Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 235–254 | Cite as

Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently?

  • Lutz Tischendorf
Article

Abstract

The ecological interpretation of landscape patterns is one of the major objectives in landscape ecology. Both landscape patterns and ecological processes need to be quantified before statistical relationships between these variables can be examined. Landscape indices provide quantitative information about landscape pattern. Response variables or process rates quantify the outcome of ecological processes (e.g., dispersal success for landscape connectivity or Morisita's index for the spatial distribution of individuals). While the principal potential of this approach has been demonstrated in several studies, the robustness of the statistical relationships against variations in landscape structure or against variations of the ecological process itself has never been explicitly investigated. This paper investigates the consistency of correlations between a set of landscape indices (calculated with Fragstats) and three response variables from a simulated dispersal process across heterogeneous landscapes (cell immigration, dispersal success and search time) against variation in three experimental treatments (control variables): habitat amount, habitat fragmentation and dispersal behavior. I found strong correlations between some landscape indices and all three response variables. However, 68% of the statistical relationships were highly inconsistent and sometimes ambiguous for different landscape structures and for differences in dispersal behavior. Correlations between one landscape index and one response variable could range from highly positive to highly negative when derived from different spatial patterns. I furthermore compared correlation coefficients obtained from artificially generated (neutral) landscape models with those obtained from Landsat TM images. Both landscape representations produced equally strong and weak statistical relationships between landscape indices and response variables. This result supports the use of neutral landscape models in theoretical analyses of pattern-process relationships.

artificial vs. realistic landscapes dispersal landscape indices pattern-process relationships simulation model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andreassen, H. P., Ims, R. A. and Stenseth, N. C. 1996. Discontinuous habitat corridors: Effects on male root vole movements. J Appl Ecol 33: 555–560.Google Scholar
  2. Baars, M. A. 1979. Patterns of movement of radioactive carabid beetles. Oecologia 44: 125–140.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, W. L. and Cai, Y. 1992. The r.le programs for multiscale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information system. Lands Ecol 7: 291–302.Google Scholar
  4. Bakowski, C. and Kozakiewicz, M. 1988. The effect of forest road on bank vole and yellow necked mouse populations. Acta Ther 33: 345–353.Google Scholar
  5. Bonnet, X., Naulleau, G. and Shine, R. 1999. The dangers of leaving home: Dispersal and mortality in snakes. Biol Cons 89: 39–50.Google Scholar
  6. D. H., Riitters, K. H. and Orvis, K. 1997. A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Lands Ecol 12: 199–212.Google Scholar
  7. Charrier, S., Petit, S. and Burel, F. 1997. Movements of Abax parallelepipedus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in woody habitats of a hedgerow network landscape: a radio-tracing study. Agr Eco Enviro 61: 133–144.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, R. J. and Barrett, G. W. 1997. Effects of habitat fragmentation on meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) population dynamics in experiment landscape patches. Lands Ecol 12: 63–76.Google Scholar
  9. Cullinan, V. I. and Thomas, J. M. 1992. A comparison of quantitative methods for examining landscape pattern and scale. Lands Ecol 7: 211–227.Google Scholar
  10. Doak, D. F., Marino, P. C. and Kareiva, P.M. 1992. Spatial scale mediates the influence of habitat fragmentation on dispersal success: Implications for conservation. Theor Pop Biol 41: 315–336.Google Scholar
  11. Duelli, P., Studer, M., Marchand, I. and Jakob, S. 1990. Population movements of arthropods between natural and cultivated areas. Biol Cons 54: 193–207.Google Scholar
  12. Fahrig, L., Pedlar, J. H., Pope, S. E., Taylor, P. D. and Wegner, J. F. 1995. Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biol Cons 13: 177–182.Google Scholar
  13. Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. J. Wildl Manag 61: 603–610.Google Scholar
  14. Fahrig, L. 1998.When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival? Ecol Model 105: 273–292.Google Scholar
  15. Forman, R. T. T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Frampton, G. K., Cilgi, T., Fry, G. L. A. and Wratten, S. D. 1995. Effects of grassy banks on the dispersal of some carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on farmland. Biol Cons 71: 347–355.Google Scholar
  17. Gaines, M. S. and McGlenaghan, L. R. 1980. Dispersal in small mammals. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11: 163–196.Google Scholar
  18. Gardner, R. H., Milne, B. T., Turner, M. G. and O'Neill, R. V. 1987. Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Lands Ecol 1: 19–28.Google Scholar
  19. Gardner, R. H. and O'Neill, R. V. 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, Berlin.Google Scholar
  20. Garrabou, J., Riera, J. and Zabala, M. 1998. Landscape pattern indices applied to Mediterranean subtidal rocky benthic communities. Lands Ecol 13: 225–247.Google Scholar
  21. Garrett, M. G. and Franklin, G. L. 1988. Behavioral ecology of dispersal in the black-tailed prairie dog. J Mammal 69: 236–250.Google Scholar
  22. Giles, R. H. and Trani, M. K. 1999. Key elements of landscape pattern measures. Environ Manag 123: 477–481.Google Scholar
  23. Gustafson, E. J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1: 143–156.Google Scholar
  24. Gustafson, E. J. and Gardner, R. H. 1996. The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77: 94–107.Google Scholar
  25. Gustafson, E. J. and Parker, G. R. 1992. Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Lands Ecol 7: 101–110.Google Scholar
  26. Haddad, N. M. 1999. Corridor use predicted from behaviors at habitat boundaries. Am Nat 153: 215–227.Google Scholar
  27. Haefner, J. W., Poole, G. C., Dunn, P. V. and Decker, R. T. 1991. Edge effects in computer models of spatial competition. Ecol Model 56: 221–244.Google Scholar
  28. Hamazaki, T. 1996. Effects of patch shape on the number of organisms. Lands Ecol 11: 299–306.Google Scholar
  29. Hansson, L. 1991. Dispersal and connectivity in metapopulations. Biol J Linn Soc 42: 89–103.Google Scholar
  30. Hargis, C. D., Bissonette, J. A. and David, J. L. 1998. The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Lands Ecol 13: 167–186.Google Scholar
  31. Henein, K. and Merriam, G. 1990. The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Lands Ecol 4: 157–170.Google Scholar
  32. Hulshoff, R. M. 1995. Landscape indices describing a Dutch landscape. Lands Ecol 10: 101–111.Google Scholar
  33. Jaeger, J. A. G. 2000. Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Lands Ecol 15(2): 115–130.Google Scholar
  34. Johansen, A. 1994. Spatio-temporal self-organization on a model of disease spreading. Physica D 78: 186–193.Google Scholar
  35. Kareiva, P. M. and Shigesada, N. 1983. Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk. Oecologia 56: 234–238.Google Scholar
  36. Krohne, D. T. and Burgin, A. B. 1987. Relative success of residents and immigrants in Peromyscus leucopus. Holarctic Ecol 10: 196–200.Google Scholar
  37. Krohne, D. T. and Dubbs, B. A. 1984. An analysis of dispersal in an unmanipulated population of Peromyscus leucopus. AmMidl Nat 112: 146–156.Google Scholar
  38. Lavorel, S., Gardner, R. H. and O'Neill, R. V. 1993. Analysis of patterns in hierarchically structured landscapes. OIKOS 67: 521–528.Google Scholar
  39. Leduc, A., Prairie, Y.T. and Bergeron, Y. 1994. Fractal dimension estimates of a fragmented landscape: Sources of variability. Lands Ecol 9: 279–286.Google Scholar
  40. Li, H. and Reynolds, J. F. 1994. A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75: 2446–2455.Google Scholar
  41. Lidicker, W. Z. 1975. The role of dispersal in the demography of small mammals. In Small mammals: their productivity and population dynamics. pp. 103–128. Edited by F. B. Golley, et al. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  42. Mader, H. J. 1984. Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biol Cons 29: 81–96.Google Scholar
