Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sensitivity of landscape pattern indices to input data characteristics on real landscapes: implications for their use in natural disturbance emulation

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Resource management strategies have begun to adopt natural landscape disturbance emulation as a means of minimizing risk to ecosystem integrity. Detailed understanding of the disturbance regime and the associated spatial landscape patterns are required to provide a “natural” baseline for comparison with the results of emulation strategies. Landscape pattern indices provide a useful tool to quantify spatial pattern for developing these strategies and evaluating their success. Despite an abundance of indices and tools to calculate these, practical knowledge of interpretation is rare. Quantifying changes in landscape pattern indices and the meaning of these changes is confounded by index sensitivity to input data characteristics such as spatial extent, spatial resolution, and thematic resolution. Sensitivity has been examined for simulated landscapes but rarely using real data for large areas as real landscapes are more difficult to manipulate systematically than simulated data. While simulated data offer a control, they do not provide an accurate portrayal of reality for practical applications. Our goal was to test the sensitivity of a suite of landscape pattern indices useful for disturbance emulation strategy development and evaluation to spatial extent, spatial resolution, and thematic resolution using current land cover data for a case study of the managed forest of Ontario, Canada. We also examined how sensitivity varies spatially across the study area. We used Landsat TM-based land cover data (> 45.5 million ha), controlling spatial extent (2,500 to 2,560,000 ha), spatial resolution (1 to 16 ha), and thematic resolution (2 to 26 classes). For each index we tested a hypothesis of insensitivity to changes in each input data characteristic using a combination of ANOVA and regression and compared our results with previous studies. Of the 18 indices studied, significant (p< 0.01) effects were found for 17 indices with changes in spatial extent, 13 indices with changes in spatial resolution and 18 indices with changes in thematic resolution. A significant (p < 0.01) linear trend accounted for the majority of the variance for all of the significant relationships identified. Most of the mean index responses were consistent with those interpreted from previous studies of simulated and real landscapes; however, sensitivity varied greatly among indices and over space. We suggest that variation in sensitivity to input data characteristics among indices and over space must be explicitly incorporated in the design of future natural disturbance emulation efforts.

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

  • Baldwin D.J.B., Desloges J.R., Band L.E. 2000. Physical Geography of Ontario. pp. 12–299. In: Perera A.H., Euler D.E. and Thompson I. (eds), Ecology of a Managed Terrestrial Landscape: Patterns and Processes of Forest Landscapes in Ontario. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker W.L. and Cai Y. 1992. The r.le programs for multi-scale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information system. Landscape Ecology 7: 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartel A. 2000. Analysis of landscape pattern: towards a ‘top down’ indicator for evaluation of landuse. Ecological Modelling 130: 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergeron Y., Harvey B., Leduc A. and Gauthier S. 1999. Forest management guidelines based on natural disturbance dynamics: stand-and forest-level considerations. The Forestry Chronicle 75: 49–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergeron Y., Gauthier S., Kafka V., Lefort P. and Lesieur A. 2001. Natural fire frequency for the eastern Canadian boreal forest: consequences for sustainable foresty. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 384–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson B.J. and MacKenzie D. 1995. Effects of sensor resolution on landscape structure parameters. Landscape Ecology 10: 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botequilha Leitao A. and Ahern J. 2002. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 59: 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain D.H., Riitters K.H. and Orvis K. 1997. A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Landscape Ecology 12: 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candau J.-N., Fleming R.A. and Hopkin A. 1998. Spatio-temporal patterns of large-scale defoliation caused by spruce budworm in Ontario since 1941. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 28: 1733–1741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew V. 1976. Comparing treatment means: A compendium. Hort Science 11: 348–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cissel J.H., Swanson F.J. and Wisburg P.J. 1999. Landscape management using historical fire regimes: Blue River, Oregon. Ecological Applications 9: 1217–1231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper N.R. and Smith H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, New York, USA. 709 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRI. 1997. ARC/Info and ARC/GRID Version 7.2.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute. Redlands, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRI. 1998. ARCView for Windows, Version 3.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute. Redlands, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkie P.C. and Rempel R.S. 2001. Detecting scales in boreal forest landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 147: 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finney M.A. 1999. Mechanistic modeling of landscape fire patterns. pp. 186–209. In: Mladenoff D.J. and Baker W.L. (eds), Spatial Modeling of Forest Landscape Change: Approaches and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman R.T. and Godron M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin S.E., Dickson E.E., Farr D.R., Hansen M.J. and Moskal L.M. 2000. Quantification of landscape change from satellite remote sensing. Forestry Chronicle 76: 877–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluck M.J. and Rempel R.S. 1996. Structural characteristics of post-wildfire and clear-cut landscapes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 39: 435–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith J.A., Martinko E.A. and Price K.P. 2000. Landscape structure analysis of Kansas at three scales. Landscape and Urban Planning 52: 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E.J. and Parker G.R. 1992. Relationships between land cover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecology 7: 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He H.S., DeZonia B.E. and Mladenoff D.J. 2000. An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15: 591–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessburg P.F., Smith B.G. and Salter R.B. 1999. Detecting change in forest spatial patterns from reference conditions. Ecological Applications 9: 1232–1253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R. and Chopping M. 1996. Quantifying landscape structure: A review of landscape indices and their application to forested landscapes. Progress in Physical Geography 20: 418–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargis C.D., Bissonette J.A. and David J.L. 1997. Understanding measures of landscape pattern. pp. 231–263. In: Bissonette J.A. (ed.), Wildlife and Landscape Ecology: Effects of Pattern and Scale. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    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 

  • Heinselman M.L. 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota. Quaternary Research 3: 329–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter Jr. M.L. 1993. Natural fire regimes as spatial models for managing boreal forests. Biol. Conserv. 65: 115–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane R.E., Morgan P. and White J.D. 1999. Temporal patterns of ecosystem processes on simulated landscapes in Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. Landscape Ecology 14: 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane R.E., Parsons R.A. and Hessburg P.F. 2002. Estimating historical range and variation of landscape patch dynamics: limitations of the simulation approach. Ecological Modelling 151: 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzberger T. and Veblen T.T. 1999. Fire-induced changes in northern Patagonian landscapes. Landscape Ecology 14: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavorel S., Gardner R.H. and O’Neill R.V. 1993. Aanalysis of patterns in hierarchically structured landscapes. OIKOS 67(3): 521–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H. and Reynolds J.F. 1993. A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecology 8: 155–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H. and Reynolds J.F. 1994. A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75: 2446–2455.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K. and Marks B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K., Romme W.H., Crist M. and Roworth E. 2001. Cumulative effects of roads and logging on landscape structure in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado (USA). Landscape Ecology 16: 327–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan P., Aplet G.H., Haufler J.B., Humphries H.C., Moore M.M. and Wilson W.D. 1994. Historical range of variability: a useful tool for evaluating ecosystem change. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2: 87–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagendra H. 2002. Opposite trends in response for the Shannon and Simpson indices of landscape diversity. Applied Geography 22: 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OMNR 1996a. Forest management planning manual for Ontario’s crown forests. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Binder.

    Google Scholar 

  • OMNR 1996b. Forest resource inventory database manual. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • OMNR 2001. Forest management guide for natural disturbance pattern emulation, Version 3.1. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • OMNR 2002. Nature’s Way — The Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation for Forest Harvesting. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill R.V., Gardner R.H. and Turner M.G. 1992. A hierarchical neutral model for landscape analysis. Landscape Ecology 7: 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill R.V., Riitters K.H., Wickham J.D. and Jones K.B. 1999. Landscape pattern metrics and regional assessment. Ecosystem Health 5: 225–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perera A.H., Baldwin D.J.B. and Schnekenburger F. 1997. LEAP II: A landscape ecological analysis package for land use planners and managers. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Forest Research Report No. 146. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perera A.H., Baldwin D.J.B., Schnekenburger F., Osborne J.E. and Bae R.E. 1998. Forest fires in Ontario: a spatio-temporal perspective. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada. Forest Research Report No. 147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perera A. H. and Baldwin D.J.B. 2000. Spatial patterns in the managed forest landscape of Ontario. pp. 74–99. In: Perera A.H., Euler D.E. and Thompson I. (eds), Ecology of a Managed Terrestrial Landscape: Patterns and Processes of Forest Landscapes in Ontario. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, Brittish Columbia, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perera A.H., Yemshanov D., Schnekenburger F., Weaver K., Baldwin D.J.B. and Boychuck D. 1998. Boreal Forest Landscape Dynamics Simulator (BFOLDS): A grid-based spatially stochastic model for predicting crown fire regime and forest cover transition. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada. Forest Research Report No. 152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perera A.H., Baldwin D.J.B., Yemshanov D., Schnekenburger F. and Boychuk D. 2003. Predicting spatio-temporal potential for old-growth forests: A simulation modeling approach. Forestry Chronicle 79(3)xx–xx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perera A.H., Yemshanov D., Schnekenburger F., Baldwin D.J.B. and Weaver K. in press. Spatial simulation of large scale fire regime as a tool for emulating natural forest landscape disturbances. Pp. Xx–xx. In: Perera A.H., Buse L. and Weber M. (eds), Emulating natural forest landscape disturbances: Concepts and applications. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.

  • Peterson G.D. 2002. Contagious disturbance, ecological memory, and the emergence of landscape pattern. Ecosystems 5: 329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remmel T.K. and Perera A.H. 2001. Fire mapping in a northern boreal forest: assessing AVHRR/NDVI methods of change detection. Forest Ecology and Management 152: 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters K.H., O’Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Wickham J.D., Yankee D.H., Timmins S.P., Jones K.B. and Jackson B.L. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10: 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe J.S. 1972. Forest regions of Canada. Canadian Forest Service Publication No. 1300. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

  • SAS Institute. 1993. SAS procedures guide, Version 6, 3rd ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saura S. and Martinez-Millan J. 2000. Landscape patterns simulation with a modified random cluster method. Landscape Ecology 15: 661–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder D.H. and Perera A.H. 2002. A comparison of large-scale spatial vegetation patterns following clearcuts and fires in Ontario’s boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management 159: 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J. 1981. Biometry. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spectranalysis Inc. 1997. User manual on the Ontario provincial land cover database with recommendations for database management. Report to Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Unpublished.

  • Thompson W.A., Vertinsky I., Schreier H. and Blackwell B.A. 2000. Using forest fire hazard modeling in multiple use forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management 134: 163–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L. 2001. Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecology 16: 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G. 1990. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecology 4: 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G., Dale V.H. and Gardner R.H. 1989a. Predicting across scales: theory, development, and testing. Landscape Ecology 3: 245–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G., Gardner R.H., Dale V.H. and O’Neill R.V. 1989b. Predicting the spread of disturbance across heterogeneous landscapes. Oikos 55: 153–162.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ontario Forest Research Institute, 1235 Queen Street East, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, P6A 2E5

    David J. B. Baldwin, Frank Schnekenburger & Ajith H. Perera

  2. Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, P6A 5L3

    Kevin Weaver

Authors
  1. David J. B. Baldwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin Weaver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Schnekenburger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ajith H. Perera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. B. Baldwin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baldwin, D.J.B., Weaver, K., Schnekenburger, F. et al. Sensitivity of landscape pattern indices to input data characteristics on real landscapes: implications for their use in natural disturbance emulation. Landscape Ecol 19, 255–271 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000030442.96122.ef

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000030442.96122.ef

Search

Navigation