text:
Open Access This article is
- freely available
- re-usable
Remote Sens. 2016, 8(10), 872; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8100872
Interannual Variability in Dry Mixed-Grass Prairie Yield: A Comparison of MODIS, SPOT, and Field Measurements
Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3, Canada
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada
Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H1, Canada
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Edmonton, AB T6H 5T6, Canada (Formerly with Agricultural Financial Services Corporation)
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Current address: School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0989, USA.
Academic Editors: Sangram Ganguly, Compton Tucker, Lenio Soares Galvao, Clement Atzberger and Prasad S. Thenkabail
Received: 28 April 2016 / Accepted: 18 October 2016 / Published: 22 October 2016
Remote sensing is often used to assess rangeland condition and biophysical parameters across large areas. In particular, the relationship between the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and above-ground biomass can be used to assess rangeland primary productivity (seasonal carbon gain or above-ground biomass "yield"). We evaluated the NDVI–yield relationship for a southern Alberta prairie rangeland, using seasonal trends in NDVI and biomass during the 2009 and 2010 growing seasons, two years with contrasting rainfall regimes. The study compared harvested biomass and NDVI from field spectrometry to NDVI from three satellite platforms: the Aqua and Terra Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and Système Pour l'Observation de la Terre (SPOT 4 and 5). Correlations between ground spectrometry and harvested biomass were also examined for each growing season. The contrasting precipitation patterns were easily captured with satellite NDVI, field NDVI and green biomass measurements. NDVI provided a proxy measure for green plant biomass, and was linearly related to the log of standing green biomass. NDVI phenology clearly detected the green biomass increase at the beginning of each growing season and the subsequent decrease in green biomass at the end of each growing season due to senescence. NDVI–biomass regressions evolved over each growing season due to end-of-season senescence and carryover of dead biomass to the following year. Consequently, mid-summer measurements yielded the strongest correlation (R2 = 0.97) between NDVI and green biomass, particularly when the data were spatially aggregated to better match the satellite sampling scale. Of the three satellite platforms (MODIS Aqua, MODIS Terra, and SPOT), Terra yielded the best agreement with ground-measured NDVI, and SPOT yielded the weakest relationship. When used properly, NDVI from satellite remote sensing can accurately estimate peak-season productivity and detect interannual variation in standing green biomass, and field spectrometry can provide useful validation for satellite data in a biomass monitoring program in this prairie ecosystem. Together, these methods can be used to identify the effects of year-to-year precipitation variability on above-ground biomass in a dry mixed-grass prairie. These findings have clear applications in monitoring yield and productivity, and could be used to support a rangeland carbon monitoring program.
Keywords:NDVI; prairie yield; biomass; productivity; drought; MODIS; SPOT
1. Introduction
Rangelands comprise between 26 to 36 percent of the terrestrial land surface [1,2]. They consist of many ecosystems, including shrublands, savannas, tundra, deserts, alpine communities, coastal marshes, meadows, and grasslands [3]. Historically, grasslands covered 300 million ha in the United States and 50 million ha in Canada [4]. The mixed prairie, one grassland type, is located in the brown and dark brown soil regions of southern Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada, and extends southward into northern Texas [5]. Approximately 7 percent of the area of Alberta is covered by the dry mixed-grass prairie subregion, of which 43 percent remains [6]. Climate is the determining factor for production and health in this ecosystem [1,7,8], and water availability largely controls productivity [1,9,10]. Climate change is expected to increase the amount and duration of growing season drought, as well as alter the frequency and intensity of growing season precipitation [1,11]. Knapp and Smith [10] demonstrated that prairie ecosystems have high production potential and substantial interannual variability, and are likely to be one of the most responsive biomes to future climate change [10]. Human interest in these areas is usually focused on yearly productivity [12] or biomass yields for economic and ecological monitoring purposes. The most common land use in the mixed prairie is ranching, as much of it is too dry to accommodate crop production without irrigation. Consequently, the economy in these regions is dominated by livestock ranching and supporting businesses. An emerging interest in prairie regions is yield assessment for agricultural insurance, which for prairies is limited by the inability to produce a direct, measurable yield; unlike traditional agriculture, a harvested crop yield is not the end product [13]. Prairie vegetation functions to prevent soil erosion and resist landscape degradation, facilitate groundwater recharge, sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide, and support plant and animal diversity [14,15], which are often positively related to productivity [16,17]. Due to the potential for biospheric carbon sequestration and other co-benefits, in a period with deepening concerns about anthropogenically-induced climate change, there is also an emerging possibility of targeted carbon markets and economic incentives for proper land stewardship in these areas. These economic and ecological issues require accurate methods of evaluating prairie biomass yield in response to interannual variations in precipitation, especially given the current climate variability and predictions for future climate change.
Clearly, accurate monitoring methods are necessary for proper management of the mixed prairie. Traditionally, range management has been accomplished through the subjective evaluation and monitoring of large areas by skilled professionals relying on accumulated judgment and experience [18]. This methodology has limitations for widespread application. Quantitative estimates of prairie productivity have also often been conducted through biomass harvests, which are expensive and time-consuming [18,19,20,21]. Biomass harvests are destructive, so repeated sampling of a single plot is not possible, limiting the temporal practicality of the method. The time-consuming nature of manual field sampling, combined with the expansive size of these ecosystems, further limits the utility of biomass harvests for prairie management [19,20,21]. Harvests require measurements to be performed in a representative number of places during a short time period and extrapolated to useful spatial and temporal scales. This often entails measurement errors, inaccuracies inherent in interpolation techniques, and delays in evaluating results that impair effective management.
The requirement for a sampling method that limits error introduced by inadequate sample size and distribution often exacerbated by personal bias [18] has led to the exploration of remote sensing techniques for rangeland monitoring. Spectral reflectance enables non-destructive sampling over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Remote sensing data from multiple satellite platforms have been available since the 1970s [18]. Many publicly funded satellites monitor the Earth, including the NASA Terra and Aqua satellites, which carry the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) sensors. These satellite sensors provide 250 m spatial resolution from 36 spectral bands, with daily coverage [18,22]. MODIS products are created from quality-controlled multiband surface radiance and reflectance, and are freely available through websites developed by U.S. government agencies. The availability of quality-controlled satellite data has led to their widespread use and increased practicality for management and science.
Remote sensing data are also readily available for purchase from commercial satellite vendors. For example, the Système Pour l'Observation de la Terre SPOT 5 satellite produces 10 m spatial resolution multispectral imagery (SPOT 4 can also produce 10 m spatial resolution by co-registering a 10 m panchromatic and 20 m colour image) from four bands, two in the visible wavelengths, one in the near infrared and one in the shortwave infrared [23]. The increased spatial resolution limits the possible temporal resolution such that SPOT samples a position on the Earth every 26 days, although the sensor can be pointed off nadir at targets not directly below the satellite, increasing the temporal resolution [18]. Commercial satellites offer several potential advantages over MODIS; the finer spatial resolution of commercial satellites offer the potential of providing data products that more closely match the scales of small management units [24]. However, images from commercial systems are often prohibitively expensive for practical application for range management [18]. Commercial satellites also require tasking requests far in advance, and data gaps can occur with excessive cloud cover or otherwise reduced image quality during the tasking period [3]. Despite these limitations, private satellites represent alternatives to government-funded programs and are also being explored for rangeland monitoring.
Past studies have demonstrated the ability of remote sensing to accurately estimate plant biomass or yield in grasslands [18,20,25,26]. Satellite remote sensing also allows repetitive sampling, i.e., the creation of time series for evaluating growing season phenology and interannual variability in production. These methods enable productivity monitoring in near real time, relatively inexpensively, and with multiple scales of coverage. Many vegetation indices have been established from remotely sensed data. These indices provide proxies for vegetation biophysical properties, and can be used to diagnose rangeland conditions and trends [27,28]. The most commonly used vegetation index is the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) [21,29]. This index compares the low reflectance of photosynthetic materials in the red wavelengths to the high reflectance in the near-infrared to produce an estimation of plant biophysical parameters, including biomass, leaf area index (LAI) and the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR). Numerous studies have demonstrated that NDVI strongly correlates with green biomass and leaf area index, particularly for grassland ecosystems [19,25,26,30,31]. In grassland ecosystems, NDVI also provides a strong indicator of photosynthetic carbon uptake, typically measured via gas exchange or eddy covariance [16,26,31,32,33], indicating its potential as a useful metric for carbon sequestration. Furthermore, in prairies, NDVI often scales with metrics of species richness and evenness [16,17], so may also provide a useful indicator of biodiversity or other ecosystem co-benefits.
Due to the potential economic benefits of accurate prairie ecosystem monitoring, there is renewed commercial interest in evaluating cost-effective methods of assessing mixed prairie biomass. For example, the agricultural insurance industry has been exploring satellite remote-sensing-based monitoring programs and is interested in evaluating the accuracy of yield estimation in an effort to enhance customer confidence [34]. This interest influenced the goals of this research, which were to evaluate how effectively NDVI from different common satellite sensors can estimate spatial and interannual patterns of grassland yield, and how satellite measurements compare to biomass harvests and NDVI from ground measurement. A common practice in assessing the utility of remote sensing for rangeland management is to conduct studies over a single growing season, such that evaluation of the impacts of year-to-year variability in precipitation is limited [29]. Many other studies forego any intensive ground sampling with field spectrometers and rely only on data derived from broad-band satellite sensors [20], leaving issues of satellite validation unresolved. Furthermore, the lack of a single, universal NDVI formulation due to the many band and sampling configurations of existing satellite sensors requires independent calibrations be conducted. Satellite calibration and validation ("CalVal") efforts have often focused on a limited number of core sites [35], and have been less concerned with evaluating the management applications of such sensors in the context of environmental change, leaving many aspects of validation to the scientific or end-user community. Consequently, there is an ongoing need to evaluate satellite sensors by comparing their output with field measurements, particularly when accurate data are needed for management regimes, carbon markets, or insurance purposes. Validation efforts comparing satellite measurements and traditional field sampling must, by definition, compare data collected on vastly different scales, necessitating some kind of scaling regime [36], adding to the challenges of quantitative yield estimates from satellites.
In this study we analyzed data from the SPOT, MODIS Terra and Aqua platforms, and ground spectrometry to calculate NDVI. We then compared the resulting NDVI values to harvested biomass from southern Albertan mixed-grass prairies over two consecutive summers (2009 and 2010) having contrasting rainfall regimes. The objectives of the study were to (1) determine whether NDVI time-series from satellite systems that are currently utilized for estimating productivity are comparable to measurements from a ground spectrometer and harvested biomass; (2) determine whether variations in productivity as a result of contrasting weather conditions over two consecutive summers are clearly detectable, which could indicate the utility of remote sensing for monitoring long-term or year-to-year climate variability in prairie systems; and (3) determine the practical utility of NDVI for estimating above-ground biomass ("yield") in the mixed prairie. Addressing the last objective is an essential foundation for cost-effective satellite-based rangeland insurance or carbon management programs. Since accuracy is crucial for carbon markets and insurance programs, we also considered the relative performance of two satellite sensors, SPOT and MODIS (Aqua and Terra), using ground NDVI measurements as a reference.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Location and Design
Field sites were located in the dry mixed-grass prairie ecoregion, within the Sounding Creek and Pinhorn Grazing Reserves, in southern Alberta, Canada (Figure 1). The Sounding Creek Grazing Reserve is located near the northern extent of the dry mixed-grass prairie, consequently it is dominated by the Stipa comata–Bouteloua gracilis range type. The Pinhorn Grazing Reserve is dominated by Bouteloua gracilis with some Stipa comata and Agropyron species due to differing edaphic conditions. Management regimes consisted of light, rotational grazing typical of the region (e.g., [31]). Average annual precipitation in these areas is around 325 mm per year [8]. The field data were collected in the summers of 2009 and 2010 in representative areas within the Grazing Reserves. These data were collected from randomly selected sites, located within similar range types and with a density of no more than one site per section (one square mile, or approximately 260 ha). This design created several site replicates at the township level, which allowed us to examine data at several spatial scales, ranging from single plots (1 m2) to whole townships (approx. 93 km2). The data shown in this study were aggregated to the township level by treatment for each month.
2.2. Plot Selection and Sample Design
At each sampling location, three (2009) or four (2010) plots were selected for harvesting, all located within grassland communities (i.e., sites with shrubs or trees were avoided). Within a location, these plots were in close proximity (several meters) to each other, matching vegetation types and landscape positions. To evaluate possible artifacts due to grazing, sample plots consisted of a 1-m diameter grazing exclosure, comprised of a modified wire mesh tree basket secured to the ground with rebar. Each site also had a matching, grazed control plot, which consisted of a similarly-sized sampling plot without an exclosure, located 10 m from a caged plot, and sampled in a different cardinal direction each month (to avoid repeatedly sampling the same location). Preliminary analysis indicated that, due to the light grazing regime, there was no significant difference between the grazed and ungrazed plot results, so these data were combined in the final analyses.
2.3. Biomass Harvests
Plots were sampled on a monthly basis during the growing season (May, June, July, and August; Figure 2), except that the May date was not sampled in 2009. Field sampling dates in 2009 were 10 and 11 June, 18 July, and 14 August for Sounding Creek; and 13 and 14 June, 15 and 16 July, and 11 August for Pinhorn. Field sampling dates in 2010 were 14 and 15 May, 23 and 24 June, 18 July, and 19 and 25 August for Sounding Creek; and 12 and 13 May, 25 and 26 June, 16 and 17 July, and 9 and 10 August for Pinhorn. Harvesting involved removing the exclosure (for ungrazed plots only), laying down a rectangular sampling frame within the center of the plot (Figure 2C), removing the loose litter, and clipping and separately bagging the non-graminoid species ("forbs") and graminoid components ("grass"). Since graminoids were the dominant canopy component and the primary fodder source, our analysis examined biomass both with graminoids and forbs combined, and without the forb component (i.e., graminoids alone, see Table 1). Each harvest area was determined by a 0.5 m2 (1 m × ½ m) rectangular metal sampling frame, the length of which closely matched the diameter of the exclosure, positioned in a North–South lengthwise orientation at each sampling location (Figure 2C). In each harvest, the vegetation within the sampling frame was cut close (≤2 cm) to the ground and taken to the lab for further sorting and processing. The different categories of biomass are listed in Table 1 and further explained here. A subset of total biomass from each plot was hand-sorted, with all of the visibly green material removed from the brown, and forbs separated from graminoids. This subset was then oven dried and weighed (g/m2) into separate categories (green, dead, graminoids, and forbs). Correction factors were calculated to express the percent (by dry mass) of each category that was green, yielding a "green fraction" for each plot. This green fraction value was then applied to the total biomass from each plot to estimate green graminoid and total green vegetation (graminoids + forbs) for each site. Total biomass was defined as all of the above-ground material (green + dead) harvested from a plot. Standing biomass was recorded as the total graminoids present, including both green and dead tissues. Green standing biomass was expressed as the standing biomass times the green fraction of the standing biomass.
2.4. NDVI Measurements
The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), a measure of green vegetation derived from measurements of reflected radiation, was calculated several ways. Individual sensor NDVI methods are indicated by distinct subscripts, as listed in Table 2 and explained below.
For ground NDVI (indicated by "NDVIG"), measurements of the treatment plots were taken immediately before harvesting using a dual-detector field spectrometer (Uni-SpecDC, PP Systems, Amesbury, MA, USA) fitted with fiber optics. One fiber (UNI686, PP Systems, Amesbury, MA, USA) was attached to an upward-looking cosine-corrected foreoptic (UNI435, PP Systems) for downwelling irradiance. The downward-looking fiber (UNI684, PP Systems) was fitted with a field-of-view restrictor ("hypotube"—UNI688, PP Systems) that limited radiance sampling to a field-of-view to approximately 20°, providing a ground sampling diameter (IFOV) of approximately 0.5 m. These two detectors and foreoptics were periodically cross-calibrated by sampling over a 99% reflective reference standard (Spectralon, Labsphere, North Sutton, NH, USA). Reflectance (ρ) at each wavelength (λ) was then calculated from radiance (R) and irradiance (I) using the following equation:where the subscript "plot" indicates the plot measurement, and the subscript "panel" indicates measurements made over the 99% reflective reference panel. From these reflectance (ρ) measurements, we calculated NDVI for each plot, using reflectance in the red and near-infrared wavebands as follows:where the subscript "NIR" indicates the near-infrared waveband (800 nm for NDVIG) and the subscript "RED" indicates the red waveband (680 nm for NDVIG).
For a more direct comparison with satellite NDVI, we also collected reflectance from 100 points from a 1-ha sampling grid (Figure 2). In this comparison, we simulated each satellite band from ground spectral reflectance by convolving the reflectance spectra against the band passes for each satellite sensor (MODIS Aqua, Terra, and SPOT). These 100 simulated NDVI values were then averaged to provide an equivalent, ground-measured index to directly compare with the individual satellite pixel NDVI values as indicators of annual grassland productivity.
NDVI values derived from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) were downloaded as ASCII subsets from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center website (http://daac.ornl.gov/MODIS/) for both the Terra ("NDVIT") and Aqua ("NDVIA") satellite platforms. The Terra platform crosses the equator in the morning from north to south, while the Aqua platform crosses the equator in the afternoon and travels in the opposite direction (south to north). Since our goal was to compare these two detectors, they were treated as two separate sensors rather than combined in our analysis. The data used in this study were derived from a single MODIS pixel (250m) containing the monthly plot sampling locations for each site. These products were 16-day composites created with a combination of bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) and maximum value composite (MVC) methods, which tend to select the least atmospherically-contaminated (most cloud-free) values, enhancing data accuracy and quality [37].
Images by the Système Pour l'Observation de la Terre (SPOT) satellite network were georeferenced, atmospherically corrected, and processed to reflectance by the Alberta Terrestrial Imaging Center, using identical ground-control points for 2009 and 2010. NDVI was subsequently extracted as follows:
The SPOT orbit is polar, circular, sun-synchronous, and phased, so that imagery over a particular area of the Earth is produced at the same time of day, at a constant altitude, every 26 days [23]. The SPOT imagery used in this study was obtained from the SPOT 4 (Summer 2009) and SPOT 5 (summers of 2009 and 2010) platforms and have a 10 m spatial resolution.
Figure 2 illustrates the different sampling scales of SPOT, MODIS, and ground sampling, leading us to derive a scaling methodology for relating ground sampling to the most closely matching satellite pixels. In each case, NDVI was extracted from a satellite pixel most closely matching each ground sampling location and all NDVI values were aggregated (averaged) by date and site (Pinhorn or Sounding Creek) for the summary evaluations shown in this study. The effect of data aggregation on the resulting analyses is further discussed in Figure S1 (Supplementary Materials).
2.5. Meteorological Data
The average daily temperature (°C), average daily precipitation (mm), and the 1961–2008 normal monthly accumulated precipitation (mm) data for each month were downloaded from the Alberta Agriculture and Forestry website, using data from the Onefour weather station (approximately 25 km East of the Pinhorn grazing reserve) and from the Oyen weather station (approximately 20 km East of the Sounding Creek grazing reserve), which were the closest available locations to each grazing reserve. Cumulative monthly precipitation for both grazing reserves was calculated from the daily precipitation average.
2.6. Statistical Tests
Statistical tests included regression analyses and ANCOVA (to compare regression slopes) and t-tests (to compare precipitation regimes between 2009 and 2010). Regression analysis was conducted in Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). Model fits were evaluated with R2, p values, root mean square error (RMSE), and by comparison with 1:1 lines.
3. Results
3.1. Precipitation and Temperature Patterns
The summers of 2009 and 2010 provided extreme contrasts in weather conditions, with a significant difference in the amount of accumulated precipitation between the two summers (t-test; p < 0.001). The months of May and June were very dry in 2009, with comparatively high early growing season temperatures (Figure 3). The 2010 growing season experienced very wet conditions throughout the summer, with lower temperatures in the early months and much more temperature variability (Figure 3). The differences between the two growing seasons were more extreme in the Sounding Creek grazing reserve than in the Pinhorn. In 2009, the accumulated precipitation was lower than normal for both grazing reserves, with August in Sounding Creek being the only exception (Figure 4). In that year, accumulated precipitation in the early growing season was higher in the Pinhorn than in the Sounding Creek grazing reserve. In 2010 the accumulated precipitation was higher than normal for all months in both grazing reserves, although these differences were greater in Sounding Creek than in Pinhorn. These conditions produced a natural experiment characterized by drought in 2009 and above-normal rainfall in 2010 (relative to the 1961–2008 normal).
3.2. NDVI Patterns
In both grazing reserves, there was high year-to-year variation in NDVI (Figure 5). In 2009 and 2010 peak NDVIG occurred in July for both locations (Figure 5A). Measurements of green standing biomass (largely graminoids) showed little seasonal variation in 2009 and greatly increased seasonal variation in 2010 (Figure 5B). The higher peak in Sounding Creek in 2010 reflected higher production and greater standing biomass in that year at that site. At Pinhorn, peak green biomass occurred in July in 2009, while in 2010 there was little difference in biomass between July and August (Figure 5B). The year-to-year trends in NDVIG and green standing biomass both demonstrate greater productivity for both sites in 2010 relative to 2009 (Figure 5A,B). This pattern is also apparent in the satellite NDVI (Figure 5C,D). The MODIS NDVI values were generally higher than the NDVI from the ground spectrometer, particularly for low, early-season NDVI values. SPOT offered the least coverage and its seasonal NDVI patterns and values deviated from the MODIS satellites. In comparison to the MODIS platforms, the offset between the SPOT data and the ground NDVI was more variable (Figure 5).
3.3. NDVI–Biomass Comparisons
Comparison of NDVIG and the different metrics of biomass for all sampling dates and both sites yielded significant non-linear, exponential relationships (Figure 6). The correlations between NDVIG and the green fraction of the biomass were much stronger than the total biomass and total standing biomass. Of all the biomass metrics, green standing biomass had the strongest correlation with NDVIG (R2 = 0.85).
The NDVI–biomass relationship was also examined for each month. The peak-season results yielded a stronger correlation (R2 = 0.97, Figure 7) than the comparable figure using all-season data (R2 = 0.85, Figure 6D). The cause of this improved correlation is evident in the seasonal progression in the NDVI-biomass relationship (see Figure S1, Supplementary Materials), and selection of peak-season (July) data greatly improved the overall NDVI–biomass fit (Figure 7). When the biomass data were log-transformed, the relationship between NDVI and green standing biomass became linear (cf. Figure 7A,B).
3.4. Interannual Comparisons
To highlight year-to-year differences in productivity, we summarized seasonal peak biomass and NDVI values by extracting the July values from the seasonal data. This choice to select peak values was made after observing a noticeable shift in the NDVI–biomass regressions during the growing season (see Figure S1, Supplementary Materials). Peak (July) biomass and NDVI values for both sites were much higher in 2010 (the wetter year) than in 2009 (the drier year) (Figure 8). In 2009, the Pinhorn grazing reserve had higher peak green biomass values than did the Sounding Creek grazing reserve, while in 2010 Sounding Creek was more productive, reflecting the contrasting precipitation patterns for these sites in these two years. In most cases, the July NDVI values showed the same patterns as peak green biomass. For both sites and years, the MODIS sensors (Aqua and Terra) produced NDVI patterns similar to green biomass and ground NDVI (NDVIG). However, SPOT NDVI (NDVIS) displayed slightly different interannual patterns; in 2009, NDVIS exhibited a higher peak July NDVI for Sounding Creek (Figure 5D), which did not fit the patterns of the ground and MODIS NDVI values. In both growing seasons, NDVIS indicated that Sounding Creek produced more new biomass than Pinhorn, which deviated from the observations from the MODIS and ground sensors.
3.5. Sensor Comparisons
To further evaluate the MODIS and SPOT sensors for monitoring rangeland production, the NDVI from the different satellites for different months over both years were compared to the field-measured NDVI (NDVIG) as a reference (Figure 9). For this comparison, the ground-measured NDVI collected from each 1-ha grid (Figure 2C) was recalculated to simulate each satellite sensor by convolving the spectral reflectance from field measurements against the satellite bands used for NDVI. When compared to these simulated NDVI values from ground measurements, NDVI from both MODIS platforms (NDVIA and NDVIT) provided similar offsets from the 1:1 line. The difference between NDVI from the Terra and Aqua platforms and the ground-simulated NDVI was greatest at the lower values, a pattern consistent with Figure 5 (where early-season MODIS values were notably higher than NDVIG). Relative to the MODIS NDVI values, the SPOT NDVI (NDVIS) values yielded a different offset pattern, showing higher values at low NDVI and lower values at high NDVI (Figure 9C). The slope of the regression between the ground-simulated NDVI and NDVIS was significantly different than from the MODIS platforms, indicating clear differences between sensors (Terra vs. Aqua p = 0.645, Terra vs. SPOT p = 0.0004, Aqua vs. SPOT p = 0.0002). The strongest correlation between simulated NDVI and satellite-derived NDVI (and the lowest RMSE) was from the Terra platform (R2 = 0.94, RMSE = 0.0289), followed by Aqua (R2 = 0.9, RMSE = 0.0336; Figure 9). The SPOT satellite provided the weakest correlation (R2 = 0.81) with simulated NDVI and the highest RMSE (RMSE = 0.0409, Figure 9).
4. Discussion
The weather conditions encountered during this study provided a natural experiment that provided a good test of the utility of remote sensing for monitoring interannual variation in yield. The precipitation differences in the two summers resulted in large differences in NDVI and biomass measurements between the two years for the two sites. Relative to single-year measurements, this interannual weather variability allowed a deeper understanding of the growth response of vegetation to varying moisture conditions, and allowed us to evaluate the ability of remote sensing to provide an accurate yield indicator across a wide range of growth responses typical of dry and wet years. Our findings of a large rainfall effect are consistent with the reports of Knapp and Smith (2001) and Camberlin et al. (2007), who observed that grasslands, such as the mixed prairie, have the capacity for large production response to uncommonly high precipitation [10,38]. Clearly, remote sensing methods provide an effective means for tracking year-to-year variation in above-ground green biomass as a result of different weather conditions in this prairie biome.
The time series of the NDVI calculated from the ground spectrometer, SPOT and the MODIS platforms all show trends that are similar to the standing biomass, indicating that there is a clear effect of seasonal and interannual weather patterns on NDVI and biomass, which can be monitored with different remote sensing methods. While the general NDVI trends were similar for the different sampling methods, the exact shapes were not the same, indicating some sensor differences. The two MODIS sensors yielded similar patterns, yet the data from Aqua demonstrate depressed NDVI values in July 2009 and 2010, in comparison to the Terra data. This is more clearly demonstrated by the correlations with ground NDVI (NDVIG), where the offsets for the two platforms were very similar, yet the correlation was slightly stronger for Terra than Aqua. This slight difference between the two MODIS NDVI responses could be due to a variety of reasons, including specific calibration and instrument or sampling characteristics for each platform. Deering et al. (1992) found that at the FIFE prairie site sensor viewing angle and solar zenith angle had a large effect on vegetation indices [39]. Different viewing and solar zenith angles, in this case, would result from directly comparing data captured at different times of day, such that shadows and effects of surface anisotropy would affect the angular dependent signal due to the geometric configuration of the sun, sensor and target [40]. Independent field measurements [31] have shown a clear diurnal pattern for NDVI for prairie grassland, and this could have partly explained these differences between the two MODIS sensors having different overpass times.
Both MODIS sensors yielded NDVI values that were slightly higher than ground-measured NDVI, particularly at low NDVI values (Figure 5 and Figure 9). This offset did not appear to be a result of sensor band differences, because it was maintained in the comparison to simulated NDVI data that were designed to eliminate possible band configuration differences (Figure 9). The tendency of MODIS to produce values that are higher than the corresponding NDVIG values calculated from ground spectrometers, has been previously reported for a chaparral site [41]. These authors speculated that this could be an effect of the data processing such as the atmospheric correction, which is applied to all MODIS data, or could be a specific characteristic of the sensor itself [41]; however, further studies need to be conducted to definitively explain this difference.
In comparison to the MODIS time series, the SPOT time series exhibited more scatter and a different offset when compared to ground-simulated NDVI (Figure 9). In July, the SPOT NDVI (NDVIS) overestimated ground NDVI in 2009 and underestimated in 2010, particularly for Sounding Creek (Figure 5), which is made clearer by comparing the regression with the 1:1 line (Figure 9). This greater scatter in the SPOT NDVI than in the MODIS NDVI would make simple correction for the offset much more difficult and suggests SPOT would be less reliable than MODIS for monitoring variation in rangeland yield. In our study, the utility of the SPOT platform for monitoring year-to-year variability was limited by the inadequate time series capability resulting from restricted temporal coverage along with periodic cloud contamination. ATIC (the local SPOT data distributor) did not distribute SPOT images with greater than 10 percent cloud cover within the image; consequently, cloud-free SPOT imagery was unavailable for Sounding Creek in both June and August 2010 (Figure 5), making extensive, direct comparisons with MODIS and ground NDVI difficult. This reduced availability of SPOT data, combined with its high cost, precluded a fully equivalent sensor comparison.
Some studies [24] have suggested that SPOT is superior to MODIS for rangeland monitoring due to its higher spatial resolution. SPOT satellite imagery has a spatial resolution of 30 m, which resulted in decreased temporal resolution relative to MODIS, as the smaller field of view requires more orbits of the Earth to cover the same position [42]. In comparison to the daily coverage by the MODIS platforms, the 26-day temporal resolution of SPOT appeared to be inadequate to ensure repeat coverage of an area with data quality comparable to MODIS. While MODIS sensors have lower spatial resolution, the daily coverage allows creation of eight-day composites (employing maximum value compositing and bidirectional reflectance distribution function correction [37]), so errors due to clouds and other effects are reduced. The SPOT sensor can be directed off-nadir to increase the temporal coverage [24]; however, this introduces error due to altered sensor angle [42]. Based on the results of our study, we conclude that the MODIS sensor may actually be more effective than SPOT for mixed prairie yield monitoring and management, particularly when continuous time series are required over large areas.
A number of factors can introduce variability into the NDVI–biomass relationship. For example, scatter in the NDVI–green biomass relationship can be a result of different canopy architecture, which has an effect on NDVI [43], and this may lead to seasonal progression in the NDVI-biomass relationship (Figure S1). In May, the variation between NDVI and biomass is partly due to vegetation carryover from the previous year masking new growth. At the beginning of the growing season there had been little or no new green growth, with the initial growth likely to be hidden by the last season's biomass (the carryover error). The greater variability in August is likely due to senescence, which causes a decline in chlorophyll content (which would affect NDVI); this gradually changing greenness was not fully considered by our harvesting method, which distinguished between green and brown vegetation but did not consider the varying degrees of green associated with changing pigment content at different growth and senescence stages. The effects of dead biomass on reducing the NDVI correlations with biomass are likely to be strongest at the beginning of the season (due to the "carryover" of dead standing biomass from the previous year) and towards the end of the season, when vegetation senescence has begun [44,45]. Our seasonal results could also have been influenced by the different species composition in the two townships, with Pinhorn having greater amounts of drought-resistant C4 graminoids than the C3 species dominant in Sounding Creek [46]. Together, these effects undoubtedly contributed to scatter in the NDVI–green biomass relationship when all seasons and sites are combined (R2 = 0.85, Figure 6D). Focusing on the midsummer peak (July) values, as suggested by Butterfield and Malmstroem (2009) [45], effectively removed the early-season carryover error and the late-season senescence phase, and resulted in more accurate biomass estimation (R2 = 0.97, Figure 8). Interestingly, despite the seasonal NDVI–green biomass shifts, there were strong correlations between peak-season (July) and end-of-season (August) values for NDVIG (R2 = 0.99, not shown) and log green standing biomass (R2 = 0.99, not shown), suggesting a potential to estimate end-of-season biomass from peak-season measurements or vice versa.
Another potential source of error in NDVI measurements can be the background contamination from soil, litter, snow, surface wetness, or low-growing vegetation, which can confound satellite-based assessments of prairie productivity and ground cover [24,47]. For instance, Hall-Beyer and Gwyn (1996) determined that the presence of Selaginella densa, a mat-forming member of the fern phylum that is present in dry mixed-grass prairie, can also lead to errors in biomass estimates from optical remote sensing [48]. Selaginella densa mimics sparse grasses in NDVI measurements, yet it does not grow tall enough to be harvested with the methodology used here, so it was not included in our biomass data. Accounting for this effect could reduce scatter in the NDVI–green biomass relationship. By adapting the harvest sampling method to include very low-lying green vegetation in biomass estimates, this "background" green vegetation could be explicitly included in the analysis. Error resulting from this phenomenon would vary with rainfall and productivity. For example, drought could decrease the standing component of the vegetation and could allow more reflectance from lower canopy layers. On the other hand, early in the growing season during a drought year there can be more masking of the slowly emerging green biomass by the litter that is present from previous growing seasons (the carryover effect). This would decrease the amount of green vegetation visible to the spectrometer.
Both spatial aggregation and season affected the NDVI–biomass relationships (Figure S1), and these findings indicate that careful consideration of sample timing and methods of data aggregation is warranted when developing a biomass monitoring program from satellite data. Selection of peak-season data aggregated at the township scale (approximately 93 km2) largely removed these complications, and yielded a very strong agreement between NDVI and standing green biomass (Figure 9), allowing a clear comparison of year-to-year productivity differences (Figure 7). With the exception of SPOT NDVI, interannual changes in NDVI and standing green biomass (yield) were very similar for the different sensors (Figure 7), which indicates that NDVI can be an effective proxy for the standing green biomass in the dry mixed-grass prairie. The different shapes of these seasonal trends for NDVI and standing green biomass can be largely attributable to the non-linear relationship between NDVI and biomass (Figure 6 and Figure 8), which has been reported before [26,32].
The curvilinear relationship between green biomass and NDVI creates an apparent "saturation problem," where over a certain value NDVI becomes almost invariant to changes in vegetation amount and/or condition [26,30,49]. This saturation, a natural result of the shape of the NDVI-biomass relationship [26], can largely be explained by the exponential extinction of radiation in vegetation canopies [50]. This relationship can be readily linearized by taking the log of biomass (Figure 8), revealing the true nature of the relationship between NDVI and biomass. From the perspective of determining absorbed radiation (fAPAR), a driving variable for production on this grassland ecosystem, there is less of a saturating problem; near-linear NDVI-fAPAR relationships are often obtained for grassland ecosystems, demonstrating that NDVI also provides an effective input for productivity models (e.g., the light-use efficiency model [31]). While our results indicate that NDVI saturation is not a serious constraint for biomass estimation in this mixed-grass prairie, this may not always be the case in more productive ecosystems.
The economic and ecological importance of the mixed prairie creates a need for accurate and cost-effective biomass monitoring. This study has demonstrated that remote sensing can accurately estimate biomass in these areas and that altered productivity due to interannual weather variability can be detected. These results are important for increasing the confidence of data users in the context of economic applications such as insurance payment programs and carbon markets. Ranchers' perceptions of the accuracy of sampling methods are important for effective adoption and maintenance of remote sensing-based land management programs. Carbon markets would also require accurate monitoring in the mixed prairie, as varying climate and management regimes can undoubtedly influence sequestration. For such purposes, additional sampling (e.g., below-ground sampling) would also be needed. While further work would be required to demonstrate the full utility of NDVI for this purpose, this study strongly supports the use of satellite monitoring for estimating the above-ground component of productivity. Climate change is likely to result in more infrequent, intense precipitation in the areas being studied [1]. This study indicates that satellite methods can accurately monitor above-ground yield changes that are likely to occur with changing precipitation regimes due to interannual variability or as a result of changing climate.
5. Conclusions
Our results demonstrate accurate NDVI-based estimates of biomass production and phenology in a mixed-grass prairie, although seasonal shifts in the NDVI–biomass relationships emerged from temporal patterns of carryover and senescence. These findings indicate that careful consideration of sample timing to consider seasonal effects on the NDVI–biomass relationship is warranted when developing a biomass monitoring program from satellite data. Midsummer peak values avoid the early-season carryover error and the late-season senescence phase, providing the most accurate biomass estimation (R2 = 0.97). Similarly, averaging field data to the township level greatly improved the agreement with satellite data, illustrating the importance of spatial aggregation when comparing data from vastly different scales. This approach demonstrates the value of applying experimental methods to remotely sensed data collected in different ways, and at different times and spatial scales. With these methods, the changes in biomass due to variable precipitation between the two years was clearly identifiable; NDVI illustrated that the wetter 2010 growing season had much greater biomass than the drier 2009 season. Clearly, the inter-annual vegetation and NDVI patterns were affected by the moisture regime available for plant growth during the two growing seasons studied. The MODIS Terra platform provided the best estimate of NDVI of the three satellite platforms studied, followed closely by the MODIS Aqua platform, and SPOT provided the least accurate estimates, in part due to the more limited SPOT coverage. We conclude that satellite NDVI, calibrated against field measurements, is a powerful tool for monitoring yield in a dry mixed-grass prairie ecosystem and can benefit ongoing management efforts. Future studies could focus on combining yield monitoring with other co-benefits, including habitat, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration.
Supplementary Materials
The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/8/10/872/s1, Figure S1: Effect of spatial aggregation and temporal filtering, Table S1: Mean site coordinates.
This project was primarily funded by the Agricultural Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) of Alberta, with additional funding from NSERC, iCORE/AITF, and the Earth Analytics Group to John Gamon. We thank the staff of AFSC for support and patience over the life of this project. We are also indebted to several hard-working field assistants, including Natasha Jmaeff, Chad Diederichs, Molly Patterson, and Chris Wong, whose long hours in the field and in the lab enabled successful completion of this project. Li Hitao assisted with analysis of the SPOT data. We would also like to thank A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, Edward Bork, and the four anonymous reviewers who provided constructive comments on the manuscript.
Author Contributions
Don Wehlage, John Gamon, and David Hildebrand designed the experiment (in coordination with other staff at Agricultural Financial Services Corporation). D. Wehlage collected, processed, and analyzed the data. D. Wehlage and J. Gamon wrote the paper, and Donnette Thayer and D. Hildebrand contributed to revisions.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Fay, P.A.; Carlisle, J.D.; Knapp, A.K.; Blair, J.M.; Collins, S.L. Productivity responses to altered rainfall patterns in a C4-dominated grassland. Oecologia 2003, 137, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schino, G.; Borfecchia, F.; De Cecco, L.; Dibari, C.; Iannetta, M.; Martini, S.; Pedrotti, F. Satellite estimate of grass biomass in a mountainous range in central Italy. Agrofor. Syst. 2003, 59, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kustas, W.P.; Goodrich, D.C.; Moran, M.S.; Amer, S.A.; Bach, L.B.; Blanford, J.H.; Chehbouni, A.; Claassen, H.; Clements, W.E.; Doraiswamy, P.C.; et al. An interdisciplinary field study of the energy and water fluxes in the atmosphere-biosphere system over semiarid rangelands: Description and some preliminary results. Bull. Am. Meteorol. 1991, 72, 1683–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sims, P.L.; Risser, P.G. Grasslands. In North American Terrestrial Vegetation; Barbour, M.G., Billings, W.D., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 324–356. [Google Scholar]
- Coupland, R.T. A reconsideration of grassland classification in the northern great plains of North America. J. Ecol. 1961, 49, 135–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, B.W.; Poulin-Klein, L.; Moisey, D.; McNeil, R.L. Rangeland Plant Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for The Dry Mixedgrass Natural Subregion of Alberta; Rangeland Management Branch, Public Lands Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development: Lethbridge, AB, Canada, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Paruelo, J.M.; Lauenroth, W.K. Interannual variability of NDVI and its relationship to climate for North American shrublands and grasslands. J. Biogeogr. 1998, 25, 721–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedard, F.; Crump, S.; Gaudreau, J. A comparison between terra MODIS and NOAA AVHRR NDVI satellite image composites for the monitoring of natural grassland conditions in Alberta, Canada. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2006, 32, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Churkina, G.; Running, S.W. Contrasting climatic controls on the estimated productivity of global terrestrial biomes. Ecosystems 1998, 1, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knapp, A.K.; Smith, M.D. Variation among biomes in temporal dynamics of aboveground primary production. Science 2001, 291, 481–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Groisman, P.Y.; Karl, T.R.; Easterling, D.R.; Knight, R.W.; Jamason, P.F.; Hennessy, K.J.; Suppiah, R.; Page, C.M.; Wibig, J.; Fortuniak, K.; et al. Changes in the probability of heavy precipitation: Important indicators of climatic change. Clim. Chang. 1999, 42, 243–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernhardt-Roemermann, M.; Roemermann, C.; Sperlich, S.; Schmidt, W. Explaining grassland biomass—The contribution of climate, species and functional diversity depends on fertilization and mowing frequency. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 1088–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowley, R.J.; Price, K.P.; Kastens, J.H. Remote sensing and the rancher: Linking rancher perception and remote sensing. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 60, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunt, E.R.; Everitt, J.H.; Ritchie, J.C.; Moran, M.S.; Booth, D.T.; Anderson, G.L.; Clark, P.E.; Seyfried, M.S. Applications and research using remote sensing for rangeland management. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2003, 69, 675–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svejcar, T.; Angell, R.; Bradford, J.A.; Dugas, W.; Emmerich, W.; Frank, A.B.; Gilmanov, T.; Haferkamp, M.; Johnson, D.A.; Mayeux, H.; et al. Carbon fluxes on North American rangelands. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 61, 465–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Gamon, J.A.; Emmerton, C.A.; Li, H.; Nestola, E.; Pastorello, G.Z.; Menzer, O. Integrated analysis of productivity and biodiversity in a southern Alberta prairie. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Gamon, J.A.; Montgomery, R.A.; Townsend, P.A.; Zygielbaum, A.I.; Bitan, K.; Tilman, D.; Cavender-Bares, J. Seasonal variation in the NDVI-species richness relationship in a prairie grassland experiment (Cedar Creek). Remote Sens. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, D.T.; Tueller, P.T. Rangeland monitoring using remote sensing. Arid Land Res. Manag. 2003, 17, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, C.J.; Miller, L.D.; Pearson, R.L. Shortgrass prairie spectral measurements. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 1975, 41, 1157–1162. [Google Scholar]
- Bork, E.W.; West, N.E.; Price, K.P.; Walker, J.W. Rangeland cover component quantification using broad (TM) and narrow-band (1.4 nm) spectrometry. J. Range Manag. 1999, 52, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pineiro, G.; Oesterheld, M.; Paruelo, J.M. Seasonal variation in aboveground production and radiation-use efficiency of temperate rangelands estimated through remote sensing. Ecosystems 2006, 9, 357–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeves, M.C.; Winslow, J.C.; Running, S.W. Mapping weekly rangeland vegetation productivity using MODIS algorithms. J. Range Manag. 2001, 54, A90–A105. [Google Scholar]
- SPOT Satellite Imagery. EARTH Observation, Satellite and Geo-Information. Available online: http://www.webcitation.org/6h5b1pN83 (accessed on 18 January 2012).
- Grant, K.M.; Johnson, D.L.; Hildebrand, D.V.; Peddle, D.R. Quantifying biomass production on rangeland in southern Alberta using SPOT imagery. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2012, 38, 695–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, C.J.; Vanpraet, C.L.; Sharman, M.J.; Vanittersum, G. Satellite remote-sensing of total herbaceous biomass production in the Senegalese Sahel—1980–1984. Remote Sens. Environ. 1985, 17, 233–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamon, J.A.; Field, C.B.; Goulden, M.L.; Griffin, K.L.; Hartley, A.E.; Joel, G.; Penuelas, J.; Valentini, R. Relationships between NDVI, canopy structure, and photosynthesis in three Californian vegetation types. Ecol. Appl. 1995, 5, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huete, A.R.; Tucker, C.J. Investigation of soil influences in AVHRR red and near-infrared vegetation index imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1991, 12, 1223–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Washington-Allen, R.A.; West, N.E.; Ramsey, R.D.; Efroymson, R.A. A protocol for retrospective remote sensing-based ecological monitoring of rangelands. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 59, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, X.; Price, K.P.; Stiles, J.M. Modeling biophysical factors for grasslands in eastern Kansas using Landsat TM data. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sci. 2000, 103, 122–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, A.B.; Karn, J.F. Vegetation indices, CO2 flux, and biomass for northern plains grasslands. J. Range Manag. 2003, 56, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nestola, E.; Calfapietra, C.; Emmerton, C.A.; Wong, C.Y.; Thayer, D.R.; Gamon, J.A. Monitoring grassland seasonal carbon dynamics, by integrating MODIS NDVI, proximal optical sampling, and eddy covariance measurements. Remote Sens. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamon, J.A.; Field, C.B.; Roberts, D.A.; Ustin, S.L.; Valentini, R. Functional patterns in an annual grassland during an AVIRIS overflight. Remote Sens. Environ. 1993, 44, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamon, J.A.; Cheng, Y.F.; Claudio, H.; MacKinney, L.; Sims, D.A. A mobile tram system for systematic sampling of ecosystem optical properties. Remote Sens. Environ. 2006, 103, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, K.N. Index based crop insurance. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Agricultural Risk and Food Security 2010, Beijing, China, 10–12 June 2010.
- Morisette, J.T.; Privette, J.L.; Justice, C.O. A framework for the validation of MODIS land products. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 83, 77–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, W.B.; Justice, C.O. Validating MODIS terrestrial ecology products: Linking in situ and satellite measurements. Remote Sens. Environ. 1999, 70, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). MODISWeb. Available online: http://MODIS.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/ (accessed on 18 January 2012).
- Camberlin, P.; Martiny, N.; Philippon, N.; Richard, Y. Determinants of the interannual relationships between remote sensed photosynthetic activity and rainfall in tropical Africa. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 106, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deering, D.W.; Middleton, E.M.; Irons, J.R.; Blad, B.L.; Waltershea, E.A.; Hays, C.J.; Walthall, C.; Eck, T.F.; Ahmad, S.P.; Banerjee, B.P. Prairie grassland bidirectional reflectances measured by different instruments at the FIFE site. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 1992, 97, 18887–18903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huete, A.; Justice, C.; Liu, H. Development of vegetation and soil indices for MODIS-EOS. Remote Sens. Environ. 1994, 49, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.F.; Gamon, J.A.; Fuentes, D.A.; Mao, Z.Y.; Sims, D.A.; Qiu, H.L.; Claudio, H.; Huete, A.; Rahman, A.F. A multi-scale analysis of dynamic optical signals in a southern California chaparral ecosystem: A comparison of field, AVIRIS and MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2006, 103, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tueller, P.T. Remote-sensing technology for rangeland management applications. J. Range Manag. 1989, 42, 442–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sellers, P.J. Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis and transpiration. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1985, 6, 1335–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cyr, L.; Bonn, F.; Pesant, A. Vegetation indices derived from remote sensing for an estimation of soil protection against water erosion. Ecol. Model. 1995, 79, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butterfield, H.S.; Malmstrom, C.M. The effects of phenology on indirect measures of aboveground biomass in annual grasses. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2009, 30, 3133–3146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, A.; Csillag, F. A comparison of three approaches for predicting C4 species cover of northern mixed grass prairie. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003, 86, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.M.; Hill, M.J.; Zhang, Y.Q. Estimating ground cover in the mixed prairie grassland of southern Alberta using vegetation indices related to physiological function. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2015, 41, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall-Beyer, M.; Gwyn, Q.H.J. Selaginella densa reflectance: Relevance to rangeland remote sensing. J. Range Manag. 1996, 49, 470–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walthall, C.L.; Middleton, E.M. Assessing spatial and seasonal-variations in grasslands with spectral reflectances from a helicopter platform. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 1992, 97, 18905–18912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sellers, P.J. Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis, and transpiration 2: The role of biophysics in the linearity of their interdependence. Remote Sens. Environ. 1987, 21, 143–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Location of study, showing the Sounding Creek and Pinhorn grazing reserves in Southern Alberta, Canada (A); Each grazing reserve contained 10 sampling locations (yellow circles, (B,C)).
Figure 2. Sample SPOT image (A), showing field sampling sites (yellow dots) for the Pinhorn grazing reserve in 2009. (B) A detailed image of these sites, along with the single MODIS pixel (parallelogram) best corresponding to the centermost field sampling site. Each sampling site contained several 1-m diameter optical sampling plots (circles) (C) coincident with biomass harvestings sites (rectangles) (C) that were used for NDVI calibration against biomass. Each sampling site also included a 1-hectare (100 m × 100 m) sampling grid (C) that was used for comparison of ground NDVI to satellite NDVI measurements. See Section 2.2, Section 2.3 and Section 2.4 for field sampling protocols.
Figure 3. Maximum air temperature (lines) and accumulated precipitation (shadow) versus Julian day for the months of May, June, July and August in 2009 (black lines and shading) and 2010 (grey lines and shading) for the Pinhorn grazing reserve (A) and the Sounding Creek grazing reserve (B). The meteorological data are courtesy of Alberta Agriculture and Forestry.
Figure 4. Comparison of the normal accumulated precipitation (mean calculated over 1961 to 2008) to the accumulated precipitation measured at the Pinhorn grazing reserve (A) and the Sounding Creek grazing reserve (B) in the 2009 and 2010 growing seasons. The meteorological data are courtesy of Alberta Agriculture and Forestry.
Figure 5. Time series of NDVI derived from ground spectrometry (NDVIG) (A) and harvested green fraction of the standing biomass (B) from both grazing reserves as well as the time series of NDVI from ground spectrometer data, MODIS data from the Terra and Aqua platforms, and SPOT data from the Pinhorn grazing reserve (C) and Sounding Creek grazing reserve (D) during the summers of 2009 and 2010. Note that SPOT coverage was missing in June and August 2010 for Sounding Creek. For comparison, average NDVI values for bare soil were approximately 0.1 at these sites. Error bars denote the standard error of the mean.
Figure 6. Relationship between NDVI and biomass for the Sounding Creek and Pinhorn grazing reserves in the 2009 and 2010 combined growing seasons. Regressions between NDVIG (X variable) and several expressions of biomass (Y variables), including Total Biomass (A); Green Biomass (B); Standing Biomass (C); and Standing Green Biomass (D). Exponential fits and regression statistics (R2, p, and RMSE values) are also shown. Error bars are the standard error of the mean. See Table 1 for further explanation of biomass metrics.
Figure 7. Relationships between peak (July) NDVIG and peak (July) green standing biomass for the combined Sounding Creek and Pinhorn grazing reserves in 2009 and 2010 (A); Also shown is the effect of log transformation on the form of the relationship (B). Data have been aggregated to the township level by averaging 10 sites per township. Error bars denote standard error of the mean.
Figure 8. July (peak) values for total biomass (A); green biomass (B); standing biomass (C); green standing biomass (D); NDVI from ground spectrometry (E); and NDVI derived from the Terra (F); Aqua (G) and SPOT (H) satellites from the Sounding Creek and Pinhorn grazing reserves in the 2009 and 2010 growing seasons. Error bars denote the standard error of the mean.
Figure 9. Ground-simulated NDVI vs. satellite NDVI for MODIS Terra (A); MODIS Aqua (B); and SPOT (C). Data from 2009 and 2010 are distinguished by different symbols, as indicated on each panel. Ground-simulated NDVI was derived using MODIS or SPOT band passes, as described in Section 2. Also shown are the 1:1 lines (dotted lines) and the best-fit regression lines (solid lines) for each comparison, along with regression equations, relevant statistics, and RMSE values. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.
Table 1. The vegetation types included in each category of harvested biomass. Graminoids are designated "grass" and non-graminoids are designated "forbs."
|Green Forbs
|Dead Forbs
|Green Grass
|Dead Grass
|Total Biomass
|Green Biomass
|Standing Biomass
|Green Standing Biomass
Table 2. Description of the versions of the NDVI derived from the different sensors used in this study.
|NDVI from ground spectrometry methods
|NDVI from the MODIS Terra platform
|NDVI from the MODIS Aqua platform
|NDVI calculated from the SPOT system
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).


text:
1. Pick a date. I like to do it the first part of December, because as the month goes by, people have less and less time to get together. I usually pick a Sunday, early afternoon.
7. Assemble your houses the night before the party. Assembling the night before ensures that the icing will be dry when your guests arrive. Use an assembly line method. If using a basic house design, construct the 4 walls first for all the houses. By the time you are done with the walls of the last house, the first house will be dry enough to put the roof on.
modern mirror contemporary decorating design gingerbread house ideas for kids room furniture table home chairs
About | Contact | Copyright | Privacy Policy | Term of Service |
All graphics and other visual elements as well as any sign reproduced on the display products reproduced on the Website belong to their respective owners and users and is provided AS IS for your personal information only. Copyright © 2004–2019 tedxbrixton.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Choose Block Coffee Table By Indo Puri
Jun 4
Watch out for sales when choosing Ahumada 3 Piece Coffee Table Set By Latitude Run. Most of the time furniture is wear transaction. If you need a specific piece, you save a ton of money by with patience awaiting the cost to be minimized. You might even ask your preferred Ahumada 3 Piece Coffee Table Set By Latitude Run store once the object will be designated on the cheap. If you require a new couch, try out finding a single with many fully taken care of soft cushions. These pillows go longer and might be switched regularly. Preferably, you should get a sofa with detachable includes so that you can quickly scrub them. Easily-removed includes may also be replaced effortlessly in case you are not able to thoroughly clean a stain Purchase Ahumada 3 Piece Coffee Table Set By Latitude Run in the future around. At the conclusion of this season, it really is typical for merchants to have these items away from their display room surface. This can bring about some great sales and discounts.
An elegant and elegant dining table can acquire the best out of any meal you enjoy with friends or family. Within the particular case of friends, they will most likely assess you by how neat and elegant your dining area- dining room table- appears. Are you contemplating buying new furniture for your kitchen area or dining room? This article will help you test the top best ten contemporary dining tables in 2018 reviews. Some of the elements that established the rankings of these products consist of, although not limited to, versatility, style, comfort and ease, size, materials used, and whether or not the table includes seats. The materials mostly considered are metal and wood as the size is a measure of methods many people a particular table can accommodate comfortably.
Don't Worry We don't Spam in your mail.


text:
When you are renting a 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 yard dumpster, you want a company you can trust with prices that make you smile. Give us a call today and see the difference we can make in your next construction or clean out project.
Simply give us a call and we will help you figure out your dumpster rental needs.
Our dumpsters usually go out same-day or next-day depending on when you call.
We provide top-notch service, while going easy on your bottom line. What more could you ask for?
Our trained operators are here to give you a fast and hassle-free experience from start to finish.
Once you are done, simply give us a call and we will get your dumpster picked up right away!
Our staff is here to help whenever you need it. Simply pick up the phone and give us a call.
Most cities or municipalities do not have many regulations regarding dumpster rental as long as you keep the dumpster entirely on your own property during the rental period. If you need to place your container on the street in any way, you will likely have to obtain a permit from the appropriate building permit office in your town. You can check with your local public works department to be sure.
Most Hillsdale dumpster rental companies will take care of securing this permit for you if you rent from them. Make sure that if you're planning to put the dumpster on the street, the company has made the appropriate arrangements. You should also ensure that you get the permit in a timely manner and at the correct cost. If you thought the dumpster company was getting a permit and they did not, you will be the one who will have to pay the fine that is issued by the authorities.
Including many others in addition, you might find this career the one which toddler do. In case you are one of these people then to produce your lifestyles easier there are some companies providing 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale, KS and rubbish bin rental services.
The average expense of a 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale, KS is around $500. The maximum cost is generally about $1,200, while you're on the low conclude, it could play $100. Local, house owner projects will most likely need a dumpster throughout the $500 size, even though larger professional companies may need the higher priced model. You'll probably want to contact around to several companies to acquire price estimates before you make your final selections. Many businesses will also have different sizes they can present you with as well, according to your needs. Should you be unsure the size of you will need, say to the company and they also can help you restrict your options towards the size you wish.
It is a good idea to use a 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale, KS company if you aren't thinking of a long-term dependence on a waste container. By far the most likely circumstance for requiring this company is that if you are indeed performing many do-it-yourself home redecorate.
The big morning has come. You might have planned, you may have mapped out exactly what is feasible, and it's lastly time to put your plans for doing things. It's time to take out the designs, roll up your current sleeves, pick up your sledgehammer, and obtain to work remodeling your house. It is a good thing you're fairly convenient with methods because you've chosen to get to do this redecorate all by yourself. You're sure you haven't ignored anything, but you realize that you may have failed to are the cause of all the rubbish along with garbage with the destruction cycle of the redecorate.
You surely have better things to do like the property decoration, preparing, inviting close friends over along with planning out the enjoyment activities pertaining to guests. After and before you are performed, you can be left will small or massive heaps of waste. Now you do not have to worry about the item. There are firms that provide you with fast and disposal rubbish bin and dumpster upon rent to make your task much easier.
You will find number of 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale, KS companies in the market who is able to help you in this regard. This is the most affordable method of wiping out huge tons of accumulated trash inside shortest occasion possible. Dumpster rental companies spread throughout the market will likely be equipped with vast verities of dumpsters to fit your unique specifications, but a new roll away dumpster will be a smart choice to get rid of the trash upon community cleanup.
The type of rubbish that you'll be throwing inside will also decide the rental company you use. In the event the material you wish to throw out will be hazardous, you'll want to make sure the company can get rid of it appropriately.
Some community regulations are very strict about any copious amounts, and sometimes even a small amount, of all kinds of fabric and the shedding same. Whenever you rent a dumpster at a professional along with vetted company and one having great sources, or a company who can decide to rent a dumpster in your case, then you can help save a lot of anxiety and serious amounts of that precious budget, over renting dumpsters yourself. Dumpsters are delivered to where you are, placed the place you want, and then picked up any time full.
It is not easy for get together coordinators to rent the mandatory amenities between many different suppliers. Renting from multiple suppliers causes a logistical nightmare while creating for in addition to cleaning up following a special event. Summing up, grouping rental products and services together is often a trend that can assist people time savings, effort, and cash when getting yourself ready an event.
There are numerous items you may throw away in to the rented dumpster. You can use the large dumpster to get rid of bulky mattress mattresses. A hotel that is revamping and achieving rid of lots of mattresses may gain advantage from one or more large dumpsters. Together with the ease of going the dumpster due to the tires at the bottom in the dumpster is definitely one thing you want to make sure you have.
This kind of trash provides to go for instant clearance which usually otherwise will certainly put you to a lot of problems. The trash piled up during these scenarios can be really bulky anyway and difficult to handle. Immediate clearance of these huge tons of waste not only keeps you on the particular safe method from the whole trash discretion problems and also creates a setting to step ahead to regain the regular position.
Labeled! Your discretion choice should have developed a good logo and coloring scheme for his or her business that's easily familiar and echoes to the level of dependability you get when you call. Advertising is a method the good organizations differentiate by themselves from all various other disposal in addition to 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale businesses in your neighborhood.
After seeking the size, the next step will be to examine with the renter how much fat is authorized in the pot. It is crucial to find the correct fat limit, because if the items exceed just how much specified one more charge is normally added to the particular rental fee.
As soon as you the day the construction employees will be forthcoming to your house to perform all of the function, you will want to contact a company which will next day rent some sort of dumpster. By getting some sort of dumpster for your lounge remodeling, from the crew can certainly throw out any debris this is not needed. Your lifetime will stay more organized in the event the construction group can immediately toss out of the old goods. The construction group can continue to work at some sort of fast-pace instead of stumbling over the old junk that's in their method. Or the construction crew might have to constantly go the old trash out of their method which is costing you time in addition to theirs.
The particular 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale business is a fairly easy one: you make payment for to rent and load a dumpster, next the company pays to dump the particular dumpster's contents in a landfill. Any time a company insures everything that dumps, that either fades of its method to dump as few as possible or it moves the costs of dumping every thing onto it's customers. Try to find a 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale business that recycles or donates every thing it can from the dumpsters before trucking them to the particular landfill. You will not only be certain that the particular 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale company is seeking to save you from additional prices, but you can be comfortable if you know they're helping to save the earth by directing trash through the landfills in to more eco-friendly techniques.
There are specific factors which can be to be considered whilst going for Dumpster rental that most closely fits in your requirements. The first factor that knocks your brain is dimensions of the dumpster. You will discover wide runs of measurements in the dumpsters between 10 yard dumpster for you to 40 property dumpster serving your family needs. A professional 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale, KS provider would give you a right selection based on your preferences. The 10 property dumpster would be a great amount product should you be looking out destroying a part of your property.
If you are looking for your household cleanup as well as yard washing or industrial cleanup as well as construction washing and are struggle to meet existing 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale, KS prices, 4 seasons of The thanksgiving holiday day would be the right time simply because 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale, KS companies come out with huge savings and deals on their roll off and trash dumpsters. You could expect quality assistance at most cheap pricing. You can now fulfill your dream connected with seeing a and also tidy household at a cost of which clears number of bucks from your account. These delivers are available for restricted period of time, and so avail the offer before it runs out of container.
If you live within a tight place, make sure that you let the next day dumpster company know beforehand. Some dumpster firms will not be able to fit you whilst others have got smaller vehicles that can very easily deliver the dumpster for you personally.
Most rent some sort of dumpster companies don't let anything apart from solid squander to be put in their items. This means that things such as computer systems, paint, essential oil, televisions and varnish are not suited to disposal inside a roll down dumpster. Always check using potential dumpster depots precisely what their coverage is regarding squander types because of their bins.
Do you have a modern household that was integrated the 80s? If so, you could think it is time to update your modern household. After all, since the eighties "modern" has made great progress way.
These days there are many companies giving garbage canisters and disposal bins upon rent and you can use this competition. Nokia's are spread around many parts and cities and you ought to select the closest one because of their and your benefit.
Environmental pollution throughout Alaska has developed into pressing trouble in the recent times. Residents of the condition are significantly affected by dangerous diseases including cancer. Polluting the is the primary reason behind these kind of ill effects. Studies reveal that this prevalence in the terrifying condition in the condition is due to intake of contaminated normal water by the citizens. The water inside state will be contaminated resulting from improper disposal of squander.
If you have many trash you might consider a 8 Yard Dumpster in Hillsdale, KS assistance. That is suitable, you can rent an entirely dumpster to have all to by yourself. They make these kind of dumpsters in all sizes you match all different requirements. You can get some that are little for personal use and several that are definitely big with regard to business employ.
By exploring the above informative tips, it is best to easily find an extraordinary company for you to rent next day dumpsters to your construction company.
Please use the form below to contact us. We look forward to working with you and will get back to you as soon as possible. All fields are required


text:
blonde 18teen
Unm Pink Unm Gray. Google has special features to help you find exactly what youre looking for. In 1 Adams began working with M. Grupo Televisa S. This was last updated Mar 0 1. It is a international entertainment business with much of its programming airing in the United States on Univision with which it has an exclusive contract. Todas tus series! Every day at Kohls. Spanish pronunciation tele is a Mexican multimedia mass media company and the largest in Hispanic and the Spanish speaking world.
Speer 1 JC who was killed in a Polo Game is appropriate at this ceremony. Looking for the hottest hats in college sports? While the new Lobo Achieve website was implemented over the. Turn on search history to start remembering your searches. WHALEBONE By Siegel 01 History of the Talkhouse When speeding through the town of Amagansett Remember? Free shipping on purchases over and save every day with your Target REDcard. Gray is a news reporter for the Daily Lobo. Autores A L. Bender a San insurance magnate and arts patron. Stay cool this whether at the game or working out with a Nike dri fit hat. The paragraphs that follow have been revised re revised over the years as new data has been located. Shop for Nike dad hats baseball caps at the Nike store at! Class Number IMO Number Name Gross Tonnage Year Of Build Type Flag Owner Class Suspended Class Withdrawn Date Of Reinstatement Date Reasons Date Reasons. Search the history of over billion web pages on the Internet. From classic curved bills to snapbacks and knit caps to camouflage Top of the World has a variety of styles to suit every fain. Televisa controls of the television concessions Nc State Wolfpack Womens Red Spirit Jersey Oversized T Shirt. Sitio de viajes y anecdotas.
New Mexico Lobos RB.
Student fee increases and course premiums despite urgings from not to. We have now placed Twitpic in an archived state. Find great deals on eBay for New Mexico Lobos in NCAA College New Mexico Lobos Gray 19 Premium Fan Apparel and Souvenirs.
0 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z. New Mexico Lobos 1 1 in. Norwegian Dawn's cabins got a makeover not plastic surgery in the ship's 01 refurbishment. Search the worlds information including webpages images videos and more. Deceased Alumni. Hardside Spinner. Televisa is the largest mass media company in Latin America and it is owned by the Azc rraga family. Also Televisa owns television programing and broadcasting programing pay television publishing distribution cable television radio production and broadcasting football teams Club Necaxa and Club America stadiums Televisa. Siga nos por e mail. Buscar serie. New Mexico Lobos Sided Premium House Flag Banner x 0. Is the place to shop a large selection from Top of the World. NOTE The revisions to this Import Alert dated 0 1 01 provide clarification on pesticide chemical residues regulated as combined residues including isomers or residues including metabolites and degradates and adds information regarding recommendations for detention without physical examination DWPE release of articles subject to DWPE as well as removal from DWPE Under Armour San Diego Padres Navy Raid Solid Performance Shorts.
Norwegian is a ship you despite its flaws. Represents the Agency's current guidance to FDA field personnel regarding the manufacturer s and or products s at issue. NEW MEXICO LOBOS MATTE GRAY Riddell Speed Mini Helmet. Visit ESPN to view the New Mexico Lobos team roster for the current season. Dear Twitpic Community thank you for all the wonderful photos you have taken over the years. Built in 00 as the third ship in the Norwegian fleet to accommodate the lines Freestyle Cruising concept lots of choices for restaurants bars and entertainment the ship has stayed modern with several refurbishments the latest being a 01 refresh of public spaces and cabin decor and the addition of new restaurants and bars. Lilly1 WR 0 1 lbs JR San New Mexico Lobos Gray 19 Premium Bernardino CA. Gone are the turquoise starfish stuffed carpets the lime green couches and the fuchsia chairs replaced by a tasteful neutral gray decor. Shop for yellow baby socks online at Target. Bender helped Adams produce his first portfolio in his new style Parmelian Prints of the High Sierras which included his famous image Monolith the Face of Half Dome taken with his Korona view camera using glass plates and a dark red filter to heighten the tonal contrasts. 11 1 1 lbs. Google has special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for. They surely will now need further revision to incorporate data published in A P News the employee magazine of Pickersgill Limited specifically in issue No. New Mexico Lobos Pink Wheeled Premium Backpack Texas State Bobcats 42 Square Base Black Pub Table.
You'll catch a glimpse of the Talkhouse. A quote from the 1 Bronco about a cadet O.
It's the last stop before Montauk! The office of the Associated Students of UNM tucked behind the stairs on the.
Filter your search by Category Tag Date.


text:
florida homes with rv garages house plans with garage attached elegant luxury house plans with garage attached of.
garage saint real estate fl homes, want a house with garage browse the homes in these, garage port real estate fl homes for,homes with garages fresh north trail center closed , small house plans with garage best of new graph homes, garage homes for sale in on your home,best port homes images on garage apartments small , homes with garage garages for sale in, small house plans with garage best of new graph homes, homes with garages lovely fl 4 bedroom for.
Related Post
2x2 Acoustical Ceiling Tiles Wood Cellar 18 X 24 Black Frames Garden Trough Planters Ceramic Salad Bowl Indoor Basketball Courts Los Angeles Featherbed Cover Black Composite Decking 1950s Dinette Sets Corner Base Cabinets 12v Pond Pump How To Build A Stone Wall With Mortar Solar Insulator Sudoko Knife Water Refrigerators


text:
9 Mix Bus Mistakes You Don't Know You're Making
1. You think the mix bus is where the magic happensWhen I first discovered you could add processing to the mix bus, I was pumped. I thought—this must be what's separating my mixes from the pros! Oh, how wrong I was. The truth? Mix bus processing is like the cherry on top of a bowl of ice cream. Will it transform a crappy flavor into a killer one? Definitely not. Is it even necessary? Eh. You can certainly get by without it. The mix bus is not where the magic happens. Crafting a great mix takes a lot more than proper mix bus processing. I wish it was that easy…
2. You add processing too lateAdd mix bus processing at the end of a mix, and you can easily destroy the delicate balance you've spent days crafting. For better results, add it early and mix into it. This way, every decision you make throughout the mixing process will be shaped by what it's doing. The result? You'll get all the benefits of mix bus processing without messing things up at the end of the line.
3. You try to fix problems on the mix busMany problems within a mix are caused by only one track. For example—if your mix sounds muddy, there might be too much low end on a synth. Or maybe the lower midrange on a guitar is too thick. Either way, when you make a move on your mix bus, you affect every track in your session. Cut the low end there, and you cut it from every track in your mix. Why do this if only one track is causing the problem? This is a surefire path to a thin, wimpy mix. Instead, find the source of the problem and fix it there. The mix bus should be your last resort.
4. You don't gain stage properlyMany plugins sound different depending on how hard you hit them. So to get the most out of your mix bus, make sure you're hitting it at the right level. A good rule of thumb? Aim for around -18 dB on your DAW's meters (this is average level…the peaks can jump above -18 dB). This will put you in the sweet spot of most plugins. Get this right, and you'll optimize your mix bus for peak performance.
5. You use fast-attack compressionFast attack times are deceptive. At first listen, they can make a mix sound smoother and more controlled. But there's a downside to using them…
ADVERTISEMENTThey destroy transients. Transients are the short bursts of sound at the beginning of notes. They add energy and life to music, and taming them can make a mix sound flat and unexciting. Since slower attack times preserve transients, they're usually a better choice (especially on the mix bus).
6. You're too heavy-handedSometimes, aggressive mix bus processing makes sense. But most of the time, subtle is the way to go. Be gentle. Low-ratio compression and broad, tempered EQ curves often sound best. If you find yourself digging in deeper, make sure you're not trying to solve a problem that can be fixed on an individual track (see #3 above).
7. You don't use gain compensation on your limiterLimiters are the most dangerous tools we've got. Why? Because in our quest to make things loud, we regularly destroy the mixes we've created. But often, it's not our fault. See, most limiters have a major flaw. As you add more limiting, your track gets louder. Louder always sounds better. And this makes it difficult to determine when enough is enough. The result? We often end up crushing the mixes we worked so hard to create. But there's a solution… Gain compensation. This feature links the limiter's input and output gain. When you turn the input up, the output turns down. So as you add more limiting, there's no change in level. Gain compensation makes it easy to determine the right amount of limiting for any mix. Just crank the input gain until the mix starts to sound smaller. Then back it off a bit. Problem solved.
8. You pile on specialty processingAs modern mixers, we've got all sorts of fancy tools. Saturators, stereo imagers, multiband compressors… But the truth? They all have their downsides. Saturators can make a mix sound harsh and edgy. Stereo imagers can cause phase problems. Multiband compressors can create artifacts between bands. (There's a reason why mastering engineer John Scrip calls them "maul-the-band" compressors…) Do you really need all this stuff on your mix bus? Probably not. Instead, go back to basics. It's amazing what proper balance, EQ and compression can do. Get this stuff right, and you'll find you can often craft better mixes without these specialty tools.
9. You never touch the faderThe master fader is a fader. Yup…just like any other track in your mix. Don't be afraid to automate that puppy. Bump it up a dB in the choruses to add impact. Pull it down in the outro to make the song feel smaller. Do this right, and you'll enhance the dynamics of your mix.
Supercharge your mix bus processing skillsYou're now equipped to sidestep some of my biggest mix bus mistakes. I wish I'd read this when I started mixing… But if you want to supercharge your mix bus processing skills, download my free guide to mix bus compression below. Inside the guide, you'll discover how to approach mix bus compression with clarity and confidence—which will help you craft mixes that compete with the pros.
Before you go, what's on your mix bus? Leave a comment below and let me know.
Featured image by Andrew Butitta (CC BY-SA 2.0, added contrast and saturation)
SSL console image by Audio Mix House (CC BY 2.0)
Cherry ice cream image by Javcon117 (CC BY 2.0)
SSL console image by Audio Mix House (CC BY 2.0)
Cherry ice cream image by Javcon117 (CC BY 2.0)
Missing our best stuff?
Sign up to be the first to learn about the latest articles, videos, courses, freebies, giveaways, exclusive discounts and more.
Free Video on Mixing Low End
Download a FREE 40-minute tutorial from Matthew Weiss on mixing low end.
How To Make a Living From Your Existing Audio Skills
(Without The Need For A Fancy Studio Or Expensive Gear)
In This 90-Minute Workshop, You'll Learn:
- How To Generate More Leads For Your Studio
- How To Turn Those Leads Into Paying Clients
- How To Charge Premium Rates For Your Work
- Transform From Freelancer To Entrepreneur


text:
* Your list is public by default.
Alternative Titles
English: And2 Girls
Synonyms: An Tu! An Tu!
Japanese: 安菟!安菟!
Type: ONA
Episodes: 1
Status: Finished Airing
Aired: Aug 15, 2018
Producers: None found, add some
Licensors: None found, add some
Studios: Seven Stone Entertainment
Source: Other
Genres: Music, Slice of Life
Duration: 34 min.
Rating: G - All Ages
Score: 5.391 (scored by 36 users)
1 This score is not weighted. Please note that 'Not yet aired' titles are excluded.
Ranked: #108732
2 based on the top anime page. Please note that 'Not yet aired' and 'R18+' titles are excluded.
Popularity: #13852
Members: 142
Favorites: 0
Summary Stats
Watching: 7
Completed: 53
On-Hold: 1
Dropped: 18
Plan to Watch: 63
Total: 142
Score Stats
All MembersRecently Updated By


text:
I think this is how it happens:
I have a main PC and a secondary PC with a mySQL server
A floating Task is created on main PC and sync between the two PC fine
While the secondary PC is switched off for several weeks, the Task is marked as completed.
This morning the secondary was power up and the Task shows up today on both PC as not started.
No apparent issues with Events.
Is it something I have done?


text:
Horny women for sex in Caledonia Illinois Wants Sex Tonight
Horney Wives Ready Nsa Relation Need Tits In My Face Asap
All4naught So far, I really like your sense of humor and ingenuity. Hi I'm seeking for someone who maybe wants to talk or hang out tonight. Looking for a drinking, movie, dinner buddy. Because as of now, Illibois havent found one. If this sounds cool to you send me a quick email and we'll go from there.
|Relationship Status:
|I Wanting Real Sex Dating
|Santa Clarita, CA
|Relation Type:
|Lonely? Want A Younger Female To Make Things Interesting?
Views: 104
Horny women for sex in Caledonia Illinois. I'm 6'1, lesbian, fit, with a 7 12cockOnly seeking for Sexy, dirty Women. Black male Adult wants hot sex IL Caledonia NSA with white female Married Find and meet horny women in Illinois Sex meeting personals site for sexy. Horney girl wants meet and fuck. Hot woman wants sex xxx Manchester, Connecticut, CT, matures sex Horny women hot sex Bethany Illinois.
Horny women for sex in Caledonia Illinois I'm still not as experinced as Caldeonia would love to be, but i'm getting there. First of all here are some of my rules I am an active outgoing person, I also like outdoor activities like exploring and hiking, swimming.Sexy Jennings Louisiana Ok Girls
North Aurora Adult Dating Sites. I'm an open book.
If you are looking for Hot woman in Caledonia, in the state of Illinois, in LatinoMeetup there Caledoniz plenty of latins in Caledonia.
Want Sex Tonight Relationship Status: Discover up to matches. And then drew a line.
If interested send me a message. Put your location in the subject line.
I'm a white guy if it matters. Local mature want girls sucking cock, horney woman Arcata Adult seeking sex Wheelersburg Ohio White Stud seeking I am a confident, secure, responsible, woman. I am intelligent, attractive, funny, and kinda kinky.
Stormy blue eyes, strong arms, shaved head, tats and piercings I am looking for a fem friend with benefits who likes camping, Calevonia, and well I am seeking someone who is NOT looking for a committed relationship beyond FWB, my life is busy, and complicated and I have no desire to add to that. I am open to ethnicity, age over Flirting naked women Gramado.
Prefer non smoker but what you do away from me is up to you! If you drink and can not handle yourself cleanly while doing so please do not reply!
I'm looking for someone preferably a BBW who is seeking a secret playmate and has a desire to be dominated. You will be verballyspanked, tied up, tossed around a Horny women for sex in Caledonia Illinois and drilled Caledpnia any hole that I want with my large 7" cock. Looking for someone who desires the need to be submissive and be taken over.
Someone who knows its not so much about the sex as it is the control. Perhaps you're just a bitch and you know it and need someone to put you in your place? I'm white, DD free, very attractive, athletic build, and in great shape.
I am also educated and very respectful. Discretion expected both ways. I'm not super picky, just be sexy, confident, friendly and submissive!
Would prefer ages but your maturity and attitude are of most importance. Put "Control"in the subject line and tell me about yourself! Want to play and suck titts Divorced want dating cute guy for you Tweet.Columbian Women Dating
Horney single woman of north carolina Hot woman wants sex. Xxx amateur want nsa Hosting and just have fun Tweet.
Any hotties wanna shred cam chat adult free tomorrow?


text:
Tile & Grout Cleaning Birmingham
Ceramic Tile is far more common than it used to be. People are finding out that it is a nice, durable material that adds true value to your home, unlike vinyl flooring. They are also finding out that it is not entirely maintenance free. Those grout lines can hold dirt, grime and grease and are very difficult to clean by yourself. In addition, if you have a textured tile, you might find that soil has become trapped in the grooves, changing the appearance of your tile. We can help. Our cleaning technicians can blast away years of dust, grime, grease and dirt in just a few hours. Don't spend days on your knees with a toothbrush to achieve mediocre results. Let us make it look like new in a single cleaning.
Our Tile Cleaning Process
- Step One
First we vacuum or sweep your floor to remove dry soil, if needed. We want to remove the loose soil before we add moisture that would make it sticky.
- Step Two
Next, we apply our cleaning solution to the floor and allow it to dwell and break down soil.
- Step Three
If your grout lines are heavily soiled, we will hand scrub or even machine scrub the grout to break down the soil and completely emulsify it.
- Step Four
Now, we rinse the tile and grout with a high pressure steam cleaning tool. We will use between 800 and 1200 PSI of pressure, depending on the needs of your tile.
- Step Five
We remove any trace amounts of moisture from your floor with either towels or a drying fan.
Why Call Us For Birmingham Tile Cleaning?
- Your grout lines are no longer the same color. Look at the edge of your tile floor and the middle of it. Do the grout lines match?
- Your floor doesn't have the same shine that it used to. This does not mean that it is worn down. It probably indicates that it is coated with years of dirt and cleaning residue.
- You tried it yourself and tired out. It is a lot of work to clean grout lines without the training and the proper tools.
Service Area: Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Hoover, Vestavia, Alabaster, Bessemes, Homewood, Northport, Pelham, Mountain Brook, Hueytown, Center Point, Helena, Moody, Gardendale, Trussville, McCalla, Leeds, Forestdale, Pleasant Grove, Irondale, Fultondale, Pinson, Chelsea, Calera & Springville.


text:
iZombie Season 5 Episode 4 Dot Zom - Watch Series Online
Airdate: 2019-May-23
Episode summary:
Liv, Clive and Ravi investigate the suspicious death of Cornell Piercey, the head of Piercey Corp, a successful traffic app company. Melissa Schultz, Cornell's ex-girlfriend, is now running the company, makes an interesting reveal to Liv and Clive. Meanwhile, Peyton is focusing on maintaining positive zombie PR in the city. Lastly, Blaine is intrigued when he meets Al Bronson of Bluster Magazine, as she is not at all what he was expecting.
Sorry no available links for this episode.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
© Telepisodes Established 2016. Disclaimer | Sitemap | About | Blog | Use of this website constitutes acceptance of Telepisodes' Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. TV Sites: Project Free TV, Watch Series, Couchtuner.


text:
Remember Me
An Asian inspired arrangement of birds of paradise and orchids will take you to the tropics.
There are no reviews yet.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Your review *
Name *
Email *
We are processing an unexpected amount of orders. Please check back in with us on Monday!