Table 1 Description of the fragmentation metric parameters analysed according to McGarigal and Marks (1995) and Leautaud Valenzuela (2014)
Parameter | Abbreviation | Definition | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of Patches | NumP | Total number of patches inside the tiles. The more patches there are, the more fragmented the forest is considered to be. | Number |
Mean patch size | MPS | The average patch size of the forest within the tile. A smaller average forest patch size is considered indicative of a more fragmented forest. | km2 |
Median patch size | MedPS | The middle patch size, or 50th percentile of the forest patches inside the tile. Median patch size can hide the presence of very large or very small patches. | km2 |
Total edge | TE | Perimeter of patches within each tile. The greater the perimeter, the more exposed to disturbances. Greater TE patch may be associated with more fragmented forests (if the fragmentation is related to an anthropogenic disturbance) | km |
Edge density | ED | Amount of edge (km) relative to the forest area (km2) within the tile. ED = TE/Forest area within the tile A high ratio of perimeter to forest patch area may be associated with more fragmented forests (if fragmentation is related to anthropogenic disturbance). | km·km−2 |
Edge density percentage | ED | Edge percentage relative to landscape area. A high ratio of perimeter to forest patch area may be associated with more fragmented forests (if fragmentation is related to anthropogenic disturbance). | Percentage |
Percentage without forest | PSB | Non-forest area (%) without forest within the tile. Higher percentage of area without forest within the tile would indicate greater fragmentation. | Percentage |
Reticular fragmentation index | RFI | Reticular fragmentation index of each tile. RFI = (PSB% + ED%)/2 A higher RFI signifies a greater percentage of fragmentation within the tile. | Percentage |