Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Why I Hate PowerPoint Also, the Impact of Class Definition on Landscape Metrics Used in FRAGSTATS.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Why I Hate PowerPoint Also, the Impact of Class Definition on Landscape Metrics Used in FRAGSTATS."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 Why I Hate PowerPoint Also, the Impact of Class Definition on Landscape Metrics Used in FRAGSTATS

3 The Details ► Consolidate Classes from Lab 1 ► Apply the same metrics to data from the same year (2001). ► Observe results ► Interpret results

4 Original Classes ► Following Slides Contain a List of the Original Classes. ► More than 30 classes.

5 ClassDescription 111Developed: Highly (>75% impervious surface) 112Developed: Moderately (50-75% impervious surface) 113Developed: Lightly - wooded (25-50% impervious surface) 114Developed: Lightly - unwooded (25-50% impervious surface) 120Cultivated (actively tilled, fallow and recently abandoned) 131Grassland: unmanaged (grazed land, old fields, abandoned land) 132Grassland: managed (golf courses, residential/corporate lawn, parks) 133Grassland: airport

6 141 Upland Forest: Coastal Plain Oak dominant (Oak > 75%) 142 Upland Forest: Coastal Plain Oak-pine (Oak 50- 75%) 143 Upland Forest: Coastal Plain Pine-oak (Pine 50- 75%) 144 Upland Forest: Coastal Plain Pine dominant (Pine > 75%) 145 Upland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont deciduous - mixed hardwoods dominant 146 Upland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont mixed deciduous/coniferous - hemlock/pine 147 Upland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont mixed deciduous/coniferous - red cedar/pine 148 Upland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont coniferous - hemlock/pine dominant 149 Upland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont coniferous - red cedar/pine/plantation dominant

7 151 Upland Scrub/Shrub: Coastal Plain mixed deciduous/coniferous 152 Upland Scrub/Shrub: Coastal Plain mixed deciduous/coniferous - maritime/dune 153 Upland Scrub/Shrub: Highlands/Piedmont mixed deciduous/coniferous 160 Barren soil/rock (sand/gravel pits, barren < 25% vegetation) 200Marine/Estuarine Unconsolidated shore 210Estuarine emergent marsh 230 Riverine/lacustrine/palustrine emergent marsh: mixed species 241 Wetland Forest: Coastal Plain hardwood swamp (>66% deciduous) 242 Wetland Forest: Coastal Plain pine lowland (>66% evergreen)

8 243 Wetland Forest: Coastal Plain mixed - hardwood/white cedar-pine- holly 244 Wetland Forest: Coastal Plain white cedar swamp (>66% evergreen) 245Wetland Scrub/shrub: Coastal Plain mixed 246 Wetland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont hardwood swamp (>66% deciduous) 247 Wetland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont mixed - hardwood/hemlock/white cedar/pine 248 Wetland Forest: Highlands/Piedmont conifer swamp - hemlock/cedar/pine dominant (>66% evergreen) 249 Wetland Scrub/shrub: Highlands/Piedmont mixed deciduous/evergreen 250Water

9 Consolidation ► ArcView condition (“con”) command. ► All Urban Classes  1 Developed Class. ► All Upland Forest Classes  1 Class. ► Wetland Forest Classes  1 Class. ► Some Classes not combined (pasture, fresh/salt water marsh, water, bare soil).

10 30+ Classes Down to 12 Classes ClassLand Use 1Developed 2Cultivated 3Grassland 4Upland Forest 5Upland Shrub 6Barren Soil/Bare Rock 7Marine/Estuarine Unconsolidated shore 8Estuarine emergent marsh 9Riverine/lacustrine/palustrine emergent marsh: mixed species 10Wetland Forest 11Wetland Shrub 12Water

11 VS What Are the Impacts?

12 Original (Landscape) Metric YearNPLPITESIDI 1984285413.049174452770.8882 1995282312.9369174762000.8869 2001286511.688176836800.8918

13 Modified (Landscape) Metric YearNPLPITESIDI 1984159913.359133874480.8015 1995157214.0912135530330.8012 2001159014.8211137734800.8039

14

15

16 PD Conclusions ► Combined  only shows slight increased in PD ► Original  Class 112 increases the most while Class 113 is has the highest total PD. ► Loss of detail, information.

17

18 PLAND Conclusions ► Combining classes increases PLAND vs classes that were not combined. ► Graph two only shows increased trend in the developed class. ► Detail is lost.

19

20 COHESION Conclusions ► Graph two only shows a slight increase in cohesion for Class 1. ► In Graph one: 111 decreases, 112 increases, 113 decreases, and 114 decreases in 1984 then increases by 1995. ► Detail.

21 Conclusions ► Impact on Landscape metrics was straight- forward. ► Loss of detail in class-level metrics. ► Change relationships between patches and classes.

22 The End ► Annoying Sound Effects! ► Graphs! ► Amazing Special Effects! ► This is even better than a Duck Tales Episode!


Download ppt "Why I Hate PowerPoint Also, the Impact of Class Definition on Landscape Metrics Used in FRAGSTATS."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google