Advertisement

Using Spatial Statistics and Landscape Metrics to Compare Disturbance Mosaics

  • Monica G. TurnerEmail author
  • Martin Simard
Chapter

Abstract

The causes and consequences of disturbances are major research topics in landscape ecology (Ecosystems 1:497–510, 1998; Prog Bot 62:399–450, 2001; Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:319–344, 2005; Ecology 91(10):2833–2849, 2010). Disturbances are of particular interest because of their reciprocal interactions with landscape pattern—they both respond to and create spatial heterogeneity (Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance, New York, 239, 1987). Understanding the disturbance-created landscape mosaic is important for conserving resources and biodiversity, anticipating potential consequences of global change on disturbance regimes (Ecology 91:2833–2849, 2010), and managing landscapes in ways that mimic attributes of natural disturbances or keep a landscape within its historic range of variability (Emulating natural forest landscape disturbances: concepts and applications, New York, 2004; For Ecolo Manage 257:1868–1873, 2009). The spatial patterns created by disturbances can also provide novel insights into the state and dynamics of a landscape (Ecol Lett 11:756–770, 2008). Thus, disturbance has been a primary focus of landscape ecology for a long time (e.g., Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance, New York, 239, 1987).

Keywords

Landscape Pattern Bark Beetle Spatial Statistic Landscape Metrics Disturbance Severity 
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.

References and Recommended Readings1

  1. Bentz BJ, Regniere J, Fettig CJ et al (2010) Climate change and bark beetles of the Western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. BioScience 60(8):602–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Despain DG (1990) Yellowstone vegetation. Consequences of environment and history in a natural setting. Roberts Rinehart, Boulder, p 239Google Scholar
  3. *Fortin MJ, Dale MRT (2005) Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, p 369. An extremely helpful reference book for applications of spatial statistics. Google Scholar
  4. *Foster DR, Knight DH, Franklin JF (1998) Landscape patterns and legacies resulting from large, infrequent forest disturbances. Ecosystems 1(6):497–510. Classic paper describing how different natural disturbances create landscape patterns. Google Scholar
  5. *Fraterrigo JM, Rusak JA (2008) Disturbance-driven changes in the variability of ecological patterns and processes. Ecol Lett 11:756–770. A terrific conceptual and practical overview of how to consider and quantify variance and why that is useful. Google Scholar
  6. Furniss MM, Renkin R (2003) Forest entomology in Yellowstone National Park, 1923–1957: a time of discovery and learning to let live. Am Entomol 49:198–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gude PH, Hansen AJ, Rasker R et al (2006) Rates and drivers of rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landsc Urban Plan 77:131–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156. Another classic, this paper nicely contrasts continuous and categorical landscape data and analyses. Google Scholar
  9. Jin SM, Sader SA (2005) Comparison of time series tasseled cap wetness and the normalized difference moisture index in detecting forest disturbances. Remote Sens Environ 94:364–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Key CH, Benson NC (2006) Landscape assessment: sampling and analysis methods. In: Lutes DC, Keane RE, Caratti JF et al (eds) FIREMON: fire effects monitoring and inventory system. General technical report RMRS-GTR-164-CD, USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, pp LA1–LA51Google Scholar
  11. Long JN (2009) Emulating natural disturbance regimes as a basis for forest management: a North American view. For Ecolo Manage 257(9):1868–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Millspaugh SH, Whitlock C, Bartlein PJ (2000) Variations in fire frequency and climate over the past 17 000 yr in central Yellowstone National Park. Geology 28(3):211–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Perera AH, Buse LJ, Weber MG (eds) (2004) Emulating natural forest landscape disturbances: concepts and applications. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Peters DPC, Lugo AE, Chapin FS et al (2011) Cross-system comparisons elucidate disturbance complexities and generalities. Ecosphere 2:81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Raffa KF, Aukema BH, Bentz BJ et al (2008) Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. BioScience 58(6):501–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Renkin RA, Despain DG (1992) Fuel moisture, forest type, and lightning-caused fire in Yellowstone National Park. Can J For Res 22(1):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Romme WH (1982) Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecol Monogr 52(2):199–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Romme WH, Despain DG (1989) Historical perspective on the Yellowstone fires of 1988. BioScience 39:695–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Running SW (2006) Is global warming causing more, larger wildfires? Science 313:927–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Schoennagel T, Turner MG, Romme WH (2003) The influence of fire interval and serotiny on postfire lodgepole pine density in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 84(11):2967–2978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schoennagel T, Veblen TT, Romme WH (2004) The interaction of fire, fuels, and climate across rocky mountain forests. BioScience 54:661–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. *Simard M, Powell EN, Raffa KF (2012) What explains landscape patterns of tree mortality caused by bark beetle outbreaks in Greater Yellowstone? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:555–567. An empirical study of bark beetle outbreak severity, this paper gives background on the outbreak patterns in the landscape used here. Google Scholar
  23. *Tinker DB, Romme WH, Despain DG (2003) Historic range of variability in landscape structure in subalpine forests of the Greater Yellowstone Area, USA. Landsc Ecol 18:427–439. Another Yellowstone paper, this study contrasts logging patterns and fire-generated patterns. Google Scholar
  24. Turner MG (ed) (1987) Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance. Springer, New York, p 239Google Scholar
  25. Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:319–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Turner MG (2010) Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world. Ecology 91(10):2833–2849CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Turner MG, Romme WH (1994) Landscape dynamics in crown fire ecosystems. Landsc Ecol 9(1):59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turner MG, Gardner RH (2015) Landscape ecology in theory and practice, 2nd ed. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. *Turner MG, Hargrove WH, Gardner RH et al (1994) Effects of fire on landscape heterogeneity in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. J Veg Sci 5:731–742. One of the very first papers to quantify postfire landscape heterogeneity, this paper presents landscape metrics for areas affected by the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Google Scholar
  30. Watt AS (1947) Pattern and process in the plant community. J Ecol 35:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR et al (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Westerling AL, Turner MG, Smithwick EAH et al (2011) Continued warming could transform Greater Yellowstone fire regimes by mid-21st century. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:13165–13170CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. White PS, Jentsch A (2001) The research for generalities in studies of disturbance and ecosystem dynamics. Prog Bot 62:399–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White PS, Pickett STA (1985) Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. In: Pickett STA, White PS (eds) The ecology of natural disturbance an patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 3–13Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin—MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Université LavalQuebec CityCanada

Personalised recommendations