The impact of thematic resolution on the patch-mosaic model of natural landscapes

We argue that thematic resolution, i.e., the level of categorical detail of a thematic map expressed by the number of classes included in the map legend, is an inherent component of the scale at which a landscape is analyzed. Changing the number of classes can change the configuration of the patch mosaic as much as changing the grain does. We address recent calls in this and other journals to deepen research in this topic. In particular, we report how thematic resolution affects the patchiness of mosaics representing natural landscapes, which have seldom been studied in this respect. We selected seven 50 × 50 km landscapes within national parks, each representative of a world biome. We applied an object-based unsupervised classification to Landsat TM imagery of these landscapes using increasing numbers of classes, between 2 and 50, and derived curves of mean patch size and patch density for each site. Our results are consistent with previous findings in that the patchiness of output mosaics increases monotonically with increasing thematic resolution, with a higher rate of increase up to eight classes that declines until it becomes roughly constant for more than 16 classes. However, this constant rate of increase is still considerable, meaning that, at least for natural landscapes, there is no threshold beyond which the patch-mosaic model is independent of the conceptual filter applied. This dependence on human fiat calls for re-thinking the patch-mosaic paradigm.

[1]  J. Wiens.  Spatial Scaling in Ecology , 1989 .

[2]  M. Kendall,et al.  The Influence of Thematic and Spatial Resolution on Maps of a Coral Reef Ecosystem , 2008 .

[3]  Thomas G. Dietterich,et al.  Map Misclassification Can Cause Large Errors in Landscape Pattern Indices: Examples from Habitat Fragmentation , 2006, Ecosystems.

[4]  A. Perera,et al.  Sensitivity of landscape pattern indices to input data characteristics on real landscapes: implications for their use in natural disturbance emulation , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[5]  S. Gergel.  New Directions in Landscape Pattern Analysis and Linkages with Remote Sensing , 2006 .

[6]  Julius T. Tou,et al.  Pattern Recognition Principles , 1974 .

[7]  Stan Openshaw,et al.  Modifiable Areal Unit Problem , 2008, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[8]  Jianguo Wu,et al.  Effects of thematic resolution on landscape pattern analysis , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[9]  Jian-guo Wu,et al.  Key Topics in Landscape Ecology: Scale and scaling: a cross-disciplinary perspective , 2007 .

[10]  Steven E. Franklin,et al.  Understanding Forest Disturbance and Spatial Pattern : Remote Sensing and GIS Approaches , 2006 .

[11]  S. Levin.  The problem of pattern and scale in ecology , 1992 .

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

[13]  G. Hay,et al.  Size-constrained Region Merging (SCRM): An Automated Delineation Tool for Assisted Photointerpretation , 2008 .

[14]  M. Turner.  Landscape ecology in North America: past, present, and future , 2005 .

[15]  J. Wiens,et al.  Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology , 2005 .

[16]  M. Oliver.  Landscape , 2005, Emerging Infectious Diseases.

[17]  Jason W. Karl,et al.  SENSITIVITY OF SPECIES HABITAT-RELATIONSHIP MODEL PERFORMANCE TO FACTORS OF SCALE , 2000 .

[18]  Dazhong Wen.  Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions , 1997 .

[19]  Luc Vincent,et al.  Watersheds in Digital Spaces: An Efficient Algorithm Based on Immersion Simulations , 1991, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[20]  Jianguo Wu,et al.  Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics , 2002, Landscape Ecology.

[21]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Key Topics in Landscape Ecology: Frontmatter , 2007 .

[22]  Thomas J. Stohlgren,et al.  MULTISCALE SAMPLING OF PLANT DIVERSITY: EFFECTS OF MINIMUM MAPPING UNIT SIZE , 1997 .

[23]  C. Tucker,et al.  NASA’s Global Orthorectified Landsat Data Set , 2004 .

[24]  Gordon B. Stenhouse,et al.  Effects of cutline density and land-cover heterogeneity on landscape metrics in western Alberta , 2008 .

[25]  K. McGarigal,et al.  The gradient concept of landscape structure [Chapter 12] , 2005 .

[26]  Yuehui Li,et al.  The adequacy of different landscape metrics for various landscape patterns , 2005, Pattern Recognit..

[27]  Bruce T. Milne,et al.  Indices of landscape pattern , 1988, Landscape Ecology.

[28]  Jianguo Wu,et al.  Use and misuse of landscape indices , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[29]  Bruce T. Milne,et al.  Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern , 1989, Landscape Ecology.

[30]  S. Saura.  Effects of minimum mapping unit on land cover data spatial configuration and composition , 2002 .

[31]  R. Macarthur.  The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture , 2005 .

[32]  Debra Bailey,et al.  The influence of thematic resolution on metric selection for biodiversity monitoring in agricultural landscapes , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[33]  John A. Kupfer,et al.  Sensitivity of landscape metrics to classification scheme , 2006 .

[34]  G. Castellano.  Analisis orientado a objetos de imágenes de teledetección para cartografia forestal: bases conceptuales y un metodo de segmentacion para obtener una particion inicial para la clasificacion , 2011 .

[35]  J. Solon.  Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology: Incorporating geographical (biophysical) principles in studies of landscape systems , 2005 .