Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Miscellanea Geographica

Regional Studies on Development

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.40

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.227
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.404

14 points
in the Ministerial journal value rating scale.

Covered by e.g. Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science Core Collection by Clarivate Analytics, formerly Thomson Reuters) and SCOPUS by Elsevier

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2084-6118
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Main aspects of system hierarchy in ecological landscape research

Andrzej Richling
  • 1Department of Geoecology Institute of Physical Geography Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies University of Warsaw
  • Department of Tourism and Recreation Faculty of Health and Social Sciences Pope John Paul II State School of Higher Education in Biała Podlaska
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jerzy Lechnio
  • 1Department of Geoecology Institute of Physical Geography Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies University of Warsaw
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2013-12-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10288-012-0049-7

Abstract

At present, geoecology-related discussions are focused on the ability to provide systematic and universal landscape description in a variety of space and time scales, as well as in different functional systems. This requires the development of landscape schemes in the form of hierarchical structural and functional systems. This paper has therefore focused on concepts of crucial importance for landscape system description, such as scale, spatial range and structure and landscape functioning. The definition of these concepts and their characteristics are crucial for the ability to describe a landscape system, in terms of its structural and functional composition and valuation, as well as assessment of landscape and ecosystem functions and services. Therefore, the analysis allows a demonstration of approaches discussed in the subject literature and the authors’ opinions.

Keywords: Landscape; hierarchical system; landscape structure; scale; landscape dynamics; landscape classification systems

  • Aaviksoo, K 1995, ‘Simulating vegetation dynamics and land use in a mire landscape using a Markov model’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 129–142.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Allen, TFH & Hoekstra, TW 1992, Toward a unified ecology, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

  • Allen, TFH & Starr, TB 1982, Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity, University Press, Chicago, London.Google Scholar

  • Ares, J., Bertiller, M & del Valle, H 2001, ‘Functional and structural landscape indicators of intensification, resilience and resistance in agroecosystems in southern Argentina based on remotely sensed data‘, Landscape Ecol., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 221–234.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Auger, P & Lett, C 2003, ‘Integrative biology: linking levels of organization’, Comptes Rendus Biologie, vol. 326, no. 5, pp. 517–522.Google Scholar

  • Barsch, H 1979, ‘W sprawie pojęć dotyczących powłoki ziemskiej i jej przestrzennego rozczłonkowania w terminologii nauki o krajobrazie’ [On the concepts of the Earth surface and its spatial fragmentation in the terminology of the landscape science], Przegląd Zagranicznej Literatury Geograficznej, vol. 2, pp. 9–15.Google Scholar

  • Bailey, RG 1987, ‘Suggested hierarchy of criteria for multiscale ecosystem mapping’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol.14, pp. 313–319.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benito-Calvo, A, Pérez-González, A, Magri, O & Meza, P 2009, ‘Assessing regional geodiversity: the Iberian Peninsula’, Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, vol. 34, pp. 1433–1445.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bertalanffy von, L 1976, General system theory: foundations, development, applications, (Pub) George Braziller.Google Scholar

  • Bissonette, JA, 1997, ‘Scale-sensitive ecological properties: historical context, current meaning’ in Wildlife and landscape ecology: effects of pattern and scale, ed JA Bissonette, Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar

  • Blaschke, T & Petch, J 1999, ‘Landscape structure and scale: comparative studies on some landscape indices in Germany and the UK’ in Heterogeneity in landscape ecology: pattern and scale eds M Maudsley & J Marshall, IALE UK, Bristol, pp. 75–84.Google Scholar

  • Bugmann, H, Lindner, M, Lasch, P, Flechsig, M, Ebert, B & Cramer, W 2000, ‘Scaling issues in forest succession modelling’, Climatic Change, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 265–289.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cadenasso, ML, Pickett, STA, Weathers, KC, Bell, SS, Benning, TL, Carreir, MM & Dawson, TE 2003a, ‘An interdisciplinary and synthetic approach to ecological boundaries’, BioScience, vol. 53, pp. 717–722.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cadenasso, ML, Pickett, STA, Weathers, KC & Jones, CG 2003b, ‘A framework for a theory of ecological boundaries’, BioScience, vol. 53, pp. 750–758.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chmielewski, T 2008, ‘Zmierzając ku ogólnej teorii systemów krajobrazowych’ [Towards a general theory of landscape systems], The Problems of Landscape Ecology, vol. 21, pp. 93–108.Google Scholar

  • Corenblit, D, Baas, ACW, Bornette, G, Darrozes, J, Delmotte, S, Francis, RA, Gurnell, AM, Julien, F, Niman, RJ & Steiger, J 2011, ‘Feedbacks between geomorphology and biota controlling Earth surface processes and landforms: A review of foundation concepts and current understandings’, Earth Science Reviews, vol. 106, pp. 307–331.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cushman, SA & McGarigal, K 2002, ‘Hierarchical, multi-scale decomposition of species-environment relationships’, Landscape Ecol., vol. 17, pp. 637–646.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dungan, JL, Perry, JN, Dale, MRT, Legendre, P, Citron-Pousty, S, Fortin, MJ, Jakomulska, A, Miriti, M & Rosenberg, MS 2002, ‘A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis’, Ecography, vol. 25, pp. 626–640.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Farina, A 2000, Landscape ecology in action, Springer, pp. 317.Google Scholar

  • Fjellstad, WJ & Dramstad, WE, 1999. ‘Patterns of change in two contrasting Norwegian agricultural landscapes’, Landscape Urban, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 177–191.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fischer, J, Lindenmayer, DB, Fazey, I 2004, ‘Appreciating ecological complexity: habitat contours as a conceptual landscape model’, Conserv. Biol., vol. 18, pp. 1245–1253.Google Scholar

  • Forman, RTT & Godron, M 1986, Landscape Ecology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA.Google Scholar

  • Forman, RTT & Moore, PN 1992, ‘Theoretical foundations for understanding boundaries in landscape mosaics’, in Landscape Boundaries, eds AJ Hansen & F di Castri, Ecological Studies, vol. 92, Springer, New York, pp. 236–258.Google Scholar

  • Forman, RTT 1995, Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar

  • Garrett, KA & Dixon, PM 1997, ‘Environmental pseudointeraction: the effects of ignoring the scale of environmental heterogeneity in competition studies’, Theor. Popul. Biol., vol. 51, pp. 37–48.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gibson, CC, Ostrom, E & Ahn, TK 2000, ‘The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey’, Ecological Economics, vol. 32, pp. 217–239.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hansen, AJ & di Castri, F (eds) 1992, Landscape boundaries. Consequences for biotic diversity and ecological flows, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar

  • Hay, GJ, Dubé, P, Bouchard, A & Marceau, DJ 2002, ‘A scalespace primer for exploring and quantifying complex landscapes’, Ecological Modelling, vol. 153, pp. 27–49.Google Scholar

  • Hearnshaw, EJS, Cullen, R & Hughey, KFD, An ecological concept determined by economic means. Commerce division, Lincoln University, environment, society and design division, Lincoln University. Available from: http://www.een. anu.edu.au/e05prpap/hearnshaw.doc [2012.04.02].Google Scholar

  • King, AW 1991, ‘Translating models across scales in the landscape’, in Quantitative methods in landscape ecology: the analysis and interpretation of landscape heterogeneity, eds MG Turner & RH Gardner, Springer, vol. 82, New York, pp. 470–517.Google Scholar

  • Kolasa, J 2006, ‘A community ecology perspective on variability in complex systems: The effects of hierarchy and integration’, Ecological Complexity, vol. 3, pp. 71–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kolasa, J & Zalewski, M 1995, ‘Notes on ecotone attributes and functions’, Hydrobiologia, vol. 303, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar

  • Kondracki, J & Richling, A 1983, ‘Próba uporządkowania terminologii w zakresie geografii fizycznej kompleksowej’ [An attempt to organize the terms in comprehensive physical geography], Przegl. Geogr. vol. 55, no. 1.Google Scholar

  • Kostrzewski, A 2011, ‘The role of relief geodiversity in geomorphology’, Geographica Polonica, vol. 84, Spatial Issue, part 2, pp. 60–74.Google Scholar

  • Kozłowski, S 2004, ‘Geodiversity. The concept and scope of geodiversity’, Przegl. Geol., vol. 52, no.8/2.Google Scholar

  • Kozłowski, S, Migaszewski, Z & Gałuszka, A 2004, ‘Znaczenie georóżnorodności w holistycznej wizji przyrody’ [The importance of geodiversity in the holistic vision of nature], Przegl. Geol., vol. 52, no. 4.Google Scholar

  • Lechnio, J & Richling, A 2005, ‘Model funkcjonowania krajobrazu - ocena dynamiki z zastosowaniem analizy przepływów’ [Model of the landscape functioning - evaluation of dynamics using flow analysis] in Z Problematyki Funkcjonowania Krajobrazów Nizinnych [On the problems of functioning of the lowland landscapes], eds A Richling & J Lechnio, WGSR UW, Warszawa.Google Scholar

  • Leser, H & Nagel, P 1998, ‘Landscape diversity – a holistic approach’ in Biodiversity. A Challenge for Development Research and Policy, eds W Barthloff & M Wininger, Berlin – Heidelberg – New York.Google Scholar

  • Levin, SA 1992, ‘The problem of pattern and scale in ecology’, Ecology, vol. 73, pp. 1943–1967.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lindenmayer, D, Hobbs, RJ, Montague-Drake, R, Alexandra, J, Bennett, A, Burgman, M, Cale, P, Calhoun, A, Cramer, V, Cullen, P, Driscoll, D, Fahrig, L, Fischer, J, Franklin, J, Haila, Y, Hunter, M, Gibbons, P, Lake, S, Luck, G, MacGregor, C, McIntyre, S, Nally, RM, Manning, A, Miller, J, Mooney, H, Noss, R, Possingham, H, Saunders, D, Schmiegelow, F, Scott, M, Simberloff, D, Sisk, T, Tabor, G, Walker, B, Wiens, J, Woinarski, J & Zavaleta, E 2008, ‘A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation’, Ecology Letters, vol. 11, pp. 78–91.Google Scholar

  • Mander, Ü, Müller, F & Wrbka, T 2005, ‘Functional and structural landscape indicators: Upscaling and downscaling problems’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 5, pp. 267–272.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Manning, AD, Lindenmayer, DB & Nix, HA 2004, ‘Continua and umwelt: novel perspectives on viewing landscapes’, Oikos, vol. 104, pp. 621–628.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Manson, SM 2008, ‘Does scale exist? An epistemological scale continuum for complex human-environment systems’, Geoforum, vol. 39, pp. 776–788.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marceau, D 1999, ‘The scale issue in social and natural sciences’, Can. J. Remote Sensing, vol. 25, pp. 347–356.Google Scholar

  • Marceau, DJ & Hay, GJ 1999 ‘Contributions of remote sensing to the scale issues’, Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 25, pp. 357–366.Google Scholar

  • Marušič, J 1999, ‘Landscape typology as a basis for landscape protection and development’, Agriculturae Conseptus Stientificus, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 269–274.Google Scholar

  • McConnell, W 2002, ‘Meeting in the middle: The challenge of meso-level integration’, LUCC Report Series No. 5, Land Use Policy, vol. 19, pp. 99–101.Google Scholar

  • McGarigal, K & Marks, BJ 1995, FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure, USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW.Google Scholar

  • McGarigal, K, Tagil, S & Cushman, SA 2009, ‘Surface metrics: An alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure’, Landscape Ecology, vol. 24, pp. 433– 450.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McIntyre, S & Hobbs, R 1999, ‘A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models’, Conserv. Biol., vol. 13, pp. 1282–1292.Google Scholar

  • Melbourne, BA & Chesson, P 2005, ‘Scaling up population dynamics: integrating theory and data’, Oecologia, vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 179–187.Google Scholar

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework For Assessment, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series. Island Press. Műller, F 1998, ‘Gradients in ecological systems’, Ecological Modelling, vol. 108, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar

  • Müller, J-P, Ratzé, C, Gillet, F & Stoffel, K 2011, Modeling And Simulating Hierarchies Using An Agent-Based Approach, MODSIM 2011. Available from: http://www.mssanz.org. au/ [2012.04.02].Google Scholar

  • Müller, F, Hoffmann-Kroll, R & Wiggering, H 2000, ‘Indicating ecosystem integrity–theoretical concepts and environmental requirements’, Ecological Modelling, vol. 130, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar

  • Naveh, Z 2001, ‘Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 57, pp. 269–284.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nicolis, G & Prigogine, I 1989, Exploring complexity: An introduction, Freeman.Google Scholar

  • Norowi Mohd, H, Perry, JN, Powell, W & Rennolls, K 2000, ‘The effect of spatial scale on the interactions between two weevils and their parasitoid’, Ecol. Entomol., vol. 25, pp. 188–196.Google Scholar

  • O’Neill, RV & King, AW 1998, ‘Homage to St. Michael; or why are there so many books on scale?’ in Ecological scale: theory and applications, eds DL Peterson & VT Parker, Columbia University Press, New York, pp 3–16.Google Scholar

  • O’Neill, RV, DeAngelis, D, Waide, J & Allen, TFH 1986, A hierarchical concept of ecosystems, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar

  • Papadimitriou, F 2002, ‘Modelling indicators and indices of landscape complexity: an approach using GIS’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 2, pp. 17–25.Google Scholar

  • Peters, DPC & Havstad KM 2006, ‘Nonlinear dynamics in arid and semi-arid systems: Interactions among drivers and processes across scales’, Journal of Arid Environments, vol. 65, pp. 196–206.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Peterson, GD 2000, ‘Scaling ecological dynamics: selforganization, hierarchical structure, and ecological resilience’, Climatic Change, vol. 44, pp. 291–309.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Peterson, DL & Parker, VT (eds) 1998, Ecological scale: theory and methods, Columbia Univ. Press, pp. 289–307.Google Scholar

  • Pickett, STA 1989, ‘Space-for-Time Substitution as an Alternative to Long-Term Studies’, in Long-term studies in ecology. Approaches and alternatives, ed GE Likens, Springer- Verlag, New York Inc., USA, pp. 110-135.Google Scholar

  • Pickup, G, Chewings, VH & Nelson, DJ 1993. ‘Estimating changes in vegetation cover over time in arid rangelands using Landsat MSS data’, Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 43, pp. 243–263.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pietrzak, M 2009, ‘Aktualne i nieaktualne problemy ekologii krajobrazu’ [Current and outdated problems of landscape ecology], The Problems of Landscape Ecology , vol. 23, pp. 11–18.Google Scholar

  • Powell, DC 2000, Potential vegetation, disturbance, plant succession, and other aspects of forest ecology, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Google Scholar

  • Reynolds, JF & Wu, J 1999, ‘Do landscape structural and functional units exist?’ in Integrating Hydrology, Ecosystem Dynamics, and Biogeochemistry in Complex Landscapes, eds JD Tenhunen & P Kabat, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar

  • Richling, A 1992, Kompleksowa geografia fizyczna [Complex physical geography], Wyd. Nauk. PWN, Warszawa.Google Scholar

  • Richling, A (ed) 1993, Metody szczegółowych badań geografii fizycznej [Methods of detailed studies of physical geography], PWN, Warszawa.Google Scholar

  • Richling, A 2004, ‘Systemy przyrodniczego podziału przestrzeni’ [The systems of natural delimitation of space], The Problems of Landscape Ecology, vol. 14, pp. 17–22.Google Scholar

  • Richling, A & Lechnio, J (eds) 2005, Z problematyki funkcjonowania krajobrazów nizinnych [On the problems of functioning of the lowland landscapes], WGSR UW, Warszawa.Google Scholar

  • Richling, A & Lechnio, J 2005, Koncepcja krajobrazu – operatory i indykatory ewolucji systemów przyrodniczych [Conception of the landscape – drivers and indicators of systems evolution] in Z problematyki funkcjonowania krajobrazów nizinnych [On the problems of functioning of the lowland landscapes], eds A Richling & J Lechnio, WGSR UW, Warszawa.Google Scholar

  • Richling, A & Solon, J 2011, Ekologia krajobrazu [Landscape Ecology], Wyd. Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.Google Scholar

  • Schneider ED & Kay, JJ 1994, Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics, Mathl. Comput. Modeling, vol. 19, no 6–8, pp. 25–48.Google Scholar

  • Schneider, DC 2001, ‘The Rise of the Concept of Scale in Ecology’, BioScience, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 545–553.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Solon, J 2009, ‘O potrzebie standaryzacji badań ekologicznokrajobrazowych dla celów praktycznych’ [About the need for standardization of landscape-ecological research for practical purposes], The problems of landscape Ecology, vol. 23, pp. 19–28.Google Scholar

  • Steele, JH 1991, ‘Can ecological theory cross the land-sea boundary?’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 153, pp. 425–436.Google Scholar

  • Steinhardt, U & Volk, M 2003, ‘Meso-scale landscape analysis based on landscape balance investigations: problems and hierarchical approaches for their resolution’, Ecological Modelling, vol. 168, pp. 251–265.Google Scholar

  • Strayer, DL, Power, ME, Fagan, WF, Pickett, STA & Belnap J 2003, ‘A classification of ecological boundaries’, BioScience, vol. 53, pp. 723–729.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tallis, HT, Ricketts, T, Guerry, AD, Wood, SA, Sharp, R, Nelson, E, Ennaanay, D,Wolny, S, Olwero, N, Vigerstol, K, Pennington, D, Mendoza, G, Aukema, J, Foster, J, Forrest, J, Cameron, D, Arkema, K, Lonsdorf, E, Kennedy, C, Verutes, G, Kim, CK, Guannel, G, Papenfus, M, Toft, J, Marsik, M, Bernhardt, J, Griffin, R, Głowiński, K, Chaumont, N, Perelman, A & Lacayo, M 2013, InVEST 2.5.6 User’s guide. The natural capital project, Stanford.Google Scholar

  • Turner, MG, Gardner, RH & O’Neill, RV 1995, ‘Ecological Dynamics at Broad Scales. Ecosystem and Landscapes’, BioScience, vol. 45, Supplement: science and biodiversity policy, pp. 29–35.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Turner, MG 1989, ‘Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process’, Annual Review of Ecology Evolution System, vol. 20, pp. 171– 197.Google Scholar

  • Turner, MG 2005, ‘Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science?’, Annual Review of Ecology Evolution System, vol. 36, pp. 319–344.Google Scholar

  • Urban, DL, O’Neill, RV & Shugart, HH Jr 1987, ‘Landscape ecology. A hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns’, Bioscience, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 119–127.Google Scholar

  • Uuemaa, E, Roosaare, J, Kanal, A & Mander, Ü 2008, ‘Spatial correlograms of soil cover as an indicator of landscape heterogeneity’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 8, pp. 783–794.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Viktorov, AS, 1998, Matematicheskaya morfologiya landshafta (Mathematical Morphology of Landscape), Moscow, TRATEK.Google Scholar

  • Walz, U 2011, ‘Landscape Structure, landscape metrics and biodiversity’, Living Rev. Landscape Res., vol. 5, no. 3. Available from: http://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2011-3 [20.01.2012].CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wheatley, M & Johnson, C, 2009, ‘Factors limiting our understanding of ecological scale’, Ecological Complexity, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 150–159.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wiens, JA 1989, ‘Spatial scaling in ecology’, Functional Ecology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 385–397.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wilbanks, TJ & Kates, RW 1999, ‘Global change in local places: How scale matters’, Climatic Change, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 601–628.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wolfram, S 1984, ‘Cellular automata as models of complexity’, Nature, vol. 311, pp. 419–424.Google Scholar

  • Wu, J 1999, ‘Hierarchy and scaling: extrapolating information along a scaling ladder’, Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 367–380.Google Scholar

  • Wu, J 2004, ‘Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations’, Landscape Ecology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 125–138.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wu, J & David, JL 2002, ‘A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological systems: theory and applications’, Ecological Modelling, vol. 153, pp. 7–26.Google Scholar

  • Wu, J & Marceau, D 2002, ‘Modeling complex ecological systems: an introduction’, Ecological Modelling, vol. 153, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar

  • Wu, JA & Ye, Q 2000, ‘Dealing with scale in landscape analysis: An overview’, Geographic Information Sciences, vol. 6, no. 1, pp.1–5.Google Scholar

  • Wu, J & David, JL 2002, ‘A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological systems: theory and applications’, Ecological Modelling, vol. 153, pp. 7–26.Google Scholar

  • Yarrow, MM & Salthe, SN 2008, ‘Ecological boundaries in the context of hierarchy theory’, BioSystems, vol. 92, pp. 233– 244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2013-12-27


Citation Information: Miscellanea Geographica - Regional Studies on Development, ISSN (Print) 2084-6118, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10288-012-0049-7.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Ulrich Walz, Sebastian Hoechstetter, Lucian Drăguţ, and Thomas Blaschke
Landscape Research, 2016, Volume 41, Number 3, Page 279

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in