Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling land cover transitions: A solution to the problem of spatial dependence in data

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Raster-based spatial land cover transition models (LCTMs) are widely used in landscape ecology. However, many LCTMs do not account for spatial dependence of the input data, which may artificially fragment the output spatial configuration. We demonstrate the consequences of ignoring spatial dependence, thus assigning probabilities randomly in space, using a simple LCTM. We ran the model from four different initial conditions with distinct spatial configurations and results indicated that, after 20 simulation steps, all of them converged towards the spatial configuration of the random data set. From an ecological perspective this is a serious problem because ecological data often exhibit distinct spatial configuration related to ecological processes. As a solution, we propose an approach (region approach) that accounts for spatial dependence of LCTM input data. Underlying spatial dependence was used to apply spatial bias to probability assignment within the model. As a case study we applied a region approach to a Vegetation Transition Model (VTM); a semi-Markovian model that simulates forest succession. The VTM was applied to approximately 500,000 ha of boreal forest in Ontario, at 1 ha pixel resolution. When the stochastic transition algorithms were applied without accounting for spatial dependence, spatial configuration of the output data became progressively more fragmented. When the VTM was applied using the region approach to account for spatial dependence output fragmentation was reduced. Accounting for spatial dependence in transition models will create more reliable output for analyzing spatial patterns and relating those patterns to ecological processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acevedo M.F., Urban D.L. and Shugart H.H. 1996. Models of forest dynamics based on roles of tree species. Ecological Modelling 87: 267–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Addicott J.F., Aho J.M., Antolin M.F., Padilla D.K., Richardson J.S. and Soluk D.A. 1987. Ecological neighbourhoods: scaling environmental patterns. Oikos 49: 340–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselin L. 1996. The Moran scatterplot as an ESDA tool to assess local instability in spatial association. In: Fischer M., Scholten H.J. and Unwin D. (eds), Spatial Analytical Perspectives on GIS, GISDATA IV edition, Taylor and Francis Ltd., Bristol, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 111–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker W.L. 1989. A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecology 2: 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker W.L. and Cai Y. 1992. The r.le programs for multiscale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information system. Landscape Ecology 7: 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin D.J.B., Weaver K., Schnekenburger F. and Perera A.H. 2001. Sensitivity of landscape pattern indices to spatial extent, data resolution and classification detail in the managed forest of Ontario. For. Res. Rep. No. 150, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzter H., Braun P.W. and Kohler W. 1998. Cellular automata models for vegetation dynamics. Ecological Modelling 107: 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barringer T.H. and Robinson V.B. 1981. Stochastic models of cover class dynamics. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of the Environment, Environmental Research Institute-Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, pp. 125–144.

  • Bell E.J. and Hinojosa R.C. 1977. Markov analysis of land use change: continuous time and stationary processes. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 11: 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonan G.B. and Shugart H.H. 1989. Environmental factors and ecological processes in boreal forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown D.G., Pijanowski B.C. and Duh J.D. 2000. Modeling the relationships between land use and land cover on private lands in the Upper Midwest, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 59: 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cliff A.D. and Ord J.K. 1973. Spatial Autocorrelation. Pion Ltd., London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutschman D.H., Bradshaw G.A., Childress W.M., Daly K.L., Grunbaum D., Pascual M., Schumaker N.H. and Wu J. 1993. Mechanisms of patch formation. In: Levin S.A., Powell T.M. and Steele J.H. (eds), Patch Dynamics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 184–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding Y. and Fotheringham A.S. 1992. The integration of spatial analysis and GIS. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 16: 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRI. 1998. ArcInfo for Windows, Version 7.2.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman R.T.T. and Godron M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons: New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox J.C., Ades P.K. and Bi H. 2001. Stochastic structure and individual-tree growth models. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frelich L.E. and Reich P.B. 1999. Neighbourhood effects, disturbance severity, and community stability in forests. Ecosystems 2: 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner R.H. 1999. RULE: Map generation and a spatial analysis program. In: Klopatek J.M. and Gardner R.H. (eds), Landscape Ecological Analysis: Issues and Applications. Springer-Verlag: New York, New York, USA, pp. 280–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green D.G. 1989. Simulated effects of fire, dispersal and spatial pattern on competition within forest mosaics. Vegetatio 82: 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E.J. and Parker G.R. 1992. Relationships between land-cover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecology 7: 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey B.D., Leduc A. and Bergeron Y. 1995. Early postharvest succession in relation to site type in the southern boreal forest of Quebec. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25: 1658–1672.

    Google Scholar 

  • He H.S., DeZonia B.E. and Mladenoff D. 2000. An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15: 591–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He H.S. and Mladenoff D. 1999. Spatially explicit and stochastic simulation of forest-landscape fire disturbance and succession. Ecology 80: 81–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunsaker C.T., Goodchild M.F., Friedl M.A. and Case T.J. 2001. Spatial Uncertainty in Ecology: Implications for Remote Sensing and GIS Applications. Springer-Verlag: New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenerette G.D. and Wu J. 2001. Analysis and simulation of land-use change in the central Arizona-Phoenix region, USA. Landscape Ecology 16: 611–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin S.A. 1976. Population dynamic models in heterogeneous environments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 7: 287–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H. and Reynolds J.F. 1994. A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75: 2446–2455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H. and Reynolds J.F. 1997. Modeling effects of spatial pattern, drought, and grazing on rates of rangeland degradation: A combined Markov and cellular automaton approach. In: Quattrochi D.A. and Goodchild M.F. (eds), Scale in Remote Sensing and GIS. Lewis Publishers: New York, New York, USA, pp. 211–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsinos Y.G. and Troumbis A.Y. 2002. Modeling competition, dispersal and effects of disturbance in the dynamics of a grassland community using a cellular automaton model. Ecological Modelling 149: 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K. and Marks B. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-351, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molofsky J., Bever J.D. and Antonovics J. 2001. Coexistence under positive frequency dependence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268: 273–277.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moore A.D. 1990. The semi-Markov process: A useful tool in the analysis of vegetation dynamics for management. Journal of Environmental Management 30: 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran P.A.P. 1950. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37: 17–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muller M.R. and Middleton J. 1994. A Markov model of land use change dynamics in the Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada. Landscape Ecology 9: 151–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natural Resources Canada (NRC) 2000. Canadian digital elevation data: Standards and specifications. Centre for Topographic Information Customer Support Group, Natural Resources Canada, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Timmins S.P., Jackson B.L., Jones K.B., Riitters K.H. and Wickham J.D. 1996. Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecology 11: 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) 1977. A ready reference. Ontario Land Inventory (A guide to the reading and understanding of the maps produced by the Ontario Land Inventory). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perera A.H., Baldwin D.J.B. and Schnekenburger F. 1997. LEAP II: A landscape ecological analysis package for land use planners and managers. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada. Forest Research Report No. 146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perera A.H., Yemshanov D., Schnekenburger F., Weaver K., Baldwin D.J.B. and Boychuck D. 2003. Boreal FOrest Landscape Dynamics Simulator (BFOLDS): A grid-based spatially stochastic model for predicting crown fire regime and forest cover transition. Forest Research Report No. 152, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prach K., Pysek P. and Smilauer P. 1993. On the rate of succession. Oikos 66: 343–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riitters K.H., O’Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Wickham J.D., Yankee D.H., Timmins S.P., Jones K.B. and Jackson B.L. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10: 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi R.E., Mulla D.J., Journel A.G. and Franz E.H. 1992. Geostatistical tools for modeling and interpreting ecological spatial dependence. Ecological Monographs 62: 277–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe J.S. 1972. Forest regions of Canada. Canadian Forest Service, Department of the Environment, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Publication No. 1300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvertown J., Holtier S., Johnson J. and Dale P. 1992. Cellular automation models of interspecific competition for space — the effect of pattern on process. Journal of Ecology 80: 527–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirakoulis G.Ch., Karafyllidis I. and Thanailakis A. 2000. A cellular automaton model for the effects of population movement and vaccination on epidemic propagation. Ecological Modelling 133: 209–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sklar F.H. and Costanza R. 1991. The development of dynamic spatial models for landscape ecology: A review and prognosis. In: Turner M.G. and Gardner R.H. (eds), Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Springer-Verlag: New York, New York, USA, pp. 239–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stocks C.E. and Wise S. 2000. The role of GIS in environmental modelling. Geographical and Environmental Modelling 4: 219–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenning J.-C. and Skov F. 2002. Mesosclae distribution of under-storey plants in temperate forest (Kalo, Denmark): the importance of environment and dispersal. Plant Ecology 160: 169–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TAES 2001. Blackland GRASS 2.0. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Blackland Research Center, Texas A&M University, Temple, Texas, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trudell A. 1996. Forest Resource Inventory manual. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G. 1987. Spatial simulation of landscape changes in Georgia: A comparison of 3 transition models. Landscape Ecology 1: 29–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: The effects of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver K. 2002. Spatial bias in landscape ecological simulations: A case study of accounting for spatial dependence in a raster-based stochastic model using a region approach. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A. 1976. Population responses to patchy environments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 7: 81–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wissel C. 1992. Modelling the mosaic cycle of a Middle European beech forest. Ecological Modelling 63: 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram S. 1984. Cellular automata as models of complexity. Nature 311: 419–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolock D.M. and McCabe G.J. 1995. Comparison of single and multiple flow direction algorithms for computing topographic parameters in TOPMODEL. Water Resources Research 31: 1315–1324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yemshanov D. and Perera A.H. 2002. A spatially explicit stochastic model to simulate boreal forest cover transitions: General structure and properties. Ecological Modelling 150: 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forest Landscape Ecology Program, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1235 Queen St. East, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, P6A 2E5

    Kevin Weaver & Ajith H. Perera

Authors
  1. Kevin Weaver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ajith H. Perera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ajith H. Perera.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weaver, K., Perera, A.H. Modelling land cover transitions: A solution to the problem of spatial dependence in data. Landscape Ecol 19, 273–289 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000030418.90245.4b

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000030418.90245.4b

Search

Navigation