Abstract
Context
Anthropogenic activities alter natural habitats, with impacts on species that live in human-modified systems. Often abrupt, anthropogenic influences not only alter the availability and distribution of suitable habitats for species, but also the ability of species to perceive variations within the landscape. Researchers studying the drivers of species distribution and behavior often use “static” land-cover maps as descriptors of habitat, which are most typically characterized at predictably cyclical seasonal scales. Changes that occur over shorter temporal scales are rarely quantified, and there is a lack of understanding of how landscapes change within seasons.
Objectives
We propose a generic work-flow to identify the temporal scales at which changes in land-cover patterns can be detected within a landscape.
Methods
We use easily calculated landscape metrics such as patch area, inter-patch distance (ENN) and shape complexity (SHAPE), obtained using high-resolution satellite imagery. We conducted pairwise comparisons for each metric and LULC class separately, at temporal scales corresponding to 15, 30, 45 and 60-day intervals, using a case study from central India.
Results
We observed that changes in landscape structure and in land-cover classes can be detected even at a 15-day time period in human-dominated landscapes. In our case-study, agricultural fallows showed the highest proportion of change-points. The grassland class was the most stable across metrics and time-scales. Among metrics, SHAPE was the most stable and ENN was the most dynamic, indicating that while patch structure remained relatively stable, patch configuration changed more rapidly.
Conclusions
We suggest that when studying animal resource use and movement, particularly in anthropogenically modified systems, matching the temporal resolution of landscape-level data to animal movement data is critical, as broad-scale data may miss key triggers of animal response.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The R codes and images used for this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding authors.
References
Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc Ecol 22:1117–1129.
Benson JF, Mahoney PJ, Patterson BR (2015) Spatiotemporal variation in selection of roads influences mortality risk for canids in an unprotected landscape. Oikos 124:1664–1673.
Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188.
Bertrand C, Burel F, Baudry J (2016) Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of the crop mosaic influences carabid beetles in agricultural landscapes. Landsc Ecol 31:451–466.
Bevanda M, Fronhofer EA, Heurich M et al (2015) Landscape configuration is a major determinant of home range size variation. Ecosphere 6:art195.
Bielsa I, Pons X, Bunce B (2005) Agricultural abandonment in the North Eastern Iberian Peninsula: the Use of Basic Landscape Metrics to Support Planning. J Environ Plan Manag 48:85–102.
Bolliger J, Wagner HH, Turner MG (2007) Identifying and quantifying landscape patterns in space and time. pp 177–194
Byrne ME, Clint McCoy J, Hinton JW et al (2014) Using dynamic Brownian bridge movement modelling to measure temporal patterns of habitat selection. J Anim Ecol 83:1234–1243.
Cagnacci F, Boitani L, Powell RA, Boyce MS (2010) Animal ecology meets GPS-based radiotelemetry: a perfect storm of opportunities and challenges. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 365:2157–2162.
Carter NH, Linnell JDC (2016) Co-Adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol Evol 31:575–578.
Chapron G, Kaczensky P, Linnell JDC et al (2014) Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Sci (80-) 346:1517–1519.
Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703.
Dechen Quinn AC, Williams DM, Porter WF (2013) Landscape structure influences space use by white-tailed deer. J Mammal 94:398–407.
Eastman JR (2015) TerrSet: geospatial monitoring and modeling software. Clark Labs, Clark Univ
Fahrig L (2007) Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct Ecol 21:1003–1015.
Fichera CR, Modica G, Pollino M (2012) Land Cover classification and change-detection analysis using multi-temporal remote sensed imagery and landscape metrics. Eur J Remote Sens 45:1–18.
Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280
González-Megías A, María Gómez J, Sánchez-Piñero F (2007) Diversity-habitat heterogeneity relationship at different spatial and temporal scales. Ecography (Cop) 30:31–41.
Gurarie E, Andrews RD, Laidre KL (2009) A novel method for identifying behavioural changes in animal movement data. Ecol Lett 12:395–408.
Gurarie E, Ovaskainen O (2011) Characteristic spatial and temporal scales unify models of animal movement. Am Nat 178:113–123.
Hesselbarth MHK, Sciaini M, With KA et al (2019) Landscapemetrics: an open-source R tool to calculate landscape metrics. Ecography (Cop) 42:1648–1657.
Katna A, Kulkarni A, Thaker M, Vanak AT (2022) Habitat specificity drives differences in space-use patterns of multiple mesocarnivores in an agroecosystem. J Zool 316:92–103.
Kie JG, Bowyer RT, Nicholson MC et al (2002) Landscape heterogeneity at differing scales: effects on spatial distribution of mule deer. Ecology 83:530.
Killengreen ST, Lecomte N, Ehrich D et al (2011) The importance of marine vs. human-induced subsidies in the maintenance of an expanding mesocarnivore in the arctic tundra. J Anim Ecol 80:1049–1060.
Kumar M, Denis DM, Singh SK et al (2018) Landscape metrics for assessment of land cover change and fragmentation of a heterogeneous watershed. Remote Sens Appl Soc Environ 10:224–233.
Lambin EF, Rounsevell MDA, Geist HJ (2000) Are agricultural land-use models able to predict changes in land-use intensity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 82:321–331
Lausch A (2002) Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change: issues of scale, resolution and interpretability. Ecol Indic 2:3–15.
Lausch A, Blaschke T, Haase D et al (2015) Understanding and quantifying landscape structure – a review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecol Modell 295:31–41.
Lechner AM, Reinke KJ, Wang Y, Bastin L (2013) Interactions between landcover pattern and geospatial processing methods: Effects on landscape metrics and classification accuracy. Ecol Complex 15:71–82.
Liu T, Yang X (2015) Monitoring land changes in an urban area using satellite imagery, GIS and landscape metrics. Appl Geogr 56:42–54.
Lopes M, Frison P, Durant SM et al (2020) Combining optical and radar satellite image time series to map natural vegetation: savannas as an example. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv 6:316–326.
May R, van Dijk J, Landa A et al (2010) Spatio-temporal ranging behaviour and its relevance to foraging strategies in wide-ranging wolverines. Ecol Modell 221:936–943.
Meentemeyer V, Box EO (1987) Scale effects in landscape studies. pp 15–34
Mueller T, Olson KA, Dressler G et al (2011) How landscape dynamics link individual- to population-level movement patterns: a multispecies comparison of ungulate relocation data. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:683–694.
Narumalani S, Mishra DR, Rothwell RG (2004) Change detection and landscape metrics for inferring anthropogenic processes in the greater EFMO area. Remote Sens Environ 91:478–489.
Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E et al (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:19052–19059.
Neel MC, McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2004) Behavior of class-level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area. Landsc Ecol 19:435–455.
Northrup JM, Anderson CR, Hooten MB, Wittemyer G (2016) Movement reveals scale dependence in habitat selection of a large ungulate. Ecol Appl 26:2746–2757.
Olsen LM, Washington-Allen RA, Dale VH (2005) Time-series analysis of land cover using landscape metrics. GIScience Remote Sens 42:200–223.
R Core Team (2019) R: a language and. environment for statistical computing
Samrat A, Devy MS, Ganesh T (2021) Delineating fragmented grassland patches in the tropical region using multi-seasonal synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and optical satellite images. Int J Remote Sens 42:3938–3954.
Shao G, We W, Wu G et al (2003) An Explicit Index for assessing the accuracy of cover-class areas. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 69:907–913.
Shao G, Wu J (2008) On the accuracy of landscape pattern analysis using remote sensing data. Landsc Ecol 23:505–511.
Turner MG (1989) Landscape Ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197.
Ullmann W, Fischer C, Pirhofer-Walzl K et al (2018) Spatiotemporal variability in resources affects herbivore home range formation in structurally contrasting and unpredictable agricultural landscapes. Landsc Ecol 33:1505–1517.
Uuemaa E, Mander Ü, Marja R (2013) Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: a review. Ecol Indic 28:100–106.
van Beest FM, Rivrud IM, Loe LE et al (2011) What determines variation in home range size across spatiotemporal scales in a large browsing herbivore? J Anim Ecol 80:771–785.
Van Moorter B, Rolandsen CM, Basille M, Gaillard J-M (2016) Movement is the glue connecting home ranges and habitat selection. J Anim Ecol 85:21–31.
Vasseur C, Joannon A, Aviron S et al (2013) The cropping systems mosaic: how does the hidden heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes drive arthropod populations? Agric Ecosyst Environ 166:3–14.
Verdade LM, Penteado M, Gheler-Costa C et al (2014) The conservation value of agricultural landscapes. Applied ecology and human dimensions in biological conservation. . Springer, Berlin, pp 91–102
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Offices of the Chief Wildlife Warden, Maharashtra, Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial), Pune Division, Range Forest Officer and guards and watchers of the Maharashtra Forest Department for providing the necessary research permits, logistical help and support for conducting this study. The authors thank Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni for his contributions, and Pradeep Satpute, Pranav Panvalkar, Akash Kumbhar and Vinayak Shitole for support during fieldwork. The authors also thank the anonymous reviewer for their useful suggestions on improving the manuscript.
Funding
ATV was supported through a DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance Fellowship (Grant no. IA/CPHI/15/1/502028), and MT through an ISRO-IISc Space Technology Cell grant. The funding agencies had no involvement in the design or implementation of the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conceptualization and design. Data collection and analysis were performed by AK. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AK and all authors commented on and revised the previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Katna, A., Thaker, M. & Vanak, A.T. How fast do landscapes change? A workflow to analyze temporal changes in human-dominated landscapes. Landsc Ecol 38, 2145–2155 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01686-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01686-y