Show simple item record

dc.creatorWhitney, Travis Raymond
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-07T22:58:05Z
dc.date.available2012-06-07T22:58:05Z
dc.date.created1999
dc.date.issued1999
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-1999-THESIS-W458
dc.descriptionDue to the character of the original source materials and the nature of batch digitization, quality control issues may be present in this document. Please report any quality issues you encounter to digital@library.tamu.edu, referencing the URI of the item.en
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (leaves 56-60).en
dc.descriptionIssued also on microfiche from Lange Micrographics.en
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of selected electronic transfer technology, i.e., digital imagery, utilized by Range Extension Specialists in Texas to assess rangeland conditions. The study was conducted near College Station, Texas during the Spring semester of 1999. Rangeland sites were assessed by three Range Extension Specialists; these sites represented actual quantity of forage tonnage per acre, height, stem diameter of woody species, percent weed and woody species, and weed and woody species identification. One objective was to determine the relationship between ''on-site'' and ''in-office'' recommendations made by Range Extension Specialists using digital images. The findings were: 1. No statistically significant differences existed among the five ''in-office'' Range Extension Specialists when making quantitative rangeland observations for tonnage per acre, while using only 35mm digitized images. However, there was a high degree of variation in the observations. 2. "In-office'' Range Extension Specialists were extremely variable and tended to underestimate when assessing forage biomass per acre, although their estimates corresponded with an increase in actual forage tonnage per acre. Additional findings were: 1. Only the height of mesquite observation gave evidence to suggest any differences among "in-office'' specialists. 2. Much variation existed in all observations within and among specialists, except for height of mesquite. 3. "In-office" specialists varied extremely in assessing all the range sites, except for mesquite height and stem diameter sites. 4. The species of plants significantly affected accuracy in correctly identifying plants. The second objective was to determine the relationship between the quality of 35mm camera digitized images and digital camera images. The finding was that no statistically significant difference existed for the type of camera used when making rangeland observations in this study. Overall conclusions were that Range Extension Specialists cannot accurately make rangeland recommendations from digital images using existing technology and no difference existed for the type of camera used when making estimations in this study.en
dc.format.mediumelectronicen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherTexas A&M University
dc.rightsThis thesis was part of a retrospective digitization project authorized by the Texas A&M University Libraries in 2008. Copyright remains vested with the author(s). It is the user's responsibility to secure permission from the copyright holder(s) for re-use of the work beyond the provision of Fair Use.en
dc.subjectagricultural education.en
dc.subjectMajor agricultural education.en
dc.titleEffectiveness of digital imagery in assessing rangeland conditions as used by Texas Range Extension Specialistsen
dc.typeThesisen
thesis.degree.disciplineagricultural educationen
thesis.degree.nameM.S.en
thesis.degree.levelMastersen
dc.type.genrethesisen
dc.type.materialtexten
dc.format.digitalOriginreformatted digitalen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

This item and its contents are restricted. If this is your thesis or dissertation, you can make it open-access. This will allow all visitors to view the contents of the thesis.

Request Open Access