Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 943–956 | Cite as

Modeling habitat dynamics accounting for possible misclassification

  • Sophie Veran
  • Kevin J. Kleiner
  • Remi Choquet
  • Jaime A. Collazo
  • James D. Nichols
Research Article


Land cover data are widely used in ecology as land cover change is a major component of changes affecting ecological systems. Landscape change estimates are characterized by classification errors. Researchers have used error matrices to adjust estimates of areal extent, but estimation of land cover change is more difficult and more challenging, with error in classification being confused with change. We modeled land cover dynamics for a discrete set of habitat states. The approach accounts for state uncertainty to produce unbiased estimates of habitat transition probabilities using ground information to inform error rates. We consider the case when true and observed habitat states are available for the same geographic unit (pixel) and when true and observed states are obtained at one level of resolution, but transition probabilities estimated at a different level of resolution (aggregations of pixels). Simulation results showed a strong bias when estimating transition probabilities if misclassification was not accounted for. Scaling-up does not necessarily decrease the bias and can even increase it. Analyses of land cover data in the Southeast region of the USA showed that land change patterns appeared distorted if misclassification was not accounted for: rate of habitat turnover was artificially increased and habitat composition appeared more homogeneous. Not properly accounting for land cover misclassification can produce misleading inferences about habitat state and dynamics and also misleading predictions about species distributions based on habitat. Our models that explicitly account for state uncertainty should be useful in obtaining more accurate inferences about change from data that include errors.


Habitat dynamics Land cover Habitat misclassification Accuracy Hidden Markov chain Multi-event model 

Supplementary material

10980_2012_9746_MOESM1_ESM.docx (150 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 151 kb)
10980_2012_9746_MOESM2_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 28 kb)


  1. Benítez-malvido J, Martínez-ramos M (2003) Impact of forest fragmentation on understory plant species richness in Amazonia. Conserv Biol 17:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bled F, Royle JA, Cam E (2011) Hierarchical modeling of an invasive spread: case of the Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto in the USA. Ecol Appl 21:290–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breininger DR, Nichols JD, Duncan BW, Stolen ED, Carter GM, Hunt KH, Drese JH (2010) Multistate modeling of habitat dynamics: factors affecting Florida scrub transition probabilities. Ecology 91:3354–3364Google Scholar
  4. Brownie C, Hines JE, Nichols JD, Pollock KH, Hestbeck JB (1993) Capture–recapture studies for multiple strata including non-Markovian transition probabilities. Biometrics 49:1173–1187Google Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Choquet R, Nogue E (2010) E-SURGE 1.7 user’s manual. CEFE, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  7. Choquet R, Rouan L, Pradel R (2009) Program E-SURGE: a software application for fitting multievent models. In: Thomson DL, Cooch EG, Conroy MJ (eds) Modeling demographic processes in marked populations. Springer, Boston, pp 845–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowley MJR, Wilson RJ, Leon-cortes JL, Gutierrez D, Bulman CR, Thomas CD (2000) The models for predicting statistical in moths and day-flying of butterflies spatial distribution a fragmented landscape. J Appl Ecol 37:60–72Google Scholar
  9. Czaplewski RL (1992) Misclassification bias in areal estimates. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 58:189–192Google Scholar
  10. Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araújo MB, Bivand R, Bolliger J, Carl G, Davies RG, Hirzel A, Jetz W, Kissling WD, Kühn I, Ohlemüller R, Peres-Neto PR, Reineking B, Schröder B, Schurr FM, Wilson R (2007) Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30:609–628Google Scholar
  11. Feddema JJ, Oleson KW, Bonan GB, Hearns LO, Buja L, Washington WM, Meehl G (2005) The importance of land-cover change in simulating future climates. Science 310:1674–1678Google Scholar
  12. Ferraz G, Russell GJ, Stouffer PC, Bierregaard RO, Pimm S, Lovejoy TE (2003) Rates of species loss from Amazonian forest fragments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:14069–14073Google Scholar
  13. Foody GM (2002) Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens Environ 80:185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallego FJ (2004) Remote sensing and land cover area estimation. Int J Remote Sens 25:3019–3047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hess G (1994) Pattern and error in landscape ecology: a commentary. Landscape Ecol 9:3–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hestbeck JB, Nichols JD, Malecki RA (1991) Estimates of movement and site fidelity using mark-resight data of wintering Canada geese. Ecology 72:523–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirzel AH, Posse B, Oggier P-A, Crettenand Y, Glenz C, Arlettaz R (2004) Ecological requirements of reintroduced species and the implications for release policy: the case of the bearded vulture. J Appl Ecol 41:1103–1116Google Scholar
  18. Jenerette GD, Wu J (2001) Analysis and simulation of land-use change in the central Arizona—Phoenix region, USA. Landscape Ecol 16:611–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kendall WL, Hines JE, Nichols JD (2003) Adjusting multistate capture–recapture models for misclassification bias: manatee breeding proportions. Ecology 84:1058–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Langford WT, Gergel SE, Dietterich TG, Cohen W (2006) Map misclassification can cause large errors in landscape pattern indices: examples from habitat fragmentation. Ecosystems 9:474–488Google Scholar
  21. Lavorel S, Thuiller W, Arau MB (2004) Do we need land-cover data to model species distributions in Europe? J Biogeogr 31:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lebreton JD, Nichols JD, Barker R, Pradel R, Spendelow JA (2009) Modeling individual animal histories with multistate capture–recapture models. Adv Ecol Res 41:87–173Google Scholar
  23. Lichstein JW, Simons TR, Shriner SA, Franzreb KE (2002) Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology. Ecol Monogr 72:445–463Google Scholar
  24. Luoto M, Kuussaari M, Toivonen T (2002) Modeling butterfly distribution based on remote sensing data. J Biogeogr 29:1027–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mladenoff DJ, Sickley TA, Haight RG, Wydeven AP (1995) Landscape analysis of and prediction wolf favorable in the Northern Gray Habitat Great Lakes region. Conserv Biol 9:279–294Google Scholar
  26. Pastor J, Sharp A, Wolter P (2005) An application of Markov models to the dynamics of Minnesota’s forests. Can J For Res 3019:3011–3019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pontius GR, Li X (2010) Land transition estimates from erroneous maps. J Land Use Sci 5:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pontius GR, Lippitt CD (2006a) Can error explain map differences over time? Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 33:159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pontius GR, Millones M (2011) Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment. Int J Remote Sens 32:4407–4429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pontius GR, Lippitt CD (2006b) Can error explain map differences over time? Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 33:159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Powell R (2004) Sources of error in accuracy assessment of thematic land-cover maps in the Brazilian Amazon. Remote Sens Environ 90:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pradel R (2005) Multievent: an extension of multistate capture–recapture models to uncertain states. Biometrics 61:442–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rouan L, Choquet R, Pradel R (2009) A general framework for modeling memory in capture–recapture data. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 14:338–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Royle JA, Dorazio RM (2008) Hierarchical modeling and inference in ecology: the analysis of data from populations, metapopulations, and communities. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  35. Shao G, Liu D, Zhao G (2001) Relationships of image classification accuracy and variation of landscape statistics. Can J Remote Sens 27:33–43Google Scholar
  36. Stehman SV (2009) Model-assisted estimation as a unifying framework for estimating the area of land cover and land-cover change from remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ 113:2455–2462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vitousek PM (1994) Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology 75:1861–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weaver K, Perera AH (2004) Modelling land cover transitions: a solution to the problem of spatial dependence in data. Landscape Ecol 19:273–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wickham JD, Neill RVO, Riitters KH, Wade TG, Jones KB (1997) Sensitivity of selected landscape pattern metrics to land-cover misclassification and differences in land cover composition. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 63:397–402Google Scholar
  40. Yackulic CB, Reid J, Davis R, Hines JE, Nic hols JD, Forsman E (2012) Neighborhood and habitat effects on vital rates: expansion of the barred owl in the Oregon Coast Ranges. Ecology (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA)  2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sophie Veran
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kevin J. Kleiner
    • 3
  • Remi Choquet
    • 4
  • Jaime A. Collazo
    • 2
  • James D. Nichols
    • 1
  1. 1.USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterLaurelUSA
  2. 2.Department of Zoology and U.S. Geological Survey, North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.School of Forestry and Wildlife SciencesAuburnUSA
  4. 4.Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, CNRSMontpellier Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations