Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
1.11 The Relationship Between Landscape Structure
and Soundscape Patterns
As presented in Fig.
1.12
, at least three models are proposed to illustrate the
relationship between landscape and soundscape.
In the first model, the sonic patterns are coincident with the landscape forms; in
other words, for every configuration of the landscape there is a coincident configu-
ration of the soundscape. The margins of the landscape are coincident with those of
the soundscape, which means that the spatial scale of the two elements is the same.
This model is very improbable, but in some cases possible, as on small islands that
are surrounded by water where the soundscape ends at
the island border
(Fig.
1.12a
).
In the second hypothesis, the soundscape has larger borders than the landscape,
starting from the fact that sound cannot be confined inside individual patches in the
landscape heterogeneity. This second model is more probable and realistic than the
first and takes into consideration the diffusive property of the sounds (Fig.
1.12b
).
The third model (Fig.
1.12c
) assumes that the borders of a landscape are
affecting the distribution of the soundscape but that further subdivision of the
soundscape is possible inside a patch of the landscape. This aspect assumes that
the soundscape is created by species that intercept the spatial heterogeneity and
diversity of the landscape but that the soundscape is also the result of patterns
created inside and independently by the physical environment. Thus, the
soundscape can be produced apparently at a finer scale compared with the underly-
ing landscape.
Fig. 1.12
Three main hypotheses about the spatial overlap of land mosaic and soundscape:
sonotopes are coincident with the borders of the land mosaic (
a
); sonotopes are larger than the
land mosaic (
b
); sonotopes are more fine grained and are not coincident with the resulting land
mosaic, which is more coarse grained (
c
)
Search WWH ::
Custom Search