Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Landscape pattern is spatially correlated and scale-dependent. Thus, understanding landscape structure and functioning requires multiscale information, and scaling functions are the most precise and concise way of quantifying multiscale characteristics explicitly. The major objective of this study was to explore if there are any scaling relations for landscape pattern when it is measured over a range of scales (grain size and extent). The results showed that the responses of landscape metrics to changing scale fell into two categories when computed at the class level (i.e., for individual land cover types): simple scaling functions and unpredictable behavior. Similarly, three categories were found at the landscape level, with the third being staircase pattern, in a previous study when all land cover types were combined together. In general, scaling relations were more variable at the class level than at the landscape level, and more consistent and predictable with changing grain size than with changing extent at both levels. Considering that the landscapes under study were quite diverse in terms of both composition and configuration, these results seem robust. This study highlights the need for multiscale analysis in order to adequately characterize and monitor landscape heterogeneity, and provides insights into the scaling of landscape patterns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen T.F.H. and Starr T.B. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen R.F.H., O'Neill R.V. and Hoekstra T.W. 1984. Interlevel relations in ecological research and management. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-110, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

  • Amrhein C.G. 1995. Searching for the elusive aggregation effect: evidence from statistical simulations. Environment and Planning A 27: 105–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbia G., Benedetti R. and Espa G. 1996. Effects of the MAUP on image classification. Geogr. Syst. 3: 123–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson B.J. and Mackenzie M.D. 1995. Effects of sensor spatial resoltuion on landscape structure parameters. Landscape Ecology 10: 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bian L. and Walsh S.J. 1993. Scale dependencies of vegetation and topography in a mountainous environment of Montana. Professional Geographer 45: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bian L. and Butler R. 1999. Comparing effects of aggregation methods on statistical and spatial properties of simulated spatial data. Photogrammatic Engineering and Remote Sensing 65: 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw G.A. and Spies T.A. 1992. Characterizing canopy gap structure in forests using wavelet analysis. Journal of Ecology 80: 205–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown J.H. and West G.B. (ed.), 2000. Scaling in Biology. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrough P.A. 1995. Spatial aspects of ecological data. In: Jongman R.H.G., Ter Braak C.J.F. and Van Tongeren O.F.R. (eds), Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. pp. 213–265. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R. 1989. Model goodness of fit — A multiple resolution procedure. Ecological Modelling 47: 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R. and Maxwell T. 1994. Resolution and predictability: An approach to the scaling problem. Landscape Ecology 9: 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale M.R.T. 1999. Spatial Pattern Analysis in Plant Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dungan J.L., Perry J.N., Dale M.R.T., Legendre P., Citron-Pousty S., Fortin M.-J., Jakomulska A., Miriti M. and Rosenberg M.S. 2002. A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis. Ecography 25: 626–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortin M.J. 1999. Spatial statistics in landscape ecology. In: Klopatek J.M. and Gardner R.H. (eds), Landscape Ecological Analysis. pp. 253–279. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohn R.C. 1998. Remote Sensing for Landscape Ecology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner R.H., Milne B.T., Turner M.G. and O'Neill R.V. 1987. Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1: 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goovaerts P. 1997. Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E.J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1: 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargis C.D., Bissonette J.A. and David J.L. 1998. The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecology 13: 167–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay G., Marceau D.J., Dubé P. and Bouchard A. 2001. A multi-scale framework for landscape analysis: Object-specific analysis and upscaling. Landscape Ecology 16: 471–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelinski D.E. and Wu J. 1996. The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 11: 129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen H.J. 1998. Self-Organized Criticality: Emergent Complex Behavior in Physical and Biological Systems. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justice C.O., Markham B.L., Townshend J.R.G. and Kennard R.L. 1989. Spatial degradation of satellite data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 10: 1539–1561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeling M.J., Mezic I., Hendry R.J., McGlade J. and Rand D.A. 1997. Characteristic length scales of spatial models in ecology via fluctuation analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London B) 352: 1589–1601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King A.W., Johnson A.R. and O'Neill R.V. 1991. Transmutation and functional representation of heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecology 5: 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam N.S.-N. and Quattrochi D.A. 1992. On the issues of scale, resolution, and fractal analysis in the mapping sciences. Professional Geographer 44: 88–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943–1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck M. and Wu J. 2002. A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: A case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecology 17: 327–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur R.H. 1972. Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marceau D.J. 1999. The scale issue in social and natural sciences. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 25: 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K. and Marks B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. Pacific Northwest research Station.

  • Meentemeyer V. and Box E.O. 1987. Scale effects in landscape studies. In: Turner M.G. (ed.), Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. pp. 15–34. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meentemeyer V. 1989. Geographical perspectives of space, time, and scale. Landscape Ecology 3: 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meisel J.E. and Turner M.G. 1998. Scale detection in real and artificial landscapes using semivariance analysis. Landscape Ecology 13: 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne B.T. 1991. Heterogeneity as a multiscale characteristic of landscapes. In: Kolasa J. and Pickett S.T.A. (eds), Ecological Heterogeneity. pp. 69–84. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne B.T. 1992. Spatial aggregation and neutral models in fractal landscapes. American Naturalist 139: 32–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne B.T. 1997. Applications of fractal geometry in wildlife biology. In: Bissonette J.A. (ed.), Wildlife and Landscape Ecology: Effects of Pattern and Scale. pp. 32–69. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moellering H. and Tobler W. 1972. Geographical variances. Geographical Analysis 4: 34–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody A. and Woodcock C.E. 1994. Scale-dependent errors in the estimation of land-cover proportions: Implications for global land-cover datasets. Photogrammatic Engineering and Remote Sensing 60: 585–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill R.V. 1979. Transmutations across hierarchical levels. In: Innis G.S. and O'Neill R.V. (eds), Systems Analysis of Ecosystems. pp. 59–78. International Co-operative, Fairland, Maryland, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill R.V., DeAngelis D.L., Waide J.B. and Allen T.F.H. 1986. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill R.V., Gardner R.H., Milne B.T., Turner M.G. and Jackson B. 1991. Heterogeneity and spatial hierarchies. In: Kolasa J. and Pickett S.T.A. (eds), Ecological Heterogeneity. pp. 85–96. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Timmins S.P., Timmins B.L., Jackson K.B., Jones K.B., Riitters K.H. and Wickham J.D. 1996. Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecology 11: 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Openshaw S. 1984. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Geo Books, Norwich, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt T. and Denman K.L. 1975. Spectral analysis in ecology. Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 6: 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plotnick R.E., Gardner R.H. and O'Neill R.V. 1993. Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology 8: 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plotnick R.E. and Sepkoski J.J. 2001. A multiplicative multifractal model for originations and extinctions. Paleobiology 27: 126–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qi Y. and Wu J. 1996. Effects of changing spatial resolution on the results of landscape pattern analysis using spatial autocorrelation indices. Landscape Ecology 11: 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds J.F. and Wu J. 1999. Do landscape structural and functional units exist? In: Tenhunen J.D. and Kabat P. (eds), Integrating Hydrology, Ecosystem Dynamics, and Biogeochemistry in Complex Landscapes. pp. 273–296. Wiley, Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson A.H. 1950. Ecological correlation and the behaviour of individuals. Am. Soc. Rev. 15: 351–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi R.E., Mulla D.J., Journel A.G. and Franz E.H. 1992. Geostatistical tools for modeling and interpreting ecological spatial dependence. Ecological Monographs 62: 277–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saura S. and Martinez-Millan J. 2001. Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extent. Photogrammatic Engineering and Remote Sensing 67: 1027–1036.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider D.C. 2001. Spatial allometry. In: Gardner R.H., Kemp W.M., Kennedy V.S. and Petersen J.E. (eds), Scaling Relations in Experimental Ecology. pp. 113–153. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider D.C. 2001. The rise of the concept of scale in ecology. BioScience 51: 545–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobler W. 1970. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ. Geogr. (Suppl.) 46: 234–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G., O'Neill R.V., Gardner R.H. and Milne B.T. 1989. Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 3: 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner S.J., O'Neill R.V., Conley W., Conley M.R. and Humphries H.C. 1991. Pattern and scale: Statistics for landscape ecology. In: Turner M.G. and Gardner R.H. (eds), Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. pp. 17–49. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G., Gardner R.H. and O'Neill R.V. 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban D.L., O'Neill R.V. and Shugart H.H. 1987. Landscape ecology: A hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. BioScience 37: 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham J.D. and Riitters K.H. 1995. Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixel size. International Journal of Remote Sensing 16: 3585–3595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock C. and Harward V.J. 1992. Nested-hierarchical scene models and image segmentation. International Journal of Remote Sensing 13: 3167–3187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley N., Holt T., Steel D. and Tranmer M. 1996. Analysing, modeling, and resolving the ecological fallacy. In: Longley P. and Batty M. (eds), Spatial Analysis: Modellign in a GIS Environment. pp. 23–40. GeoInformation International, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J. and Levin S.A. 1994. A spatial patch dynamic modeling approach to pattern and process in an annual grassland. Ecological Monographs 64(4): 447–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J. and Loucks O.L. 1995. From balance-of-nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology 70: 439–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J. 1999. Hierarchy and scaling: Extrapolating information along a scaling ladder. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 25: 367–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J., Jelinski D.E., Luck M. and Tueller P.T. 2000. Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: Scale variance and pattern metrics. Geogr. Info. Sci. 6: 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J. and Hobbs R. 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: An idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17: 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J., Shen W., Sun W. and Tueller P.T. 2003. Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecology 17: 761–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J., Jones B., Li H. and Loucks O. L. (ed.), 2004. Scaling and Uncertainty Analysis in Ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA (in press).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Landscape Ecology and Modeling Laboratory (LEML), Faculty of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Science, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1601, USA

    Jianguo Wu

Authors
  1. Jianguo Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wu, J. Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecology 19, 125–138 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000021711.40074.ae

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000021711.40074.ae

Search

Navigation