  43. Mader, H. J., Schell, C. and Kornacker, P. 1990. Linear barriers to arthropod movements in the landscape. Biol Cons 54: 209–222.Google Scholar
  44. Matter, S. F. 1996. Interpatch movement of the red milkweed beetle, Tetraopes tetraophthalmus: Individual responses to patch size and isolation. Oecologia 105: 447–453.Google Scholar
  45. Mauremooto, J. R., Wratten, S. D., Worner, S. P. and Fry, G. L. A. 1995. Permeability of hedgerows to predatory carabid beetles. Agr Ecol Enviro 52: 141–148.Google Scholar
  46. McGarigal, K. and Marks, B. J. 1995. Fragstats: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. U. S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW: 351. Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  47. McGarigal, K. and McComb, W.C. 1995. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the oregon coast range. Ecol Mono 65: 235–260.Google Scholar
  48. Meisel, J. E. and Turner, M. G. 1998. Scale detection in real and artificial landscapes using semivariance analysis. Lands Ecol 13: 347–362.Google Scholar
  49. Merriam, G., Kozakiewicz, M., Tsuchiya, E. and Hawley, K. 1989. Barriers as boundaries for metapopulations and demes of Peromyscus leucopus in farm landscapes. Lands Ecol 2: 227–235.Google Scholar
  50. Nikora, V. I., Pearson, C. P. and Shankar, U. 1999. Scaling properties in landscape patterns: New Zealand experience. Lands Ecol 14: 17–33.Google Scholar
  51. O'Neill, R. V., Krummel, J. R., Gardner, R. H., Sugihara, G., Jackson, B. L., DeAngelis, D. L., Milne, B. T., Turner, M. G., Zygmunt, B., Christensen, S. W., Dale, V. H. and Graham, R. L. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Lands Ecol 1: 153–162.Google Scholar
  52. Pan, D. Y., Domon, G., de Blois, S. and Bouchard, A. 1999. Temporal (1958-1993) and spatial patterns of land use changes in Haut-Saint-Laurent (Quebec, Canada) and their relation to landscape physical attributes. Lands Ecol 14: 35–52.Google Scholar
  53. Plotnick, R. E., Gardner, R. H. and O'Neill, R. V. 1993. Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Lands Ecol 8: 201–211.Google Scholar
  54. Poole, K. G. 1997. Dispersal patterns of lynx in the northwest territories. J Wildl. Manag 61: 497–505.Google Scholar
  55. Qi, Y. and Wu, J. 1996. Effects of changing spatial resolution on the results of landscape pattern analysis using spatial autocorrelation indices. Lands Ecol 11: 39–49.Google Scholar
  56. Riitters, K. H., O'Neill, R. V., Hunsaker, C. T., Wickham, J. D., Yankee, D. H., Timmins, S. P., Jones, K. B. and Jackson, B. L. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Lands Ecol 10: 23–39.Google Scholar
  57. Rijnsdorp, A. D. 1980. Pattern of movement in and dispersal from a Dutch forest of Carabus problematicus Hbst. (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Oecologia 45: 274–281.Google Scholar
  58. Rosenberg, D. K., Noon, B. R. and Meslow, E. C. 1997. Biological corridors: form, function and efficacy. BioScience 47: 677–687.Google Scholar
  59. Ruckelshaus, M., Hartway, C. and Kareiva, P. M. 1997. Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit dispersal models. Cons Biol 11: 1298–1306.Google Scholar
  60. Sakai, H. F. and Noon, B. R. 1997. Between-habitat movement of dusky-footed woodrats and vulnerability to predation. J Wildl Manag 61: 343–350.Google Scholar
  61. SAS Institute. 1990. SAS Version 6., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  62. Schippers, P., Verboom, J., Knaapen, P. and van Apeldoorn, R. C. 1996. Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: An analysis with a GIS-based random walk model. Ecography 19: 97–106.Google Scholar
  63. Schumaker, N. H. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77: 1210–1225.Google Scholar
  64. Skinner, C. N. 1995. Change in spatial characteristics of forest openings in the Klamath mountains of northwestern California, USA. Lands Ecol 10: 219–228.Google Scholar
  65. Tischendorf, L. and Fahrig, L. 2000. How should we measure landscape connectivity? Lands Ecol 15: 633–641.Google Scholar
  66. Trani, M. K. and Giles, R. H. 1999. An analysis of deforestation: Metrics used to describe pattern change. Forest Ecol Manag 114: 459–470.Google Scholar
  67. Traub, B. and Kleinn, C. 1999. Measuring fragmentation and structural diversity. Forstw Centralblatt 118: 39–50.Google Scholar
  68. Trzcinski, M. K., Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. 1999. Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecol Appl 9: 586–593.Google Scholar
  69. Turchin, P. B., Odendaal, F. J. and Rausher, M. D. 1991. Quantifying insect movement in the field. Enviro Entomol 20: 955–963.Google Scholar
  70. Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape Ecology: The effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecol Syst 20: 171–197.Google Scholar
  71. Turner, S. J., O'Neill, R. V., Conley, W., Conley, M. R. and Humphries, H. C. 1991. Pattern and scale: Statistics for landscape ecology. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. pp. 17–49. Edited by M. G. Turner and R. H. Gardner. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  72. Wallin, H. and Ekbom, B. S. 1988. Movements of carabid beetles (Coleoptera Carabidae) inhabiting cereal fields: A field tracing study. Oecologia 77: 39–43.Google Scholar
  73. Wegner, J. F. and Merriam, G. 1990. Use of spatial elements in a farmland mosaic by a woodland rodent. Biol Cons 54: 263–276.Google Scholar
  74. Wiens, J. A., Crawford, C. S. and Gosz, J. R. 1985. Boundary dynamics: A conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. OIKOS 45: 412–427.Google Scholar
  75. Wiens, J. A., Schooley, R. L. and Weeks, R. D. 1997. Patchy landscapes and animal movements: Do beetles percolate? OIKOS 78: 257–264.Google Scholar
  76. With, K. A., Gardner, R. H. and Turner, M. G. 1997. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. OIKOS 78: 151–169.Google Scholar
  77. With, K. A. and Crist, T. O. 1995. Critical thresholds in species responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76: 2446–2459.Google Scholar
  78. With, K. A. and King, A. W. 1997. The use and misuse of neutral landscape models in ecology. OIKOS 79: 219–229.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lutz Tischendorf
    • 1
  1. 1.Ottawa-Carleton Institute of BiologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations