Next Article in Journal
AVIRIS-NG Data for Geological Applications in Southeastern Parts of Aravalli Fold Belt, Rajasthan
Previous Article in Journal
Estimation of Wheat Yields at the Intra-Plot Scale by Combining Multi-Temporal Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 Images
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

An Automated Model to Evaluate Landscape Patches with Analysis of the Neighborhood Relations †

1
Department of Space Science and Technologies, Faculty of Science, Akdeniz University, 07058 Antalya, Turkey
2
Graduate Program of Remote Sensing and GIS, Akdeniz University, 07058 Antalya, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 2nd International Electronic Conference on Geosciences, 8–15 June 2019; Available online: https://iecg2019.sciforum.net/.
Proceedings 2019, 24(1), 15; https://doi.org/10.3390/IECG2019-06215
Published: 5 June 2019
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of The 2nd International Electronic Conference on Geosciences)

Abstract

:
The landscape should be analyzed in segments to understand its texture, structure, function, and changes. These segments can be used to evaluate landscape structure and for function analysis. In this context, the most important segments which form the landscape are landscape patches. Analysis and understanding of the landscape structure and ecological progress needs measurement of the landscape patches and evaluation. Therefore, the neighborhood ratio between the patches should be known. In this study, we propose an automated method, which is based on Python language, to compute this ratio with consideration of neighborhood degrees between the patches. The test site was Mugla-Koycegiz, a town in Turkey, where there is a huge population of Sweetgum (Liquidambar orientalis) trees, and the town is important for shoreline tourism. Urban area, water surface, agricultural areas, marsh, and forest classes were defined. Sentinel 2A multispectral satellite image was used and the Random Forest classification method applied. The derived patches were produced from the classification, and then converted to the vector form. All vector boundaries were converted to point features with 10 m intervals. The ratio of the number of points neighboring the specific class to all points along the boundary was computed automatically with developed script. Three different patches were analyzed, and the results are reported.

1. Introduction

Landscape should be analyzed in segments to understand its texture, structure, function, and changes. These segments are used to make evaluations and comments for landscape structure and function analysis [1,2]. In this context, the most important segments which form the landscape are landscape patches. Analysis and understanding of the landscape structure and ecological progress requires measurement of the landscape patches [3,4,5,6] and the derived data should be evaluated in the context of landscape ecology. For evaluation of landscape, several metrics are used [1,4,5,7].
Metrics provide any information regarding the components of the mosaic, the distribution of the components in the mosaic and their spatial status, the proportional state between each landscape type or the shape of the landscape elements, and support to interpret the landscape quality [1,4,8]. Landscape metrics can be classified according to patch, class, and landscape scale. Some of these metrics determine composition and some do configuration. Ecological processes are strongly connected to composition and configuration of landscapes independently and interactively [5,9].
Therefore, the metrics used in the evaluation of landscapes are generally classified and measured as area metric, edge metrics, shape metrics, core metrics, contrast metrics, aggregation metrics, subdivision metrics, isolation metrics. and diversity metrics [5]. This study focuses on the edge measurements. The Edge Density metric and the mean patch edge are an important indicator of habitat quality [1]. The patch edges constitute the neighboring areas of the vast zones defined as ecoton, where the areas exist which have the most intense interrelationships between different living things [1].
In one region, an increase in the edge density of a particular habitat area indicates that the edge effect is increased [10,11]. As the edge density increases, this is disadvantageous for the inner species in that habitat patch [12]. Low edge density is interpreted as high habitat quality [8]. The edge length and edge density metrics show an interpretation of the quality of the relevant landscape patch, but do not indicate the direction of other land uses adjacent to the landscape patch. That is, it does not measure how positive or negative the agricultural area or settlement adjacent to a landscape patch affects the landscape. In this context, the neighborhood ratio between the patches is measured in other land-uses adjacent to landscape patches.
This study proposes an automated algorithm that can be used to show what other land uses adjacent to a landscape patch affect the percentage of the landscape patch along the boundaries. In the context of the study, the relationship between the proposed model and landscape patches can be evaluated and the effects of environmental land uses on the relevant patch can be interpreted.

2. Materials and Methods

The study area is the town center of Koycegiz, Mugla province of Turkey. The reason for selecting as the test site was the hosting of endemic sweetgum (Liquidambar orientalis) tree populations while being under pressure of environmental land-uses. The test area has the center coordinates of area 36° 58′17′′ N and 28 ° 41′20′′ E, located in the south-west of Turkey (Figure 1).
In the study, three sweetgum population areas were selected from the current land uses, including settlements, agriculture, water surface, swamp, and stream. Patch 1 has an area of 0, 86 km2, Patch 2 1, 56 km2, and Patch 3 0, 47 km2. The land uses adjacent to the three landscape patches are of different size and different quality. In the study, open access Sentinel 2A satellite imagery with 10 m spatial resolution was used as an input data. Random Forest (RF) and Maximum Likelihood Classification (MLC) methods were used for the classification of satellite images, and the highest accuracy value was determined with the RF method by using the (Confusion Matrix) algorithm at the end of the classification. The classified image obtained by this classification technique was used for each patch.
The study has three steps; database generation, classification, and neighborhood calculation (Figure 2).
In the first stage, zoning plans, the environmental plan, and satellite images of the study area were obtained and transferred to GIS and a database was created. The zoning plan and the environmental layout plan were obtained from the related public institutions and the satellite images were obtained through open access while the boundaries were determined by taking into consideration the sweetgum of the sweetgum forests. Within this scope, three landscape patches consisting of sweetgum populations in the study area were determined and the study was focused on these patches.
In the second stage, two different classification techniques were used to perform the classification images on the satellite images, then the classification accuracy was calculated by using the Confusion Matrix algorithm and the raster image obtained by this method was transferred to the third stage after the RF method gave higher accuracy.
In the third stage, the derived classes from the raster were converted to the vector line data, and the lines were converted to the point features for every 10 meters. The closest neighbors of each point were counted in a table, and then for each boundary, the percentage of neighborhood was calculated.

3. Results

The study area is composed of six land uses, namely agriculture, settlement, sweetgum forests, swamp, Lake Ecosystem, and stream. All classes have different sized neighborhood relations. In order to determine the neighborhood relations of these classes, classification was applied using the RF algorithm. The classification result is shown in Figure 3. Each class is shown in a different color.
As a result of classification, neighboring edges were converted from raster to vector format. Then, the boundaries were converted to point features for every 10 meters (Figure 4.).
As seen above, the middle parts of the study area and the east are used as settlement areas. These settlements are adjacent to Patches 2 and 3. This neighborhood is an indication of the fact that the sweetgum forest patches are under pressure. The patch number 1 located in the west is adjacent to agriculture and the river. It can be said that the patch is under pressure in terms of its potential to be used as an agricultural area. The neighborhood ratios of the selected patches (1,2,3) can be found in Table 1.
NrPCN is the total number of boundary points which are neighbors with the neighbor, and TNrP is the total number of points along the boundary of the patch. The sum of the neighborhood ratios for each patch is 100 as expected.
Findings from the study show that the biggest neighbors of the selected landscape patches are agricultural areas. It can be understood that sweetgum patches are adversely affected by these agricultural areas because it is known that especially in the agricultural areas of the region, one-year crops are grown, and pesticides are used to obtain high crop yields. Sweetgum patches adjacent to swamp areas can be said to be affected positively by eliminating water demand. Similarly, the sweetgum patches adjacent to the stream and lake ecosystem are thought to be positively affected. The settlement areas are expected to affect the sweetgum patches negatively as a result of intensive human pressure and the creation of new settlements. The ratios of these positive and negative effects within the context of neighborhood relations are shown in Table 1.

4. Conclusions

The data and theory of landscape patch quality generally support the decrease of the probability of local extinction as the patch area increases [13]. Furthermore, these data show that the reduction of the patch area and the increase in the number of parts reduce the patch quality [14]. Only the evaluation of the patch area and isolation were criticized for being too restrictive. Scientists interested in ecology have used many measures of landscape structure in order to determine habitat loss and patch quality, but these measures are not sufficiently good [15]. In this context, in the evaluation of patch quality, scientists emphasize the need to assess environmental variables and current land uses in addition to patch areas [16,17,18]. This study proposes a method based on neighborhood relations for the evaluation of landscape patch quality. An automatic model was developed to evaluate the positive or negative impact ratio of other land uses adjacent to the landscape patch. The developed model transforms the neighborhood relations of landscape patches into numerical values quickly and practically by using machine learning algorithms. Using these numerical values, the rate at which a landscape patch is affected by its neighbors can be understood and interpreted. Hence, this study proposes an automated method to assist ecology scientists in assessing landscape patch quality.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization by S.S.; Methodology by both authors, software development and implementation by N.D., Validation and writing the article were carried out by both the authors.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Turner, M.G.; Gardner, R.H.; O’neill, R.V.; O’Neill, R.V. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Selim, S.; Sonmez, N. Determination of Sweetgum (Liquidambar orientalis Miller) Populations Distribution with Geographic Information Systems and evaluation of Landscape Metrics by using Habitat Quality Assessment. J. Tekirdag Agric. Fac. 2015, 12, 30–38. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, W.L.; Cai, Y. The r.le programs for multiscale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information system. Landsc. Ecol. 1992, 7, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Botequilha Leitão, A.; Ahern, J. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59, 65–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. McGarigal, K.; Marks, B.J. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. For. Serv. 1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Turner, M.G. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landsc. Ecol. 1990, 4, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Forman, R.T.T. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landsc. Ecol. 1995, 10, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Selim, S. Planing Scheme of Köyceğiz-Dalyan Basin in the Context of Green Infrastructure, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Ege University, 2015.
  9. Bogaert, J.; Hong, S.K. Landscape ecology: Monitoring landscape dynamics using spatial pattern metrics. Ecol. Issues Chang. World 2004, 109–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Neel, M.C.; McGarigal, K.; Cushman, S.A. Behavior of class-level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area. Landsc. Ecol. 2004, 19, 435–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. McGarigal, K. Landscape Pattern Metrics. In Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. 2014. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118445112.stat07723 (accessed on 29 September 2014).
  12. Dyksterhuis, E.J.; Odum, E.P.; Odum, H.T. Fundamentals of Ecology. J. Range Manag. 2007, 2007, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Thomas, C.D.; Jones, T.M. Partial recovery of a skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) from population refuges: Lessons for conservation in a fragmented landscape. J. Anim. Ecol. 1993, 472–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Moilanen, A.; Smith, A.T.; Hanski, I. Long-term dynamics in a metapopulation of the American pika. Am. Nat. 1998, 152, 530–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hanski, I.; Ovaskainen, O. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 2000, 404, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Moilanen, A.; Hanski, I. Metapopulation dynamics: Effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 1998, 79, 2503–2515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Marsh, D.M.; Trenham, P.C. Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hanski, I. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol. 1994, 63, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Geographical location of the study area.
Figure 1. Geographical location of the study area.
Proceedings 24 00015 g001
Figure 2. Satellite image classification flowchart.
Figure 2. Satellite image classification flowchart.
Proceedings 24 00015 g002
Figure 3. Image classification result with its legend.
Figure 3. Image classification result with its legend.
Proceedings 24 00015 g003
Figure 4. Point features of the edges (left), zoomed view(right).
Figure 4. Point features of the edges (left), zoomed view(right).
Proceedings 24 00015 g004
Table 1. Neighborhood ratios of the three patches (3, 2, 1).
Table 1. Neighborhood ratios of the three patches (3, 2, 1).
Patch Nr.NeighborNrPCNTNrPRatio (%)
3Marshland17846103,86
Agriculture4154461090,11
Settlement27846106,03
2Marshland980891111,00
Lake937891110,52
Settlement2359891126,47
Agriculture4635891152,01
1Marshland60373768,18
Stream72273769,79
Agriculture6051737682,03
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Selim, S.; Demir, N. An Automated Model to Evaluate Landscape Patches with Analysis of the Neighborhood Relations. Proceedings 2019, 24, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECG2019-06215

AMA Style

Selim S, Demir N. An Automated Model to Evaluate Landscape Patches with Analysis of the Neighborhood Relations. Proceedings. 2019; 24(1):15. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECG2019-06215

Chicago/Turabian Style

Selim, Serdar, and Nusret Demir. 2019. "An Automated Model to Evaluate Landscape Patches with Analysis of the Neighborhood Relations" Proceedings 24, no. 1: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECG2019-06215

APA Style

Selim, S., & Demir, N. (2019). An Automated Model to Evaluate Landscape Patches with Analysis of the Neighborhood Relations. Proceedings, 24(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECG2019-06215

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop