Categorical, class-focused map patterns: characterization and comparison

Landscape Ecology volume 28, pages1587–1599(2013)Cite this article

Abstract

We present a rigorous and simple approach for the comparison of binary landscapes by class-focused metric values that complements the ease of computing these metrics for landscape ecology research. First, we assess whether a class-focused pattern metric value could have emerged due to random chance. Second, we compare two landscapes and assess whether class-focused pattern metrics computed for each landscape are significantly different or not. Our frameworks are based on conditional autoregressive simulations to derive empirical distributions for each metric where composition and configuration parameters are controlled. Our method permits the computation of probabilities that an observed metric value is either greater than or less than a given level of expectation. We also provide means for situating any landscape on a selected pattern metric-surface defined by parameters of composition and configuration. These surfaces illustrate which parameter would be most easily adjusted to effect a desired change in a selected class-focused pattern metric’s value. Implementation is fully within the R statistical computing environment.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    The code is available from the first author and will be converted into an R library for distribution on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN).

References

  1. Aben J, Adriaensen F, Thijs KW, Pellikka P, Siljander M, Lens L, Matthysen E (2012) Effects of matrix composition and configuration on forest bird movements in fragmented Afromontane biodiversity hotspot. Anim Conserv 15:658–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker WL, Cai YM (1992) Ther.le-programs for multiscale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information-system. Landscape Ecol 7(4):291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baldwin DJB, Weaver K, Schnekenburger F, Perera AH (2004) Sensitivity of landscape pattern indices to input data characteristics on real landscapes: implications for their use in natural disturbance emulation. Landscape Ecol 19(3):255–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecol 18(1):17–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boots B, Csillag F (2006) Categorical maps, comparisons, and confidence. J Geogr Syst 8:109–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cressie NAC (1993) Statistics for spatial data, revised edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Csillag F, Boots B (2004) Toward comparing maps as spatial processes. In: Fisher P (ed) Developments in spatial data handling. Springer, Heidelberg, p 641

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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):203–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fortin M-J, James PMA, MacKenzie A, Melles SJ, Rayfield B (2012a) Spatial statistics, spatial regression, and graph theory in ecology. Spatial Stat 1:100–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fortin M-J, Jacquez GM, Shipley B (2012b) Computer-intense methods. In: El-Shaarawi A, Piegorsch WW (eds) Encyclopedia of environmetrics, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 399–402

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gardner RH, Urban DL (2007) Neutral models for testing landscape hypotheses. Landscape Ecol 22:15–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gaujour E, Amiaud B, Mignolet C, Plantureux S (2012) Factors and processes affecting plant biodiversity in permanent grasslands. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 32(1):133–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Haines-Young R, Chopping M (1996) Quantifying landscape structure: a review of landscape indices and their application to forested landscapes. Prog Phys Geogr 20(4):418–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hargrove WW, Hoffman FM, Schwartz PM (2002) A fractal landscape realize for generating synthetic maps. Conserv Ecol 6(1). Article Number: 2

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hessburg PF, Smith BG, Salter RB (1999) Detecting change in forest spatial patterns from reference conditions. Ecol Appl 9(4):1232–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. James PMA, Fortin M-J, Fall A, Kneeshaw D, Messier C (2007) The effects of spatial legacies following shifting management practices and fire on boreal forest age structure. Ecosystems 10:1261–1277

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jones KB, Neale AC, Nash MS, Van Remortel RD, Wickham JD, Riitters KH, O’Neill RV (2001) Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States mid-Atlantic region. Landscape Ecol 16(4):301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Long JA, Nelson TA, Wulder MA (2010) Characterizing forest fragmentation: distinguishing change in composition from configuration. Appl Geogr 30(3):426–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Manly BFJ (2006) Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology, 3rd edn. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-351, p 122

  22. Melles SJ, Fortin M-J, Kindsay K, Badzinski D (2011) Expanding northward: influence of climate change, forest connectivity, and population processes on a threatened species’ range shift. Glob Change Biol 17:17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Neel MC, McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2004) Behavior of class-level metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area. Landscape Ecol 19:435–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Plante M, Lowell L, Potvin F, Boots B, Fortin M-J (2004) Studying deer habitat on Anticosti Island, Québec: relating animal occurrences and forest map information. Ecol Model 174:387–399

    Google Scholar 

  25. Proulx R, Fahrig L (2010) Detecting human-driven deviations from trajectories in landscape composition and configuration. Landscape Ecol 25:1479–1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ramachandra TV, Kumar U (2011) Characterisation of landscape with forest fragmentation dynamics. J Geogr Inf Syst 3:234–246

    Google Scholar 

  27. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/

  28. Remmel TK, Csillag F (2003) When are two landscape pattern indices significantly different? J Geogr Syst 5(4):331–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Wickham JD, Yankee DH, Timmins SP, Jones KB, Jackson BL (1995) A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecol 10(1):23–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schroeder D, Perera AH (2002) A comparison of large-scale spatial vegetation patterns following clearcuts and fires in Ontario’s boreal forests. For Ecol Manage 159:217–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Seto KC, Fragkias M (2005) Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urban land-use change in four cities of China with time series landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol 20:871–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Simova P, Gdulova K (2012) Landscape indices behavior: a review of scale effects. Appl Geogr 34:385–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Uuemaa E, Antrop M, Roosaare J, Mander Ü (2009) Landscape metrics and indices: an overview of the use in landscape research. Living Rev Landsc Res 3:1–28. Online Article: http://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2009-1. Accessed 7 Feb 2013

    Google Scholar 

  35. VanDerWal J, Falconi L, Januchowski S, Shoo L, Storlie C (2011) SDMTools: species distribution modelling tools: tools for processing data associated with species distribution modelling exercises. 1.1-5. The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). GPL 2.0 (http://cran.r-project.org/)

  36. Wang X, Cumming SG (2011) Measuring landscape configuration with normalized metrics. Landscape Ecol 26(5):723–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Whittle P (1954) On stationary processes in the plane. Biometrika 41:434–449

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wu JG, Shen WJ, Sun WZ, Tueller PT (2002) Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol 17(8):761–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by NSERC Discovery Grant to T. Remmel and M.-J. Fortin. We thank Dr. Sándor Kabos and Dr. Ferko Csillag for programming and theoretical guidance. We thank Dr. Stephanie Melles for the use of her forest data. Finally, we thank the anonymous reviewers and editor for their valuable insights and comments that helped us to improve the impact of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada

    Tarmo K. Remmel

  2. Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Harbord Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3G5, Canada

    Marie-Josée Fortin

Authors
  1. Tarmo K. Remmel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie-Josée Fortin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tarmo K. Remmel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Remmel, T.K., Fortin, M. Categorical, class-focused map patterns: characterization and comparison. Landscape Ecol 28, 1587–1599 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9905-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Expectation
  • Comparison
  • Random chance
  • Fragmentation
  • Spatial autocorrelation
  • Binary maps