Landscape as a Model: The Importance of Geometry

In all models, but especially in those used to predict uncertain processes (e.g., climate change and nonnative species establishment), it is important to identify and remove any sources of bias that may confound results. This is critical in models designed to help support decisionmaking. The geometry used to represent virtual landscapes in spatially explicit models is a potential source of bias. The majority of spatial models use regular square geometry, although regular hexagonal landscapes have also been used. However, there are other ways in which space can be represented in spatially explicit models. For the first time, we explicitly compare the range of alternative geometries available to the modeller, and present a mechanism by which uncertainty in the representation of landscapes can be incorporated. We test how geometry can affect cell-to-cell movement across homogeneous virtual landscapes and compare regular geometries with a suite of irregular mosaics. We show that regular geometries have the potential to systematically bias the direction and distance of movement, whereas even individual instances of landscapes with irregular geometry do not. We also examine how geometry can affect the gross representation of real-world landscapes, and again show that individual instances of regular geometries will always create qualitative and quantitative errors. These can be reduced by the use of multiple randomized instances, though this still creates scale-dependent biases. In contrast, virtual landscapes formed using irregular geometries can represent complex real-world landscapes without error. We found that the potential for bias caused by regular geometries can be effectively eliminated by subdividing virtual landscapes using irregular geometry. The use of irregular geometry appears to offer spatial modellers other potential advantages, which are as yet underdeveloped. We recommend their use in all spatially explicit models, but especially for predictive models that are used in decisionmaking.

[1]  Janine Bolliger,et al.  Simulating complex landscapes with a generic model: Sensitivity to qualitative and quantitative classifications , 2005 .

[2]  R. Kenward,et al.  Mate finding, dispersal distances and population growth in invading species: a spatially explicit model , 2001 .

[3]  Frederick R. Adler,et al.  Persistence in patchy irregular landscapes , 1994 .

[4]  Adam G. Dunn,et al.  In response to the continuum model for fauna research: a hierarchical, patch‐based model of spatial landscape patterns , 2007 .

[5]  S. Harris,et al.  Rabies in urban foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Britain: the use of a spatial stochastic simulation model to examine the pattern of spread and evaluate the efficacy of different control régimes. , 1991, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[6]  Shane A. Richards,et al.  TESTING ECOLOGICAL THEORY USING THE INFORMATION‐THEORETIC APPROACH: EXAMPLES AND CAUTIONARY RESULTS , 2005 .

[7]  Mark Rounsevell,et al.  The limitations of spatial land use data in environmental analysis , 2006 .

[8]  S. Harris,et al.  Fertility control as a means of controlling bovine tuberculosis in badger (Meles meles) populations in south–west England: predictions from a spatial stochastic simulation model , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  Erwin Zehe,et al.  Uncertainty of simulated catchment runoff response in the presence of threshold processes: Role of initial soil moisture and precipitation , 2005 .

[10]  Dawei Han,et al.  Issues of using digital maps for catchment delineation , 2006 .

[11]  Colin P.D. Birch Diagonal and orthogonal neighbours in grid-based simulations: Buffon's stick after 200 years , 2006 .

[12]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Dealing with Uncertainty in Spatially Explicit Population Models , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[13]  Andrew Nelson,et al.  Analysing data across geographic scales in Honduras: detecting levels of organisation within systems , 2001 .

[14]  D. Tarboton A new method for the determination of flow directions and upslope areas in grid digital elevation models , 1997 .

[15]  Peter Odderskær,et al.  ALMaSS, an agent-based model for animals in temperate European landscapes , 2003 .

[16]  P. White,et al.  Spatial interactions and habitat use of rabbits on pasture and implications for the spread of rabbit haemorrhagic disease in New South Wales , 2003 .

[17]  R. Hill,et al.  The UK Land Cover Map 2000: Construction of a Parcel-Based Vector Map from Satellite Images , 2002 .

[18]  Anthony W. King,et al.  Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter? , 2002 .

[19]  Justin M. J. Travis,et al.  Range shifting on a fragmented landscape , 2007, Ecol. Informatics.

[20]  Lutz Tischendorf,et al.  Modelling individual movements in heterogeneous landscapes: potentials of a new approach , 1997 .

[21]  J. F. Benson,et al.  Space Use and Habitat Selection by Female Louisiana Black Bears in the Tensas River Basin of Louisiana , 2007 .

[22]  R. Didham,et al.  The Effect of Fragment Shape and Species' Sensitivity to Habitat Edges on Animal Population Size , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[23]  J. Dehotin,et al.  Which spatial discretization for which distributed hydrological model , 2007 .

[24]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  A simple landscape-scale test of a spatially explicit population model: patch occupancy in fragmented south-eastern Australian forests , 2001 .

[25]  S. Rushton,et al.  Investigating the spatial dynamics of bovine tuberculosis in badger populations: evaluating an individual-based simulation model , 2003 .

[26]  N. Stenseth,et al.  Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology , 1993 .

[27]  C. Thatcher,et al.  Identifying Suitable Sites for Florida Panther Reintroduction , 2006 .

[28]  Ralf Seppelt,et al.  Optimizing landscape configuration to enhance habitat suitability for species with contrasting habitat requirements , 2006 .

[29]  Michael K. Phillips,et al.  Impacts of Landscape Change on Wolf Restoration Success: Planning a Reintroduction Program Based on Static and Dynamic Spatial Models , 2003 .

[30]  Andrej Kobler,et al.  Identifying brown bear habitat by a combined GIS and machine learning method. , 2000 .

[31]  Boris Schröder,et al.  Population dynamics and habitat connectivity affecting the spatial spread of populations – a simulation study , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[32]  E. Carr,et al.  Simulated effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on a solitary mustelid predator , 2006 .

[33]  J. Travis,et al.  Incorporating evolutionary processes into a spatially‐explicit model: exploring the consequences of mink‐farm closures in Denmark , 2006 .

[34]  Nicolas Vuichard,et al.  Modelling the Effects of Patch Size on Vegetation Dynamics: Bracken [Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn] under Grazing , 2000 .

[35]  M. Hunter,et al.  Using diffusion models to simulate the effects of land use on grizzly bear dispersal in the Rocky Mountains , 1996, Landscape Ecology.

[36]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Expansion of Brown Bears (Ursus arctos) into the Eastern Alps: A Spatially Explicit Population Model , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[37]  Thomas W. Crawford,et al.  Polygon‐to‐Polygon Spatial Accessibility Using Different Aggregation Approaches: A Case Study of National Forests in the US Mountain West Region , 2006, Trans. GIS.

[38]  T. Kostova,et al.  The effect of habitat size and predation on the time to extinction of prairie vole populations: simulation studies via SERDYCA , 2005 .

[39]  J. Krebs,et al.  The wider countryside‐principles underlying the responses of mammals to heterogeneous environments , 1993 .

[40]  Donald L. DeAngelis,et al.  Exploring the effect of drought extent and interval on the Florida snail kite: interplay between spatial and temporal scales , 2002 .

[41]  William J. McShea,et al.  PREDICTING PRESENCE AND ABUNDANCE OF A SMALL MAMMAL SPECIES: THE EFFECT OF SCALE AND RESOLUTION , 2000 .

[42]  Otso Ovaskainen,et al.  HABITAT-SPECIFIC MOVEMENT PARAMETERS ESTIMATED USING MARK–RECAPTURE DATA AND A DIFFUSION MODEL , 2004 .

[43]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Modelling dispersal behaviour on a fractal landscape , 1998, Environ. Model. Softw..

[44]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  The need for pluralism in landscape models: a reply to Dunn and Majer , 2007 .

[45]  Jennifer L. Dungan,et al.  Focusing on feature-based differences in map comparison , 2006, J. Geogr. Syst..

[46]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  A Review of the Generic Computer Programs ALEX, RAMAS/space and VORTEX for Modelling the Viability of Wildlife Metapopulations , 1995 .

[47]  Andy South,et al.  Extrapolating from individual movement behaviour to population spacing patterns in a ranging mammal , 1999 .

[48]  B. Leung,et al.  Managing sparse data in biological invasions: a simulation study , 2006 .

[49]  V. Misra Addressing the Issue of Systematic Errors in a Regional Climate Model , 2007 .

[50]  Jianguo Wu Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[51]  M. Goodchild Fractals and the accuracy of geographical measures , 1980 .

[52]  Graham C. Smith,et al.  Spatial sensitivity of a generic population model, using wild boar (Sus scrofa) as a test case , 2007 .

[53]  Chris J. Johnson,et al.  Movement parameters of ungulates and scale‐specific responses to the environment , 2002 .

[54]  S. Aviron,et al.  When is landscape matrix important for determining animal fluxes between resource patches , 2005 .

[55]  C. Cooper,et al.  Landscape patterns and dispersal success: simulated population dynamics in the brown treecreeper , 2002 .

[56]  O. Kindvall Dispersal in a metapopulation of the bush cricket, Metrioptera bicolor (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) , 1999 .

[57]  C. Carroll,et al.  Spatial viability analysis of Amur tiger Panthera tigris altaica in the Russian Far East: the role of protected areas and landscape matrix in population persistence , 2006 .

[58]  Anthony W. King,et al.  Spatial uncertainty analysis of population models , 2005 .

[59]  D. Macdonald,et al.  Simulating the proposed reintroduction of the European beaver (Castor fiber) to Scotland , 2000 .

[60]  M. Goodchild,et al.  Geographic Information Systems and Science (second edition) , 2001 .

[61]  Lars Westerberg,et al.  Predicting the spatial distribution of a population in a heterogeneous landscape , 2003 .

[62]  David W. Macdonald,et al.  Modelling the effects of mink and habitat fragmentation on the water vole , 2000 .

[63]  D. DeAngelis,et al.  Evaluating the effect of salinity on a simulated American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) population with applications to conservation and Everglades restoration , 2004 .

[64]  D. Porter,et al.  Using Wildlife as Receptor Species: A Landscape Approach to Ecological Risk Assessment , 2004, Environmental management.

[65]  T. Kostova,et al.  Individual-based spatially-explicit model of an herbivore and its resource: the effect of habitat reduction and fragmentation. , 2004, Comptes rendus biologies.

[66]  F. Messier,et al.  SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND SPACE USE OF COYOTES IN EASTERN CANADA RELATIVE TO PREY DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE , 2001 .

[67]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: An application of graph theory , 2006 .