Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 109–130 | Cite as

Sample based estimation of landscape metrics; accuracy of line intersect sampling for estimating edge density and Shannon’s diversity index

  • Habib RamezaniEmail author
  • Sören Holm


A recent trend is to estimate landscape metrics using sample data and cost-efficiency is one important reason for this development. In this study, line intersect sampling (LIS) was used as an alternative to wall-to-wall mapping for estimating Shannon’s diversity index and edge length and density. Monte Carlo simulation was applied to study the statistical performance of the estimators. All combinations of two sampling designs (random and systematic distribution of transects), four sample sizes, five transect configurations (straight line, L, Y, triangle, and quadrat), two transect orientations (fixed and random), and three configuration lengths were tested, each with a large number of simulations. Reference was 50 photos of size 1 km2, already manually delineated in vector format by photo interpreters using GIS environment. The performance was compared by root mean square error (RMSE) and bias. The best combination for all three metrics was found to be the systematic design and as response design the straight line configuration with random orientation of transects, with little difference between the fixed and random orientation of transects. The rate of decrease of RMSE for increasing sample size and line length was studied with a mixed linear model. It was found that the RMSE decreased to a larger degree with the systematic design than the random one, especially with increasing sample size. Due to the nonlinearity in the definition of Shannon diversity estimator its estimator has a small and negative bias, decreasing with sample size and line length. Finally, a time study was conducted, measuring the time for registration of line intersections and their lengths on non-delineated aerial photos. The time study showed that long sampling lines were more cost-efficient than short ones for photo-interpretation.


Landscape pattern analysis Metric Monte Carlo simulation Bias Root mean square error Wall-to-wall mapping Cost-efficiency 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Affleck DLR, Gregoire TG, Valentine HT (2005) Design unbiased estimation in line intersect sampling using segmented transects. Environ Ecol Stat 12: 139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allard A, Nilsson B, Pramborg K, Ståhl G, Sundquist S (2003) Manual for aerial photo interpretation in the national inventory of landscapes in Sweden NILS. Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Umeå, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  3. Allard A, Esseen P-A, Holm S, Högström M, Marklund L, Nilsson B et al (2007) Fångst av vegetationsdata och Natura 2000-habitat i fjällen genom flygbildstolkning i IRF med punktgittermetodik (Catch of vegetation data and the Natura 2000 habitats in the mountains by Localization interpretation of the IRF with point lattice method). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Resource Management, Work Report 172 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  4. Battles J, Dushoff G, Fahey J (1996) Line intersects sampling of forest canopy gaps. For Sci 42: 131–138Google Scholar
  5. Carfagna E, Gallego F (1999) Thematic maps and statistics. In: Land cover and land use information systems for European Union policy needs. Office for Official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp 219–228Google Scholar
  6. Corona P, Köhl M, Marchetti M (2003) Advance in forest inventory for sustainable forest management and biodiversity monitoring. Kluwer Academic, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. Corona P, Chirici G, Travaglini D (2004) Forest ecotone survey by line intersect sampling. Can J For Res 34: 1776–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dahm S (2001) Investigation of forest edge lengths based on data of the first Federal Forest Inventory. Allgemeine Forst Und Jagdzeitung 172: 81–86Google Scholar
  9. DeVries PG (1979) Line intersect sampling: statistical theory, applications, and suggestions for extended use in ecological inventory. In: Cormack RM, Patil GP, Robson DS (eds) Sampling biological population. International Co-operative Publishing House, Fairland, Maryland, pp 1–70Google Scholar
  10. DeVries PG (1986) Sampling theory for forest inventory. Springer Verlag, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  11. Eiden G, Jadues P, Theis R (2005) Linear landscape features in the European Union. Developing indicators related to linear landscape features based on LUCAS transect data an EU publication report EUR 21669 “Trends of some agri-environmental indicators in the European Commission”Google Scholar
  12. EPA (2003) Environmental monitoring program. Swedish Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  13. Esseen PA, Jansson KU, Nilsson M (2006) Forest edge quantification by line intersect sampling in aerial photographs. For Ecol Manage 230: 32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fang SF, Gertner G, Wang GX, Anderson A (2006) The impact of misclassification in land use maps in the prediction of landscape dynamics. Landsc Ecol 21: 233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO (2001) State of forests 2001. FAO Report, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  16. Fjellstad WJ, Dramstad WE (1999) Patterns of change in two contrasting Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 45: 177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Freese F (1962) Elementary forest sampling. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregoire TG, Valentine HT (2003) Line intersect sampling: ell-shaped transects and multiple intersections. Environ Ecol Stat 10: 263–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gregoire TG, Valentine HT (2008) Sampling strategies for natural resources and the environment. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Gustafson JE (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art?.  Ecosystems 1: 143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen H (1985) Line intersect sampling of wooded strips. For Sci 31: 282–288Google Scholar
  23. Hazard J, Pickford S (1986) Simulation studies on Line intersect sampling of forest residue, part II. For Sci 32: 447–470Google Scholar
  24. Hernandez-Stefanoni JL (2006) The role of landscape patterns of habitat types on plant species diversity of a tropical forest in Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 15: 1441–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herzog F, Lausch A (2001) Supplementing land-use statistics with landscape metrics: some methodological considerations. Environ Monit Assess 72: 37–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunsaker CT, O’Neill RV, Jackson BL, Timmins SP, Levine DA, Norton DJ (1994) Sampling to characterize landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 9: 207–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ji W, Ma J, Twibell RW, Underhill K (2006) Characterizing urban sprawl using multi-stage remote sensing images and landscape metrics. Comput Environ Urban Syst 30: 861–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaiser L (1983) Unbiased estimation in line-intercept sampling. Biometrics 39: 965–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kleinn C (2000) Estimating metrics of forest spatial pattern from large area forest inventory cluster samples. For Sci 46: 548–557Google Scholar
  30. Kleinn C, Vilcko F (2006) A new empirical approach for estimation in k-tree sampling. For Ecol Manage 237: 522–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Köhl M (2003) New approaches for multi-resource forest inventories. In: Corona P, Köhl M, Marchetti M (eds) Advance in forest inventory for sustainable forest management and biodiversity monitoring. Kluwer Academic, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  32. Leitão A, Miller J, Aher J (2006) Measuring landscapes: a planner’s handbook. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Li HB, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Spies TA (1993) Developing alternative forest cutting patterns—a simulation approach. Landsc Ecol 8: 63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lu D, Weng Q (2007) A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance. Int J Remote Sens 28: 823–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marshall PL, Davis G, LeMay VM (2000) Using line intersect sampling for coarse woody debris. Technical Report TR-003. Research Section, Vancouver Forest Region, British Columbia Ministry of ForestsGoogle Scholar
  36. Matérn B (1964) A method of estimating the total length of roads by means of line survey. Studia Forestalia Suecica 18: 68–70Google Scholar
  37. McGarigal K, Marks EJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape pattern. General Technical Report 351. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research StationGoogle Scholar
  38. NIJOS (2001) Norwegian 3Q monitoring program. Norwegian Institute of Land InventoryGoogle Scholar
  39. NILS (2003) National inventory of landscapes in Sweden. Department of Forest Resource Management, SLU, UmeåGoogle Scholar
  40. Raj D (1968) Sampling theory. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Ramezani H, Holm S, Allard A, Ståhl G (2009) Monitoring landscape metrics by point sampling: accuracy in estimating Shannon’s diversity and edge density. Environ Monit Assess. doi: 10.1007/s10661-009-0902-0
  42. Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35: 491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Wickham JD, Yankee DH, Timmins SP et al (1995) A factor-analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landsc Ecol 10: 23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ringvall A, Ståhl G (1999a) Field aspects of line intersect sampling for assessing coarse woody debris. For Ecol Manage 119: 163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ringvall A, Ståhl G (1999b) On the field performance of transect relascope sampling for assessing downed coarse woody debris. Scand J For Res 14: 552–557Google Scholar
  46. Rocchini D, Perry GLW, Salerno M, Maccherini S, Chiarucci A (2006) Landscape change and the dynamics of open formations in a natural reserve. Landsc Urban Plan 77: 167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roth A, Kennel E, Knoke T, Matthes U (2003) Line intersect sampling: an efficient method for sampling of coarse woody debris?.  Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt 122: 318–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saura S, Martinez-Millan J (2001) Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extent. Photogrammetr Eng Remote Sens 67: 1027–1036Google Scholar
  49. Skidmore AK, Turner BJ (1992) Map accuracy assessment using line intersect sampling. Photogrammetr Eng Remote Sens 58: 1453–1457Google Scholar
  50. Smith HF (1938) An empirical law describing heterogeneity in the yields of agricultural crops. J Agric Sci 28: 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ståhl G (1998) Transect relascope sampling—a method for the quantification of coarse woody debris. For Sci 44: 58–63Google Scholar
  52. Thompson SK (2002) Sampling, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20: 171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Warren WG, Olsen PF (1964) A line intesect technique for assessing logging waste. For Sci 10: 267–276Google Scholar
  56. Williams MS (2001a) New approach to areal sampling in ecological surveys. For Ecol Manage 154: 11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Williams MS (2001b) Nonuniform random sampling: an alternative method of variance reduction for forest surveys. Can J For Res 31: 2080–2088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wulder MA, White JC, Hay GJ, Castilla G (2008) Towards automated segmentation of forest inventory polygons on high spatial resolution satellite imagery. For Chron 84: 221–230Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Resource ManagementSwedish University of Agriculture Sciences, SLUUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations