DOI: 10.
1007/s00267-003-0027-0
Decision Tree Algorithm for Detection of Spatial
Processes in Landscape Transformation
JAN BOGAERT*
Ecole Interfacultaire de Bioingenieurs
Universitie Libre de Bruxelles
50 Av. F.D. Roosevelt, C.P. 165/05
B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgique
REINHART CEULEMANS
DAVID SALVADOR-VAN EYSENRODE
Department of Biology
Research Group of Plant and Vegetation Ecology
University of Antwerp
Universiteitsplein 1
B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium
ABSTRACT / The conversion of landscapes by human activi-
ties results in widespread changes in landscape spatial struc-
ture. Regardless of the type of land conversion, there appears
to be a limited number of common spatial configurations that
result from such land transformation processes. Some of
these configurations are considered optimal or more desirable
than others. Based on pattern geometry, we define ten pro-
Human influence on the landscape has increased
dramatically over the course of the 20th century. There-
fore, methods are needed to properly monitor and
evaluate changes in land use and land cover (Herzog
and others 2001). The conversion of native landscapes
for human activities results in widespread changes in
landscape spatial structure (Collinge 1998). These
changes in land use and land cover are recognized as
major components of the large-scale perturbations
known as global change (Vitousek 1994, Walker and
Steffen 1997). Due to the diffuse presence of people,
most changes that occur are produced by changes in
the use of a territory. Two opposite processes can be
observed in todays landscapes that have profound con-
sequences on their structure and functioning: (1) in-
tensification of agriculture and urbanization and (2)
land abandonment (Farina 2000). Other processes of
KEY WORDS: Decision tree algorithm; Fragmentation; Land cover
change; Landscape transformation; Spatial pattern
Published online January 8, 2004.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed, email:
jan.bogaert@ulb.ac.be
Environmental Management Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 6273
cesses responsible for pattern change: aggregation, attrition,
creation, deformation, dissection, enlargement, fragmentation,
perforation, shift, and shrinkage. A novelty in this contribution
is the inclusion of transformation processes causing expan-
sion of the land cover of interest. Consequently, we propose a
decision tree algorithm that enables detection of these pro-
cesses, based on three parameters that have to be deter-
mined before and after the transformation of the landscape:
area, perimeter length, and number of patches of the focal
landscape class. As an example, the decision tree algorithm is
applied to determine the transformation processes of three
divergent land cover change scenarios: deciduous woodland
degradation in Cadiz Township (Wisconsin, USA) 18311950,
canopy gap formation in a terra firme rain forest at the Tiputini
Biodiversity Station (Amazonian Ecuador) 19971998, and
forest regrowth in Petersham Township (Massachusetts, USA)
1830 1985. The examples signal the importance of the tem-
poral resolution of the data, since long-term pattern conver-
sions can be subdivided in stadia in which particular pattern
components are altered by specific transformation processes.
land conversion for human use involve ecosystem trans-
formation, e.g., from native grassland into agricultural
field, from primary forest into clear-cut, and from
coastal shrub into housing development (Collinge and
Forman 1998). Consequently, the subject of land trans-
formation is significant to all human issues that involve
land. Wise forestry, economics, biodiversity conserva-
tion, agriculture, landscape architecture, sociology,
wildlife biology, soil science, and so forth explicitely
recognize and deal with dynamic land (Forman 1995a).
An underlying assumption of many environmental
decisions is that some patterns or combinations of land
cover are optimal or more desirable than other types.
Management policies frequently seek to change the
structure of a landscape toward particular goals, be-
cause it is assumed that the spatial arrangement of
elements in a land-cover mosaic controls the ecological
processes that operate within it (Gustafson and Parker,
1992, Haines-Young and Chopping 1996, Gustafson
1998). Characteristic patterns of landscapes presum-
ably are a result of the operation of ecological pro-
cesses, that is, ecological processes generate patterns,
and by analyzing these patterns useful inferences about
the underlying process can be made (Coulson and
2004 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

others 1999). This proposition is known as the pattern/
process paradigm, and it forms a central hypothesis of
landscape ecology (Bogaert 2000), a branch of science
developed to study ecological processes in their spatial
context (Antrop 2001, Stine and Hunsaker 2001). The
study of the relationships between structural and func-
tional consequences of landscape transformation offers
insight into the more general question of how land-
scape patterns and processes are correlated (Jaeger
2000). Consequently, the analysis of spatial landscape
patterns is one of the central interests of (landscape)
ecologists and can enlarge the understanding of dy-
namic ecological patterns, the role of disturbances in
ecosystems, and the characteristics of spatial and tem-
poral scales of ecological events (Bannerman 1997).
Incorporation of an understanding of the ecological
consequences of particular spatial characteristics in-
creases the environmental benefit of landscape archi-
tecture and planning proposals. Landscape planners
and architects are increasingly involved in projects im-
plicitely aimed at using the principles of landscape
ecology to preserve, restore, and enhance biological
diversity (Collinge 1996). Because land conversion pat-
terns differ in their spatial configuration, they may
differ significantly in their impact on ecological pro-
cesses as well (Collinge and Forman 1998). Land trans-
formation may severely compromise the integrity of
ecological systems through loss of native species, inva-
sion of exotic species, pronounced soil erosion, and
decreased water quality (Collinge 1996, Jorge and Gar-
cia 1997). The remnants of native vegetation left after
such transformation are often reduced in size and dis-
connected from adjacent, continuous habitat (Collinge
1996). At the landscape scale, the frequency and spatial
distribution of critical habitats and resources will deter-
mine species distribution patterns (Debinski and others
2001).
The study of spatial pattern changes involves pattern
quantification, as well as identification of the spatial
process involved (ONeill and others 1988). Pattern
quantification attempts have lead to the development
and application of a plenitude of landscape indices
(e.g., ONeill and others 1988, Gustafson and Parker
1994, Schumaker 1996, Wickham and others 1996, Li
and Archer 1997, He and others 2000, Bogaert and
others 1999b, 2000a,b, 2001b,c, 2002a,b,c), and to spe-
cialized software such as SPAN (Turner and Ruscher
1988), SPAN (Gustafson and Parker 1991), HISA
(Gustafson and Parker 1992), FRAGSTATS (McGarigal
and Marks 1995), HAMS (Roseberry and Hao 1996),
and APACK (Mladenoff and DeZonia 1999).
Regardless of the type of land conversion, there
appears to be a limited number of common spatial
Spatial landscape transformation processes 63
configurations that result from such land transforma-
tion processes (Franklin and Forman 1987, Collinge
and Forman 1998). From a geometric point of view,
eight processes are described in detail in literature for
binary landscapes (composed of only two classes, such
as forest and not-forested): attrition, bisection, dissec-
tion, dissipation, fragmentation, incision, perforation,
and shrinkage (Forman 1995a,b, Collinge 1998, Col-
linge and Forman 1998, Jaeger 2000). These spatial
processes describe land cover (habitat, vegetation) loss
or degradation and were developed to assess the impact
of pattern change on species diversity, e.g., by consid-
ering edge effects. Regretfully, a uniform relationship
or hierarchy between the processes in an ecological
perspective has not been described to date. Forman
(1995a,b) and Jaeger (2000) consider a kind of hierar-
chical relationship between the processes, while Col-
linge (1998), and Collinge and Forman (1998) assume
that all spatial processes are equivalent.
The purpose of this paper is to combine the visions
described in the seminal papers of Forman (1995a,b),
Collinge (1998), Collinge and Forman (1998), and Jae-
ger (2000) into a suite of spatial processes that can be
used further on to identify the spatial processes in-
volved in land transformation. Consequently, the devel-
opment of a typology of pattern forms the core of this
contribution. Some novel spatial processes are defined
to complete the existing list with those landscape con-
versions characterized by an increase of the land cover
of interest. Some of the formerly used processes are not
considered because of their similarity to other ones. All
processes are assigned an unequivocal definition. Next,
a decision tree is proposed based on three spatial at-
tributes that are easy to calculate and that are recog-
nized as key elements of landscape pattern measures
(Giles and Trani 1999): area, perimeter, and number of
patches of the focal landscape class. This decision tree
will aid environmental managers, landscape ecologists,
and landscape architects to quickly and objectively
identify which process is transforming their landscape
at study. As an example, the decision tree algorithm is
applied to determine the transformation processes of
three divergent land-cover change scenarios: woodland
degradation in Cadiz Township (Wisconsin, USA) from
1831 to 1950, canopy gap formation in a terra firme rain
forest at the Tiputini Biodiversity Station (Amazonian
Ecuador) 19971998, and forest regrowth in Petersham
Township (Massachusetts, USA) 1830 1985.
Land Transformation Processes
The spatial transformation processes are defined for
a landscape composed of only two classes (binary land-
64 J. Bogaert and others

scape), representing the land cover of interest gener-

ally a particular vegetation or habitat typeand its
surroundings, which correspond respectively to the
patches and the matrix as described in the patch
corridormatrix landscape model (Forman and Go-
dron 1981, 1986, Forman 1995a). The definitions of
the processes are combinations of statements by For-
man (1995a,b), Heywood and Watson (1995), Fahrig
(1997), Collinge (1998), Collinge and Forman (1998),
Bogaert (2000), Farina (2000), and Jaeger (2000). Web-
sters Third New International Dictionary (Anonymous
1971), American Heritage Dictionary (Anonymous 1982),
Longman Dictionary of the English Language (Anonymous
1991), and Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary
(Anonymous 1996) were used to verify and improve the
existing definitions. The following ten spatial processes
for landscape transformation are considered to reflect
pattern changes in landscapes (Figure 1):

1 aggregation: the action or process of collecting

units or parts into a whole; to bring or gather
together into a whole; to fill gaps or open space;
2 attrition: the reduction or decrease in the number
of patches; dissappearance of patches;
3 creation: the formation of new patches, which re-
sults in an increase of the total number of patches;
the act of causing to exist of patches; patch genesis;
4 deformation: the change of patch shape, without
patch size change; patch disfigurement;
5 dissection: the carving up or subdividing of an area
or patch using equal-width lines; sectioning of an
area or patch; area or patch (sub)division;
6 enlargement: the increase of patch size; patch size
expansion;
7 fragmentation: the breaking up of an area into
smaller parcels, resulting in unevenly separated Figure 1. Diagrammetric representation of the ten spatial
patches; the breaking up of extensive landscape fea- processes in land transformation. Black areas refer to the land
tures into disjunt, isolated, or semi-isolated patches; cover of interest, white areas to the landscape matrix: (a)
8 perforation: the process of making holes in an area aggregation: merging of patches; (b) attrition: dissappearance
or patch; gap formation; interruption of land cover of one of the four patches present in the original landscape;
continuity by formation of openings; (c) creation: landscape transformation by formation of a new
9 shift: patch repositioning; patch translocation; patch, increasing the number of patches from two to three;
(d) deformation: transformation characterized by shape
10 shrinkage: the decrease or reduction in size of
change of both patches from a square to rectangular shape;
patches, without attrition; progressive reduction (e) dissection: subdivision of a continuous area by equal-width
of the initial land cover patch, ideally maintaining lines into six parts; (f) enlargement: transformation by size
its original shape. increase of both patches; (g) fragmentation: landscape con-
version by breaking up the continuous land cover into five
Note that attrition, dissection, fragmentation, perfo- disjunct patches of unequal size and shape; (h) perforation:
ration, and shrinkage involve land-cover degradation. transformation by the formation of four gaps; (i) shift: trans-
Aggregation, creation, and enlargement imply the ap- location of one of both patches; (j) shrinkage: patches un-
pearance of new land-cover units. Deformation and dergo a decrease in size.
shift are neutral towards land cover area. The incorpo-
ration of the latter five processes is novel compared to
 Spatial landscape transformation processes
Figure 2. Decision tree to identify
transformation processes that alter
the spatial pattern of landscapes.
The parameters a0, p0, and n0 refer
to the habitat area, perimeter, and
number of patches before transfor-
mation, while a1, p1, and n1 are the
reciprocal values after pattern
change.
Forman (1995a,b), Collinge (1998), Collinge and For-
man (1998), and Jaeger (2000).
Decision Tree Algorithm to Identify Spatial
Processes
Description of Decision Tree Algorithm
To identify the spatial process responsible for land-
scape pattern changes during a well-defined time pe-
riod, a decision tree was developed (Figure 2). The aim
was to provide environmental scientists with a quick
protocol to determine the transformation process(es)
present in the study area of interest.
Input data for the decision tree consists of the area
or size (a), the perimeter or edge length (p), and the
number of patches (n) observed for the land-cover class
of interest. Calculation of a, p, and n is discussed in the
next section. The data referring to the landscape pat-
tern before transformation are denoted as a0, p0, and
n0. At the end of the considered time period in which
the pattern transformation is analyzed, a1, p1, and n1
are recorded. The data used in the decision tree are
considered as key elements of landscape pattern mea-
sures that will encompass most of the phenomena of
observed patterns in a landscape (Giles and Trani
1999). Since a binary landscape model is assumed,
which is suitable for most applications, other key pa-
rameters mentioned by Giles and Trani (1999), such as
proportion of the dominant class or as the number of
classes present, are not considered. The decision tree
algorithm leads to the identification of the spatial pro-
cess involved by comparing the values of a0, p0, and n0
with, respectively, a1, p1, and n1, and is thus based on
65
equality, increase, or decrease of land cover area, pe-
rimeter length, and number of patches.
The number of patches is the first parameter to be
evaluated. This pattern feature allows partition of the
processes in three groups. If the number of patches
shows a decrease during transformation (n1 n0), two
processes can be observed. If this decrease of the num-
ber of patches goes together with a decrease of the total
area of the class of interest (a1 a0), attrition (Figure
1b) is the process of transformation. Note that this type
of transformation is expected to occur in a patchy
landscape, which can already be the result of another
pattern conversion (Forman 1995a, Jaeger 2000). On
the other hand, if the total area does not decrease (a1
a0), this indicates the mergence of existing patches
by physical connection. This process is denoted as ag-
gregation (Figure 1a).
An increase of the number of patches (n1 n0)
requires, analogously as for attrition and aggregation,
the consideration of a second parameter. An increase
of the area (a1 a0) combined with an increase of the
number of patches implies that new patches are
formed, and that these patches contribute to the land
cover expansion observed. This formation of new
patches is denoted as creation (Figure 1c). Creation
can be anthropogenic (e.g., afforestation as a conse-
quence of landscape architectural measures) or can be
caused by natural vegetation dynamics (colonization of
bare soil, succession to a pioneer forest). When the
vegetated area decreases (a1 a0), this indicates that
large, continuous land-cover units are substituted by
smaller, disjunct parcels. If this breaking up coincides
with minimal area loss associated with linear structures
of disruption (a1 a0), the pattern change sequence is
66 J. Bogaert and others
Figure 3. Relationship between creation, dissection, and frag-
mentation based on the area before (a0) and after (a1) trans-
formation. The choice between fragmentation and dissection
is based on a predefined reference value t, which describes the
extent to which the area can decrease (a0 a1 0) before the
habitat is considered as fragmented. tobs is the a1/a0 ratio
observed. If tobs t, the pattern change is considered as a
consequence of fragmentation.
denoted as dissection (Figure 1e) (Forman 1995a).
Typical examples of linear dissecting structures are rail-
roads. Fragmentation (Figure 1g) combines the in-
creasing number of patches with considerable area loss
(a1 a0). The difference between a1 a0 and a1 a0
can be subject to debate. A predefined threshold value
t, used as a reference for the ratio of a1 to a0, is
therefore suggested (t 1). If tobs is calculated by
a1
t obs
a0 (1)
then dissection is present if tobs t. Fragmentation will
then be observed for t obs t. The relationship between
creation, dissection, and fragmentation, as determined by
the values for a0, a1, tobs, and t is illustrated in Figure 3.
If the number of patches is not influenced by land-
scape conversion (n1 n0), three clusters of transfor-
mation processes can be distinguished. An increase of
the land-cover area (a1 a0) indicates that one or more
of the already present patches expands: this process is
known as enlargement (Figure 1f). Succession or com-
petition processes or anthropogenic action at the patch
perimeter can induce this kind of pattern change. To
avoid creation, the newly formed land-cover area
should appear contiguous to patches present before
the transformation occurred. In case of area decrease
(a1 a0), the patchy landscape can be subject to two
processes. The total perimeter can increase (p1 p0)
due to the formation of gaps inside the land cover of
interest. The gap area can be considered as belonging
to the matrix, and the perimeter segments that demar-
cate the gaps make the overall perimeter increase. This
process is known as perforation (Figure 1h). Gap for-
mation is a widespread form of forest disturbance, with
a key role in regeneration dynamics, since gaps provide
spatiotemporal opportunities for plant species to de-
velop (Salvador-Van Eysenrode and others 1998b,
2000a, 2002). Gap formation can be induced by nature
(e.g., treefall gaps after windthrow) or by human action
(e.g., logging for timber). If the total perimeter does
not increase (p1 p0), one or more of the patches are
characterized by shrinkage (Figure 1j). This involves
loss of the peripheral parts of the patches. Shrinkage
could be a consequence of the edge effect, which refers
to those microclimatic changes observed after the ex-
posure of an isolated patch to the altered physical
environment of the adjacent cleared area (Collinge
1996). When a forest is cleared, the floor in the edge is
exposed to direct sunlight, the ground becomes hotter
during the day, and without the canopy to reduce heat
and moisture loss, the forest floor is also much colder at
night and generally less humid. These effects will de-
crease towards the center of the vegetation (Lovejoy
and others 1986, Chen 1991, Saunders and others 1991,
Groom and Schumaker 1993). Associated with the abi-
otic changes (Lovejoy and others 1986), changes in the
structure and composition of the floral and faunal com-
munities are observed (Collinge 1996). Profound abi-
otic changes could therefore lead towards land cover
change. Note that for p1 p0, a change of patch shape
is observed together with a shrinkage, because the patch
form should become more elongated to prevent perime-
ter decrease. This type of shrinkage could therefore be
denoted as anisotropic, while the type with the concomi-
tant decrease in perimeter can be denoted as isotropic.
Two types of conversion are possible for landscapes
in which both the number of patches and the total
land-cover area do not change during conversion (n1
n0; a1 a0). If the total perimeter length also is con-
stant (p1 p0), the pattern can only change by reloca-
tion of the patches; this is known as shift (Figure 1i).
This is, in fact, a combination of creation and attrition
occurring at a distinct location but is considered here
as a separate process. Vegetation dynamics and land-
scape design can generate this pattern change type. If
the total perimeter changes (p1 p0), deformation
(Figure 1d) is observed. Note that deformation implies
that only the shape of the patch changes, by removal
and addition of land-cover area at the periphery of the
patches. Shape change is generally quantified by an

area-to-perimeter ratio (Bogaert and Impens 1998, Bo-
gaert and others 2000a, 2002a), or by patch diameter
measurement (Feret diameters) (Glasbey and Horgan
1995, Cruz and Matos 1998).
Discussion of Decision Tree Algorithm
The decision tree algorithm uses patch area, patch
perimeter, and number of patches data. A raster data-
base, e.g., cartographic data digitized by scanning, or
satellite imagery portrays features as a matrix of equal-
area cells that are usually squares (Johnston 1998, Bo-
gaert and Rousseau 2001). The smallest nondivisible
element in the image is then a grid cell or pixel. Spatial
primitives such as points, lines, and polygons are then
represented by pixel configurations: points by isolated
pixels, lines by strings of pixels, and polygons by pixel
clusters. The determination of patch area, perimeter,
and number of patches to be distinguished is deter-
mined by the neighborship function used. If 4-connec-
tivity applies, four neighboring positions (nearest
neighbors) are assumed for every pixel not located in
the map border. If the diagonal pixels are also consid-
ered as neighboring pixels (next-nearest neighbors),
the neighborship function is denoted as 8-connectivity
(Stauffer 1985). Pixels that are connected belong to the
same patch, and its area is then represented by the
number of pixels (a measured as the number of equal-
area pixels), or this number multiplied by the actual
area or resolution of the pixel (e.g., a measured in
km2). The use of 8-connectivity will generally lead to
less patches with a larger patch area. Patch perimeter is
based upon the presence of nearest neighbors in a
patch and is calculated as
p(a) 4a 2 a (2)
with p(a) the perimeter for a patch with area equal to a
square pixels, and ra the number of nearest neighbor-
ships (1 0; 2 1) (Bribiesca 1997, Bogaert and
Impens 1998, Bogaert and others 2000a). For a patch
composed of a 16 square pixels organized as a 4 4
square, 16 24 and p(16) (4 16) (2 24) 16. coincides with enlargement. However, a decrease of the
Note that this perimeter definition equals the prag-
matic approach of Lawrence and Ripple (1996), but is
clearly different from Rosenfelds (1974).
The algorithm presented does not incorporate other
land cover characteristics, such as average patch size, in-
terior (habitat), connectivity, and patch isolation (For-
man 1995a). These characteristics are directly related to
fragmentation (Bogaert and others 2000b) and are less
important for the other transformation processes consid-
ered. Although average patch size is often used to quantify
spatial pattern (e.g., Groom and Schumaker 1993, Bender
and others 1998, Davidson 1998), it is not considered here
Spatial landscape transformation processes 67
because its information is already incorporated by the
separate parameters a and n. A separate measure for
interior (or edge) is avoided because a correct definition
of edge width is not feasible due to variation in distur-
bance penetration, location of impact, and periodicity of
the disturbance (Chen 1991, Bogaert and others 1998,
1999a, 2000b, 2001a). Moreover, by using perimeter and
area, interior presence is well described (Bogaert and
Impens 1998, Bogaert and others 2000a,b), since large
isodiametric patches will be characterized by high interi-
or-to-edge ratios and small, elongated patches by the ab-
sence of an interior. Connectivity (sensu Forman 1995a
and Farina 1998, equivalent to the connectedness of an
area regarding a particular process, e.g., species migra-
tion), or its reciprocal isolation, is not included in the
decision tree, because connectivity is different according
to the landscape process considered. For example, con-
nectivity will be clearly different for water fluxes and ani-
mal dispersal. An abundant number of landscape param-
eters need to be considered, such as the 3D vegetation
structure, soil data, and hydrological data (Bogaert and
others 2000b), when this type of landscape process are
incorporated in the decision tree. The issue of process
scale and the set of processes to be assessed could then
consequently also be subject to debate. Therefore, we
restricted the parameters to a, p, and n, which describe
key pattern features (Giles and Trani 1999), and are
concepts that are unambiguous and easily to determine.
The decision tree is designed to identify one single
process using land-cover area, perimeter, and number
of patches. Some processes in the decision tree algo-
rithm are defined by fewer parameters than others.
Aggregation, attrition, creation, dissection, enlarge-
ment, and fragmentation are defined by two parame-
ters (number of patches and area); for deformation,
perforation, shift, and shrinkage, all three parameters
are required. Introduction of a third parameter for all
processes could refine the process definition, but also
introduces complexity. An example for this case is en-
largement. It can be expected that perimeter increase
perimeter can occur if a patch shape change from
elongated (large perimeter) to isodiametric (small pe-
rimeter) occurs at the same time. The absence of a
parameter can also indicate redundancy of the param-
eter; this is the case for the transformation processes
with n1 n0: these processes are all associated with
perimeter increase (Forman 1995a), so that incorpora-
tion of this parameter does not provide supplementary
information. It should be noted that patch attrition can
dominate the analysis, due to the design of the decision
tree algorithm. In the case of attrition of a single or a
few patches, we suggest a methodological fix: redo the
68 J. Bogaert and others
analysis with omission of the decrease in number of
patches (consider n1 n0 instead of n1 n0). In this
way, other conversion scenarios may be found. This
latter case is illustrated in the example of Cadiz Town-
ship in the following section.
The proposed definitions and the decision tree are
partly a synthesis of other attempts to classify land
transformation processes, but are significantly different
through the addition of new processes (aggregation,
shift, creation, deformation, enlargement) and by omis-
sion of others. In Forman (1995a,b) only five processes
are listed: perforation, dissection, fragmentation,
shrinkage, and attrition. This classification is designed
to assess landscape fragmentation in particular. A time
sequence is assumed: a landscape is firstly transformed
by dissection and/or perforation. Dissection is consid-
ered a special case of fragmentation, and the two spatial
processes are differentiated by Forman (1995a,b), in
part because the separating elements typically are so
different and widespread. Moreover, the ecological
consequences may be similar or highly dissimilar, de-
pending on the function of the cleared zone (Forman
1995a). Shrinkage and attrition are processes assumed
to happen in already fragmented landscapes. The time
sequence as defined by Forman (1995a,b) can also be
found in Eng (1997). One study (anonymous 1999)
only considers dissection, perforation, and fragmenta-
tion. Jaeger (2000) distinguishes six processes, equal to
six steps of fragmentation: perforation, incision, dissec-
tion, dissipation, shrinkage, and attrition. Incision is to
be interpreted as incomplete dissection, and dissipa-
tion is a combination of dissection and shrinkage. Ini-
tial landscape transformation (sensu fragmentation) is
expected by perforation, incision, and dissection. After
dissipation, patch shrinkage and attrition can occur.
For their microlandscape experiment with grassland
insects, Collinge (1998) and Collinge and Forman
(1998) considered four scenarios of landscape conver-
sion, which are based on Formans (1995a,b) concept:
shrinkage, bisection, fragmentation, and perforation.
Pattern change was based on clearings which become
more extended. In Kolasa and Waltho (1998), patch
size reduction (in the current paper denoted as shrink-
age), isolation (a particular type of shift) and fragmen-
tation are considered, the latter more in the sense of
dissection. Farina (2000) only considers fragmentation
and aggregation, and both processes are considered as
opposites, with aggregation defined as regaining the
open space maintained by the disturbance process (
fragmentation). Farina (2000) puts emphasis on the
gap-filling aspect of this type of pattern dynamics. Fahrig
(1997) puts focus on habitat loss as the main process. Two
types are considered, equivalent to attrition and shrink-
age. Fragmentation in Fahrig (1997) equals the dissection
process in the current paper. Finally, Hansen and others
(1992) considernext to forest fragmentationtwo
other processes: forest conversion (transition of natural to
regulated forest), and deprise agricole, which implies the
transition of agricultural land into seminatural forest.
Since these processes are bound to particular vegetation
or land-cover types (forest, agriculture), and since our aim
was to develop a methodology applicable to multiple land-
cover types, these processes are not considered here.
Moreover, the actual spatial or geometrical component of
these processes is not explicitely defined, as it is for the
current nine processes.
Examples
Three examples are elaborated to exemplify the use
of the decision tree algorithm for detecting landscape
transformation processes. It is demonstrated how com-
plex pattern sequences are the result of a series of
different processes. The examples underline the impor-
tance of data availability, measured as the temporal
resolution of the data. This resolution is a component
of the temporal scale, which also includes the extent,
equal to the space of time over which records are
available. Data sets covering a long time period, with
many intervals, are preferred for the analysis of land-
scape transformation processes.
Cadiz Township, Wisconsin, USA
Land-cover change has been documented over a
long period in fine resolution in only a few locations
(Shafer 1990). One example is the rate and areal extent
of the destruction of original cover by agricultural
clearing in Cadiz Township, Green County, Wisconsin,
USA (8954W, 4330N), which took place during the
period of European settlement (Curtis 1956). Before
agricultural settlement began, its vegetation was mostly
upland deciduous forest, characterized by one single
patch of a 87.24 km2 (Burgess and Sharpe 1981,
Dunn and others 1991). Five records are reported for a,
p, and n: 1831, 1882, 1902, 1935, and 1950 (Curtis 1956,
Burgess and Sharpe 1981, Dunn and others 1991). In
Figure 4, the evolution of a, p, and n is illustrated. All
values are given relative to the highest value present in
the period 18311950 to show the relative changes of
the parameters. Considering the entire time period
18311950, thus comparing the 1831 pattern features
with the 1950 features, fragmentation is observed (Fig-
ure 2), due to the strong area decrease (exceeding
95%, Figure 4a) and the increase of both perimeter
(Figure 4b) and number of patches (Figure 4c). This
result confirms the recognition of the Cadiz Township

Figure 4. Evolution of woodland area (a), perimeter (b), and
number of patches (c) in Cadiz Township, Green County,
Wisconsin, USA, from 1831 to 1950. All parameters are ex-
pressed relative to the maximum value of the parameter for
the time period considered.
land-cover change sequence as the main example in
ecological literature of landscape fragmentation by
man (Burgess and Sharpe 1981, Shafer 1990, Dunn and
others 1991, Forman 1995a). Identical conclusions can
be drawn from the time periods 18311882, 18311902,
and 18311935. Because data for 1882, 1902, and 1935
are available, analysis of the different steps of the 1831
1950 transformation process is appealing. Because the
number of patches and perimeter data peak in 1882, all
subsequent periods are characterized by a1 a0, p1
p0, n1 n0, which points towards attrition of landscape
patches (Figure 2). The initial phase of landscape
change, before the end of the 19th century, is therefore
the only period characterized by fragmentation. After-
wards, the patchy landscape is dominated by continu-
ous forest patch removal for agricultural practice. This
example shows that the temporal resolution of the data,
here 30 years, influences the final conclusion consid-
erably. Finer resolutions, i.e., shorter time periods be-
tween the records, enable a more accurate determina-
tion of the active processes. It can be concluded for
Cadiz Township that the major influences on the pat-
tern have occurred before 1882 with profound frag-
Spatial landscape transformation processes 69
mentation; the landscape is in that period converted
from a continuous (n0 1) forest patch into dispersed
patches (n1 70), with concomitant area loss (tobs
0.296) and perimeter increase (p1 156.9 km). Note
that for 19351950 the decrease in number of patches
does not exceed 5%, hence n1 n0 can be substituted
by n1 n0, which leads to shrinkage (isotropic) as the
dominant process and which is consistent with the vi-
sual interpretation of the cartographic data of Curtis
(1956) . The sequence of transformations could then
be modified in fragmentation (18311882), attrition
(18821935), and shrinkage (19351950).
Tiputini Biodiversity Station, Amazonian Ecuador
A gap survey (19971998) was conducted at the
Tiputini Biodiversity Station (TBS), 76 10'15W,
003705S, altitude c. 300 m, in the province of Orel-
lana in Ecuador. For details on the survey, the reader is
referred to Salvador-Van Eysenrode and others
(1998a,b, 1999a,b, 2000a,b) and to Bogaert and others
(2001c). TBS occupies a 650-ha tract of virgin lowland
terra firme rain forest on the north bank of the Tiputini
river. The plot in which the gaps were monitored (size:
135000 m2) consists of a platform surrounded by
swamps and an oxbow lake. Canopy gapsformed
since October 1996 were located and measured dur-
ing three field trips: June 1997, March 1998, and De-
cember 1998. The minimum area to be recognized as
gap was set to 4 m2. A metallic marking pole was put in
the approximate center (centroid) of each gap, and the
distances from the pole to the gap edge (ground pro-
jection of the first vegetation) were measured along
eight radii, at intervals of 45 starting from the north.
Gap area was estimated by adding the areas of the
octants. Hemispherical pictures were taken at 2 m
above the ground at the centroid, oriented to the mag-
netic north, using a CID-100 Digital Plant Canopy Im-
ager (CID 1997). Images were enhanced for continuity
and contrast. Gap area and perimeter were calculated
using a Fortran-77 program. An equal ratio of area to
perimeter squared was assumed for the digital images
and the field observations. At the first field trip, 14 gaps
were observed. Figure 5 shows the gap area, perimeter,
and number of gaps, expressed as fractions of the larg-
est values considered in the entire time period. An
increase in the number of gaps is observed with time;
for gap area and boundary length, first an increase and
then secondly a decrease is observed. This decrease can
be explained by the effect of horizontal closure, caused
by ingrowth of the surrounding vegetation (Salvador-
Van Eysenrode and others 1998a). The data presented
in Figure 5 refer to gap characteristics and should be
converted to know the parameters for the forest in
70 J. Bogaert and others
Figure 5. Evolution of total gap area (a), total gap perimeter
(b), and number of gaps (c) present in the experimental plot
at the Tiputini Biodiversity Station (Amazonian Ecuador)
from June 1997 (first survey date) to December 1998. All
parameters are expressed relative to the maximum value of
the parameter for the time period considered. Using the
presented gap data, the changes in forest area, perimeter, and
number of patches can be assessed.
which they are formed. Gap area increase corresponds
to forest area decrease (a1 a0), whereas an increase of
the total gap perimeter implies an increase of the total
forest perimeter (p1 p0). The total number of gaps
does not provide any information regarding the num-
ber of forest patches. The field survey showed n0 n1
1, so that only deformation, shift, perforation, shrink-
age, or enlargement could possibly be observed (Figure
2). Both time intervals represent different transforma-
tion processes. From June 1997 to March 1998, forest
area decreases (a1 a0), while its perimeter increases
(p1 p0). This points to perforation, with formation of
16 supplementary gaps in this period. From March
1998 to December 1998, 18 extra gaps were formed, but
the increase in forest area (a1 a0) due to ingrowth of
the older gaps prevails: enlargement of the forest is
here the type of transformation. Thus, two distinct
phases are distinguished, both featuring gap formation,
but also characterized by opposite trends in forest area,
which signals the presence of different conversion ge-
ometries (Figure 2).
Figure 6. Evolution of forested area (a), perimeter (b), and
number of patches (c) in Petersham Town- ship, Worcester
County, Massachusetts, USA from 1830 to 1985. All parame-
ters are expressed relative to the maximum value of the
parameter for the time period considered.
Petersham Township, Massachusetts, USA
Foster (1992) investigated the histories of changing
land use and vegetation in central New England (Mas-
sachusetts, USA) to assess environmental controls over
land ownership patterns, agricultural practice and log-
ging activity, and vegetation response to these land use
factors. Petersham Township is located in north west-
ern Worcester County (central Massachusetts, 7130W,
4130N) and was settled in 1733. In the subsequent
period, due to economic development from a small-
scale rural economy with farming to one characterized
by small-scale industry, better transportation, and com-
mercial farming, forest clearance to provide pasture
land for beef cattle and sheep resulted in an increase of
open land from 50% in 1800 to 85% in 1850 (Foster
1992, Dunn and others 1991). Commencing in the
mid-1800s, the population of Petersham declined:
farms were abandoned and neglected fields were refor-
ested. Since the 1930s, there has been an increase in
homes and a reversal in the downward population
trend, but a decrease in the intensity of direct human
impact on the land. Forest cover for Petersham Town-
ship was recorded using cartographic data and aerial

photograph analysis for 1830, 1900, 1938, and 1985.
Figure 6 shows the evolution of forest area, perimeter,
and number of patches for 1830 1985. The three time
periods considered (1830 1900, 1900 1938, and
1938 1985) are dominated by different land transfor-
mation processes. From 1830 to 1900, the number of
patches increased (n1 n0), and together an expan-
sion of the forest was observed (a1 a0), as well as an
increase of the perimeter (p1 p0). This conversion is,
therefore, denoted as creation (Figure 2). After 1900,
the number of patches decreases (n1 n0), probably
due to patch mergence, together with an increase of
the forest area (a1 a0), so aggregation was dominat-
ing the pattern conversion (Figure 2). From 1938 on,
only one connected forest is present (n1 n0 1). The
third period is characterized by the increase in area (a1
a0), so that Figure 2 identifies enlargement as the
process of transformation.
Conclusion
The subject of land transformation is significant to
all human issues that involve land (Forman 1995a).
Processes of landscape transformation are useful for
environmental managers to define geometrically the
processes responsible for pattern change in the land-
scape. Ten processes are considered to alter the spatial
configuration of landscapes: aggregation, attrition, cre-
ation, deformation, dissection, enlargement, fragmen-
tation, perforation, shift, and shrinkage. A decision tree
algorithm has been presented that determines the ac-
tive process based on area, perimeter length, and num-
ber of patches of the class of interest. Application of the
decision tree algorithm for three study areas [woodland
conversion in Cadiz Township (USA), gap formation in
a rain forest in Tiputini (Ecuador), and forest regrowth
in Petersham Township (USA)] shows the practical use
of the decision tree. The examples signal the impor-
tance of the temporal resolution of landscape transfor-
mation data to detect the presence of short-term con-
versions in a long-term transformation scenario.
Acknowledgments
Jan Bogaert is indebted to the Fund for Scientific
ResearchFlanders (F.W.O. deren) for his postdoc-
toral fellowship. The authors acknowledge the review-
ers for their significant input.
References
Anonymous. 1971. Websters third new international dictio-
nary of the English language unabridged. G. & C. Merriam
Company, Springfield, 2662 pp.
Spatial landscape transformation processes 71
Anonymous. 1982. The American heritage dictionarySec-
ond college edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston,
1568 pp.
Anonymous. 1991. Longman dictionary of the English lan-
guageNew edition. Longman Group UK Ltd., Essex, 1890
pp.
Anonymous. 1996. Websters new universal unabridged dic-
tionary. Barnes & Noble Books, New York, 2230 pp.
Anonymous. 1999. Assessing the ecological impacts of timber
management: apparent impacts, actual impacts, and pre-
cautionary forest development. Silva Forest Foundation Lit-
erature Review Series, Slocan Park, 16 pp.
Antrop, M. 2001. The language of landscape ecologists and
plannersa comparative content analysis of concepts used in
landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 55:163173.
Bannerman, S. 1997. Spatial patterns and landscape ecology:
implications for biodiversity. British Columbia Ministry of
Forests Research Program, Victoria, BC, 9 pp.
Bender, D. J., T. A. Contreras, and L. Fahrig. 1998. Habitat
loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch
size effect. Ecology 79:517533.
Bogaert, J., and I. Impens. 1998. An improvement on area-
perimeter ratios for interior-edge evaluation of habitats.
Pages 55 61 in F. Muge, R. C. Pinto, and M. Piedade. Eds,
RecPad98: proceedings of the 10th Portuguese conference
on pattern recognition. Associac a o Portuguesa de Recon-
hecimento de Padro es, Lisbon.
Bogaert, J., P. Van Hecke, D. Salvador-Van Eysenrode, and I.
Impens. 1998. Quantifying habitat edge for nature reserve
design. Coenoses 13:131136.
Bogaert, J., P. Van Hecke, and I. Impens. 1999a. A reference
value for the interior-to-edge ratio of isolated habitats. Acta
Biotheoretica 47:6777.
Bogaert, J., P. Van Hecke, R. Moermans, and I. Impens.
1999b. Twist number statistics as an additional measure of
habitat perimeter irregularity. Environmental and Ecological
Statistics 6:275290.
Bogaert, J. 2000. Quantifying habitat fragmentation as a spa-
tial process in a patch corridormatrix landscape model.
PhD dissertation. University of Antwerp, Wilrijk 209.
Bogaert, J., R. Rousseau, P. Van Hecke, and I. Impens. 2000a.
Alternative area-perimeter ratios for measurement of 2-D
shape compactness of habitats. Applied Mathematics and Com-
putation 111:71 85.
Bogaert, J., P. Van Hecke, D. Salvador-Van Eysenrode, and I.
Impens. 2000b. Landscape fragmentation assessment using
a single measure. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:875 881.
Bogaert, J., and R. Rousseau. 2001. Spatial aggregation of
two-dimensional objects in raster data structures. Applied
Mathematics and Computation 119:117126.
Bogaert, J., D. Salvador-Van Eysenrode, I. Impens, and P. Van
Hecke. 2001a. The interior- to-edge breakpoint distance as
a guideline for nature conservation policy. Environmental
Management 27:493500.
Bogaert, J., D. Salvador-Van Eysenrode, P. Van Hecke, and I.
Impens. 2001b. Geometrical considerations for evaluation
of reserve design. Web Ecology 2:6570, (erratum Web
Ecology 2:74).
72 J. Bogaert and others
Bogaert, J., D. Salvador-Van Eysenrode, P. Van Hecke, I. Im-
pens, and R. Ceulemans. 2001c. Land cover change: quan-
tification metrics for perforation using 2-D gap features.
Acta Biotheoretica 49:161169.
Bogaert, J., R. B. Myneni, and Y. Knyazikhin. 2002a. A math-
ematical comment on the formulae for the aggregation
index and the shape index. Landscape Ecology 17:8790.
Bogaert, J., P. Van Hecke, and R. Ceulemans. 2002b. The
Euler number as an index of spatial integrity of landscapes:
evaluation and proposed improvement. Environmental Man-
agement 29:673 682.
Bogaert, J., Zhou, L. Tucker, C. J. Myneni, R. B. Ceulemans. R.
2002c. Evidence for a persistent and extensive greening
trend in Eurasia inferred from satellite vegetation index
data. Journal of Geophysical Research 107:D11-10.1029/
2001JD001075.
Bribiesca, E. 1997. Measuring 2-D shape compactness using
the contact perimeter. Computers and Mathematics with Appli-
cations 33:19.
Burgess, R. L., and D. M. Sharpe. 1981. Introduction. Pages 15
in R. L. Burgess, and D. M. Sharpe. Eds, Forest island dynamics
in man-dominated landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Chen J. 1991. Edge effects: microclimatic pattern and biological
responses in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. PhD dissertation, Uni-
versity of Washington, Seattle, 174 pp.
CID. 1997. CID-100 Digital plant canopy imager. Instruction
manual. CID, Vancouver, BC, 18 pp.
Collinge, S. K. 1996. Ecological consequences of habitat frag-
mentation: implications for land- scape architecture and
planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 36:59 77.
Collinge, S. K. 1998. Spatial arrangement of habitat patches
and corridors: clues from ecological field experiments.
Landscape and Urban Planning 42:157168.
Collinge, S. K., and R. T. T. Forman. 1998. A conceptual
model of land conversion processes: predictions and evi-
dence from a microlandscape experiment with grassland
insects. Oikos 82:66 84.
Coulson, R. N., H. Saarenmaa, W. C. Daugherity, E. J. Jr.
Rykiel, M. C. Saunders, and J. W. Fitzgerald. 1999. A knowl-
edge system environment for ecosystem management.
Pages 5779 in J. M. Klopatek, and R. H. Gardner. Eds,
Landscape ecological analysisissues and applications.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Cruz, M. D., and R. P. Matos. 1998. Automatic detection,
characterization, and description of objects morphology.
Pages 63 67 in F. Muge, R. C. Pinto, and M. Piedade. Eds,
RecPad98: proceedings of the 10th Portuguese conference
on pattern recognition. Associac a o Portuguesa de Recon-
hecimento de Padro es, Lisbon.
Curtis, J. T. 1956. The modification of mid-latitude grasslands
and forests by man. Pages 721736 in W. L. Thomas, C. O.
Sauer, M. Bates, and L. Mumford. Eds, Mans role in chang-
ing the face of the earth. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Davidson, C. 1998. Issues in measuring landscape fragmenta-
tion. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:3237.
Debinski, D. M., C. Ray, and E. H. Saveraid. 2001. Species
diversity and the scale of the landscape mosaic: do scales of
movement and patch size affect diversity?. Biological Conser-
vation 98:179 190.
Dunn, C. P., D. M. Sharpe, G. R. Guntenspergen, F. Stearns,
and Z. Yang. 1991. Methods for analyzing temporal changes
in landscape pattern. Pages 173198 in M. G. Turner, and
R. H. Gardner. Eds, Quantitative methods in landscape
ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Eng, M. 1997. Spatial patterns and landscape ecology: implica-
tions for biodiversity. Extension Note 14, British Columbia
Ministry of Forests Research Program, Victoria, BC, 9 pp.
Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmen-
tation on population extinction. Journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment 61:603 610.
Farina, A. 1998. Principles and methods in landscape ecology.
Chapman & Hall, London 235.
Farina, A. 2000. Landscape ecology in action. Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, Dordrecht 317.
Forman, R. T. T. 1995a. Land mosaicsthe ecology of land-
scapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
632.
Forman, R. T. T. 1995b. Some general principles of landscape
and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology 10:133142.
Forman, R. T. T., and M. Godron. 1981. Patches and struc-
tural components for a landscape ecology. BioScience
31:733740.
Forman, R. T. T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology.
John Wiley & Sons, New York 620.
Foster, D. R. 1992. Land use history (1730-1990) and vegeta-
tion dynamics in central New England, USA. Journal of
Ecology 80:753772.
Franklin, J. F., and R. T. T. Forman. 1987. Creating landscape
patterns by forest cutting: ecological consequences and
principles. Landscape Ecology 1:518.
Giles, R. H., Jr., and M. K. Trani. 1999. Key elements of
landscape pattern measures. Environmental Management
23:477 481.
Glasbey, C. A., and G. W. Horgan. 1995. Image analysis for the
biological sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK 218.
Groom, M. J., and N. H. Schumaker. 1993. Evaluating land-
scape change: patterns of worldwide deforestation and local
fragmentation. Pages 24 44 in P. M. Kareiva, J. G. King-
solver, and R. B. Huey. Eds, Biotic interactions and global
change. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachuse.
Gustafson, E. J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern:
what is the state of the art?. Ecosystems 1:143156.
Gustafson, E. J., and G. R. Parker. 1991. An automated
method to quantify habitat spatial pattern from satellite
images. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 72:132.
Gustafson, E. J., and G. R. Parker. 1992. Relationships be-
tween landcover proportion and indices of landscape spa-
tial pattern. Landscape Ecology 7:101110.
Gustafson, E. J., and G. R. Parker. 1994. Using an index of
habitat patch proximity for landscape design. Landscape and
Urban Planning 29:117130.
Haines-Young, R., and M. Chopping. 1996. Quantifying land-
scape structure: a review of landscape indices and their

application to forested landscapes. Progress in Physical Geog-
raphy 20:418 445.
Hansen, A. J., D. L. Urban, and B. Marks. 1992. Avian com-
munity dynamics: the interplay of landscape trajectories and
species life histories. Pages 170195 in A. J. Hansen, and F.
diCastri. Eds, Landscape boundaries consequences for bi-
otic diversity and ecological flows. Springer-Verlag, New York.
He, H. S., B. E. DeZonia, and D. J. Mladenoff. 2000. An
aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of land-
scapes. Landscape Ecology 15:591 601.
Herzog, F., A. Lausch, E. Muller, H. H. Thulke, U. Steinhardt,
and S. Lehmann. 2001. Landscape metrics for assessment of
landscape destruction and rehabilitation. Environmental
Management 27:91107.
Heywood, V. H., and R. T. Watson. 1995. Global biodiversity
assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1140.
Jaeger, J. A. G. 2000. Landscape division, splitting index, and
effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmenta-
tion. Landscape Ecology 15:115130.
Johnston, C. A. 1998. Geographic information systems in ecol-
ogy. Blackwell Science, Oxford 239.
Jorge, L. A. B., and G. B. Garcia. 1997. A study of habitat
fragmentation in southeastern Brazil using remote sensing
and geographic information systems (GIS). Forest Ecology
and Management 98:35 47.
Kolasa, J., and N. Waltho. 1998. A hierarchical view of habitat
and its relationship for species abundance. Pages 5576 in
D. L. Peterson, and V. T. Parker. Eds, Ecological scaletheory
and applications. Columbia University Press, New York.
Lawrence, R. L., and W. J. Ripple. 1996. Determining patch
perimeters in raster image processing and geographic in-
formation systems. International Journal of Remote Sensing
17:12551259.
Li, B.-L., and S. Archer. 1997. Weighted mean patch size: a
robust index for quantifying landscape structure. Ecological
Modelling 102:353361.
Lovejoy, T. E., R. O. Jr. Bierregaard, A. B. Rylands, J. R.
Malcolm, C. E. Quintela, L. H. Harper, K. S., Jr. Brown,
A. H. Powell, G. V. N. Powell, H. O. R. Schubart, and M. B.
Hays. 1986. Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazon
forest fragments. Pages 257285 in M. E. Soule Eds, Con-
servation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Si-
nauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
McGarigal, K., and Marks. B. J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pat-
tern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure (PNW-
GTR-351). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pa-
cific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR 122 pp.
Mladenoff, D. J., and DeZonia. B. 1999. APACK 2.11 Analysis
software users guide. Draft version. 43 pp.
ONeill, R. V., J. R. Krummel, R. H. Gardner, G. Sugihara, B.
Jackson, D. L. DeAngelis, B. T. Milne, M. G. Turner, B.
Zygmunt, S. W. Christensen, V. H. Dale, and R. L. Graham.
1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology
1:153162.
Roseberry, J. L., and Q. Hao. 1996. Interactive computer
program for landscape-level habitat analysis. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 24:340 341.
Rosenfeld, A. 1974. Compact figures in digital pictures. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 4:221223.
Spatial landscape transformation processes 73
Salvador-Van Eysenrode, D., Bogaert, J. and Impens. I. 1998a.
Horizontal canopy gap occlusion at the Tiputini Biodiver-
sity Station, Amazonian Ecuador. Pages 60 61 in Proceed-
ings of the second international canopy conferenceforest
canopies: global perspectives. The Marie Selby Botanical
Gardens, Sarasota.
Salvador-Van Eysenrode, D., J. Bogaert, P. Van Hecke, and I.
Impens. 1998b. Influence of tree-fall orientation on canopy
gap shape in an Ecuadorian rain forest. Journal of Tropical
Ecology 14:865 869.
Salvador-Van Eysenrode, D., J. Bogaert, and I. Impens. 1999a.
Canopy gap morphology determinants in an Amazonian
rain forest. Selbyana 20:339 344.
Salvador-Van Eysenrode, D., J. Bogaert, P. Van Hecke, and I.
Impens. 1999b. Canopy perforation in Amazonian Ecuador.
Coenoses 14:1321.
Salvador-Van Eysenrode, D., J. Bogaert, P. Van Hecke, and I.
Impens. 2000a. Forest canopy perforation in time and space
in Amazonian Ecuador. Acta Oecologica 21:285291.
Salvador-Van Eysenrode, D., V. Zak-Mnacek, J. Bogaert, and P.
Van Hecke. 2000b. Species diversity and community struc-
ture of canopy gaps and mature forest patches in Amazo-
nian Ecuador. Pages 133141 in R. Ceulemans, J. Bogaert,
G. Deckmyn, and I. Nijs. Eds, Topics in ecology: structure
and function in plants and ecosystems. University of Ant-
werp, UIA, Wilrijk.
Salvador-Van Eysenrode, D., F. Kockelbergh, J. Bogaert, I.
Impens, and P. Van Hecke. 2002. Canopy gap edge deter-
mination and the importance of gap edges for plant diver-
sity. Web Ecology 3:15.
Saunders, D. A., R. J. Hobbs, and C. R. Margules. 1991.
Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a re-
view. Conservation Biology 5:18 32.
Shafer, C. L. 1990. Nature reserves. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington 189.
Stauffer, D. 1985. Introduction to percolation theory. Taylor
& Francis, London 124.
Schumaker, N. H. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict
habitat connectivity. Ecology 77:1210 1225.
Stine, P.A., and C.T. Hunsaker. 2001. An introduction to
uncertainty issues for spatial data used in ecological appli-
cations. Pages 91107 in C.T. Hunsaker, M. Goodchild,
M.A. Friedl, and T.J. Case. Eds, Spatial uncertainty in ecol-
ogyimplications for remote sensing and GIS applications.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Turner, M.G., and C.L. Ruscher. 1988. Changes in landscape
patterns in Georgia, USA. Landscape Ecology 1:241251.
Vitousek, P.M. 1994. Beyond global warming: ecology and
global change. Ecology 75:18611876.
Walker, B., and Steffen W. (eds.). 1997. The terrestrial biosphere
and global change: implications for natural and managed ecosys-
tems. A synthesis of GCTE and related research. IGBP Science
No. 1. IGBP, Stockholm, 32 pp.
Wickham, J.D., K.H. Riiters, R.V. ONeill, K.B. Jones, and T.G.
Wade. 1996. Landscape contagion in raster and vector
environments. International Journal of Geographical Informa-
tion Systems 10:891 899.