Skip to main content

Patterns of Spatial Autocorrelation in Stream Water Chemistry

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment volume 121, pages 571–596 (2006)Cite this 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelier, E.: 2003, Ecology of Streams and Rivers, Science Publishers, Inc, Enfield, NH, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Closs, G., Downes, B. and Boulton A.: 2004, Freshwater Ecology, Blackwell Science Ltd, Malden, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cressie, N.: 1993, Statistics for Spatial Data Revised Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dent, C. L. and Grimm, N. B.: 1999, ‘Spatial heterogeneity of stream water nutrient concentrations over successional time’, Ecology 80, 2283–2298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Dunne, T. and Leopold, L. B.: 1978, Water in Environmental Planning, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, CA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI): 2002, ArcGIS version 8.3, Redlands, CA.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnival, G. and Wilson, R.: 1974, ‘Regression by leaps and bounds’, Technometrics 16, 499–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Helsel, D. R. and Hirsch, R. M.: 1992, Statistical Methods in Water Resources, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeting, J. A., Davis, R. A., Merton, A. A. and Thompson, S. E.: 2006, ‘Model selection for geostatistical models’, Ecological Applications 16, to appear.

  • Hynes, H. B.: 1960, The Biology of Polluted Waters, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Kitanidis, P. K.: 1983, ‘Statistical estimation of polynomial generalized covariance functions and hydrologic applications’, Water Resources Research 19, 909–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. A.: 1992, ‘The problem of pattern and scale in ecology’, Ecology 73, 1943–1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Olden, J. D., Jackson, D. A. and Peres-Neto, P. R.: 2001, ‘Spatial isolation and fish communities in drainage lakes’, Oecologia 127, 572–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olea, R. A.: 1991, Geostatistical Glossary and Multilingual Dictionary, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik, J. M.: 1987, ‘Ecoregions of the conterminous United States’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77, 118–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo-Iğuzquiza, E.: 1998, ‘Maximum likelihood estimation of spatial covariance parameters’, Mathematical Geology 40, 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pringle, C. M.: 2001, ‘Hydrologic connectivity and the management of biological reserves: A global perspective’, Ecological Applications 11, 981–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rathburn, S. L.: 1998, ‘Spatial modeling in irregularly shaped regions: Kriging estuaries’, Environmetrics 9, 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseeuw, P. J. and Leroy, A. M.: 1987, Robust Regression and Outlier Detection, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shmida, A.: 1984, ‘Whittaker plant diversity sampling method’, Israel Journal of Botany 33, 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K.: 1981, ‘The prediction of river water temperatures’, Hydrological Sciences Bulletin 26, 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren, T. J., Falkner, M. B. and Schell, L. D.: 1995, ‘A Modified-Whittaker nested vegetation sampling method’, Vegetatio 117, 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Veregin H.: 2000, ‘Quantifying positional error induced by line simplification’, International Journal of Geographical Information Science 14, 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. V.: 1989, ‘The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems’, Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8, 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, R. G.: 1992, ‘Gradient-dominated ecosystems: Sources and regulatory functions of dissolved organic matter in freshwater ecosystems’, Hydrobiologia 229, 181–198.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, L. L.: 2004, ‘Using spatial interpolation to estimate stressor levels in unsampled streams’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94, 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. CSIRO Mathematical & Information Sciences, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, 306 Carmody Road, St. Lucia, QLD, 4067, Australia

    Erin E. Peterson

  2. Department of Statistics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Andrew A. Merton & N. Scott Urquhart

  3. Natural Resource Ecology Lab and Natural Resources Recreation and Tourism Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, U.S.A.

    David M. Theobald

Authors
  1. Erin E. Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew A. Merton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David M. Theobald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Scott Urquhart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin E. Peterson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peterson, E.E., Merton, A.A., Theobald, D.M. et al. Patterns of Spatial Autocorrelation in Stream Water Chemistry. Environ Monit Assess 121, 571–596 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-9156-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-9156-7

Keywords

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