Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Delineation and Evaluation of Hydrologic-Landscape Regions in the United States Using Geographic Information System Tools and Multivariate Statistical Analyses

  • OriginalPaper
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hydrologic-landscape regions in the United States were delineated by using geographic information system (GIS) tools combined with principal components and cluster analyses. The GIS and statistical analyses were applied to land-surface form, geologic texture (permeability of the soil and bedrock), and climate variables that describe the physical and climatic setting of 43,931 small (approximately 200 km2) watersheds in the United States. (The term “watersheds” is defined in this paper as the drainage areas of tributary streams, headwater streams, and stream segments lying between two confluences.) The analyses grouped the watersheds into 20 noncontiguous regions based on similarities in land-surface form, geologic texture, and climate characteristics. The percentage of explained variance (R-squared value) in an analysis of variance was used to compare the hydrologic-landscape regions to 19 square geometric regions and the 21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency level-II ecoregions. Hydrologic-landscape regions generally were better than ecoregions at delineating regions of distinct land-surface form and geologic texture. Hydrologic-landscape regions and ecoregions were equally effective at defining regions in terms of climate, land cover, and water-quality characteristics. For about half of the landscape, climate, and water-quality characteristics, the R-squared values of square geometric regions were as high as hydrologic-landscape regions or ecoregions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gilliom, R. G., W. M. Alley, and M. E. Gurtz. 1995. Design of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program—Occurrence and distribution of water-quality conditions. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1112, Reston, Virginia, 33 pp.

  2. Hammond, E. H. 1964. Classes of land-surface form in the 48 states, USA. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 54, no. 1964, map supplement no. 4, 1:5,000,000 scale.

  3. W. R. Hamon (1961) ArticleTitleEstimating potential evapotranspiration. Journal of the Hydraulics Division Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 87 107–120

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hargrove, W. W., Hoffman, F. M., Law, B. E. 2003. New analysis reveals representativeness of the Ameriflux network. Eos 84:529, 535.

    Google Scholar 

  5. W. W. Hargrove F. M. Hoffman (1999) ArticleTitleUsing multivariate clustering to characterize ecoregion borders Computing in Science and Engineering 1 18–25

    Google Scholar 

  6. Helsel, D. R., and R. M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical methods in water resources. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations Book 4, Chapter A3 (http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3/)

  7. A. W. Kuchler (1964) Manual to accompany the map, potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States American Geographical Society, Special Publication No. 36 New York 143

    Google Scholar 

  8. Meador, M. R., T. F. Cuffney, and M. E. Gurtz. 1993. Methods for sampling fish communities as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93–104, 40 pp.

  9. F. Murtagh (1985) Multidimensional clustering algorithms Physica-Verlag Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. M. Omernik (1987) ArticleTitleEcoregions of the conterminous United States Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77 118–125 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00149.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. J. M. Omernik G. E. Griffith (1991) ArticleTitleEcological regions versus hydrologic units: frameworks for managing water quality Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46 334–340

    Google Scholar 

  12. Owensby, J. R., and D. S. Ezell. 1992. Climatography of the United States No. 81—monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days, 1961–90. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. Ashville, North Carolina.

  13. Preston, S. D. 2000. Statistical identification of hydrochemical response units for hydrologic monitoring and modeling in Maryland. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4232. Reston, Virginia, 8 pp.

  14. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) data base: data use information. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1492, 35 pp.

  15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik 1987). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon. Map M-1, various scales.

  16. U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. Land use and land cover digital data from 1:250,000- and 1:100,000-scale maps: Data users guide 4 (US GeoData—National Mapping Program Technical Instructions). U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia, 33 pp.

  17. U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. Strategic directions for the U.S. Geological Survey Ground-Water Resources Program: A Report to Congress, 30 November 1998. (http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwrp/stratdir/stratdir.html).

  18. U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. National atlas of the United States maps. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 086-01 (http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs08601.html).

  19. Verdin, K. L., and S. K. Greenlee. 1996. Development of continental scale digital elevation models and extraction of hydrographic features. In Proceedings, Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 21–26 January 1996. Santa Barbara, California. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.

  20. T. C. Winter (2001) ArticleTitleThe concept of hydrologic landscapes Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37 335–349

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Geological Survey, 4821 Quail Crest Place, Lawrence, Kansas 66049, USA

    David M. Wolock

  2. U.S. Geological Survey, MS 413, Denver Federal Center, Lakewood, Colorado 80225, USA

    Thomas C. Winter

  3. U.S. Geological Survey, 3916 Sunset Ridge Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, USA

    Gerard McMahon

Authors
  1. David M. Wolock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas C. Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerard McMahon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Wolock.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wolock, D., Winter, T. & McMahon, G. Delineation and Evaluation of Hydrologic-Landscape Regions in the United States Using Geographic Information System Tools and Multivariate Statistical Analyses. Environmental Management 34 (Suppl 1), S71–S88 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-5077-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-5077-9

Search

Navigation