Skip to main content

Surface metrics: scaling relationships and downscaling behavior

Landscape Ecology volume 31, pages 351–363 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Context

Considerable research has examined scale effects for patch-based metrics with the ultimate goal of predicting values at finer resolutions (i.e., downscaling), but results have been inconsistent. Surface metrics have been suggested as an alternative to patch-based metrics, although far less is known about their scaling relationships and downscaling potential. If successful, downscaling would enable integration of disparate datasets and comparison of landscapes using different resolution datasets.

Objectives

(1) Determine how surface metrics scale as resolution changes and how consistent those scaling relationships are across landscapes. (2) Test whether these scaling relationships can be accurately downscaled to predict metric values for finer resolutions.

Methods

Various scaling functions were fit to 16 surface metrics computed for multiple resolutions for a set of landscapes. Best-fitting functions were then extrapolated to test downscaling behavior (i.e., predict metric value for a finer resolution) for an independent set of validation landscapes. Relative error was assessed between the predicted and true values to determine downscaling robustness.

Results

Seven surface metrics (Sa, Sq, S10z, Sdq, Sds, Sdr, Srwi) fit consistently well (R2 > 0.99) with a 3rd order polynomial or power law. Of those, the scaling functions for Sa, Sq, and S10z were able to predict metric values at a finer resolution within 5 %. Three metrics, (Ssk, Sku, Sfd) were also notable in terms of fit and downscaling.

Conclusions

Many metrics exhibit consistent scaling relations across resolution, and several are able to accurately predict values at finer resolutions. However, prediction accuracy is likely related to the amount of information lost during aggregation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE T Automat Control 19(6):716–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:611–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argañaraz JP, Entraigas I (2014) Scaling functions evaluation for estimation of landscape metrics at higher resolutions. Ecol Inform 22:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson PM (2012) Downscaling in remote sensing. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 22:106–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar Massada A, Gabay O, Perevolotsky A, Carmel Y (2008) Quantifying the effect of grazing and shrub-clearing on small scale spatial pattern of vegetation. Landscape Ecol 23:327–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson BJ, MacKenzie MD (1995) Effects of sensor spatial resolution on landscape structure parameters. Landscape Ecol 10(2):113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bian L, Butler R (1999) Comparing effects of aggregation methods on statistical and spatial properties of simulated spatial data. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 65(1):73–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain DH, Riitters K, Orvis K (1997) A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Landscape Ecol 12(4):199–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castilla G, Larkin K, Linke J, Hay GJ (2009) The impact of thematic resolution on the patch-mosaic model of natural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 24:15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulston JW, Moisen GG, Wilson BT, Finco MV, Cohen WB, Brewer CK (2012) Modeling percent tree canopy cover: a pilot study. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 78(7):715–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulston JW, Jacobs DM, King CR, Elmore IC (2013) The influence of multi-season imagery on models of canopy cover: a case study. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 79(5):469–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human-modified landscapes. Oikos 112:473–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier AE (2014) A new data aggregation technique for improving landscape metric downscaling. Landscape Ecol 29:1261–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier AE (2015) Landscape heterogeneity and scale considerations for super-resolution mapping. Int J Remote Sens 36(9):2395–2408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier AE, Wang L (2011) Evaluation of soft classifications for characterizing spatial patterns of invasive species. Remote Sens Environ 115:1997–2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier AE, Wang L (2013) Modeling landscape structure response across a gradient of land cover intensity. Landscape Ecol 28(2):233–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Gigorro S, Saura S (2005) Forest fragmentation estimated from remotely sensed data: is comparison across scales possible? Forest Sci 51(1):51–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner RH, Lookingbill TR, Townsend PA, Ferrari J (2008) A new approach for rescaling land cover data. Landscape Ecol 23:513–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelinski DE, Wu J (1996) The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 11(3):129–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin S, Yang L, Danielson P, Homer C, Fry J, Xian G (2013) A comprehensive change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sens Environ 132:159–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karl JW, Maurer BA (2010) Multivariate correlations between imagery and field measurements across scales: comparing pixel aggregation and image segmentation. Landscape Ecol 25:591–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Du Y, Ling F, Wu S, Feng Q (2011) Using a sub-pixel mapping model to improve the accuracy of landscape pattern indices. Ecol Indic 11:1160–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning AD, Lindenmayer DB, Nix HA (2004) Continua and umwelt: novel perspectives on viewing landscapes. Oikos 104:621–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 112–119

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Tagil S, Cushman SA (2009) Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landscape Ecol 24:433–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre S, Barrett GW (1992) Habitat variegation, an alternative to fragmentation. Conserv Biol 6:146–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre S, Hobbs RJ (1999) A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conserv Biol 13:1282–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne BT (1991) Heterogeneity as a multiscale characteristic of landscapes. In: Kolasa J, Pickett TA (eds) Ecological heterogeneity. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 69–84

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moniem HEMA, Holland JD (2013) Habitat connectivity for pollinator beetles using surface metrics. Landscape Ecol 28:1251–1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Na Z, Li H (2013) Sensitivity and effectiveness of landscape metric scalograms in determining characteristics scale of a hierarchically structured landscape. Landscape Ecol 28(2):343–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neel MC, McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2004) Behavior of class-level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area. Landscape Ecol 19:435–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Timmins SP, Jackson BL, Jones KB, Riitters KH, Wickham JD (1996) Scale problems in reporting landscape patterns at the regional scale. Landscape Ecol 11(3):169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters KH (2005) Downscaling indicators of forest habitat structure from national assessments. Ecol Indic 5(4):273–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S (2002) Effects of minimum mapping unit on land cover data spatial configuration and composition. Int J Remote Sens 23(22):4853–4880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S (2004) Effects of remote sensor spatial resolution and data aggregation on selected fragmentation indices. Landscape Ecol 19:197–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Castro S (2007) Scaling functions for landscape pattern metrics derived from remotely sensed data: are their subpixel estimates really accurate? Int J Photogramm 62:201–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen W, Jenerette D, Wu J, Gardner RH (2004) Evaluating empirical scaling relations of pattern metrics with simulated landscapes. Ecography 27:459–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šímová P, Gdulová K (2012) Landscape indices behavior: a review of scale effects. Appl Geogr 34:385–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Milne BT (1989) Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 3:153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban DL (2005) Modeling ecological processes across scales. Ecology 86(8):1996–2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uuemaa E, Roosaare J, Mander U (2005) Scale dependence of landscape metrics and their indicatory value for nutrient and organic matter losses from catchments. Ecol Indic 5:350–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham JD, Riitters KH (1995) Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixel size. Int J Remote Sens 17(18):3585–3594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecol 19:125–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Jelinski DE, Luck M, Tueller PT (2000) Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: scale variance and pattern metrics. Geogr Inf Sci 6:6–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Shen W, Sun W, Tueller PT (2002) Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol 17:761–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xian G, Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J, Hossain N, Wickham J (2011) The change of impervious surface area between 2001 and 2006 in the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77(8):758–762

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation Geography and Spatial Sciences Program under award number 1303086.  The author would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments, which helped improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Center for Applications of Remote Sensing, Oklahoma State University, 337 Murray Hall, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA

    Amy E. Frazier

Authors
  1. Amy E. Frazier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy E. Frazier.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frazier, A.E. Surface metrics: scaling relationships and downscaling behavior. Landscape Ecol 31, 351–363 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0248-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0248-7

Keywords

  • Scaling
  • Grain size
  • Resolution
  • Gradient landscapes
  • Tree canopy cover
  • Impervious surface area