Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 121, Issue 1–3, pp 571–596 | Cite as

Patterns of Spatial Autocorrelation in Stream Water Chemistry

  • Erin E. Peterson
  • Andrew A. Merton
  • David M. Theobald
  • N. Scott Urquhart
Article

Abstract

Geostatistical models are typically based on symmetric straight-line distance, which fails to represent the spatial configuration, connectivity, directionality, and relative position of sites in a stream network. Freshwater ecologists have explored spatial patterns in stream networks using hydrologic distance measures and new geostatistical methodologies have recently been developed that enable directional hydrologic distance measures to be considered. The purpose of this study was to quantify patterns of spatial correlation in stream water chemistry using three distance measures: straight-line distance, symmetric hydrologic distance, and weighted asymmetric hydrologic distance. We used a dataset collected in Maryland, USA to develop both general linear models and geostatistical models (based on the three distance measures) for acid neutralizing capacity, conductivity, pH, nitrate, sulfate, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and dissolved organic carbon. The spatial AICC methodology allowed us to fit the autocorrelation and covariate parameters simultaneously and to select the model with the most support in the data. We used the universal kriging algorithm to generate geostatistical model predictions. We found that spatial correlation exists in stream chemistry data at a relatively coarse scale and that geostatistical models consistently improved the accuracy of model predictions. More than one distance measure performed well for most chemical response variables, but straight-line distance appears to be the most suitable distance measure for regional geostatistical modeling. It may be necessary to develop new survey designs that more fully capture spatial correlation at a variety of scales to improve the use of weighted asymmetric hydrologic distance measures in regional geostatistical models.

Keywords

geostatistics hydrologic distance scale spatial autocorrelation stream networks water chemistry weighted asymmetric hydrologic distance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akaike, H.: 1973, ‘Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle’, in: Second International Symposium on Information Theory, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 267–281.Google Scholar
  2. Alewell, C., Mitchell, M. J., Likens, G. E. and Krouse, H. R.: 1999, ‘Sources of stream sulfate at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest: Long-term analyses using stable isotopes’, Biogeochemistry 44, 281–299.Google Scholar
  3. Altunkaynak, A., Ozger, M. and Sen, Z.: 2003, ‘Triple diagram model of level fluctuations in Lake Van, Turkey’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 7, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angelier, E.: 2003, Ecology of Streams and Rivers, Science Publishers, Inc, Enfield, NH, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Benda, L., Poff, N. L., Miller, D., Dunne, T., Reeves, G., Pess, G. and Pollock, M.: 2004, ‘The Network Dynamics Hypothesis: How channel networks structure riverine habitats’, BioScience 54, 413–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggs, B. J., Jowett, I. J., Quinn, J. M., Hickey, C. W., Davies-Colley, R. J. and Close, M.: 1990, ‘Ecological characterisation, classification, and modeling of New Zealand rivers: An introduction and synthesis’, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 24, 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolstad, P., Jenks, A., Berkin, J. and Horne, K.: 2005, ‘A comparison of autonomous, WAAS, real-time, and post-processed global positioning systems (GPS) accuracies in northern forests’, Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 22, 5–11.Google Scholar
  8. Boward, D., Kayzak, P., Stranko, S., Hurd, M. and Prochaska, A.: 1999, From the Mountains to the Sea: The State of Maryland's Freshwater Streams, EPA/903/R-99/023, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division, Annapolis, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Byrd, R. H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J. I. , Zhu, C. and Siam, J.: 1995, ‘A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization’, Scientific Computing 16, 1190–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carroll, R. J. and Ruppert, D.: 1982, ‘A comparison between maximum likelihood and generalized least squares in a heteroscedastic linear model’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 77, 878–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chambers, P. A., Prepas, E. E. and Gibson, K.: 1992, ‘Temporal and spatial dynamics in riverbed chemistry-The influence of flow and sediment composition’, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49, 2128–2140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Closs, G., Downes, B. and Boulton A.: 2004, Freshwater Ecology, Blackwell Science Ltd, Malden, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Colyer, W. T., Kershner, J. L. and Hilderbrand, R. H.: 2005, ‘Movements of fluvial Bonneville cutthroat trout in the Thomas Fork of the Bear River, Idaho-Wyoming’, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25, 954–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper, S. D., Barmuta, L., Sarnelle, O., Kratz, K. and Diehl, S.: 1997, ‘Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in streams’, Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16, 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cressie, N.: 1993, Statistics for Spatial Data Revised Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Cressie, N., Frey, J., Harch, B. and Smith, M.: 2005, ‘Spatial prediction on a river network’, Technical Report, No. 747, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Cumming, G. S.: 2002, ‘Habitat shape, species invasions, and reserve design: Insights from simple models’, Conservation Ecology, 6, 3. [online] URL:http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art3/ Google Scholar
  18. Davies, N. M., Norris, R. H. and Thoms, M. C.: 2000, ‘Prediction and assessment of local stream habitat features using large-scale catchment characteristics’, Freshwater Biology 45, 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dawson, J. J. C., Billett, M. F. and Hope, D.: 2001, ‘Diurnal variations in the carbon chemistry of two acidic peatland streams in north-east Scotland’, Freshwater Biology 46, 1309–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dent, C. L. and Grimm, N. B.: 1999, ‘Spatial heterogeneity of stream water nutrient concentrations over successional time’, Ecology 80, 2283–2298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Driscoll, C. T., Lawrence, G. B., Bulger, A. J., Butler, T. J., Cronan, C. S., Eagar, C., Lambert, K. F., Likens, G. E., Stoddard, J. L. and Weathers, K. C.: 2001, Acid Rain Revisited: Advances in Scientific Understanding Since the Passage of the 1970 and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Science Links Publication, Hubbard Brook Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  22. Dunne, T. and Leopold, L. B.: 1978, Water in Environmental Planning, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI): 2002, ArcGIS version 8.3, Redlands, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Frissell, C. A., Liss, W. J., Warren, C. E. and Hurley, M. D.: 1986, ‘A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context’, Environmental Management 10, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Furnival, G. and Wilson, R.: 1974, ‘Regression by leaps and bounds’, Technometrics 16, 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ganio, L. M., Torgersen, C. E. and Gresswell, R. E.: 2005, ‘A geostatistical approach for describing spatial pattern in stream networks’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3, 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gardner, B., Sullivan, P. J. and Lembo, A. J.: 2003, ‘Predicting stream temperatures: Geostatistical model comparison using alternative distance metrics’, Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science 60, 344–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gray, L.: 2004, ‘Changes in water quality and macroinvertebrate communities resulting from urban stormflows in the Provo River, Utah, U.S.A.’, Hydrobiologia 518, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Helsel, D. R. and Hirsch, R. M.: 1992, Statistical Methods in Water Resources, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Herlihy, A. T., Kaufmann, P. R. and Mitch, M. E.: 1990, ‘Regional estimates of acid mine drainage impact on streams in the Mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States’, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 50, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herlihy, A. T., Stoddard, J. L. and Johnson, C. B.: 1998, ‘The relationship between stream chemistry and watershed land cover data in the Mid-Atlantic region, U.S.A.’, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 105, 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herlihy, A. T., Larsen, D. P., Paulsen, S. G., Urquhart, N. S. and Rosenbaum, B. J.: 2000, ‘Designing a spatially balanced, randomized site selection process for regional stream surveys: The EMAP Mid-Atlantic Pilot Study’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hill, B. H., Hall, R. K., Husby, P., Herlihy, A. T. and Dunne, M.: 2000, ‘Interregional comparisons of sediment microbial respiration in streams’, Freshwater Biology 44, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoeting, J. A., Davis, R. A., Merton, A. A. and Thompson, S. E.: 2006, ‘Model selection for geostatistical models’, Ecological Applications 16, to appear.Google Scholar
  35. Hynes, H. B.: 1960, The Biology of Polluted Waters, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, England.Google Scholar
  36. Ihaka, R. and Gentleman, R.: 1996, ‘R: A language for data analysis and graphics’, Journal of the Computational and Graphical Statistics 5, 299–314.Google Scholar
  37. Jobson, J. D. and Fuller, W. A.: 1980, ‘A comparison between maximum likelihood and generalized least squares in a heteroscedastic linear model’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 75, 176–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kellum, B.: 2003, ‘Analysis and modeling of acid neutralizing capacity in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands area’, Master's Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.Google Scholar
  39. Kitanidis, P. K.: 1983, ‘Statistical estimation of polynomial generalized covariance functions and hydrologic applications’, Water Resources Research 19, 909–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Legleiter, C. J., Lawrence, R. L., Fonstad, M. A., Marcus, W. A. and Aspinall, R.: 2003, ‘Fluvial response a decade after wildfire in the northern Yellowstone ecosystem: A spatially explicit analysis’, Geomorphology 54, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levin, S. A.: 1992, ‘The problem of pattern and scale in ecology’, Ecology 73, 1943–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Little, L. S., Edwards, D. and Porter, D. E.: 1997, ‘Kriging in estuaries: As the crow flies, or as the fish swims?’, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 213, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mercurio, G., Chaillou, J. C. and Roth, N. E.: 1999, Guide to Using 1995–1997 Maryland Biological Stream Survey Data, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Mulholland, P. J.: 2003, ‘Large-scale patterns in dissolved organic carbon concentration, flux, and sources’, in: Aquatic Ecosystems: Interactivity of Dissolved Organic Matter, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 139–159.Google Scholar
  45. Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Wasserman, W. and Nachtsheim, C. J.: 1996, Applied Linear Statistical Models, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Olden, J. D., Jackson, D. A. and Peres-Neto, P. R.: 2001, ‘Spatial isolation and fish communities in drainage lakes’, Oecologia 127, 572–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olea, R. A.: 1991, Geostatistical Glossary and Multilingual Dictionary, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  48. Omernik, J. M.: 1987, ‘Ecoregions of the conterminous United States’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77, 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pardo-Iğuzquiza, E.: 1998, ‘Maximum likelihood estimation of spatial covariance parameters’, Mathematical Geology 40, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peterson, E. E.: 2005, ‘Predicting the likelihood of water quality impaired stream segments using landscape-scale data and a hierarchical methodology’, PhD Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 293 p.Google Scholar
  51. Poff, N. L.: 1997, ‘Landscape filters and species traits: Towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology’, Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pringle, C. M.: 1991, ‘Geothermally modified waters surface at La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica: Volcanic processes introduce chemical discontinuities into lowland tropical streams’, Biotropica 40, 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pringle, C. M.: 2001, ‘Hydrologic connectivity and the management of biological reserves: A global perspective’, Ecological Applications 11, 981–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Qualls, R. G. and Haines, B. L.: 1992, ‘Biodegradability of dissolved organic matter in forest throughfall, soil solution, and stream water’, Soil Science Society of American Journal 56, 578–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rathburn, S. L.: 1998, ‘Spatial modeling in irregularly shaped regions: Kriging estuaries’, Environmetrics 9, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rousseeuw, P. J. and Leroy, A. M.: 1987, Robust Regression and Outlier Detection, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shmida, A.: 1984, ‘Whittaker plant diversity sampling method’, Israel Journal of Botany 33, 41–46.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, K.: 1981, ‘The prediction of river water temperatures’, Hydrological Sciences Bulletin 26, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stohlgren, T. J., Falkner, M. B. and Schell, L. D.: 1995, ‘A Modified-Whittaker nested vegetation sampling method’, Vegetatio 117, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Torgersen, C. E., Gresswell, R. E. and Bateman, D. S.: 2004, ‘Pattern detection in stream networks: quantifying spatial variability in fish distribution’, in: Proceedings of the Second Annual International Symposium on GIS/Spatial Analyses in Fishery and Aquatic Sciences, Fishery GIS Research Group, Saitama, Japan.Google Scholar
  61. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): 1993, Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, EPA 625-R-93-012, USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  62. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): 1999, Standards for National Hydrography Dataset – Draft, U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reston, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  63. Ver Hoef, J. M., Peterson, E. E. and Theobald, D. M.: 2007, ‘Some new spatial statistical models for stream networks’, Environmental and Ecological Statistics 14, to appear.Google Scholar
  64. Veregin H.: 2000, ‘Quantifying positional error induced by line simplification’, International Journal of Geographical Information Science 14, 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ward, J. V.: 1989, ‘The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems’, Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8, 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wetzel, R. G.: 1992, ‘Gradient-dominated ecosystems: Sources and regulatory functions of dissolved organic matter in freshwater ecosystems’, Hydrobiologia 229, 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yuan, L. L.: 2004, ‘Using spatial interpolation to estimate stressor levels in unsampled streams’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin E. Peterson
    • 1
  • Andrew A. Merton
    • 2
  • David M. Theobald
    • 3
  • N. Scott Urquhart
    • 2
  1. 1.CSIRO Mathematical & Information SciencesQueensland Bioscience PrecinctSt. LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Natural Resource Ecology Lab and Natural Resources Recreation and Tourism DepartmentColorado State UniversityFort CollinsU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations