The Gradient Paradigm: A Conceptual and Analytical Framework for Landscape Ecology

  • Samuel A. Cushman
  • Kevin Gutzweiler
  • Jeffrey S. Evans
  • Kevin McGarigal


Landscape ecology deals fundamentally with how, when, and why patterns of environmental factors influence the distribution of organisms and ecological processes, and reciprocally, how the actions of organisms and ecological processes influence ecological patterns (Urban et al. 1991; Turner 1989). The landscape ecologist's goal is to determine where and when spatial and temporal heterogeneity matter, and how they influence processes. A fundamental issue in this effort revolves around the choices a researcher makes about how to depict and measure heterogeneity (Turner 1989; Wiens 1989). Indeed, observed patterns and their apparent relationships with response variables often depend on the scale that is chosen for observation and the rules that are adopted for defining and measuring variables (Wiens 1989; Wu and Hobbs 2000; Wu and Hobbs 2004). Success in understanding pattern-process relationships hinges on accurately characterizing heterogeneity in a manner that is relevant to the organism or process under consideration.


Landscape Ecology Habitat Patch Landscape Pattern Landscape Structure Canopy Density 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen TFH, Starr TB (1982) Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker WL, Cai Y (1992) The r.le programs for multiscale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information system. Landsc Ecol 7:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbato G, Carneiro K, Cuppini D, Garnaes J, Gori G, Hughes G, Jensen CP, Jorgensen JF, Jusko O, Livi S, McQuoid H, Nielsen L, Picotto GB, Wilening G (1995) Scanning tunnelling microscopy methods for the characterization of roughness and micro hardness measurements. Synthesis report for research contract with the European Union under its programme for applied metrology. European Commission Catalogue number: CDNA-16145 EN-C Brussels LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnsely MF, Devaney RL, Mandelbrot BB, Petigen H, Saupe D, Voss RF (1988) The science of fractal images. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw GA, Spies TA (1992) Characterizing canopy gap structure in forests using wavelet analysis. J Ecol 80:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cho E, Chon T (2006) Application of wavelet analysis to ecological data. Ecol Informat 1:229–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chui CK (1992) An introduction to wavelets. Academic, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  8. Clements FE (1916) The nature and structure of the climax. J Ecol 24:252–284Google Scholar
  9. Cohen A (1995) Wavelets and multiscale signal processing. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Corander J, Waldmann P, Sillanpää MJ (2003) Bayesian analysis of genetic differentiation between populations. Genetics 163:367–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2004) Hierarchical analysis of forest bird species-environment relationships in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Applications. 14(4):1090–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushman SA, McKenzie D, Peterson DL, Littell J, McKelvey KS (2007) Research agenda for integrated landscape modelling. USDA For. Serv. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-194.Google Scholar
  13. Dutilleul P (1993) Modifying the t-test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 49:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans JS, Hudak AT (2007) A multiscale curvature algorithm for classifying discrete return lidar in forested environments. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 45:1029–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans JS, Cushman SA (2009) Gradient modeling of conifer species using random forests. Landscape Ecology 24:673–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ewe HT, Au WC, Shin RT, Kong JA (1993) Classification of SAR images using a fractal approach. Proceedings of Progress in Electromagnetic Research Symposium (PIERS) Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  17. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. François O, Ancelet S, Guillot G (2006) Bayesian clustering using hidden Markov random fields in spatial population genetics. Genetics 174:805–816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Funk WC, Blouin MS, Corn PS, Maxell BA, Pilliod DS, Amish S, Allendorf FW (2005) Population structure of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) is strongly affected by the landscape. Mol Ecol14:483–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gleason HA (1926) The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bull Torr Bot Club 53:7–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guthrie KA, Sheppard L (2001) Overcoming biases and misconceptions in ecological studies. J Roy Stat Soc Stat Soc 164:141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. He HS, DeZonia BE, Mladenoff DJ (2000) An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landsc Ecol 15:591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holderegger R, Wagner HH (2006) A brief guide to landscape genetics. Landsc Ecol 21:793–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quantitative Biol 22:415–427Google Scholar
  26. Jelinski DE, Wu J (1996) The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 11:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahane JP, Lemarie PG (1995) Fourier series and wavelets.Studies in the Development of Modern Mathematics, vol 3. Gordon and Research PublishersGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaiser G (1994) A friendly guide to wavelets. BirkhauserGoogle Scholar
  30. Kotliar NB, Wiens JA (1990) Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mandelbrot BB (1982) The fractal geometry of nature. W.H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Manel S, Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Taberlet P (2003) Landscape genetics: the combination of landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends in Ecol Evol 18:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manni F, Guerard E, Heyer E (2004) Geographic patterns of (genetic, morphologic, linguistic) variation: how barriers can be detected by using Monmonier's algorithm. Hum Biol 76:173–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Manning AD, Lindenmayer B, Nix HA (2004) Continua and umwelt: novel perspectives on viewing landscapes. Oikos 104:621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation. Ecol Appl 12:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA For Serv Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-351Google Scholar
  39. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Stafford S (2000) Multivariate statistics for wildlife and ecology research. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst
  41. McIntyre S, Barrett GW (1992) Habitat variegation, an alternative to fragmentation. Conservat Biol 4:197–202Google Scholar
  42. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Michels E, Cottenie K, Neys L, DeGalas K, Coppin P, DeMeester L (2001) Geographical and genetic distances among zooplankton populations in a set of interconnected ponds: a plea for using GIS modeling of the effective geographical distance. Mol Ecol 10:1929–1938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Moore ID, Gryson RB, Ladson AR (1991) Digital terrain modeling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrolog Process 5:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murphy MA, Evans JS, Cushman SA, Storfer A (2008) Representing genetic variation as continuous surfaces: An approach for identifying spatial dependency in landscape genetic studies. Ecography 31:685–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ohmann JL, Gregory MJ (2002) Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 32:725–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. O'Neill RV, DeAngelis DL, Waide JB, Allen TFH (1986) A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  48. O'Neill RV, Johnson AR, King AW (1989) A hierarchical framework for the analysis of scale. Landsc Ecol 3:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Openshaw S (1984) The modifiable areal unit problem. Norwich: Geo Books. ISBN 0-86094-134-5Google Scholar
  50. Pentland AP (1984) Fractal-based description of natural scenes. IEEE Trans Patt Anal Mach Intel 6:661–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peterson DL, Parker VT (1998) Ecological scale: theory and applications. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Plotnick RE, Gardner RH, O'Neill RV (1993) Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landsc Ecol 8:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Proctor MF, McLellan BN, Strobeck C, Barclay RMR (2005) Genetic analysis reveals demographic fragmentation of grizzly bears yielding vulnerability by small populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272:2409–2416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Rehfeldt GE, Crookston NL, Warwell MV, Evans JS (2006) Empirical analyses of plant-climate relationships for the western United States. Int J Plant Sci 167:1123–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Robinson WS (1950) Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Am Socio Rev 15:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spear SF, Peterson CR, Matacq M, Storfer A (2005) Landscape genetics of the blotched tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum melanostictum). Mol Ecol 14:2553–2564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. SPIP (2001) The scanning probe image processor. Image Metrology APS, Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  59. Schneider DC (1994) Quantitative ecology: spatial and temporal scaling. Academic, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  60. Stout KJ, Sullivan PJ, Dong WP, Mainsah E, Lou N, Mathia T, Zahouani H (1994) The development of methods for the characterization of roughness on three dimensions. Publication no EUR 15178 EN of the Commission of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  61. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Evans JS, Goldberg CS, Robinson S, Spear SF, Dezzani R, Delmelle E, Vierling L, Waits LP (2006) Putting the ‘landscape’ in landscape genetics. Heredity 2006:1–15Google Scholar
  62. ter Braak CJF (1988) Partial canonical correspondence analysis. In: Bock HH (ed.) Classification and related methods of data analysis. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  63. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annl Rev Ecol System 20:171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Turner MG, O'Neill RV, Gardner RH, Milne BT (1989) Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 3:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Urban DL, O'Neill RV, Shugart HH (1991) Landscape ecology. BioScience 37:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Urban DL, Goslee S, Pierce K, Lookingbill T (2002) Extending community ecology to landscapes. Ecoscience 9:200–212Google Scholar
  67. Villarrubia JS (1997) Algorithms for scanned probe microscope, image simulation, surface reconstruction and tip estimation. J Nat Inst Stand Tech 102:435–454Google Scholar
  68. Webster R, Oliver M (2001) Geostatistics for environmental scientists. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  69. Whittaker RH (1967) Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biol Rev 42:207–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wiens JA (2001) Understanding the problem of scale in experimental ecology. In: Gardner RH, Kemp WM, Kennedy VS, Petersen JE (eds) Scaling relations in experimental ecology. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Wiens JA, Stenseth NC, Van Horne B, Ims RA (1993) Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wood CH, Skole D (1998) Linking satellite, census, and survey data to study deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. In: Liverman D, Moran EF, Rindfuss RR, Stern PC (eds) People and pixels: linking remote sensing and social science. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  74. Wright S (1921) Correlation and causation. J Agric Res 20:557–585Google Scholar
  75. Wright S (1943) Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Wright S (1960) Path coefficients and path regressions: alternative or complementary concepts? Biometrics 16:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wu J (2007) Scale and scaling: a cross-disciplinary perspective. In: Wu J, Hobbs RJ (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  78. Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landsc Ecol 17:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel A. Cushman
    • Kevin Gutzweiler
      • 1
    • Jeffrey S. Evans
    • Kevin McGarigal
      • 2
    1. 1.Baylor UniversityWacoUSA
    2. 2.Department of Natural Resources ConservationUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

    Personalised recommendations