Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 1249–1261 | Cite as

Are landscape ecologists addressing uncertainty in their remote sensing data?

  • Alex M. Lechner
  • William T. Langford
  • Sarah A. Bekessy
  • Simon D. Jones
Research Article

Abstract

In this quantitative review, we investigate the degree to which landscape ecology studies that use spatial data address spatial uncertainty when conducting analyses. We identify three broad categories of spatial uncertainty that are important in determining the characterisation of landscape pattern and affect the outcome of analysis in landscape ecology: (i) classification scheme uncertainty, (ii) spatial scale and (iii) classification error. The second category, spatial scale, was further subdivided into five scale dependent factors (i) pixel size, (ii) minimum mappable unit, (iii) smoothing, (iv) thematic resolution and (v) extent. We reviewed all articles published in the journal Landscape ecology in 2007 and recorded how spatial data was used and whether spatial uncertainty was addressed or reported in ecological analyses. This review found that spatial uncertainty was rarely addressed and/or reported. Only 23 % of articles addressed one or more scale dependent factors and 47 % reported one or more as issues. Most articles used the default pixel size of the sensor, and only a single study of the 59 investigated the effect of classification accuracy on ecological analyses. We demonstrate that spatial uncertainty is not being addressed as standard practice in analyses in landscape ecology, and then describe methods to test for spatial uncertainty and potential solutions that can be developed in the future.

Keywords

Scale Spatial uncertainty Classification error Landscape pattern Remote sensing GIS Land-cover mapping 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) discovery grant DP0450889, the ARC linkage grant LP0882780 and the Australian Commonwealth Environment Research Fund Landscape Logic research hub. Thanks to Patrick Audet and Phillippa Bricher for feedback on the paper. A special thanks to the editor Sarah Gergel and the anonymous reviewers for detailed and constructive feedback on the manuscript.

