2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.12.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterizing forest fragmentation: Distinguishing change in composition from configuration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
35
1
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
35
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Factor data were subsequently standardized into a range from 0 to 1 using a minimum-maximum linear transformation. This normalization is necessary to ensure comparison of values of the same range, which is an important prerequisite for multiple variable analysis with continuous variables (Long et al 2010).…”
Section: Data Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Factor data were subsequently standardized into a range from 0 to 1 using a minimum-maximum linear transformation. This normalization is necessary to ensure comparison of values of the same range, which is an important prerequisite for multiple variable analysis with continuous variables (Long et al 2010).…”
Section: Data Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After recording the total number of patches of forest (NP), we focused on the other three class landscape metrics, which had been previously reported as ecologically meaningful [22,63] and have been proven to be useful in describing patch spatial structure in a forested landscape context [64][65][66][67][68][69]: largest forest patch index (LFP), area weighted mean shape index (AWMSI) and patch cohesion index (COHESION). NP and LFP were selected, because they are related to forest fragmentation [33,66,67,70], defined as the breaking up of one large forest area into many smaller patches [71]. The largest forest patch index (LFP) quantifies the percentage of total landscape area comprised by the largest forest patch.…”
Section: Lpi Calculationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current research suggests that the comparison of raw LPI values should be avoided [26], since they are sensitive to scale [27], land cover proportions [28], spatial resolution [29,30], spatial extent [31] and land-cover misclassification [32]. New methods for comparing LPI values may be useful in order to add statistical context to landscape pattern analysis [27,33]. As at present it is possible to clearly identify and quantify the differences between any two given dates, the statistical significance of the observed changes remains the most important and complex challenge with which to deal [28,34].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Forest maps provide explicit information on forest distribution [Stehman, 2012], which is the first step of fragmentation analysis. Forest, fragmentation consists of two interdependent components: forest loss and changes in spatial configuration [Neel et al, 2004;Long et al, 2010]. Accordingly, a proper interpretation of forest fragmentation needs to consider the interdependencies among these aspects [Neel et al, 2004].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%