Landscape Ecology

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 125–138 | Cite as

Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations

  • Jianguo Wu
Article

Abstract

Landscape pattern is spatially correlated and scale-dependent. Thus, understanding landscape structure and functioning requires multiscale information, and scaling functions are the most precise and concise way of quantifying multiscale characteristics explicitly. The major objective of this study was to explore if there are any scaling relations for landscape pattern when it is measured over a range of scales (grain size and extent). The results showed that the responses of landscape metrics to changing scale fell into two categories when computed at the class level (i.e., for individual land cover types): simple scaling functions and unpredictable behavior. Similarly, three categories were found at the landscape level, with the third being staircase pattern, in a previous study when all land cover types were combined together. In general, scaling relations were more variable at the class level than at the landscape level, and more consistent and predictable with changing grain size than with changing extent at both levels. Considering that the landscapes under study were quite diverse in terms of both composition and configuration, these results seem robust. This study highlights the need for multiscale analysis in order to adequately characterize and monitor landscape heterogeneity, and provides insights into the scaling of landscape patterns.

Landscape metrics Pattern analysis Scale effects Scaling Scalograms Grain Extent 

References

  1. Allen T.F.H. and Starr T.B. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Allen R.F.H., O'Neill R.V. and Hoekstra T.W. 1984. Interlevel relations in ecological research and management. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-110, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  3. Amrhein C.G. 1995. Searching for the elusive aggregation effect: evidence from statistical simulations. Environment and Planning A 27: 105–119.Google Scholar
  4. Arbia G., Benedetti R. and Espa G. 1996. Effects of the MAUP on image classification. Geogr. Syst. 3: 123–141.Google Scholar
  5. Benson B.J. and Mackenzie M.D. 1995. Effects of sensor spatial resoltuion on landscape structure parameters. Landscape Ecology 10: 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bian L. and Walsh S.J. 1993. Scale dependencies of vegetation and topography in a mountainous environment of Montana. Professional Geographer 45: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bian L. and Butler R. 1999. Comparing effects of aggregation methods on statistical and spatial properties of simulated spatial data. Photogrammatic Engineering and Remote Sensing 65: 73–84.Google Scholar
  8. Bradshaw G.A. and Spies T.A. 1992. Characterizing canopy gap structure in forests using wavelet analysis. Journal of Ecology 80: 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown J.H. and West G.B. (ed.), 2000. Scaling in Biology. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Burrough P.A. 1995. Spatial aspects of ecological data. In: Jongman R.H.G., Ter Braak C.J.F. and Van Tongeren O.F.R. (eds), Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. pp. 213–265. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Costanza R. 1989. Model goodness of fit — A multiple resolution procedure. Ecological Modelling 47: 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costanza R. and Maxwell T. 1994. Resolution and predictability: An approach to the scaling problem. Landscape Ecology 9: 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dale M.R.T. 1999. Spatial Pattern Analysis in Plant Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  14. Dungan J.L., Perry J.N., Dale M.R.T., Legendre P., Citron-Pousty S., Fortin M.-J., Jakomulska A., Miriti M. and Rosenberg M.S. 2002. A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis. Ecography 25: 626–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fortin M.J. 1999. Spatial statistics in landscape ecology. In: Klopatek J.M. and Gardner R.H. (eds), Landscape Ecological Analysis. pp. 253–279. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Frohn R.C. 1998. Remote Sensing for Landscape Ecology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goovaerts P. 1997. Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Gustafson E.J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1: 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hargis C.D., Bissonette J.A. and David J.L. 1998. The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecology 13: 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hay G., Marceau D.J., Dubé P. and Bouchard A. 2001. A multi-scale framework for landscape analysis: Object-specific analysis and upscaling. Landscape Ecology 16: 471–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jelinski D.E. and Wu J. 1996. The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 11: 129–140.Google Scholar
  23. Jensen H.J. 1998. Self-Organized Criticality: Emergent Complex Behavior in Physical and Biological Systems. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Keeling M.J., Mezic I., Hendry R.J., McGlade J. and Rand D.A. 1997. Characteristic length scales of spatial models in ecology via fluctuation analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London B) 352: 1589–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King A.W., Johnson A.R. and O'Neill R.V. 1991. Transmutation and functional representation of heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecology 5: 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lam N.S.-N. and Quattrochi D.A. 1992. On the issues of scale, resolution, and fractal analysis in the mapping sciences. Professional Geographer 44: 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levin S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luck M. and Wu J. 2002. A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: A case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecology 17: 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacArthur R.H. 1972. Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Marceau D.J. 1999. The scale issue in social and natural sciences. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 25: 347–356.Google Scholar
  32. McGarigal K. and Marks B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. Pacific Northwest research Station.Google Scholar
  33. Meentemeyer V. and Box E.O. 1987. Scale effects in landscape studies. In: Turner M.G. (ed.), Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. pp. 15–34. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Meentemeyer V. 1989. Geographical perspectives of space, time, and scale. Landscape Ecology 3: 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meisel J.E. and Turner M.G. 1998. Scale detection in real and artificial landscapes using semivariance analysis. Landscape Ecology 13: 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milne B.T. 1991. Heterogeneity as a multiscale characteristic of landscapes. In: Kolasa J. and Pickett S.T.A. (eds), Ecological Heterogeneity. pp. 69–84. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Milne B.T. 1992. Spatial aggregation and neutral models in fractal landscapes. American Naturalist 139: 32–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milne B.T. 1997. Applications of fractal geometry in wildlife biology. In: Bissonette J.A. (ed.), Wildlife and Landscape Ecology: Effects of Pattern and Scale. pp. 32–69. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  39. Moellering H. and Tobler W. 1972. Geographical variances. Geographical Analysis 4: 34–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moody A. and Woodcock C.E. 1994. Scale-dependent errors in the estimation of land-cover proportions: Implications for global land-cover datasets. Photogrammatic Engineering and Remote Sensing 60: 585–594.Google Scholar
  41. O'Neill R.V. 1979. Transmutations across hierarchical levels. In: Innis G.S. and O'Neill R.V. (eds), Systems Analysis of Ecosystems. pp. 59–78. International Co-operative, Fairland, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  42. O'Neill R.V., DeAngelis D.L., Waide J.B. and Allen T.F.H. 1986. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  43. 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. pp. 85–96. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  44. O'Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Timmins S.P., Timmins B.L., Jackson K.B., Jones K.B., Riitters K.H. and Wickham J.D. 1996. Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecology 11: 169–180.Google Scholar
  45. Openshaw S. 1984. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Geo Books, Norwich, UK.Google Scholar
  46. Platt T. and Denman K.L. 1975. Spectral analysis in ecology. Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 6: 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Plotnick R.E., Gardner R.H. and O'Neill R.V. 1993. Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology 8: 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plotnick R.E. and Sepkoski J.J. 2001. A multiplicative multifractal model for originations and extinctions. Paleobiology 27: 126–139.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reynolds J.F. and Wu J. 1999. Do landscape structural and functional units exist? In: Tenhunen J.D. and Kabat P. (eds), Integrating Hydrology, Ecosystem Dynamics, and Biogeochemistry in Complex Landscapes. pp. 273–296. Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  51. Robinson A.H. 1950. Ecological correlation and the behaviour of individuals. Am. Soc. Rev. 15: 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rossi R.E., Mulla D.J., Journel A.G. and Franz E.H. 1992. Geostatistical tools for modeling and interpreting ecological spatial dependence. Ecological Monographs 62: 277–314.Google Scholar
  53. Saura S. and Martinez-Millan J. 2001. Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extent. Photogrammatic Engineering and Remote Sensing 67: 1027–1036.Google Scholar
  54. Schneider D.C. 2001. Spatial allometry. In: Gardner R.H., Kemp W.M., Kennedy V.S. and Petersen J.E. (eds), Scaling Relations in Experimental Ecology. pp. 113–153. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  55. Schneider D.C. 2001. The rise of the concept of scale in ecology. BioScience 51: 545–553.Google Scholar
  56. Tobler W. 1970. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ. Geogr. (Suppl.) 46: 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. 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: Turner M.G. and Gardner R.H. (eds), Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. pp. 17–49. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Urban D.L., O'Neill R.V. and Shugart H.H. 1987. Landscape ecology: A hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. BioScience 37: 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wickham J.D. and Riitters K.H. 1995. Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixel size. International Journal of Remote Sensing 16: 3585–3595.Google Scholar
  62. Wiens J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Woodcock C. and Harward V.J. 1992. Nested-hierarchical scene models and image segmentation. International Journal of Remote Sensing 13: 3167–3187.Google Scholar
  64. Wrigley N., Holt T., Steel D. and Tranmer M. 1996. Analysing, modeling, and resolving the ecological fallacy. In: Longley P. and Batty M. (eds), Spatial Analysis: Modellign in a GIS Environment. pp. 23–40. GeoInformation International, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  65. Wu J. and Levin S.A. 1994. A spatial patch dynamic modeling approach to pattern and process in an annual grassland. Ecological Monographs 64(4): 447–464.Google Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wu J. 1999. Hierarchy and scaling: Extrapolating information along a scaling ladder. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 25: 367–380.Google Scholar
  68. Wu J., Jelinski D.E., Luck M. and Tueller P.T. 2000. Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: Scale variance and pattern metrics. Geogr. Info. Sci. 6: 6–19.Google Scholar
  69. Wu J. and Hobbs R. 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: An idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17: 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wu J., Shen W., Sun W. and Tueller P.T. 2003. Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecology 17: 761–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wu J., Jones B., Li H. and Loucks O. L. (ed.), 2004. Scaling and Uncertainty Analysis in Ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jianguo Wu
    • 1
  1. 1.Landscape Ecology and Modeling Laboratory (LEML), Faculty of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Science, School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations