Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daymet 2006. Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group: University of Montana. Retrieved from www.daymet.org.

  • De’ath, G., & Fabricus, K. E. (2000). Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology, 81, 3178–3192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GeoLytics (2001). CensusCD 2000 and StreetCD 2000 CDROM. GeoLytics, Inc., East Brunswick: New Jersey.

  • 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.

  • Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2001). The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, C. P. (2006). Quantifying biological integrity by taxonomic completeness: its utility in regional and global assessments. Ecological Applications, 16, 1277–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Horizon Systems Corporation (2006). National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) Home: Horizon Systems Corporation. Retrieved August 2006 from http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liaw, A., & Wiener, M. (2002). Classification and regression by random Forest. R News, 2/3, 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, M. J., & Meyer, J. L. (2001). Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 333–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • US Department of Agriculture (2006). US General Soil Map (STATSGO)|NRCS NCGC. Retrieved from http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/statsgo/.

  • US Environmental Protection Agency (2000). Mid-Atlantic highlands stream assessment. EPA/903/R-00/015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

  • 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.

  • US Environmental Protection Agency (2006b). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved June 2006 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/.

  • 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.

  • US Geological Survey (2006a). USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/.

  • US Geological Survey (2006b). MRLC consortium: National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). Retrieved from http://www.mrlc.gov/.

  • US Geological Survey (2006c). National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Home Page. Retrieved from http://nhd.usgs.gov/.

  • US Geological Survey (2006d). National Elevation Dataset (NED). Retrieved from http://ned.usgs.gov.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Water-Quality Assessment Program, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 20192, USA

    Daren M. Carlisle, James Falcone & Michael R. Meador

Authors
  1. Daren M. Carlisle
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Falcone
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael R. Meador
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daren M. Carlisle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carlisle, D.M., Falcone, J. & Meador, M.R. Predicting the biological condition of streams: use of geospatial indicators of natural and anthropogenic characteristics of watersheds. Environ Monit Assess 151, 143–160 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0256-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0256-z

Keywords