Landscape Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 985–998 | Cite as

Quantifying historic landscape heterogeneity from aerial photographs using object-based analysis

Research Article


Spatial landscape heterogeneity is routinely used to characterize ecological processes, particularly over time. Critical to the use of landscape heterogeneity as an ecological indicator, is a consistent and quantitative definition, especially in terms of a baseline description. As the oldest and most frequently used form of remotely sensed data, aerial photographs are a unique source of detailed, historic landscape information with the potential to provide this baseline data. Using aerial photographs, texture information, and terrain data of an unharvested watershed in 1937/1938, we quantify baseline heterogeneity. To do this, we explore the use of a relatively new spatial method which utilizes an object-based approach to quantify landscape pattern over multiple spatial scales. Based on quantitative metrics derived from our object-based analysis, the primary dimensions of landscape heterogeneity were first identified using factor analysis, and subsequently summarized with cluster analysis. Sixteen distinct elements of heterogeneity were identified which explained over 76% of the overall variance within the original factors. Several elements of heterogeneity extracted using this approach are common in landscape ecology, including patch compaction, shape, size, texture, and neighboring characteristics (context). However, new elements of spatial heterogeneity were also identified, representing tonal, textural, topographic, and positional variability over multiple spatial scales. We also explored differences in heterogeneity between landscape types of contrasting structure and ecology (riparian versus upland). Few quantitative differences were identified between landscapes, despite obvious ecological and biophysical differences. The results of this analysis provide an alternative description of baseline landscape heterogeneity, which recognizes elements not previously identified.


Landscape structure Pattern analysis Data reduction Air photos Baseline Watershed Coastal British Columbia forest 


  1. APS (2008) Alta photogrammetry suite version 7.1. Groupe Alta, Quebec City, QCGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcese P, Sinclair ARE (1997) The role of protected areas as ecological baselines. J Wildl Manag 61:587–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avery TA, Berlin GL (1992) Fundamentals of remote sensing and air photo interpretation. Upper Saddle River, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  4. Benz UC, Hofmann P, Willhauck G, Lingenfelder I, Heynen M (2004) Multi-resolution, object-oriented fuzzy analysis of remote sensing data for GIS-ready information. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 58:239–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaschke T (2003) Object-based contextual image classification built on Image Segmentation. In: Proceedings of IEEE workshop on advances in techniques for analysis of remotely sensed data, Washington, DC, Oct 2003Google Scholar
  6. Burt TP, Butcher DP (1985) Topographic controls of soil-moisture distributions. J Soil Sci 36:469–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curran PJ, Atkinson PM (1998) Geostatistics and remote sensing. Prog Phys Geog 22:61–78Google Scholar
  8. Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Definiens (2007) Definiens Developer 7 User Guide. Munchen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  10. DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP (2004) Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front Ecol Environ 2:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diaz-Varela ER, Marey-Perez MF, Rigueiro-Rodriguez A, Alvarez-Alvarez P (2009) Landscape metrics for characterization of forest landscapes in a sustainable management framework: potential application and prevention of misuse. Ann Forest Sci 66:301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorner B, Lertzman K, Fall J (2002) Landscape pattern in topographically complex landscapes: issues and techniques for analysis. Landscape Ecol 17:729–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ENVI (2007) ENVI version 4.4. ITT Visual Information Solutions, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  14. ESRI (2006) ArcDoc version 9.3. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Foody GM (2002) Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens Environ 80:185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franklin SE, Hall RJ, Moskal LM, Maudie AJ, Lavigne MB (2000) Incorporating texture into classification of forest species composition from airborne multispectral images. Int J Remote Sens 21:61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. GeoBC (1996) Terrain resource information management (TRIM) maps. Crown registry and geographic base map data. Province of British Columbia, Victoria, BCGoogle Scholar
  18. Gessler PE, Moore ID, McKenzie NJ, Ryan PJ (1995) Soil-landscape modeling and spatial prediction of soil attributes. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 9:421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris JA, Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Aronson J (2006) Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restor Ecol 14:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hay GJ, Blaschke T, Marceau DJ, Bouchard A (2003) A comparison of three image-object methods for the multiscale analysis of landscape structure. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 57:327–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huston MA (1999) Local processes and regional patterns: appropriate scales for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and animals. Oikos 86:393–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laliberte AS, Rango A, Havstad KM, Paris JF, Beck RF, McNeely R, Gonzalez AL (2004) Object-oriented image analysis for mapping shrub encroachment from 1937 to 2003 in southern New Mexico. Remote Sens Environ 93:198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landres PB, Morgan P, Swanson FJ (1999) Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecol Appl 9:1179–1188Google Scholar
  25. Li H, Reynolds JF (1995) On definition and quantification of heterogeneity. Oikos 73:280–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecol 19:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Fischer J (2006) General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 131:433–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manley BFJ (2005) Multivariate statistical methods: a primer. Chapman & Hall, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  29. McGarigal K, Tagil S, Cushman SA (2009) Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landscape Ecol 24:433–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meidinger D, Pojar J (1999) The ecology of the coastal western hemlock zone. Ministry of Forests Research Branch, Victoria, BCGoogle Scholar
  31. Montgomery DR (1999) Process domains and the river continuum. J Am Water Resour Asssoc 35:397–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morgan JL, Gergel SE (in preparation) Comparison of manual and automated approaches for classification of digitized aerial photographs. Can J Remote Sens (in preparation)Google Scholar
  33. Morgan JL, Gergel SE, Coops NC (2010) Aerial photography: a rapidly evolving tool for ecological management. Bioscience 60(1):47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Muller E (1997) Mapping riparian vegetation along rivers: old concepts and new methods. Aquat Bot 58:411–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nagendra H (2001) Using remote sensing to assess biodiversity. Int J Remote Sens 22:2377–2400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paine DP, Kiser JD (2003) Aerial photography and image interpretation, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  37. Pike RJ (2000) Geomorphometry—diversity in quantitative surface analysis. Prog Phys Geog 24:1–20Google Scholar
  38. Porter WP, Sabo JL, Tracy CR, Reichman OJ, Ramankutty N (2002) Physiology on a landscape scale: plant-animal interactions. Integr Comp Biol 42:431–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pringle RM, Syfert M, Webb JK, Shine R (2009) Quantifying historical changes in habitat availability for endangered species: use of pixel- and object-based remote sensing. J Appl Ecol 46:544–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. R.C.A.F. (1937–1938) Air film reports. Royal Canadian Air Force Photographic Section, Ottawa, ONGoogle Scholar
  41. Riitters KH, O’Neil 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 10:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. SAS (2003) SAS 9.1. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  43. Sklenicka P, Lhota T (2002) Landscape heterogeneity—a quantitative criterion for landscape reconstruction. Landscape Urban Plan 58:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. St-Louis V, Pidgeon AM, Radeloff VC, Hawbaker TJ, Clayton MK (2006) High-resolution image texture as a predictor of bird species richness. Remote Sens Environ 105:299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Swanson FJ, Kratz TK, Caine N, Woodmansee RG (1988) Landform effects on ecosystem patterns and processes. Bioscience 38:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swetnam TW, Allen CD, Betancourt JL (1999) Applied historical ecology: using the past to manage for the future. Ecol Appl 9:1189–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson ID, Maher SC, Rouillard DP, Fryxell JM, Baker JA (2007) Accuracy of forest inventory mapping: some implications for boreal forest management. Forest Ecol Manag 252:208–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Turner MG, Collins SL, Lugo AE, Magnuson JJ, Scott Rupp T, Swanson FJ (2003) Disturbance dynamics and ecological response: the contribution of long-term ecological research. Bioscience 53:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wulder MA, Hall RJ, Coops NC, Franklin SE (2004) High spatial resolution remotely sensed data for ecosystem characterization. Bioscience 54:511–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zinko U, Seibert J, Dynesius M, Nilsson C (2005) Plant species numbers predicted by a topography-based groundwater flow index. Ecosystems 8:430–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Forestry, Forest Sciences CenterUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations