315
Other ground-based sensors are also highly beneficial to nature conservation,
notable amongst which are Terrestrial Laser Scanners (TLS; Mass et al. 2008;
Telling et al. 2017), phenocams (Brown et al. 2016) and, as mentioned in earlier
chapters, camera traps. TLS provide millimeter resolution point clouds of surfaces
(e.g., the terrain) and structures (e.g., vegetation), albeit for areas often covering less
than 1 ha. For vegetation, they can be used to locate and extract the dimensions of
individual plants, from which biophysical measures such as component (branch and
trunk) biomass and height can be obtained. They can provide a permanent record of
the distribution of plants and plant material and also change when taken in a timeseries, with this made possible through high precision in georeferencing. These
datasets can therefore provide viable substitutes for or can complement permanent
plots, which have traditionally been recorded through more intensive ground-based
location and measurement of plants. Phenocams are also well suited to monitoring
changes in leaf flush and fall and other metrics describing leaf phenology, and provide useful interpretation of Earth observation data. Finally, we need to mention the
use of mobile devices that allow collection (including in near real time) of information on the environment, such as land cover and habitat types, biophysical variables
and biodiversity distributions. This capability provides a new opportunity to link
observations from airborne and spaceborne sensors to those on the ground.
Accessing and using these technologies can be a significant obstacle to uptake
and the best advice is to decide in advance what is needed to support nature conservation and then to select the tools that are best suited for the specific job. This will
inevitably involve extra effort in terms of research capabilities and the processing
that is needed, as well as increased training requirements (as mentioned earlier). However, the development of a longer-term strategy for planning the use of
these data and technologies should result in their progressive adoption and integration and ultimately lead to more effective and efficient management of protected
areas and surrounds.
Realistic Expectations
Whilst the potential contribution from Earth observation and related technologies is
enormous, there is a need to ensure that expectations are not raised to unrealistic
levels. Earth observations cannot provide the answers to many of the questions
posed by conservation practitioners for a multitude of reasons. As examples, many
plant species, particularly if small, rare, or occuring in mosaics or the lower strata,
cannot be observed let alone discriminated from Earth observation data. The timing
and frequency of observations is also often sub-optimal and the georeferencing
inadequate to allow exact matching with ground data. Nevertheless, Earth observation data provide information that can be used in parallel with ground data, including the extent of different land cover and habitat types and environmental measures
of relevance to conservation (e.g., phenology and water supply). These data also
provide information on how dominant species or genera are responding to pressures
Expected Advances in a Rapidly Developing Work Area
Other ground-based sensors are also highly beneficial to nature conservation,
notable amongst which are Terrestrial Laser Scanners (TLS; Mass et al. 2008;
Telling et al. 2017), phenocams (Brown et al. 2016) and, as mentioned in earlier
chapters, camera traps. TLS provide millimeter resolution point clouds of surfaces
(e.g., the terrain) and structures (e.g., vegetation), albeit for areas often covering less
than 1 ha. For vegetation, they can be used to locate and extract the dimensions of
individual plants, from which biophysical measures such as component (branch and
trunk) biomass and height can be obtained. They can provide a permanent record of
the distribution of plants and plant material and also change when taken in a timeseries, with this made possible through high precision in georeferencing. These
datasets can therefore provide viable substitutes for or can complement permanent
plots, which have traditionally been recorded through more intensive ground-based
location and measurement of plants. Phenocams are also well suited to monitoring
changes in leaf flush and fall and other metrics describing leaf phenology, and provide useful interpretation of Earth observation data. Finally, we need to mention the
use of mobile devices that allow collection (including in near real time) of information on the environment, such as land cover and habitat types, biophysical variables
and biodiversity distributions. This capability provides a new opportunity to link
observations from airborne and spaceborne sensors to those on the ground.
Accessing and using these technologies can be a significant obstacle to uptake
and the best advice is to decide in advance what is needed to support nature conservation and then to select the tools that are best suited for the specific job. This will
inevitably involve extra effort in terms of research capabilities and the processing
that is needed, as well as increased training requirements (as mentioned earlier). However, the development of a longer-term strategy for planning the use of
these data and technologies should result in their progressive adoption and integration and ultimately lead to more effective and efficient management of protected
areas and surrounds.
Realistic Expectations
Whilst the potential contribution from Earth observation and related technologies is
enormous, there is a need to ensure that expectations are not raised to unrealistic
levels. Earth observations cannot provide the answers to many of the questions
posed by conservation practitioners for a multitude of reasons. As examples, many
plant species, particularly if small, rare, or occuring in mosaics or the lower strata,
cannot be observed let alone discriminated from Earth observation data. The timing
and frequency of observations is also often sub-optimal and the georeferencing
inadequate to allow exact matching with ground data. Nevertheless, Earth observation data provide information that can be used in parallel with ground data, including the extent of different land cover and habitat types and environmental measures
of relevance to conservation (e.g., phenology and water supply). These data also
provide information on how dominant species or genera are responding to pressures
Expected Advances in a Rapidly Developing Work Area