IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i12p2208-d1545892.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainty Modelling of Groundwater-Dependent Vegetation

Author

Listed:
  • Todd P. Robinson

    (School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia)

  • Lewis Trotter

    (School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia)

  • Grant W. Wardell-Johnson

    (School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia)

Abstract

Groundwater-dependent vegetation (GDV) is threatened globally by groundwater abstraction. Water resource managers require maps showing its distribution and habitat preferences to make informed decisions on its protection. This study, conducted in the southeast Pilbara region of Western Australia, presents a novel approach based on metrics summarising seasonal phenology (phenometrics) derived from Sentinel-2 imagery. We also determined the preferential habitat using ecological niche modelling based on land systems and topographic derivatives. The phenometrics and preferential habitat models were combined using a framework that allows for the expression of different levels of uncertainty. The large integral (LI) phenometric was capable of discriminating GDV and reduced the search space to 111 ha (<1%), requiring follow-up monitoring. Suitable habitat could be explained by a combination of land systems and negative topographic positions (e.g., valleys). This designated 13% of the study area as requiring protection against the threat of intense bushfires, invasive species, land clearing and other disturbances. High uncertainty represents locations where GDV appears to be absent but the habitat is suitable and requires further field assessment. Uncertainty was lowest at locations where the habitat is highly unsuitable (87%) and requires infrequent revisitation. Our results provide timely geospatial intelligence illustrating what needs to be monitored, protected and revisited by water resource managers.

Suggested Citation

  • Todd P. Robinson & Lewis Trotter & Grant W. Wardell-Johnson, 2024. "Uncertainty Modelling of Groundwater-Dependent Vegetation," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:12:p:2208-:d:1545892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/12/2208/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/12/2208/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robinson, Todd P. & van Klinken, Rieks D. & Metternicht, Graciela, 2010. "Comparison of alternative strategies for invasive species distribution modeling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(19), pages 2261-2269.
    2. Beynon, Malcolm & Curry, Bruce & Morgan, Peter, 2000. "The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 37-50, February.
    3. Lippitt, Christopher D. & Rogan, John & Toledano, James & Sangermano, Florencia & Eastman, J. Ronald & Mastro, Victor & Sawyer, Alan, 2008. "Incorporating anthropogenic variables into a species distribution model to map gypsy moth risk," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 210(3), pages 339-350.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Václavík, Tomáš & Meentemeyer, Ross K., 2009. "Invasive species distribution modeling (iSDM): Are absence data and dispersal constraints needed to predict actual distributions?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(23), pages 3248-3258.
    2. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    3. Lianmeng Jiao & Quan Pan & Yan Liang & Xiaoxue Feng & Feng Yang, 2016. "Combining sources of evidence with reliability and importance for decision making," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 87-106, March.
    4. Li, Siran & Xiao, Fuyuan, 2023. "Normal distribution based on maximum Deng entropy," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Rieks D van Klinken & F Dane Panetta & Shaun R Coutts, 2013. "Are High-Impact Species Predictable? An Analysis of Naturalised Grasses in Northern Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-11, July.
    6. Li, Ya & Lan, Xin & Deng, Xinyang & Sadiq, Rehan & Deng, Yong, 2014. "Comprehensive consideration of strategy updating promotes cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 403(C), pages 284-292.
    7. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling & Chin, Kwai-Sang, 2006. "The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 35-66, November.
    8. Wu, Chong & Barnes, David, 2010. "Formulating partner selection criteria for agile supply chains: A Dempster-Shafer belief acceptability optimisation approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 284-293, June.
    9. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    10. Yan, Lisen & Peng, Jun & Gao, Dianzhu & Wu, Yue & Liu, Yongjie & Li, Heng & Liu, Weirong & Huang, Zhiwu, 2022. "A hybrid method with cascaded structure for early-stage remaining useful life prediction of lithium-ion battery," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    11. Yang, J.B. & Wang, Y.M. & Xu, D.L. & Chin, K.S., 2006. "The evidential reasoning approach for MADA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 309-343, May.
    12. Justin Moskolaï Ngossaha & Raymond Houé Ngouna & Bernard Archimède & Mihaela-Hermina Negulescu & Alexandru-Ionut Petrişor, 2024. "Toward Sustainable Urban Mobility: A Multidimensional Ontology-Based Framework for Assessment and Consensus Decision-Making Using DS-AHP," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-22, May.
    13. Malcolm J. Beynon, 2006. "The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-42, January.
    14. Nopadon Kronprasert & Antti Talvitie, 2015. "Use of reasoning maps in evaluation of transport alternatives: inclusion of uncertainty and “I Don’t Know”: demonstration of a method," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 389-406, March.
    15. Emanuele Salerno, 2020. "Identifying Value-Increasing Actions for Cultural Heritage Assets through Sensitivity Analysis of Multicriteria Evaluation Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-13, November.
    16. Bakhtiar Feizizadeh & Thomas Blaschke, 2013. "GIS-multicriteria decision analysis for landslide susceptibility mapping: comparing three methods for the Urmia lake basin, Iran," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 65(3), pages 2105-2128, February.
    17. S. Nodoust & A. Mirzazadeh & G.-W. Weber, 2020. "An evidential reasoning approach for production modeling with deteriorating and ameliorating items," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19, March.
    18. Ren, Jingzheng & Lützen, Marie, 2017. "Selection of sustainable alternative energy source for shipping: Multi-criteria decision making under incomplete information," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1003-1019.
    19. Zhang, Yifan & Shu, Gang & Li, Ya, 2017. "Strategy-updating depending on local environment enhances cooperation in prisoner’s dilemma game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 301(C), pages 224-232.
    20. Lei Chen & Ling Diao & Jun Sang, 2019. "A novel weighted evidence combination rule based on improved entropy function with a diagnosis application," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, , vol. 15(1), pages 15501477188, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:12:p:2208-:d:1545892. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.