Abstract
An extensive set of landscape metrics exists to quantify spatial patterns in heterogeneous landscapes. Developers and users of these metrics typically seek to objectively describe landscapes that humans assess subjectively as, for example, “clumpy,” “dispersed,” “random,” “diverse,” “fragmented,” or “connected.” Because the quantification of pattern is fundamental to many of the relationships we seek to understand in landscape ecology, a basic familiarity with the most commonly used metrics is extremely important. Several software programs evaluate maps quickly and cheaply, but there are no absolute rules governing the proper use of landscape metrics. To help foster the appropriate use of landscape metrics, in this lab students will.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
NOTE: An asterisk preceding the entry indicates that it is a suggested reading.
References and Recommended Readings
NOTE: An asterisk preceding the entry indicates that it is a suggested reading.
Baker WL, Cai Y (1992) The r.le programs for multi-scale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information system. Landsc Ecol 7:291–302
Boström C, Pittman SJ, Simenstad C, Kneib RT (2011) Seascape ecology of coastal biogenic habitats: advances, gaps, and challenges. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 427:191–217
*Burnicki AC (2012) Impact of error on landscape pattern analyses performed on land-cover change maps. Landsc Ecol 27:713–729. Accuracy of the data used in any landscape analysis will influence the results, and this is especially important when you want to use metrics to quantify how landscapes change over time.
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
Corry RC, Nassauer JI (2005) Limitations of using landscape pattern indices to evaluate the ecological consequences of alternative plans and designs. Landsc Urban Plann 72:265–280
*Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality and consistency. Ecol Indicators 8:691–703. Many landscape metrics are correlated with one another, and this paper emphasizes the unique contributions of metrics that are independent of one another and associated with qualitatively different aspects of pattern.
Fortin M-J, Boots B, Csillag F, Remmel TK (2003) On the role of spatial stochastic models in understanding landscape indices. Oikos 102:203–212
Gardner RH, Milne BT, Turner MG et al (1987) Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 1:19–28
*Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156. A synthetic overview of the ways in which landscape pattern is quantified, this classic paper emphasizes conceptual issues and distinguishes between metrics, including patch-based metrics, calculated from categorical data and approaches from spatial statistics.
Gustafson EJ, Parker GR (1992) Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landsc Ecol 7:101–110
*Haines-Young R, Chopping M (1996) Quantifying landscape structure: a review of landscape indices and their application to forested landscapes. Progr Phys Geogr 20:418–445. A good review that includes examples of how different landscape metrics are used in questions associated with forested landscapes.
Homer C, Huang C, Yang L et al (2004) Development of a 2001 National Land-Cover Database for the United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70(7):829–840
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
*Li H, Reynolds JF (1995) On definition and quantification of heterogeneity. Oikos 73:280–284. An excellent discussion of what is meant by heterogeneity. This seminal paper emphasizes understanding what is being quantified and should be read by all those beginning to consider the causes or consequences of spatial pattern.
Li H, Reynolds JF (1993) A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landsc Ecol 8:155–162
Li H, Reynolds JF (1994) A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75:2446–2455
*Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19:389–399. Useful synthesis of issues associated with quantifying landscape patterns.
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, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1993) FRAGSTATS. Spatial analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351
O’Neill RV, Krummel JR, Gardner RH et al (1988) Indices of landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 1:153–162
Pielou EC (1975) Ecological diversity. Wiley-Interscience, New York
Remmel TK, Csillag F (2003) When are two landscape pattern indices significantly different? J Geograph Syst 5:331–351
Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Wickham JD et al (1996) A note on contagion indices for landscape analysis. Landsc Ecol 11:197–202
Romme WH (1982) Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecol Monogr 52:199–221
Romme WH, Knight DH (1982) Landscape diversity: the concept applied to Yellowstone Park. BioScience 32:664–670
Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423. (July), with corrections pp. 623–656 (October)
*Símovsá P, Gdulová K (2012) Landscape indices behavior: A review of scale effects. Appl Geogr 34:385–394. There are a fair number of empirical papers documenting the consequences of changing grain and extent on landscape metrics, and this paper provides an overview.
Teixido N, Garrabou J, Gutt J et al (2007) Iceberg disturbance and successional spatial patterns: the case of the shelf Antarctic benthic communities. Ecosystems 10:142–157
Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:319–344
*Turner MG, Gardner RH (2015) Chapter 4, Landscape metrics. In: Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer, New York, pp 97–142. We highly recommend reading this chapter from the landscape ecology text, as it provides an introduction and overview of why and how to use landscape metrics in spatial pattern analysis.
Turner MG, Costanza R, Sklar FH (1989) Methods to compare spatial patterns for landscape modeling and analysis. Ecol Model 48:1–18
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
Wickham JD, Norton DJ (1994) Mapping and analyzing landscape patterns. Landsc Ecol 9:7–23
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer-Verlag New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cardille, J.A., Turner, M.G. (2017). Understanding Landscape Metrics. In: Gergel, S., Turner, M. (eds) Learning Landscape Ecology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6374-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6374-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6372-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-6374-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)