Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 29–36 | Cite as

Spatial simulation of landscape changes in Georgia: A comparison of 3 transition models

  • Monica Goigel Turner
Article

Abstract

Spatial simulation models were developed to predict temporal changes in land use patterns in a piedmont county in Georgia (USA). Five land use categories were included: urban, cropland, abandoned cropland, pasture, and forest. Land use data were obtained from historical aerial photography and digitized into a matrix based on a 1 ha grid cell format. Three different types of spatial simulation were compared: (1) random simulations based solely on transition probabilities; (2) spatial simulations in which the four nearest neighbors (adjacent cells only) influence transitions; and (3) spatial simulations in which the eight nearest neighbors (adjacent and diagonal cells) influence transitions. Models and data were compared using the mean number and size of patches, fractal dimension of patches, and amount of edge between land uses. The random model simulated a highly fragmented landscape having numerous, small patches with relatively complex shapes. The two versions of the spatial model simulated cropland well, but simulated patches of forest and abandoned cropland were fewer, larger, and more simple than those in the real landscape. Several possible modifications of model structure are proposed. The modeling approach presented here is a potentially general one for simulating human-influenced landscapes.

Keywords

land use fractal dimension spatial model simulation Georgia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alig, R.J. 1986. Econometric analysis of the factors influencing forest acreage trends in the southeast. For. Sci. 32: 119–134.Google Scholar
  2. Bowen, G.W. and Burgess, R.L. 1981. A quantitative analysis of forest island pattern in selected Ohio landscapes. ORNL/TM-7759. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  3. Brender, E.V. 1974. Impact of past land use on the lower Piedmont forest. J. For. 72: 34–36.Google Scholar
  4. Burgess, R.L. and Sharpe, D.M. 1981. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Burnham, B.O. 1973. Markov intertemporal land use simulation model. Southern J Ag Econ 5: 253–258.Google Scholar
  6. Burrough, P.A. 1986. Principles of geographical information systems for land resources assessment. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Costanza, R. and Sklar, F.H. 1985. Articulation, accuracy, and effectiveness of mathematical models: a review of freshwater applications. Ecol. Mod. 27: 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Debussche, D.M., Godron, M., Lepart, J. and Romane, F. 1977. An account of the use of a transition matrix. Agro-Ecosystems 3: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66: 1762–1768.Google Scholar
  10. Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1981. Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. BioScience 31: 733–740.Google Scholar
  11. Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Freemark, K.E. and Merriam, H.G. 1986. Importance of area and habitat heterogeneity to bird assemblages in temperate forest fragments. Biol. Conserv. 36: 115–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardner, R.H., Milne, B.T., Turner, M.G. and O'Neill, R.V. 1987. Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 1: 19–28.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, F.G., Strebel, D.E., Goetz, S.J., Woods, K.D. and Botkin, D.B. Landscape pattern and successional dynamics in the boreal forest. Proc. Intl. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symp. Ann Arbor, Michigan. In press.Google Scholar
  15. Healy, R.G. 1985. Competition for land in the American South. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  16. Henderson, M.T., Merriam, G. and Wegner, J. 1985. Patchy environments and species survival: chipmunks in an agricultural mosaic. Biol. Conserv. 31: 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hett, J. 1971. Land use changes in east Tennessee and a simulation model which describes these changes for 3 counties. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, ORNL-IBP-71-8.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, W.C. 1977. A mathematical model of forest succession and land use for the North Caroline Piedmont. Bull Torrey Bot. Soc. 104: 334–346.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, W.C. and Sharpe, D.M. 1976. An analysis of forest dynamics in the north Georgia piedmont. For. Sci. 22: 307–322.Google Scholar
  20. Kesner, B.T. 1984. The Geography of Nitrogen in an Agricultural Watershed: A Technique for the Spatial Accounting of Nutrient Dynamics. Masters Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.Google Scholar
  21. Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G. and O'Neill, R.V. 1987. Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos 48: 321–324.Google Scholar
  22. Lippe, E., de Smidt, J.T. and Glenn-Lewin, D.C. 1985. Markov models and succession: a test from a heathland in the Netherlands. J. Ecol. 73: 775–791.Google Scholar
  23. Mandelbrot, B.B. 1977. Fractals, form, chance, and dimension. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  24. Mandelbrot, B.B. 1983. The fractal geometry of nature. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York.Google Scholar
  25. Milne, B.T. Measuring the fractal geometry of landscapes. Appl. Math. Comp. In press.Google Scholar
  26. Nelson, T.C. 1957. The original forests of the Georgia piedmont. Ecology 38: 390–396.Google Scholar
  27. Peterjohn, W.T. and Correll, D.L. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65: 1466–1475.Google Scholar
  28. Risser, P.G. 1987. Landscape Ecology: State-of-the-art.In Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. pp. 3–14. Edited by M.G. Turner, Springer Verlag, New York. In press.Google Scholar
  29. SAS Institute. 1982. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  30. Sklar, F.H. and Costanza, R. 1986. A spatial simulation of ecosystem succession in a Louisiana coastal landscape.In Proceedings of the 1986 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, The Society for Computer Simulation. pp. 467–472. Edited by R. Crosbie and P. Luker.Google Scholar
  31. Sklar, F.H., Costanza, R. and Day, J.W. Jr. 1985. Dynamic spatial simulation modeling of coastal wetland habitat succession. Ecol. Mod. 29: 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tansey, J.B. 1983. Forest Statistics for Georgia, 1982. USDA, Forest Service, Research Bull. SE-69.Google Scholar
  33. Turner, M.G. 1987. Land use changes and net primary production in the Georgia, USA, landscape: 1935–82. Environ. Manage. 11: 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turner, M.G. (ed.) 1987. Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. Springer Verlag, New York. In press (a).Google Scholar
  35. Turner, M.G. A spatial simulation model of land use changes in a piedmont county in Georgia. Appl. Math. Comp. In press (b).Google Scholar
  36. Urban, D.L., O'Neill, R.V. and Shugart, H.H. 1987. Landscape ecology, a hierarchical perspective. BioScience 37: 119–127.Google Scholar
  37. USDA 1982. Census of Agriculture, Georgia. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  38. Usher, M.B. 1981. Modelling ecological succession, with particular reference to Markovian models. Vegetatio 46: 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Hulst, R. 1979. On the dynamics of vegetation: Markov chains as models of succession. Vegetatio 40: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. White, F.C., Hairston, J.R., Musser, W.N., Perkins, H.F. and Reed, J.F. 1981. Relationship between increased crop acreage and nonpoint-source pollution: A Georgia case study. J. Soil Water Conserv. 36: 172–177.Google Scholar
  41. Wiens, J.A., Crawford, C.S. and Gosz, J.R. 1985. Boundary dynamics: a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos 45: 421–427.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monica Goigel Turner
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of EcologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations