Long-Term Monitoring and Prediction of Ecosystem Using Remote Sensing and the CLUE-S Model: Sakaerat Environmental Research Station

  • Yongyut Trisurat
Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL)


Deforestation has been given much attention in land use and landscape changes because of the high rate of forest change and the ecological importance of the forest ecosystem. Forest loss in Thailand was ranked the highest of all countries in the Greater Mekong subregion and as fourth in the “top 10 of tropical countries in terms of annual rate of loss in 1995 (CFAN 2005). The Royal Forest Department in Thailand has had long-term monitored forest cover using satellite images for the last four decades. The results revealed that in 1961 the forest cover was 53.3% of the country area whereas approximately 25.2% remained in 1998. The average annual loss was approximately 400,000 ha, or 2.0%, during this 37-year period (RFD 2005). Deforestation in Thailand is mainly caused by commercial logging of primary forest, by agribusiness, and by urban development, driven by ongoing population growth and the national development strategy to gain foreign income (TRisurat 2007).


Secondary Growth Landscape Index Mixed Deciduous Forest Great Mekong Subregion Average Annual Loss 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was conducted with the financial support of Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute.


  1. Angkapreechaset P, Kritanuch S (2003) Birds of Sakaerat. Thailand Institute of Science and Technology, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  2. Brannstrom C, Jepson W, Filippi AM, Redo D, Xu Z, Ganesh S (2008) Land change in the Brazilian Savanna (Cerrado), 1986–2002: comparative analysis and implications for land-use policy. Land Use Policy 25:579–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CFAN (Forestry Advisers Network) (2005) Deforestation: tropical forests in decline. CIDA Forestry Advisers Network. Accessed 2 Feb 2008.
  4. Cuesta-Camocho F, Ganzenmuller A, Peralvo M, Novoa J, Riofrio G (2006) Predicting species’ niche distribution shifts and biodiversity change within climate change scenarios: a regional assessment for bird and plant species in the Northern Tropical Andes. Biodiversity Monitoring Program: EcoCiencia, PeruGoogle Scholar
  5. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Khemnark C (1994) Rehabilitation of degraded tropical forest land through agroforestry practices: a case study in Thailand. J Trop For Sci 7(1):128–135Google Scholar
  7. Lekagul B, Round PD (2005) A guide to the birds of Thailand, 2nd edn. Saha Karn Bhaet, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  8. McGarigal K, Marks B (1995) FRSGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351. PortlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Peterson AT (2001) Predicting species’ geographical distributions based on ecological niche modeling. Condor 103:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Priess JA, Schaldach R (2008) Integrated models of the land system: a review of modelling approaches on the regional to global scale. Living Rev Landsc Res 2. Retrieved from
  12. Raabová J, Münzbergová Z, Fischer M (2007) Ecological rather than geographic or genetic distance affects local adaptation of the rare perennial herb, Aster amellus. Biol Conserv 139:348–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. RFD (Royal Forest Department) (2005) Forest statistics year 2004. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  14. Rutledge D (2003) Landscape indices as measures of the effects of fragmentation: can pattern reflect process? Department of Conservation, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Sahunalu P, Dhanmamomda P, Jamroenpruksa M, Khemnak C (1993) Effects of reforestation, abandoned areas and natural forests on Sakaerat environment. Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  16. Saunders DA, Hobbs RH, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Trisurat Y (2007) Applying gap analysis and a comparison index to assess protected areas in Thailand. Environ Manage 39:235–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Trisurat Y (2010) Land use and forested landscape changes at Sakaerat Environmental Research Station in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. Ekológia (Bratislava) 29:99–109Google Scholar
  19. Trisurat Y, Alkemade R, Arets E (2009) Projecting forest tree distributions and adaptation to climate change in northern Thailand. J Ecol Nat Environ 1(3):55–63Google Scholar
  20. Trisurat Y, Alkemade R, Verburg P (2010) Projecting land use change and its consequences for biodiversity in Northern Thailand. Environ Manage 45:626–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Turner IM, Corlett RT (1996) The conservation value of small isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. Trends Ecol Evol 11:330–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Turner W, Spector S, Gardiner N, Fladeland M, Sterling E, Steininger M (2003) Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 18:306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Verburg PH, Schot P, Dijst MJ, Veldkamp A (2004) Land use change modelling: current practice and research priorities. GeoJournal 61(4):309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Verburg P, Eickhout B, van Meijl H (2008) A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use. Ann Reg Sci 42:57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ForestryKasetsart UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations