Fifty-five metrics of landscape pattern and structure were calculated for 85 maps of land use and land cover. A multivariate factor analysis was used to identify the common axes (or dimensions) of pattern and structure which were measured by a reduced set of 26 metrics. The first six factors explained about 87% of the variation in the 26 landscape metrics. These factors were interpreted as composite measures of average patch compaction, overall image texture, average patch shape, patch perimeter-area scaling, number of attribute classes, and large-patch density-area scaling. We suggest that these factors can be represented in a simpler way by six univariate metrics -average perimeter-area ratio, contagion, standardized patch shape, patch perimeterarea scaling, number of attribute classes, and large-patch density-area scaling.

No abstract

ABSTRACT. Because human land uses tend to expand over time, forests that share a high proportion of their borders with anthropogenic uses are at higher risk of further degradation than forests that share a high proportion of their borders with non-forest, natural land cover (e.g., wetland). Using 1-km advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) satellite-based land cover, we present a method to separate forest fragmentation into natural and anthropogenic components, and report results for all inhabited continents summarized by World Wildlife Fund biomes. Globally, over half of the temperate broadleaf and mixed forest biome and nearly one quarter of the tropical rainforest biome have been fragmented or removed by humans, as opposed to only 4% of the boreal forest. Overall, Europe had the most human-caused fragmentation and South America the least. This method may allow for improved risk assessments and better targeting for protection and remediation by identifying areas with high amounts of human-caused fragmentation.

Remotely sensed data for Southeastern United States (Standard Federal Region 4) are used to examine the scale problems involved in reporting landscape pattern for a large, heterogeneous region. Frequency distributions of landscape indices illustrate problems associated with the grain or resolution of the data. Grain should be 2 to 5 times smaller than the spatial features of interest. The analyses also reveal that the indices are sensitive to the calculation scale, i.e., the unit area or extent over which the index is computed. This "sample area" must be 2 to 5 times larger than landscape patches to avoid bias in calculating the indices.

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, common indicators are needed to monitor the loss of biodiversity and the implications for the sustainable provision of ecosystem services. However, a variety of indicators are already being used resulting in many, mostly incompatible, monitoring systems. In order to synthesise the different indicator approaches and to detect gaps in the development of common indicator systems, we examined 531 indicators that have been reported in 617 peer‐reviewed journal articles between 1997 and 2007. Special emphasis was placed on comparing indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services across ecosystems (forests, grass‐ and shrublands, wetlands, rivers, lakes, soils and agro‐ecosystems) and spatial scales (from patch to global scale). The application of biological indicators was found most often focused on regional and finer spatial scales with few indicators applied across ecosystem types. Abiotic indicators, such as physico‐chemical parameters and measures of area and fragmentation, are most frequently used at broader (regional to continental) scales. Despite its multiple dimensions, biodiversity is usually equated with species richness only. The functional, structural and genetic components of biodiversity are poorly addressed despite their potential value across habitats and scales. Ecosystem service indicators are mostly used to estimate regulating and supporting services but generally differ between ecosystem types as they reflect ecosystem‐specific services. Despite great effort to develop indicator systems over the past decade, there is still a considerable gap in the widespread use of indicators for many of the multiple components of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a need to develop common monitoring schemes within and across habitats. Filling these gaps is a prerequisite for linking biodiversity dynamics with ecosystem service delivery and to achieving the goals of global and sub‐global initiatives to halt the loss of biodiversity.