Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scope and its role in advancing a science of scaling in landscape ecology

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

The scope of a measurement is the ratio of the range (or extent) to the resolution. Scope can also be defined as the number of steps in a measurement instrument given the step size or the distance between two points on a space-time diagram. Scope differs from scale in that it is dimensionless and thus provides a means for comparability across studies.

Objectives

This perspective argues that advancing a science of scaling in landscape ecology can benefit from acknowledging and embracing the concept of scope to facilitate replications and provide linkages to scaling laws.

Methods

Scope is defined and linked to existing focii on scale in landscape ecology. A simple case study demonstrates how landscape metrics computed for several extent-to-grain ratios are more similar according to scope than either grain or extent.

Results

Metric distributions naturally group according to scope, with same/similar scopes displaying more similar means and distributions. Distribution shapes also show similarities according to scope, supporting the use of scope for comparisons and replications.

Conclusions

Recommendations for moving forward include setting the scope of a study based on the phenomenon under investigation, reporting grain and extent to permit scope calculations, and undertaking comparisons and replications based on scope.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Metric data for the case study are available at: github.com/amyfraz/scope.

Code availability

code for processing the case study data is available upon request.

References

  • Argañaraz JP, Entraigas I (2014) Scaling functions evaluation for estimation of landscape metrics at higher resolutions. Ecological informatics 22:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Chisholm SW, Krebs CJ, Schindler DW, Wright RF (1995) Ecosystem experiments. Science 269(5222):324–327

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2010) Scale dependent inference in landscape genetics. Landscape Ecol 25(6):967–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2008) Landscape metrics, scales of resolution. Designing green landscapes. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 33–51

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Godron M (1981) Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. BioSci 31:733–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier AE (2014) A new data aggregation technique to improve landscape metric downscaling. Landscape Ecol 29(7):1261–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier AE (2016) Surface metrics: scaling relationships and downscaling behavior. Landscape Ecol 31(2):351–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier AE, Kedron P (2016) Impact of compositional and configurational data loss on downscaling accuracy. In: 12th international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment in natural resources and environmental sciences, Accuracy 2016

  • Frazier AE, Kedron P, Ovando-Montejo GA, Zhao Y (2021) Scaling spatial pattern metrics: impacts of composition and configuration on downscaling accuracy. Landscape Ecology

  • Hargrove WW, Pickering J (1992) Pseudoreplication: a sine qua non for regional ecology. Landscape Ecol 6(4):251–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kedron P, Frazier AE, Trgovac AB, Nelson T, Fotheringham AS (2019) Reproducibility and replicability in geographical analysis. Geographical Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/gean.12221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiber M (1961) The fire of life. An introduction to animal energetics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York: London

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert H. MacArthur award lecture. Ecology 73(6):1943–1967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Wan HY, Zeller KA, Timm BC, Cushman SA (2016) Multi-scale habitat selection modeling: a review and outlook. Landscape Ecol 31(6):1161–1175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Vojta C, Reagan C (in press). Quantifying terrestrial habitat loss and fragmentation: a protocol. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. T,·ch. Repl. RM-GTR-xxx

  • Mercer WB, Hall AD (1911) The experimental error of field trials. J Agri Sci 4(2):107–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odgaard BV (1999) Fossil pollen as a record of past biodiversity. J Biogeogr 26(1):7–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Timmins SP, Jackson BL, Jones KB, Riitters KH, Wickham JD (1996) Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecol 11(3):169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters KH, Coulston JW, Wickham JD (2012) Fragmentation of forest communities in the eastern United States. For Ecol Manag 263:85–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider DC (1994) Quantitative ecology: spatial and temporal scaling. Elsevier

  • Schneider DC (1998) Applied scaling theory. Ecological scale: theory and applications, 253-270

  • Schneider DC (2001a) Spatial allometry. Scaling Relations in Experimental Ecology. Columbia University Press, pp 113–154

  • Schneider DC (2001b) The rise of the concept of scale in ecology: The concept of scale is evolving from verbal expression to quantitative expression. Bioscience 51(7):545–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider DC (2009) Quantitative Ecology (2nd Edition). Elsevier Academic Press. eBook ISBN: 9780080925646

  • Turner MG, O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Milne BT (1989) Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 3:153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3(4):385–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecol 19(2):125–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2007) Scale and scaling: a cross-disciplinary perspective. In: Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, pp 115–142

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported, in part, by U.S. National Science Foundation grant #1934759.

Funding

This work is supported by U.S. National Science Foundation Grant #1934759.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spatial Analysis Research Center (SPARC) and Center for Global Discovery and Conservation Science, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, 85281, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Amy E. Frazier

Authors
  1. Amy E. Frazier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.E.F. conceived of the idea, performed all data processing and analysis, wrote, and edited the entire manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy E. Frazier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Nothing to disclose.

Ethical approval

Not Applicable.

Consent to participate

Not Applicable.

Consent for publication

The author consents to publication.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frazier, A.E. Scope and its role in advancing a science of scaling in landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 38, 637–643 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01403-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01403-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation