Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 130, Issue 1–3, pp 495–510 | Cite as

Can Basin Land Use Effects on Physical Characteristics of Streams Be Determined at Broad Geographic Scales?

  • Robert M. Goldstein
  • Daren M. Carlisle
  • Michael R. Meador
  • Terry M. Short


The environmental setting (e.g., climate, topography, geology) and land use affect stream physical characteristics singly and cumulatively. At broad geographic scales, we determined the importance of environmental setting and land use in explaining variation in stream physical characteristics. We hypothesized that as the spatial scale decreased from national to regional, land use would explain more of the variation in stream physical characteristics because environmental settings become more homogeneous. At a national scale, stepwise linear regression indicated that environmental setting was more important in explaining variability in stream physical characteristics. Although statistically discernible, the amount of variation explained by land use was not remarkable due to low partial correlations. At level II ecoregion spatial scales (southeastern USA plains, central USA plains, and a combination of the western Cordillera and the western interior basins and ranges), environmental setting variables were again more important predictors of stream physical characteristics, however, as the spatial scale decreased from national to regional, the portion of variability in stream physical characteristics explained by basin land use increased. Development of stream habitat indicators of land use will depend upon an understanding of relations between stream physical characteristics and environmental factors at multiple spatial scales. Smaller spatial scales will be necessary to reduce the confounding effects of variable environmental settings before the effects of land use can be reliably assessed.


Geomorphology Habitat Land use/land cover Riparian conditions Rivers/streams Spatial scale 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allan, J. D. (2004). Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 35, 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan, J. D., Erickson, D. L., & Fay, J. (1997). The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology, 37, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R., Hardy, E. E., Roach, J. T., & Witmer, R. E. (1976). A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Professional Paper 964, US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  4. Booth, D. B. (1990). Stream-channel incision following drainage basin urbanization. Water Resources Bulletin, 26, 407–417.Google Scholar
  5. Fitzpatrick, F. A., Waite, I. R., D’Arconte, P., Meador, M. R., Maupin, M. A., & Gurtz, M. E. (1998). Revised methods for characterizing stream habitat in the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Water-Resource Investigations Report 98–4052, US Geological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  6. Frimpong, E. A., Sutton, T. M., Engel, B. A., & Simon, T. P. (2005). Spatial-scale effects on relative importance of physical habitat predictors of stream health. Environmental Management, 36, 899–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frissell, C. A., Liss, W. J., Warren, C. E., & Hurley, M. D. (1986). A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management, 10, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldstein, R. M., Wang, L., Simon, T. P., & Stewart, P. M. (2002). Development of a stream habitat index for the Northern lakes and forests ecoregion. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 22, 452–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gregory, K. J., Gurnell, A. M., Hill, C. T., & Tooth, S. (1994). Stability of the pool-riffle sequence in changing river channels. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 9, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment (2002). The state of the nation’s ecosystems: Measuring the lands, waters, and living resources of the United States (p. 270). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Harding, J. S., Benfield, E. F., Bolstad, P. V., Helfman, G. S., & Jones, E. B. D. (1998). Stream biodiversity: The ghost of land use past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95, 14843–14847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkins, C. P., Norris, R. H., Gerritsen, J., Hughes, R. M., Jackson, S. K., Johnson, R. K., et al. (2000). Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: Synthesis and recommendations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19, 541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hughes, R. M., & Gammon, J. D. (1987). Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and water quality in the Willamette River, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 116, 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaufmann, P. R., & Hughes, R. M. (2006). Geomorphic and anthropogenic influences on fish and amphibians in Pacific Northwest Coastal Streams. In R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, & P. W. Seelbach (Eds.), Influence of landscapes on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society Symposium 48:429–455, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  15. Lammert, M., & Allan, J. D. (1999). Assessing biotic integrity of streams: Effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management, 23, 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leahy, P. P., Ryan, B. J., & Johnson, A. I. (1993). An introduction to the US Geological Survey’s National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Water Resources Bulletin, 29, 529–532.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, K. E., Goldstein, R. M., & Hanson, P. E. (2001). Relation between fish communities and riparian zone conditions at two spatial scales. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37, 1465–1473.Google Scholar
  18. Legendre, P., & Legendre, L. (1998). Numerical ecology. Developments in environmental modelling, 20. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Leopold, L. B., Miller, M. G., & Miller, J. P. (1964). Fluvial processes in geomorphology. San Francisco, California: Freeman.Google Scholar
  20. Meador, M. R., & Goldstein, R. M. (2003). Assessing water quality at large geographic scales: Relations among land use, water physicochemistry, riparian condition, and fish community structure. Environmental Management, 31, 504–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Naiman, R. J., Johnston, C. A., & Kelley, J. C. (1998). Alteration of North American streams by beaver. Bioscience, 38, 753–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Elevation Dataset (NED) (2004). Retrieved from http://www.gisdata.usgs.gov/ned/.
  23. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (2004). Retrieved from http://www.nhd.usgs.gov/.
  24. National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) (2004). National land cover characterization. Retrieved from http://www.landcover.usgs.gov/natllandcover.asp.
  25. National Research Council (2000). Ecological indicators for the nation. Washington, District of Columbia: National Academy, 198 pp.Google Scholar
  26. National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) (2004). Retrieved from http://www.water.usgs.gov/nawqa.
  27. Neller, R. J. (1988). A comparison of channel erosion in small urban and rural catchments, Armidale, New South Wales. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 13, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nerbonne, B. A., & Vondracek B. (2001). Effects of local land use on physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA. Environmental Management, 28, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Omernik, J. M. (1987). Aquatic ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77, 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Omernik, J. M., & Gallant, A. L. (1988). Ecoregions of the upper Midwest states, US. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/3–88/037, 56 p.Google Scholar
  31. Paul, M. J., & Meyer, J. L. (2001). Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Richards, C., Johnson, L. B., & Host, G. E. (1996). Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53(Suppl 1), 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roth, N. E., Allan, J. D., & Erickson, D. L. (1996). Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology, 11, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Short, T. M., Giddings, E. M. P., Zappia, H., & Coles J. F. (2005). Urbanization effects on stream habitat characteristics in Boston, Massachusetts; Birmingham, Alabama; and Salt Lake City, Utah. In L. R. Brown, R. Gray, R. Hughes, & M. R. Meador (Eds.), Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems (pp. 317–332). Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
  35. Stauffer, J. C., Goldstein, R. M., & Newman, R. M. (2000). Relationship of wooded riparian zones and runoff potential to fish community composition in agricultural streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57, 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walser, C. A., & Bart, H. L. (1999). Influence of agriculture on in-stream habitat and fish community structure in Piedmont watersheds of the Chattahoochee River system. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 8(4), 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang, L., Lyons, J., & Kanehl, P. (1998). Development and evaluation of a habitat rating system for low-gradient Wisconsin streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 18, 775–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P., & Gotti, R. (1997). Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries, 22, 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weigel, B. M., Wang, L., Rassmussen, P. W., Butcher, J. T., Stewart, P. M., Simon, T. P., et al. (2003). Relative influence of variables at multiple spatial scales on stream macroinvertebrates in the Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion, USA. Freshwater Biology, 48, 1440–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zar, J. H. (1999). Biostatistical analysis, Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Goldstein
    • 1
  • Daren M. Carlisle
    • 2
  • Michael R. Meador
    • 2
  • Terry M. Short
    • 3
  1. 1.US Geological SurveyAugustaUSA
  2. 2.US Geological SurveyRestonUSA
  3. 3.US Geological SurveyMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations