NAFE 05 Review What went right and what

NAFE 05 Review What went right and what went wrong? JDK comments in red; other comments to be added during sessions NAFE Workshop, Melbourne, Feb 2006 1

Aircraft remote sensing ARA-SERA-Dimona • Flight plans (well documented in Plan; JW) • Aerial photos, NDVI, LST, PLMR (what happened to the airborne laser scanner? ) • PLMR calibration issues (JW) • IRT calibration issues (? ? ) • Operational issues (normal flights and multi-incidence flights) (JW) 2

Aircraft Remote Sensing EMIRAD/COSMOS • Radar equipment (Some uncertainty about equipment and purpose) • Flight schedules (What were the differences between the Dimona and EMIRAD flights? Did this require additional field work? ) • Calibration issues • Operational issues (Significant delays in arrival and deployment of aircraft) 3

Acquisition of relevant satellite data • AMSR-E on Aqua (Multi-frequency dual polarisation microwave radiometer) • MODIS on Aqua (Passive imaging spectroradiometer) • ASTER on Terra (visible, NIR, TIR • Landsat • ASAR on Envisat (C-band Synthetic Aperture Radiometer) • AATSR on Envisat (Advanced along track scanning Radiometer • CHRIS on Proba (H/R Imaging Spectroradiometer) How much has actually been acquired? 4

Routine groundbased monitoring during NAFE 05 (SASMAS) • Climate station data (Stanley data OK) • CS 616 Soil moisture data – Calibration issues (see CR) – Data (TW; data losses due to relay and battery problems) • Soil temperature data • Hydraprobes – Calibration issues (need to be addressed) – Data (as above) 5

Current and future routine groundbased monitoring in Goulburn basin • Number of sites (do we need to reduce number? ) • Increased data traffic • Power supply and relay issues • Battery replacement • Upgrading of solar panels • Manpower (Greg, Cristina, Tony, Mark) • Telemetry (how many stations and how feasible? ) • Costs (need rethink if NAFE 06 at Merriwa) 6

Supplementary continuous groundbased monitoring during NAFE 05 • • Soil temperatures IR landsurface temperatures Rock surface temperatures Leaf wetness records 7

Regional scale (transect) sampling • Sampling sites (road side sites are often not representative of adjacent paddocks) • Labour requirements (four people in one car for actual transect work is excessive) • Estimates of travel time (very long days for some teams due to the additional work in and around the target farms at both ends) 8

Sampling sites (2) • Eight target farms (need to re-arrange the farmscale days; two people were required for the 500 and 250 m ground sampling; the other two team members could not possibly complete the 125, 62. 5, 12. 5 and 6. 25 m sampling) • Access; gates (improved maps are needed next time to assist in navigation, thus reducing time) • Navigation issues (extremely high vegetation, e. g. at Dales, made navigation and driving quite difficult and hazardous) • Cattle (interference with rope arrangement) 9

Soil moisture monitoring equipment (1) • Hydraprobe + GPS + i. PAC – Calibration (uncertainty about pre-NAFE calibration; comparison with additional grav. samples during NAFE) – Performance (serious problems with set-up during the first week and less frequently after that: programming issues and hardware problems; loose connections; detached footplates; bent and broken pins; very difficult to in sert in dry soils towards end of NAFE) – Modifications (thanks to Rocco and Rodger the performance improved towards the end of Wk 1; however some units kept giving problems throughout NAFE) 10

Soil moisture monitoring equipment (2) • Theta probe – Calibration (nothing known about any attempted intercomparison of the units) – Availability (general shortage of units because of technical problems; needed constant attention; power supply problems; broken pins; readouts failing) – Performance (difficult to use in heavy clay soils and in dry soils generally; high local spatial variability) 11

Groundbased SM observations • Gravimetric SM and bulk density determinations • Soil moisture measurements – Regional scale transects for AMSR-E verification (unrepresentative sites? ) • Hydraprobe SM observations on eight target farms – Sampling issues with farm-scale measurements (500, 250, 125, 62. 5 m) (time requirements!; what do they mean in substantial veg, e. g. Dales? ) – Sampling issues with high resolution sampling (12. 5 and 6. 25 m)(rope arrangement not easy to use in tall vegetation) 12

Vegetation, biomass sampling • Biomass quadrat sampling (total biomass; water content) (location and frequency) • LAI and NDVI measurements (locations? number? ; see Jose and Viviana) • Tree data (Jennifer) (logistics of fitting it in and providing assistance and transport) 13

Carbon analysis • Sampling (no problems taking the additional samples) • Laboratory analyses (progress? , cost? ) 14

Other observations • • Surface roughness (representativeness? ) Leaf wetness Dew observations Vegetation type (some vegetation types not well known or easily recognizable; e. g. fodder crops) • Land use • Surface rock cover • Soil texture (pretty grey area!) 15

General issues (1) • Experimental Plan document (not very easy to use in field) • Transport issues during field work (safety issues in wet conditions; time required in getting to target farms) • Number of teams and team size (motivation was at times a problem; especially during week 1 and early in week 2; continuity between weeks 1, 2 and weeks 3, 4 due to staff turn over can be a problem) • Field books (more substantial, hard cover note books are needed) • Farm maps with tracks, gates and fences (could have saved a lot of time and minor mishaps especially in the first two weeks, especially after the rearrangement of the time table for farmscale surveys) • Training (should have been far more extensive at start of week 1 and week 3) • Information exchange Scone-Merriwa (was generally pretty poor) • Work meetings (more formal meetings, say daily around 7. 15 -7. 30 am will be needed) 16

General issues (2) • Drying and weighing of soil and veg. samples (shortage of balances and ovens; proper forms came in late; data entry a bit haphazard; lacked clear instructions on handling of bags) • Storing of processed samples (triple labelling time consuming but generally a good idea) • Progress reports; preliminary results (a lot more effort should have gone into informing participants about results of both the groundbased and airborne monitoring as NAFE progressed) • Headquarters Merriwa (quite good) • Scone Airport facilities (? ) • Workload (pretty high; no time allowed for mishaps with equipment or transport or other disasters (e. g. aerial spraying)) 17

General issues (3) • Technical services (equipment repair became a major stumbling block; needs to be re-assessed and addressed) • Accomodation; food (no major issues; little time to buy provisions) • Internet facilities at Resources Centre (OK) • Communications (UHF radios; mobile phones) (UHF phones should be used a lot more whilst in the field; can we think of an effective way of denoting the grid points when communicating by radio? ) • Address and phone lists (phone lists were incomplete) • Safety (we have been pretty lucky not having any serious incidents/accidents) • Social events (pretty good; especially when Cristina and Greg took over) 18

Conclusions • Re-think the balance between the SM and other research interests • Encourage other research interests to bring in human resources and funds • Improve the reliability of field equipment 19

Some questions • Can we summarize the state of the data sets? • What do the preliminary results tell us about the appropriateness of the experimental design? • Do we need all resolutions: 500, 250, 125, 62. 5, 12. 5 and 6. 25 m? • How many farm scale sites do we need? • Do we need a 4 wk field experiment? • How is the data to be used, analysed and written up? • Data availability? 20