Landscape Ecology

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 759–776 | Cite as

Mapping alpine vegetation using vegetation observations and topographic attributes

  • Karin Pfeffer
  • Edzer J. Pebesma
  • Peter A. Burrough
Article

Abstract

Local planning in mountain areas requires spatial information on site factors such as vegetation that is commonly lacking in rugged terrain. This study demonstrates a procedure for the efficient acquisition of a vegetation map using topographic attributes and nominal vegetation data sampled in the field. Topographic attributes were derived from a digital elevation model (DEM) and nominal vegetation data were reduced to normalised scores by detrended correspondence analysis (DCA). The procedure for mapping vegetation types addressed the relations between DCA scores and topographic attributes, spatial correlation of DCA scores and classification of predicted DCA scores based on a cluster analysis of DCA scores at observation locations. The modelled vegetation classes corresponded with the impression obtained in the field. We also showed that the final result is rather sensitive to which samples are included in the analysis.

Alpine vegetation Classification Digital elevation model Ordination Universal kriging 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bie S.W. and Beckett P.H.T. 1973. Comparison of four independent soil surveys by air-photo interpretation, Paphos area (Cyprus). Photogrammetria 29: 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bio A.M.F. 2000. Does vegetation suit our models? Data and model assumptions and the assessment of species distribution in space. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht, 195 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Burrough P.A. 1991. Sampling designs for quantifying map unit composition. In: Mausbach M.J. and Wilding L.P. (eds), Spatial Variabilities of Soils and Landforms, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 89–125.Google Scholar
  4. Burrough P.A. and McDonnell R.A. 1998. Principles of Geographical Information Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Burrough P.A., Van Gaans P.F.M. and MacMillan R.A. 2000. High-resolution landform classification using fuzzy k-means. Fuzzy Sets Systems 113: 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burrough P.A., Wilson J.P., Van Gaans P.F.M. and Hansen A.J. 2001. Fuzzy k-means classification of topo-climatic data as an aid to forest mapping in the Greater Yellowstone Area, USA. Landscape Ecology 16: 523–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis J.C. 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Ellenberg H., Weber H.E., Düll R., Wirth V., Werner W. and Paulissen D. 1991. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen Mitteleuropas. Goltze, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  9. Franklin J. 1995. Predictive vegetation mapping: geographic modelling of biospatial patterns in relation to environmental gradients. Progress in Physical Geography 19: 474–499.Google Scholar
  10. Franklin J., McCullough P. and Gray C. 2000. Terrain variables used for predictive mapping of vegetation communities in southern California. In: Wilson J.P. and Gallant J.C. (eds), Terrain Analysis: Principles and Application, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, USA, pp. 331–353.Google Scholar
  11. GETS 2001. A European Research Network for the Application of Geomorphology and Environmental Impact Assessment to Transportation Systems. http://www.feweb.vu.nl/gis/research/getsGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillison A.N. and Brewer K.R.W. 1985. The use of gradient directed transects or gradsects in natural resource survey. Journal of Environmental Management 20: 103–127.Google Scholar
  13. Gottfried M., Pauli H. and Grabherr G. 1998. Prediction of vegetation patterns at the limits of plants life: a new view of the alpinenival ecotone. Arctic and Alpine Research 30: 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grabherr G. 1985. Damage to vegetation by recreation in the Austrian and German Alps. Wye College, England, 74-91 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Guisan A., Theurillat J.P. and Kienast F. 1998. Predicting the potential distribution of plant species in an alpine environment. Journal of Vegetation Science 9: 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guisan A., Weiss S.B. and Weiss A.D. 1999. GLM versus CCA spatial modeling of plant species distribution. Plant Ecology 143: 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guisan A. and Zimmermann N.E. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 153: 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guisan A., Edwards T.C. and Hastie T. 2002. Generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene. Ecological Modelling 157: 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoersch B., Braun G. and Schmidt U. 2002. Relation between landform and vegetation in alpine regions of Wallis, Switzerland. A multiscale remote sensing and GIS approach. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 26: 113–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horn B.K.P. 1981. Hill shading and the reflectance map. Proc. IEEE 69: 14–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ilwis Department. 1998. Ilwis 2.1 for Windows. The Integrated Land and Water Information System. International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  22. Janssen L.L.F. and Middelkoop H. 1991. Knowledge based image classification: the use of knowledge about crop rotations in a Thematic Mapper image classification procedure. The Winand Staring Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1-71 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Jongman R., Ter Braak C.J.F. and Tongeren O.F.R. 1995. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  24. MacQueen J.B. 1967. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations, In: Proceedings of 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability 1, pp. 281–297. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Meentemayer R.K. and Moodry A. 2000. Rapid sampling of plant species composition for assessing vegetation patterns in rugged terrain. Landscape Ecology 15: 697–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore I.D., Grayson R.B. and Ladson A.R. 1991. Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrologic Processes 5: 3–30.Google Scholar
  27. Nagendra H. 2001. Using remote sensing to assess biodiversity. International Journal for Remote Sensing 22: 2377–2400.Google Scholar
  28. PCRaster 2002. PCRaster Software. Info at http://www.geog.uu.nl/pcraster.nlGoogle Scholar
  29. Pebesma E.J. 1996. Mapping groundwater quality in the Netherlands. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Utrecht, Faculty Geographical Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1-105 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Pebesma E.J. and Wesseling C.G. 1998. GSTAT: a program for geostatistical modelling, prediction and simulation. Computers and Geosciences 24: 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pfeffer K., Karssenberg D., Van Asch T.W., Burrough P.A. 2002. Application of spatio-temporal modelling and multicriteria analysis to optimise the planning of socio-economic infrastructure. In: Conference Proceedings of iEMSs 2002. Lugano, 24-27 June 2002. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society.Google Scholar
  32. Purtscheller F. 1978. Ötztaler und Stubaier Alpen. Sammlung geologischer Führer 53: 1–128.Google Scholar
  33. Reisigl H. and Keller R. 1987. Alpenpflanzen im Lebensraum: Alpine Schutt-und Rasenvegetation. Gustav Fischer Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Skidmore A.K. 1989. A comparison of techniques for calculating gradient and aspect from a gridded digital elevation model. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 3: 323–334.Google Scholar
  35. Tappeiner U., Tasser E. and Tappeiner G. 1998. Modelling vegetation patters using natural and anthropogenic influence factors: preliminary experience with a GIS based model applied to an Alpine area. Ecological Modelling 113: 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ter Braak C.J.F. 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67: 1167–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ter Braak C.J.F. 1987. The analysis of vegetation-environment relationships by canonical correspondence analysis. Vegetatio 69: 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ter Braak C.J.F. 1995. Unimodal Models to relate Species to Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  39. Ter Braak C.J.F. and Smilauer P. 1998. Canoco 4, Canoco Reference Manual and User's Guide to Canoco for Windows. Centre for Biometry, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  40. Van Dam O. 2001. Forest filled with gaps: Effects of gap size on water and nutrient cycling in tropical rain forest — A study in Guyana, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht, 208 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Wesseling C.G., Karssenberg D., Van Deursen W.P.A. and Burrough P.A. 1996. Integrating dynamic environmental model in GIS: the development of a Dynamic Modelling Language. Transactions in GIS 1: 40–48.Google Scholar
  42. Wilson J.P. and Gallant J.C. 2000. Digital terrain analysis. In: Wilson J.P. and Gallant J.C. (eds), Terrain Analysis: Principles and Application. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, USA, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  43. Zevenbergen L.W. and Thorne C.R. 1987. Quantitative analysis of land surface topography. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 12: 47–56.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin Pfeffer
    • 1
  • Edzer J. Pebesma
    • 1
  • Peter A. Burrough
    • 1
  1. 1.1Utrecht Centre for Environment and Landscape Dynamics, Faculty of Geographical SciencesUniversity of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations