1. 1 NAFE05 Review What went right and what went wrong? JDK comments in red; other comments to be added during sessions NAFE Workshop, Melbourne, Feb 2006

2. 2 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)

3. 3 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)

4. 4 Acquisition of relevant satellite data AMSR-E on Aqua (Multi-frequency dual polarisation microwave radiometer) MODIS on Aqua (Passive imaging spectro- radiometer) 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?

5. 5 Routine groundbased monitoring during NAFE05 (SASMAS) Climate station data (Stanley data OK) CS616 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)

6. 6 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 NAFE06 at Merriwa)

7. 7 Supplementary continuous groundbased monitoring during NAFE05 Soil temperatures IR landsurface temperatures Rock surface temperatures Leaf wetness records

8. 8 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)

9. 9 Sampling sites (2) Eight target farms (need to re-arrange the farm- scale 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)

10. 10 Soil moisture monitoring equipment (1) Hydraprobe + GPS + iPAC –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)

11. 11 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)

12. 12 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, 62.5m) (time requirements!; what do they mean in substantial veg, e.g. Dales?) –Sampling issues with high resolution sampling (12.5 and 6.25m)(rope arrangement not easy to use in tall vegetation)

13. 13 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)

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

15. 15 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!)

16. 16 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)

17. 17 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))

18. 18 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)

19. 19 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

20. 20 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 6.25m? 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?