Identifying gypsy moth defoliation in Ohio using Landsat data

Environmental and Engineering Geoscience

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 321-328

  Hurley, Angela ^a,b   Watts, Doyle ^b   Burke, Brian ^c   Richards, Chris ^c  

^a The Payne Firm   (United States)

^b WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Gypsy Moth Program   (United States)

Author keywords

Defoliation; Forestry; Gypsy moth; Landsat; Ratio subtraction; Refoliation; Remote sensing; Vegetation

Indexed keywords

DEFOLIATION; LANDSAT; MOTH; PEST DAMAGE; REMOTE SENSING; SATELLITE IMAGERY; VEGETATION COVER;

NORTH AMERICA; OHIO; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

LEPIDOPTERA; LYMANTRIA DISPAR; VITIS;

EID: 12444265796     PISSN: 10787275     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2113/10.4.321     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Goward, S. N.; Masek, J. G.; Williams, D. L.; Irons, J. R.; and Thompson, R. J., 2001, The Landsat 7 mission: Terrestrial research and applications for the 21st century: Remote Sensing of Environment, Vol. 78, pp. 29-32.
2. Harvey, K., 2001, personal communication, Ohio Department of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399.
3. Joria, P. E.; Ahearn, S. C.; and Connor, M., 1991, A comparison of the SPOT and Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite systems for detecting gypsy moth defoliation in Michigan: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol. 57, No. 12, pp. 1605-1612.
4. Majeed, Z. A., 1999, An Evaluation of AVHRR NDVI Data for Monitoring Western Spruce Budworm Defoliation: Unpublished M. S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 77 p.
5. McConnell, T. J.; Johnson, E. W.; and Burns, B., 2000, A Guide to Conducting Aerial Sketchmapping Surveys: FHTET 00-01, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team: Fort Collins, CO.
6. Muchoney, D. M. and Haack, B. N., 1994, Change detection for monitoring forest defoliation: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing Vol. 60, No. 10, pp. 1243-1251.
7. Nelson, R. F., 1981, Assess2: Analysis of four methods for classifying forest defoliation (revised): Internal Report, Earth Resources Branch: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD.
8. OhioLink Landsat 7 Satellite Image Server. July 2002. Ohio Library and Information Network. Available at: http://dmc.ohiolink.edu/GEO/LS7/. Accessed 15 June 2001.
9. Rohde, W. G. and Moore, H. J., 1974, Forest defoliation assessment with satellite imagery, in Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Remote Sensing of the Environment, Ann Arbor, MI, Vol. 2, pp. 1089-1104.
10. Rohde, W. G. and Moore, H. J., 1975, Gypsy moth defoliation assessment: Forest defoliation is detectable from satellite imagery. NASA CR-146626, MF# N76-20601: Houston, TX, pp. 1-18.
11. Slow the Spread Gypsy Moth Project. July 2002. Virginia Gypsy Moth Information Systems Lab, Department of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Available at: http://www.ento.vt.edu/ STS/. Accessed 15 June 2001.
12. Vincent, R. K., 1997, Fundamentals of Geological and Environmental Remote Sensing: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 366 p.
13. Williams, D. L., 1975, Computer analysis and mapping of gypsy moth defoliation levels in Pennsylvania using Landsat-1 digital data, in Proceedings of the NASA Earth Presentations, Vol. 1A, pp. 167-181.
14. Williams, D. L.; Nelson, R. F.; and Dottavio, C. L., 1985, A georeferenced Landsat digital database for forest insect-damage assessment: International Journal Remote Sensing, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 643-656.
15. Williams, D. L. and Stauffer, M. L., 1978, Monitoring gypsy moth defoliation by applying change detection techniques to Landsat imagery, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Remote Sensing for Vegetation Damage Assessment, pp. 221-229.
16. Williams, D. L.; Stauffer, M. L.; and Leung, K. C., 1979, A forester's look at the application of image manipulation techniques to multitemporal Landsat data, in Proceedings of Fifth Annual Symposium on Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN, pp. 368-375.