Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 151, Issue 1–4, pp 143–160 | Cite as

Predicting the biological condition of streams: use of geospatial indicators of natural and anthropogenic characteristics of watersheds

  • Daren M. Carlisle
  • James Falcone
  • Michael R. Meador
Article

Abstract

We developed and evaluated empirical models to predict biological condition of wadeable streams in a large portion of the eastern USA, with the ultimate goal of prediction for unsampled basins. Previous work had classified (i.e., altered vs. unaltered) the biological condition of 920 streams based on a biological assessment of macroinvertebrate assemblages. Predictor variables were limited to widely available geospatial data, which included land cover, topography, climate, soils, societal infrastructure, and potential hydrologic modification. We compared the accuracy of predictions of biological condition class based on models with continuous and binary responses. We also evaluated the relative importance of specific groups and individual predictor variables, as well as the relationships between the most important predictors and biological condition. Prediction accuracy and the relative importance of predictor variables were different for two subregions for which models were created. Predictive accuracy in the highlands region improved by including predictors that represented both natural and human activities. Riparian land cover and road-stream intersections were the most important predictors. In contrast, predictive accuracy in the lowlands region was best for models limited to predictors representing natural factors, including basin topography and soil properties. Partial dependence plots revealed complex and nonlinear relationships between specific predictors and the probability of biological alteration. We demonstrate a potential application of the model by predicting biological condition in 552 unsampled basins across an ecoregion in southeastern Wisconsin (USA). Estimates of the likelihood of biological condition of unsampled streams could be a valuable tool for screening large numbers of basins to focus targeted monitoring of potentially unaltered or altered stream segments.

Keywords

Biological assessment Predictive models Random forests Geospatial data Spatial scale 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allan, J. D. (2004). Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35, 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Carline, R. F., & Walsh, M. C. (2007). Responses to riparian restoration in the spring creek watershed, central Pennsylvania. Restoration Ecology, 15, 731–742.Google Scholar
  5. Carlisle, D. M., & Meador, M. R. (2007). A predictive model for the biological condition of macroinvertebrate assemblages in eastern U.S. streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43, 1194–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, R. T., Furse, M. T., Wright, J. F., & Moss, D. (1996). Derivation of a biological quality index for river sites: comparison of the observed with the expected fauna. Journal of Applied Statistics, 23, 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, R. T., Wright, J. F., & Furse, M. T. (2003). RIVPACS models for predicting the expected macroinvertebrate fauna and assessing the ecological quality of rivers. Ecological Modelling, 160, 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuffney, T. F., Gurtz, M. E., & Meador, M. R. (1993). Methods for collecting benthic macroinvertebrate samples as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Open File Report 93-406, US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  9. Cutler, D. R., Edwards, T. C., Jr., Beard, K. H., Cutler, A., Hess, K. T., Gibson, J., et al. (2007). Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology, 88, 2783–2792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies, S. P., & Jackson, S. K. (2006). The Biological Condition Gradient: a conceptual model for interpreting detrimental change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 16, 1251–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, N. M., Norris, R. H., & Thoms, M. C. (2000). Predication and assessment of local stream habitat features using large-scale catchment characteristics. Freshwater Biology, 45, 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daymet 2006. Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group: University of Montana. Retrieved from www.daymet.org.
  13. De’ath, G., & Fabricus, K. E. (2000). Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology, 81, 3178–3192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fielding, A. H., & Bell, J. F. (1997). A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation, 24, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garzón, M. B., Blazek, R., Neteler, M., Sánchez de Dios, R., Ollero, H. S., & Furlanello, C. (2006). Predicting habitat suitability with machine learning models: The potential area of Pinus sylvestris L. in the Iberian Peninsula. Ecological Modelling, 197, 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. GeoLytics (2001). CensusCD 2000 and StreetCD 2000 CDROM. GeoLytics, Inc., East Brunswick: New Jersey.Google Scholar
  17. Gilliom, R. J., Alley, W. A., & Gurtz, M. E. (1995). Design of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Occurrence and distribution of water-quality conditions. US Geological Survey Circular 1112, Sacramento, California.Google Scholar
  18. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2001). The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Hawkins, C. P. (2006). Quantifying biological integrity by taxonomic completeness: its utility in regional and global assessments. Ecological Applications, 16, 1277–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawkins, C. P., & Carlisle, D. M. (2001). Use of predictive models for assessing the biological integrity of wetlands and other aquatic habitats. In R. B. Rader, D. P. Batzer, & S. A. Wissinger (Eds.), Bioassessment and management of North American wetlands (pp. 59–83). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Hawkins, C. P., Norris, R. H., Hogue, J. N., & Feminella, J. W. (2000). Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Applications, 10, 1456–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heinz Center (2002). The state of the nation’s ecosystems: Measuring the lands, waters, and living resources of the United States. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Suite 735 South, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Horizon Systems Corporation (2006). National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) Home: Horizon Systems Corporation. Retrieved August 2006 from http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/.
  24. King, R. S., Baker, M. E., Whigham, D. F., Weller, D. E., Jordan, T. E., Kazyak, P. F., et al. (2005). Spatial considerations for linking watershed land cover to ecological indicators in streams. Ecological Applications, 15, 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawler, J. J., White, D., Neilson, R. P., & Blaustein, A. R. (2006). Predicting climate-induced range shifts: Model differences and model reliability. Global Climate Change Biology, 12, 1568–1584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liaw, A., & Wiener, M. (2002). Classification and regression by random Forest. R News, 2/3, 18–22.Google Scholar
  27. Moore, A. A., & Palmer, M. A. (2005). Invertebrate biodiversity in agricultural and urban headwater streams: Implications for conservation and management. Ecological Applications, 15, 1169–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moss, D., Furse, M. T., Wright, J. F., & Armitage, P. D. (1987). The prediction of the macro-invertebrate fauna of unpolluted running-water sites in Great Britain using environmental data. Freshwater Biology, 17, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moulton, S. R., II, Carter, J. L., Grotheer, S. A., Cuffney, T. F., & Short, T. M. (2000). Methods of analysis by the US Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: Processing, taxonomy, and quality control of benthic macroinvertebrate samples. Open File Report 00-212, US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  30. Moulton, S. R., II, Kennen, J. G., Goldstein, R. M., & Hambrook, J. A. (2002). Revised Protocols for Sampling Algal, Invertebrate, and Fish Communities as Part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Open-file Report 02-150, US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  31. Nilsson, C., Pizzuto, J. E., Moglen, G. E., Palmer, M. A., Stanley, E. H., Bockstael, N. E., et al. (2003). Ecological forecasting and the urbanization of stream ecosystems: challenges for economists, hydrologists, geomorphologists, and ecologists. Ecosystems, 6, 659–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ostermiller, J. D., & Hawkins, C. P. (2004). Effects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: applications to RIVPACS-type models. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 23, 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parmenter, A. W., Hansen, A., Kennedy, R. E., Cohen, W., Langer, U., Lawrence, R., et al. (2003). Land use and land cover change in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem: 1975–1995. Ecological Applications, 13, 687–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paul, M. J., & Meyer, J. L. (2001). Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paulsen, S. G., Hughes, R. M., & Larson, D. P. (1998). Critical elements in describing and understanding our nation’s aquatic resources. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34, 995–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Potter, K. M., Cubbage, F. W., Blank, G. B., & Schaeberg, R. H. (2004). A watershed-scale model for predicting nonpoint pollution risk in North Carolina. Environmental Management, 34, 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prasad, A. M., Iverson, L. R., & Liaw, A. (2007). Newer classification and regression tree techniques: bagging and random forests for ecological predictions. Ecosystems, 9, 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pyne, M. I., Rader, R. R., & Christensen, W. F. (2007). Predicting local biological characteristics in streams: a comparison of landscape classifications. Freshwater Biology, 52, 1302–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. R Development Core Team (2006). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org.
  40. Richards, C., Host, G. E., & Arthur, J. W. (1993). Identification of predominant environmental factors structuring stream macroinvertebrate communities within a large agricultural catchment. Freshwater Biology, 29, 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roy, A. H., Freeman, M. C., Freeman, B. J., Wenger, S. J., Meyer, J. L., & Ensign, W. E. (2006). Importance of riparian forests in urban catchments contingent on sediment and hydrologic regimes. Environmental Management, 37, 523–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ruddy, B. C., Lorenz, D. L., Mueller, D. K. (2006). County-level estimates of nutrient inputs to the land surface of the conterminous United States, 1982–2001: US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5012.Google Scholar
  43. Strayer, D. L., Beighley, R. E., Thompson, L. C., Brooks, S., Nilsson, C., Pinay, G., et al. (2003). Effects of land cover on stream ecosystems: Roles of empirical models and scaling issues. Ecosystems, 6, 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Svetnik, V., Liaw, A., Tong, C., Culberson, J. C., Sheridan, R. P., & Feuston, B. P. (2003). Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Science, 43, 1947–1958.Google Scholar
  45. Tate, C. M., Cuffney, T. F., McMahon, G., Giddings, E. M. P., & Zappia, H. (2005). Use of an urban intensity index to assess urban effects on streams in three contrasting environmental settings. In L. R. Brown, R. H. Gray, R. M. Hughes, & M. R. Meador (Eds.), Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems (pp. 291–316). Maryland: American Fisheries Society Symposium 47.Google Scholar
  46. Urban, D. L. (2002). Classification and regression trees. In B. McCune & J. B. Grace (Eds.), Analysis of ecological communities (pp. 222–232). Oregon: MjM Software Design.Google Scholar
  47. US Army Corps of Engineers (2006). National Inventory of Dams: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Retrieved July 2006 from http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/webpages/nid.cfm.
  48. US Department of Agriculture (2006). US General Soil Map (STATSGO)|NRCS NCGC. Retrieved from http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/statsgo/.
  49. US Environmental Protection Agency (2000). Mid-Atlantic highlands stream assessment. EPA/903/R-00/015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  50. US Environmental Protection Agency (2006a). Draft wadeable streams assessment: A collaborative survey of the Nation’s streams. EPA 841-B-06-002. Office of Water, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  51. US Environmental Protection Agency (2006b). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved June 2006 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/.
  52. US General Accounting Office (GAO) (2002). Water quality: Inconsistent state approaches complicate nation’s efforts to identify its most polluted waters. GAO-02-186. United State General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  53. US Geological Survey (2006a). USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/.
  54. US Geological Survey (2006b). MRLC consortium: National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). Retrieved from http://www.mrlc.gov/.
  55. US Geological Survey (2006c). National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Home Page. Retrieved from http://nhd.usgs.gov/.
  56. US Geological Survey (2006d). National Elevation Dataset (NED). Retrieved from http://ned.usgs.gov.
  57. US Geological Survey (2007). Grids of agricultural pesticide use in the conterminous United States, 1997: US Geological Survey. Retrieved June 2007 from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/agpest97grd.xml.
  58. Van Sickle, J., Baker, J., Herlihy, A., Bayley, P., Gregory, S., Haggerty, P., et al. (2004). Projecting the biological condition of streams under alternative scenarios of human land use. Ecological Applications, 14, 368–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Sickle, J., Hawkins, C. P., Larsen, D. P., & Herlihy, A. T. (2005). A null model for the expected macroinvertebrate assemblage in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Vølstad, J. H., Roth, N. E., Mercurio, G., Southerland, M. T., & Strebel, D. E. (2003). Using environmental stressor information to predict the ecological status of Maryland non-tidal streams as measured by biological indicators. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 84, 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wallace, J. B., Eggert, S. L., Meyer, J. L., & Webster, J. R. (1997). Multiple trophic levels of a stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science, 277, 102–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walsh, C. J., Roy, A. H., Feminella, J. W., Cottingham, P. D., Groffman, P. M., & Morgan, R. P., II (2005). The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 706–723.Google Scholar
  64. Wolock, D. M., Fan, J., & Lawrence, G. B. (1997). Effects of basin size on low-flow stream chemistry and subsurface contact time in the Neversink River watershed, New York. Hydrological Processes, 11, 1273–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolock, D. M., & McCabe, G. J. (1995). Comparison of single and multiple flow-direction algorithms for computing topographic parameters in TOPMODEL. Water Resources Research, 31, 1315–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wright, J. F., Sutcliffe, D. W., & Furse, M. T. (Eds.) (2000). Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. United Kingdom: Freshwater Biological Association.Google Scholar
  67. Yates, A. G., & Bailey, R. C. (2006). The stream and its altered valley: Integrating landscape ecology into environmental assessments of agro-ecosystems. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 114, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daren M. Carlisle
    • 1
  • James Falcone
    • 1
  • Michael R. Meador
    • 1
  1. 1.National Water-Quality Assessment ProgramUS Geological SurveyRestonUSA

Personalised recommendations