Advertisement

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 105, Issue 1–2, pp 377–386 | Cite as

The Relationship Between Stream Chemistry and Watershed Land Cover Data in the Mid-Atlantic Region, U.S.

  • Alan T. Herlihy
  • John L. Stoddard
  • Colleen Burch Johnson
Article

Abstract

In order to investigate the relationship between stream chemistry and watershed land cover at the regional scale, we analyzed data from 368 wadeable streams sampled in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. during spring 1993-1994. Study sites were selected using a probability sample and the digitized version of the 1:100,000 scale USGS map stream network as the sample population. Both classified Thematic Mapper (TM) and USGS Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) data were used to quantify land cover in the study watersheds. On average, the most common land cover was forest (77%) followed by agriculture (20%), and urban (1%). Multiple regression analysis showed that concentrations of Cl-, nutrients, acid neutralization capacity, and base cations were the analytes most strongly related to watershed land cover. Despite large differences in resolution and age of the TM and LULC data sources, similar results were obtained with the two sources. Using a greater number of land cover subclasses did not greatly improve the land cover-chemistry relationships. Ecoregions with predominantly forested land cover had weaker relationships than ecoregions with more agricultural and/or urban land cover. In studies or databases without land cover information, Cl- concentration is a good surrogate indicator for general human disturbance in the watershed.

land cover land use mid-Atlantic region stream water chemistry watershed 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T. and Witmer, R.E.: 1976, A Land Use and Land Cover Classification system for Use with Remote Sensor Data, USGS Prof. Paper 964.Google Scholar
  2. Field, C.K., Siver, P.A., and Lott, A.: 1996, J. Environ. Qual., 25, 325.Google Scholar
  3. Herlihy, A.T., Kaufmann, P.R., Church, M.R., Wigington, P.J., Webb, J.R. and Sale, M.J.: 1993, Water Resourc. Res., 29, 2687.Google Scholar
  4. Johnson, C.B., Weaver, G.W. and Larsen, D.P.: Environ. Manag., in review.Google Scholar
  5. Jordan, T.E., Correll, D.L. and Weller, D.E.: 1997, J. Environ. Qual., 26, 836.Google Scholar
  6. Langland, M.L., Lietman, P.L. and Hoffman, S.: 1995, Synthesis of Nutrient and Sediment Data for Watersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95–4233.Google Scholar
  7. Liegel, L., Cassell, D., Stevens, D., Shaffer, P. and Church, R.: 1991, Environ. Manag., 15, 269.Google Scholar
  8. Mattson, M.D. and Godfrey, P.J.: 1994, Environ. Manag., 18, 767.Google Scholar
  9. McDaniel, T.W., Hunsaker, C.T. and Beauchamp, J.L.: 1987, Environ. Manag., 11, 507.Google Scholar
  10. Mueller, D.K., Hamilton, P.A., Helsel, D.R., Hilt, K.J. and Ruddy, B.C.: 1995, Nutrients in Ground Water and Surface Water of the United States-An Analysis of Data through 1992, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95–4031.Google Scholar
  11. Osborne, L.L. and Wiley, M.J.: 1988, J. Environ. Manag., 26, 9.Google Scholar
  12. Prowse, O.W.: 1987, Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 32, 277.Google Scholar
  13. Puckett, L.I.: 1995, Environ Sci Technol. 29, 408A.Google Scholar
  14. SAS.: 1985, SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers, Ver. 6, SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  15. Schnabel, R.R., Urban, J.B. and Gburek, W.J.: 1993, J. Environ. Qual., 22, 589.Google Scholar
  16. Siver, P.A., Canavan, R.W., Field, C.K., Marsicano, L.I. and Lott, A.: 1996, J. Environ. Qual., 25, 334.Google Scholar
  17. Stoddard, J.L.: 1994, ‘Long-term Changes in Watershed Retention of Nitrogen: Its Causes and Aquatic Consequences’, in L.A. Baker (ed.), Environmental Chemistry of Lakes and Reservoirs, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 223–284.Google Scholar
  18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 1987, Handbook of Methods for Acid Deposition Studies: Laboratory Analysis for Surface Water Chemistry, EPA 600/4–87/026, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 1995, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Conditions of Wadeable Streams, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.Google Scholar
  20. 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, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  21. Vogelmann, J.E., Soho, T. and Howard, S.M.: Photogram. Eng Remote Sens, in press.Google Scholar
  22. Webb, R., Cosby, J., Eshleman, K. and Galloway, J.: 1995, Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 85, 535.Google Scholar
  23. Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Brown, D.D. and Kiilsgaard, C.W.: 1996, Level III and IV Ecoregions of Pennsylvania and the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Ridge and Valley, and the Central Appalachians of Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland, EPA /600R-96/077, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan T. Herlihy
    • 1
  • John L. Stoddard
    • 2
  • Colleen Burch Johnson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.U.S. EPA Environmental Research LaboratoryCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.OAO CorporationCorvallis

Personalised recommendations