Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Landscape patch shape complexity as an effective measure for plant species richness in rural landscapes

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The application of landscape patch shape complexity as a predictor ofvascularplant and bryophyte species richness is analysed. Several common complexityindices (shape index, fractal dimension, comparison to the area of the minimumbounding rectangle) are tested for their predictive power for plant speciesrichness. One new robust measure for shape complexity is presented whichovercomes some disadvantages of common complexity measures applied to highresolution analysis of agricultural landscapes based on aerial photographs. Thenew index is based on the number of shape characterising points along apolygon’s boundary. This new measure shows promising predictive capabilitiesforspecies richness of vascular plants and bryophytes (correlation coefficient:0.85 for vascular plants, 0.74 for bryophytes).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abensperg-Traun M., Arnold G.W., Steven D.E., Smith G.T., Atkins L., Viveen J.J. et al. 1996. Biodiversity indicators in semiarid, agricultural Western Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 2: 375–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen A.N. 1995. Measuring more of biodiversity: genus richness as a surrogate for species richness in Australian ant faunas. Biological Conservation 73: 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alard D. and Poudevigne I. 1999. Factors controlling plant diversity in a rural landscape: a functional approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 46: 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen A.N. 1995. Measuring more of biodiversity: genus richness as a surrogate for species richness in Australian ant faunas. Biological Conservation 73: 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin M.P., Pausas J.G. and Nichols A.O. 1996. Patterns of tree species richness in relation to environment in south-eastern New South Wales, Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 21: 154–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A., Jayasuriya A.H.M. and Green M.J.B. 1996. Using higher-taxon richness as a surrogate for species richness: II. Local applications. Proc. Royal Soc. London Serie B 263: 1871–1875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie D.J. 1991. Energy and large-scale patterns of animal-and plant-species richness. The American Naturalist 137: 27–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas D.H. and Peuker T.K. 1973. Algorithms for reduction of the number of points required to represent a digitized line or it’s character. The Canadian Cartographer 10: 112–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dramstad W.E., Fjellstad W.J. and Fry G.L.A. 1998. Landscape indices-useful tools or misleading numbers? In: Dover J.W. and Bunce R.G.H. (eds), Key concepts in landscape ecology. Proceedings of the 1998 European Congress of the International Association for Landscape Ecology, held at the Myerscough College 3rd-5th September 1998. JALE, UK, pp. 36–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P. 1997. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: An approch at two different scales. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 62: 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faith D.P. and Walker P.A. 1996. Environmental diversity: on the best-possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Findlay C.S. and Houlahan J. 1997. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 11: 1000–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman R.T.T. and Moore P.N. 1992. Theoretical Foundations for Understanding Boundaries in Landscape Mosaics. In: Hansen A.J. and Castri F. (eds), Landscape Boundaries: Consequences for Biotic Diversity and Ecological Flows. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, pp. 236–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman R.T.T. 1999. Horizontal Processes, Roads, Suburbs, Societal Objectives, and Landscape Ecology. In: Klopatek J.M. and Gardner R.H. (eds), Landscape Ecological Analysis: Issues and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, pp. 35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston K.J. 2000. Biodiversity: higher taxon richness. Progress in Physical Geography 24: 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gierloff-Emden H.G. 1989. Fernerkundungskartographie mit Satellitenaufnahmen-Allgemeine Grundlagen und Anwendungen. Enzyklopädie der Kartographie Band IV/1. Franz Deuticke, Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths G.H., Lee J. and Eversham B.C. 2000. Landscape pattern and species richness; regional scale analysis from remote sensing. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21: 2685–2704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R. and Copping M. 1996. Quantifying landscape structure: a review of landscape indices and their application to forested landscapes. Progress in Physical Geography 20: 418–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen R.K. and Neuvonen S. 1997. Species richness of vascular plants in the subarctic landscape of northern Finland: modelling relationships to environment. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 1181–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hietala-Koivu R. 1999. Agricultural landscape change: a case study in Yläne, southwest Finland. Landscape and Urban Planing 46: 103–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover S.R. and Parker A.J. 1991. Spatial components of biotic diversity in landscapes of Georgia, USA. Landscape Ecology 5: 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard P.C., Viskanic P., Davenport T.R.B., Kigenyi F.W., Baltzer M., Dickinson C.J. et al. 1998. Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature 394: 472–475.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hulshoff R.M. 1995. Landscape indices describing a Dutch landscape. Landscape Ecology 10: 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson L.R. 1988. Land use change in Illinois, USA: The influence of landscape attributes on current and historic land use. Landscape Ecology 2: 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kammerbauer J. and Ardon C. 1999. Land use dynamics and landscape change pattern in a typical watershed in the hillside region of central Honduras. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 75: 93–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krummel J.R., Gardner R.H., Sugihara G., O’Neill R.V. and Coleman P.R. 1987. Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos 48: 321–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton H.P., Bignell D.E., Bolton B., Bloemers G.F., Eggleton P., Hammond P.M. et al. 1998. Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forests. Nature 391: 72–76.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linder H.P. 1991. Environmental correlates of patterns of species richness in the south-western Cape province of South Africa. Journal of Biogeography 19: 509–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loibl W. and Züger J. 2001. FTSP-Programm “Komplexitität und Nachhaltigkeit” Teilprojekt 2: Kleinräumige Modellierung von Klimaparametern. Seibersdorf Research Report OEFZS-S-0124, BV, April 2001.

  • Luoto M. 2000. Modelling of rare plant species richness by landscape variables in an agricultural area in Finland. Plant Ecology 149: 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot B. 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mander Ñ., Mikk M. and Külvik M. 1999. Ecological and low intensity agriculture as contributors to landscape and biological diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 46: 169–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K. and Marks B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. US Forest Service General Technical Report PNV 351.

  • Margules C.R., Nicholls A.O. and Austin M.P. 1987. Diversity of Eucalyptus species predicted by a multi-variable environmental gradient. Oecologia 71: 229–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller J.N., Brooks R.P. and Croonquist M.J. 1997. Effects of landscape patterns on biotic communities. Landscape Ecology 12: 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne B.T. 1990. Lessons from Applying Fractal Models to Landscape Patterns. In: Turner M.G. and Gardner R.H. (eds), Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology: Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape Heterogeneity. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, pp. 99–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols W.F., Killingbeck K.T. and August P.V. 1998. The Influence of Geomorphological Heterogeneity on Biodiversity II. A landscape Perspective. Conservation Biology 12: 371–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novàkovà J. 1997. Agricultural impact on nonlinear vegetation formations: species richness-stand trophy relations. Ekològia 16: 233–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brian E.M. 1998. Water-energy dynamics, climate, and prediction of woody plant species richness: an interim general model. Journal of Biogeography 25: 379–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Timmins S.P., Jackson B.L., Jones K.B., Riitters K.H. et al. 1996. Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecology 11: 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odum E.P. and Turner M.G. 1989. Georgia Landscape: A Changing Resource. In: Zonneveld I.S. and Forman R.T.T. (eds), Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, pp. 137–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer M.W. 1995. How Should One Count Species? Natural Areas Journal 15: 124–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson D.L. and Cassola F. 1992. World-wide species richness patterns of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): indicator taxon for biodiversity and conservation studies. Conservation Biology 6: 376–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast N., Quinn R.M., Lawton J.H., Eversham B.C. and Gibbons D.W. 1993. Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365: 335–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathert D., White D., Sifneos J.C. and Hughes R.M. 1999. Environmental correlates of species richness for native freshwater fish in Oregon, USA. Journal of Biogeography 26: 257–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rex K.D. and Malanson G.P. 1990. The fractal shape of riparian forest patches. Landscape Ecology 4: 249–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richerson P.J. and Lum K. 1980. Patterns of plant species diversity in California: relation to weather and topography. The American Naturalist 116: 504–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riitters K.H., O’Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Wickham J.D., Yankee D.H., Timmins S.P. et al. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10: 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhauser F. 1972. Niederschlagskarte von Österreich für das Normaljahr 1901–1950. Maßstab 1:500.000. Hydrographisches Zentralbüro im BM für Land-und Forstwirtschaft, Wien.

  • Turner M.G. and Ruscher C.L. 1988. Changes in the spatial patterns of land use in Georgia. Landscape Ecology 1: 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G. 1990. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecology 4: 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Virolainen K.M., Ahlroth P., Hyvärinen E., Korkeamäki E., Mattila J., Päivinen J. et al. 2000. Hot spots, indicator taxa, complementarity and optimal networks of taiga. Proc. Royal Soc. London Serie B 267: 1143–1147.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlgemuth T. 1998. Modelling floristic species richness on a regionsl scale: a case study in Switzerland. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 159–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zechmeister H.G. and Moser D. 2001. The influence of agricultural land-use intensity on bryophyte species richness. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1609–1625.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape-Ecology, University of Vienna, Althanstr. 14, A-1091, Vienna, Austria

    Dietmar Moser, Harald G. Zechmeister, Christoph Plutzar, Norbert Sauberer, Thomas Wrbka & Georg Grabherr

Authors
  1. Dietmar Moser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harald G. Zechmeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christoph Plutzar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Norbert Sauberer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas Wrbka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Georg Grabherr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moser, D., Zechmeister, H.G., Plutzar, C. et al. Landscape patch shape complexity as an effective measure for plant species richness in rural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 17, 657–669 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021513729205

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021513729205

Search

Navigation