Spatial Pattern Analysis of two Landscape in North-Western Parts of Orissa, India
1Department of Mathematics, Nabadwip Vidyasagar College, Nadia, West Bengal
2Department of Environmental Science, University of Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal
Landscapes are heterogeneous spatial unit. The spatial heterogeneity is determined with the help of mathematical indices. Information index indicate order and disorder in landscape pattern formation. Fractal pattern of landscape indicate spatial heterogeneity. Propagation of disturbances across spatial pattern could also be described by percolation values. A comparison of three indices helps us to visualize the pattern formation across landscapes with probable causes. Two typical landscapes of north-western parts of Orissa, India is taken as sample study. The obtained entropy values, fractal dimensions and percolation pattern indicate complexity in the pattern development due to intense anthropogenic activities rather than natural one.
At a glance: Figures
Keywords: spatial heterogeneity, fractal pattern, percolation pattern, anthropogenic activities
American Journal of Mathematical Analysis, 2014 2 (1),
Received May 10, 2013; Revised July 24, 2013; Accepted January 10, 2014Copyright © 2013 Science and Education Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Cite this article:
- Ghosh, Uttam, and Dilip Kumar Khan. "Spatial Pattern Analysis of two Landscape in North-Western Parts of Orissa, India." American Journal of Mathematical Analysis 2.1 (2014): 1-3.
- Ghosh, U. , & Khan, D. K. (2014). Spatial Pattern Analysis of two Landscape in North-Western Parts of Orissa, India. American Journal of Mathematical Analysis, 2(1), 1-3.
- Ghosh, Uttam, and Dilip Kumar Khan. "Spatial Pattern Analysis of two Landscape in North-Western Parts of Orissa, India." American Journal of Mathematical Analysis 2, no. 1 (2014): 1-3.
|Import into BibTeX||Import into EndNote||Import into RefMan||Import into RefWorks|
Landscapes are mosaic of different mixtures of natural and human influenced patches. Patch shape, size, heterogeneity and boundary characteristics influence the ecological processes across landscape. Analysis of landscape pattern is a meaningful way to understand ecological flow and interactions. Considerable progress has been achieved in landscape pattern analysis viz. patch shape (Burgess and Sharpe 1981, Forman and Godron 1981, 1986, Krummel et al 1987, Turner and Ruscher 1988), fractal dimensions (Milne 1988, O’Neill 1988) and neutral model (Gardner et al 1987, Turner 1990, Gardner and O’Neill 1991). Imre et al (2011) used fractal dimension to characterize patchiness of fragmented habitats and to detect secondary processes, like re-forestation. Spatial pattern in a landscape has evolved from the complex interactions between physical, biological and social forces. Thus Landscape heterogeneity is regarded as an essential and consequence of diversity and complexity in both natural and social systems (Wu 2006). Percolation theory is applied in ecology to develop neutral model for landscape patterns (Riitters et al 2009).
2. Material and Method
Two sample landscapes covering north-western parts of Orissa, India is taken for study. Survey of India topographical map (73J/8/NE) of scale 1:25000 forms basis of the study. The existing spatial pattern across the landscape is identified and raster data is generated which is presented in Figure 1.
Quantitative measures of spatial pattern of two landscape mosaics are obtained by using mathematical metrics e.g. information theory, fractal geometry and percolation theory. Spatial entropy is obtained by using information theory (Shannon and Weaver 1949, 1962). Landscape patchiness is obtained by using fractal dimension (Mandelbrot 1967) while the extent of ecological processes is obtained by using percolation pattern. Spatial heterogeneity of landscape is obtained from information theory. The first index H (entropy) is a measure of diversity.
Where is the probability of occurring of the landscape cover type k, and m is the number of land cover type observed.
The second index H´ is a measure of dominance calculated as the deviation from the maximum possible diversity.
Where Hmax normalizes the index for differences in number of land cover types between landscapes.
The third index H´´ measures contagion or the adjacency
Fractal dimension is measured through area perimeter relationship
Where A is area of the patch and P is the perimeter, and D is the fractal dimension.
Percolation pattern is derived from percolation cluster of cover types (i).
3. Result and Discussion
From the equations (1), (2) and (3) the obtained values of spatial entropy (H), dominance index (H´) and contagion index (H´´) of the two landscape mosaic of the north western parts of Orissa, are presented in Table 1.
Analysis of the Table 1 revealed that in both the landscape spatial entropy (H) value (1.17) is indicative of heterogeneous pattern of landscape elements. Disorder is the prevailing condition in both the landscapes. This disorder might have resulted due to heavy anthropogenic pressure prevailing in the landscapes. The low value (0.41) of dominance index (H´) further supports the findings that the absence of any dominant covers type while the large positive value (117.12 and 122.48) of contagion index (H´´) have resulted due to the existence of large and pure clumping patch sizes. The Kullback ratio for the two landscapes (1.01 > 1) indicates the distribution of cover types are similar.
Fractal dimension of the landscapes are obtained from equation (4). The results of fractal dimension of the two landscapes are presented in Table 2. Analysis of the Table 2 revealed that the low values of fractal dimensions for cover types forest (1.17 and 1.15) and agriculture (1.21 and 1.23) indicate less patchiness in their boundary condition. Landscape boundaries for the cover types forest and agriculture have not resulted from natural processes. The boundary patterns of the patches have originated due to anthropogenic pressure. Similar result have also been reported from some parts of USA (Krummel et al 1987 and Tuirner and Ruscher 1988).
Topographic patterns are generated by diffusion process that produce fractal dimension greater than 1.5 (Mandelbrot 1977). The fractal dimension of the two sample landscape types have not generated by diffusion processes. Fractal dimension of two cover types for two landscapes have largely been alter by human activities while the current spatial pattern of the forest patches reflect the overlapping of many small scale anthropogenic disturbances affecting large scale successional pattern of natural vegetation.
Disturbance across the landscape is an important ecological process and influenced by spatial heterogeneity. The percolation theory is still the basis for understanding interaction of ecological flow with landscape structure (cover types).
Analysis of the Figure 2a to Figure 2d indicates there exists an infinite flow path in landscape-I for any kind of ecological flow. Cover type occupying less than the threshold value (0.5928) tend to be fragmented, with numerous small patches and low connectivity. The spread of ecological flow is constrained by this fragmented spatial pattern. This is evident from cover types in landscape-II.
Neutral model development from percolation theory is used as a null model to explore ecological processes operating in heterogeneous environment in the absence of any specific landscape pattern. Cover types in the sample landscape occupying the threshold value (0.5928) tend to be highly connected forming infinite cluster (Figure 2a).
Mathematical indices obtained from the two sample landscape however revealed that in the absence of diffusion processes spatial pattern development is largely controlled by anthropogenic disturbances.
|||Burgess RL, Sharpe D M (Eds) (1981). Forest island dynamics in man dominated landscapes. Springer New York.|
|||Forman RTT, Godron M (1981). Patch and structural components for landscape ecology. Bioscience 31: 733-740.|
|||Forman RTT, Godron M (1986). Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons. New York, New York, USA.|
|||Gardner RH, Milne BT, Turner MG, O’Neill RV (1987). Neutral models for analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape ecology 1:19-28.|
|||Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (1991). Pattern, process, and predictiblity: the use of neutral models for landscape analysis. In: Turner. M. G., R. H. Gardner editors. Quantative methods in landscape ecology. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp 289-307.|
|||Imre AR, Neteler DCM, Rocchini D (2011). Korack dimension as a novel indicator of landscape fragmentation and re-forestation. Ecological indicators. 11. 1134-1138.|
|||Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, O’Neill RV, Coleman PR(1987). Landscape pattern in a disturbed environment. Oikos 48:321-324.|
|||Mandelbrot BB (1967). How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self similarity and fractional dimension. Science 155: 636-638.|
|In article||CrossRef PubMed|
|||Mandelbrot BB (1977). Fractals, Chance and Dimension. (W. H. Freeman, san Fransisco).|
|||Milne BT (1988). Measuring of fractal dimension of landscapes. Appl. Math. Comput. 27: 67-79.|
|||O’Neill RV, Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, Jackso B, de Angelis DL, Milne BT, Turner MG, Zygmut B, Christensen SW, Dole VH, Graham RL (1988). Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1: 153-162.|
|||Riitters K, Vogt P, Soille P, Estreguil C (2009). Landscape pattern for landscape morphology on maps with contagion. Landscape Ecology. 24. 699-709.|
|||Shannon CE Weaver W (1949). The mathematical Theory of communication. Univ. of Illinois Press.|
|||Shannon CE Weaver W (1962). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.|
|||Turner MG (1990). Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Landscape Pattern. Landscape Ecology 4: 21-30.|
|||Turner MG, Ruscher CL (1988). Changes in spatial patterns of land use in Georgia. Landscape Ecology. 1: 241-251.|
|||Wu J (2006). Landscape ecology. Editorial. Cross-Disciplinarity. and Sustainability Science. 21. 1-4.|