Spatial prediction on a river network

  • Noel Cressie
  • Jesse Frey
  • Bronwyn Harch
  • Mick Smith


This article develops methods for spatially predicting daily change of dissolved oxygen (Dochange) at both sampled locations (134 freshwater sites in 2002 and 2003) and other locations of interest throughout a river network in South East Queensland, Australia. In order to deal with the relative sparseness of the monitoring locations in comparison to the number of locations where one might want to make predictions, we make a classification of the river and stream locations. We then implement optimal spatial prediction (ordinary and constrained kriging) from geostatistics. Because of their directed-tree structure, rivers and streams offer special challenges. A complete approach to spatial prediction on a river network is given, with special attention paid to environmental exceedances. The methodology is used to produce a map of Dochange predictions for 2003. Dochange is one of the variables measured as part of the Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program conducted within the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership.

Key Words

Covariance-matching constrained kriging Dissolved oxygen Ordinary kriging Process-convolution model River monitoring network Spatial moving average 


  1. Aldworth, J., and Cressie, N. (2003), “Prediction of Nonlinear Spatial Functionals,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 112, 3–41.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Billingsley, P. (1995), Probability and Measure (3rd ed.), New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Cressie, N. (1993a), “Aggregation in Geostatistical Problems,” in Geostatistics Tróia 1992, Vol. 1, ed. A. Soares, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
  4. — (1993b), Statistics for Spatial Data (revised ed.), New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Cressie, N., and Johannesson, G. (2001), “Kriging for Cut-Offs and Other Difficult Problems,” in geoENV III —Geostatistics for Environmental Applications, eds. P. Monestiez, D. Allard, R. Froidevaux, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 299–310.Google Scholar
  6. EHMP (2004), Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program 2002–2003 Annual Technical Report, Brisbane: Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership.Google Scholar
  7. Knighton, D. (1998), Fluvial Forms and Processes: A New Perspective, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Monestiez, P., Bailly, J.-S., Lagacherie, P., and Voltz, M. (2005), “Geostatistical Modelling of Spatial Processes on Directed Trees: Application to Fluvisol Extent,” Geoderma, 128, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ver Hoef, J. M., Cressie, N., and Barry, R. P. (2004), “Flexible Spatial Models Is Based on the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) for Cokriging,” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 13, 265–282.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Ver Hoef, J. M., Peterson, E., and Theobald, D. (in press), “Spatial Statistical Models that use Flow and Stream Distance,” Environmental and Ecological Statistics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Biometric Society 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noel Cressie
    • 1
  • Jesse Frey
    • 2
  • Bronwyn Harch
    • 3
  • Mick Smith
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of StatisticsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical SciencesVillanova UniversityVillanova
  3. 3.CSIRO Mathematical & Information SciencesQueensland Bioscience PrecinctSt LuciaAustralia
  4. 4.Environmental BranchMaroochy Shire CouncilAustralia

Personalised recommendations