References

  1. Adams JB, Gillespie AR (2006) Remote sensing of landscapes with spectral images a physical modeling approach. Cambridge University Press, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnot C, Fisher PF, Wadsworth R, Wellens J (2004) Landscape metrics with ecotones: pattern under uncertainty. Landscape Ecol 19(2):181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson PM (2004) Resolution manipulation and sub-pixel mapping. In: De Jong SM, Van der Meer FD (eds) Remote sensing data analysis: Including the spatial domain. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 51–70Google Scholar
  4. Burrough PA (1996) Natural objects with indeterminate boundaries. In: Burrough PA, Frank AU (eds) Spatial conceptual models for geographic objects with undetermined boundaries. Taylor Francis, London, pp 3–28Google Scholar
  5. Buyantuyev A, Wu JG (2007) Effects of thematic resolution on landscape pattern analysis. Landscape Ecol 22(1):7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buyantuyev A, Wu J, Gries C (2010) Multiscale analysis of the urbanization pattern of the Phoenix metropolitan landscape of USA: time, space and thematic resolution. Landsc Urban Plan 94(3–4):206–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castilla G, Larkin K, Linke J, Hay G (2009) The impact of thematic resolution on the patch-mosaic model of natural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 24(1):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Changyong C, Lam NS-N (1997) Understanding the scale and resolution effects in remote sensing and GIS. In: Quattrochi DA, Goodchild MF (eds) Scale in remote sensing and GIS Eds. CRC Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 3–26Google Scholar
  9. Chapman A, Muñoz M, Koch I (2005) Environmental information: placing biodiversity phenomena in an ecological and environmental context. Biodivers Informatics 2:24–41Google Scholar
  10. Chen J (2008) Ecological modelling and perspectives of forest landscapes. In: Lafortezza R, Sanesi G, Chen J, Crow TR (eds) Patterns and processes in forest landscapes. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 265–270Google Scholar
  11. Chen J, Brosofske KD, Lafortezza R (2008) Ecology and management of forest landscapes. In: Lafortezza R, Sanesi G, Chen J, Crow TR (eds) Patterns and processes in forest landscapes. Springer Netherlands, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  12. Colson F, Bogaert J, Filho AC, Nelson B, Pinagé ER, Ceulemans R (2009) The influence of forest definition on landscape fragmentation assessment in Rondônia Brazil. Ecol Indic 9(6):116–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Comber AJ (2008) The separation of land cover from land use with data primitives. J Land Use Sci 3(4):215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Comber A, Fisher P, Wadsworth R (2005a) What is land cover? Environ Plan B Plan Design 32(2):199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Comber A, Fisher P, Wadsworth R (2005b) You know what land cover is but does anyone else? An investigation into semantic and ontological confusion. Int J Remote Sens 26(1):223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Congalton RG (1988) Using spatial auto-correlation analysis to explore the errors in maps generated from remotely sensed data. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 54(5):587–592Google Scholar
  17. Congalton RG, Green K (1993) Practical look at the sources of confusion in error matrix generation. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 59(5):641–644Google Scholar
  18. Corry RC, Nassauer JI (2005) Limitations of using landscape pattern indices to evaluate the ecological consequences of alternative plans and designs. Landsc Urban Plan 72(4):265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cracknell AP (1998) Review article synergy in remote sensing—what is in a pixel? Int J Remote Sens 19(11):2025–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cunningham MA (2006) Accuracy assessment of digitized and classified land cover data for wildlife habitat. Landsc Urban Plan 78(3):217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2008) Landscape metrics, scales of resolution. In: Gadow KV, Pukkala T (eds) Designing green landscapes. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 33–51Google Scholar
  22. Debuse VJ, King J, House APN (2007) Effect of fragmentation, habitat loss and within-patch habitat characteristics on ant assemblages in semi-arid woodlands of eastern Australia. Landscape Ecol 22(5):731–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dungan JL, Perry JN, Dale MRT, Citron-Pousty S, Fortin M-J, Jakomulska A, Miriti M, Rosenberg MS (2002) A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis. Ecography 25(5):626–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. European Environment Agency (1994) CORINE land cover. Commission of the European Communities, pp 1–163Google Scholar
  25. Evans BJ (1997) Dynamic display of spatial data-reliability: does it benefit the map user? Comput Geosci 23(4):409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fassnacht KS, Cohen WB, Spies TA (2006) Key issues in making and using satellite-based maps in ecology: a primer. For Ecol Manag 222(1–3):167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fisher P (1997) The pixel: a snare and a delusion. Int J Remote Sens 18(3):679–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foody GM (1996) Fuzzy modelling of vegetation from remotely sensed imagery. Ecol Model 85:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Foody GM (2002) Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens Environ 80(1):185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fortin MJ, Boots B, Csillag F, Remmel TK (2003) On the role of spatial stochastic models in understanding landscape indices in ecology. Oikos 102(1):203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Franklin J, Woodcock CE (1997) Multiscale vegetation data for the mountains of southern California: spatial and categorical resolution. In: Quattrochi DA, Goodchild MF (eds) Scale in remote sensing and GIS. CRC Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 3–26Google Scholar
  32. Friedl MA, McGwire KC, McIver DK (2001) An overview of uncertainty in optical remotely sensed data for ecological applications. In: Hunsaker CT, Goodchild MF, Friedl MA, Case TJ (eds) Spatial uncertainty in ecology: implications for remote sensing and GIS applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 258–283Google Scholar
  33. Gardner RH, Urban DL (2007) Neutral models for testing landscape hypotheses. Landscape Ecol 22(1):15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gergel SE (2007) New Directions in landscape pattern analysis and linkages with remote sensing. In: Wulder MA, Franklin SE (eds) Understanding forest disturbance and spatial pattern: remote sensing and GIS approaches. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, pp 173–208Google Scholar
  35. Gergel SE, Turner MG (2001) Learning landscape ecology: a practical guide to concepts and techniques. Springer-Verlag, New York 20Google Scholar
  36. Gergel S, Stange Y, Coops N, Johansen K, Kirby K (2007) What is the value of a good map? An example using high spatial resolution imagery to aid riparian restoration. Ecosystems 10(5):688–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135(2–3):147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gustafson EJ (1998) Minireview: quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1(2):143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gustafson EJ, Lytle DE, Swaty R, Loehle C (2007) Simulating the cumulative effects of multiple forest management strategies on landscape measures of forest sustainability. Landscape Ecol 22(1):141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hall CAS (1988) An assessment of several of the historically most influential theoretical models used in ecology and of the data provided in their support. Ecol Model 43(1–2):5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hess GR, Bartel RA, Leidner AK, Rosenfeld KM, Rubino MJ, Snider SB, Ricketts TH (2006) Effectiveness of biodiversity indicators varies with extent, grain, and region. Biol Conserv 132(4):448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of species response to habitat. Bioscience 54:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ivits E, Koch B (2002) Landscape connectivity studies on segmentation based classification and manual interpretation of remote sensing data. eCognition User Meeting, 22–24 Oct, 2002, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  44. Kardos J, Moore A, Benwell G (2006) Expressing attribute uncertainty in spatial data using blinking regions. In: Caetano M, Painho M (eds) 27th international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment in natural resources and environmental sciences. 5–7 July 2006, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  45. Karl JW, Heglund PJ, Garton EO, Scott JM, Wright NM, Hutto RL (2000) Sensitivity of species habitat–relationship model performance to factors of scale. Ecol Appl 10(6):1690–1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kendall MS, Miller T (2008) The influence of thematic and spatial resolution on maps of a coral reef ecosystem. Mar Geodesy 31(2):75–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. King AW (1991) Translating models across scales in the landscape. In: Turner MG, Gardner RH (eds) Quantitative methods in landscape ecology. Springer, New York, pp 479–517Google Scholar
  48. Langford WT, Gergel SE, Dietterich TG, Cohen W (2006) Map misclassification can cause large errors in landscape pattern indices: examples from habitat fragmentation. Ecosystems 9(3):474–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lawler JJ, O’Connor RJ, Hunsaker CT, Jones KB, Loveland TR, White D (2004) The effects of habitat resolution on models of avian diversity and distributions: a comparison of two land-cover classifications. Landscape Ecol 19(5):517–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lechner AM, Jones SD, Bekessy SA (2008) A study on the impact of Scale dependent factors on the classification of landcover maps. In: Stein A, Shi J, Wietske B (eds) Quality aspects in spatial data mining. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 315–328Google Scholar
  51. Lechner AM, Stein A, Jones SD, Ferwerda JG (2009) Remote sensing of small and linear features: quantifying the effects of patch size and length, grid position and detectability on land cover mapping. Remote Sens Environ 113(10):2194–2204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lechner AM, Langford WT, Jones SD, Gordon A, Bekessy SA (2012) Investigating pattern processes relationships at multiple scales with remote sensing: differentiating between ecological phenomenon and spatial data artefacts. Ecol Complex 11(9):91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecol Soc Am 73(6):1943–1967Google Scholar
  54. Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecol 19(4):389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Manton M, Angelstam P, Mikusiński G (2005) Modelling habitat suitability for deciduous forest focal species—a sensitivity analysis using different satellite land cover data. Landscape Ecol 20(7):827–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mayer AL, Cameron GN (2003) Consideration of grain and extent in landscape studies of terrestrial vertebrate ecology. Landsc Urban Plan 65(4):201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Metzger J (2008) Landscape ecology: perspectives based on the 2007 IALE world congress. Landscape Ecol 23(5):501–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moody A, Woodcock CE (1994) Scale-dependent errors in the estimation of land-cover proportions—implications for global land-cover datasets. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 60(5):585–594Google Scholar
  59. Nelson A (2001) Analysing data across geographic scales in Honduras: detecting levels of organisation within systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85(1–3):107–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Neill RV, Johnson AR, King AW (1989) A hierarchical framework for the analysis of scale. Landscape Ecol 3(3–4):193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Timmins SP, Jackson BL, Jones KB, Ritters KH, Wickham JD (1996) Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecol 11(3):169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2007) Impact of spatial scale on the identification of critical habitat patches for the maintenance of landscape connectivity. Landsc Urban Plan 83(2–3):176–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pontius Jr. RG, Chen H, Thontteh O (2005) Multiple scale pattern recognition and the foundation of observation-free statistics. In: Conference proceedings of the meeting of the American Society for photogrammetry and remote sensing, Baltimore, p 11Google Scholar
  64. Pontius R, Thontteh O, Chen H (2008) Components of information for multiple resolution comparison between maps that share a real variable. Environ Ecol Stat 15(2):111–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Powell RL, Matzke N, de Souza C, Clark M, Numata I, Hess LL, Roberts DA (2004) Sources of error in accuracy assessment of thematic land-cover maps in the Brazilian Amazon. Remote Sens Environ 90(2):221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Quaife T, Quegan S, Disney M, Lewis P, Lomas M, Woodward FI (2008) Impact of land cover uncertainties on estimates of biospheric carbon fluxes. Global Biogeochem Cycles 22(4):GB4016Google Scholar
  67. Rae C, Rothley K, Dragicevic S (2007) Implications of error and uncertainty for an environmental planning scenario: a sensitivity analysis of GIS-based variables in a reserve design exercise. Landsc Urban Plan 79(3–4):210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Remmel TK (2009) Investigating global and local categorical map configuration comparisons based on coincidence matrices. Geogr Anal 41(2):144–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Riitters K, Wickham J, O’Neill R, Jones B, Smith E (2000) Global-scale patterns of forest fragmentation. Conserv Ecol 4(2):XV–XVIGoogle Scholar
  70. Robinson VB (2007) Issues and challenges of incorporating fuzzy sets in ecological modeling. In: Morris A, Kokhan S (eds) Geographic uncertainty in environmental security, NATO security through science series. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 33–51Google Scholar
  71. Saura S (2002) Effects of minimum mapping unit on land cover data spatial configuration and composition. Int J Remote Sens 23(22):4853–4880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Saura S, Castro S (2007) Scaling functions for landscape pattern metrics derived from remotely sensed data: are their subpixel estimates really accurate? ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 62(3):201–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schmit C, Rounsevell MDA, La Jeunesse I (2006) The limitations of spatial land use data in environmental analysis. Environ Sci Policy 9(2):174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Smith JH, Wickham JD, Stehman SV, Yang L (2002) Impacts of patch size and land-cover heterogeneity on thematic image classification accuracy. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 68(1):65–70Google Scholar
  75. Smith JH, Stehman SV, Wickham JD, Yang L (2003) Effects of landscape characteristics on land-cover class accuracy. Remote Sens Environ 84(3):342–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stohlgren TJ, Chong GW, Kalkhan MA, Schell LD (1997) Multiscale sampling of plant diversity: effects of minimum mapping unit size. Ecol Appl 7(3):1064–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stoms DM, Davis FW, Cogan CB (1992) Sensitivity of wildlife habitat models to uncertainties in GIS data. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 58(6):843–850Google Scholar
  78. Tatem AJ, Lewis HG, Atkinson PM, Nixon MS (2002) Super-resolution land cover pattern prediction using a Hopfield neural network. Remote Sens Environ 79(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thompson S, Gergel S (2008) Conservation implications of mapping rare ecosystems using high spatial resolution imagery: recommendations for heterogeneous and fragmented landscapes. Landscape Ecol 23(9):1023–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Townsend PA, Lookingbill TR, Kingdon CC, Gardner RH (2009) Spatial pattern analysis for monitoring protected areas. Remote Sens Environ 113(7):1410–1420Google Scholar
  81. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36(1):319–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice pattern and process. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  84. Vermaat JE, Eppink F, van den Bergh JCJM, Barendregt A, van Belle J (2005) Aggregation and the matching of scales in spatial economics and landscape ecology: empirical evidence and prospects for integration. Ecol Econ 52(2):229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wickham JD, Riitters KH (1995) Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixel size. Int J Remote Sens 16(18):3585–3594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Woodcock CE, Strahler AH (1987) The factor of scale in remote-sensing. Remote Sens Environ 21(3):311–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wu JG (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecol 19(2):125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wu J, Li H (2006) Concepts of scale and scaling. In: Jianguo Wu, Jones KB, Li H, Louck OL (eds) Scaling and uncertainty analysis in ecology: methods and applications. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  90. Wu J, Gao W, Tueller PT (1997) Effects of changing spatial scale on the results of statistical analysis with landscape data: a case study. Geogr Inform Sci 3:30–41Google Scholar
  91. Wu J, Jelinski DE, Luck M, Tueller PT (2000) Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: scale variance and pattern metrics. Geogr Inform Sci 6(1):6–19Google Scholar
  92. Wu JG, Shen WJ, Sun WZ, Tueller PT (2002) Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol 17(8):761–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wu J, Li H, Jones K, Loucks O (2006) Scaling with known uncertainty: a synthesis. In: Jianguo W, Jones KB, Li H, Louck OL (eds) Scaling and uncertainty analysis in ecology: methods and applications. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 329–346Google Scholar
  94. Zukowskyj PM, Bussell MA, Power C, Teeuw RM (2001) Quantitative accuracy assessment of contextually filtered classified images. Int J Remote Sens 22(16):3203–3222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zurell D, Berger U, Cabral JS, Jeltsch F, Meynard CN, Münkemüller T, Nehrbass N, Pagel J, Reineking B, Schröder B, Grimm V (2010) The virtual ecologist approach: simulating data and observers. Oikos 119(4):622–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex M. Lechner
    • 1
    • 2
  • William T. Langford
    • 2
  • Sarah A. Bekessy
    • 3
  • Simon D. Jones
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals InstituteUniversity of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.School of Mathematical and Geospatial SciencesRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.School of Global Studies, Social Science & PlanningRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations