Environmental Management

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 425–440 | Cite as

Grouping Lakes for Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring: The Roles of Regionalization and Spatial Scale

  • Kendra Spence Cheruvelil
  • Patricia A. Soranno
  • Mary T. Bremigan
  • Tyler Wagner
  • Sherry L. Martin


Regionalization frameworks cluster geographic data to create contiguous regions of similar climate, geology and hydrology by delineating land into discrete regions, such as ecoregions or watersheds, often at several spatial scales. Although most regionalization schemes were not originally designed for aquatic ecosystem classification or management, they are often used for such purposes, with surprisingly few explicit tests of the relative ability of different regionalization frameworks to group lakes for water quality monitoring and assessment. We examined which of 11 different lake grouping schemes at two spatial scales best captures the maximum amount of variation in water quality among regions for total nutrients, water clarity, chlorophyll, overall trophic state, and alkalinity in 479 lakes in Michigan (USA). We conducted analyses on two data sets: one that included all lakes and one that included only minimally disturbed lakes. Using hierarchical linear models that partitioned total variance into within-region and among-region components, we found that ecological drainage units and 8-digit hydrologic units most consistently captured among-region heterogeneity at their respective spatial scales using all lakes (variation among lake groups = 3% to 50% and 12% to 52%, respectively). However, regionalization schemes capture less among-region variance for minimally disturbed lakes. Diagnostics of spatial autocorrelation provided insight into the relative performance of regionalization frameworks but also demonstrated that region size is only partly responsible for capturing variation among lakes. These results suggest that regionalization schemes can provide useful frameworks for lake water quality assessment and monitoring but that we must identify the appropriate spatial scale for the questions being asked, the type of management applied, and the metrics being assessed.


Ecoregions Hierarchical linear models Lake classification Landscape Minimally disturbed lakes Watersheds 


  1. Abell RA, Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Hurley PT, Diggs JT, Eichbaum W, Walters S, Wettengel W, Allnutt T, et al. (2000) Freshwater ecoregions of North America: a conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert, DA (1995) Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station General Technical Report No. NC-178Google Scholar
  3. Anderson JR, Harvey EH, Roach JT, Whitman RE (1976) A land use sensor and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data geological survey. Professional Paper 964. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, RG, Avers PE, King T, McNab WH (1994) Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map; scale 1:7,500,000) (supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab WH, Bailey RG). United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey RG (2005) Identifying ecoregion boundaries. Environmental Management 34(S1):S14–S26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell G, Lechowicz MJ, Appenzeller A, Chandler M, Deblois E, Jackson L, Mackenzie B, Preziosi R, Schallenberg M, et al. (1993) The spatial structure of the physical-environment. Oecologia 96:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen R, Stone CJ (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth International Group, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown RS, Marshall K (1996) Ecosystem management in state governments. Ecological Applications 6:721–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference. Springer-Verlag, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheruvelil KS (2004) Examining lakes at multiple spatial scales: predicting fish growth, macrophyte cover and lake physio-chemical variables. Doctoral thesis, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MIGoogle Scholar
  11. Dodds WK, Carney E, Angelo RT (2006) Determining ecoregional reference conditions for nutrients, Secchi depth and chlorophyll a in Kansas lakes and reservoirs. Lake and Reservoir Management 22(2):151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Union Water Framework Directive (2000) Available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html. Accessed: 4 Nov 2007
  13. Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD (1986) A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10:199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallant AL, Whittier TR, Larsen DP, Omernik JM, Hughes RM (1989) Regionalization as a tool form managing environmental resources. Report EPA/600/3-89/060. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, ORGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerritsen J, Barbour MT, King K (2000) Apples, oranges, and ecoregions: on determining pattern in aquatic assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gotway CA, Young LJ (2002) Combining incomplete spatial data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 97:632–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffith GE, Omernik JM, Woods AJ (1999) Ecoregions, watersheds, basins, and HUCs: how state and federal agencies frame water quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:666–677Google Scholar
  18. Hawkins CP, Vinson MR (2000) Weak correspondence between landscape classification and stream invertebrate assemblages: implications for bioassessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:501–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heiskary SA, Wilson CB, Larsen DP (1987) Analysis of regional patterns in lake water quality: using ecoregions for lake management in Minnesota. Lake and Reservoir Management 3:337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Higgins JV, Bryer MT, Khoury ML, Fitzhugh TW (2005) A freshwater classification approach for biodiversity conservation planning. Conservation Biology 19:432–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson DA (1993) Stopping rules in principal components analysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74:2204–2214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenerette GD, Lee J, Waller DW, Carlson RE (2002) Multivariate analysis of the ecoregion delineation for aquatic systems. Environmental Management 29:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson RK (2000) Spatial congruence between ecoregions and littoral macroinvertebrate assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:75–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson JB, Omland KS (2004) Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalff J (2002) Limnology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  26. Legendre P, Dale TMR, Fortin MJ, Gurevitch J, Hohn M, Myers D (2002) The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys. Ecography 25:601–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology, second edition. Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  28. Meisel JE, Turner MG (1998) Scale detection in real and artificial landscapes using semivariance analysis. Landscape Ecology 13:347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meot A, Legendre P, Borcard D (1998) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation: questions and propositions in the linear modelling framework. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 5:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michigan Resource Information System (2000) Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Available at: http://www.ciesin.org/datasets/mirislcover/miriscov.html.
  31. Moog O, Schmidt-Kloiber A, Ofenbock T, Gerritsen J (2004) Does the ecoregion approach support the typological demands of the EU Water Framework Directive? Hydrobiologia 516:21–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newall PR, Magnuson JJ (1999) The importance of ecoregion versus drainage area on fish distributions in the St. Croix River and its Wisconsin tributaries. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Omernik JM (2004) Perspectives on the nature and definition of ecological regions. Environmental Management 34(S1):27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Omernik JM (2003) The misuse of hydrologic unit maps for extrapolation, reporting, and ecosystem management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39:563–573Google Scholar
  35. Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Omernik JM, Bailey RG (1997) Distinguishing between watersheds and ecoregions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33:935–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Omernik JM, Larsen DP, Rohm CM, Clarke SE (1988) Summer total phosphorus in lakes: A map of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, USA. Environmental Management 12(6):815–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Omernik JM, Rohm CM, Lillie RA, Mesner N (1991) Usefulness of natural regions for lake management: analysis of variation among lakes in northwestern Wisconsin, USA. Environmental Management 15(2):281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pan Y, Stevenson RJ, Hill BH, Herlihy AT (2000) Ecoregions and benthic diatom assemblages in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:518–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poff NL (1997) Landscape filters and species traits: toward mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16:391–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models, second edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  42. Robertson DM, Saad DA, Heisey DM (2006) A regional classification scheme for estimating reference water quality in streams using land-use-adjusted spatial regression-tree analysis. Environmental Management 37(2):209–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sandin L, Johnson RK (2000) Ecoregions and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of Swedish streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:462–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Santoul F, Soulard A, Figuerola J, Céréghino R, Mastrorillo S (2004) Environmental factors influencing local fish species richness and differences between hydroecoregions in south-western France. International Review of Hydrobiology 89:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seaber PR, Kapinos FP, Knapp GL (1987) Hydrologic unit map. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294Google Scholar
  46. Seelbach PW, Wiley MJ, Soranno PA, Bremigan MT (2002) Aquatic conservation planning: using landscape maps to predict ecological reference conditions for specific waters. In: Gutzwiller KJ (ed.), Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY pp 454–478Google Scholar
  47. Singer JD (1998) Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 24:323–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stoddard JL, Larsen DP, Hawkins CP, Johnson RK, Norris RH (2006) Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference conditions. Ecological Applications 16(4):1267–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tabachnik BG, Fidell LS (1989) Using multivariate statistics, second edition. Harper and Row, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  50. Tonn WM (1990) Effects of climate change on fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:337–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Sickle J, Hughes RM (2000) Classification strengths of ecoregions, catchments, and geographic clusters for aquatic vertebrates in Oregon. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:370–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wagner T, Hayes DB, Bremigan MT (2006) Accounting for multilevel data structures in fisheries data using mixed models. Fisheries 31(4):180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wagner T, Bremigan MT, Cheruvelil KS, Soranno PA, Nate NA, Breck JE (2007) A multilevel modeling approach to assessing regional and local landscape features for lake classification and assessment of fish growth rates. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 130:437–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Winter TC (2001) The concept of hydrologic landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wolock DM, Winter TC, McMahon G (2004) Delineation and evaluation of hydrologic-landscape regions in the United States using geographic information system tools and multivariate statistical analyses. Environmental Management 34(S1):S71–S88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kendra Spence Cheruvelil
    • 1
    • 2
  • Patricia A. Soranno
    • 2
  • Mary T. Bremigan
    • 2
  • Tyler Wagner
    • 2
  • Sherry L. Martin
    • 2
  1. 1.Lyman Briggs CollegeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations