REMOTE SENSING AND ECOLOGY 
IN 
RESOURCE ANALYSIS 
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
(Background Knowledge, Procedures, and Techniques) 
LEADS TO 
7 
[USE AND APPLICATION | 
- 
| | 
BROAD POLICY LAND USE RESOURCE 
MANAGEMENT 
| ere | 
AND PLANNING DECISIONS 
| 
NATIONAL SINGLE USE CUSTODIAL 
ena | 
REGIONAL [EXTENSIVE 
MULTIPLE USE 
ee 
STATE INTENSIVE | 
LAND USE 
COUNTY CONVERS ONS ECOSYSTEM 
MANIPULATION 
FIGURE 2.—The functions and levels of activity within 
the scope of natural resource use that are served by 
remote sensing. Each function and level has its 
unique requirements. 
Each level, from broad policy planning to 
decision monitoring, has a unique requirement 
for remote sensing systems and output, ecologi- 
cal interpretations, and information sum- 
maries. At each level, particular photo image 
interpretation problems unique for that infor- 
mation level are encountered. For example, at 
the decision-monitoring level, the need is for 
unusually large-scale photography, with inter- 
pretation emphasis on individual species and 
photogrammetric measurement as _ illustrated 
by conference papers of Driscoll and Reppert. 
Photography taken from space platforms 
may be especially valuable for making broad 
national and regional policy decisions. In this 
instance, photo interpretation draws much less 
strongly on the textural characteristics of the 
image and instead emphasizes color or tones, 
gross patterns, and convergent or associated 
evidence in making judgments from the pho- 
tography. In addition, photo interpretation of 
extremely small-scale photography emphasizes 
ecologically similar groups of plant communi- 
ties rather than the individual species. The 
specific plant communities are emphasized 
in the interpretation of photography taken at 
conventional scales for resource management 
purposes. In all the levels illustrated in figure 
2, remote sensing and photo or image interpre- 
180 
tation is destined to play a rapidly increasing 
and valuable role. 
BACKGROUND ON THE USE OF REMOTE 
SENSING IN RANGE RESOURCE 
ANALYSIS 
The first range survey in the United States 
was conducted entirely by ground methods on 
the Coconino National Forest, Ariz., in 1911. 
From that year until the beginning of World 
War II, methods were changed and improved 
somewhat, but the process remained essentially 
an on-the-ground technique. In many instances, 
the need to obtain information on range re- 
sources preceded the availability of any kind of 
planimetric map. In these cases, surveys were 
conducted by traversing compass lines across 
the landscape and sketching in the planimetric 
detail. At the same time, type mapping was 
done and data were gathered on the resource 
and its management problems. 
In 1935 and 19386 (Moyer 1950) black-and- 
white aerial photography at the common scale 
of 1:20,000 became available to range resource 
people in limited areas. 
Unfortunately, about this same time a num- 
ber of factors were operating to slow progress 
in aerial photography of rangelands. In the 
1930’s rangeland was still priced at $2.50-$3.00 
per acre, and people generally felt that one 
could not justify spending money on such 
“cheap land,” especially not for aerial photog- 
raphy. 
In concluding their studies, which began in 
1939, on the comparative merits of using aerial 
photos vs. other mapping techniques in range 
survey, Reid et al. (1942) stated that aerial 
photography taken especially for use on range 
survey could not be economically justified. 
This conclusion was reached by considering 
only the increase in statistical accuracy of esti- 
mates of grazing capacity that resulted from 
use of photography as a mapping base. In 
those years, more benefits and cost reductions 
could have resulted from application of the 
then embryonic field of photo interpretation. 
While Reid et al. (1942) were talking about 
7.98 mills more cost per acre and 17 to 20 mills 
of total cost (including photography), their 
view was shared by many in responsible ad- 
ministrative positions. This common attitude 
had such an impact that range resource ana- 
lysts and managers have mostly been forced to 
use photography taken and printed to specifi- 
cations developed for other disciplines and pur- 
poses than looking at shrub, grassland, forest 
opening, and forest understory vegetation. 
This has made our work with aerial photogra- 
phy difficult and frustrating; it has also pre- 
vented range resource people from developing 
ee 
i en Se 
