Landscape indicators of stream water quality in central Appalachia (USA): Land use/land cover or land surface condition?

Authors

  • Christine E. McMichael School of Public Affairs, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky, USA
  • David P. Smith Department of Biology and Chemistry, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky, USA
  • Robert C. Johnson Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York, USA

Keywords:

Landsat, macroinvertebrate, scale, remote sensing

Abstract

Relationships between land use/cover (LUC) and stream water quality have been well-documented in many environments and at a range of spatial scales. From these analyses, reduced in-stream biological integrity and habitat quality are commonly associated with increasing amounts of anthropogenic LUC. However, very few studies have examined the influence of landscape condition, relative to studies using LUC, on water quality parameters. Landscape condition indices use remote sensing-based data to quantify biophysical land surface condition.

The primary objective of this study was to assess the relationships between LUC class proportions and indices of land surface condition (LSC) and macroinvertebrate-based water quality metrics. These relationships were examined at three spatial scales (reach, stream network, and catchment). Strong correlations were observed between both LUC class proportions and LSC indices with macroinvertebrate-based metrics, although there was almost twice the number of significant correlations for LUC as compared with LSC. Similar to previous research, relationships between landscape variables and macroinvertebrate metrics were not consistent across spatial scales. Overall, results suggest that LUC class proportions are better indicators of water quality conditions in the study area. Future work will expand this analysis and include additional water quality parameters and landscape variables with the goals of deepening the understanding of landscape impacts on stream water quality and providing resource managers with valuable information that will to help guide planning and assessment activities.

References

Alberti, M., Booth, D., Hill, K., Coburn, B., Avolio, C., Coe, S. and Spirandelli, D. 2007. The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landscape Urban Plan., 80: 345–361.

Bolstad, P. V. and Swank, W. T. 1997. Cumulative impacts of landuse on water quality in a southern Appalachian watershed. J. Am. Water Resources Assn., 33: 519–533.

Busse, L. B., Simpson, J. C. and Cooper, S. D. 2006. Relationships among nutrients, algae, and land use in urbanized southern California streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 63: 2621–2638.

Collins, J. B. and Woodcock, C. E. 1996. An assessment of several linear change detection techniques for mapping forest mortality using multitemporal Landsat TM data. Remote Sens. Env., 56: 66–77.

Crist, E. P., Lauren, R. and Cicone, R. C. 1986. “Vegetation and soils information contained in transformed thematic mapper data”. In Final Proceedings: IGARRS 1986 Symposium, Noordwijk, , The Netherlands: ESA Publication Division SP-254.

Goetz, S. and Fiske, G. 2008. Linking the diversity and abundance of stream biota to landscapes in the mid-Atlantic USA. Remote Sens. Env., 112: 4075–4085.

Griffith, J., Martinko, E., Whistler, J. and Price, K. 2002. Interrelationships among landscapes, NDVI, and stream water quality in the U.S. Central Plains. Ecol. Appl., 12: 1702–1718.

Harding, J. S., Benfield, E. F., Bolstad, P. V., Helfman, G. S. and Jones, E. B.D. 1998. Stream biodiversity: The ghost of land use past. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 95: 14843–14847.

Hawkins, C. P., Hogue, J. N., Decker, L. M. and Feminella, J. W. 1997. Channel morphology, water temperature, and assemblage structure of stream insects. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 16: 728–749.

Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Zhiqiang, Y. and Krankina, O. N. 2005. Comparison of Tasseled Cap-based Landsat data structures for use in forest disturbance detection. Remote Sens. Env., 97: 301–310.

Johnson, R. C., Carreiro, M. M., Jin, H. and Jack, J. D. 2012a. Within-year temporal variation and life-cycle seasonality affect stream macroinvertebrate community structure and biotic metrics. Ecol., 13: 206–214. Indic.

Johnson, R. C., Smith, D. P. and McMichael, C. E. 2012b. Scale dependence in relating land use/cover to stream macroinvertebrate communities in the Central Appalachian Mountains, USA. GISci. Remote Sens., 49: 53–70.

Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW). 2008. Methods for Assessing Biological Integrity of Surface Waters in Kentucky, Revision 3, Frankfort, Kentucky: Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water.

King, R. S., Baker, M. E., Kazyak, P. F. and Weller, D. E. 2011. How novel is too novel? Stream community thresholds at exceptionally low levels of catchment urbanization. Ecol. Appl., 21: 1659–1678.

Meyer, J. L., Paul, M. J. and Taulbee, W. K. 2005. Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 24: 602–612.

Ormerond, S. J. and Edwards, R. W. 1987. The ordination and classification of macroinvertebrate assemblages in the catchment of the River Wye in relation to environmental factors. Freshwater Biol., 17: 533–546.

Pan, Y., Herlihy, A., Kaufmann, P., Wigington, J., Van Sickle, J. and Moser, T. 2004. Linkages among land-use, water quality, physical habitat conditions and lotic diatom assemblages: A multi-spatial scale assessment. Hydrobiologia, 515: 59–73.

Potter, K. M., Cubbage, F. W. and Schaberg, R. H. 2005. Multiple-scale landscape predictors of benthic macroinvertebrate community structure in North Carolina. Landscape Urban Plan., 71: 77–90.

Rogan, J., Franklin, J. and Roberts, D. A. 2002. A comparison of methods for monitoring multitemporal vegetation change using Thematic Mapper imagery. Remote Sens. Env., 80: 143–156.

Roth, N. E., Allan, J. D. and Erickson, D. L. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecol., 11: 141–156.

Roy, A. H., Rosemond, A. D., Paul, M. J., Leigh, D. S. and Wallace, J. B. 2003. Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanization (Georgia, U.S.A.). Freshwater Biol., 48: 329–346.

Sponseller, R. A., Benfield, E. F. and Valett, H. M. 2001. Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biol., 46: 1409–1424.

Tran, C. P., Bode, R. W., Smith, A. J. and Kleppel, G. S. 2010. Land-use proximity as a basis for assessing stream water quality in New York State (USA). Ecol., 10: 727–733. Indic.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. “National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report”. EPA-841-R-02-001

Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P. and Gatti, R. 1997. Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries, 22: 6–12.

Downloads

Published

2013-07-01

Issue

Vol. 16 No. 3 (2013): Great Lakes of the World (GLOW VI): Linking Ecosystem-Based Science to Management

Section

Research article

License

Manuscripts must be original. They must not be published or be under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. It is required that the lead author of accepted papers complete and sign the MSU Press AEHM Author Publishing Agreement and provide it to the publisher upon acceptance.