Landscape Ecology

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 167–186 | Cite as

The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation

  • Christina D. Hargis
  • John A. Bissonette
  • John L. David
Article

Abstract

A meaningful interpretation of landscape metrics is possible only when the limitations of each measure are fully understood, the range of attainable values is known, and the user is aware of potential shifts in the range of values due to characteristics of landscape patches. To examine the behavior of landscape metrics, we generated artificial landscapes that mimicked fragmentation processes while controlling the size and shape of patches in the landscape and the mode of disturbance growth. We developed nine series of increasingly fragmented landscapes and used these to investigate the behavior of edge density, contagion, mean nearest neighbor distance, mean proximity index, perimeter-area fractal dimension, and mass fractal dimension. We found that most of the measures were highly correlated, especially contagion and edge density, which had a near-perfect inverse correspondence. Many of the measures were linearly-associated with increasing disturbance until the proportion of disturbance on the landscape was approximately 0.40, with non-linear associations at higher proportions. None of the measures was able to differentiate between landscape patterns characterized by dispersed versus aggregated patches. The highest attainable value of each measure was altered by either patch size or shape, and in some cases, by both attributes. We summarize our findings by discussing the utility of each metric.

landscape ecology landscape measures fragmentation mean proximity index perimeter-area fractal dimension mass fractal dimension 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrén, H. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355–366.Google Scholar
  2. Burrough, P.A. 1981. Fractal dimensions of landscapes and other environmental data. Nature 294: 240–242.Google Scholar
  3. Burrough, P.A. 1986. Principles of geographic information systems for land resources assessment. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Department of Agriculture. 1982. National Forest System land and resource management planning. 36 CFR Part 219. Fed. Reg. 47: 43051.Google Scholar
  5. Dunn, C.P., D.M. Sharpe, G.R. Guntenspergen, F. Stearns and Z. Yang. 1991. Methods for analyzing temporal changes in landscape pattern. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. pp. 173–198. Edited by M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Gardner, R.H. and R.V. O'Neill. 1991. Pattern, process, and predictability: the use of neutral models for landscape analysis. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. pp. 289–307. Edited by M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Grossman, T. and A. Aharony. 1987. Accessible external perimeters of percolation clusters. J. Phys. A: Math Gen. 20: L1193-L1201.Google Scholar
  9. Gustafson, E.J. and G.R. Parker. 1992. Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecol. 7: 101–110.Google Scholar
  10. Kleinbaum, D.G., L.L. Kupper and K.E. Muller. 1988. Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. Second edition. PWS-Kent, Boston, Mass.Google Scholar
  11. Krummel, J.R., R.H. Gardner, G. Sugihara, R.V. O'Neill and P.R. Coleman. 1987. Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos 48: 321–324.Google Scholar
  12. Li, H. and J.F. Reynolds. 1993. A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 8: 155–162.Google Scholar
  13. Li, H., J.F. Franklin, F.J. Swanson and T.A. Spies. 1993. Developing alternative forest cutting patterns: a simulation approach. Landscape Ecol. 8: 63–75.Google Scholar
  14. Lovejoy, S. 1982. Area-perimeter relation for rain and cloud areas. Science 216: 185–187.Google Scholar
  15. McGarigal, K. and B. Marks. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR–351.Google Scholar
  16. McGarigal, K. and W.C. McComb. 1995. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon coast range. Ecol. Mon. 65: 235–260.Google Scholar
  17. Milne, B.T. 1991. Lessons from applying fractal models to landscape patterns. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. pp. 199–235. Edited by M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Milne, B.T. 1992. Spatial aggregation and neutral models in fractal landscapes. Am. Nat. 139: 32–57.Google Scholar
  19. Milne, B.T., M.G. Turner, J.A Wiens and A.R. Johnson. 1992. Interactions between the fractal geometry of landscapes and allometric herbivory. Theor. Pop. Biol. 41: 337–353.Google Scholar
  20. Milne, B.T. 1994. Pattern analysis for landscape evaluation and characterization. In Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment. Vol. II.: Ecosystem Management: Principles and Applications. pp 121–134. Edited by M.E. Jensen and P.S. Bourgeron. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR–318.Google Scholar
  21. Musick, H.B. and H.D. Grover. 1991. Image textural measures as indices of landscape pattern. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. pp. 289–307. Edited by M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Olsen, E.R., R.D. Ramsey and D.S. Winn. 1993. A modified fractal dimension as a measure of landscape diversity. Photogrammetric Eng. and Remote Sensing 59: 1517–1520.Google Scholar
  23. O'Neill, R.V., J.R. Krummel, R.H. Gardner, G. Sugihara, B. Jackson, D.L. DeAngelis, B.T. Milne, M.G. Turner, B. Zygmunt, S.W. Christensen, V.H. Dale and R.L. Graham. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol. 1: 153–162.Google Scholar
  24. Ripple, W.J., G.A. Bradshaw and T.A. Spies. 1991. Measuring forest landscape patterns in the Cascade Range of Oregon, USA. Biol. Cons. 57: 73–88.Google Scholar
  25. Ritchie, M. and M.A. Moroge. Scale dependent effects of habitat fragmentation on population density. In prep.Google Scholar
  26. Ritters, K.H., R.V. O'Neill, C.T. Hunsaker, J.D. Wickham, D.H. Yankee, S.P. Timmins, K.B. Jones and B.L. Jackson. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10: 23–39.Google Scholar
  27. Robards, F.C. and J.I. Hodges. 1976. Observations from 2,760 bald eagle nests in southeast Alaska: progress report 1969–1976. USDI Fish andWildlife Service, Eagle management study, Juneau, AK.Google Scholar
  28. Rogers, C.A. 1993. Describing landscapes: indices of structure. M.S. Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.Google Scholar
  29. Spetich, M.A., G.R. Parker and R.J. Gustafson. 1997. Spatial and temporal relationships of old-growth and secondary forests in Indiana. Natural Areas Journal 17: 118–130.Google Scholar
  30. Spies, T.A., W.J. Ripple and G.A. Bradshaw. 1994. Dynamics and pattern of a managed coniferous forest landscape in Oregon. Ecol. Appl. 4: 555–568.Google Scholar
  31. Stauffer, D. 1985. Introduction to percolation theory. Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  32. Turner, M.G. 1990. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecol. 4: 21–30.Google Scholar
  33. Turner, M.G., R.V. O'Neill, R.H. Gardner and B.T. Milne. 1989. Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol. 3: 153–162.Google Scholar
  34. Voss, R.F. 1984. The fractal dimension of percolation cluster hulls. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 17: L373-L377.Google Scholar
  35. Voss, R.F. 1988. Fractals in nature: from characterization to simulation. In The Science of Fractal Images. pp. 21–70. Edited by H.O. Peitgen and D. Saupe. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Wallin, D.O., F.J. Swanson and B. Marks. 1994. Landscape pattern response to changes in pattern generation rules: land-use legacies in forestry. Ecol. Appl. 4: 569–580.Google Scholar
  37. Whitcomb, R.F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. Whitcomb, M.K. Klimkiewicz and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. In Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. pp. 125–205. Edited by R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina D. Hargis
    • 1
  • John A. Bissonette
    • 1
  • John L. David
    • 2
  1. 1.Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, College of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Foundation for Ecological Restoration, Monitoring, and AssessmentAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations