Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomorphology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / g e o m o r p h

Delineation of biogeomorphic land units across a tropical natural and humanized

terrain in Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, México
María Concepción García-Aguirre a,⁎, Román Álvarez b, Rodolfo Dirzo c, Mario A. Ortiz d, Manuel Mah Eng d
a
Departamento de Ecología y Recursos, Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias. Centro de Ciencias de la Complejidad. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). Ciudad Universitaria,
C.P. 04510 Coyoacán, D.F., Mexico
b
Instituto de Matemáticas Aplicadas y Sistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico
c
Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, USA
d
Instituto de Geografía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper analyzes landscape in a rainforest region integrating geomorphologic and ecosystem analysis
Received 17 September 2009 methods. Major landscape elements (geology, geomorphology, soils, vegetation and land use) were mapped
Received in revised form 13 April 2010 as biogeomorphic land units using remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS). Associations
Accepted 21 April 2010
between these variables were analyzed by map fusion and the results were expressed on a land unit map
Available online 5 May 2010
(scale ca. 1:100,000). Volcanic structures are dominant in the study area. Lava flows cover most of the region,
Keywords:
mainly as basalt; several pyroclastic cones are widely distributed over the area but are dominant in the
Landscape southeast region. A hypsometric map derived from a digital elevation model (DEM), and intersected with a
Rainforest land cover/use map showed an altitudinal gradient of vegetation. Rainforest grows at lower altitudes (0 to
Remote sensing and GIS 700 m) and Virola, Juglans and Chionantus are distributed from 700 to 900 m. These species are located on
Biogeomorphic land units slopes of basalt and andesites intercalated with tephra, recent isolated stratovolcano structures and an
Mexico erosive flood plain. At higher altitudes (900 to 1100 m) the forest identified as Chionantus Ulmus Randia is
associated with cinder cones. A Quercus Ulmus forest (900 to 1400 m) covers the slopes of the highest
volcano (San Martin) and surrounding areas, while evergreen (elfin) forest is at the top of this mountain
(1660 m).
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction landscape ecological principles for prioritizing the biodiversity rich

Landscapes are complex systems constituted by a large number of
heterogeneous components interacting in a non-linear way that are
hierarchically structured and scale dependent (Hall et al., 2004). They
are affected and shaped by environmental and human induced factors
(Tasser et al., 2009). Landscape ecology studies landscape patterns
and ecological processes in an integrated manner, regarding nature as
a whole (Zonneveld, 1995). The aim of landscape ecology is to
understand both the effects of spatial patterns on ecological processes
and the development of those spatial patterns (Poudevigne and
Baudry, 2003). Landscapes may be described by biogeomorphic land
units constituted by certain biophysical elements such as lithology,
landform and land cover. Also included are all relevant human–
ecological interactions (Naveh, 2007).
Landscape ecology is becoming increasingly important for biodi-
versity conservation, management and land use planning (Luque,
2000; Roy and Tomar, 2000; Bürgi et al., 2004). Application of
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 52 55 56 22 49 20; fax: +52 55 56 24 48-28.
E-mail address: galapagos@prodigy.net.mx (M.C. García-Aguirre).
sites has the advantage of integrating spatial information, non-spatial
information, and horizontal relationships in space and time (Roy and
Tomar, 2000). Biodiversity is intimately related to physical features of
ecosystems including geomorphology and hydrology (Hamilton et al.,
2007).
Geomorphology plays a fundamental role in controlling many
ecosystem processes and in turn ecosystems can have a profound
influence on many geomorphic forms and processes (Renschler et al.,
2007). Geomorphological mapping is very useful for land-use planning
(Bocco et al., 2001). Relief is the main guide for boundaries delineation
on a map (Zonneveld, 1995). To a large extent, the magnitude of relief
and its patterning determines landscape ecological characteristics. The
holistic assessment of ecosystems can be of benefit to land managers
and conservation or restoration programs (Thwaites and Slater, 2000;
Roy and Tomar, 2000); however, for this integration the interaction of
geomorphic and ecologic landscape components within the frame-
work of complexity theory must be considered (Stallins, 2006).
Interdisciplinary and integration work is essential to fully grasp the
complexity of the system under study, though it is necessary to make
simplifications as it is impossible to comprehend all aspects influenc-
ing landscape change (Bürgi et al., 2004).

0169-555X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.04.019
246 M.C. García-Aguirre et al. / Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256

Fig. 1. Study area. Major human settlements are San Andrés Tuxtla, Santiago Tuxtla and Catemaco in the southern part and La Nueva Victoria in the northwestern part.

1.1. Integrating landscape ecology with geomorphology
Landscape description is frequently achieved on the basis of
determinations of the amount of habitat and core habitat, the number
of discrete habitat patches and the perimeter to area ratio (Gu et al.,
2002; Petit and Lambin, 2002; Mendoza et al., 2005). Less attention is
given to geomorphological features on which these fragments are
lying, despite their direct influence on habitats and ecosystem
functions. Concave slopes for instance, may provide nutrients and
protection for certain plant species (García-Aguirre et al., 2007).
Ecological research provides ample evidence that physical envi-
ronment can exert a significant influence on biological processes,
shaping broad-scale landscape vegetation patterns: for instance,
topography creates a range of environmental conditions that favors
different ecological communities and ecosystem processes. Unfortu-
nately, the standard methods for landscape pattern analysis are not
designed to include topography as a pattern shaping factor. Our
understanding of how a topography disturbance regime interacts
with vegetation dynamics to form landscape patterns is even more
limited. Dorner et al. (2002) presented a set of techniques designed to
 M.C. García-Aguirre et al. / Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256
Table 1
Extent of geologic units.
Geologic units Area (km2)
1 Fluvial sediments (fluvial foodplains) 59.3
2 Aeolian sediments (coastal dunes) 10.2
3 Littoral sediments (beach) 0.7
4 Water bodies (Catemaco and Sontecomapan) 30.2
5 Basalt (young volcanic series) 362.9
6 Basalt (recent lava flows; young volcanic series) 107.6
7 Volcanic ashes (cinder cones); young volcanic series 69.6
8 Explosive craters (Maars; Xalapazcos) 14.1
9 Explosive craters (Maars; Axalapazcos) 3.0
10 Andesites intecalated with tephra (old volcanic series) 209.8
11 Sediments (Tertiary) 42.8
incorporate the topographic mosaic into an analysis of landscape and
dynamics.
1.2. Biogeomorphic land unit delineation through remote sensing and
GIS analysis
The suitable handling and processing of high resolution geospatial
data, in the context of GIS (Geographic Information Systems), can
improve the identification and depiction of landforms (Ruiz-Luna and
Berlanga-Robles, 2003). Geomorphological analysis is greatly im-
proved by the use of aerial photographs and satellite images, since
they provide a synoptic view of terrain and a relatively rapid
description of geographic distribution of major landforms and
dominant land cover. Terrain classification based on landform,
lithology and genesis (historical processes) can be further specified
into biogeomorphic land units on the basis of geomorphologic
processes, relative age, sediment, drainage and land cover/use.
Remote sensing and GIS can be linked to integrate geomorpho-
logical and ecological information to find major associations among
variables. Then, land units can be delineated on the basis of
homogeneity of a dominant factor. For instance, landforms and
vegetation association and interactions can be obtained through the
definition of phytogeomorphological sites variables (Korkalainen and
Laurén, 2006). Relief, soil, lithology, sediments, land cover and land
use parameters can be handled simultaneously in GIS to produce a
range of map overlays and intersections that can be designated to
address hypotheses as well as characterize the geomorphic controls of
vegetation pattern and processes (Gustavsson et al., 2008). Hamilton
et al. (2007) delineated major geomorphological and ecological units
within a floodplain environment using remote sensing information
and fusion mapping. Thwaites and Slater (2000) applied soil-
landscape modeling within a digital spatial GIS framework. They
concentrated on the role of explicit relationships within physical
processes (the soil–geomorphic relationships to forest land resource
assessment), using fuzzy-rule-based classification, to represent the
continua of complex pedo-geomorphological relationships at various
scales more realistically. These authors observed that some attributes
maintained their relevance at multiple scales, while others changed
between component models depending on the scale of the
investigation.
Surface configuration is the major physiographic property that can
usually be perceived and measured, either in the field or by remote
means (e.g. aerial photography and topographical data). Complex
landscape topography in remote areas can be analyzed using airborne
laser altimetry (Rayburg et al., 2009). Digital elevation models (DEMs)
at various resolutions are being increasingly used in geomorphology
(Hebeler and Purves, 2009). They have been particularly used to
observe and map landforms and to obtain elevation range, slope,
aspect, watershed area and stream network (Korkalainen and Laurén,
2006; Saadat et al., 2008; Lin and Oguchi, 2009; López-Vicente et al.,
2009). They also provide information on slope length, shape, aspect,
247
incoming insolation, and derived information such as areas partially
contributing to moisture flow (Saadat et al., 2008; Székely and
% Karátson, 2004). Ganas et al. (2005) applied current geological
6.5
knowledge on faulting processes to digital processing of DEM to
1.1 pinpoint locations of active faults. Székely and Karátson (2004)
0.1 proposed topological and mathematical transformations of the
3.3 original DEM data in order to enhance the topographic features of
39.9
the volcanic relief that stem from the volcanic landforms. Successive
11.8
7.6 GIS data manipulation very often result in operational errors that can
1.6 be propagated in subsequent landscape pattern analyses; however,
0.3 these errors are not commonly reported (Petit and Lambin, 2002;
23.0 Shao and Wu, 2008). Landscape analysis reliability requires correction
4.7
of these errors (Guofand and Lu, 2008; Hebeler and Purves, 2009).
2. Study site
The study site comprises an area of 900 km2; it is located between
18°25′ and 19°45′ N and 95°00′ and 95°18′ W (Fig. 1). Volcanism
began about 7 my ago, in the late Miocene, and continued to recent
times with historical eruptions in 1664 and 1793. San Martin Tuxtla
volcano and its over 250 satellite cinder cones and maars (volcanic,
circular explosion craters in areas of low relief, which often contain a
lake, pond, or marsh in its interior) covered about 120 km2 of lava
over the last 0.8 my. A ridge of flank cinder cones blocked drainage to
the north to form Lago Catemaco. Lavas are predominantly basaltic in
contrast to the andesitic composition typical of the Mexican volcanic
belt (Nelson and González-Caver, 1992). The dominant vegetation
type in the lowland of Los Tuxtlas is a very high biodiversity tropical
rainforest. Vegetation composition changes gradually along an
altitudinal gradient. Chionantus–Ulmus–Randia forest dominates in
the altitudinal belt from 1000 to 1100 m, mainly on cinder cones. The
Quercus–Ulmus forest grows on the slopes of San Martin volcano and
surrounding areas at 900 to 1400 m (García and Álvarez, 1994). A
recent study indicates that the remaining forest in Los Tuxtlas is a
heavily fragmented landscape in which an archipelago of forest
islands are immersed in a sea of cattle grasslands (Mendoza et al.,
2005).
The objective of the present study is to characterize the Tuxtlas
landscape through biogeomorphic land units, describing deforesta-
tion rates from 1986 to 2000. Landscape of an area about 900 km2 was
analyzed at a scale of 1:50,000 but it is represented in this paper at
about 1:100,000 scale. Vegetation recovery by natural means was
expected as a result of protection measures taken in the area in the
mid 1980s (Dirzo, 1991). In 1998, the area was designated a Natural
Reserve, by the Mexican Environmental Agency (SEMARNAP).
3. Materials and methods
Geo-processing and spatial analysis capabilities of ERDAS Imagine
software were used to store and analyze a Landsat image from the
year 2000 with a spatial resolution of 30 m. A land cover/land use map
was produced by supervised classification (using a maximum
likelihood classifier) of this Landsat image. A previous land unit map
(García and Álvarez, 1994), as well as aerial photographs of 1991,
were utilized to train the classifier and to verify the results. The
classification accuracy was assessed on the basis of a stratified random
sampling (Congalton, 1991).
Available information on geology, geomorphology and soil of the
studied region (García and Álvarez, 1994) was updated by photo and
image visual interpretation. The land cover/land use map for the year
2000 was produced by digitizing major polygons over the obtained
classified Landsat scene at this date. The above mentioned maps (scale
1:50,000) were digitized and intersected in the following order:
geology, geomorphology, soil and land cover/use map within a GIS
platform (ArcGIS 9.2) to produce the biogeomorphic land unit map. A
DEM was generated to analyze the terrain complexity and to generate
248 M.C. García-Aguirre et al. / Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256

Fig. 2. Geologic units. Stratovolcano structures, basalts, recent lava flows and cinder cones are dominant.

slope gradient, aspect and hypsometric (altitude) maps. These maps
were very useful for comprehending vegetation patterns and for the
final definition of the biogeomorphic land unit map. An ordination
multivariate analysis was performed (the detrended correspondence
analysis, DCA) on PC-ORD 4.0 (McCune and Mefford, 1999) to group
the 99 land units obtained. Altitudinal data were superimposed on
DCA axes in order to find any association with vegetation distribution.
The forest area provided by the spectral analysis of the 2000 Landsat
image was compared with results of a similar analysis performed
about 20 years earlier Dirzo and García (1992).
4. Results
4.1. Geology
Eleven geologic units were delineated in this study, following the
classification of (Nelson and González-Caver, 1992). Units 1 to 3
include 70 km2 of fluvial, aeolian and littoral sediments derived from
rivers and strong winds of hurricanes (Table 1). Water bodies (unit 4)
are not geologic units in the strict sense, but they were very important
in Los Tuxtlas volcanic field formation, mainly at Catemaco Lake. Units
 M.C. García-Aguirre et al. / Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256
Table 2
Extent of geomorphologic units.
Geomorphologic units Area (km2)
1 Stratovolcano, cinder cones, recent lava flows and maars 384.3
2 Recent lava flows, gentle and moderately steep slopes and 71.4
lava front flows
3 Lower slopes modeled by fluvial dissection with isolated 200.4
recent volcanic structures
4 Cumulative (depositional) fluvial floodplain 47.8
5 Dunes 9.8
6 Sandy beach 2.1
7 Erosive floodplains and gullies 67.9
8 Plains and low rolling hills presenting erosion by fluvial 96.6
dissection (Tertiary)
9 Water bodies (Catemaco and Sontecomapan) 30.2
5 to 9 describe dominant geologic elements of the region (557 km2 or
61%) and consist of basalts, recent lava flows and volcanic ashes
(cinder cones), from a young volcanic series (Fig. 2).
The highest volcano is San Martin Tuxtla (1650 m asl), but there
are 250 cinder cones in the region, most of them aligned along an NW
to SE axis. K–Ar dating indicates that this volcanic field originated
7 my ago in the southeast (Sierra de Santa Martha). The northwestern
region originated 1 my ago (Nelson and González-Caver, 1992). The
old volcanic series cover 23% of the total study area and is composed
of andesites intercalated with tephra deposits (Unit 10 in Table 1). It is
located to the northeast on the coast between Punta Escondida, Punta
El Barco, and Punta El Lagarto, and between Santiago Tuxtla and San
Andres Tuxtla towns to the southwest, as well as to the west of La
Nueva Victoria. Sediments from the Tertiary (Unit 11 in Table 1)
comprise only 5% of the area. Cerro Mono Blanco is one of the largest
cinder cones; it is located within the young volcanic series about 2 km
north of Catemaco, close to the archeological site Matacapan. It
erupted in 3270 ± 250 BP. In 1793 an important eruption occurred, of
cinder cones located inside the crater of San Martin (Moziño, 1870)
showing that it is still an active volcano; it was a strombolian eruption
type as indicated by the ashes intercalated with lava flows. Units 8 and
9 represent maars; those structures were known to early inhabitants
of the area, which named them xalapazco (explosion crater without a
lake in its interior), and axalapazco (explosion crater with a lake);
thus, axalapazco is generally equivalent to “maar” (Álvarez et al.,
1976). Most of the maars in the region (unit 8 in Fig. 2) are aligned
between the contact zone of old and young volcanic series. This may
be explained by the control exerted in the depth of the phreatic layer,
intercalated between both series. On the other hand, maars located to
the south, near Catemaco lake (Unit 9 in Fig. 2), may be derived from
contact with the layers of subjacent Tertiary sediments. Some of these
maars were formed simultaneously with cinder cones such as Cerro
Puntiagudo and Cerro Nixtamalapan. Lava flow volumes, estimated
over 10 years of eruption in important cones, suggest that these
events may have occurred in the last 6000 yr with a volcanic event
each 600 yr on average (Nelson and González-Caver, 1992). Old
volcanic series comprise 210 km2 and outcrop to the east and
northeast, making contact with the sea and form rocky litoral. To
the southwest they appear below young volcanic series, yet they also
contact with Tertiary sediments (Unit 10 in Fig. 2). Outcrops of this old
volcanic series are highly dissected by gorges about 80 m deep in
some sectors, presenting conspicuous gullies both to the northeast
and southwest. The basaltic–andesitic rocks outcropping in cliffs at
Monte Pio region are about 7 ± 0.8 my.
4.2. Geomorphology
Nine geomorphologic units representative of the Los Tuxtlas
mountain range were derived from photo and image interpretation
(Table 2, Fig. 3). The first unit comprises stratovolcano structures (a
249
volcano that is constructed of alternating flows and pyroclastics),
cinder cones, lava flows and recent age explosive craters (maars)
% covering 42% of the area. Recent lava flows with gentle slopes (3°–
12°) and moderately steep (18°–30°) slopes represent 8% (unit 2),
42.2
7.9 while lower slopes formed by fluvial dissection with isolated recent
volcanic structures comprise 22% (unit 3). Most of these slopes are
22.0 part of the old volcanic series (See unit 10 in Fig. 2) though to the west
are young volcanic series (basalt). Geomorphologic unit 8 comprises
5.2
1.1 low plains and rolling hills with an erosive relief caused by fluvial
0.2 erosion. It is part of the old volcanic series formed by andesites
7.5 intercalated with tephra, as well as sedimentary rocks constituted by
10.6 lutites (claystones, siltstones, or mudstones) and travertines from the
Tertiary. This unit is very important since on the one hand, it is a
3.3
contact zone that has produced erosive floodplain and gullies, and its
erosive dissection density has increased by the influence of adjacent
human activity. On the other hand, some features of these units may
represent a hazard risk for two important settlements located in this
terrain, Santiago and San Andres Tuxtla (Fig. 3).
4.3. Breaks in slopes
The location of breaks in slopes (abrupt change of slope gradient)
is part of the key to decipher and define the geomorphological
processes that have occurred in slope evolution, as well as the
structural control exerted by geology over geomorphologic units. A
series of breaks in slopes in various sectors of the region delimit the
extent of both geomorphologic and geologic units, establishing an
evident relationship among lithology, structure, relief forms, process-
es, and very often land cover. There is a break in slope on the north
flank of the region, between 500 and 600 m (Fig. 3), which establishes
the natural boundary between stratovolcano structures (unit 1) and
recent lava flows (unit 2). This slope change indicates the contrast
between the most recent volcanism, occurring from 600 to 1660 m,
and the adjoining old lava flows that outcrop at 100 to 600 m towards
the north. On the east flank, the break in slope differentiates the
recent lava flows terminal front (unit 1) from the reworked old
volcanic series in the presence of lineal denudation of cliffs (unit 7).
This break in slope (500 to 600 m), in turn, limits geomorphic units
2 and 3. To the northeast, this break in slope separates units 1 and 3,
forming several legs at different altitudes, from 100–300 m to 700–
800 m. This slope change fluctuation is due to interdigitation
phenomena of old and more recent volcanic series, as well as to the
presence of valleys with erosive runoff (see unit 7 in Fig. 3). Rainforest
is clearly limited by this break in slope. Towards the south and
southeast of the region, close to San Andres Tuxtla, between 400 and
500 m, these breaks in slopes are also very prominent. The recent
volcanic material makes contact with low sedimentary rock slopes
reworked since the Tertiary by denudation processes. The volcanic
relief is linked to recent floodplain dynamics to the southeast.
4.4. Vegetation distribution and altitude gradient
Landsat supervised classification of the area had an overall
accuracy of 75%. Table 3 indicates that non-forest vegetation is
presently dominant in the area (grasslands, crops and secondary
vegetation). Intersection of hypsometric and vegetation maps showed
a gradient of forest distribution. The altitudinal range from 0 to 100 m
occupies about 16% of the surface; it comprises cumulative fluvial
floodplain located to the east of Sontecomapan lagoon (Fig. 4) and the
fluvial floodplain, intercalated among the lower slopes to the north of
the study area. This range is also observed to the south, but only near
San Andres Tuxtla where Tertiary sediments outcrop. There is a small
zone with mangrove near Sontecomapan lagoon to the east and very
little, or no vegetation, in some coastal areas to the north and east.
Relief relicts of old volcanic series are the representative geomorpho-
logic influence in the altitudinal belt from 100 to 200 m in the
250 M.C. García-Aguirre et al. / Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256

Fig. 3. Geomorphologic units. Thick lines indicate breaks in slopes that are a key to understanding the relationship among structure, relief, processes and land cover/use.

northeast sector. This belt consists of dissected slopes in the upward
direction at the old series region, and it comprises only 9% of the total
area. It consists of unburied volcanic erosion remnants where
gradients (from 18° to 30°) of moderate slopes dominate. These relief
relicts indicate a hiatus (an interruption of the geologic record in the
region) in the cumulative volcanic series, now expressed as remains of
former topographic structures without primary volcanic structures. In
the south and west, adjacent to the old volcanic series, Tertiary
sediments outcrop with slopes around 25°. The range of 200 to 300 m
occupies 14% of the region and is an irregular belt limiting lower
slopes of andesites and tephra deposits formed by erosion, young
volcanic series of cinder cones and recent lava flows that increase in
influence with altitude, particularly in the north sector. Major towns
are located at these altitudinal belts, Catemaco from 100 to 200 m and
Santiago and San Andres Tuxtla between 200 and 400 m. The
altitudinal belt from 300 to 400 m more conspicuously shows the
distal emplacement of lava flows of the young volcanic series, dated
0.8 ± 0.1 my according to (Nelson and González-Caver, 1992), which
notably increases at 500 m. Volcanic structures, mostly cinder cones,
are mainly distributed from 500 to 800 m and cover an area of 32%.
 M.C. García-Aguirre et al. / Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256
Table 3
Extent of land use/cover units.
Land use/cover units Area (km2)
1 Crops 58.8
2 Grasslands and crops 243.3
3 Grasslands, secondary vegetation and crops 255.2
4 Secondary vegetation and crops 104.3
5 Secondary vegetation 112.5
6 Rainforest 16.1
7 Virola–Juglans–Chionantes forest 16.4
8 Chionantus–Ulmus–Randia 32.0
9 Quercus–Ulmus 26.3
10 Mangrove 2.9
11 Unvegetated soil 10.1
12 Towns 2.1
13 Water body 30.2
Towards the east, their distribution decreases at these altitudes where
it is observed that these volcanic structures have lost their original
form, with only relictual forms from the old series remaining. Towards
the northwest the physiognomy of the stepping down floors is lost.
This is induced by rocks of the old and new volcanic series
intercalating with advancing and recessing forms that break up the
landscape profile in belts of irregular morphology. Multiple calderas
also indicate explosive volcanism; therefore, at one time volcanoclas-
tic material fell covering part of this area.
Dominant vegetation cover in the above mentioned altitudinal
range (0 to 700 m) is tropical rainforest, although it has been severely
depleted with only 16 km2 remaining (Table 3). A similar type of
forest, named Virola, Juglans and Chionantus by (García and Álvarez,
1994), grows from 700 to 900 m. This forest is located mainly towards
the east, but it is also present in the northwest. The altitudinal belt
from 800 to 1200 m cover 12% of the region; it contains the highest
density of volcanic structures. The San Martin volcano is the most
prominent with well defined slopes, at some places greater than 25°.
The water divide of the Sierra de los Tuxtlas runs through this zone
along with some cinder cones aligned in an NW–SE direction (Fig. 5).
Volcanic slopes show a radial drainage pattern with a clear presence
of cliffs. Only the north flank does not show this trait, due to recent
lava flows occurring in this sector. Quercus–Ulmus forest covers the
slopes of the San Martin volcano and surrounding peaks between 900
and 1400 m. The Chionantus–Ulmus–Randia forest occurs at 1000 to
1100 m on volcanic structures with slopes varying from 30° to 45°,
reflecting its recent formation. The highest altitudinal range repre-
sents only 2% comprising all of the belts between 1200 and 1660 m.
Low evergreen (elfin) forest grows on the summit of San Martin
volcano, and on the highest zones of cinder cones aligned in the NW–
SE direction.
Grasslands and crops (Table 3, Unit 2 in Fig. 5) occupy 243 km2 and
are mainly distributed towards the north of the study area from 0 to
900 m. Grasslands, secondary vegetation and crops occupy a similar
area (255 km2) and are distributed to the south and east of the region
(0 to 1200 m). Secondary vegetation mixed with crops is restricted to
the west of the zone with 104 km2 in a range from 0 to 900 m. There is
a class of secondary vegetation, apparently older, growing on the
border of primary vegetation, mainly up to 1400 m (Unit 5 in Fig. 5),
although it is more extended between 400 and 800 m.
Three topographic profiles showing terrain configuration were
generated from longitudinal transects traced across the region (Fig. 5).
The probable limit between new volcanic series and lower old volcanic
series is about 400 m, as can be observed in Fig. 6. The profile of transect
1 1′ shows the water divide of the region starting at the northwest and
ending southeast. It defines windward and leeward regions. Most of
these high points belong to the young volcanic series, chiefly cinder
cones to the SE. The second profile (2 2′) runs west to east and shows the
vegetation gradient along the altitudinal range; thus, starting at the west
side, secondary vegetation and crops dominate on a very eroded
251
volcanic material with small patches of Virola, Juglans, and Chionantus
forest. At 800 to 900 m the forest of Chionantus–Ulmus–Randia follows
% this gradient. The forest of Quercus–Ulmus dominates above this belt.
This forest starts at 1000 m on the west side and ends in the east at
6.5
26.7 1400 m. It is hard to know if this is a natural distribution derived from
28.0 windward and leeward climatic condition differences, or if it is due to
11.5 human disturbance factors such as deforestation. Grasslands, crops and
12.4
secondary vegetation grow along the east side of the transect from 1000
1.8
1.8 to 1200 m, and transitions below into Virola–Juglans–Chionantus forest
3.5 from 500 to 1000 m. Rainforest is found from 200 to 500 m, towards the
2.9 extreme east of the transect in young volcanic material, but this forest is
0.3 also located on old volcanic material between 200 and 300 m. The
1.1
transect 3 3′ runs on young volcanic material from the north coast to the
0.2
3.3 highest altitudinal point (summit of San Martin volcano). The profile of
this transect starts at a cliff on the coast, and only altered vegetation,
crops and grassland are observed from 50 to about 1100 m. From this
elevation to 1400 m Quercus–Ulmus forest is dominant.
4.5. Land unit map
The fusion of geologic, geomorphologic, soil, and land cover/use
information produced a complex land unit map constituted by 99 land
units. These were merged into nine groups of land units by a
multivariate ordination analysis, as shown in Fig. 7. Most of these
groups of land units are well defined and seem to be explained by an
altitudinal gradient. Aeolian sediments and plains with grassland and
mangrove are distributed mainly from sea level to 100 m (groups 1
and 2). Rainforest is the representative vegetation in the land unit
groups 3 and 4 but it also grows on andesites intercalated with
tephras (land unit group 6). Explosive craters covered by secondary
vegetation and erosive fluvial deposits are clustered in land unit 5
group and are distributed from 400 to 650 m. Land unit group 7
represents Tertiary continental sediments, fluvial erosive terrain and
lower slopes modeled by fluvial dissection with recent isolated
volcanic structures. Grasslands and secondary vegetation are distrib-
uted in this land unit group from 100 to 500 m. Land unit groups 8 and
9 are located at higher altitudes.
4.6. Vegetation disturbance
Results of the present study reveal that the major land cover/use
change is the expansion of grasslands and croplands and a more
fragmented landscape structure, also mentioned by (Mendoza et al.,
2005). The remnant primary vegetation is restricted to very steep lava
flows of the region. Comparison of the estimated forest area
(136 km2) in 1986 (Dirzo and García, 1992) with the area calculated
in the present study for the year 2000 (118 km2) indicates a loss of
18 km2 over the fourteen year period. This forest loss is higher than
previously documented periods that reported 98 km2 from 1967 to
1976 and 75 km2 from 1976 to 1986 (Dirzo and García, 1992). Forest
loss estimation for the period 1986–2000 may need further
refinement as field work has not been performed. Major vegetation
features of the zone are well known since an extensive field sampling
was carried out in the zone in 1987 (García and Álvarez, 1994).
5. Discussion
Vegetation follows a quasi-circular distribution trend along
altitudinal belts (Figs. 4 and 5). Altitude remains the major factor
affecting vegetation distribution in the area (García and Álvarez,
1994). This trend is also observed in most of the altitudinal values in
the group of land units ordered by the multivariate analysis (Fig. 7),
except land unit groups 5 and 7. Land unit group 1 represents aeolian
sediments with dune vegetation, while land unit group 2 is
constituted by fluvial sediments and plains and low rolling hills
presenting erosion by fluvial dissection from the Tertiary. Land cover
252 M.C. García-Aguirre et al. / Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256

Fig. 4. Hypsometric map. Results of this study showed that vegetation types follow a concentric pattern of elevation. Rainforest was distributed predominantly to the north and
northwest, probably favored by windward climatic conditions (rainfall is twice than in leeward zone).

is mainly grassland, crops, and mangrove. Certain features of land unit
groups 3 and 4, such as the great amount of intermittent rivers,
provide the required humid conditions for rainforest. This forest and
Virola, Juglans and Chionantus also grow on andesites intercalated
with tephras, fluvial erosive terrain and lower slopes with recent
isolated volcanic structures (land unit group 6), in a range from 700 to
900 m. In the past, these slopes, mainly to the north and east, were
dominantly covered with rainforest due to its low altitude and slope
range and high humidity pattern. However rainforest has been very
much diminished by human activity, and replaced by acahuales (the
local name for secondary vegetation) and grasslands. It is interesting
to observe that Chionantus–Ulmus–Randia forest is clearly associated
with cinder cones aligned NW–SE at altitudes 800 to 1100 m and 1000
to 1300 m (land unit group 8). Higher altitude (900–1600 m) land
units of volcanic ash (cinder cones), lava flows and maars of recent
age present Quercus and Ulmus forest (land unit group 9).
Major dominant features of biogeomorphic land units may be
explained by certain factors. For instance, rainforest development is
 M.C. García-Aguirre et al. / Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256 253

Fig. 5. Land cover/use map. Lines indicate trajectory of three transects (profiles of them are shown in Fig. 6). Transect 1 1′ shows the water divide of the region, 2 2′ crosses from west
to east, and 3 3′ covers from the coast to the top of the highest volcano.

favored by leeward influence while rainfall distribution influence is
highly related to exposure of the slopes. In general, the southwestern
slopes receive less precipitation than the northeastern slopes: 1500
versus 3500 mm (Soto, 1976). In the eastern lowlands, the mean
annual rainfall is 4900 mm (Estrada et al., 1985).
The structural control performed by geologic over geomorphologic
units is evidenced by the slope rupture limits of units 2 and 3 (Fig. 3).
Secondary vegetation has remained on a large patch in the center of
unit 2 since 1987 (Fig. 4), evidencing that lithologic controls rather
than geomorphic processes are dominant.
The simultaneous analysis of geology, geomorphology, soil and
vegetation through GIS may help not only to describe present
landscape, but also to estimate previous or potential land cover in
the area, as it was the case for rainforest and Virola–Juglans–
Chionantes forest, found mainly to the north of the region, since
apparently (in the past) they covered the region from 0 to about
800 m. These forests are associated with recent lava flows, lower
slopes sculpted by fluvial dissection, recent isolated volcanic struc-
tures and fluvial erosion. Windward climatic features may favor this
vegetation distribution.
 254
M.C. García-Aguirre et al. / Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256
Fig. 6. Profiles of the three transects. Profile 1 1′ (water divide) defines windward and leeward regions. Profiles 2 2′ and 3 3′ show the probable limit between new and old volcanic series.
 M.C. García-Aguirre et al. / Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256
Fig. 7. Ordination analysis of 99 biogeomorphic units, producing nine groups of land units. Note a clear altitudinal gradient explaining vegetation distribution.
6. Conclusions
The description of landscape by geomorphic land units provided a
better understanding of vegetation patterns in the area. A series of
breaks in slopes in various sectors of the region delimit the extent of
both geomorphologic and geologic units, establishing an evident
relationship between lithology, structure, relief forms, processes and
very often land cover. This study enhances the importance of
considering geological, geomorphological and other physical features,
not only to make a better analysis of vegetation distribution, but to
make better decisions on conservation/restoration programs. Inte-
grated knowledge of the landscape by delineation of biogeomorphic
land units can assist future work in vegetation recovery and ecological
restoration zones. Even if GIS capabilities facilitate the comparison of
different thematic maps, interdisciplinary expertise is generally
required in landscape analysis studies.
Forest conservation strategies in the area are apparently slowing
down deforestation, but it is necessary to perform landscape
monitoring in a systematic way to estimate vegetation recovery by
natural means (secondary to primary vegetation change). Afterwards,
the implementation of other recovery techniques, such as more
appropriate selection of reforestation areas on the basis of landscape
features, may be undertaken (García-Aguirre et al., 2007).
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge valuable support from Rutilio Castro for some
GIS work. Verónica Aguilar helped with drawing multivariate graphs.
Helpful review comments were provided Dr. Tony Stallins and Dr. R.
Whittecar.
255
References
Álvarez, R., Maupomé, L., Tejera, A., 1976. Magnetic comparison of explosion craters and
volcanic cones. Geofísica Internacional 16, 63–94.
Bocco, G., Mendoza, M., Velásquez, A., 2001. Remote sensing and GIS-based regional
geomorphological mapping — a tool for land use planning in developing countries.
Geomorphology 39, 211–219.
Bürgi, M., Herperber, A.M., Schneeberger, N., 2004. Driving forest of landscape change —
current and new directions. Landscape Ecology 19, 857–868.
Congalton, R.G., 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classification of remotely
sensed data. Remote Sensing Environment 37, 35–46.
Dirzo, R., 1991. Rescate y restauración ecológica de la selva de los Tuxtlas. Ciencia y
Desarrollo 17 (27), 33–45.
Dirzo, R., García, M.C., 1992. Deforestation rates in Los Tuxtlas, a neotropical area in
Southeast Mexico. Conservation Biology 6, 84–90.
Dorner, B., Lertzman, K., Fall, J., 2002. Landscape pattern in topographically complex
landscape issues and techniques for analysis. Landscape Ecology 17, 729–743.
Estrada, A., Coates-Estrada, R., Martínez-Ramos, M., 1985. La Estación de Biología
Tropical Los Tuxtlas: un recurso para el estudio y conservación de las selvas del
trópico húmedo. In: Gómez-Pompa, A., del Amo, S. (Eds.), Investigaciones sobre la
regeneración de selvas altas en Veracruz, Vol. II. Instituto Nacional de Investiga-
ciones de Recursos Bióticos, Alhambra Mexicana D.F. México, pp. 379–389.
Ganas, A., Pavlides, S., Karastathis, V., 2005. DEM-based morphometry of range-front
escarpments in Atticam central Greece, and its relation to fault slip rates.
Geomorphology 65, 310–319.
García, M.C., Álvarez, R., 1994. TM digital processing of a tropical forest region in
southeastern Mexico. International Journal of Remote Sensing 15, 1611–1632.
García-Aguirre, M.C., Ortiz, M.A., Zamorano, J.J., Reyes, Y., 2007. Vegetation and
landform relationships at Ajusco volcano Mexico, using a geographic information
system (GIS). Forest Ecology and Management 239, 1–12.
Gu, W., Hekkila, R., Hanski, I., 2002. Estimating the consequences of habitat fragmentation
on extinction risk in dynamic landscapes. Landscape Ecology 17, 699–710.
Guofand, S., Lu, J., 2008. On the accuracy of landscape analysis using remote sensing
data. Landscape Ecology 23, 505–511.
Gustavsson, M., Seijmonsbergen, A.C., Kolstrup, E., 2008. Structure and contents of a
new geomorphological GIS database linked to a geomorphological map — with an
example from Liden, Central Sweden. Geomorphology 95, 335–349.
Hall, O., Hay, G.J., Bouchard, A., Marceau, D.J., 2004. Detecting dominant landscape
objects through multiple scales: an integration of object specific methods and
watershed segmentation. Landscape Ecology 19, 59–76.
256 M.C. García-Aguirre et al. / Geomorphology 121 (2010) 245–256
Hamilton, S.K., Kellndorfer, J., Lehner, B., Tobler, M., 2007. Remote sensing of floodplain
geomorphology as a surrogate for biodiversity in a tropical river system (Madre de
Dios, Perú). Geomorphology 89, 23–38.
Hebeler, F., Purves, R.S., 2009. The influence of elevation uncertainty on derivation of
topographic and indices. Geomorphology 111, 4–16.
Korkalainen, T., Laurén, A., 2006. Using phytogeomorphology, cartography and GIS to
explain forest site productivity expressed as tree height in southern and central
Finland. Geomorphology 74, 271–284.
Lin, Z., Oguchi, T., 2009. Longitudinal and transverse profiles of hilly and mountainous
watersheds in Japan. Geomorphology 111, 17–26.
López-Vicente, M., Navas, A., Machín, J., 2009. Geomorphic mapping in endorheic
catchments in the Spanish Pyrenees: an integrated GIS analysis of karstic features.
Geomorphology 111, 38–47.
Luque, S.S., 2000. The challenge to manage the biological integrity of nature reserves: a
landscape ecology perspective. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21,
2613–2643.
McCune, B., Mefford, M.J., 1999. PC ORD Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data (V.
4.0). Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
Mendoza, E., Fay, J., Dirzo, R., 2005. A quantitative analysis of forest fragmentation in Los
Tuxtlas, southeast Mexico: patterns and implications for conservation. Revista
Chilena de Historia Natural 78, 451–467.
Moziño, J., 1870. Informe sobre la erupción del Volcán de San Martín Tuxtla (Veracruz)
ocurrida el año de 1793: Bol Soc Geograf Estad Repúb Mexicana, 11, pp. 62–72.
Naveh, Z., 2007. Landscape ecology and sustainability. Landscape Ecology 22,
1437–1440.
Nelson, A., González-Caver, E., 1992. Geology and K–Ar dating in the Tuxtla Volcanic
Field, Veracruz, México. Bulletin of Volcanology 55, 85–96.
Petit, C.C., Lambin, E.F., 2002. Impact of data integration techniques on historical land
cover/use change: comparing historical maps with remote sensing data in the
Belgian Ardennes. Landscape Ecology 17, 117–132.
Poudevigne, I., Baudry, J., 2003. The implication of past and present landscape patterns for
biodiversity research: introduction and overview. Landscape Ecology 18, 159–171.
Rayburg, S., Thoms, M., Neave, M., 2009. A comparison of digital elevation models
generated by different data sources. Geomorphology 106, 261–270.
Renschler, C.S., Doyle, M.W., Thoms, M., 2007. Geomorphology and ecosystems:
challenges and keys for success in bridging disciplines. Geomorphology 89, 1–8.
Roy, P.S., Tomar, S., 2000. Biodiversity characterization at landscape level using
geospatial modeling technique. Biological Conservation 95, 95–109.
Ruiz-Luna, A., Berlanga-Robles, C.A., 2003. Land use, land cover changes and coastal
lagoon surface reduction associated with urban growth in northwest Mexico.
Landscape Ecology 18, 159–171.
Saadat, H., Bonnell, R., Sharifi, F., Mehuys, G., Namdar, M., Ale-Ehrahm, S., 2008.
Landform classification from a digital elevation model and satellite imagery.
Geomorphology 100, 453–464.
Shao, G., Wu, J., 2008. On the accuracy of landscape pattern analysis using remote
sensing data. Landscape Ecology 23, 505–511.
Soto, M., 1976. Algunos aspectos climáticos de la Región de los Tuxtlas. In: Gómez-
Pompa, A., del Amo, S., Vásques-Yanez, C., Butanda, A. (Eds.), Investigaciones sobre
la regeneración de selvas altas en Veracruz. D.F. México: Compañía Editorial
Continental, S.A. Mexico, pp. 70–111.
Stallins, J.A., 2006. Geomorphology and ecology: unifying themes for complex systems
in biogeomorphology. Geomorphology 77, 207–216.
Székely, B., Karátson, D., 2004. DEM based morphometry as a tool for reconstructing
primary volcanic landforms examples from the Börzsüny Mountains, Hungary.
Geomorphology 63, 25–37.
Tasser, E., Ruffini, F.V., Tappeiner, U., 2009. An integrative approach for analysing
landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated and natural mountain areas. Landscape
Ecology 24, 581–713.
Thwaites, R.N., Slater, B.K., 2000. Soil-landscape resource assessment for plantations — a
conceptual framework towards an explicit multi-scale approach. Forest Ecology
and Management 138, 123–138.
Zonneveld, I.S., 1995. Land Ecology: An Introduction to Landscape Ecology as a Base for
Land Evaluation, Land Management and Conservation. SPB Academic Publishing,
Amsterdam.