Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 7, pp 1033–1043

Neutral model analysis of landscape patterns from mathematical morphology

  • Kurt H. Riitters
  • Peter Vogt
  • Pierre Soille
  • Jacek Kozak
  • Christine Estreguil
Research Article

Abstract

Mathematical morphology encompasses methods for characterizing land-cover patterns in ecological research and biodiversity assessments. This paper reports a neutral model analysis of patterns in the absence of a structuring ecological process, to help set standards for comparing and interpreting patterns identified by mathematical morphology on real land-cover maps. We considered six structural classes (core, perforated, edge, connector, branch, and patch) on randomly generated binary (forest, non-forest) maps in which the percent occupancy (P) of forest varied from 1% to 99%. The maps were dominated by the patch class for low P, by the branch and connector classes for intermediate P, and by the edge, perforated, and core classes for high P. Two types of pattern phase changes were signaled by abrupt transitions among the six structural classes, at critical P thresholds that were indicated by increased variance among maps for the same P. A phase change from maps dominated by the patch class to maps dominated by the branch and connector classes was related to the existence of a percolating cluster of forest, and the P threshold varied depending on the co-existence of the core class. A second phase change from the edge class to the perforated class was related to the existence of a percolating cluster of non-core (including non-forest) and represents a change of context from exterior to interior. Our results appear to be the first demonstration of multiple phase changes controlling different aspects of landscape pattern on random neutral maps. Potential applications of the results are illustrated by an analysis of ten real forest maps.

Keywords

Pattern analysis Percolation theory Phase change Simulation Threshold 

References

  1. Caswell H (1976) Community structure: a neutral model analysis. Ecol Monogr 46:327–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Freemark K, Bert D, Villard M-A (2002) Patch-, landscape-, and regional-scale effects on biota. In: Gutzwiller KJ (ed) Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer-Verlag, New York NY, pp 58–83Google Scholar
  4. Gardner RH (1999) RULE: a program for the generation of random maps and the analysis of spatial patterns. In: Klopatek JM, Gardner RH (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp 280–303Google Scholar
  5. Gardner RH, Milne BT, Turner MG, O’Neill RV (1987) Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 1:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (1991) Pattern, process and predictability: the use of neutral models for landscape analysis. In: Turner MG, Gardner RH (eds) Quantitative methods in landscape ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp 289–308Google Scholar
  7. Geographic Data Technology (2002) Dynamap/2000 user manual. Geographic Data Technology, Inc., Lebanon, NHGoogle Scholar
  8. Gustafson EJ, Parker GR (1992) Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landsc Ecol 7:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Milne BT (1992) Spatial aggregation and neutral models in fractal landscapes. Am Nat 139:32–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nicolis G, Prigogine I (1989) Exploring complexity: an introduction. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1992) A hierarchical neutral model for landscape analysis. Landsc Ecol 7:55–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pearson SM, Gardner RH (1997) Neutral models: useful tools for understanding landscape patterns. In Bissonette JA (ed) Wildlife and landscape ecology: effects of pattern and scale. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp 215–230Google Scholar
  13. Plotnick RE, Gardner RH (1993) Lattices and landscapes. In: Gardner RH (ed) Lectures on mathematics in the life sciences: predicting spatial effects in ecological systems. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, pp 129–157Google Scholar
  14. Riitters KH, Wickham JD, O’Neill RV, Jones KB, Smith ER (2000) Global-scale patterns of forest fragmentation. Ecol Soc 4(2):3Google Scholar
  15. Riitters KH, Wickham JD, Coulston JW (2004) Use of road maps in United States national assessments of forest fragmentation. Ecol Soc 9(2):13Google Scholar
  16. Soille P (2003) Morphological image analysis: principles and applications, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Stauffer D, Aharony A (1994) Introduction to percolation theory, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Tran LT, O’Neill RV, Smith ER (2006) A generalized distance measure for integrating multiple environmental assessment indicators. Landsc Ecol 21:469–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer-Verlag, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. Vogelmann JE, Howard SM Yang L, Larson CR, Wylie BK, Van Driel N (2001) Completion of the 1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States from Landsat Thematic Mapper data and ancillary data sources. Photogram Eng Remote Sensing 67:650–662Google Scholar
  21. Vogt P, Riitters KH, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Wade TG, Wickham JD (2007a) Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landsc Ecol 22:171–177. doi: 10.1007/s10980–006-9013-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vogt P, Riitters KH, Iwanowski M, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Soille P (2007b) Mapping landscape corridors. Ecol Indic 7:481–488. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. With KA, King AW (1997) The use and misuse of neutral landscape models in ecology. Oikos 79:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt H. Riitters
    • 1
  • Peter Vogt
    • 2
  • Pierre Soille
    • 2
  • Jacek Kozak
    • 3
  • Christine Estreguil
    • 2
  1. 1.USDA Forest Service, Southern Research StationResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Environment and SustainabilityEuropean Commission - DG Joint Research CentreIspra, VareseItaly
  3. 3.Institute of Geography and Spatial ManagementJagiellonian UniversityKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations