Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How has the state-of-the-art for quantification of landscape pattern advanced in the twenty-first century?

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Landscape ecology was founded on the idea that there is a reciprocal relationship between spatial pattern and ecological processes. I provide a retrospective look at how the state-of-the-art of landscape pattern analysis has changed since 1998.

Objectives

My objective is to show how pattern analysis techniques have evolved and identify some of the key lessons learned.

Results

The state-of-the-art in 1998 was derived from information theory, fractal geometry, percolation theory, hierarchy theory and graph theory, relying heavily on the island-patch conceptual model using categorical maps, although point-data analysis methods were actively being explored. We have gradually winnowed down the list of fundamental components of spatial pattern, and have clarified the appropriate and inappropriate use of landscape metrics for research and application. We have learned to let the objectives choose the metric, guided by the scale and nature of the ecological process of interest. The use of alternatives to the binary patch model (such as gradient analysis) shows great promise to advance landscape ecological knowledge.

Conclusions

The patch paradigm is often of limited usefulness, and other ways to represent the pattern of landscape properties may reveal deeper insights. The field continues to advance as illustrated by papers in this special issue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Albanese G, Haukos DA (2017) A network model framework for prioritizing wetland conservation in the Great Plains. Landscape Ecol 32:115–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnot C, Fisher PF, Wadsworth R, Wellens J (2004) Landscape metrics with ecotones: pattern under uncertainty. Landscape Ecol 19:181–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin DJB, Weaver K, Schnekenburger F, Perera AH (2004) Sensitivity of landscape pattern indices to input data characteristics on real landscapes: implications for their use in natural disturbance emulation. Landscape Ecol 19:255–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormann F, Likens G (1979) Catastrophic disturbance and the steady state in northern hardwood forests: a new look at the role of disturbance in the development of forest ecosystems suggests important implications for land-use policies. Am Sci 67:660–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown GG, Reed P (2012) Social landscape metrics: measures for understanding place values from public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS). Landsc Res 37:73–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrough PA (1981) Fractal dimensions of landscapes and other environmental data. Nature 294:240–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrough PA (1995) Spatial aspects of ecological data. In: Jongman RHG, ter Braak CJF, van Tongeren OFR (eds) Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 213–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers JM (2008) Software for data analysis: programming with R. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton BW, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Gamble LR (2007) A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conserv Biol 21:788–799

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA (2016) Calculating the configurational entropy of a landscape mosaic. Landsc Ecol 31:481–489

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, Gutzweiler K, Evans JS, McGarigal K (2010) The gradient paradigm: a conceptual and analytical framework for landscape ecology. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 83–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vreese R, Lays R, Fontaine CM, Dendoncker N (2016) Social mapping of perceived ecosystem services supply–the role of social landscape metrics and social hotspots for integrated ecosystem services assessment, landscape planning and management. Ecol Indic 66:517–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans JS, Cushman SA (2009) Gradient modeling of conifer species using random forests. Landsc Ecol 24:673–683

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2017) Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 48:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortin MJ, Boots B, Csillag F, Remmel TK (2003) On the role of spatial stochastic models in understanding landscape indices in ecology. Oikos 102:203–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier A, Kedron P (2017) Landscape metrics: past progress and future directions. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-017-0026-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao P, Li Z (in review) Computation of the Boltzmann entropy of a landscape pattern: the state of the art. Landscape Ecol

  • Gardner RH (1999) RULE: a program for the generation of random maps and the analysis of spatial patterns. In: Klopatek JM, Gardner RH (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer, New York, pp 280–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner RH, Milne BJ, Turner MG, O’Neill RV (1987) Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 1:19–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner RH, Urban DL (2007) Neutral models for testing landscape hypotheses. Landscape Ecol 22:15–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosys 1:143–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ, Gardner RH (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77:94–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ, Parker GR (1992) Relationship between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecol 7:101–110

    Google Scholar 

  • He HS, DeZonia BE, Mladenoff DJ (2000) An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecol 15:591–601

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson AR, Wiens JA, Milne BT, Crist TO (1992) Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecol 7:63–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashian DM, Sosin JR, Huber PW, Tucker MM, Dombrowski J (2017) A neutral modeling approach for designing spatially heterogeneous jack pine plantations in northern Lower Michigan, USA. Landscape Ecol 32:1117–1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Kedron P, Zhao Y, Frazier A (in review) 3D volumetrics for spatial pattern analysis of landscape structure. Landscape Ecol

  • Keitt TH, Urban DL, Milne BT (1997) Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Ecol 1, article 4. www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art4

  • Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–890

    Google Scholar 

  • Knaapen JP, Scheffer M, Harms B (1992) Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plann 23:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Krummel J, Gardner R, Sugihara G, O’Neill R, Coleman P (1987) Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos 48:321–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupfer JA (2012) Landscape ecology and biogeography: rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape. Prog Phys Geogr 36:400–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Lausch A, Blaschke T, Haase D, Herzog F, Syrbe R-W, Tischendorf L, Walz U (2015) Understanding and quantifying landscape structure—a review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecol Model 295:31–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Fortin M-J (1989) Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80:107–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture. Ecology 73:1943–1967

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. Am Sci 54:421–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Reynolds JF (1993) A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landsc Ecol 8:155–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Reynolds JF (1994) A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75:2446–2455

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Reynolds JF (1995) On definition and quantification of heterogeneity. Oikos 73:280–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecol 19:389–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Loehle C (1983) The fractal dimension and ecology. Specul Sci Technol 6:131–142

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR

  • McGarigal K, McComb WC (1995) Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol Monogr 65:235–260

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Wan HY, Zeller KA, Timm BC, Cushman SA (2016) Multi-scale habitat selection modeling: a review and outlook. Landscape Ecol 31:1161–1175

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre NE, Wiens JA (2000) A novel use of lacunarity index to discern landscape function. Landscape Ecol 15:313–321

    Google Scholar 

  • McLane AJ, Semeniuk C, McDermid GJ, Marceau DJ (2011) The role of agent-based models in wildlife ecology and management. Ecol Model 222:1544–1556

    Google Scholar 

  • McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecol 89:2712–2724

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne BT (1988) Measuring the fractal geometry of landscapes. Appl Math Comput 27:67–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne BT (1992) Spatial aggregation and neutral models in fractal landscapes. Am Nat 139:32–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowosad J, Stepinski TF (in review) Information-theoretical approach to measuring landscape complexity. Landscape Ecol

  • O’Neill RV (1989) Perspectives in hierarchy and scale. In: Roughgarden J, May RM, Levin SA (eds) Perspectives in ecological theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 140–156

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, DeAngelis DL, Allen TFH, Waide JB (1986) A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Monographs in population biology 23. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

  • O’Neill RV, Krummel J, Gardner R, Sugihara G, Jackson B, DeAngelis DL, Milne BT, Turner MG, Zygmunt B, Christensen SW, Dale VH, Graham RL (1988) Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 1:153–162

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1992) A hierarchical neutral model for landscape analysis. Landscape Ecol 7:55–61

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Timmins SP, Jackson BL, Jones KB, Riitters KH, Wickham JD (1996) Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecol 11:169–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02447515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauli BP, McCann NP, Zollner PA, Cummings R, Gilbert JH, Gustafson EJ (2013) SEARCH: spatially explicit animal response to composition of habitat. PLoS ONE 8(5):e64656

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Peterman W, Winiarski K, da Silva Carvalho C, Moore C, Gilbert A, Spear S (in review). Understanding how landscape features affect gene flow: advances in resistance surface optimization for landscape genetic studies. Landscape Ecol

  • Plotnick RE, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (1993) Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecol 8:201–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Remmel TK, Fortin M-J (2013) Categorical class map patterns: characterization and comparison. Landscape Ecol 28:1587–1599

    Google Scholar 

  • Riitters K (in review) Revisiting the fundamental components of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Riitters KH, O’Neill 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 10:23–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Wickham JD, Jones KB (1996) A note on contagion indices for landscape analysis. Landscape Ecol 11:197–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Riitters K, Wickham J, O’Neill R, Jones KB, Smith ER, Coulston JW, Wade TG, Smith JH (2002) Fragmentation of continental United States forests. Ecosystems 5:815–822

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner M (1992) Measuring pattern diversity. Ecology 73:1860–1867

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumaker NH (1996) Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77:1210–1225

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon C, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelberg MC, Moellering H, Lam N (1982) Measuring the fractal dimensions of empirical cartographic curves. In: Proceedings of 5th international symposium on computer-assisted cartography, vol 5, pp 481–490

  • Shirk AJ, Landguth EL, Cushman SA (2018) A comparison of regression methods for model selection in individual-based landscape genetic analysis. Mol Ecol Resour 18:55–67

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688

    Google Scholar 

  • Trzcinski MK, Fahrig L, Merriam G (1999) Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecol Appl 9:586–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (1990) Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecol 4:21–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:319–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban DL, O’Neill RV, Shugart HH (1987) Landscape ecology. Bioscience 37:119–127

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA Forest Service (2016) Future of America’s forests and rangelands: update to the 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment. Gen. Tech. Report WO-GTR-94. Washington, DC

  • Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9:64–71

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • With K, King A (1997) The use and misuse of neutral landscape models in ecology. Oikos 79:219–229

    Google Scholar 

  • With KA, King AW (1999) Dispersal success on fractal landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landscape Ecol 14:73–82

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu JG, Shen WJ, Sun WZ, Tueller PT (2002) Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol 17:761–782

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurlini G, Riitters KH, Zaccarelli N, Petrosillo I (2007) Patterns of disturbance at multiple scales in real and simulated landscapes. Landscape Ecol 22:705–721

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Kurt Riitters, Marie-Josée Fortin, Nancy McIntyre and an anonymous reviewer for critical reviews of earlier drafts of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Applied Ecosystem Studies, Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 5985 Highway K, Rhinelander, WI, USA

    Eric J. Gustafson

Authors
  1. Eric J. Gustafson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric J. Gustafson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gustafson, E.J. How has the state-of-the-art for quantification of landscape pattern advanced in the twenty-first century?. Landscape Ecol 34, 2065–2072 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0709-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0709-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation