Why I Hate PowerPoint Also, the Impact of Class Definition on Landscape Metrics Used in FRAGSTATS.
-
Upload
maya-carrell -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Why I Hate PowerPoint Also, the Impact of Class Definition on Landscape Metrics Used in FRAGSTATS.
Why I Hate Why I Hate PowerPointPowerPoint
Also, the Impact of Class Also, the Impact of Class Definition on Landscape Definition on Landscape
Metrics Used in FRAGSTATSMetrics Used in FRAGSTATS
The DetailsThe Details
► Consolidate Classes from Lab 1Consolidate Classes from Lab 1► Apply the same metrics to data from the Apply the same metrics to data from the
same year (2001).same year (2001).► Observe resultsObserve results► Interpret resultsInterpret results
Original ClassesOriginal Classes
►Following Slides Contain a List of the Following Slides Contain a List of the Original Classes.Original Classes.
►More than 30 classes.More than 30 classes.
Class Description
111 Developed: Highly (>75% impervious surface)
112 Developed: Moderately (50-75% impervious surface)
113 Developed: Lightly - wooded (25-50% impervious surface)
114 Developed: Lightly - unwooded (25-50% impervious surface)
120 Cultivated (actively tilled, fallow and recently abandoned)
131 Grassland: unmanaged (grazed land, old fields, abandoned land)
132 Grassland: managed (golf courses, residential/corporate lawn, parks)
133 Grassland: airport
141Upland Forest: Coastal Plain Oak dominant (Oak > 75%)
142Upland Forest: Coastal Plain Oak-pine (Oak 50-75%)
143Upland Forest: Coastal Plain Pine-oak (Pine 50-75%)
144Upland Forest: Coastal Plain Pine dominant (Pine > 75%)
145Upland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont deciduous - mixed hardwoods dominant
146Upland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont mixed deciduous/coniferous - hemlock/pine
147Upland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont mixed deciduous/coniferous - red cedar/pine
148Upland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont coniferous - hemlock/pine dominant
149Upland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont coniferous - red cedar/pine/plantation dominant
151Upland Scrub/Shrub: Coastal Plain mixed deciduous/coniferous
152Upland Scrub/Shrub: Coastal Plain mixed deciduous/coniferous - maritime/dune
153Upland Scrub/Shrub: Highlands/Piedmont mixed deciduous/coniferous
160Barren soil/rock (sand/gravel pits, barren < 25% vegetation)
200 Marine/Estuarine Unconsolidated shore
210 Estuarine emergent marsh
230Riverine/lacustrine/palustrine emergent marsh: mixed species
241Wetland Forest: Coastal Plain hardwood swamp (>66% deciduous)
242Wetland Forest: Coastal Plain pine lowland (>66% evergreen)
243Wetland Forest: Coastal Plain mixed - hardwood/white cedar-pine-
holly
244Wetland Forest: Coastal Plain white cedar swamp (>66%
evergreen)
245 Wetland Scrub/shrub: Coastal Plain mixed
246Wetland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont hardwood swamp (>66%
deciduous)
247Wetland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont mixed -
hardwood/hemlock/white cedar/pine
248Wetland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont conifer swamp -
hemlock/cedar/pine dominant (>66% evergreen)
249Wetland Scrub/shrub: Highlands/Piedmont mixed
deciduous/evergreen
250 Water
ConsolidationConsolidation
►ArcView condition (“con”) command.ArcView condition (“con”) command.►All Urban Classes All Urban Classes 1 Developed 1 Developed
Class.Class.►All Upland Forest Classes All Upland Forest Classes 1 Class. 1 Class.►Wetland Forest Classes Wetland Forest Classes 1 Class. 1 Class.►Some Classes not combined (pasture, Some Classes not combined (pasture,
fresh/salt water marsh, water, bare fresh/salt water marsh, water, bare soil).soil).
30+ Classes Down to 12 Classes30+ Classes Down to 12 Classes
Class Land Use
1 Developed
2 Cultivated
3 Grassland
4 Upland Forest
5 Upland Shrub
6 Barren Soil/Bare Rock
7 Marine/Estuarine Unconsolidated shore
8 Estuarine emergent marsh
9 Riverine/lacustrine/palustrine emergent marsh: mixed species
10 Wetland Forest
11 Wetland Shrub
12 Water
VS
What Are the Impacts?What Are the Impacts?
Original (Landscape)Original (Landscape)
MetriMetricc
YearYear NPNP LPILPI TETE SIDISIDI
19841984 2854 2854 13.04913.049 174452717445277 7
0.88820.8882
19951995 2823 2823 12.936912.9369 174762017476200 0
0.88690.8869
20012001 2865 2865 11.68811.688 1768368176836800
0.89180.8918
Modified (Landscape)Modified (Landscape)
MetriMetricc
YearYear NPNP LPILPI TETE SIDISIDI
19841984 1599 1599 13.35913.359 1338744133874488
0.8015 0.8015
19951995 15721572 14.091214.0912 135530313553033 3
0.80120.8012
20012001 1590 1590 14.821114.8211 1377348137734800
0.80390.8039
Patch
Den
sity
(PD)
00.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.010.
0120.01
4
111 112 113 114 120 131 132 133 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 151 152 153 160 200 210 230 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
Class
PD
1984
1995
2001
Patch Density, Combined
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Class
PD
198419952001
Percentage of Landscape (PLAND)
0
5
10
15
20
25
111
112
113
114
120
131
132
133
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
151
152
153
160
200
210
230
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
Class
PLA
ND
198419952001
Percentage of Landscape, Combined
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
12
34
56
78
910
1112
Class
PL
AN
D
1984
1995
2001
Patch
Den
sity
(PD)
0
0.00
2
0.00
4
0.00
6
0.00
8
0.01
0.01
2
0.01
4
111112
113114
120131
132133
141142
143144
145146
147148
149151
152153
160200
210230
241242
243244
245246
247248
249250
Class
PD
1984 19
95 2001
Patch Density (PD)
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
11
1
11
2
11
3
11
4
12
0
13
1
13
2
13
3
14
1
14
2
14
3
14
4
14
5
14
6
14
7
14
8
14
9
15
1
15
2
15
3
16
0
20
0
21
0
23
0
24
1
24
2
24
3
24
4
24
5
24
6
24
7
24
8
24
9
25
0
Class
PD
1984
1995
2001
Patch Density, Combined
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Class
PD
1984
1995
2001
PD ConclusionsPD Conclusions
►CombinedCombined only shows slight only shows slight increased in PDincreased in PD
►Original Original Class 112 increases the Class 112 increases the most while Class 113 is has the most while Class 113 is has the highest total PD.highest total PD.
►Loss of detail, information.Loss of detail, information.
Percentage of Landscape (PLAND)
0
5
10
15
20
2511
1
112
113
114
120
131
132
133
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
151
152
153
160
200
210
230
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
Class
PL
AN
D 1984
1995
2001
Percentage of Landscape, Combined
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Class
PL
AN
D 1984
1995
2001
PLAND ConclusionsPLAND Conclusions
►Combining classes increases PLAND vs Combining classes increases PLAND vs classes that were not combined.classes that were not combined.
►Graph two only shows increased trend Graph two only shows increased trend in the developed class.in the developed class.
►Detail is lost.Detail is lost.
Patch Cohesion
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
111
112
113
114
120
131
132
133
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
151
152
153
160
200
210
230
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
Class
Co
hes
ion 1984
1995
2001
COHESION, Combined
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Class
CO
HE
SIO
N
1984
1995
2001
COHESION ConclusionsCOHESION Conclusions
►Graph two only shows a slight increase Graph two only shows a slight increase in cohesion for Class 1.in cohesion for Class 1.
► In Graph one: 111 decreases, 112 In Graph one: 111 decreases, 112 increases, 113 decreases, and 114 increases, 113 decreases, and 114 decreases in 1984 then increases by decreases in 1984 then increases by 1995. 1995.
►Detail.Detail.
ConclusionsConclusions
► Impact on Landscape metrics was Impact on Landscape metrics was straight-forward.straight-forward.
►Loss of detail in class-level metrics.Loss of detail in class-level metrics.►Change relationships between patches Change relationships between patches
and classes.and classes.
The EndThe End
►Annoying Sound Effects!Annoying Sound Effects!►Graphs!Graphs!►Amazing Special Effects!Amazing Special Effects!►This is even better than a Duck Tales This is even better than a Duck Tales
Episode!Episode!