Surface metrics for landscape ecology: a comparison of landscape models across ecoregions and scales

Peter J. Kedron, Amy E. Frazier, Gustavo A. Ovando-Montejo, Jing Wang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: The patch-mosaic model is lauded for its conceptual simplicity and ease with which conventional landscape metrics can be computed from categorical maps, yet many argue it is inconsistent with ecological theory. Gradient surface models (GSMs) are an alternative for representing landscapes, but adoption of surface metrics for analyzing spatial patterns in GSMs is hindered by several factors including a lack of meaningful interpretations. Objectives: We investigate the performance and applicability of surface metrics across a range of ecoregions and scales to strengthen theoretical foundations for their adoption in landscape ecology. Methods: We examine metric clustering across scales and ecoregions, test correlations with patch-based metrics, and provide ecological interpretations for a variety of surface metrics with respect to forest cover to support the basis for selecting surface metrics for ecological analyses. Results: We identify several factors complicating the interpretation of surface metrics from a landscape perspective. First, not all surface metrics are appropriate for landscape analyses. Second, true analogs between surface metrics and patch-based, landscape metrics are rare. Researchers should focus instead on how surface measures can uniquely measure spatial patterns. Lastly, scale dependencies exist for surface metrics, but relationships between metrics do not appear to change considerably with scale. Conclusions: Incorporating gradient surfaces into landscape ecological analyses is challenging, and many surface metrics may not have patch analogs or be ecologically relevant. For this reason, surface metrics should be considered in terms of the set of pattern elements they represent that can then be linked to landscape characteristics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1489-1504
Number of pages16
JournalLandscape Ecology
Volume33
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2018

Fingerprint

landscape ecology
ecoregion
ecology
interpretation
comparison
ecological theory
forest cover
lack

Keywords

  • Continuous gradient
  • Ecoregions
  • Forests
  • Patch-mosaic
  • Spatial pattern metrics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Surface metrics for landscape ecology : a comparison of landscape models across ecoregions and scales. / Kedron, Peter J.; Frazier, Amy E.; Ovando-Montejo, Gustavo A.; Wang, Jing.

In: Landscape Ecology, Vol. 33, No. 9, 01.09.2018, p. 1489-1504.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2a82110f7a3041f69e23cfde40fe0606,
title = "Surface metrics for landscape ecology: a comparison of landscape models across ecoregions and scales",
abstract = "Context: The patch-mosaic model is lauded for its conceptual simplicity and ease with which conventional landscape metrics can be computed from categorical maps, yet many argue it is inconsistent with ecological theory. Gradient surface models (GSMs) are an alternative for representing landscapes, but adoption of surface metrics for analyzing spatial patterns in GSMs is hindered by several factors including a lack of meaningful interpretations. Objectives: We investigate the performance and applicability of surface metrics across a range of ecoregions and scales to strengthen theoretical foundations for their adoption in landscape ecology. Methods: We examine metric clustering across scales and ecoregions, test correlations with patch-based metrics, and provide ecological interpretations for a variety of surface metrics with respect to forest cover to support the basis for selecting surface metrics for ecological analyses. Results: We identify several factors complicating the interpretation of surface metrics from a landscape perspective. First, not all surface metrics are appropriate for landscape analyses. Second, true analogs between surface metrics and patch-based, landscape metrics are rare. Researchers should focus instead on how surface measures can uniquely measure spatial patterns. Lastly, scale dependencies exist for surface metrics, but relationships between metrics do not appear to change considerably with scale. Conclusions: Incorporating gradient surfaces into landscape ecological analyses is challenging, and many surface metrics may not have patch analogs or be ecologically relevant. For this reason, surface metrics should be considered in terms of the set of pattern elements they represent that can then be linked to landscape characteristics.",
keywords = "Continuous gradient, Ecoregions, Forests, Patch-mosaic, Spatial pattern metrics",
author = "Kedron, {Peter J.} and Frazier, {Amy E.} and Ovando-Montejo, {Gustavo A.} and Jing Wang",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10980-018-0685-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "1489--1504",
journal = "Landscape Ecology",
issn = "0921-2973",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Surface metrics for landscape ecology

T2 - a comparison of landscape models across ecoregions and scales

AU - Kedron, Peter J.

AU - Frazier, Amy E.

AU - Ovando-Montejo, Gustavo A.

AU - Wang, Jing

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - Context: The patch-mosaic model is lauded for its conceptual simplicity and ease with which conventional landscape metrics can be computed from categorical maps, yet many argue it is inconsistent with ecological theory. Gradient surface models (GSMs) are an alternative for representing landscapes, but adoption of surface metrics for analyzing spatial patterns in GSMs is hindered by several factors including a lack of meaningful interpretations. Objectives: We investigate the performance and applicability of surface metrics across a range of ecoregions and scales to strengthen theoretical foundations for their adoption in landscape ecology. Methods: We examine metric clustering across scales and ecoregions, test correlations with patch-based metrics, and provide ecological interpretations for a variety of surface metrics with respect to forest cover to support the basis for selecting surface metrics for ecological analyses. Results: We identify several factors complicating the interpretation of surface metrics from a landscape perspective. First, not all surface metrics are appropriate for landscape analyses. Second, true analogs between surface metrics and patch-based, landscape metrics are rare. Researchers should focus instead on how surface measures can uniquely measure spatial patterns. Lastly, scale dependencies exist for surface metrics, but relationships between metrics do not appear to change considerably with scale. Conclusions: Incorporating gradient surfaces into landscape ecological analyses is challenging, and many surface metrics may not have patch analogs or be ecologically relevant. For this reason, surface metrics should be considered in terms of the set of pattern elements they represent that can then be linked to landscape characteristics.

AB - Context: The patch-mosaic model is lauded for its conceptual simplicity and ease with which conventional landscape metrics can be computed from categorical maps, yet many argue it is inconsistent with ecological theory. Gradient surface models (GSMs) are an alternative for representing landscapes, but adoption of surface metrics for analyzing spatial patterns in GSMs is hindered by several factors including a lack of meaningful interpretations. Objectives: We investigate the performance and applicability of surface metrics across a range of ecoregions and scales to strengthen theoretical foundations for their adoption in landscape ecology. Methods: We examine metric clustering across scales and ecoregions, test correlations with patch-based metrics, and provide ecological interpretations for a variety of surface metrics with respect to forest cover to support the basis for selecting surface metrics for ecological analyses. Results: We identify several factors complicating the interpretation of surface metrics from a landscape perspective. First, not all surface metrics are appropriate for landscape analyses. Second, true analogs between surface metrics and patch-based, landscape metrics are rare. Researchers should focus instead on how surface measures can uniquely measure spatial patterns. Lastly, scale dependencies exist for surface metrics, but relationships between metrics do not appear to change considerably with scale. Conclusions: Incorporating gradient surfaces into landscape ecological analyses is challenging, and many surface metrics may not have patch analogs or be ecologically relevant. For this reason, surface metrics should be considered in terms of the set of pattern elements they represent that can then be linked to landscape characteristics.

KW - Continuous gradient

KW - Ecoregions

KW - Forests

KW - Patch-mosaic

KW - Spatial pattern metrics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049787030&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049787030&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10980-018-0685-1

DO - 10.1007/s10980-018-0685-1

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85049787030

VL - 33

SP - 1489

EP - 1504

JO - Landscape Ecology

JF - Landscape Ecology

SN - 0921-2973

IS - 9

ER -