Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 94, Issue 1–3, pp 23–38

Using Spatial Interpolation to Estimate Stressor Levels in Unsampled Streams

  • Lester L. Yuan
Article

Abstract

Accurate estimates of stressor levels in unsampled streams would provide valuable information for managing these resources over large regions. Spatial interpolation of stream characteristics have rarely been attempted, partly because defining separation distances between distinct stream samples is not straightforward. That is, conventional Eulerian definitions of separation distance may not apply to stream networks where information flows along distinct paths. A two-stage model for estimating stressor levels in unsampled streams is presented. Mean characteristics within streams are predicted using a generalized additive model and residual variation is estimated using a conventional application of spatial statistics. The model is developed and tested using stream survey data collected in the state of Maryland, USA. Model efficiency is compared for three stream variables (nitrate concentration, sulfate concentration, and epifaunal substrate score) known to be associated with biological impairments in streams. Accounting for spatial autocorrelation in the residual variation improved model R2 from 0.71 to 0.81 for nitrate, from 0.29 to 0.63 for sulfate, and from 0.21 to 0.31 for epifaunal substrate score.

kriging interpolation nitrate physical habitat streams sulfate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boward, D.M., Kazyak, P.F., Stranko, S.A., Hurd, M.K. and Prochaska, T.P.: 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.Google Scholar
  2. Burrough, P.A. and McDonnell, R. A.:1998, Principles of Geographical Information Systems, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  3. De Nicola, D.M. and Stapleton, M.G.: 2002, 'Impact of acid mine drainage on benthic communities in streams: the relative roles of substratum vs. aqueous effects', Environ. Pollut. 119, 303-315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goovaerts, P.: 2000, 'Geostatistical approaches for incorporating elevation into the spatial interpolation of rainfall', J. Hydrol. 228, 113-129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grimm, J.W. and Lynch, J.A.: 2000, 'Enhanced wet deposition estimates for the Chesapeake Bay watershed using modeled precipitation inputs', CBWP-MANTA-AD-99-2 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Hastie, T.J.: 1992, 'Generalized additive models', in J.M. Chambers and T.J. Hastie (eds.), Statistical Models in S, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 249-308.Google Scholar
  7. Isaaks, E.H. and Srivastava, R.M.: 1989, Applied Geostatistics, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Jones, K.B., Neale, A.C., Nash, M.S., van Remortel, R.D., Wickham, J.D., Riiters, K.H. and O'Neill, R.V.: 2001, 'Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic Region', Landscape Ecol. 16, 301-312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermerier, P.L., Yant, P.R. and Schlosser, I.J.: 1986, 'Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale,' Special Publication 5 Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Kaufmann, P.R., Herlihy, A.T. and Elwood, J.W.: 1988, 'Chemical Characteristics of Streams in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States', Volume I: Population Descriptions and Physico-Chemical Relationships, EPA-600-3-88-021a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Acid Deposition Environmental Monitoring and Quality Assurance, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  11. Little, L.S., Edwards, D. and Porter, D.E.: 1997, 'Kriging in estuaries: as the crow flies, or as the fish swims', J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 213, 1-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu, L-J.S. and Rossini, A.J.: 1996, 'Use of kriging models to predict 12-hour mean ozone concentrations in metropolitan Toronto-A pilot study', Environ. Int. 22, 677-692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MD DNR: 1999, Guide to Using the 1995-1997 Maryland Biological Stream Survey Data, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Meul, M. and Van Meirvenne, M.: 2003, 'Kriging soil texture under different types of nonstationarity', Geoderma. 112, 217-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miltner, R.J. and Rankin, E.T.: 1998, 'Primary nutrients and the biotic integrity of rivers and streams', Freshwat. Biol. 40, 145-158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thiessen, A.H.: 1911, 'Precipitation averages for large areas', Mon. Weather Rev. 39, 1082-1084.Google Scholar
  17. USEPA: 2000, 'Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment', EPA-903-R-00-015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Philadelphia PA, USA.Google Scholar
  18. USGS: 1996, 'Coal Fields of the Conterminous United States: Polygons,' U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-92, U.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Energy Team, Reston, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Wood, P.J. and Armitage, P.D.: 1997, 'Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment', Environ. Manage. 21, 203-217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zeger, S.L. and Liang, K.Y.: 1986, 'Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes', Biometrics. 42, 121-130.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lester L. Yuan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations