4.7 Article

Impact of scale on morphological spatial pattern of forest

Journal

LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 9, Pages 1107-1117

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10980-008-9271-2

Keywords

Pattern analysis; Mathematical morphology; Scale

Funding

  1. European Commission [. 22832-2005-06 S0SC ISP]
  2. Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability
  3. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Assessing and monitoring landscape pattern structure from multi-scale land-cover maps can utilize morphological spatial pattern analysis (MSPA), only if various influences of scale are known and taken into account. This paper lays part of the foundation for applying MSPA analysis in landscape monitoring by quantifying scale effects on six classes of spatial patterns called: core, edge, perforation, branch, connector and islet. Four forest maps were selected with different forest composition and configuration. The sensitivity of MSPA to scale was studied by comparing frequencies of pattern classes in total forest area for various combinations of pixel size (P) and size parameter (S). It was found that the quantification of forest pattern with MSPA is sensitive to scale. Differences in initial composition and configuration influence the amount but not the general tendencies of the variations of morphological spatial pattern (MSP) class proportions with scale. Increase of P led to data generalization resulting in either a removal of the small size features or their potential transformation into other non-core MSP classes, while an increase of S decreases the MSP core area and this process may transform small core areas into the MSP class islet. We established that the behavior of the MSPA classes with changing scale can be categorized as consistent and robust scaling relations in the forms of linear, power, or logarithmic functions over a range of scales.

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