بررسی اثر مقیاس بر حساسیت سنجه‏های سیمای سرزمین

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، رشتۀ منابع طبیعی‌ـ محیط زیست، دانشگاه تهران

2 استادیار دانشکدۀ منابع طبیعی‌ـ گروه محیط زیست، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

توسعۀ سنجه‏های سیمای سرزمین در اواخر دهۀ 1980 و پیشرفت‏های فنون سنجش از دور و سامانۀ اطلاعات جغرافیایی توانستند بعد جدیدی در مطالعات اکولوژی سیمای سرزمین به‌خصوص در زمینۀ ارتباط بین الگوهای مکانی و فرایندهای اکولوژیکی به‌وجود آورد. با‌این‌حال وابستگی برخی سنجه‏های سیمای سرزمین به عامل مقیاس و قدرت تفکیک‏های مختلف سامانه‏های سنجش از دور سبب شد توجه ویژه‏ای به انتخاب مقیاس مناسب در مطالعات اکولوژی سیمای سرزمین و در‌نتیجه تفسیر درست فرایندهای اکولوژیکی به‌وجود بیاید. پژوهش حاضر نیز در این راستا به بررسی اثر مقیاس بر روند تغییر مجموعه‏ای از سنجه‏های سیمای سرزمین پرداخته است. از این‌رو با پردازش تصویر ماهوارۀ لندست در شهر اصفهان و پیرامون آن (به مساحت 480 هزار هکتار) به بررسی اثر مقیاس در دو بخش گسترۀ مکانی و اندازۀ سلول بر روند تغییر برخی سنجه‏های سیمای سرزمین در طبقۀ پوشش سبز پرداخته شد. بدین منظور اندازۀ سلول از 30 متر به 60، 120، 240 و 480 متر و گسترۀ مکانی از 300 هکتار به مقادیر 600، 1200، 2400 و 4800 هکتار افزایش یافت تا حساسیت مقادیر سنجه‏های تعداد لکه (NP)، تراکم لکه (PD)، شاخص شکل سیمای سرزمین (LSI)، متوسط اندازۀ لکه (MPS)، تراکم حاشیه (ED)، میانگین فاصلۀ اقلیدسی نزدیک‌ترین همسایه (MNN)، شاخص متوسط لکه (MSI) و شاخص کل هستۀ مرکزی (TCAI) نسبت به مقیاس بررسی شود. نتایج حاصل از پژوهش نشان از حساسیت بیشتر این سنجه‏ها (‌غیر از سنجۀ TCAI) نسبت به عامل مقیاس است. انجام مطالعات از این دست و توجه به مبحث مقیاس به‌منزلۀ یکی از مباحث مهم اکولوژیکی نقش مهمی در شناسایی آثار و فرایندهای اکولوژیکی، پیش‏بینی عملکردهای اکولوژیکی (مدل‏سازی سرزمین) و کاهش عدم قطعیت حاصل در مطالعات اکولوژی سیمای سرزمین خواهد داشت.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A survey of the effect of scale on the sensitivity of landscape metrics

نویسندگان [English]

  • ali asgarian 1
  • Bahman Jabbarian Amiri 2
1 MSc student, Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resource, University of Tehran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

Development of remote sensing (RS) and GIS techniques and that of landscape metrics in the late 1980s have caused to introduce a new dimension in the landscape ecology arena (the relationship between spatial patterns and ecological processes). However, scale dependence of some of landscape metrics and RS systems of different spatial resolution has resulted in particular attention into selection of an appropriate scale in the landscape ecology studies and correct interpretation of ecological processes. Hence, the present study has investigated the behaviors of some landscape metrics in relation to changes in scale. Accordingly, the effects of the scale (pixel size and extent) on those landscape metrics which indicate trends of vegetation cover class was discussed applying Landsat images in Isfahan city and its surrounding (an area of ​​960 thousand hectares). For this purpose, behavior of NP, PD, LSI, MPS, ED, MNN, MSI and TCAI have studied through changing the size from 30 m to 60, 120, 240 and 480 and extent from 300 ha to 600, 1200, 2400 and 4800. The results of this study indicated sensitivity of these metrics except TCAI in relation to the scale factor. This type of studies and attention to the spatial scale have indicated that it could play an important role in identifying the impacts of ecological processes, predicting the ecological functions (landscape modeling) and reducing the uncertainty in landscape ecology studies.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Landscape ecology
  • Landscape metrics
  • pixel size
  • extent
 

Addicott J.F. Aho, J.M., Antolin, M. F, Padilla, M.F., Richardson. J.S. and Soluk, D.A. 1987. Ecological neighborhood : scaling environmental pattern. Okios. 49, 340-346.

Arnof, A. 2011. Remote sensing for GIS managers. Tehran univercity press, Tehran, 710 p. In Persian.

Arvidson, T. 2002. Personal Correspondence, Landsat 7 Senior Systems Engineer, Landsat Project Science Office. Goddard Space Flight Center, Washington, DC. 186 p.

Bailey, 2005. Ecosystem geography. Translated by Abdolrassoul Salman Mahini. Moje sabz publication. Tehran, 320 p. In Persian.

Bailey, D., Herzog, F., Augenstein, I., Aviron, S., Billeter, R. and Szerencsits, E. 2007. Thematic resolution matters: indicators of landscape pattern for European agro-ecosystems. Ecological Indicators, 7, 692-709.

Baldwin, D., Weaver, K.; Schnekenburger, F. and Perera, A. H. 2004. Sensitivity of landscape pattern indices to input data characteristics on real landscapes: implications for their use in natural disturbance emulation. Landscape Ecology, 19, 255-271.

Buyantuyev, A., Wu, J., and Gries, C. 2010. Multiscale analysis of the urbanization pattern of the Phoenix metropolitan landscape of USA: time, space and thematic resolution. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94, 206-217.

Chander, C., Markham, B., and Helder, D. 2009. Summary of current radiometric calibration coefficients for Landsat MSS, TM, ETM+, and EO-1 ALI sensors. Remote Sensing of Environment, 113, 893-903.

Cushman, S.A., McGarigal, K. and Neel., M.C. 2008. Parsimony in landscape metrics: Strength, universality, and consistency. Ecological indicators. 8, 691-703.

Delcourt, H. R. and Delcourt, P. A. 1996. Presettlement landscape heterogeneity: evaluating grain of resolution using General Land Office Survey data. Landscape Ecology, 11, 363-381.

Diaz-Varela, E. R., Marey-Pérez, M. F., and Álvarez-Álvarez, P. 2009. Use of simulated and real data to identify heterogeneity domains in scale-divergent forest landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 2490-2500.

Farina, A. 2006. Principles and methods in landscape ecology. Dordrecht: Springer. 412 p.

Fortin, M. J., Boots, B., Csillag, F., and Remmel, T. K. 2003. On the role of spatial stochastic models in understanding landscape indices in ecology. Oikos, 102, 203-212.

Gao, J., and Li, S. 2011. Detecting spatially non-stationary and scale-dependent relationships between urban landscape fragmentation and related factors using geographically weighted regression. Applied Geography, 31(1), 292-302.

Haines-Young, R., and Chopping, M. 1996. Quantifying landscape structure: a review of landscape indices and their application to forested landscapes. Progress in Physical Geography, 20, 418-445.

Hargis, C. D., Bissonette, J. A., and David, J. L. 1998. The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecology, 13, 167-186.

Haury, L.R., McGown, J.A., and Wiebe P.H. 1978. Pattern and processes in the time-space scales of plankton distribution. Spatial pattern in Plankton communities (edt J.H. Steele), pp. 277-327. Plenum. New York.

Herold, M., Couclelis, H. and Clarke, K. C. 2003, The role of spatial metrics in the analysis and modeling of urban land use change. Journal of Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(4), 369–399.

Hutchinson, G.E. 1953. The concept of pattern in ecology. Proceeding of the journal of the national academy of science of the USA, 150, 1-12.

Kelly, M., Tuxen, K. A., and Stralberg, D. 2011. Mapping changes to vegetation pattern in a restoring wetland: finding pattern metrics that are consistent across spatial scale and time. Ecological Indicators, 11, 263-273.

Krummel J.R., Gardner R.H., Sugihara G., O’Neill R.V. and Coleman P.R. 1987. Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos, 48, 321–324.

Levin, S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology, 73, 1943-1967.

Li, H., and Wu, J. 2004. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecology, 19, 389-399.

McGarigal, K., and Marks, B. J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

McGarigal, K. 2002. Landscape pattern metrics. InEl-Shaarawi, A. H., & Piegorsch, W. W. (Eds.). Encyclopedia of environmetrics, Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons. 2,1135-1142.

Millington, A. C., Velez-Liendo, X. M., and Bradley, A. V. 2003. Scale dependence in multitemporal mapping of forest fragmentation in Bolivia: implications for explaining temporal trends in landscape ecology and applications to biodiversity conservation. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 57, 289-299.

Pascual-Hortal, L., and Saura, S. 2007. Impact of spatial scale on the identification of critical habitat patches for the maintenance of landscape connectivity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 176-186.

Rutledge, D. 2003. Landscape indices as measures of the effects of fragmentation: can pattern reflect process? Department of Conversation, New Zealand. DOC Science Internalseries98, http://doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/DSIS98.pdf., (5 April 2013).

Salman Mahiny, A. 2007. Landscape metrics and erosion risk as two classes of quantitative Indicators fo rapid environmental impact assessment. Journal of agriculture science natural resources, 14(1), 224-237.

Saura, S. 2002. Effects of minimum mapping unit on land cover data spatial configuration and composition. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23, 4853-4880.

Saura, S. and Castro, S. 2007. Scaling functions for landscape pattern metrics derived from remotely sensed data: are their subpixel estimates really accurate? ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 62, 201-216.

Shen, W., Jenerette, G. D., Wu, J., and Gardner, R. H. 2004. Evaluating empirical scaling relations of pattern metrics with simulated landscapes. Ecography, 27, 459-469.

Simova, P., and Gdulova, K. 2012. Landscape indices behavior: A review of scale effects. Applied Geography 34, 385-394.

Thompson and McGarigal, K. 2002. The influence of research scale on blad eagle habitat selection along the lower Hudson river, New York. Landscape ecology,17, 569-586.

Turner, M. G., O’Neill, R. V., Gardner, R. H. and Milne, B. T. 1989. Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology, 3, 153-162.

UMASS, )2013(, Landscape Ecology program, http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/Conceptual%20Background/Background%20TOC. html (26 April 2013).

Uuemaa, E., Roosaare, J. and Mander, Ü. 2005. Scale dependence of landscape metrics and their indicatory value for nutrient and organic matter losses from catchments. Ecological Indicators, 5, 350-369.

Wheatley, M. 2010. Domains of scale in forest-landscape metrics: implications for species-habitat modeling. Acta Oecologica, 36, 259-267.

Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology, Functional ecology, 3, 385-392.

Wu, J. 2004. Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecology, 19, 125-138.

Wu, J., Shen, W., Sun, W. and Tueller, P. T. 2002. Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecology, 17, 761-782.