SHANNON ÇEŞİTLİLİK ENDEKSİNİN PEYZAJ EKOLOJİSİNDEKİ UYGULAMALARI: BİR META-SENTEZ YAKLAŞIMI

Öz

Bu çalışma, Shannon Çeşitlilik İndeksi’nin (SÇİ) peyzaj deseni ve çeşitlilik analizlerindeki uygulamalarını sistematik ve karşılaştırmalı bir meta-sentezle değerlendirerek, SÇİ’nin ölçek duyarlılığı, veri çözünürlüğü ve ekosistem hizmetleriyle ilişkisi bağlamında literatüre özgün bir kavramsal katkı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. 1990–2025 döneminde yayımlanmış hakemli makaleler taranmış ve belirlenen dahil etme kriterlerine göre 38 çalışma detaylı analize alınmıştır. Sistematik kodlama ve içerik analizi yoluyla SÇİ uygulamaları, veri türü, çözünürlük, ölçek, analitik araçlar ve ekolojik yorumlama boyutlarıyla karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular, SÇİ’nin farklı peyzaj tiplerinde hem mekânsal hem de bileşimsel çeşitliliği güvenilir biçimde yansıttığını ve yüksek SDI değerlerinin güçlü mozaik yapılar ve ekolojik dayanıklılıkla ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, SÇİ ile ekosistem hizmetleri arasında pozitif bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir; özellikle su koruma, karbon depolama ve toprak erozyonunu iyileştirici etkiler kaydedilmiştir. Bu araştırma, Shannon Çeşitlilik İndeksi (SDI) uygulamalarını ölçek duyarlılığı ve veri çözünürlüğü temelinde sınıflandıran metodolojik bir tipoloji oluşturarak literatüre özgün bir kavramsal çerçeve sunmaktadır. Ayrıca, önerilen uygulama rehberi, araştırmacıların bu teorik yapıları peyzaj ekolojisi dahilinde etkin bir şekilde işlevselleştirmeleri için stratejik bir yol haritası sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Shannon çeşitlilik indeksi (SDI)
• Peyzaj ekolojisi
• Meta-sentez
• Uzaktan algılama

APPLICATIONS OF THE SHANNON DIVERSITY INDEX IN LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY: A META-SYNTHESIS APPROACH

Öz

This study aims to provide a conceptual contribution to the literature by systematically and comparatively evaluating the applications of the Shannon Diversity Index (SDI) in landscape pattern and diversity analyses, focusing on its scale sensitivity, data resolution, and relationship with ecosystem services. Peer-reviewed articles published between 1990 and 2025 were reviewed, and 38 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were subjected to detailed analysis. Through systematic coding and content analysis, SDI applications were compared across data type, resolution, scale, analytical tools, and ecological interpretation dimensions. The findings demonstrate that SDI reliably represents both spatial and compositional diversity across various landscape types, with higher SDI values corresponding to stronger mosaic structures and greater ecological resilience. Furthermore, a positive correlation was identified between SDI and key ecosystem services, particularly in relation to water regulation, carbon storage, and soil erosion mitigation. By establishing a methodological typology that categorises Shannon Diversity Index (SDI) applications based on scale sensitivity and data resolution, this research offers a novel conceptual framework to the literature. Furthermore, the proposed implementation guidelines provide a strategic roadmap for researchers to effectively functionalise these theoretical constructs within landscape ecology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Shannon diversity index
• Landscape ecology
• Meta-systhesis
• Remote sensing

Kaynakça

1. Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4): 341–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021
2. Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., et al. (2010). Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science, 328(5982): 1164–1168. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512.
3. Buyantuyev, A., Wu, J. (2007). Effects of thematic resolution on landscape pattern analysis. Landscape Ecology, 22, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9010-5.
4. Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401): 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
5. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., Garcia, A., Pringle, R. M., and Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances, 1(5): e1400253. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400253
6. Deng, S.-S., Xia, L.-H., and Wang, F. (2009). Analysis of the temporal–spatial characteristics of urban land cover and landscape pattern: A case study in the NanHai District of Foshan City. Joint Urban Remote Sensing Event, 5137618. https://doi.org/10.1109/URS.2009.5137618
7. Fang, G., Chen, J., Yang, J., Zhao, S., and Su, H. (2012). Dynamic change analysis of Dangshan landscape pattern. Advanced Materials Research, 2870–2873. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.356-360.2870
8. Figueroa, A., Soler, R. and Campos, V., (2025). "Human-driven land-use change on native forests in Argentina: A Literature Review of Ecological Attributes and Regional Patterns," International Forestry Review 27(3): 337-374, https://doi.org/10.1505/146554825840319627

9. Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., and Snyder, P. K. (2005). Global consequences of land use, Science, 309(5734): 570–574. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772
10. Forman, R. T. T. and Godron, M. (1986). Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons.
11. Guo, G., Chen, Y., Wei, J., Wu, Z., and Rong, X. (2012). Impacts of grid size on urban heat island pattern analysis. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32(12): 3764–3772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2012.11.005
12. Herold, M., Couclelis, H., and Clarke, K. C. (2005). The role of spatial metrics in the analysis and modeling of urban land use change. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(4): 369–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2003.12.001
13. Hesselbarth, M. H. K., Sciaini, M., With, K. A., Wiegand, K., and Nowosad, J. (2019). Landscapemetrics: An open-source R tool to calculate landscape metrics. Ecography, 42(10): 1648–1657. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04617
14. Hu, C. Y., Wu, W., Zhou, X., Wang, Z. (2023). Spatiotemporal changes in landscape patterns in karst mountainous regions based on the optimal landscape scale: A case study of Guiyang City in Guizhou Province, China. Ecological Indicators, 150, 110211, ISSN 1470-160X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110211.
15. Jin, Z., Xiong, C., Luan, Q., and Wang, F. (2023). Dynamic analysis of land use and ecosystem service values on Hainan Island. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1): 776. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010776
16. Lausch, A., Blaschke, T., Haase, D., Herzog, F., Syrbe, R.U., Tischendorf, L., Walz, U. (2015). Understanding and quantifying landscape structure – A review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecological Modelling, 295, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.018.
17. Li, H., and Reynolds, J. F. (1994). A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology, 75(8): 2446–2455. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940898
18. Li, J., Zhou, Y., Li, Q., Yi, S., and Peng, L. (2022). Exploring the Effects of Land Use Changes on the Landscape Pattern and Soil Erosion of Western Hubei Province from 2000 to 2020. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3): 1571. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031571
19. Ludvigsen, M. S., Hall, E.O.C., Meyer, G., Fegran, L., Aagaard, H., Uhrenfeldt, L., (2015). Using Sandelowski and Barroso’s meta-synthesis method in advancing qualitative evidence. Qualitative Health Research, 26(3): 320-329. https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/1049732315576493
20. Margalef, R. (1958). Information theory in ecology. General Systems, 3, 36–71.
21. McGarigal, K., and Marks, B. J. (1995). FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351.
22. Monteiro, A. T., Fava, F., Goncalves, J. F., Huete, A., Gusmeroli, F., Parolo, G., Spano, D., Bocchi, S., (2013). Landscape context determinants to plant diversity in the permanent meadows of Southern European Alps. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(4): 937-958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0460-1
23. Nagendra, H., Lucas, R., Honrado, J. P., Jongman, R. H., Tarantino, C., Adamo, M., and Mairota, P. (2013). Remote sensing for conservation monitoring: Assessing protected areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity, and threats. Ecological Indicators, 33, 45–59. ISSN 1470-160X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.014.
24. Opdam, P., Luque, S., Nassauer, J., Verburg, P. H., Wu, J., (2018). How can landscape ecology contribute to sustainability science? Landscape Ecology, 33, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0610-7
25. Peng, J., Zhao, M., Guo, X., Pan, Y., and Liu, Y. (2018). Spatial-temporal dynamics and associated driving forces of urban ecological land: A case study in Shenzhen City, China. Habitat International, 60, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.12.005
26. Pielou, E. C. (1966). The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 13(1): 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0
27. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., and Bennett, E. M. (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(11): 5242–5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107
28. Ren, Y., Wei, X., Wang, D., Luo, Y., Song, X., Wang, Y., Yang, Y., Hua, L., (2013). Linking landscape patterns with ecological functions: A case study examining the interaction between landscape heterogeneity and carbon stock of urban forests in Xiamen, China. Forest Ecology and Management, 293, 122–131. 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.12.043.
29. Santini, L., Saura, S. and Rondinini, C. (2016), Connectivity of the global network of protected areas. Diversity and Distributions, 22, 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12390
30. Seto, K. C., Guneralp, B., and Hutyra, L. R. (2012). Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(40): 16083–16088. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109
31. Shannon, C. E., and Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press.
32. Shen, J., Li, L., and Peng, L. (2025). From conflict to coexistence: Integrated landscape optimization for sustainable tourism in urban tourism areas. Sustainability, 17(18): 8270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188270
33. Simpson, E.H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688.
34. Turner, M. G. (2005). Landscape ecology: What is the state of the science? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 36, 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102003.152614
35. Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H., and O’Neill, R. V. (2001). Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer-Verlag.
36. Uuemaa, E., Antrop, M., Roosaare, J., Marja, R. and Mander, U. (2009). Landscape metrics and indices: An overview of their use in landscape research. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 3(1): 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2009-1
37. Wang, K., Wang, H. J., Shi, X. Z., Weindorf, D. C., Yu, D. S., Liang, Y., Shi, D. M. (2009). Landscape analysis of dynamic soil erosion in Jiangxi Province, China. Soil and Tillage Research, 105(2): 313–321. ISSN 0167-1987, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.08.013.
38. Woodman, T. L., Alexander, P., Burslem, D., Travis, J., Winkler, K., Eigenbrod, F. (2025). Global assessment of landscape pattern changes from 1992 to 2020. Research Square, 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6522006/v1.
39. Wu, A., Li, J., Zhang, D., Li, L., and Xie, Z. (2025). Spatial distribution of wetlands and dynamic analysis of landscape patterns in the Weihe River Basin. Sustainability, 17(2): 544. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020544
40. Wu, J. (2004). Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: Scaling relations. Landscape Ecology, 19(2):125–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000021711.40074.ae
41. Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6): 999–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9
42. Wu, J. (2014). Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.018
43. Zhang, X., Wang, D., Hao, H., Zhang, F., and Hu, Y. (2017). Effects of land use/cover changes and urban forest configuration on urban heat islands in a loess hilly region: Case study based on Yan’an city, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(8): 840. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080840
44. Zhong, M., (2024). Impact of landscape patterns on ecosystem services in China: A case study of the central plains’ urban agglomeration, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, ISSN=2296-665X, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1285679