Application of landscape metrics in the evaluation of geodiversity

• Authors: Ewa Malinowska , Iwona Szumacher

Abstracts

EN

The purpose of this study is to present opportunities for using landscape metrics to evaluate geodiversity on individual landscape levels. The research area is located to the west of the Płock Urban and Industrial Agglomeration in Poland. Within this area, hierarchically organized regional units were delimited (Richling, Malinowska, Szumacher 2013). The area is divided into 87 first-level regions, 36 second-level regions and 9 third-level regions. The units have been treated as basic fields for geodiversity analysis purposes using selected landscape measures and metrics, to include area, density, size, edges and diversity (among others, Shannon’s Diversity Index (SDI), Shannon’s Evenness Index (SEI), domination (D) and redundancy (R)) generated in Patch Analyst v. 5, Fragstats v. 4.0, ArcGIS v.10 and Statistica v. 10 software.

Keywords

EN

Geodiversity; landscape metrics

• Publisher: Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
• Journal: Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 28-33

Dates

published

2013

Contributors

author

Ewa Malinowska

• Department of Geoecology, Institute of Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies, University of Warsaw

author

Iwona Szumacher

• Department of Geoecology, Institute of Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies, University of Warsaw

References

• Alhamad, MN, Alrababah, MA, Feagin, RA & Gharaibeh, A 2011, ‘Mediterranean drylands: The effect of grain size and domain of scale on landscape metrics’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 11, pp. 611–621.[WoS][Crossref]
• Ares, J, Bertiller, M & del Valle, H 2001, ‘Functional and structural landscape indicators of intensification, resilience and resistance in agroecosystems in southern Argentina based on remotely sensed data’, Landscape Ecology, vol. 16, pp. 221–234.[Crossref]
• Bailey, B, Billeter, R, Aviron, S, Schweiger O. & Herzog F 2007, ‘The influence of thematic resolution on metric selection for biodiversity monitoring in agricultural landscapes’, Landscape Ecology, vol. 22, pp. 461–473.[Crossref][WoS]
• Benito-Calvo, A, Pérez-González, A, Magri, O & Meza, P 2009, ‘Assessing regional geodiversity: the Iberian Peninsula’, Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, vol. 34, pp: 1433–1445.[WoS][Crossref]
• Constible, JM, Chamberlain, MJ & Leopols, BD 2006, ‘Relationships Between Landscape Pattern and Space Use of Three Mammalian Carnivores in Central Mississippi’, Am. Midi. NaL, vol. 155, pp. 352–362.
• Cushman, SA, McGarigal, K & Neel, MC 2008, ‘Parsimony in landscape metrics: Strength, universality, and consistency’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 691–703.[WoS][Crossref]
• DiBari, JN 2007, ‘Evaluation of five landscape-level metrics for measuring the effects of urbanization on landscape structure: the case of Tucson, Arizona, USA’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 79, pp. 308–313.[Crossref][WoS]
• Elkie, PC, Rempel, RS & Carr, AP 1999, ‘Patch Analyst User’s Manual. A Tool for Quantifying Landscape Structure. Ont. Min. Natur. Resour. Northwest Sci. & Technol. Thunder Bay, Ont. TM–002. 16 pp + Append. Available from: http://www.rocchini.net/ecopae/mat_did/pa_manual.pdf [on line: 17.07.2012]
• Gallardo, B, Gascón, S, Quintana, X & Comín FA 2011, ‘How to choose a biodiversity indicator – Redundancy and complementarity of biodiversity metrics in a freshwater ecosystem’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 11, pp. 1177–1184.[Crossref][WoS]
• Herzog, F & Lausch, A 2001, ‘Supplementing land-use statistic with landscape metrics: some methodological considerations’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol.72, pp. 37–50.
• Huang, C, Geiger, EL & Kupfer, JA 2006, ‘Sensitivity of landscape metrics to scheme’, International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 27, no. 14, pp. 2927–2948.[Crossref]
• Jones, KB, Neale, AC, Nash, MS, Van Remortel, RD, Wickham, JD, Riitters, KH & O’Neill, RV 2001, ‘Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: A multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic Region’, Landscape Ecology, vol. 16, pp. 301–312.[Crossref]
• Kim, K-H & Pauleit, S 2007, ‘Landscape character, biodiversity and land use planning: The case of Kwangju City Region, South Korea’, Land Use Policy, vol. 24, pp. 264–274.
• Kot, R & Leśniak, K 2006, Ocena georóżnorodności za pomocą miar krajobrazowych – podstawowe trudności metodyczne [Geodiversity valuation with the aid of landscape indices – basic methodological obstructions], Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 25–45.
• Kumar, S, Stohlgren, TJ & Chong, GW 2006, ‘Spatial Heterogeneity Influences Native and Nonnative Plant Species Richness’, Ecology, vol. 87, no. 12, pp. 3186–3199.
• Kupfer, JA 2012, ‘Landscape ecology and biogeography: Rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape’, Progress in Physical Geography, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 400–420.[WoS]
• Mander, Ü, Müller, F & Wrbka, T 2005, ‘Functional and structural landscape indicators: Upscaling and downscaling problems’. Ecological Indicators, vol.5, pp. 267–272.[Crossref]
• Massada, AB, Carmel, Y, Koniak, G & Noy-Meir, I 2009, ‘The effects of disturbance based management on the dynamics of Mediterranean vegetation: A hierarchical and spatially explicit modeling approach’, Ecological Modelling, vol. 220, pp. 2525–2535.[WoS]
• McGargial, K & Marks, BJ 1995, ‘Spatial pattern analysis for quantifying landscape structure’. Available from: h t t p : // w w w.u m a s s . e d u /l a n d e c o /p u b s /m c g a r i g a l . marks.1995.pdf [online:16.04.2012]
• McGarigal, K, Tagil, S & Cushman, SA 2009, ‘Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure’, Landscape Ecology, vol. 24, pp. 433–450.[Crossref][WoS]
• Nagendra, H 2002, ‘Opposite trends in response for the Shannon and Simpson indices of landscape diversity’, Applied Geography, vol. 22, pp. 175–186.[Crossref]
• Onaindia, M, Dominguez, I, Albitu, I, Garbisu, C & Amezaga, I 2004, ‘Vegetation diversity and vertical structure as indicators of forest disturbance’, Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 195, pp. 341–354.
• Pellitero, R, González-Amuchastegui, MJ, Ruiz-Flańo, P & Serrano, E 2011, ‘Geodiversity and Geomorphosite Assessment Applied to a Natural Protected Area: the Ebro and Rudron Gorges Natural Park (Spain)’, Geoheritage, vol. 3, pp. 163–174.
• Pietrzak, M 2010, Podstawy i zastosowania ekologii krajobrazu [Foundations and applications of landscape ecology], Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa im. J.A. Komeńskiego w Lesznie.
• Richling, A & Lechnio, J (ed.) 2005, Z problematyki funkcjonowania krajobrazów nizinnych. WGiSR UW, Warszawa.
• Richling, A & Solon J 2011, Ekologia krajobrazu [Landscape ecology], Państwowe Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa.
• Richling, A, Malinowska, E & Szumacher, I 2013, ‘ Delimitation of the landscape units treated as estimation fields in the modeling of landscape system’, Miscellanea Geographica– Regional Studies on Development, vol. 17, no. 4.
• Rocchini, D, Perry, GLP, Salerno, M, Maccherini, S & Chiarucci, A 2006, ‘Landscape change and the dynamics of open formations in a natural reserve’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 77, pp. 167–177.
• 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’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 8, pp. 502–514.[Crossref][WoS]
• Serrano, E & Ruiz-Flaño, P 2007, ‘Geodiversity. A theoretical and applied concept’, Geographica Helvetica Jg, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 140–147.
• Solon, J 2002, ‘Ocena różnorodności krajobrazu na podstawie analizy struktury przestrzennej roślinności’ [The Assessment of Diversity of Landscape on the Basis of Analysis of Spatial Structure of Vegetation], Prace Geograficzne, vol. 185, pp. 1– 233.
• Urbański, J 2008, ‘GIS w badaniach przyrodniczych’, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
• Uuemaa, E, Antrop, M, Roosaare, J, Marja, R & Mander, Ü 2009, ‘Landscape Metrics and Indices: An Overview of Their Use in Landscape Research’, Living Reviews in Landscape Research, vol. 3, pp. 5–28.
• Uuemaa, E, Roosaare, J, Kanal, A & Mander Ü 2008, ‘Spatial correlograms of soil cover as an indicator of landscape heterogeneity’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 8, pp. 783–794.[WoS][Crossref]
• Uuemaa, E, Roosaare, J, & Mander Ü 2005, ‘Scale dependence of landscape metrics and their indicatory value for nutrient and organic matter losses from catchments’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 350–369.[Crossref]
• Uuemaa, E, Roosaare, J, Oja, T & Mander, Ü 2011, ‘Analysing the spatial structure of the Estonian landscapes: which landscape metrics are the most suitable for comparing different landscapes?’, Estonian Journal of Ecology, vol. 60, no.1, pp. 70–80.
• 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 and Urban Planning, vol. 91, pp. 160–170.[WoS]
• Yue, TX, Liu, JY, Li, ZQ, Chen, SQ, Ma, SN, Tian, YZ & Ge, F 2005, ‘Considerable effects of diversity indices and spatial scales on conclusions relating to ecological diversity’, Ecological Modelling, vol. 188, pp. 418–431.

Identifiers

Biblioteka Nauki

2036143