Landscape Ecology

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 301–312 | Cite as

Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: A multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic Region

  • K. Bruce Jones
  • Anne C. Neale
  • Maliha S. Nash
  • Rick D. Van Remortel
  • James D. Wickham
  • Kurt H. Riitters
  • Robert V. O'Neill

Abstract

There has been an increasing interest in evaluating the relative condition or health of water resources at regional and national scales. Of particular interest is an ability to identify those areas where surface and ground waters have the greatest potential for high levels of nutrient and sediment loadings. High levels of nutrient and sediment loadings can have adverse effects on both humans and aquatic ecosystems. We analyzed the ability of landscape metrics generated from readily available, spatial data to predict nutrient and sediment yield to streams in the Mid-Atlantic Region in the United States. We used landscape metric coverages generated from a previous assessment of the entire Mid-Atlantic Region, and a set of stream sample data from the U.S. Geological Survey. Landscape metrics consistently explained high amounts of variation in nitrogen yields to streams (65 to 86% of the total variation). They also explained 73 and 79% of the variability in dissolved phosphorus and suspended sediment. Although there were differences in the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment models, the amount of agriculture, riparian forests, and atmospheric nitrate deposition (nitrogen only) consistently explained a high proportion of the variation in these models. Differences in the models also suggest potential differences in landscape-stream relationships between ecoregions or biophysical settings. The results of the study suggest that readily available, spatial data can be used to assess potential nutrient and sediment loadings to streams, but that it will be important to develop and test landscape models in different biophysical settings.

landscape metrics nutrients in streams nutrient loadings watershed assessments 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, C.L. and Gibbons, C.J. 1996. Impervious surface coverage: the emergence of a key environmental indicator. J Am Planning Assoc 62: 243–258.Google Scholar
  2. Ator, S.W. and Ferrari, M.J. 1997. Nitrate and selected pesticides in ground water of the Mid-Atlantic Region. US Geol. Surv.Water-Resources Invest. Report 97-4139, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Behrendt, H., Ley, M., Korol, R., Stronska-Kedzia, M. and Pagenkopf, W. 1999. Point and diffuse nutrient emissions and transports in the Odra Basin and its main tributaries. Acta Hydrobiol Hydrochim 27: 274–281.Google Scholar
  4. Burns, J.W. 1972. Some effects of logging and associated road construction on Northern Californian streams. Trans Am Fish Soc 101: 1–17.Google Scholar
  5. Charbonneau, R and Kondolf, G.M. 1993. Land use change in California, USA: nonpoint source water quality impacts. Environ Man 17: 453–460.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, S.E., White, D. and Schaedel, A.L. 1991. Oregon, USA, ecological regions and subregions for water quality management. Environ Man 15: 847–856.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, J.R., Gilliam, J.W., Daniels, R.D. and Robarge, W.P. 1987. Riparian areas as filters for agricultural sediment. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51: 416–420.Google Scholar
  8. de Whit, M. and Behrendt, H. 1999. Nitrogen and phosphorus loss from soil to surface water in the Rhine and Elbe Basin. Wat Sci Tech 39: 109–116.Google Scholar
  9. EPA. 1988. Future risk: research strategies for the 1990's. EPA Science Advisory Board, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  10. EPA. 1998. Office of Research and Development: Ecological research strategy. EPA/600/R-98/086, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  11. ESRI. 1996. Introduction to ArcView GIS. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Franklin, J.F. 1992. Scientific basis for new perspectives in forests and streams. pp. 2572. In Watershed Management. Edited by Naiman, R.J. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Harden, C.P. 1992. Incorporating roads and footpaths in watershedscale hydrologic and soil erosion models. Phys Geogr 13: 368–385.Google Scholar
  14. Hem, J.D. 1985. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water. US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, Washington, DC, USA. 264 pp.Google Scholar
  15. 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 of the U.S.Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 105: 377–386.Google Scholar
  16. Hunsaker, C.T. and Levine, D.A. 1995. Hierarchical approaches to the study of water quality in rivers. BioScience 45: 193–203.Google Scholar
  17. Hunsaker, C.T., Levine, D.A., Timmins, S.P., Jackson, B.L. and O'Neill, R.V. 1992. Landscape characterization for assessing regional water quality. pp. 997–1006. In Ecological Indicators Edited by McKenzie, D.H., Hyatt, D.E. and McDonald, V.J. Elsevier Appl. Sci., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, K.B., Riitters, K.H., Wickham, J.D., Tankersley, R.D., O'Neill, R.V., Chaloud, D.J, Smith, E.R. and Neale, A.C. 1997. An ecological assessment of the United States mid-Atlantic Region: a landscape atlas EPA/600/R-97/130, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  19. Karr, J.R. and Schlosser, I.J. 1978. Water resources and the landwater interface. Science 201: 229–233.Google Scholar
  20. Langland, M.J., Edwards, R.E. and Darrell, L.C., 1998. Status yields and trends of nutrient and sediment data and methods of analysis for the nontidal data-collection programs, Chesapeake Bay drainage basin: 1985-96. U.S. Geological Survey/OFR 98-17, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Likens, G.E., Bormann, F.H., Pierce, R.S., Eaton, J.S. and Johnson, N.M. 1977. Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Lowrance, R.R., Leonard, R. and Sheridan, J. 1984. Managing riparian ecosystems to control nonpoint pollution. J Soil Water Cons 40: 87–91.Google Scholar
  23. Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J. and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied Linear Regression Models. Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the United States: Map at a scale of 1:7,500,000,000. Suppl Annals Am Assoc Geogr 77: 118–125.Google Scholar
  25. Omernik, J.M., Abernathy, A.R. and Male, L.M. 1981. Stream nutrient levels and proximity of agricultural and forest land to streams: some relationships. J Soil Water Cons 36: 227–231.Google Scholar
  26. O'Neill, R.V., Hunsaker, C.T., Jones, K.B., Riitters, K.H., Wickham, J.D., Schwarz, P., Goodman, I.A., Jackson, B. and Baillargeon, W.S. 1997. Monitoring environmental quality at the landscape scale. BioScience 47: 513–520.Google Scholar
  27. Peterjohn, W.T. and Correl, D.L 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65: 1466–1475.Google Scholar
  28. Rapport, D.J., Caudet, C., Karr, J.R., Baron, J.S., Bohlen, C., Jackson, W., Jones, B., Naiman, R.J., Norton, B. and Pollock, M.M. 1998. Evaluating landscape health: integrating societal goals and biophysical process. J Environ Manag 53: 1–15.Google Scholar
  29. Roth, N.E., Allan, J.D. and Erickson, D.L. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple scales. Land Ecol 11: 141–156.Google Scholar
  30. SAS. 1990. SAS/SAT User´s Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition, Vol. 2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E. and Alexander, R.B. 1997. Regional interpretation of water-quality monitoring data. Water Res Res 33: 2781–2798.Google Scholar
  32. Stensland, G.L., Whelpdale, D.M. and Ochlert, G. 1986. Precipitation chemistry. pp. 128–199. In Acid Deposition: Long-Term Trends. Natl. Res. Counc., Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  33. Vogelmann, J.E., Sohl, T., Campbell, P.V. and Shaw, D.M. 1998. Regional land cover characterization using Landsat Thematic Mapper data and ancillary sources. Environ Mon Assess 51: 415–428.Google Scholar
  34. Walker, J., Bullen, F. and Williams, B.G. 1993. Ecohydrological changes in the Murray—Darling Basin. I. The number of trees cleared over two centuries. J Appl Ecol 30: 265–273.Google Scholar
  35. Weller, M.C., Watzin, M.C. and Wang, D. 1996. Role of wetlands in reducing phosphorus loading to surface water in eight watersheds in the Lake Champlain Basin. Environ Manag 20: 731–739.Google Scholar
  36. Wickham, J.D., Jones, K.B., Riitters, K.H., O'Neill, R.V., Tankersley, R.D., Smith, E.R., Neale, A.C. and Chaloud, D.J. 1999. An integrated environmental assessment of the US Mid-Atlantic Region. Environ Manag 24: 553–560.Google Scholar
  37. Wischmeier, W.H. and Smith, D.D. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion loss: A guide to conservation planning. Agricultural handbook 537. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  38. Yates, P. and Sheridan, J.M. 1983. Estimating the effectiveness of vegetated floodplains/wetlands as nitrate-nitrite and orthophosphorus filters. Agric Ecosys Environ 9: 303–314.Google Scholar
  39. Zhu, Z., Yang, L., Stehman, S. and Czaplewski, R. 2000. Accuracy assessment of U.S. Geological Survey regional land cover mapping program: New York and New Jersey. Photo Eng Rem Sens, 66: 1425–1435.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Bruce Jones
    • 1
  • Anne C. Neale
    • 1
  • Maliha S. Nash
    • 1
  • Rick D. Van Remortel
    • 2
  • James D. Wickham
    • 3
  • Kurt H. Riitters
    • 4
  • Robert V. O'Neill
    • 5
  1. 1.US Environmental Protection AgencyLas VegasUSA
  2. 2.Lockheed-MartinLas VegasUSA
  3. 3.US Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  4. 4.US Forest ServiceResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  5. 5.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations