A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics (original) (raw)

Abstract

It is now feasible to monitor some aspects of landscapeecological condition nationwide using remotely-sensed imagery andindicators of land cover pattern. Previous research showedredundancies among many reported pattern indicators andidentified six unique dimensions of land cover pattern. Thisstudy tested the stability of those dimensions and representativepattern indicators across different types of land cover maps. Themaps were derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper images of theTennessee River and Chesapeake Bay watersheds, and they differedin resolution, number of attributes, and method of delineatinglandscape unit boundaries. A multivariate analysis of patternmetrics was conducted separately for each map, and the resultswere then compared among types of maps. Measures of land coverdiversity, texture, and fractal dimension were more consistentthan measures of average patch shape or compaction among the landcover maps.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

• Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
• Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
• Cancel anytime View plans

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

• Baker, W.L. and Y. Cai. 1992. The r.le programs for multiscale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information system. Landscape Ecology 7: 291–302.
  Google Scholar
• Brown, J.H. and J. Roughgarden. 1990. Ecology for a changing earth. Advances in Ecological Research.
• ESRI. 1991. Arc/Info User's Guide. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CA.
  Google Scholar
• Everett, R., P. Hessburg, M. Jensen and B. Bormann. 1994. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment. Volume I: Executive summary. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-317. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
  Google Scholar
• Fegaeas, R.G., R.W. Claire, S.C. Guptil, K.E. Anderson and C.A. Hallam. 1983. Land use and land cover digital data. Geological Survey Circular 895-E. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
  Google Scholar
• Formann, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY.
  Google Scholar
• Fotheringham, A.S. and D.W.S. Wong. 1991. The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environment and Planning A. 23: 102–1044.
  Google Scholar
• Franklin, J.A. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological Applications 3: 202–205.
  Google Scholar
• Gonzalez, R.C. and R.E. Woods. 1992. Digital Image Processing. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  Google Scholar
• Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
  Google Scholar
• Hunsaker, C.T., R.V. O'Neill, B.L. Jackson, S.P. Timmins, D.A. Levine and D.J. Norton. 1994. Sampling to characterize landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 9: 207–226.
  Google Scholar
• Johnson, R.A. and D.W. Wichern. 1982. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  Google Scholar
• Johnston, R.J. 1980. Multivariate Statistical Analysis in Geography. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY.
  Google Scholar
• Lam, N.S.N. and L. DeCola. 1993. Fractals in Geography. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  Google Scholar
• McDonald, R.P. 1985. Factor Analysis and Related Methods. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
  Google Scholar
• McGarigal, K. and B.J. Marks. 1994. Fragstats, Spatial Pat-terns Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
  Google Scholar
• Riitters, K.H., R.V. O'Neill, C.T. Hunsaker, J.D. Wickham, D.H. Yankee, S.P. Timmins, K.B. Jones and B.L. Jackson. 1995. A Factor Analysis of Landscape Pattern and Structure Metrics. Landscape Ecology 10: 23–39.
  Google Scholar
• SAS Institute. 1982. User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
  Google Scholar
• Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos and G.L. Knapp. 1987. United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2294. U.S.G.S., Denver, CO.
  Google Scholar
• Suter, II, G.W. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments. Environmental Management 14: 19–23.
  Google Scholar
• Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171–197.
  Google Scholar
• Turner, M.G. 1990. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecology 4: 21–30.
  Google Scholar
• Turner, M.G. and R.H. Gardner. 1991. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology: The Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape Heterogeneity. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
  Google Scholar
• United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Landscape Monitoring and Assessment Research Plan. U.S. EPA 620/R-94-009. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC 20460.
  Google Scholar
• United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1994a. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Pilot Project. U.S. EPA 620/R-94/ 020. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC 20460.
  Google Scholar
• Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385–397.
  Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Geography, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37919, U.S.A
   Douglas H. Cain & Kenneth Orvis
2. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, TN, 37828, U.S.A
   Douglas H. Cain & Kurt Riitters

Authors

1. Douglas H. Cain
2. Kurt Riitters
3. Kenneth Orvis

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cain, D.H., Riitters, K. & Orvis, K. A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics.Landscape Ecology 12, 199–212 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007938619068

Download citation

• Issue date: August 1997
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007938619068