatlands and climate. International Peat Society, Jyväskylä, Finland, pp 70–97Google Scholar
  49. Paal J, Ilomets M, Fremstad E, Moen A, Børset E, Kuusemets V, Truus L, Leibak E (1998) Estonian wetland inventory 1997. Publication of the project “Estonian wetlands conservation and management strategy”. Eesti Loodusfoto, Tartu, 166pp+xxviiiGoogle Scholar
  50. Paavilainen E, Päivänen J (1995a) Peatland forestry. Ecology and principles. Ecol Stud 111:248Google Scholar
  51. Paavilainen E, Päivänen J (1995b) Utilisation of peatlands. Ecol Stud 111:15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pellerin S, Lavoie C (2003) Reconstruction the recent dynamics of mire using a multitechnique approach. J Ecol 91:1008–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Quackenbush UJ, Hopkins PF, Kinn GJ (2000) Developing forestry products from high resolution digital aerial imagery. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 66(11):1337–1346Google Scholar
  54. Rydin H, Jeglum J, with contribution Hooijer A, Clarkson BR, Clarkson BD, Mauquoy D, Bennet KD (2006) The biology of Peatlands. Biology of habitats. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 343 ppGoogle Scholar
  55. Toth J, Gillard D (1988) Experimental design and evaluation of a peatland drainage system for forestry by optimization of synthetic hydrographs. Can J For Res 18:353–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Valk U (2005) Eesti rabad. Ökoloogilis-metsanduslik uurimus. Eest Põllumajandusülikool, Metsanduslik Uurimisinstituut, Tartu, 314 ppGoogle Scholar
  57. Van der Schaaf S (1998) Self regulation of acrotelm transmissivity and discharge in two Irish midland raised bogs. In: Malterer T, Johnson K, Stewart J (eds) Proceedings of the international peat symposium, Peatland restoration and reclamation – techniques and regulatory considerations, Duluth, Minnesota, USA, 14–18 July 1998, pp 161–169Google Scholar
  58. Van der Schaaf S (1999) Analysis of the hydrology of raised bogs in the Irish Midlands. A case study of Raheenmore Bog and Clara Bog. Ph.D. Dissertation, Wageningen University, The Netherlands, 375 ppGoogle Scholar
  59. Van der Schaaf S (2002) Relationships between biotic and abiotic conditions. In: Schouten MGC (ed) Conservation and restoration of raised bogs; geological, hydrological and ecological studies. Department of the Environment and Local Government, Ireland; Staatsbosbeheer, The Netherlands, pp 186–209Google Scholar
  60. Van Seters TE, Price JS (2001) The impact of peat harvesting and natural regeneration on the water balance of an abandoned cutover bog. Que Hydrol Proc 15:233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vasander H, Tuittila E-S, Lode E, Lundin L, Ilomets M, Sallantaus T, Heikkilä R, Pitkänen M-L, Laine J (2003) Status and restoration of peatlands in northern Europe. Wetl Ecol Manage 11:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Waser LT, Baltsavias E, Eisenbeiss H, Ginzler C, Gruen A, Kuechler M, Thee P (2007) Change detection in mire ecosystems: assessing changes of forest area using airborne remote sensing data In: Schaepman ME, Liang S, Groot NE, Kneubühler M (eds) The 10th international symposium on physical measurements and spectral signatures in remote sensing, International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, vol XXXVI, Part 7/C50. Davos, Switzerland, pp 313–318Google Scholar
  63. Waser LT, Ecker K, Ginzler C, Küchler M, Schwarz M, Thee P (2006) Extraction of forest para­meters in a mire environment using airborne spectral data and digital surface models. Workshop on 3D Remote Sensing in Forestry, 14–15 Feb 2006, Vienna – Session 1:15–23. http://www.wsl.ch/staff/lars.waser/wien_2006_lars.pdf 2009-09-20

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EcologyTallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Department of Soil and EnvironmentSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Institute of Ecology and Earth SciencesUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations