4.5 Article

Landscape ecology and biogeography: Rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0309133312439594

关键词

circuit theory; graph theory; habitat network; landscape pattern indicator; least cost distance; scale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Landscape pattern indicators or 'metrics' provide simple measures of landscape structure that can be easily calculated with readily available data and software. Unfortunately, the ecological relevance of many metrics (i.e. the relationship between metric values and the real-world ecological processes that they are meant to serve as proxies for) is often unproven and questionable, and concerns are regularly voiced that such metrics fail to capture important aspects of landscape function. In this paper, I provide a review of landscape measures that may better link landscape pattern and function, ranging from approaches that extend existing metrics by incorporating a more functional component (e.g. core area measures, least cost distances) to those rooted in graph, network, and electrical circuit theory. While more 'functional' approaches are becoming increasingly popular, the selection of appropriate landscape metrics in many applications involves tradeoffs regarding data requirements, ease of calculation, functional basis, and simplicity of interpretation by a range of specialist and non-specialist stakeholders. Regardless, there continues to be a need for landscape metrics because they are seen by many land managers and stakeholders as simple, intuitive tools for assessing and monitoring changes in landscape pattern and, by extension, the effects on underlying ecological processes. Future needs include: (1) the development of more user-friendly landscape analysis software that can simplify graph-based analyses and visualization; and (2) studies that clarify the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, including the potential limitations and biases in graph and network-based measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据