This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
A Comparison of Riparian Area Ground Data
with Large Scale Airphoto Interpretation 1
Paul Cuplin2, William S. Platts 3 , Osborne Casey4, and Roy Masinton 5
Abstract: A study site on Tabor Creek in northeast
Nevada has been monitored by ground data collection each year
since 1979. Airphotos of the study site were acquired in large
scale (1:2,000 color) infrared 9- x 9-inch format during
July 1984. Ground data and airphoto interpretation are
compared.
INTRODUCTION
Two variables, stream profile and stream
gradient (items 17 and 18), can be measured by
using a Kelsh plotter. All of the variables
indicated with an asterisk (items 3, 10, 12,
13, 14, and 16) can be measured or interpreted
with large scale 1:2,000 color infrared
airphotos.
Tabor Creek in Elko County, northwest
Nevada, has been monitored both within and outside of fenced exclosures to show changes in
riparian vegetation and stream characteristics
that are related to various grazing systems
that have been tested.
Tabor Creek is characterized by narrow
riparian zones. Vegetation is a mesophytic
type that includes shrubs such as willow, wild
rose, and rabbit-brush; and grass-like sedges
and rushes that are of limited value to
livestock. Cattle prefer riparian vegetation
to upland vegetation. This preference causes
altered stream channels and vegetational
changes (Platts and Nelson 1983).
Geomorphic/aquatic
Rest-rotation and other grazing systems
are being tested. None of the systems tested
were clearly effective in assisting in the
rehabilitation of riparian vegetation. One
strategy that is obviously useful is complete
rest (Platts and Nelson 1983).
GROUND DATA COLLECTION
Ground data collected were catagorized
into (1) geomorphic/aquatic, (2) riparian/
streamside, and (3) hydrologic and biological.
1.
Substrate materials
2.
Substrate embeddedness
*3.
Stream width and depth
4.
Bank-stream contact water depth
5.
Pool width, quality, and feature
6.
Riffle width
7.
Streambank angle
8.
Streambank undercut
9.
Fisheries environment quality rating
*10.
11.
lPaper presented at the Riparian
Ecosystems and Their Management Symposium.
[April 16-18, 1985, Tucson, Arizona].
2Paul Cuplin is a Fishery Biologist with
the Bureau of Land Management, Denver,
Colorado.
3William S. Platts is a Fishery
Biologist with the U.S. Forest Service, Boise,
Idaho.
40sborne Casey is a Fishery Biologist
with the Bureau of Land Management, Reno,
Nevada.
5Roy Masinton is a Fishery Biologist
with the Bureau of Land Management, Elko,
Nevada.
Canopy cover
Light intensity
Riparian/Streamside
67
*12.
Streamside habitat type
*13.
Streambank stability
*14.
Overhanging vegetation
15.
Vegetation use (ocular and herbage
meter)
*16.
Streambank alteration (natural and
artifical)
Hydrologic and biological
17.
Stream profile
18.
Stream gradient
19.
Stream volocity
20.
Fish species composition, number,
and biomass
base with more information than either method
would provide separately.
Airphotos can be used for monitoring
change. The technique is to visually compare
baseline airphotos with airphotos taken about
five years later. If obvious changes are
apparent, sample areas can be delineated and
compared. If significant changes have occurred, field data collection will help
determine the cause of change.
In addition to the variables indicated
above, ground cover of trees, shrubs, and
herbaceous vegetation; bare soil; riparian area
acreage; and structure can be determined.
LITERATURE CITED
Platts, William S., and Rodger Loren Nelson.
1983. Livestock-Fishery interaction
studies, Tabor Creek, Nevada. USDA Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 73 pp. Boise, Idaho.
CONCLUSIONS
Ground data collection and large scale CIR
airphoto interpretation provide a combined data
68