4.7 Article

Evaluating the effectiveness of landscape metrics in quantifying spatial patterns

Journal

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 217-223

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.04.017

Keywords

Landscape metrics; Spatial pattern components; Multivariable regression analysis; Sign effect; SIMMAP

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40635028, 40801066]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20070420001, 200801017]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effectiveness of landscape metrics in quantifying spatial patterns is fundamental to metrics assessment. Setting 36 simulated landscapes as sample space and focusing on 23 widely used landscape metrics, their effectiveness in quantifying the complexity of such spatial pattern components as number of patch types, area ratio of patch types and patch aggregation level, were analyzed with the application of the multivariate linear regression analysis method. The results showed that all the metrics were effective in quantifying a certain component of spatial patterns, and proved that what the metrics quantified were not a single component but the complexity of several components of spatial patterns. The study also showed a distinct inconsistency between the performances of landscape metrics in simulated landscapes and the real urban landscape of Shenzhen, China. It was suggested that the inconsistency resulted from the difference of the correlation among spatial pattern components between simulated and real landscapes. After considering the very difference, the changes of all 23 landscape metrics against changing of number of patch types in simulated landscapes were consistent with those in the real landscape. The phenomenon was deduced as the sign effect of spatial pattern components on landscape metrics, which was of great significance to the proper use of landscape metrics. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available