flood. This has not been attempted, but <strong>the</strong> technical advantages areenticing: radar can penetrate through cloud and through overhangingvegetation; hyperspectral imagery has fine spatial resolution; andfollowing a single flood would remove much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘noise’ associatedwith obtaining images from different points in time.Table A1 – 1. Sensor, cost, and suitability <strong>for</strong> floodplain wetland managementSensor Cost Potential use in floodplain wetland managementSpaceborne Cost per scene aLandsat MSS $700 Vegetation condition monitoring, inundation mappingLandsat TM $5,250 Vegetation condition monitoring, broad classification, inundation mappingSPOT MS $1,700 Vegetation condition monitoring, broad classification, inundation mappingSPOT Xs $1,900 Inundation mappingNOAA AVHRRSecondary image selection, NOAA-greenness index to track vegetation responseRADARSAT $6,150 Inundation mapping, canopy moisture content, wea<strong>the</strong>r and sun independentERS-1 SAR $2,200 Inundation mapping, wea<strong>the</strong>r and sun independentAirborneCost per hectare bAVIRISNot commercially Medium resolution vegetation mapping, inundation mappingavailableCASI $1.50 High accuracy vegetation mapping, inundation mappingHYMAP Not commercially High accuracy vegetation mapping, inundation mappingavailableLIDARNot commercially <strong>Floodplain</strong> DEM constructionavailableAIRSAR Not commerciallyavailableVegetation mapping based on structural in<strong>for</strong>mation, inundation mapping wea<strong>the</strong>r andsun independentVideo $1.60Aerial photographyCIR Aerial photographya Scene size varies between sensors (see Table A1 – 2: Specifications <strong>for</strong> sensors suitable <strong>for</strong> floodplain wetland management).Costs are based on <strong>the</strong> best available resolution, and minimal pre-processing. For a more comprehensive guide to costs visit <strong>the</strong>ACRES web page at http://www.auslig.gov.au/acres/index.htmb Cost per hectare varies according to <strong>the</strong> area and location flown. These prices are based on a quote <strong>for</strong> 50,000 hectares at1m × 1m resolution somewhere in <strong>the</strong> Murray–Darling Basin.Note: prices are subject to change and <strong>the</strong>se data should be used as a guide. Dollars were correct as <strong>of</strong> mid-1999.Image selectionThis section relates to use <strong>of</strong> satellite imagery <strong>for</strong> inundation mapping,especially where it is intended to build a time series using historicalimages.Prior to ordering images, it is advisable to become familiar with history<strong>of</strong> river flows within <strong>the</strong> proposed time frame (hydrograph returntimes, hydrograph shapes), with rainfall records, and whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>rehave been substantial changes in <strong>the</strong> catchment or river. Graphicalpreparation, ie. placing symbols <strong>of</strong> when imagery is available onto hardcopy hydrographs, and marking inappropriate times such as whencloud cover is high based on wea<strong>the</strong>r records or when <strong>the</strong>re are gaps inflow records, has not been done but would be useful. Image selectioncan <strong>the</strong>n proceed by a process <strong>of</strong> elimination, resulting in a short list <strong>of</strong>appropriate dates. The selection should span a range <strong>of</strong> flows, targetspecific conditions, be free <strong>of</strong> cloud, be recent, and be standardised <strong>for</strong>antecedent conditions; most importantly, <strong>the</strong>re should be river flow orwetland inflow data available (ie. no gaps in records).102 <strong>Estimating</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Requirements</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Plants</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Floodplain</strong> <strong>Wetlands</strong>
Table A1 – 2. Specifications <strong>for</strong> sensors suitable <strong>for</strong> floodplain wetland managementSpacebornesensorsCoverage dates Spatial resolution Spectral resolution Overpass frequency Scene sizeLandsat MSS 1972–present 80 m × 80 m 4 × 10–20 nm bands vis–nir 16 (currently, less frequent in past) 184 km × 172 kmLandsat TM 1982–present 30 m × 30 m 7 × 10–20 nm bands vis–nir–swir 16 184 km × 172 kmSPOT MS 1986–present 20 m × 20 m 3 × 10–20 nm bands vis–nir 26 days (less <strong>for</strong> <strong>of</strong>f nadir view angles) 60 km × 60 kmSPOT Xs 1986–present 10 m × 10 m 1 × 25 nm band vis 27 days (less <strong>for</strong> <strong>of</strong>f nadir view angles) 60 km × 60 kmNOAA AVHRR 1979–present 4000 m × 4000 m 4 × 10–20 nm bands vis–nir 7 days (nominal) global NDVI product available asCD-RomRADARSAT 1995–present 10 m × 10 m radar Flexible 50 km × 50 kmERS–1 SAR ??? 30 m × 30 m syn<strong>the</strong>tic aperture radar 35 days 100 km × 100 kmAirbornesensorSensor type Spatial resolution Spectral resolution Spectral rangeAVIRIS Hyperspectral 20 m × 20 m 10 nm, 224 bands 400–2500 nm as acquiredCASI Hyperspectral 0.8–5 m 2 2.2 nm min., 10 – 72 bands 400–1000 nm as acquiredHYMAP Hyperspectral 2–10 m 2 16 nm, 128 bands 400–2500 nm as acquiredLIDAR Pr<strong>of</strong>iling laser 3 m intervals horizontally minimum vertical accuracy 10–15 cm as acquiredAIRSAR Syn<strong>the</strong>tic aperture radar 10 m × 10 m 3 microwave bands as acquiredVideo visible 1 m × 1 m filtered panchromatic as acquiredAerialphotographyvisible 1 m × 1 m panchromatic as acquiredCIR Aerialphotographymultispectral 1 m × 1 m 3 × 10–20 nm bands as acquiredAppendix 1: Remote Sensing 103
- Page 1 and 2:
Estimating the WaterRequirements fo
- Page 3 and 4:
ContentsPreface 7Acknowledgments 8G
- Page 5:
List of Tables1 Spatial variability
- Page 8 and 9:
Note that the guide is concerned pr
- Page 10 and 11:
ecomes a matter of how to use what
- Page 12 and 13:
Figure 1. Floodplain featuresThe fl
- Page 14 and 15:
Figure 4.Wanganella Swamps, souther
- Page 16 and 17:
Floodplain wetlands, being a mosaic
- Page 18 and 19:
Section 2:Introducing theVegetation
- Page 20 and 21:
size and vigour rarely reach their
- Page 22 and 23:
floodplains survive there because t
- Page 24 and 25:
The lagoon floor is then colonised
- Page 26 and 27:
Note 11Growth-formsField guides to
- Page 28 and 29:
identical conditions. PFTs differ f
- Page 30 and 31:
Note 13Changes in depthSome herbace
- Page 32 and 33:
Focusing on depthWater regime analy
- Page 34 and 35:
Note 15Internet dataEnvironmental d
- Page 36 and 37:
Step 3: Vegetation-hydrologyrelatio
- Page 38 and 39:
Note 19Modelling and time-stepsIn s
- Page 40 and 41:
Section 4: Old andNew DataOne of th
- Page 42 and 43:
see Figure 15), despite a three-fol
- Page 44 and 45:
frequency. This is rather limiting,
- Page 46 and 47:
Figure 13. Lippia, a floodplain wee
- Page 48 and 49:
single measure of the vegetation to
- Page 50 and 51:
Section 5:ObtainingVegetation DataW
- Page 52 and 53: However, if the chosen species has
- Page 54 and 55: Figure 15. Range of tree condition
- Page 56 and 57: Figure 16. Spatial-temporal sequenc
- Page 58 and 59: Note 26Canopy condition indexA visu
- Page 60 and 61: Note 27Mapping floodplainwetland ve
- Page 62 and 63: Shape of species responseThe shape
- Page 64 and 65: Figure 18. Heat pulse sensorHeat pu
- Page 66 and 67: section, using storage volume and i
- Page 68 and 69: Figure 20. Crack volume and drying
- Page 70 and 71: Figure 21. The relationshipbetween
- Page 72 and 73: epresentative, there should be no m
- Page 74 and 75: All of the curves are described by
- Page 76 and 77: monitoring, precision levels, scali
- Page 78 and 79: sites of significant recharge and d
- Page 80 and 81: Figure 24. Degraded channelPart of
- Page 82 and 83: and so depth estimates are inaccura
- Page 84 and 85: Section 7:PredictingVegetationRespo
- Page 86 and 87: AEAM and the Macquarie Marshes. An
- Page 88 and 89: Category 3: hydraulic/empiricalAppr
- Page 90 and 91: For example, changes in surface and
- Page 92 and 93: ReferencesPrefaceArthington AH and
- Page 94 and 95: Section 3Roberts J and Marston F (1
- Page 96 and 97: Kunin WE and Gaston KG (1993). The
- Page 98 and 99: Singh VP (1995).“Computer models
- Page 100 and 101: Web ListingsNote 40Data on the WebM
- Page 104 and 105: Seven points over the flow range is
- Page 106 and 107: used as exclusions; or can be quant
- Page 108 and 109: Table A1 - 4. A flooding overlay ch
- Page 110: Table A2 - 1.(cont’d) K c and K s