Skip to main content
Log in

Spatial scaling of multiple landscape features in the conterminous United States

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Spatial heterogeneity is scale-dependent. Understanding the scaling rules of spatial features across wide ranges of scale is a major challenge in landscape ecology. The lack of scientific justification in choosing proper scale may lead to unexpected outcomes in landscape pattern analysis and result in biases in subsequent process analysis.

Objectives

The goal is to provide an extensive analysis on scaling relationships for a variety of landscape metrics as functions of grain size and extent. Specific research objectives are to: (1) identify scaling relationships of landscape metrics as functions of grain size, (2) define scale domains of these scaling relationships, and (3) explore how scaling relations of landscape metrics with respect to grain size would change with spatial extent.

Methods

Expanding the approach of Wu and Hobbs (Landsc Ecol 17:355–365, 2002) and Wu (Landsc Ecol 19:125–138, 2004) using a much bigger dataset and covering a wider range of scales, we examined the patterns of scalograms of 38 landscape metrics within 96 sampled landscapes ranging from 25 to 221 km2 in the conterminous United States. Scaling models were derived from the scalograms as a function of grain size, and the scale domains of these models were identified as the critical scales along the dimensions of grain size and spatial extent where the performance of the models fell below a given error limit.

Results

The responses of landscape metrics with respect to changing resolutions fall into three categories: predictable across the whole spectrum of grain size investigated (Type I), predictable in a limited range of grain size (Type II), and unpredictable (Type III). For Type II metrics, the critical aggregation resolutions were identified based on the predefined error limit, and scale-invariant power-law scaling relationships were found between critical resolutions and spatial extents. All the scaling exponents are positive, suggesting that critical aggregation resolutions can be relaxed as the spatial extent expands. Furthermore, the coefficients of scaling relations for Type I and II metrics vary with spatial extents, and robust scaling functions between the coefficients and the extent can be observed for some metrics.

Conclusions

This study addresses a fundamental scale issue in landscape ecology: how a particular spatial pattern would change with scale and how information could be adequately transferred from one scale to another. A variety of scaling relationships exist on the spatial patterns of landscape metrics, and they could provide guidance to researchers on how to select an appropriate scale for a study of interest. In addition, the findings support the empirical perception that coarser grain size might be used for a larger spatial extent.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Buyantuyev A, Wu J, Gries C (2010) Multiscale analysis of the urbanization pattern of the Phoenix metropolitan landscape of USA: time, space and thematic resolution. Landsc Urban Plan 94:206–217

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanaugh JE (1997) Unifying the derivations for the Akaike and corrected Akaike information criteria. Stat Probab Lett 33:201–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, Maxwell T (1994) Resolution and predictability: an approach to the scaling problem. Landsc Ecol 9:47–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng Y, Liu Y (2015) Fractal dimension as an indicator for quantifying the effects of changing spatial scales on landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 53:18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier A (2014) A new data aggregation technique to improve landscape metric downscaling. Landsc Ecol 29:1261–1276

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohn RC, Hao Y (2006) Landscape metric performance in analyzing two decades of deforestation in the Amazon Basin of Rondonia, Brazil. Remote Sens Environ 100:237–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild MF, Mark DM (1987) The fractal nature of geographic phenomena. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:265–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1966) Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 41:587–640

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Homer CH, Fry JA, Barnes CA (2012) The national land cover database. US Geol Surv Fact Sheet 3020:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphries NE, Queiroz N, Dyer JR, Pade NG, Musyl MK, Schaefer KM, Fuller DW, Brunnschweiler JM, Doyle TK, Houghton JD, Hays GC, Jones CS, Noble LR, Wearmouth VJ, Southall EJ, Sims DW (2010) Environmental context explains Lévy and Brownian movement patterns of marine predators. Nature 465:1066–1069

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keymer JE, Marquet PA, Velasco-Hernández JX, Levin SA (2000) Extinction thresholds and metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes. Am Nat 156:478–494

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiber M (1947) Body size and metabolic rate. Physiol Rev 27:511–541

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kotliar NB, Wiens JA (1990) Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Dirmeyer PA, Merwade V, DelSole T, Adams JM, Niyogi D (2013) Land use/cover change impacts in CMIP5 climate simulations: a new methodology and 21st century challenges. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118:6337–6353

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot B (1967) How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension. Science 156:636–638

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot B, Wheeler JA (1983) The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Am J Phys 51:286–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Marceau DJ (1999) The scale issue in the social and natural sciences. Can J Remote Sens 25:347–356

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman S, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at: the following web site: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.Html

  • McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-351 Portland US Dep Agric For Serv Pac Northwest Res Stn 122 P 351. https://doi.org/10.2737/pnw-gtr-351

  • Milne BT, Gupta VK, Restrepo C (2002) A scale invariant coupling of plants, water, energy, and terrain. Écoscience 9:191–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman MEJ (2005) Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemp Phys 46:323–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikora VI, Pearson CP, Shankar U (1999) Scaling properties in landscape patterns: New Zealand experience. Landsc Ecol 14:17–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Qi Y, Wu J (1996) Effects of changing spatial resolution on the results of landscape pattern analysis using spatial autocorrelation indices. Landsc Ecol 11:39–49

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutchey K, Godin J (2009) Determining an appropriate minimum mapping unit in vegetation mapping for ecosystem restoration: a case study from the Everglades, USA. Landsc Ecol 24:1351

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider D (2001) Spatial allometry: theory and application to experimental and natural aquatic ecosystems. In: Gardner RH, Kemp WM, Kennedy VS, Petersen JE (eds) Scaling relations in experimental ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 113–154

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence AJ (2009) Scaling in biology. Curr Biol CB 19:R57–R61

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Dale VH, Gardner RH (1989a) Predicting across scales: theory development and testing. Landsc Ecol 3:245–252

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L, Larson CR, Wylie BK, Van Driel N (2001) Completion of the 1990s National Land Cover Data set for the conterminous United States from Landsat Thematic Mapper data and ancillary data sources. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 67:650662

    Google Scholar 

  • West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1997) A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276:122–126

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley M (2010) Domains of scale in forest-landscape metrics: implications for species-habitat modeling. Acta Oecologica 36:259–267

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Milne BT (1989) Scaling of ‘landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle’s perspective. Landsc Ecol 3:87–96

    Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (1999) Hierarchy and scaling: extrapolating information along a scaling ladder. Can J Remote Sens 25:367–380

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landsc Ecol 17:355–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Jones KB, Li H, Loucks OL (eds) (2006) Scaling and uncertainty analysis in ecology: methods and applications. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Qi Y (2000) Dealing with scale in landscape analysis: an overview. Geogr Inf Sci 6:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Shen W, Sun W, Tueller PT (2002) Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landsc Ecol 17:761–782

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao S, Liu S (2014) Scale criticality in estimating ecosystem carbon dynamics. Glob Change Biol 20:2240–2251

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (#41771093 and 41571079 and #31621091).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuqing Zhao.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, C., Zhao, S. & Liu, S. Spatial scaling of multiple landscape features in the conterminous United States. Landscape Ecol 35, 223–247 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00937-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00937-1

Keywords

Navigation