| snippet:
|
The goal of the Ecological Mapping System (EMS) project for Arkansas was to address the primary shortcomings in other mapping efforts to provide better datasets and maps of important wildlife habitat, and to facilitate conservation prioritization and action for species of greatest conservation need. Therefore, we included:
1. Use of 10 m resolution Sentinel 2 satellite imagery to provide the best available spatial resolution,
2. Use of image objects to further improve spatial accuracy by serving as a filter for 10 m pixel data, and to facilitate modeling of EMS types via flexible incorporation of soils and other ancillary data together with landcover information,
3. Collection of georeferenced ground data by qualified vegetation ecologists that was specifically designed to enhance mapping and facilitate development of the datasets, and
4. Close cooperation between state-based vegetation ecologists and geospatial analysts during the entire mapping process to ensure that datasets reflect the best current knowledge of vegetation in Arkansas. |
| summary:
|
The goal of the Ecological Mapping System (EMS) project for Arkansas was to address the primary shortcomings in other mapping efforts to provide better datasets and maps of important wildlife habitat, and to facilitate conservation prioritization and action for species of greatest conservation need. Therefore, we included:
1. Use of 10 m resolution Sentinel 2 satellite imagery to provide the best available spatial resolution,
2. Use of image objects to further improve spatial accuracy by serving as a filter for 10 m pixel data, and to facilitate modeling of EMS types via flexible incorporation of soils and other ancillary data together with landcover information,
3. Collection of georeferenced ground data by qualified vegetation ecologists that was specifically designed to enhance mapping and facilitate development of the datasets, and
4. Close cooperation between state-based vegetation ecologists and geospatial analysts during the entire mapping process to ensure that datasets reflect the best current knowledge of vegetation in Arkansas. |
| accessInformation:
|
Citation: Diamond, D.D., L.F. Elliott, M. Sunde, and P. Hanberry. 2024. Ecological Systems of Arkansas Final Report. Submitted to Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Acknowledgements Theo Witsell of the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission provided primary input on Ecological System mapping targets and their distribution. Gabe DeJong of the Nature Conservancy also provided input on mapping targets and access to field plot data collected on U.S. Forest Service lands. Kayti Ewing and Madison Srebalus of the Arkansas Department of Transportation coordinated and executed field data collection and provided insights into ecological system distribution. Allision Fowler of the Arkansas Fish and Game Commission spearheaded the initiation of the project and provided primary administrative coordination. Becky Peak and Todd Jones-Farrand obtained support from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
|
| thumbnail:
|
|
| maxScale:
|
5000 |
| typeKeywords:
|
[] |
| description:
|
<DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;"><SPAN><SPAN>Workflow</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Aspects of the project workflow included coordination between MoRAP staff and staff from agencies and organizations based in Arkansas. A complex and time intensive set of tasks was performed. In broad outline, these steps included:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><OL STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 0;"><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Identification of mapping targets starting with the Ecological Systems Classification, followed by iterative adjustments based on work accomplished.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Collection of field data, coordinated and accomplished by state-based vegetation ecologists. </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Remote sensing classification of landcover using Random Forest. Three date mosaics of 10 m resolution Sentinel 2a and 2b imagery were used, and results were iteratively refined</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Re-classification of areas of central and eastern Arkansas to improve results in shadows in mountains, which were often mis-classified in step 3.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Refinement of the initial classification results to help identify eastern redcedar versus pine landcover. </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>Development of urban, crop, and water masks from ancillary data, which were used to re-assign some initial land cover classes.</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Development of geophysical setting information, primarily digital soils grouped into ecoclasses of soil types that support similar late-successional vegetation types, solar radiation, slope, and topographic moisture index</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>The latter digital elevation model (DEM) based information was derived from 1 m resolution data aggregated to 10 m and mosaiced for the state. Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP; </SPAN></SPAN><A href="https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/find-data/near-real-time/smap"><SPAN><SPAN>https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/find-data/near-real-time/smap</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>) was also used as well as NHD (National Hydrography Dataset) to identify drainage patterns. EPA ecoregions (</SPAN></SPAN><A href="https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states"><SPAN><SPAN>https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>) were used to identify larger scale relationships on the landscape. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Previously developed potential natural vegetation data was used for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley instead of soil ecogroup.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Development of image objects (segmentation) from Sentinel 2, 10 m resolution imagery. </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Attribution of image objects with landcover (from steps 3, 4, 5) and geophysical setting information (from step 7). </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>Development of a master model used to model and map the majority of EMS types using landcover and soil ecogroups or potential natural vegetation for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. </SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Use of landcover change data to identify regions where pine plantations are likely to occur to map plantation types by general stage of development. </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Use of ground sample data to drive development of a model to map dry, dry-mesic, and mesic woodland and forest types using solar radiation values (which vary mainly by slope exposure) and soil moisture index from modeled, remotely sensed data.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Use of existing glades maps to incorporate glades and develop a model for mapping associated cedar glades.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Incorporation of road and building footprint data. </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Heads-up mapping of several EMS types on screen</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN /><SPAN /></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Development and delivery of interpretive materials and final geodatabase. </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI></OL></DIV></DIV></DIV> |
| licenseInfo:
|
|
| catalogPath:
|
|
| title:
|
Arkansas_Ecological_Systems_Final.img |
| type:
|
|
| url:
|
|
| tags:
|
["Ecological Mapping System of Arkansas","Land Cover of Arkansas"] |
| culture:
|
en-US |
| portalUrl:
|
|
| name:
|
|
| guid:
|
|
| minScale:
|
150000000 |
| spatialReference:
|
|