Landscape Ecology

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 389–399 | Cite as

Use and misuse of landscape indices

Article

Abstract

Landscape ecology has generated much excitement in the past two decades. One reason was that it brought spatial analysis and modeling to the forefront of ecological research. However, high expectations for landscape analysis to improve our understanding and prediction of ecological processes have largely been unfulfilled. We identified three kinds of critical issues: conceptual flaws in landscape pattern analysis, inherent limitations of landscape indices, and improper use of pattern indices. For example, many landscape analyses treat quantitative description of spatial pattern as an end itself and fail to explore relationships between pattern and process. Landscape indices and map data are sometimes used without testing their ecological relevance, which may not only confound interpretation of results, but also lead to meaningless results. In addition, correlation analysis with indices is impeded by the lack of data because of difficulties in large-scale experimentation and by complicated behavior of indices because of their varying responses to changes in scale and spatial pattern. These problems represent significant challenges to landscape pattern analysis, especially in terms of relating pattern to process. In this perspective paper, we examine the underlying problems of these challenges and offer some solutions.

Conceptual flaws GIS and map data Landscape pattern analysis Pattern and process Scale 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen R.F.H., O’Neill R.V. and Hoekstra T.W. 1984. Interlevel relations in ecological research and management: Some working principles from hierarchy theory. USDA Forest Service General Tech Report RM-110, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  2. Bian L. and Butler R. 1999. Comparing effects of aggregation methods on statistical and spatial properties of simulated spatial data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 65: 73–84.Google Scholar
  3. Brandt J. 1998. Key concepts and interdisciplinarity in landscape ecology: a summing-up and outlook. In: Dover J.W. and Bunce R.G.H. (eds), Key Concepts in Landscape Ecology, pp. 421–434. UK Association of International Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE-UK), Garstang, Great Britain.Google Scholar
  4. Cale W.G., Henebry G.M. and Yeakley J.A. 1989. Inferring process from pattern in natural communities. BioScience 39: 600–605.Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter S.R. 1992. Replication and treatment strength in whole-lake experiments. Ecology 73: 453–463.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter S.R. 1996. Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77: 453–463.Google Scholar
  7. Dale M.R.T. 1999. Spatial Pattern Analysis in Plant Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Flather C.H. and Sauer J.R. 1996. Using landscape ecology to test hypotheses about large-scale abundance in migratory birds. Ecology 77: 28–35.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Gustafson E.J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1: 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamel P.B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds in the South. The Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Haines-Young R. and Chopping 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
  13. 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
  14. Hargrove W.W. and Pickering J. 1992. Pseudoreplication: A sine qua non for regional ecology. Landscape Ecology 6: 251–258.Google Scholar
  15. Harris L.D. and Sanderson J. 2000. The re-membered landscape. In: Sanderson J. and Harris L.D. (eds), Landscape Ecology: A Top-Down Approach, pp. 91–112. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Hurlbert S.H. 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52: 577–586.Google Scholar
  17. Hurlbert S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54: 187–211.Google Scholar
  18. Jelinski D.E. and Wu J. 1996. The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 11: 129–140.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Levin S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943–1967.Google Scholar
  22. Li H. and Reynolds J.F. 1993. A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecology 8: 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li H. and Reynolds J.F. 1994. A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75: 2446–2455.Google Scholar
  24. Li H. and Reynolds J. F. 1995. On definition and quantification of heterogeneity. Oikos 73: 280–284.Google Scholar
  25. Li H., Gartner D., Mou P. and Trettin C.C. 2000. A landscape model (LEEMATH) to evaluate effects of management impacts on timber and wildlife habitat. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 27: 263–292.Google Scholar
  26. Lovejoy S. 1982. Area-perimeter relation for rain and cloud areas. Science 216: 185–187.Google Scholar
  27. Ludwig J.A., Wiens J.A. and Tongway D.J. 2000. A scaling rule for landscape patches and how it applies to conserving soil resources in Savannas. Ecosystems 3: 84–97.Google Scholar
  28. Milne B.T. 1991. Lessons from applying fractal models to landscape patterns. In: Turner M.G. and Gardner R.H. (eds), Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, pp. 199–235. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Naveh Z. and Lieberman A.S. 1984. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Oksanen L. 2001. Logic of experiments in ecology: Is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue? Oikos 94: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. O’Neill R.V., Krummel J.R., Gardner R.H., Sugihara G., Jackson B., 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. Landscape Ecology 1: 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Neill R.V., Riitters K.H., Wickham J.D. and Jones K.B. 1999. Landscape pattern metrics and regional assessment. Ecosystem Health 5: 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Openshaw S. 1984. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Geo Books, Norwich, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Pickett S.T.A. and Cadenasso M.L. 1995. Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science 269: 331–334.Google Scholar
  36. Pickett S.T.A., Kolasa J. and Jones C.G. 1994. Ecological Understanding. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Risser P.G., Karr J.R. and Forman R.T.T. 1984. Landscape Ecology: Directions and Approaches. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publ. 2, Champaign, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Riitters K.H., O’Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Wickham J.D., Yankee D.H., Timmins K.B.J. and Jackson B.L. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10: 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saura S. and Martinez-Millan J. 2001. Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extent. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 67: 1027–1036.Google Scholar
  40. Turner M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Turner M.G. 1990. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 4: 21–30.Google Scholar
  42. Turner M.G. and Gardner R.H. 1991. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology: The Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape Heterogeneity. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Wickham J.D., O’Neill R.V., Riitters K.H., Wade T.G. and Jones K.B. 1997. Sensitivity of landscape metrics to land cover misclassification and differences in land cover composition. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 63: 397–402.Google Scholar
  48. Wiens J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385–397.Google Scholar
  49. Wiens J.A., Stenseth N.C., Van Horne B. and Ims R.A. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369–380.Google Scholar
  50. Wu J. 1999. Hierarchy and scaling: Extrapolating information along a scaling ladder. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 25: 367–380.Google Scholar
  51. Wu J. 2000. Landscape Ecology: Pattern, Process, Scale and Hierarchy. Higher Education Press, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  52. Wu J. 2004. Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: Scaling relations. Landscape Ecology 19: 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wu J. and Hobbs R. 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: An idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17: 355–365.Google Scholar
  54. Wu J. and Loucks O.L. 1995. From balance-of-nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology. Quarter Review of Biology 70: 439–466.Google Scholar
  55. Wu J., Shen W. Sun W. and Tueller P.T. 2002. Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecology 17: 761–782.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, Center for Forested Wetlands ResearchCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Science, School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations