HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Griffith, J. A. Articles by Price, K. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Griffith, J. A. Articles by Price, K. P. Agricola Articles by Griffith, J. A. Articles by Price, K. P. Related Collections Watershed and Landscape Processes Surface Water Quality Remote Sensing Water Pollution Spatial Distribution

Preliminary Comparison of Landscape Pattern–Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) Relationships to Central Plains Stream Conditions

Jerry A. Griffith^,*,a, Edward A. Martinko^b, Jerry L. Whistler^c and Kevin P. Price^a

^a Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program and Dep. of Geography, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
^b Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program, Kansas Biological Survey and Dep. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
^c Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Watersheds used in the study.

View larger version (62K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Land use–land cover proportions in the watersheds stratified by ecoregion and/or size that are discussed in this study. WP, Western High Plains and Tablelands; FH, Flint Hills; GP, Glaciated Plains; SH, Nebraska Sand Hills; WCB, Western Corn Belt Plains; CIP, Central Irregular Plains; OH, Ozark Highlands; CGP, Central Great Plains; MRL, Mississippi River Lowlands. The proportions for some do not add to precisely 100% in some cases because not all of the possible eight land use–land cover types are shown.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Graphs of landscape measures for the five watersheds in the Western Corn Belt Plains (watersheds > 25 km2) with the highest habitat index (HI) scores and the five lowest. The graph shows what at first appear to be counterintuitive relationships: Watersheds with more agriculture, a landscape in which cover types are more aggregated, and less forest have better habitat conditions and lower turbidity. Turbidity is measured in nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) and contagion is measured in percent with higher values indicating a more clumped or aggregated land cover.

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Graphs of landscape measures for the five watersheds in the Western Corn Belt Plains (watersheds > 25 km2) with the highest habitat index (HI) scores and the five lowest. ED, edge density ([m/ha]/10); TP, total phosphorus (mg/L); SHDI, Shannon diversity index, ranging from 0 to 1 with higher values indicting a watershed with a relatively greater balance of land use–land cover (LULC) types; HI, habitat index ranging from 0 to 1 with higher scores indicating higher quality habitat; HI-a, riparian vegetation quality; HI-b, lack of disturbance in riparian zone; HI-c, substrate quality. This graph shows what at first appears to be counterintuitive relationships: Watersheds with higher quality habitat have a lower edge density and lower landscape diversity. In a rural, predominantly agricultural area, edge density might intuitively indicate more forest and hence lower turbidity and better substrate, and a higher Shannon diversity index might intuitively indicate more forest or grassland. But urban areas also add edge, and the presence of forest might be indicative of erosion from bluffs along the Missouri River. The correlation tables (Tables 5 and 6) indicate that, in fact, higher turbidity is associated with percent forest and percent urban.