Abstract
Context
Land use in a catchment area is critical to understanding how human activities are impacting streams. Catchment land cover is typically quantified as proportions of land use types, but such proportions do not quantify where land use patches are relative to the stream.
Objectives
This paper discusses the merit of land use position metrics for application to stream assessments.
Methods and results
Landscape configuration metrics (LCMs) are often used in stream assessments to describe land use position, but we argue these metrics should be avoided due to: (1) poor description of catchment land cover; (2) inconsistency, and; (3) missing link between valley and stream. Inverse-distance-weighted metrics (IDWs) explicitly quantify the position of land use patches relative to the stream, and thus are conceptually grounded in empirical evidence that the effect of land use is inversely related to its distance from the stream. Hydrologically active IDWs (HA-IDWs) further refine IDWs by quantifying the proximity of land use to hydrologic pathways connecting a stream to its catchment.
Conclusions
We recommend IDW metrics become the standard method to describe catchment land use and its effect on stream conditions and that HA-IDW metrics be used when the required data is available.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Background
Streams and rivers are among the most threatened ecosystems on the planet, with recent assessments showing extensive degradation around the globe (Feio et al. 2022). Human activities such as agriculture are among the leading threats to stream health (Marrochi et al. 2021; Pearce et al. 2021; Arocena et al. 2022; Champagne et al. 2022) because they can have pervasive impacts on hydrology, water chemistry, habitat, and biological structure and function. Thus, clear evidence of how human activity affects freshwater ecosystems is needed for the development of management strategies that can protect and rehabilitate freshwaters. Hynes (1975) famously argued that “the valley rules the stream”, and thus implied that understanding the processes, structure, and function of a stream required knowledge of the natural (e.g. geological) and human (e.g. agricultural) environment of the stream’s catchment area. This stimulated research in catchment land cover as a predictor of freshwater ecosystem conditions (e.g., Lenat and Crawford 1994), but it wasn’t until the mid-1990’s that advances in image processing and geographic information system (GIS) technology (Johnson and Gage 1997) stimulated large scale studies evaluating the effects of human land use on freshwater ecosystems. Such studies typically classified a catchment based on the dominant land cover (e.g. forested, urban, agricultural) or quantified the area or proportion of different types of land cover, including human land use, in the catchment area to at least partially explain variation in stream condition (e.g. Carlisle and Hawkins 2008).
Proportions of a catchment with different types of land cover (e.g. forest versus agriculture versus urban) can help explain stream conditions because as human land use increases, environmental stressors on the land such as sediments, nutrients, and contaminants also increase. As Hynes (1975) noted, these stressors are then transported downslope to the stream, altering physical, chemical and biological conditions. Thus, the amount and type of human activity within the catchment area has a strong, functional linkage to the stream ecosystem and is therefore a useful measure of the effect of this land use on stream conditions. But such simple measures of human activity often leave large amounts of variation in freshwater condition unexplained. For example, the classic study of land use influences on stream nutrient concentrations in the eastern USA by Omernik (1976) showed a wide range of total phosphorus concentrations (approximately 0.018–0.435 mg/L) in developed streams (> 80% human land use), but a very small range (approximately 0.006–0.030 mg/L) in undeveloped (< 10% human land use) streams. Results like these have underscored the need to quantify the position and pattern of land use within the catchment area to better explain human impacts on freshwaters (Fig. 1; Gergel et al. 2002; Gergel 2005).
Landscape Configuration Metrics (LCMs) describe the spatial arrangement of patches of a given land cover type on a landscape (McGarigal 2001). There are many LCMs, but the most commonly used describe aspects of landscape connectivity and heterogeneity (Table 1). The development of the Fragstats package (McGarigal and Marks 1995) coupled with readily available, high quality land cover data have made LCMs increasingly easy to calculate for large geographic areas (e.g., Hill et al. 2016). Terrestrial ecologists have used LCMs to explain how habitat fragmentation and connectivity in the landscape matrix influence dispersal, habitat selection, predator-prey interactions, and many other aspects of terrestrial ecology (Pereboom et al. 2008; Moqanaki and Cushman 2017; Dominik et al. 2018; Haan et al. 2020). LCMs have also been applied in stream assessment studies to explain the effects of land cover configuration on stream conditions (e.g., Clément et al. 2017; Li et al. 2018; Xu et al. 2019; Shehab et al. 2021; Wu and Lu 2021), where associations between LCMs and several measures of water quality have been detected. However, there are three critical factors that we feel limit the utility of LCMs in stream assessments:
-
1.
Poor Description of Catchment Land Cover: Clément et al. (2017) noted that many LCMs have the same value in catchment areas that differ substantially in land cover. Parabolic relationships between LCMs and the proportion of human land use in a catchment result in maximum values in landscapes with intermediate amounts of human land use (Neel et al. 2004). This will challenge our ability to detect monotonic relationships between stream health measures and LCMs for human land use.
-
2.
Inconsistency: Observed relationships between measures of stream health and LCMs have varied in strength and even sign from study to study (e.g., Uuemaa et al. 2007; Lee et al. 2009; Xu et al. 2019).
-
3.
Missing link between valley and stream: LCMs do not capture the positioning of patches relative to the stream network (Fig. 1), and thus do not reflect the hydrological processes that functionally link a stream to its catchment. Therefore, as a predictor and potential explainer of stream conditions, LCMs lack ecological relevance and are likely to produce spurious explanations of relationships between stream condition and human activity in its catchment area.
Based on these factors, we do not recommend the use of LCMs to measure the effect of human activity on stream ecosystem health.
Inverse-distance-weighted metrics (IDWs) are based on the premise that the proximity of a land use patch to the stream channel increases its effect on stream conditions. The importance of proximity is supported by empirical evidence regarding the disproportionate influence that riparian areas have on stream biogeochemistry, water temperature, and organic matter inputs, among other characteristics (e.g., Cooke et al. 2022; Gregory et al. 1991; Vidon et al. 2010). Early attempts to add proximity of land use to the description of the stream ecosystem quantified land cover categories within zones of varying proximity to the channel (e.g. Strayer et al. 2003; Yates and Bailey 2010). However, the zone widths are arbitrarily defined and lump patches that may differ substantially in their proximity to, and effect on, the stream.
Better GIS tools facilitated the calculation of inverse-distance-weighted metrics (IDWs). IDWs are based on the distance of individual land cover patches to the stream channel or sampling point (Fig. 2a; King et al. 2005; Van Sickle and Burch Johnson 2008), and calculated by applying distance weighting functions (e.g., power, inverse, exponential; Weller et al. 2023), such that greater scores represent increased proximity. IDWs are a substantial improvement over simple proportions of different types of land cover and the arbitrary definition of distance-based zones (Van Sickle and Burch Johnson 2008). Therefore, we recommend the use of IDWs in measuring the effect of human activity on stream health when within-catchment flow direction and accumulation information is unavailable, because IDW metrics do not incorporate the substantial variability in flow direction and flow accumulation along the hydrologic pathways that functionally link streams to catchments.
Streams are connected to the landscape through a network of surface and subsurface flow paths that extend from the channel to the uppermost parts of the catchment (Fig. 2b). These flow paths contribute varying amounts of water to the channel at rates dependent upon the topography, soils, and vegetation present along the flow path. The chemical and physical components of the water delivered to the stream from these flow paths is a function of character of the lands through which the water flows, so it follows that stream water will reflect the culmination of all its flow paths. However, as flow paths and locations along individual flow paths will differ in the amount of water contributed to the channel, the relative influence of the flow paths on stream conditions will vary with catchment position. Therefore, using land cover descriptors that incorporate the functional connection between a stream and its catchment should be ideal for testing the effect of human activity on stream health.
Peterson et al. (2011) refined IDWs with the development of the hydrologically active inverse-distance-weighted (HA-IDW) metric. The HA-IDW metric scores each land cover patch according to its potential contribution (upslope area contributing to the patch) and the hydrologic distance from the stream (Fig. 2b). Patches with greater contribution and hydrological connection (i.e. smaller hydrological distance) will have a greater effect on stream conditions (Fig. 1). In this way the HA-IDW metric is a significant advancement over the IDW metric because it explicitly links the stream to catchment hydrological processes.
Calculation of the HA-IDW is more computationally complex than IDWs, but there are open-source scripts available that generate HA-IDW values for a vast number of catchments across large landscapes (Peterson and Pearse 2017; Staponites et al. 2019). The data requirements for HA-IDW are also more demanding than for IDWs, since HA-IDWs require a high quality Digital Elevation Model (DEM) to generate an accurate hydrological network within the catchment. Indeed, the sensitivity of the HA-IDW to errors in topographic estimations of flow will likely result in lower explanatory power in studies of basins with low relief and/or with significant subsurface flow. However, through technologies such as LIDAR and remote sensing endeavours, the resolution and availability of topographic information is rapidly improving. When such high quality data are available, we strongly recommend the use of HA-IDWs to measure the effect of human activity on stream ecosystem health.
Conclusions
Accurate, ecologically relevant descriptions of the catchment area are essential for understanding how land use impacts stream ecosystems. Quantifying simple proportions of the catchment area with different types of land cover is helpful but insufficient. Landscape Configuration Metrics (LCMs) that just describe the number and relative position of different types of land cover are not much better, and may actually be misleading. Indeed, LCMs lack stream ecological relevance because they don’t capture the functional linkage between a stream and its valley. Zonal and inverse-distance-weighted (IDW) metrics are better than LCMs because they explicitly incorporate the distance between the land cover patch and the stream, although they don’t consider flow paths. The best alternative that explicitly links the valley with the stream as envisioned by Hynes (1975) is the hydrologically active inverse-distance-weighted (HA-IDW) metric because when the required high quality data are available it incorporates the flow path from a patch of land, whether forest or agriculture or urban, to the stream.
Data availability
No data was used in the generation of this manuscript.
References
Arocena R, Castro M, Chalar G (2022) Ecological integrity assessment of streams in the light of natural ecoregions and anthropic land use. Environ Monit Assess 194(10):748
Carlisle DM, Hawkins CP (2008) Land use and the structure of western US stream invertebrate assemblages: predictive models and ecological traits. J North Am Benthological Soc 27(4):986–999
Champagne EJ, Guzzo MM, Gutgesell MK, McCann KS (2022) Riparian buffers maintain aquatic trophic structure in agricultural landscapes. Biol Lett 18(3):20210598
Clément F, Ruiz J, Rodríguez MA, Blais D, Campeau S (2017) Landscape diversity and forest edge density regulate stream water quality in agricultural catchments. Ecol Ind 72:627–639
Cooke SJ, Vermaire JC, Baulch HM, Birnie-Gauvin K, Twardek WM, Richardson JS (2022) Our failure to protect the stream and its valley: a call to back off from riparian development. Freshw Sci 41(2):183–194
Dominik C, Seppelt R, Horgan FG, Settele J, Václavík T (2018) Landscape composition, configuration, and trophic interactions shape arthropod communities in rice agroecosystems. J Appl Ecol 55(5):2461–2472
Feio MJ, Hughes RM, Serra SRQ et al (2022) Fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages reveal extensive degradation of the world’s rivers. Glob Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16439
Gergel SE (2005) Spatial and non-spatial factors: when do they affect landscape indicators of watershed loading? Landscape Ecol 20(2):177–189
Gergel SE, Turner MG, Miller JR, Melack JM, Stanley EH (2002) Landscape indicators of human impacts to riverine systems. Aquat Sci - Res Boundaries 64(2):118–128
Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW (1991) An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41(8):540–551
Haan NL, Zhang Y, Landis DA (2020) Predicting landscape configuration effects on agricultural pest suppression. Trends Ecol Evol 35(2):175–186
Hill RA, Weber MH, Leibowitz SG, Olsen AR, Thornbrugh DJ (2016) The stream-catchment (StreamCat) dataset: a database of watershed metrics for the conterminous United States. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 52(1):120–128
Hynes HBN (1975) The stream and its valley. Verh Internat Verein Limnol 19:1–15
Johnson LB, Gage SH (1997) Landscape approaches to the analysis of aquatic ecosystems. Freshw Biol 37(1):113–132
King RS, Baker ME, Whigham DF et al (2005) Spatial considerations for linking watershed land cover to ecological indicators in streams. Ecol Appl 15(1):137–153
Lee S-W, Hwang S-J, Lee S-B, Hwang H-S, Sung H-C (2009) Landscape ecological approach to the relationships of land use patterns in watersheds to water quality characteristics. Landsc Urban Plann 92(2):80–89
Lenat DR, Crawford JK (1994) Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams. Hydrobiologia 294:185–199
Li K, Chi G, Wang L, Xie Y, Wang X, Fan Z (2018) Identifying the critical riparian buffer zone with the strongest linkage between landscape characteristics and surface water quality. Ecol Ind 93:741–752
Marrochi MN, Hunt L, Solis M et al (2021) Land-use impacts on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in pampean streams (Argentina). J Environ Manage 279:111608
McGarigal K (2001) Landscape Pattern Metrics. Encyclopedia of Environmetrics
McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 1–122
Moqanaki EM, Cushman SA (2017) All roads lead to Iran: Predicting landscape connectivity of the last stronghold for the critically endangered Asiatic cheetah. Anim Conserv 20(1):29–41
Neel MC, McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2004) Behavior of class-level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area. Landscape Ecol 19(4):435–455
Omernik JM (1976) The influence of land use on stream nutrients. EPA-600/3-76-014. USEPA
Pearce NJT, Lavoie I, Thomas KE, Chambers PA, Yates AG (2021) Nutrient enrichment effects are conditional on upstream nutrient concentrations: implications for bioassessment in multi-use catchments. Ecol Ind 124:107440
Pereboom V, Mergey M, Villerette N, Helder R, Gerard JF, Lodé T (2008) Movement patterns, habitat selection, and corridor use of a typical woodland-dweller species, the European pine marten (Martes martes), in fragmented landscape. Can J Zool 86(9):983–991
Peterson EE, Pearse AR (2017) IDW-Plus: an ArcGIS Toolset for calculating spatially explicit Watershed attributes for Survey sites. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Association 53(5):1241–1249
Peterson EE, Sheldon F, Darnell R, Bunn SE, Harch BD (2011) A comparison of spatially explicit landscape representation methods and their relationship to stream condition. Freshw Biol 56(3):590–610
Shehab ZN, Jamil NR, Aris AZ, Shafie NS (2021) Spatial variation impact of landscape patterns and land use on water quality across an urbanized watershed in Bentong. Malaysia Ecol Indic 122:107254
Staponites LR, Barták V, Bílý M, Simon OP (2019) Performance of landscape composition metrics for predicting water quality in headwater catchments. Sci Rep 9(1):14405
Strayer DL, Beighley RE, Thompson LC et al (2003) Effects of land cover on stream ecosystems: roles of empirical models and scaling issues. Ecosystems 6(5):407–423
Uuemaa E, Roosaare J, Mander Ü (2007) Landscape metrics as indicators of river water quality at catchment scale. Hydrol Res 38(2):125–138
Van Sickle J, Burch Johnson C (2008) Parametric distance weighting of landscape influence on streams. Landscape Ecol 23(4):427–438
Vidon P, Allan C, Burns D et al (2010) Hot spots and hot moments in riparian zones: potential for improved water quality management. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 46(2):278–298
Weller DE, Baker ME, King RS (2023) New methods for quantifying the effects of catchment spatial patterns on aquatic responses. Landscape Ecol 38(10):2687–2703
Wu J, Lu J (2021) Spatial scale effects of landscape metrics on stream water quality and their seasonal changes. Water Res 191:116811
Xu G, Ren X, Yang Z, Long H, Xiao J (2019) Influence of Landscape structures on Water Quality at multiple temporal and spatial scales: a case study of Wujiang River Watershed in Guizhou. Water 11(1):159
Yates AG, Bailey RC (2010) Improving the description of human activities potentially affecting rural stream ecosystems. Landscape Ecol 25(3):371–382
Acknowledgements
The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions on an earlier version of this article.
Funding
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception, design, material preparation. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Adam G Yates and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Yates, A.G., Bailey, R.C. Using land cover information in assessing the ecosystem health of streams. Landsc Ecol 39, 17 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01831-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01831-1