Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 929–937 | Cite as

Teaching landscape ecology: the importance of field-oriented, inquiry-based approaches

  • Mauricio Almeida-GomesEmail author
  • Jayme Augusto Prevedello
  • Daniela Lopes Scarpa
  • Jean Paul Metzger



Landscape ecology has traditionally been taught through theoretical classes or computer labs. On the other hand, field labs have been generally less used as a way of teaching landscape ecology concepts.


We show that field labs with an inquiry-based approach, where students are involved in the investigation, are feasible for training students in landscape ecology. We evaluated how common field labs are in landscape ecology courses, and also their contribution for student learning.


We evaluated whether field labs are used in landscape ecology courses by scanning available syllabi. We also used outcomes from a course offered in Brazil to show how field labs can be integrated into landscape ecology courses.


Only 18.2 % of the 44 syllabi we found had field labs. The case study developed in Brazil showed that field labs allowed students to develop important skills, including the ability to design field studies, choose appropriate scales of analysis, detect ecological patterns, and judge multiple hypotheses.


Field labs are still uncommon in landscape ecology courses, but they can be a useful tool to teach landscape ecology concepts and to help students developing the necessary skills to do research. We offer recommendations regarding how to incorporate field labs in landscape ecology courses.


Field-oriented labs Inquiry-based learning Procedural knowledge Skills development 



We thank the Brazilian students that attended the two courses, and the State University of Rio de Janeiro, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and Nicholas J. Locke of the Reserva Ecológica de Guapiaçu (REGUA), for the support for the courses. Financial support was provided by PNPD-CAPES (scholarship to M. A. Gomes, Process No. 2923/2011 ), FAPESP (scholarship to J. A. Prevedello, Process No. 2013/03457-1) and CNPq (research fellowship to JP Metzger, Process No. 307934/2011-0). We also thank Amanda Northrop for reviewing the English on a previous version of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10980_2016_338_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 24 kb)


  1. Almeida-Gomes M, Rocha CFD (2014) Landscape connectivity may explain anuran species distribution in an Atlantic forest fragmented area. Landscape Ecol 29:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck CW, Blumer LS (2012) Inquiry-based ecology laboratory courses improve student confidence and scientific reasoning skills. Ecosphere 3:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coleman BD, Mares MA, Willig MR, Hsieh Y-H (1982) Randomness, area, and species richness. Ecology 63:1121–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Driver R, Asoko H, Leach J, Scott P, Mortimer E (1994) Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educ Res 23:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Flores-Palacios A, García-Franco JG (2006) The relationship between tree size and epiphyte species richness: testing four different hypotheses. J Biogeogr 33:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forman RTT (1995) Land Mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gergel SE, Turner MG (2002) Learning landscape ecology: a practical guide to concepts and techniques. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grandy R, Duschl RA (2007) Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: analysis of a conference. Sci Educ Neth 16:141–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leitão AB, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K (2006) Measuring landscapes: a planner’s handbook. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Leon-Beck M, Dodick J (2012) Exposing the challenges and coping strategies of field-ecology graduate students. Int J Sci Educ 34:2455–2481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of Island biogeography. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  13. Naveh Z, Lieberman AS (1984) Landscape ecology, theory and application. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. NRC (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Pearson S, Turner MG, Urban DL (1999) Effective exercises in teaching landscape ecology. In: Klopatek JM, Gardner RH (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer, New York, pp 335–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Prevedello JA, Vieira MV (2010) Plantation rows as dispersal routes: a test with didelphid marsupials in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Biol Conserv 143:131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sternberg RJ (1999) Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemp Educ Psychol 24:359–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the use and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Williams CB (1943) Area and the number of species. Nature 152:264–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Vertebrates, Department of EcologyFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratory of Landscape Ecology and Conservation, Department of EcologyUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Landscape Ecology LabState University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  4. 4.Laboratory of Inquiry-Based Biology Education, Department of EcologyUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations