Abstract
Landscapes exhibit various degrees of spatial heterogeneity according to the differential intensity and interactions among processes and disturbances that they are subjected to. The management of these spatially dynamical landscapes requires that we can accurately map them and monitor the evolution of their spatial arrangement through time. Such a mapping requires first the delineation of various spatial features present in the landscape such as patches and their boundaries. However, there are several environmental (spatial variability) as well as technical (spatial resolution) factors that impair our ability to accurately delineate patches and their boundaries as polygons. Here, we investigate how the spatial structure and spatial resolution of the data affect the accuracy of detecting patches and their boundaries over simulated landscapes and real data. Simulated landscapes consisted of two patches with parameterized spatial properties (patches’ level of spatial autocorrelation, mean value and variance) separated by a boundary of known location. Real data allowed the investigation of a more complex landscape where there is a known transition between two forest domains with unknown spatial properties. Boundary locations are defined using the lattice-wombling edge detector at various aggregation levels and the degree of patch homogeneity is determined using Getis-Ord’s G*. Results show that boundary detection using a local edge detector is greatly affected by the spatial conditions of the data, namely variance, abruptness of the spatial gradient between two patches and patches’ level of spatial autocorrelation. They also suggest that data aggregation is not a panacea for bringing out the ecological process creating the patches and that indicators derived from local measures of spatial association can be complementary tools for analysing spatial structures affecting boundary delineation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Barbujani G, Oden NN, Sokal RR (1989) Detecting regions of abrupt change in maps of biological variables. Syst Zool 38: 376–389
Barbujani G, Sokal RR (1991) Genetic population structure of Italy. 1. Geographic patterns of gene frequencies. Hum Biol 63: 253–272
Boots B (2002) Local measures of spatial association. Ecoscience 9: 168–176
Bradshaw GA, Fortin M-J (2000) Landscape heterogeneity effects on scaling and monitoring large areas using remote sensing data. Geogr Inform Sci 6: 61–68
Cao C, Lam N (1997) Understanding the scale and resolution effects in remote sensing and GIS. In: Quattrochi DA, Goodchild MF(eds) Scale in remote sensing and GIS. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Cressie NAC (1993) Statistics for spatial data. Wiley, New York
Csillag F, Boots B, Fortin M-J, Lowell K, Potvin F (2001) Multiscale characterization of boundaries and landscape ecological patterns. Geomatica 55: 291–307
Csillag F, Fortin M-J, Dungan J (2000) On the limits and extensions of the definition of scale. Bull ESA 81: 230–232
Fagan WF, Fortin MJ, Soykan C (2003) Integrating edge detection and dynamic modeling in quantitative analyses of ecological boundaries. Bioscience 53: 730–738
Fortin M-J (1999) The effects of quadrat size and data measurement on the detection of boundaries. J Veg Sci 10: 43–50
Fortin M-J (1994) Edge detection algorithms for two-dimensional ecological data. Ecology 75: 956–965
Fortin M-J, Dale MRT (2005) Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fortin M-J, Edwards G (2001) Accuracy issues related to the delineation of vegetation boundaries. In: Goodchild M, Friedl M, Case T, Hunsaker C(eds) Uncertainty data in ecology. Elsevier, New York
Fortin M-J, Drapeau P (1995) Delineation of ecological boundaries: comparison of approaches and significance tests. Oikos 72: 323–332
Fortin M-J, Drapeau P, Jacquez GM (1996) Statistics to assess spatial relationships between ecological boundaries. Oikos 77: 51–60
Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2000) Quantitative geography: perspectives on spatial data analysis. SAGE, London
Getis A, Ord JK (1992) The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geogr Anal 24: 189–206
Gosz JR (1993) Ecotone hierarchies. Ecol Appl 3: 369–376
Haining R (1990) Spatial data analysis in the social and environmental sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Jacquez GM, Maruca S, Fortin M-J (2000) From fields to objects: a review of geographic boundary analysis. J Geogr Sys 2: 221–241
Oden NL, Sokal RR, Fortin M-J, Goebl H (1993) Categorical wombling: detecting regions of significant change in spatially located categorical variables. Geogr Anal 25: 315–336
Ord JK, Getis A (1995) Testing for local spatial autocorrelation in the presence of global autocorrelation. J Regional Sci 41: 411–432
Palmer MW, Dixon PM (1990) Small-scale environmental heterogeneity and the analysis of species distributions along gradients. J Veg Sci 1: 57–65
Philibert M (2002) Effect of spatial and statistical conditions on boundary detection across scales. M.Sc. Thesis, Simon Fraser University
Pitas I (2000) Digital image processing algorithms and applications. Wiley-Interscience, New-York
Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New York
Wulder M, Boots B (1998) Local spatial autocorrelation characteristics of remotely sensed imagery assessed with the Getis statistic. Int J Remote Sens 19: 2223–2231
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
F. Csillag—Deceased.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Philibert, M.D., Fortin, MJ. & Csillag, F. Spatial structure effects on the detection of patches boundaries using local operators. Environ Ecol Stat 15, 447–467 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-007-0061-9
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-007-0061-9