000	03599cam  2200433zi 4500
001	9.914079
003	CaOODSP
005	20230713083433
006	m     o  d f
007	cr mn|||||||||
008	220803t20232023oncab   ob   f000 0 eng d
020	|a9780660448503
040	|aCaOODSP|beng|erda|cCaOODSP
041	0 |aeng|beng|bfre
043	|an-cn-on
045	|ay0y1
086	1 |aFs97-6/3501E-PDF
100	1 |aMarcaccio, James V., |eauthor.
245	10|aUse of remote sensing to track changes to fish habitat in a modified wetland / |cby James V. Marcaccio, Jesse Gardner Costa, and Jonathan D. Midwood.
264	1|aBurlington, ON : |bFisheries and Oceans Canada, Ontario and Prairie Region, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, |c2023.
264	4|c©2023
300	|a1 online resource (viii, 38 pages) : |bcolour illustrations, colour maps.
336	|atext|btxt|2rdacontent
337	|acomputer|bc|2rdamedia
338	|aonline resource|bcr|2rdacarrier
490	1 |aCanadian technical report of fisheries and aquatic sciences, |x1488-5379 ; |v3501
504	|aIncludes bibliographical references (pages 14-19).
520	3 |a"Development and restoration works modify aquatic habitat and often require monitoring by proponents to ensure projects do not cause undue harm to fishes and their habitat. With traditional field surveys, areal cover of habitat can be difficult to ascertain and cannot be sampled retroactively. With remote sensing, analysts can easily identify changes in fish habitat using historic habitat imagery before projects are undertaken to assess pre-intervention conditions. In this document we show how remote sensing can be used to delineate changes to fish habitat following modification of a wetland in Lake Ontario. Even though our work started a decade after modification, we estimated both pre- and post-construction habitat area using historic, high resolution (<5m pixel) image archives. Created ponds see significantly more aquatic habitat after construction and no significant changes thereafter, though the composition of wetland species in these ponds is different than similar undisturbed ponds. Summer imagery requires a more complex workflow but can describe species within habitat types, while spring/fall workflows are rapid but can only identify broad land cover categories. Results between the two methods are difficult to compare so one method/seasonality should be maintained for consistent monitoring. These workflows can allow for rapid discrimination of aquatic habitat without requiring direct field observations and can be applied for historical and future monitoring"--Abstract, page vii.
546	|aIncludes abstracts in English and French.
650	0|aFishes|xHabitat|zOntario|zQuinte, Bay of|xRemote sensing.
650	0|aFreshwater habitats|zOntario|zQuinte, Bay of|xRemote sensing.
650	0|aFreshwater plants|zOntario|zQuinte, Bay of|xRemote sensing.
650	6|aPoissons|xHabitat|zOntario|zQuinte, Baie de|xTélédétection.
650	6|aHabitats d'eau douce|zOntario|zQuinte, Baie de|xTélédétection.
650	6|aFlore d'eau douce|zOntario|zQuinte, Baie de|xTélédétection.
710	1 |aCanada. |bDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans, |eissuing body.
710	2 |aGreat Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, |eissuing body.
830	#0|aCanadian technical report of fisheries and aquatic sciences ;|v3501.|w(CaOODSP)9.504449
856	40|qPDF|s868 KB|uhttps://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2023/mpo-dfo/Fs97-6-3501-eng.pdf