Skip to main content

Regional and Continental-Scale Perspectives on Landscape Pattern

  • 106k Accesses

Abstract

Landscape patterns vary widely across Earth’s surface as a result of both anthropogenic and natural causes. This variation among landscapes can be quantified by using a large number of metrics developed to capture distinctive qualities of spatial pattern. An informed understanding of pattern–process relationships involves landscape comparisons among and within regions. Despite many advances in landscape pattern analysis, informed selection of landscapes for studying pattern–process relationships in real-world situations remains challenging. This lab explores these challenges with objectives designed to enable students to.

Keywords

  • Lyme Disease
  • Landscape Pattern
  • Landscape Metrics
  • Landscape Composition
  • Study Landscape

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6374-4_10
  • Chapter length: 17 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4939-6374-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Figure 10.1
Figure 10.2
Figure 10.3

References and Recommended Readings

Note: An asterisk preceding the entry indicates that it is a suggested reading.

  • Cardille JA, White JC, Wulder MA et al (2012) Representative landscapes in the forested area of Canada. Environ Manag 49(1):163–173

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • *Cardille JA, Lambois M (2010) From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters: human signature nearly ubiquitous in representative US landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 8:130–134. Mines the Metaland database for 1992 using the “affinity propagation” algorithm, which clusters landscapes while selecting a representative of each group of landscapes. Supplementary material shows other landscapes that were evaluated as similar, using landscape metrics, to each of the chosen representatives.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cardille JA, Turner MG, Clayton M et al (2005) METALAND: characterizing spatial patterns and statistical context of landscape metrics. BioScience 55:983–988. Presents the goals of the Metaland database, an overview of the Metaland interface, and maps and histograms of metrics across the state of Wisconsin, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8(5):691–703

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • *Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2011) Sub-optimal study design has major impacts on landscape-scale inference. Biol Conserv 144:298–305. Excellent demonstration of how poor sampling design can compromise the inference from a study that includes landscape pattern as a predictor—even causing the direction of relationships to switch. Tools like Metaland can be used to improve study design by quantifying the ranges and correlation structure of metrics used in an analysis and assuring that sample landscapes do not overlap in space.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey BJ, Dueck D (2007) Clustering by passing messages between data points. Science 315(5814):972–976

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Fry JA, Coan MJ, Homer CJ et al (2009) Completion of the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 1992–2001 land cover change retrofit product. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1379, p 18. This document provides details on differences between the 1992 and 2001 NLCD data, and is a necessary reading for anyone comparing the two time periods. Differences in the data can interfere with the ability to detect change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry JA, Xian G, Jin S et al (2011) Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77(9):858–864

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1(2):143–156

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J et al (2007) Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the Coterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 73(4):337

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin S, Yang L, Danielson P et al (2013) A comprehensive change detection method for updating the national land cover database to circa 2011. Remote Sens Environ 132:159–175

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • *Kupfer JA (2012) Landscape ecology and biogeography: rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape. Progr Phys Geogr 36:400–420. This paper summarizes the current pitfalls and limitations of landscape pattern analysis, arguing that the research community has focused on landscape structure at the expense of landscape function. It summarizes the state of affairs of landscape structure measures from several different perspectives, and makes clear recommendations for future research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford WT, Gergel SE, Dietterich TG et al (2006) Map misclassification can cause large errors in landscape pattern indices: examples from habitat fragmentation. Ecosystems 9(3):474–488

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19(4):389–399

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • LoGiudice K, Ostfeld RS, Schmidt KA et al (2003) The ecology of infectious disease: effects of host diversity and community composition on Lyme disease risk. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(2):567–571

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amhers. Available at the following web site: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

    Google Scholar 

  • *Proulx R, Fahrig L (2010) Detecting human-driven deviations from trajectories in landscape composition and configuration. Landsc Ecol 25:1479–1487. This paper offers a regional analysis of the relationship between two landscape metrics based on 16 Canadian landscapes that vary in land use and human disturbance, demonstrating the kind of analysis that can be facilitated by approaches similar to Metaland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Gardner RH (2015) Landscape ecology in theory and practice, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L et al (2001) Completion of the 1990s National Land Cover Data Set for the conterminous United States from Landsat Thematic Mapper data and ancillary data sources. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 67(6):650–662

    Google Scholar 

  • Xian G, Homer C, Demitz J et al (2011) Change of impervious surface area between 2001 and 2006 in the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77(8):758–762

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey A. Cardille .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cardille, J.A., Turner, M.G. (2017). Regional and Continental-Scale Perspectives on Landscape Pattern. In: Gergel, S., Turner, M. (eds) Learning Landscape Ecology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6374-4_10

Download citation