Advertisement

Spatial scaling of multiple landscape features in the conterminous United States

  • Chunxue Xu
  • Shuqing ZhaoEmail author
  • Shuguang Liu
Research Article
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

Context

Spatial heterogeneity is scale-dependent. Understanding the scaling rules of spatial features across wide ranges of scale is a major challenge in landscape ecology. The lack of scientific justification in choosing proper scale may lead to unexpected outcomes in landscape pattern analysis and result in biases in subsequent process analysis.

Objectives

The goal is to provide an extensive analysis on scaling relationships for a variety of landscape metrics as functions of grain size and extent. Specific research objectives are to: (1) identify scaling relationships of landscape metrics as functions of grain size, (2) define scale domains of these scaling relationships, and (3) explore how scaling relations of landscape metrics with respect to grain size would change with spatial extent.

Methods

Expanding the approach of Wu and Hobbs (Landsc Ecol 17:355–365, 2002) and Wu (Landsc Ecol 19:125–138, 2004) using a much bigger dataset and covering a wider range of scales, we examined the patterns of scalograms of 38 landscape metrics within 96 sampled landscapes ranging from 25 to 221 km2 in the conterminous United States. Scaling models were derived from the scalograms as a function of grain size, and the scale domains of these models were identified as the critical scales along the dimensions of grain size and spatial extent where the performance of the models fell below a given error limit.

Results

The responses of landscape metrics with respect to changing resolutions fall into three categories: predictable across the whole spectrum of grain size investigated (Type I), predictable in a limited range of grain size (Type II), and unpredictable (Type III). For Type II metrics, the critical aggregation resolutions were identified based on the predefined error limit, and scale-invariant power-law scaling relationships were found between critical resolutions and spatial extents. All the scaling exponents are positive, suggesting that critical aggregation resolutions can be relaxed as the spatial extent expands. Furthermore, the coefficients of scaling relations for Type I and II metrics vary with spatial extents, and robust scaling functions between the coefficients and the extent can be observed for some metrics.

Conclusions

This study addresses a fundamental scale issue in landscape ecology: how a particular spatial pattern would change with scale and how information could be adequately transferred from one scale to another. A variety of scaling relationships exist on the spatial patterns of landscape metrics, and they could provide guidance to researchers on how to select an appropriate scale for a study of interest. In addition, the findings support the empirical perception that coarser grain size might be used for a larger spatial extent.

Keywords

Spatial heterogeneity Landscape metrics Scale effect Scale domain Spatial resolution Geospatial extent 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (#41771093 and 41571079 and #31621091).

References

  1. Alhamad MN, Alrababah MA, Feagin RA, Gharaibeh A (2011) Mediterranean drylands: the effect of grain size and domain of scale on landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 11:611–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argañaraz JP, Entraigas I (2014) Scaling functions evaluation for estimation of landscape metrics at higher resolutions. Ecol Inform 22:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 94:206–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cain DH, Riitters K, Orvis K (1997) A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Landsc Ecol 12:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavanaugh JE (1997) Unifying the derivations for the Akaike and corrected Akaike information criteria. Stat Probab Lett 33:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costanza R, Maxwell T (1994) Resolution and predictability: an approach to the scaling problem. Landsc Ecol 9:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feng Y, Liu Y (2015) Fractal dimension as an indicator for quantifying the effects of changing spatial scales on landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 53:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frazier A (2014) A new data aggregation technique to improve landscape metric downscaling. Landsc Ecol 29:1261–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frohn RC, Hao Y (2006) Landscape metric performance in analyzing two decades of deforestation in the Amazon Basin of Rondonia, Brazil. Remote Sens Environ 100:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodchild MF, Mark DM (1987) The fractal nature of geographic phenomena. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gould SJ (1966) Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 41:587–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Homer CH, Fry JA, Barnes CA (2012) The national land cover database. US Geol Surv Fact Sheet 3020:1–4Google Scholar
  13. Humphries NE, Queiroz N, Dyer JR, Pade NG, Musyl MK, Schaefer KM, Fuller DW, Brunnschweiler JM, Doyle TK, Houghton JD, Hays GC, Jones CS, Noble LR, Wearmouth VJ, Southall EJ, Sims DW (2010) Environmental context explains Lévy and Brownian movement patterns of marine predators. Nature 465:1066–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keymer JE, Marquet PA, Velasco-Hernández JX, Levin SA (2000) Extinction thresholds and metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes. Am Nat 156:478–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kleiber M (1947) Body size and metabolic rate. Physiol Rev 27:511–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kotliar NB, Wiens JA (1990) Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumar S, Dirmeyer PA, Merwade V, DelSole T, Adams JM, Niyogi D (2013) Land use/cover change impacts in CMIP5 climate simulations: a new methodology and 21st century challenges. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118:6337–6353Google Scholar
  18. Mandelbrot B (1967) How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension. Science 156:636–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mandelbrot B, Wheeler JA (1983) The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Am J Phys 51:286–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marceau DJ (1999) The scale issue in the social and natural sciences. Can J Remote Sens 25:347–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGarigal K, Cushman S, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at: the following web site: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.Html
  22. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-351 Portland US Dep Agric For Serv Pac Northwest Res Stn 122 P 351.  https://doi.org/10.2737/pnw-gtr-351
  23. Milne BT, Gupta VK, Restrepo C (2002) A scale invariant coupling of plants, water, energy, and terrain. Écoscience 9:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newman MEJ (2005) Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemp Phys 46:323–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nikora VI, Pearson CP, Shankar U (1999) Scaling properties in landscape patterns: New Zealand experience. Landsc Ecol 14:17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Qi Y, Wu J (1996) Effects of changing spatial resolution on the results of landscape pattern analysis using spatial autocorrelation indices. Landsc Ecol 11:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Riitters KH (2005) Downscaling indicators of forest habitat structure from national assessments. Ecol Indic 5:273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rutchey K, Godin J (2009) Determining an appropriate minimum mapping unit in vegetation mapping for ecosystem restoration: a case study from the Everglades, USA. Landsc Ecol 24:1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saura S (2002) Effects of minimum mapping unit on land cover data spatial configuration and composition. Int J Remote Sens 23:4853–4880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneider D (2001) Spatial allometry: theory and application to experimental and natural aquatic ecosystems. In: Gardner RH, Kemp WM, Kennedy VS, Petersen JE (eds) Scaling relations in experimental ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 113–154Google Scholar
  31. Shen W, Darrel Jenerette G, Wu J, Gardner RH (2004) Evaluating empirical scaling relations of pattern metrics with simulated landscapes. Ecography 27:459–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spence AJ (2009) Scaling in biology. Curr Biol CB 19:R57–R61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Turner MG, Dale VH, Gardner RH (1989a) Predicting across scales: theory development and testing. Landsc Ecol 3:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turner MG, O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Milne BT (1989b) Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 3:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Uuemaa E, Roosaare J, Mander Ü (2005) Scale dependence of landscape metrics and their indicatory value for nutrient and organic matter losses from catchments. Ecol Indic 5:350–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 67:650662Google Scholar
  37. West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1997) A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wheatley M (2010) Domains of scale in forest-landscape metrics: implications for species-habitat modeling. Acta Oecologica 36:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wiens JA, Milne BT (1989) Scaling of ‘landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle’s perspective. Landsc Ecol 3:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wu J (1999) Hierarchy and scaling: extrapolating information along a scaling ladder. Can J Remote Sens 25:367–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landsc Ecol 19:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landsc Ecol 17:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wu J, Jones KB, Li H, Loucks OL (eds) (2006) Scaling and uncertainty analysis in ecology: methods and applications. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  46. Wu J, Qi Y (2000) Dealing with scale in landscape analysis: an overview. Geogr Inf Sci 6:1–5Google Scholar
  47. Wu J, Shen W, Sun W, Tueller PT (2002) Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landsc Ecol 17:761–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhao S, Liu S (2014) Scale criticality in estimating ecosystem carbon dynamics. Glob Change Biol 20:2240–2251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of EducationPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.National Engineering Laboratory for Applied Technology of Forestry & Ecology in South China, and College of Biological Science and TechnologyCentral South University of Forestry and TechnologyChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations