5/15/2016
1
Dr. Kaswanto Senin 15 Mei 2016
References: 1. Principles and Methods in
Landscape Ecology Almo Farina
2. Landscape ecology principles in Landscape Architecture and Land use Planning Wenche E. Dramstad, James D. Olson, Richard T.T. Forman
3. International Journals PPT would be uploaded to the BLOG
SCALE
Outline: 1.Introduction 2. Fractal Dimension 3. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 4. Remote Sensing (RS) 5. Case Studies
CAPAIAN PEMBELAJARAN
Mahasiswa mampu menjelaskan skala manajemen lanskap, dimensi metriks lanskap, dan konsep GIS & RS untuk
manajemen lanskap yang berkelanjutan.
The study of the landscape requires metrics but also additional tools like Databases, Spatial Statistics, Geographic Information Systems, Remote Sensing Techniques and Global Positioning Systems, that are used in many other circumstances.
These methodologies are applied in geology, geography, navigation, agronomy, climatic economics and social sciences, forecasting, etc.
At least 4 methodological approaches to study landscape metrics: 1) numerical analysis, 2) spatial analysis, 3) multiscalar analysis and 4) spatial modeling analysis.
5/15/2016
2
Landscape analysis can be performed on at least at four levels of spatial resolution: individual, patch, mosaic and landscape
The measurement of distances can be done according a selection of possibilities: 1. from each patch to all the
adjacent neighbors of each patch.
2. from a patch to all others of the same group,
3. from each patch to the single nearest patch of a different group,
4. from a patch of a specific group to another patch of a specific group (ex. 9-4-9)
5/15/2016
3
Example of different complexity of a vegetation border expressed by the fractal dimension D, note that the increase of edges is equivalent to the increase of fractal dimension.
The GIS appears indispensable for most landscape investigations like: Land use change Vegetation patterning Animal distribution across the landscape Linking remote sensing with topography Modeling processes across the landscape
5/15/2016
5
Spectral and spatial resolution for the
commonest civilian satellites:
AVHRR, MSS, TM and SPOT, and the
electromagnetic spectral response
curve for green vegetation
(Iverson et al. 1989).
www.gpsireland.ie/
www.engadget.com
5/15/2016
6
http://archaeology.about.com/
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com
1. Bird community ecology 2. Rectify aerial photographs 3. Low-altitude oblique photographs 4. mapping vegetation patches on the ground with an
accuracy of 5m after differential correction. 5. Etc.
1. AEZ
2. UHI
3. LUCC
4. Carbon Stock
5. Water Quality
Distribusi Klas Elevasi (atas kiri), Klas Kemiringan Lereng (atas kanan)
Existing Tataguna Lahan (tengah kiri), Jenis Tanah (tengah-kanan)
Bahaya Erosi (bawah kiri), dan usulan tata guna lahan ekologis (bawah kanan)
DAS Cianjur – Sub-DAS Citarum ( Saroinsong, Arifin, Gandasasmita & Takeuchi, 2003)
CASE STUDY 1: AEZ - DAS CIANJUR
BACK
5/15/2016
7
(Wang et al, 2012)
(Wang et al, 2012) BACK
CILIWUNG WATERSHED
40
(PPLH IPB 2004)
CILIWUNG WATERSHED
41 (PPLH IPB 2004)
42
Land Use Change on Spatial Pattern
5/15/2016
8
43
LANDSAT Satellite Images (1989, 2001 and 2009)
Land Use and Cover Classification
1. Type of land use pattern change
2. Forest Annual Rate Change
3. The Driving Factors of Change
• Altitude • Slope • Population density • Distance to major road • Distance to river • Distance to urban area • Soil drainage
• Appearance • Disappearance • Expansion • Annexation • Reduction • Division • Remain
Calculated with the formula proposed Puyravaud (2003):
Impact of land use changes on spatial pattern of landscape
𝑃 % 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 100
𝑡2 − 𝑡1
𝑙𝑛𝐴2
𝐴1
1. Type of change of land use pattern (1989 vs. 2009)
44
Source: Someya et al. (2009)
The annual rate of change for forest was calculated with the formula proposed by Puyravaud (2003):
A2 and A1 = the forest cover areas at the end and the beginning, respectively, of the period being evaluated.
t1 and t2 = the numbers of years spanning on that period.
𝑃 % 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 100
𝑡2 − 𝑡1𝑙𝑛
𝐴2
𝐴1
2. The Annual Rate of Change
𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑃𝑖
1 −𝑃𝑖 = β
0+ β
1𝑋1,𝑖 + β
2𝑋2,𝑖 + ⋯+ β
n𝑋𝑛 ,𝑖
Pi = the probability of a grid cell for the occurrence of land use type. X’s = the driving factors. Βi = the coefficient of each driving factor in the logistic model.
3. The Driving Factors of Change
45
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
AP DA EX AN RD DI RE
Are
a o
f C
han
ge
(ha)
Th
ou
san
ds
Type of Change
Cisadane Watershed
1989
2009
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
AP DA EX AN RD DI RE
Are
a o
f C
han
ge
(ha)
Th
ou
san
ds
Type of Change
Ciliwung Watershed
1989
2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
AP DA EX AN RD DI RE
Are
a o
f C
han
ge
(ha)
Th
ou
san
ds
Type of Change
Cimandiri Watershed
1989
2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
AP DA EX AN RD DI RE
Are
a o
f C
han
ge
(ha)
Th
ou
san
ds
Type of Change
Cibuni Watershed
1989
2009
Results
AP: Appearance, DA: Disappearance, EP: Expansion, AN: Annexation, RD: Reduction, DI: Division, RM: Remain
Changes in the areas of the various types of forests pattern Cisadane Watershed
The Land Use Changes in the Northern Areas
Variables Northern
F G A B Altitude 0.0012 0.0054 - 0.0089 - 0.0074 Slope 0.0302 0.0323 - 0.0002 0.0098 Population density - 0.0003 - 0.0001 - 0.0007 - 0.0002 Distance to major road 0.0261 0.0098 0.0021 - Distance to river 0.0043 0.0001 0.0001 - Distance to urban area - 0.0584 - 0.0691 0.0021 - 0.0012 Soil drainage 0.0745 0.0689 - 0.0891 0.0025
Variables Southern
F G A B Altitude 0.0032 0.0010 - 0.0198 - 0.0074 Slope 0.0502 0.0356 - 0.0112 0.0058 Population density - 0.0653 - 0.0001 - 0.0001 - 0.0001 Distance to major road 0.0037 0.0043 0.0163 - Distance to river 0.0083 0.0163 0.0653 - Distance to urban area - 0.9834 - 0.0451 0.0001 - 0.0002 Soil drainage 0.0519 0.0889 - 0.0341 0.0001
Ciliwung Watershed
0
20
40
60
80
100
1989 2001 2009
Are
a
(Th
ou
san
d h
a)
Year
Forest Grass land Agriculture land Built-up area
0
20
40
60
1989 2001 2009
Are
a
(Th
ou
san
d h
a)
Year
Forest Grass land Agriculture land Built-up area
47
Cimandiri Watershed
Variables Southern
F G A B Altitude 0.0010 0.0098 0.0001 - 0.0274 Slope - 0.0282 0.0093 - 0.0072 0.0738 Population density - 0.0001 - 0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0051 Distance to major road 0.0056 0.0043 0.0025 - Distance to river 0.0098 0.0001 0.0002 - Distance to urban area - 0.0025 - 0.0001 0.0001 - 0.0009 Soil drainage 0.2378 0.7629 - 0.0091 - 0.0001
Variables Southern
F G A B Altitude 0.0012 0.0014 0.0001 0.0024 Slope 0.0302 0.0413 - 0.0112 0.0138 Population density - 0.0003 - 0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0091 Distance to major road 0.0098 0.0014 0.0021 - Distance to river 0.0024 0.0084 0.0174 - Distance to urban area - 0.0064 0.0001 0.0001 - 0.0292 Soil drainage 0.0519 0.8689 - 0.0641 0.0009
Cibuni Watershed
The Land Use Changes in the Southern Areas
0
50
100
150
1989 2001 2009
Are
a
(Th
ou
san
d h
a)
Year
Forest Grass land Agriculture land Built-up area
0
20
40
60
80
100
1989 2001 2009
Are
a
(Th
ou
san
d h
a)
Year
Forest Grass land Agriculture land Built-up area
48
BACK
5/15/2016
9
Carbon Stock Estimation
Carbon at Agro-forestry Landscapes • Biomass • Necromass • Soil Organic Matter
Above Ground • Trees Biomass • Understorey plants • Necromass • Litter Below Ground • Soil Organic Matter
CASE STUDY 4: Carbon Stock Estimation
Carbon Stock Estimation
50
Cisadane Ciliwung
Cimandiri Cibuni
50
Carbon Stock Estimation
Plants Biomass
Sampling plot in each land use
•Trees •Root •Understorey
Necromass Soil Organic Matter
•Wooden •Non-wooden
• Depth 0 -5, 5-15, &15-30 cm
LANDSAT image
LULC classification
Calculating C stock in each land use
Methods
51
THE SCALING UP Short Explanation
1 • Tree scale
• Crops scale
2 • Plot scale
• Quadrant scale
3 • Landscape scale
• Land use scale
4 • Watershed Scale
• Regional Scale
C ~ Plant
C ~ Plot
C ~ Land use
C ~ Watershed
52
Sampling Plot Procedure
Land use
Big Plot 20 x 100 m
Small Plot 5 x 40 m
Sub Plot 2 * (0.5 x 0.5 m)
Tree with dbh > 30 cm Tree with dbh < 30 cm Understorey and Litter
1 land utilization type 3 sampling plots.
1 watershed 16 type of land utilizations.
1 watershed 48 plots, in total 192 plots were measured.
Note: 0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
53
Main Land Use Type No Land Utilization Type Code Description
Forest 1 Primary Forest PF Natural forest
2 Secondary Forest SF Replanted forest
3 Rubber Forest RF Dominated by Hevea brasiliensis plants
4 Albizia Forest AF Dominated by Paraserianthes falcataria plants
Grassland/bareland 5 Imperata IC Bareland covered by Imperata cylindrica
6 Cassava CS Dominated by Manihot esculenta cultivation
7 Grassland 1 GS1 Grassland with herbaceous plants
8 Grassland 2 GS2 Grassland with mixed grass species
Agriculture land 9 Tea plantation TP Tea (Camellia sinensis) cultivation
10 Cacao plantation CP Cacao (Theobroma cacao) cultivation
11 Vegetable Dryfield VD Highland vegetables, dryfield
12 Strachy Crops dryfield SD Mixed strachy crops, dryfield
13 Agroforestry 1 AF1 Agroforestry system dominated by coconut and/or bamboo species
14 Agroforestry 2 AF2 Agroforestry system dominated by mahogany and/or fruit trees species
15 Paddyfield 1 PF1 Paddy field local rice cultivar
16 Paddyfield 2 PF2 Paddy field with cultivar R-64
Land Utilization Types
54
5/15/2016
10
55
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
PF SF RF AF IC CS GS1 GS2 PT1 PT2 VD SD AF1 AF2 PD1 PD2
Are
a (h
a)
Th
ou
san
ds
Am
ou
nt
of
C S
tock
(M
g/h
a )
Land Use Types
Cisadane Watershed
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
PF SF RF AF IC CS GS1 GS2 PT1 PT2 VD SD AF1 AF2 PF1 PF2
Are
a (h
a)
Th
ou
san
ds
Am
ou
nt
of
C S
tock
(M
g/h
a)
Land Use Types
Ciliwung Watershed
PF SF RF AF IC CS GS1 GS2 PT1 PT2 VD SD AF1 AF2 PF1 PF2
Trees Understorey Necromass Litter Soil 0-5 cm Soil 5-15 cm Soil 5-15 cm Area
Results
The NAs
PF SF RF AF IC CS GS1 GS2 PT1 PT2 VD SD AF1 AF2 PF1 PF2
Trees Understorey Necromass Litter Soil 0-5 cm Soil 5-15 cm Soil 5-15 cm Area
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
PF SF RF AF IC CS GS1 GS2 PT1 PT2 VD SD AF1 AF2 PF1 PF2
Are
a (h
a)
Th
ou
san
ds
Am
ou
nt
of
C S
tock
(M
g/h
a)
Land Use Types
Cimandiri Watershed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
PF SF RF AF IC CS GS1 GS2 PT1 PT2 VD SD AF1 AF2 PF1 PF2
Are
a (h
a)
Th
ou
san
ds
Am
ou
nt
of
C S
tock
(M
g/h
a)
Land Use Types
Cibuni Watershed
The SAs
BACK
Water Resources Management
CASE STUDY 5: Water Quality
Based on result from preliminary research, the water quality was measured through 11 parameters.
Those are (1) Dissolved Oxygen: DO, (2) Biological Oxygen Demand: BOD, (3) Chemical Oxygen Demand: COD, (4) Ammonium: NH4, (5) Nitrate: NO3, (6) Nitrite: NO2, (7) Phosphate: PO4, (8) Acidity: pH, (9) Alkalinity: OH-, (10) Bacteria Escherichia coli, and (11) General Bacteria - others than E. coli.
57
Down Stream
Middle Stream
Upper Stream
700 m asl
300 m asl
Village Samples
Water Samples: • 4 watersheds • 6 villages in each watershed • 4 locations in each village • 3 repetitions in a location
Total: 4 x 6 x 4 x 3 = 288 samples
Water Quality Samples Locations
58
Water Resources Management
59
11 Parameters: • DO • COD • BOD • Nitrite
• Nitrate
• Ammonium
• Phosphate
• Alkalinity • Acidity • Escherichia coli • General Bacteria
Water Resources Management
Parameters Pi Normalization Factor (Ci)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
DO 4.0 >7.5 >7 >6.5 >6 >5 >4 >3.5 >3 >2 1 <1
COD 3.0 <5 <10 <20 <30 <40 <50 <60 <80 <100 ≤150 >150
BOD 3.0 <0.5 <2 <3 <4 <5 <6 <8 <10 <12 ≤15 >15
NO2-N 2.0 <0.005 <0.008 <0.01 <0.04 <0.075 <0.1 <0.15 <0.2 <0.25 ≤0.5 >0.5
NO3-N 2.1 <0.5 <2 <4 <6 <8 <10 <15 <20 <40 ≤70 >70
NH4-N 3.0 <0.01 <0.05 0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.4 <0.5 <0.75 <1 ≤1.25 >1.25
PO4 1.1 <0.025 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.5 <0.75 <1 <1.5 ≤2 >2
Alkalinity 1.7 <20 <40 <60 <80 <100 <120 <140 <160 <180 ≤200 >200
pH 1.9 7 6.9-7.5 6.7-7.8 6.5-8.3 6.2-8.7 5.8-9.0 5.5-9.5 5.0-10.0 4.5-10.5 4.0-11.5 <4.0;>11.5
Escherichia coli 3.0 <50 <500 <1000 <2000 <3000 <4000 <5000 <7000 <10000 ≤14000 >14000
Fecal Coliform 3.6 <50 <500 <1000 <2000 <3000 <4000 <5000 <7000 <10000 ≤14000 >14000
WQI formula proposed by Rodriguez de Bascaroan (Pesce & Wunderlin, 2000)
*All values are in mg/l, except for pH (pH unit) and bacteria (MPN/100ml).
5/15/2016
11
Water Resources Management
61
Excellent
Good
Medium
Bad
Very Bad
Results
Classification of WQI in stream level and water sample location. All WQI values are situated at “good” and “medium” levels. The different letter show the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
a a a a b
c d
Water Resources Management
Among four locations, the highest to the lowest WQI values are springs, ponds, paddy fields and rivers, respectively.
Springs
Rivers
Ponds
Paddy Fields
1 Village
WQ Sample Location
BACK
63
Landscape Pattern Analysis
Pekarangan Management
Water Quality Analysis
Carbon in Pekarangan
LCS in Pekarangan
Carbon Stock Estimation
Carbon Stock at Macro Scale
The Driving Forces
Water Resources Management
Sustainable of Water Management
Land Cover Classification
Designing Agro-forestry Landscapes
Landscape Ecology •Structure •Function •Dynamics •Culture
Conservation Area
Carbon Stock in Watershed
Carbon Stock at Micro Scale
Top Related