Landscape Ecology

, Volume 17, Issue 8, pp 761–782

Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics

  • Jianguo Wu
  • Weijun Shen
  • Weizhong Sun
  • Paul T. Tueller
Article

Abstract

While ecologists are well aware that spatial heterogeneity is scale-dependent, a general understanding of scaling relationships of spatial pattern is still lacking. One way to improve this understanding is to systematically examine how pattern indices change with scale in real landscapes of different kinds. This study, therefore, was designed to investigate how a suite of commonly used landscape metrics respond to changing grain size, extent, and the direction of analysis (or sampling) using several different landscapes in North America. Our results showed that the responses of the 19 landscape metrics fell into three general categories: Type I metrics showed predictable responses with changing scale, and their scaling relations could be represented by simple scaling equations (linear, power-law, or logarithmic functions); Type II metrics exhibited staircase-like responses that were less predictable; and Type III metrics behaved erratically in response to changing scale, suggesting no consistent scaling relations. In general, the effect of changing grain size was more predictable than that of changing extent. Type I metrics represent those landscape features that can be readily and accurately extrapolated or interpolated across spatial scales, whereas Type II and III metrics represent those that require more explicit consideration of idiosyncratic details for successful scaling. To adequately quantify spatial heterogeneity, the metric-scalograms (the response curves of metrics to changing scale), instead of single-scale measures, seem necessary.

Anisotropy Extent Grain Landscape metric scalograms Landscape pattern analysis Scale effect 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson P.M. 1993. The effect of spatial resolution on the experimental variogram of airborne MSS imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing 14: 1005–1011.Google Scholar
  2. Benson B.J. and Mackenzie M.D. 1995. Effects of sensor spatial resoltuion on landscape structure parameters. Landscape Ecology 10: 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bian L. and Butler R. 1999. Comparing effects of aggregation methods on statistical and spatial properties of simulated spatial data. Photogrammatic Engineering & Remote Sensing 65: 73–84.Google Scholar
  4. Buckley R.C. 1985. Distinguishing the effects of area and habitat type on island plant species richness by separating floristic elements and substrate types. Journal of Biogeography 12: 527–535.Google Scholar
  5. Dale M.R.T. 1983. Spatial Pattern Analysis in Plant Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Frohn R.C. 1998. Remote Sensing for Landscape Ecology: New Metric Indicators for Monitoring, Modeling, and Assessment of Ecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Gardner R.H. 1998. Pattern, process, and the analysis of spatial scales. In: Peterson D.L. and Parker V.T. (eds), Ecological Scale. Columbia Univ. Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 17–34.Google Scholar
  8. 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. Landscape Ecology 1: 19–28.Google Scholar
  9. Greig-Smith P. 1983. Quantitative Plant Ecology. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.Google Scholar
  10. He F. and Legendre P. 1994. Diversity pattern and spatial scale: A study of a tropical rain forest of Malaysia. Environmental & Ecological Statistics 1: 265–286.Google Scholar
  11. Jelinski D.E. and Wu J. 1996. The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 11: 129–140.Google Scholar
  12. Jenerette G.D. and Wu J. 2002. Analysis and simulation of land use change in the central Arizona-Phoenix region. Landscape Ecology 16: 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Justice C.O., Markham B.L., Townshend J.R.G. and Kennard R.L. 1989. Spatial degradation of satellite data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 10: 1539–1561.Google Scholar
  14. Lavorel S., Gardner R.H. and O’Neill R.V. 1993. Analysis of pattern in hierarchically structured landscapes. Oikos 67: 521–528.Google Scholar
  15. Leduc A., Prairie Y.T. and Bergeron Y. 1994. Fractal dimension estimates of a fragmented landscape: Sources of variability. Landscape Ecology 9: 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levin S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943–1967.Google Scholar
  17. Li H. and Reynolds J.F. 1993. A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecology 8: 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li H. and Reynolds J.F. 1994. A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75: 2446–2455.Google Scholar
  19. Luck M. and Wu J. 2002. A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: A case study from the Phoenix Metropolitan region of USA. Landscape Ecology 17: 327–329, (accepted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacArthur R.H. and Wilson E.O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Marceau D.J., Howarth P.J. and Gratto D.J. 1994. Remote Sensing and the measurement of geographical entities in a forested environment. 1. The scale and spatial aggregation problem. Remote Sensing of Environment 49: 93–104.Google Scholar
  22. Marceau D.J. 1999. The scale issue in social and natural sciences. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 25: 347–356.Google Scholar
  23. McGarigal K. and Marks B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. USDA-Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Meentemeyer V. and Box E.O. 1987. Scale effects in landscape studies. In: Turner M.G. (ed.), Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
  25. Moody A. and Woodcock C.E. 1995. The influence of scale and the spatial characteristics of landscapes on land-cover mapping using remote sensing. Landscape Ecology 10: 363–379.Google Scholar
  26. O’Neill R.V., Gardner R.H., Milne B.T., Turner M.G. and Jackson B. 1991. Heterogeneity and Spatial Hierarchies. In: Kolasa J. and Pickett S.T.A. (eds), Ecological Heterogeneity. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, pp. 85–96.Google Scholar
  27. O’Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Timmins S.P., Timmins B.L., Jackson K.B., Jones K.B. et al. 1996. Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecology 11: 169–180.Google Scholar
  28. O’Neill R.V., Krummel J.R., Gardner R.H., Sugihara G., Jackson B., DeAngelis D.L. et al. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1: 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Openshaw S. 1984. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Geo Books, Norwich, UK.Google Scholar
  30. Qi Y. and Wu J. 1996. Effects of changing spatial resolution on the results of landscape pattern analysis using spatial autocorrelation indices. Landscape Ecology 11: 39–49.Google Scholar
  31. Riitters K.H., O’Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Wickham J.D., Yankee D.H., Timmins K.B.J. et al. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10: 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Riitters K.H., O’Neill R.V., Wickham J.D. and Jones K.B. 1996. A note on contagion indices for landscape analysis. Landscape Ecology 11: 197–202.Google Scholar
  33. Saura S. and Martinez-Millan J. 2001. Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extent. Photogrammatic Engineering & Remote Sensing 67: 1027–1036.Google Scholar
  34. Turner M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: The Effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turner M.G., Gardner R.H. and O’Neill R.V. 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Turner M.G., O’Neill R.V., Gardner R.H. and Milne B.T. 1989. Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 3: 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wickham J.D. and Riitters K.H. 1995. Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixel size. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 16: 3585–3595.Google Scholar
  38. Wiens J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385–397.Google Scholar
  39. Williamson M. 1988. Relationship of species number to area, distance and other variables. In: Myers A.A. and Giller P.S. (eds), Analytical Biogeography. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, pp. 91–115.Google Scholar
  40. Woodcock C.E. and Strahler A.H. 1987. The factor of scale in remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment 21: 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wu J. 1999. Hierarchy and scaling: Extrapolating information along a scaling ladder. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 25: 367–380.Google Scholar
  42. Wu J., Jelinski D.E., Luck M. and Tueller P.T. 2000. Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: Scale variance and pattern metrics. Geographical Information Systems 6: 6–19.Google Scholar
  43. Wu J. and Levin S.A. 1994. A spatial patch dynamic modeling approach to pattern and process in an annual grassland. Ecological Monographs 64: 447–464.Google Scholar
  44. Wu J. and Loucks O.L. 1995. From balance-of-nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology 70: 439–466.Google Scholar
  45. Wu J. and Vankat J.L. 1991. A System Dynamics model of island biogeography. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 53: 911–940.Google Scholar
  46. Wu J. and Vankat J.L. 1995. Island biogeography: Theory and applications. In: Nierenberg W.A. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 371–379.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jianguo Wu
    • 1
  • Weijun Shen
    • 2
  • Weizhong Sun
    • 3
  • Paul T. Tueller
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Plant BiologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.South China Institute of BotanyChinese Academy of SciencesGuangzhouP. R. China
  3. 3.Water Services DepartmentCity of Phoenix, PhoenixUSA
  4. 4.Department of Environmental and Resource SciencesUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations