Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of thematic resolution on metric selection for biodiversity monitoring in agricultural landscapes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to investigate the relationship between landscape pattern metrics and agricultural biodiversity at the Temperate European scale, exploring the role of thematic resolution and a suite of biological and functional groups. Factor analyses to select landscape-level metrics were undertaken on 25 landscapes classified at four levels of thematic resolution. The landscapes were located within seven countries. The different resolutions were considered appropriate to taxonomic and functional group diversity. As class-level metrics are often better correlated to ecological response, the landscape-level metric subsets gained through exploratory analysis were additionally used to guide the selection of class-level metric subsets. Linear mixed models were then used to detect correlations between landscape- and class-level metrics and species richness values. Taxonomic groups with differing requirements (plants, birds, different arthropod groups) and also functional arthropod groups were examined. At the coarse scale of thematic resolution grain metrics (patch density, largest patch index) emerged as rough indicators for the different biological groups whilst at the fine scale a diversity metric (e.g. Simpson’s diversity index) was appropriate. The intermediate thematic resolution offered most promise for biodiversity monitoring. Metrics included largest patch index, edge density, nearest neighbour, the proximity index, circle and Simpson’s diversity index. We suggest two possible applications of these metrics in the context of biodiversity monitoring and the identification of biodiversity hot spots in European agricultural landscapes.

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

  • Atauri JA, de Lucio JV (2001) The role of landscape structure in species richness distribution of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopterans in Mediterranean landscapes. Landscape Ecol 16:147–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey D, Herzog F, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Billeter R, Baudry J (2006) Thematic resolution matters: Indicators of landscape pattern for European agro-ecosystems. Ecol Indicators (in press). DOI 10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.08.001

  • Baldwin DJB, Weaver K, Schnekenburger F, Perera AH (2004) Sensitivity of landscape pattern indices to input data characteristics on real landscapes: implications for their use in natural disturbance emulation. Landscape Ecol 19:255–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecol 18:17–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trend Ecol Evol 18:182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, Bugter R, Arens P, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Baudry J, Bukacek R, Burel F, Cerny M, De Blust G, De Cock R, Diekötter T, Dietz H, Dirksen J, Durka W, Frenzel M, Hamersky R, Hendrickx F, Herzog F, Klotz S, Koolstra B, Lausch A, Le Coeur D, Maelfait JP, Opdam P, Roubalova M, Schermann A, Schermann N, Schmitt T, Schweiger O, Smulders MJM, Speelmans M, Simova P Verboom J, van Wingerden W, Zobel M, Edwards PJ (submitted) A unique, large-scale perspective on biodiversity conservation in European agro-ecosystems. J Appl Ecol

  • Bonham CD (1989) Measurements of Terrestrial vegetation. John Wiley, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Brose U (2003) Regional diversity of temporary wetland carabid beetle communities: a matter of landscape features or cultivation intensity. Agr Ecosyst Environ 98:163–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burel F, Baudry J (1995) Species biodiversity in changing agricultural landscapes: a case study in the Pays d’Auge, France. Agr Ecosyst Environ 55:193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2000) Model Selection and Inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. Springer Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain DH, Riitters K, Orvis K (1997) A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Landscape Ecol 12:199–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies CE, Moss D (1999) EUNIS Habitat Classification. Final Report to the European Topic Centre on Nature Conservation. European Environment Agency, Paris. 256pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P (1997) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: An approach at two different scales. Agr Ecosyst Environ 62:81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P, Obrist MK, Schmatz DR (1999) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: above ground insects. Agr Ecosyst Environ 74:33–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (1995) Corine Land Cover. Commission of the European Communities, Luxenbourg. 163pp

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2003) ArcGIS [8x]. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith JA, Martunko EA, Price KP (2000) Landscape structure analysis of Kansas at three scales. Landscape Urban Plan 52:45–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ, Parker GR (1992) Relationships between land cover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecol 7:101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog F, Steiner B, Bailey D, Baudry J, Billeter R, Bukácek R, De Blust G, De Cock R, Dirksen J, Dormann C, De Filippi R, Frossard E, Liira J, Stöckli S, Schmidt T, Thenail C, van Wingerden W, Bugter R (2006) Assessing the intensity of temperate European agriculture with respect to impacts on landscape and biodiversity. Eur J Agron 24:165–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogeveen Y, Petersen J-E, Balazs K, Higuero I (2004) High nature value farmland - Characteristics, trends and policy challenges Report 1/2004. Eur Environ Agency, Copenhagen 32 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter ML Jr. (1990) Coping with ignorance: the coarse-filter strategy for maintaining biodiversity. In: Kohm K (ed) Balancing on the brink of extinction. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, pp. 266–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR, Wilson JD, Bradbury RB, Siriwardena GM (1999) The second Silent Spring? Nature 400:611–612

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Reynolds JF (1994) A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75:2446–2455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck M, Wu J (2002) A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona. USA Landscape Ecol 17:327–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at the following web site: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

  • Miller JN, Brooks RP, Croonquist MJ (1997) Effects of landscape patterns on biotic communities. Landscape Ecol 12:137–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser D, Zechmeister HG, Plutzar C, Sauberer N, Wrbka T, Grabherr G (2002) Landscape patch shape complexity as an effective measure for plant species richness in rural landscapes. Landscape Ecolgy 17:657–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, Jackson B, DeAngelis DL, Milne BT, Turner MG, Zygmunt B, Christensen SW, Dale VH, Graham RL (1988) Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 1:153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega M, Elena-Rosello R, Garcia del Barrio JM (2004) Estimation of plant diversity at landscape level: A methodological approach applied to three Spanish rural landscapes. Environ Monit Assess 95:97–116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Petit S (1994) Diffusion of forest carabid species in hedgerow network landscapes. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (eds) Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Netherlands, pp. 337–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit S, Burel F (1998) Connectivity in fragmented populations: Abax parallelepipedus in a hedgerow network landscape. Life Sci 21:55–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit S, Usher MB (1998) Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: the ground beetle communities of woody uncultivated habitats. Biodivers Conserv 7:1549–1561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pino J, Roda F, Ribas J, Pons X (2000) Landscape structure and bird species richness: implications for conservation in rural areas between natural parks. Landscape Urban Plan 49:35–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Hunsacker CT, Wickham JD, Yankee DH, Timmins SP, Jones KB, Jackson BL (1995) A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecol 10:23–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ (2002) Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J Appl Ecol 39:157–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger O, Maelfait JP, van Wingerden W, Hendrickx F, Billeter R, Speelmans M, Augenstein I, Aukema B, Aviron S, Bailey D, Bukacek R, Burel F, Diekötter T, Dirkens J, Frenzel M, Herzog F, Liira J, Roubalova M, Bugter R (2005) Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organisational levels and spatial scales. J Appl Ecol 42:1129–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I (2003) Importance of habitat area and landscape context for species richness of bees and wasps in fragmented orchard meadows. Conserv Biol 17:1036–1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoate C, Boatman ND, Borralho RJ, Rio Carvalho C, De Snoo GR, Eden P (2001) Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. J Environ Manage 63:337–365

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suarez-Seoane S, Baudry J (2002) Scale dependence of spatial patterns and cartography on the detection of landscape change. Relationships with species’ perception. Ecography 25:499–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L (2001) Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecol 16:235–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull A-C, Bengtsson J, Nohlgren E (2000) Diversity of butterflies in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and landscape heterogeneity. Ecography 23:743–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westrich P (1996) Habitat requirements of Central European Bees and the problems of partial habitats. In: Matheson A, Buchmann SL, O’Toole C, Westrich P, Williams IH (eds) The conservation of bees. Academic Press, London, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecol 19:125–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecol 17:355–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Shen W, Sun W, Tueller PT (2002) Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol 17:761–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The European Union (EU-Reference EVK2-CT-2000-00082) and the Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research (SER Nr. 00.0080-1) funded part of this research. We thank Isabel Augenstein, Riccardo De Filippi, Nicolas Schermann and Erich Szerencsits for their advice and GIS support, the Greenveins consortium for the collection of the plant, insect and bird data and also the taxonomic specialists: Tim Adriaens, Frank Burger, Rafaël De Cock and Jaan Luig (bees), Roland Bartels, Jean-Yves Baugnée and Ralph Heckman (bugs), Konjev Desender, Ringo Dietze, Rein Karulaas, Keaty Maes and Viki Vandomme (carabid beetles), Martin Musche and Dieter Doczkal (hover flies), Herman De Koninck, Mart Meriste, Johan Van Keer and Valerie Vanloo (spiders). Thanks also go to Rob Bugter for his project guidance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tanikon Research Station (ART), Reckenholzstrasse 191, Zurich, CH-8046, Switzerland

    Debra Bailey, Stéphanie Aviron & Felix Herzog

  2. ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Geobotanical Institute, Universitaetsstrasse 16, Zurich, CH-8092, Switzerland

    Regula Billeter

  3. Department of Community Ecology, UFZ - Centre for Environmental Research, Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, Halle, D-06120, Germany

    Oliver Schweiger

Authors
  1. Debra Bailey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Regula Billeter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stéphanie Aviron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oliver Schweiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Felix Herzog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debra Bailey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bailey, D., Billeter, R., Aviron, S. et al. The influence of thematic resolution on metric selection for biodiversity monitoring in agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 22, 461–473 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9035-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9035-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation