Concepts of Landscape Pattern

  • Alexander V. Khoroshev
Part of the Landscape Series book series (LAEC, volume 26)


The term “landscape” was introduced into Russian scientific literature in 1913. Since that time a lot of competing conceptions about landscape structure have been developed. Although traditional genesis-based approach with strong focus on abiotic factors is most widely applied, today landscape is treated as a multifaceted and multifunctional phenomenon, a complex system that requires multiplicity of projections to reveal essential relations between geocomponents and spatial elements. The chapter contains a review of approaches and concepts used in Russia to describe landscape structure: genetic–morphological, positional–dynamical, paragenetical, biocentric, biocirculation, basin, and catena approaches, the concept of chorions. Landscape map provides information on various types of landscape structures although one of them is commonly chosen as a basic frame. The choice of basic type of structure used for mapping is dictated by expected practical application.


Landscape Component Unit Structure Genesis Hierarchy Flows Map 



This research was conducted according to the State target for Lomonosov Moscow State University “Structure, functioning and evolution of natural and natural-anthropogenic geosystems” (project no. АААА-А16-116032810081-9).


  1. Annenskaya, G. N., Vidina, A. A., Zhuchkova, V. K., Konovalenko, V. G., Mamay, I. I., Pozdneeva, M. I., Smirnova, E. D., Solnetsev, N. A., & Tseselchuk, Y. N. (1963). Morphological structure of a geographical landscape. Moscow: MSU Publishing House. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  2. Armand, A. D., & Targul’yan, V. O. (1976). Some fundamental limitations on experimentation and model-building in geography. Soviet Geography, 17(3), 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, R. G. (2005). Identifying ecoregion boundaries. Environmental Management, 34(Suppl.1), 14–26.Google Scholar
  4. Bastian, O. (2000). Landscape classification in Saxony (Germany)—A tool for holistic regional planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bastian, O., & Steinhardt, U. (Eds.). (2002). Development and perspectives of landscape ecology. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  6. Berg, L. S. (1913). An attempt at the division of Siberia and Turkestan into landscape and morphological regions. In Collection of papers in honor of D. N. Anuchin’s seventieth birthday (pp. 117–151). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Imperatorskogo obshchestva Lyubitelei Estestvoznaniya, Antropologii i Etnografii pri Moskovskom universitete. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  7. Berg, L. S. (1915). The objectives and tasks of geography. Proceedings of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society, 51(9), 463–475. (in Russian). See also in J. A. Wiens, M. R. Moss, M. G. Turner, & D. J. Mladenoff (Eds.). (2006). Foundation papers in landscape ecology (pp. 11–18). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cherkashin, A. K. (Ed.). (2005). Landscape interpretative mapping. Novosibirsk: Nauka. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  9. Christian, C. S., & Stewart, G. A. (1953). General report on survey of the Katherine-Darwin region 1946 (CSIRO Aust Land Res. Ser. No. 1). Melbourne: CSIRO.Google Scholar
  10. Christian, C. S., & Stewart, G. A. (1964). Methodology of integrated survey. Proceedings of UNESCO conference on principles and methods of integrated aerial surveys of natural resources for potential development, Tolouse. WS/0384.15/NS.Google Scholar
  11. Cleland, D. T., Avers, P. E., McNab, W. H., Jensen, M. E., Bailey, R. G., King, T., & Russell, W. E. (1997). National hierarchical framework of ecological units. In M. S. Boyce & A. Haney (Eds.), Ecosystem management applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources (pp. 181–200). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cushman, S. A., & Huettmann, F. (Eds.). (2010). Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Tokyo: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Delcourt, H. R., Delcourt, P. A., & Webb, T. (1983). Dynamic plant ecology: The spectrum of vegetation change in space and time. Quatenary Science Review, 1, 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorner, B., Lertzman, K., & Fall, J. (2002). Landscape pattern in topographically complex landscapes: Issues and techniques for analysis. Landscape Ecology, 17, 729–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drăguţ, L., Walz, U., & Blaschke, T. (2010). The third and fourth dimensions of landscape: Towards conceptual models of topographically complex landscapes. Landscape Online, 22, 1–10. Scholar
  16. Dyakonov, K. N. (2007). Landscape studies in Moscow Lomonosov State University: Development of scientific domain and education. In K. N. Dyakonov, N. S. Kasimov, A. V. Khoroshev, & A. V. Kushlin (Eds.), Landscape analysis for sustainable development. Theory and applications of landscape science in Russia (pp. 11–20). Moscow: Alex Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Forman, R. T. T. (2006). Land mosaics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Forman, R. T. T., & Godron, M. (1986). Landscape ecology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Grigoryev, A. A. (1926). Problems of integrated study of territory. Priroda (Nature), 5(6), 46–58. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  20. Grodzinsky, M. (2005). Understanding landscape. Place and space (2 Vols.). Kiev: Kiev University. (in Ukrainian).Google Scholar
  21. Grodzinsky, M. (2014). Landscape ecology. Kiev: Znannya. (in Ukrainian).Google Scholar
  22. Haase, G. (1989). Medium scale landscape classification in the German Democratic Republic. Landscape Ecology, 3(1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harvey, D. (1969). Explanation in geography. London: Hodder & Stoughton Educational.Google Scholar
  24. Hills, G. A. (1961). The ecological basis for land-use-planning (Research report no. 26). Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests.Google Scholar
  25. Hoechstetter, S., Walz, U., Dang, L. H., & Thinh, N. X. (2008). Effects of topography and surface roughness in analyses of landscape structure – A proposal to modify the existing set of landscape metrics. Landscape Online, 3, 1–14. Scholar
  26. Isachenko, A. G. (1973). Principles of landscape science and physical-geographic regionalization. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Khoroshev, A. V. (2019). Multiscale Organization of Landscape Structure in the middle taiga of European Russia. Landscape Online, 66, 1–19.Google Scholar
  28. Klijn, F., & de Haes, H. A. U. (1994). A hierarchical approach to ecosystems and its applications for ecological land classification. Landscape Ecology, 9(2), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klink, H.-J., Potschin, M., Tress, B., Tress, G., Volk, M., & Steinhardt, U. (2002). Landscape and landscape ecology. In O. Bastian & U. Steinhardt (Eds.), Development and perspectives of landscape ecology (pp. 10–24). Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  30. Kolomyts, E. G. (1998). Polymorphism of landscape-zonal systems. Pushchino: ONTI PIC RAN. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  31. Likens, G. E., & Bormann, F. H. (1995). Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meentemeyer, V. (1989). Geographical perspectives of space, time, scale. Landscape Ecology, 3(3/4), 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neef, E. (1963). Topologische und chorologische arbeitsweisen in der landschaftsforschung. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 107, 249–259.Google Scholar
  34. Neef, E. (1967). Die theoretischen grundlagen der landschaftslehre. Gotha-Leipzig: Haack.Google Scholar
  35. Paffen, K.-H. (1953). Die natürlichen landschaften und ihre räumliche gliederung. Eine methodische untersuchung am beispiel der Mittel- und Niederrheinlande (Forschung zur deutschen Landeskunde) (Vol. 68). Remagen: Verlag der Bundesanstalt für Landeskunde.Google Scholar
  36. Perelman, A. I. (1972). Landscape geochemistry. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola. (Translated from Russian). (Geol. Surv. Canada Trans. No. 676, Parts I and II).Google Scholar
  37. Puzachenko, Y. G. (1986). Space-time hierarchy of geosystems from the standpoint of fluctuation theory. In Issues in Geography. Vol. 127. Geosystem modelling (pp. 96–111). Moscow: Mysl’. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  38. Raman, K. G. (1972). Spatial polystructurality of topological geocomplexes and experience of its identification in the conditions of the Latvian SSR. Riga: Latvian State University Publishing House. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  39. Ramensky, L. G. (1938). Introduction to integrated soil and geobotanical regionalization of lands. Moscow: Selhozgiz. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  40. Reteyum, A. Y. (1988). The terrestrial worlds (on holistic studying of geosystems). Moscow: Mysl’. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  41. Rowe, J. S. (1996). Land classification and ecosystem classification. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 39, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shugart, H. H. (1999). Equilibrium versus non-equilibrium landscapes. In J. A. Wiens & M. R. Moss (Eds.), Issues in landscape ecology (pp. 18–21). Snowmass Village: International Association for Landscape Ecology.Google Scholar
  43. Sochava, V. B. (1978). Introduction to the theory of geosystems. Novosibirsk: Nauka. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  44. Solnetsev, N. A. (1948). The natural geographic landscape and some of its general rules. In Proceedings of the second all-union geographical congress (Vol. 1, pp. 258–269). Moscow: State Publishing House for Geographic Literature. (in Russian). See also in: In J. A. Wiens, M. R. Moss, M. G. Turner, & D. J. Mladenoff (Eds.). (2006). Foundation papers in landscape ecology (pp. 19–27). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Solntsev, V. N. (1977). On the difficulties of instilling system approach into physical geography. In K. V. Zvorykin & A. Y. Reteyum (Eds.), Issues in geography. Vol. 104. System studies of nature (pp. 20–36). Moscow: Mysl’. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  46. Solntsev, V. N. (1981). System organization of landscapes. Moscow: Mysl’. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  47. Solntsev, V. N. (1997). Structural landscape science. Moscow: Mysl’. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  48. Solon, J. (1999). Integrating ecological and geographical (biophysical) principles in studies of landscape systems. In J. A. Wiens & M. R. Moss (Eds.), Issues in landscape ecology. 5th IALE-world congress (pp. 22–27). Snowmass Village: International Association for Landscape Ecology.Google Scholar
  49. Topchiev, A. G. (1988). Spatial organization of geographical complexes and systems. Kiev/Odessa: Vishcha Shkola. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  50. Urban, D. L., O’Neill, R. V., & Shugart, H. H., Jr. (1987). Landscape ecology. A hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. Bioscience, 37(2), 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wu, J. (2013). Hierarchy theory: An overview. In R. Rozzi et al. (Eds.), Linking ecology and ethics for a changing world: Values, philosophy, and action (Ecology and ethics 1) (pp. 281–301). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wu, J., & David, J. L. (2002). A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modelling complex ecological systems: Theory and applications. Ecological Modelling, 153, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zonneveld, I. S. (1989). The land unit – A fundamental concept in landscape ecology, and its applications. Landscape Ecology, 3(2), 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander V. Khoroshev
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physical Geography & Landscape ScienceLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations