Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of landscape pattern metrics and multiscale data in aquatic species distribution models: a case study of a freshwater mussel

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The distributions of freshwater mussels are controlled by landscape factors operating at multiple spatial scales. Changes in land use/land cover (LULC) have been implicated in severe population declines and range contractions of freshwater mussels across North America. Despite widespread recognition of multiscale influences few studies have addressed these issues when developing distribution models. Furthermore, most studies have disregarded the role of landscape pattern in regulating aquatic species distributions, focusing only on landscape composition. In this study, the distribution of Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica) in the upper Green River system (Ohio River drainage) is modeled with environmental variables from multiple scales: subcatchment, riparian buffer, and reach buffer. Four types of landscape environment metrics are used, including: LULC pattern, LULC composition, soil composition, and geology composition. The study shows that LULC pattern metrics are very useful in modeling the distribution of Rabbitsfoot. Together with LULC compositional metrics, pattern metrics permit a more detailed analysis of functional linkages between aquatic species distributions and landscape structure. Moreover, the inclusion of multiple spatial scales is necessary to accurately model the hierarchical processes in stream systems. Geomorphic features play important roles in regulating species distributions at intermediate and large scales while LULC variables appear more influential at proximal scales.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 35:257–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan JD, Castillo MM (2007) Stream ecology: structure and function of running waters, 2nd edn. Springer, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle KE, Downing JA (2002) Freshwater mussel abundance and species richness: GIS relationships with watershed land use and geology. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:310–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin MP (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modeling. Ecol Modell 157:101–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Box JB, Mossa J (1999) Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and probems. J North Am Benthol Soc 18:99–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrd K, Kelly M (2006) Salt marsh vegetation response to edaphic and topographical changes from upland sedimentation in a Pacific estuary. Wetlands 26:813–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinnayakanahalli K, Kroeber C, Hill R et al (2006) The multi-watershed delineation tool: GIS software in support of regional watershed analyses. Utah State University, Logan

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings KS, Mayer CA (1992) Field guide to freshwater mussels of the Midwest. Illinois natural history survey manual 5, Urbana

  • De’ath G (2007) Boosted trees for ecological modeling and prediction. Ecology 88:243–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP et al (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Leathwick JR, Hastie T (2008) A working guide to boosted regression trees. J Anim Ecol 77:802–813

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental System Research Institute (2006) ArcGIS/ArcInfo for Windows XP Version 9.2.0. Redlands

  • Geology of Kentucky (2002) Kentucky geological survey, Lexington

  • Greene DC, Wolfe WJ (2000) Superfund GIS—1:250,000 Geology of Tennessee. United States Geological Survey, Nashville

    Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson LB, Richards C, Host GE et al (1997) Landscape influences on water chemistry in midwestern stream ecosystems. Freshw Biol 37:193–208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jones EBDIII, Helfman GS, Harper JO et al (1999) Effects of riparian forest removal on fish assemblages in southern Appalachian streams. Conserv Biol 13:1454–1465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearns FP, Kelly NM, Carter JL et al (2005) A method for the use of landscape metrics in freshwater research and management. Landscape Ecol 20:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick JR, Rowe D, Richardson J et al (2005) Using multivariate adaptive regression splines to predict the distributions of New Zealand’s freshwater diadromous fish. Freshw Biol 50:2034–2052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick JR, Elith J, Francis MP, Hastie T, Taylor P (2006) Variation in demersal fish species richness in the oceans surrounding New Zealand: an analysis using boosted regression trees. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 321:267–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecol 19:389–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey BG, Lindenmayer DB (2001) Towards a hierarchical framework for modeling the spatial distribution of animals. J Biogeogr 28:1147–1166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS. Spatial analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351

  • McRae SE, Allan JD, Burch JB (2004) Reach- and catchment-scale determinants of the distribution of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in south-eastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshw Biol 49:127–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naiman RJ, Decamps H (1997) The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:621–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Resources Conservation Service (2006) Digital general soil map of US. USDA, Fort Worth

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes RM, Gido KB, Falke JA et al (2005) Modelling of stream fishes in the Great Plains, USA. Ecol Freshw Fish 14:361–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olden JD, Jackson DA (2002) A comparison of statistical approaches for modeling fish species distributions. Freshw Biol 47:1976–1995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opperman JJ, Lohse K, Brooks C, Kelly NM, Merenlender AM (2005) Influence of watershed-scale land use on salmonid spawning habitat in a Mediterranean-climate basin, California. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:2740–2751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce JL, Boyce MS (2006) Modelling distribution and abundance with presence-only data. J Appl Ecol 43:405–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole KE, Downing JA (2004) Relationship of declining mussel biodiversity to stream-reach and watershed characteristics in an agricultural landscape. J North Am Benthol Soc 23:114–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi A, Rasmussen JB (1999) Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conserv Biol 13:1220–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway G (2006) Generalized boosted regression models. Available from ftp://ftp.auckland.ac.nz/pub/software/CRAN/doc/packages/gbm.pdf

  • Roy AH, Rosemond AD, Paul MJ et al (2003) Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment ubranisation (Georgia, USA). Freshw Biol 48:329–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott MC, Helfman GS, McTammany ME et al (2002) Multiscale influences on physical and chemical stream conditions across Blue Ridge landscape. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38:1379–1392

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Standford JA, Ward JV (2001) Revisiting the serial discontinuity concept. Regul River 17:303–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer D (1983) The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan. Freshw Biol 13:253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend CR, Doledec S, Norris R et al (2003) The influence of scale and geography on relationships between stream community composition and landscape variables: description and prediction. Freshw Biol 48:768–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RH (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn CC (1997) Regional patterns of mussel species distributions in North American rivers. Ecography 20:107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P (2001) Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environ Manage 28:255–266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang L, Lyons J, Rasmussen P et al (2003) Watershed, reach, and riparian influences on stream fish assemblages in the Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion, USA. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:491–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigel BM, Wang L, Rasmussen PW et al (2003) Relative influence of variables at multiple spatial scales on stream macroinvertebrates in the Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion, USA. Freshw Biol 48:1440–1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller DE, Jordan TE, Correll DL (1998) Heuristic models for material discharge from landscapes with riparian buffers. Ecol Appl 8:1156–1169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams JD, Warren ML, Cummings KS et al (1992) Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18:6–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecol 19:125–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Much thanks goes to the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR), Illinois Natural History Survey, Ohio State University, and the University of Michigan for providing sampling data sets. Funding for this project was providing by KDFWR. I would like to thank Mike Sears for introducing me to boosted regression trees. Special thanks go to L. J. Hopman, B. M. Burr, and R. F. Stapel for comments on early drafts. Much appreciation goes to the editor and two anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 62901, USA

    Robert L. Hopkins II

Authors
  1. Robert L. Hopkins II
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert L. Hopkins II.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hopkins, R.L. Use of landscape pattern metrics and multiscale data in aquatic species distribution models: a case study of a freshwater mussel. Landscape Ecol 24, 943–955 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9373-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9373-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation