headerpos: 9460
 
 
  Estonian Journal of Ecology

ISSN 1736-7549 (electronic)   ISSN 1736-602X (print)
An international scientific journal

Formerly: Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Biology, Ecology
(ISSN 1406-0914)
Published since 1952
 

Estonian Journal of Ecology

ISSN 1736-7549 (electronic)   ISSN 1736-602X (print)
An international scientific journal

Formerly: Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Biology, Ecology
(ISSN 1406-0914)
Published since 1952
 

Publisher
Journal Information
» Abstractring/Indexing
List of Issues
» 2014
» 2013
» 2012
» 2011
Vol. 60, Issue 4
Vol. 60, Issue 3
Vol. 60, Issue 2
Vol. 60, Issue 1
» 2010
» 2009
» 2008
» 2007
» Back Issues
» Back issues (full texts)
  in Google
Publisher
» Other Journals
» Staff

Analysing the spatial structure of the Estonian landscapes: which landscape metrics are the most suitable for comparing different landscapes?; pp. 70–80

(Full article in PDF format) doi: 10.3176/eco.2011.1.06


Authors

Evelyn Uuemaa, Jüri Roosaare, Tõnu Oja, Ülo Mander

Abstract

We calculated 15 landscape metrics on 35 Estonian landscapes and performed factor and principal component analyses in order to determine which landscape metrics work on Estonian Basic Map and which do not. The results showed that there are four main components that describe landscape structure: dominance, contrast, shape complexity, and composition. We suggest the following landscape metrics for measuring these aspects respectively: ED or SIDI, TECI or ECON_MN, SHAPE_MN, and PRD. However, the selection of the metrics always depends on the purpose of the study and the character of the ecological process. Principal component analysis also showed that heights and plains have more heterogeneous landscape than lowlands. Moreover, although the heights (Otepää and Haanja) and the plains with urban areas (Tallinn and Tartu) have high fragmentation and heterogeneity, they have different contrast values: urban areas have very low contrast while in the case of heights contrast is high.

Keywords

landscape metrics, map analysis, principal component analysis.

References

Arold , I. 2005. Eesti maastikud. University of Tartu Press , Tartu (in Estonian with English summary).

Aunap , R. , Uuemaa , E. , Roosaare , J. & Mander , Ü. 2006. Spatial correlograms and landscape metrics as indicators of land use changes. In Geo-Environment and Landscape Evolution (Martín-Duque , J. F. , Brebbia , C. A. , Emmanouloudis , D. E. & Mander , Ü. , eds) , pp. 305-315. WIT Press , Southampton.

Cain , D. H. , Riitters , K. & Orvis , K. 1997. A multiscale analysis of landscape statistics. Landscape Ecol. , 12(4) , 199–212.
doi:10.1023/A:1007938619068

Cushman , S. A. , McGarigal , K. & Neel , M. C. 2008. Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength , universality , and consistency. Ecol. Indic. , 8(5) , 691-703.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.12.002

Fasona , M. & Omojola , A. 2009. Land cover change and land degradation in parts of the southwest coast of Nigeria. Afr. J. Ecol. , 47(1) , 30–38.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.01047.x

Griffith , J. A. , Martinko , E. A. & Price , K. P. 2000. Landscape structure analyses of Kansas in three scales. Landscape Urban Plan. , 52(11) , 45–61.
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00112-2

Haines-Young , R. & Chopping , M. 1996. Quantifying landscape structure: a review of landscape indices and their application to forested landscapes. Prog. Phys. Geog. , 20(4) , 418–445.
doi:10.1177/030913339602000403

Lausch , A. & Herzog , F. 2002. Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change: issues of scale , resolution and interpretability. Ecol. Indic. , 2(1) , 3–15.
doi:10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00053-5

Linke , J. & Franklin , S. E. 2006. Interpretation of landscape structure gradients based on satellite image classification of land cover. Can. J. Remote Sens. , 32(6) , 367–379.

Mander , Ü. , Uuemaa , E. , Roosaare , J. , Aunap , R. & Antrop , M. 2010. Coherence and fragmentation of landscape patterns as characterized by correlograms: a case study of Estonia. Landscape Urban Plan. , 94(1) , 31-37.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.015

McGarigal , K. & McComb , W. C. 1995. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol. Monogr. , 65(3) , 235–260.
doi:10.2307/2937059

McGarigal , K. , Cushman , S. A. , Neel , M. C. & Ene , E. 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts , Amherst. Available at http://www.umass.edu/ landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

Oja , T. , Alamets , K. & Pärnamets , H. 2005. Modelling bird habitat suitability based on landscape parameters at different scales. Ecol. Indic. , 5(4) , 314-321.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.008

Palang , H. , Mander , Ü. & Luud , A. 1998. Landscape diversity changes in Estonia. Landscape Urban Plan. , 41(3–4) , 163-170.
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00055-3

Reimets , R. , Uuemaa , E. , Kanal , A. & Oja , T. 2010. Suburbaniseerumise mõju viljakatele mulda­dele Tallinna ja Tartu ümbruses. Poster presentation in the Estonian XI Ecology Conference 8.-9.04.2010 , Tartu.

Riitters , K. H. , O’Neill , R. V. , Hunsaker , C. T. , Wickham , J. D. , Yankee , D. H. , Timmins , S. P. , Jones , K. B. & Jackson , B. L. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecol. , 10(1) , 23–40.
doi:10.1007/BF00158551

Roosaare , J. M. 1982. Die quantitative Charakterisierung der Raumstruktur chorischer Landschafts ein heiten , aus den morphometrischen Angaben Ausgehend. Acta Univ. Tartu. , 563 , 31–47 (in Russian with German summary).

Schindler , S. , Poirazidis , K. & Wrbka , T. 2008. Towards a core set of landscape metrics for biodiversity assessments: a case study from Dadia National Park , Greece. Ecol. Indic. , 8(5) , 502–514.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.06.001

StatSoft Inc. 2005. STATISTICA (data analysis software system) , version 7.1. www.statsoft.com

Turner , M. G. , Gardner , R. H. & O’Neill , R. V. 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice. Springer-Verlag , New York , NY.

U. S. 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.

Uuemaa , E. , Roosaare , J. & Mander , Ü. 2005. Scale dependence of landscape metrics and their indicatory value for nutrient and organic matter losses from catchments. Ecol. Indic. , 5(4) , 350–369.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.009

Uuemaa , E. , Roosaare , J. & Mander , Ü. 2007. Landscape metrics as indicators of river water quality at catchment scale. Nord. Hydrol. , 38(2) , 125-138.
doi:10.2166/nh.2007.002

Uuemaa , E. , Antrop , M. , Roosaare , J. , Marja , R. & Mander , Ü. 2009. Landscape metrics and indices: an overview of their use in landscape research. Living Rev. Landsc. Res. , 3 , 1–28. URL: http://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2009-1/

Van Eetvelde , V. & Antrop , M. 2009. A stepwise multi-scaled landscape typology and characterisation for trans-regional integration , applied on the federal state of Belgium. Landscape Urban Plan. , 91(3) , 160170.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.008

Wickham , J. D. & Riitters , K. H. 1995. Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixel size. Int. J. Remote Sens. , 16(18) , 3585-3594.
doi:10.1080/01431169508954647

Wu , J. , Shen , W. , Sun , W. & Tueller , P. T. 2002. Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol. , 17(8) , 761–782.
doi:10.1023/A:1022995922992
 
Back

Current Issue: Vol. 63, Issue 4, 2014




Publishing schedule:
No. 1: 20 March
No. 2: 20 June
No. 3: 20 September
No. 4: 20 December