Synoptic environmental indicators as image analogs for landscape analysis

Abstract

Spatially synoptic multivariate image data implicitly embody information on landscape pattern, for which analytical techniques of explicit pattern extraction are evolving. In parallel, a multiplicity of environmental indicators’ is being generated in the arena of geographic information systems. Landscape ecological analysis offers substantial opportunity for configuring these indicators synoptically as cells over spatial extents and for stacking them into complementary sets of image-structured multiple environmental indicators whereby the values of the indicators become intensity analogs of brightness for spectral bands. As environmental signal analogs of multiband images, these data become available to image portrayal in both graytone and quasi-color renditions to reveal joint properties of pattern for visual interpretation. Likewise, many of the conventional image analysis operations can be conceived more broadly to allow their application in the indicator context. This includes combinatorial approaches such as calculation of an NDVI equivalent from indicator intensities. Similarly, supervised and unsupervised analyses can have meaningful application in the context of multiple environmental indicators. Furthermore, newer techniques of pattern-based image segmentation can also be applied. Application to habitat modeling for vertebrates from Gap Analysis shows the effectiveness of the approach.

Abbreviations

DE:

Digital Elevation Model

GIS:

Geographic Information System

NDVI:

Normalized Difference Vegetation Index

PHASE:

Palette Homogeneity Among Segmentation Elements

PSI:

Progressively Segmenting Images

RHII:

Regional Habitat Importance Index

References

  1. Argent, D., J. Bishop, J. Stauffer, R. Carline and W. Myers. 2003. Predicting freshwater fish distributions using landscape-level variables. Fisheries Research 60: 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brauning, D. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bruzzone, L. and D. Prieto. 2000. Automatic analysis of the difference image for unsupervised change detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 38: 1171–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, J., P. Gong, C. He, R. Pu and P. Shi. 2003. Land-use/land-cover change detection using improved change vector analysis. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 69: 369–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Coppin, P. and M. Bauer. 1996. Digital change detection in forest ecosystems with remote sensing imagery. Remote Sensing Reviews 13: 207–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, F. W., D. M. Stoms, J. E. Estes, J. Scepan and J. M. Scott. 1990. An information systems approach to biological diversity. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 4: 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fortran, R. T. T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 632 p.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fortran, R. T. T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Frohn, R. 1998. Remote Sensing for Landscape Ecology: New Metric Indicators for Monitoring, Modeling, and Assessment of Ecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gibson, P. and C. Power. 2000. Introductory Remote Sensing: Principles and Practices. Taylor and Francis, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gong, P. 1993. Change detection using principal component analysis and fuzzy set theory. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 19: 22–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Isaaks, E. and R. M. Shrivastava. 1989. An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  13. James, M. 1985. Classification Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jensen, J. 2000. Remote Sensing of the Environment: An Earth Resource Perspective. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lunetta, R. and C. Elvidge, eds. 1998. Remote Sensing Change Detection: Environmental Monitoring Methods and Applications. Ann Arbor Press, Ann Arbor, Ml.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mas, J. 1999. Monitoring land-cover changes: a comparison of change detection techniques. International Journal of Remote Sensing 20: 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McGarigal, K. and B. Marks. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW 351, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

  18. Miller, E. W., Ed. 1995. A Geography of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Myers, W. 2000. Landscape scale ecological mapping of Pennsylvania forests. Research Rept. ER2002, Environmental Resources Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, Univ. Park, PA 16802 USA.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Myers, W. 2003. Doubly segmented images for pattern-based approach to change detection. Final report on NASA Research Project NAG5-1054. Research Report PSIE 2003-6, Penn State Institutes of Environment, The Pennsylvania State University, Univ. Park, PA 16802 USA. 90 pp. + CD-ROM.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Myers, W., J. Bishop, R. Brooks, T. O’Connell, D. Argent, G. Storm, J. Stauffer, Jr. and R. Carline. 2000. The Pennsylvania GAP Analysis Final Report. The Pennsylvania State University, Univ. Park, PA 16802.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Myers, W., J. Bishop, R. Brooks and G. P. Patil. 2001. Composite spatial indexing of regional habitat importance. Community Ecology 2: 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Myers, W., G. P. Patil and C. Taillie. 1999. Conceptualizing pattern analysis of spectral change relative to ecosystem status. Ecosystem Health 5: 285–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Myers, W., G. P. Patil and C. Taillie. 2003. Doubly segmented proxy images for multi-scale landscape ecology and ecosystem health. Community Ecology 4:163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Olivieri, S. T. and E. H. Backus. 1992. Geographic information systems (GIS) Applications in biological conservation. Biology International 25:10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rogan, J., J. Miller, D. Stow, J. Franklin, L. Levien and C. Fisher. 2003. Land-cover change monitoring with classification trees using Landsat TM and ancillary data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 69: 793–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Scott, J. M., F. Davis, B. Custi, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. D’Erchia, T. C. Edwards, Jr., J. Ulliman and R. G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: A geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs No. 123.

  28. Singh, A. 1989. Digital change detection techniques using remotely sensed data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 10: 989–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tso, B. and P. Mather. 2001. Classification Methods for Remotely Sensed Data. Taylor and Francis, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Walrath, D. 2000. Multiscale analysis of avian distributions in Pennsylvania. Master of Science Thesis in Ecology, The Pennsylvania State University, Univ. Park, PA 16802 USA.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wilkie, D. and J. Finn. 1996. Remote Sensing Imagery for Natural Resources Monitoring: A Guide for First-Time Users. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Prepared with partial support from NASA Biospheric Sciences Branch, Goddard Space Flight Center, U.S. EPA Star Grant for Atlantic Slope Consortium Cooperative Agreement, and the NSF Digital Government Program, Division of Experimental and Integrative Activities, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering. The contents have not been subjected to Agency review and therefore do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agencies and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. P. Patil.

Rights and permissions

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Myers, W.L., Patil, G.P., Taillie, C. et al. Synoptic environmental indicators as image analogs for landscape analysis. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 4, 205–217 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.4.2003.2.7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Change detection
  • Clustering algorithms
  • Environmental indicators
  • Geographic information systems
  • Image analysis
  • Landscape ecology
  • Remote sensing
  • Species habitat
  • Species richness