Introduction to Markov Models

  • Dean L. UrbanEmail author
  • David O. Wallin


Models of landscape change are important tools for understanding the forces that shape landscapes. One motivation for modeling is to examine the implications of extrapolating short-term landscape dynamics over the longer term. This extrapolation of the status quo can serve as a frame of reference against which to assess alternative management scenarios or test hypotheses. There is a spectrum of ways to consider landscape change, ranging from simple and readily interpretable, to more realistic and less tractable. The goals of this lab are to.


Markov Model Transition Matrix Cover Type Landscape Change Landsat Thematic Mapper Data 
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.



The classified imagery used in this lab was developed under funding provided by the USDA Forest Service New Perspectives Program, the National Sciences Foundation through the H.J. Andrews Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site (Grant 90-11663) and the Terrestrial Ecology Program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAGW-3745).

References and Recommended Readings1

  1. Acevedo M, Urban DL, Ablan M (1995) Transition and gap models of forest dynamics. Ecol Appl 5:1040–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acevedo MF, Urban DL, Shugart HH (1996) Models of forest dynamics based on roles of tree species. Ecol Model 87:267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. *Baker WL (1989) A review of models of landscape change. Landsc Ecol 2:111–133. A general review and good introduction to a wider variety of models. Google Scholar
  4. Cohen WB, Spies TA, Fiorella M (1995) Estimating the age and structure of forests in a multiownership landscape of western Oregon, USA. Int J Remote Sens 16:721–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen WB, Fiorella M, Gray J et al (1998) An efficient and accurate method for mapping forest clearcuts in the Pacific Northwest using Landsat imagery. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 64:293–300Google Scholar
  6. Cohen WB, Spies TA, Alig RJ (2002) Characterizing 23 years (1972–95) of stand replacement disturbance in western Oregon forests with Landsat imagery. Ecosystems 5:122–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FEMAT (1993) Forest ecosystem management: an ecological economic, and social assessment, Report of Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, July 1993, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  8. *Haefner JW (1996) Modeling biological systems: principles and applications. Chapman and Hall, New York. The introductory chapter and chapter 8 on model validation are great background reading. Google Scholar
  9. Hall FG, Botkin DB, Strebel DE (1991) Large-scale patterns of forest succession as determined by remote sensing. Ecology 72:628–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen AJ, Spies TA, Swanson FJ (1991) Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. Bioscience 41:382–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris LD (1984) The fragmented forest. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Healey SP, Yang Z, Cohen WB et al (2006) Application of two regression-based methods to estimate the effects of partial harvest on forest structure using Landsat data. Remote Sens Environ 101:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong SH, Mladenoff DJ (1999a) Spatially explicit and stochastic simulation of forest- landscape fire disturbance and succession. Ecology 80:81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hong SH, Mladenoff DJ (1999b) The effects of seed dispersal on the simulation of long-term forest landscape change. Ecosystems 2:308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson WC (1977) A mathematical model of forest succession and land use for the North Carolina Piedmont. Bull Torrey Botan Club 104:334–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson WC, Sharpe DM (1976) An analysis of forest dynamics in the northern Georgia Piedmont. Forest Sci 22:307–322Google Scholar
  17. Kennedy et al (2007) Scholar
  18. *Mladenoff DJ, Baker WL (eds) (1999) Spatial modeling of forest landscape change: approaches and applications . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. This book includes a good sampling of more recent approaches to modeling landscape dynamics. Google Scholar
  19. Marcot BG, Thomas JW (1997) Of spotted owls, old growth, and new policies: a history since the Interagency Scientific Committee report. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-408. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  20. Moeur M, Ohmann JL, Kennedy RE et al (2011) Status and trends of late-successional and old-growth forests. Northwest Forest Plan: The First 15 Years (1994–2008). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-853
  21. Robbins WG (1988) Hard times in paradise, Coos Bay, Oregon, 1850–1986. University of Washington Press, Seattle, p 194Google Scholar
  22. Ruggiero LF, Aubry KB, Carey AB et al (1991) Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  23. Schroeder TA, Cohen WB, Song C et al (2006) Radiometric calibration of Landsat data for characterization of early successional forest patterns in western Oregon. Remote Sens Environ 103:16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schroeder TA, Cohen WB, Yang Z (2007) Patterns of forest regrowth following clear-cutting in western Oregon as determined from multitemporal Landsat data. For Ecol Manag 243(2–3):259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sklar FH, Costanza R (1991) The development of dynamic spatial models for landscape ecology: A review. In M. G. Turner and R. H. Gardner, eds. Quantitative methods in landscape ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 239–288Google Scholar
  26. Spies TA, Ripple WJ, Bradshaw GA (1994) Dynamics and pattern of a managed coniferous forest landscape in Oregon. Ecol Appl 4:555–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Turner MG (1987) Spatial simulation of landscape changes in Georgia: a comparison of 3 transition models. Landsc Ecol 1:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (1994) Record of decision for amendments for Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, p 74Google Scholar
  29. Urban DL, Acevedo MF, Garman SL (1999) Scaling fine-scale processes to large-scale patterns using models derived from models: meta-models. In: Mladenoff D, Baker W (eds) Spatial modeling of forest landscape change: approaches and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 70–98Google Scholar
  30. *Usher MB (1992) Statistical models of succession. In: Glenn-Lewin DC, Peet RK, Veblen TT, (eds) Plant succession: theory and prediction. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 215–248. This tutorial on Markov processes and statistical models is an excellent introduction to this type of model, and includes clearly worked examples as well as formal treatment of more formal analysis of Markov models. Google Scholar
  31. Wallin DO, Harmon ME, Cohen WB et al (1996a) Use of remote sensing to model land use effects on carbon flux in forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA. In: Gholz HL, Nakane K, Shimoda H (eds) The use of remote sensing in the modeling of forest productivity at scales from the stand to the globe. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 219–237Google Scholar
  32. Wallin DO, Swanson FJ, Marks B et al (1996b) Comparison of managed and pre-settlement landscape dynamics in forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA. For Ecol Manage 85:291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wear DN, Bolstad P (1998) Land-use changes in southern Appalachian landscapes: spatial analysis and forecast evaluation. Ecosystems 1:575–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weinstein DA, Shugart HH (1983) Ecological modeling of landscape dynamics. In H. A. Mooney and M. Godron, eds. Disturbance and ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 29–45Google Scholar
  35. Wu F, Webster CJ (1998) Simulation of land development through the integration of cellular automata and multicriteria evaluation. Environ Plann B 25:103–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Western Washington UniversityBellinghamUSA

Personalised recommendations