Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Landscape metrics for characterization of forest landscapes in a sustainable management framework: Potential application and prevention of misuse

Indices quantitatifs de paysage pour une caractérisation des paysages forestiers dans le cadre d’une gestion durable : application potentielle et prévention de mauvaise utilisation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Forest Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

  • • The use of landscape indices in the analysis of forest landscapes offers great potential for integration of spatial pattern information in management processes, but requires understanding of the limitations and correct interpretation of results. In this sense, awareness of scale effects on landscape indices is essential, especially when the data available is restricted to low-resolution maps.

  • • In this study, developed within the framework of the FORSEE project, the objective was to define accurately the potential usefulness of applying landscape indices to low-resolution maps commonly used in forestry studies. Landscape indices were applied to two maps differing in spatial resolution, and subsets were defined for three spatial extensions. Correlation analysis and comparison of the results were carried out to enable identification of the most suitable indices for use with low resolution data.

  • • The analysis enabled identification of the least scale-dependent indices, which are thus more useful for extrapolating results from low-resolution data. In general terms, diversity and edge indices provided the best results.

  • • We conclude that some (but not all) of the landscape indices can be used to analyse low-resolution maps with acceptable results. Additional advice is made to prevent misuse of the application of landscape indices.

Résumé

  • • L’utilisation d’indices de paysage dans l’analyse des paysages forestiers offre un grand potentiel pour l’intégration d’informations de modèles spatiaux dans les processus de gestion, mais exige la compréhension des limitations et une interprétation correcte de résultats. Dans ce sens, la conscience des effets d’échelle sur les indices de paysage est essentielle, particulièrement quand les données disponibles sont limitées aux cartes de basse résolution.

  • • Dans cette étude, développée dans le cadre du projet FORSEE, l’objectif était de définir précisément l’utilité potentielle d’application des indices de paysage aux cartes de basse résolution, généralement utilisées dans les études de sylviculture. Les indices de paysage ont été appliqués à deux cartes différant par la résolution spatiale et les sous-ensembles ont été définis pour trois extensions spatiales. Une analyse de corrélation et la comparaison des résultats ont été effectuées pour permettre l’identification des indices les plus appropriés pour une utilisation avec des données de basse résolution.

  • • L’analyse a permis l’identification des indices les moins dépendants de l’échelle, qui sont ainsi plus utiles pour extrapoler les résultats de données de basse résolution. En termes généraux, la diversité et des indices de bord ont fourni les meilleurs résultats.

  • • Nous concluons que certains (mais pas tous) indices de paysage peuvent être utilisés pour analyser les cartes de basse résolution avec des résultats acceptables. Un conseil supplémentaire est fait pour prévenir une mauvaise utilisation des indices de paysage.

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

  • Andersson F., Birot Y., and Päivinen R., 2004. Towards the sustainable use of Europe’s forests — Forest ecosystems and landscape research: Scientific challenges and opportunities. EFI Proceedings No. 49, European Forest Institute.

  • Bailey D., Billeter R., Aviron S., Schweiger O., and Herzog F., 2007a. The influence of thematic resolution on metric selection for biodiversity monitoring in agricultural landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 22: 461–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey D., Herzog F., Augenstein I., Aviron S., Billeter R., Szerencsits E., and Baudry J., 2007b. Thematic resolution matters: Indicators of landscape pattern for European agro-ecosystems. Ecological Indicators 7: 692–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin D.J.B., Weaver K., Schnekenburger F., and Perera A.H., 2004. Sensitivity of landscape pattern indices to input data characteristics on real landscapes: implications for their use in natural disturbance emulation. Landsc. Ecol. 19: 255–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson J., Nilsson S.G., Franc A., and Menozzi P., 2000. Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 132: 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson B.J. and MacKenzie M.D., 1995. Effects of sensor spatial resolution on landscape structure parameters. Landsc. Ecol. 10: 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botequilha Leitao A. and Ahern J., 2002. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landsc. Urban Plann. 59: 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botequilha Leitao A., Miller J., Ahern J., and McGarigal K., 2006. Measuring landscapes. A planner’s handbook, Island Press, Washington, 245 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buyantuyev A. and Wu J., 2007. Effects of thematic resolution on landscape pattern analysis. Landsc. Ecol. 22: 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corry R.C. and Nassauer J.I., 2005. Limitations of using landscape pattern indices to evaluate the ecological consequences of alternative plans and designs. Landsc. Urban Plann. 72: 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falcao A.O. and Borges J.G., 2005. Designing decision support tools for Mediterranean forest ecosystems management: a case study in Portugal. Ann. For. Sci. 62: 751–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin J.F. and Forman R.T.T., 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: Ecological consequences and principles. Landsc. Ecol. 1: 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frohn R.C., 1998. Remote sensing for landscape ecology. New metric indicators for monitoring, modeling, and assessment of ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, 99 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohn R.C. and Hao Y., 2006. Landscape metric performance in analyzing two decades of deforestation in the Amazon Basin of Rondonia, Brazil. Remote Sens. Environ. 100: 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez J.R., Palahí M., and Pukkala T., 2000. Integrating fire risk considerations in forest management planning in Spain — a landscape level perspective. Landsc. Ecol. 20: 957–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E.J., 1998. Quantifying Landscape Spatial Pattern: What Is the State of the Art? Ecosystems 1: 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargis C.D., Bissonette J.A., and David J.L., 1998. The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landsc. Ecol. 13: 167–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang C., Geiger E.L., and Kupfer J.A., 2006. Sensitivity of landscape metrics to classification scheme. Int. J. Remote Sens. 27: 2927–2948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelinski D.E. and Wu J., 1996. The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landsc. Ecol. 11: 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn F., 1991. Hierarchical classification of ecosystems: a tool for susceptibility analysis and quality evaluation for environmental policy. In: Ravera O. (Ed.), Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Perturbation and recovery, Ellis Horwood, London, pp. 80–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lausch A. and Herzog F., 2002. Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change: issues of scale, resolution and interpretability. Ecol. Indic. 2: 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H. and Wu J., 2004. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc. Ecol. 19: 389–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X.Z., He H.S., Bu R.C., Wen Q.C., Chang Y., Hu Y.M., and Li Y.H., 2005. The adequacy of different landscape metrics for various landscape patterns. Pattern Recogn. 38: 2626–2638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer D.B., Margules C.R., and Botkin D.B., 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv. Biol. 14: 941–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloret F., Calvo E., Pons X., and Diaz-Delgado X., 2002. Wildfires and landscape patterns in the Eastern Iberian peninsula. Landsc. Ecol. 17: 745–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfman S. and Kouki J. 2003. Scale and dynamics of a transforming forest landscape. For. Ecol. Manage. 175: 247–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marceau D.J., 1999. The scale issue in social and natural sciences. Can. J. Remote Sens. 25: 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marey M.F., 2003. Tenencia de la tierra en Galicia: Modelo para la caracterización de los propietarios forestales. Doctoral Thesis. University of Santiago de Compostela.

  • Martin-Garcia J., Herve J., and Diez J.J., 2006. Landscape metrics as surrogates for bird assemblages in biodiversity indicators. Indicators for Sustainable forest management in cultivated forests: International Conference FORSEE Project Final Meeting, 11–13 December 2006, Porto (Portugal).

  • McAlpine C.A. and Eyre T.J., 2002. Testing landscape metrics as indicators of habitat loss and fragmentation in continuous eucalypt forests (Queensland, Australia). Landsc. Ecol. 17: 711–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K., Cushman S.A., Neel M.C., and Ene E., 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. University of Massachussetts. Available on the internet, URL: www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html.

  • Nagendra H., 2002. Opposite trends in response for the Shannon and Simpson indices of landscape diversity. Applied Geography 22: 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura F., Inahara S., and Kaneko M., 2005. A hierarchical approach to ecosystem assessment of restoration planning at regional, catchment and local scales in Japan. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 1: 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Landsc. Ecol. 1: 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagano M. and Gauvreau K., 2001. Principios de Bioestadística. Thomson Learning, México D.F., 525 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Päivinen R. and Köhl M., 2005. European Forest Information and Communication System (EFICS), Technical Report 17, European Forest Institute. Available on the internet, URL: http://www.efi.fi/ publications/technical-reports/17.html (last visit 23/07/2007).

  • Riitters K.H., Wickham J.D., O’Neill R.V., Jones K.B., Smith E.R., Coulston J.W., Wade T.G., and Smith J.H., 2002. Fragmentation of continental United States forests. Ecosystems 5: 815–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romme W.H., 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecol. Monogr. 52: 199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S., 2002. Effects of minimum mapping unit on land cover data spatial configuration and composition. Int. J. Remote Sens. 23: 4853–4880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S., 2004. Effects of remote sensor spatial resolution and data aggregation on selected fragmentation indices. Landsc. Ecol. 19: 197–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S. and Carballal P., 2004. Discrimination of native and exotic forest patterns through shape irregularity indices: an analysis in the landscapes of Galicia, Spain. Landsc. Ecol. 19: 647–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S. and Martínez-Millán J., 2001. Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extent. Photogram. Eng. Remote Sens. 67: 1027–1036.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims R.A., Mackey B.G., and Baldwin K.A., 1995. Stand and landscape level applications of a forest ecosystem classification for northwestern Ontario, Canada. Ann. For. Sci. 52: 573–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spearman C., 1904. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am. J. Psychol. 15: 72–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPSS Inc., 2005. SPSSTM version14.0.1. Statistical software. Statistical Products and Service Solutions Inc., Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson C.M. and McGarigal K., 2002. The influence of research scale on bald eagle habitat selection along the lower Hudson River, New York (USA). Landsc. Ecol. 17: 569–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trani M.K. and Giles R.H., 1999. An analysis of deforestation: Metrics used to describe pattern change. For. Ecol. Manage. 114: 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Landsc. Ecol. 3: 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Gadow K., Pukkala T. and Tome M., 2000. Sustainable Forest Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 356 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J., 2004. Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landsc. Ecol. 19: 125–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J., Shen W., Sun W., and Tueller P.T., 2002. Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landsc. Ecol. 17: 761–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agroforestry Engineering, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Emilio R. Diaz-Varela & Manuel F. Marey-Pérez

  2. Department of Vegetal Production, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Antonio Rigueiro-Rodriguez & Pedro Álvarez-Álvarez

Authors
  1. Emilio R. Diaz-Varela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manuel F. Marey-Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonio Rigueiro-Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pedro Álvarez-Álvarez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilio R. Diaz-Varela.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Diaz-Varela, E.R., Marey-Pérez, M.F., Rigueiro-Rodriguez, A. et al. Landscape metrics for characterization of forest landscapes in a sustainable management framework: Potential application and prevention of misuse. Ann. For. Sci. 66, 301 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1051/forest/2009004

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/forest/2009004

Keywords

Mots-clés

Search

Navigation