Lakes, wetlands, and streams as predictors of land use/cover distribution

Environmental Management

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 198-214

  Walsh, S E ^a,b   Soranno, P A ^a   Rutledge, D T ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Water Division   (United States)

Author keywords

Lakes; Land use change; Land use cover; Riparian; Streams; Wetlands

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; WETLANDS;

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM;

LAKES;

RIVER WATER;

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM; LAND COVER; LAND USE; NATURE-SOCIETY RELATIONS; RIPARIAN VEGETATION; WETLAND;

AGRICULTURE; ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM; FOREST; GRASSLAND; LAKE; LAKE ECOSYSTEM; LAND USE; RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEM; RIVER ECOSYSTEM; SCRUB; STREAM (RIVER); UNITED STATES; URBAN AREA; VEGETATION; WETLAND; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FORECASTING; TREE; WATER SUPPLY;

UNITED STATES;

RIPARIA;

AGRICULTURE; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FORECASTING; TREES; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 0038137407     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-002-2833-1     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Allan, J. D., and L. B.Johnson. 1997. Catchment-scale analysis of aquatic ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 37:107-111.
2. Allan, J. D., D. L. Erickson, and J. Fay. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 37:149-161.
3. Anderson, J. R., E. H. Harvey, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Whitman. 1976. A land use sensor and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data geological survey. Professional Paper 964. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
4. Berrens, R. P., A. K. Alok, and C. L. Silva. 2000. Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: with tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. Journal of Environmental Management 58(1):73-90.
5. Bollens, S. A. 1990. Public policy and land conversion: lessening urban growth pressure in river corridors. Growth and Change Winter:40-58.
6. Burgess, E. W. 1967. The growth of the city: an introduction to a research project. In R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, and R. P. McKenzie (eds.) The city. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 239 pp.
7. Cochran, W. G. 1953. Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons, NewYork, 413 pp.
8. Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. Hill and Wang, New York.
9. David, E. L. 1968. Lakeshore property values: a guide to public investment in recreation. Water Resources Research 4:697-707.
10. Dillon, P.J., and W. B. Kirchner. 1975. The effects of geology and land use on the export of phosphorus from watersheds. Water Research 9: 135-148.
11. Doss, C. R., and S.J. Taft. 1996. The influence of wetland type and wetland proximity on residential property values. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21(1):120-129.
12. Erickson, D. L. 1995. Rural land-use and land-cover change-implications for local planning in the River Raisin watershed. Land Use Policy 12(3):223-236.
13. Hart, J. F. 1976. Urban encroachment on rural acres. Geographical Review 66:1-17.
14. Hay-Chmielewski, E. M., P. W. Seelbach, G. E. Whelan, and D. B. Jester, Jr. 1995. Huron River assessment. Fisheries Special Report No 16. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
15. Herlihy, A. T., J. L. Stoddard, and C. B. Johnson. 1998. The relationship between stream chemistry and watershed land cover data in the mid-Atlantic region, U.S. Water Air and Soil Development 105(1-2):377-386.
16. Hynes, H. B. N. 1975. The stream and its valley. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereiningung fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 19:1-15.
17. Kleiman, R. E., and D. L. Erickson. 1996. Landscape change in an agricultural watershed: the effect of parcelization on riparian forest cover. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23:25-36.
18. Kratz, T. K, K E. Webster, C. Bowser, J.J. Magnuson, and B.J. Benson. 1997. The influence of landscape position on lakes in northern Wisconsin. Freshwater Biology 37:209-217.
19. Kulshreshtha, S. N., and J. A. Gillies. 1993. Economic evaluation of aesthetic amenities: A case study of river view. Water Resources Bulletin 29(2):257-266.
20. Lansford, N. H., Jr., and L. L. Jones. 1995. Recreational and aesthetic value of water using hedonic price analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 20(2):341-355.
21. Lehtinen, R. M., S. M. Galatowitsch, and J. R. Tester. 1999. Consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation for wetland amphibian assemblages. Wetlands 19 (1):1-12.
22. Levia, D. F., Jr., and D. R. Page. 2000. The use of cluster analysis in distinguishing farmland prone to residential development: A case study of Sterling, Massachusetts. Environmental Management 25(5):541-548.
23. Lockwood, R. N., D. M. Benjamin, and J. R. Bence. 1999. Estimating angling effort and catch from Michigan roving and access site angler survey data. Fisheries Research Report No. 2044. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
24. Mahan, B. L., S. Polasky, and R. M. Adams. 2000. Valuing urban wetlands: A property price approach. Land Economics 76(1):100-113.
25. McGranahan, D. A. 1999. [Online] Natural amenities drive rural population change. Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 781, Available at: http://www. econ.ag.gov/amenities, 10 December 1999.
26. Medley, K. E., B. W. Okey, G. W. Barrett, M. F. Lucas, and W. H. Renwick. 1995. Landscape change with agricultural intensification in a rural watershed, southwestern Ohio, U.S.A. Landscape Ecology 10(3):161-176.
27. Mensing, D. M., S. M. Glatowitsch, and J. R. Tester. 1998. Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of riparian wetlands of a northern temperate landscape. Journal of Environmental Management 53:349-377.
28. MIRIS (Michigan Resource Information System). 2000. [On-line] Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Available at: http://www.ciesin.org/datasets/mirislcover/miriscov.html, 1 May, 2000.
29. Osborne, L. L., and D. A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 29:243-258.
30. Osborne, L. L., and M. J. Wiley. 1988. Empirical relationships between land use/cover and stream water quality in an agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Management 26:9-27.
31. Peterjohn, W. T., and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65(5):1466-1475.
32. Postel, S., and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. In G. C. Daily (ed.), Nature's services. Island Press, Washington DC, 392 pp.
33. Prince, H. 1997. Wetlands of the American Midwest: a historical geography of change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 395 pp.
34. Riera, J., P. R. Voss, S. R. Carpenter, T. K. Kratz, T. M. Lillesand, J. A. Schnaiberg, M. G. Turner, and M. W. Wegener. 2001. Nature, society and history in two contrasting landscapes in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Land Use Policy 18:41-51.
35. Rutledge, D. 2001. Changes in land cover and wildlife habitat in two watersheds in the lower peninsula of Michigan. PhD dissertation. Michigan State University.
36. Ryan, R. L. 1998. Local perceptions and values for a Midwestern river corridor. Landscape and Urban Planning 42:225-237.
37. Schnaiberg, J., J. Riera, M. G. Turner, and P. R. Voss. 2002. Explaining human settlement patterns in a recreational lake district: Vilas County, Wisconsin, USA. Environmental Management 30:24-34.
38. Siderelis, C., and G. Perrygo. 1996. Recreation benefits of neighboring sites: an application to riparian rights. Journal of Leisure Research 28(1):18-26.
39. Siver, P. A., A. M. Lott, E. Cash, J. Moss, and L.J. Marsicano. 1999. Century changes in Connecticut, U.S.A., lakes as inferred from siliceous algal remains and their relationships to land-use change. Limnology and Oceanography 44(8):1928-1935.
40. Sokal, R. R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W. H. Freeman, New York.
41. Soranno, P. A., S. L. Hubler, S. R. Carpenter, and R. C. Lathrop. 1996. Phosphorus loads to surface waters: a simple model to account for spatial patterns of land use. Ecological Applications 6:865-878.
42. Stemberger, R. S., and J. M. Lazorchek. 1994. Zooplankton assemblage responses to disturbance gradients. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51(11):2435-2447.
43. Stewart-Oaten, A. 1995. Rules and judgments in statistics: Three examples. Ecology 76(6):2001-2009.
44. Strahler, A. N. 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainagebasins and channel networks. In Ven te Chow (ed.), Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York.
45. Streever, W. J., M. Callaghan-Perry, and A. Searles. 1998. Public attitudes and values for wetland conservation in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 54(1):1-14.
46. Turner, M. G., D. N. Wear, and R. O. Flamm. 1996. Land ownership and land-cover change in the southern Appalachian highlands and the Olympic peninsula. Ecological Applications 6(4)(4):1150-1172.
47. Veldkamp, A., and L. O. Fresco. 1996. CLUE: A conceptual model to study the conversion of land use and its effects. Ecological Modelling 85 (2-3):253-270.
48. Walsh, S. E. 2000. Lakes, wetlands, and streams as drivers of land use/cover pattern and change: A unique view of aquatic ecosystems on the landscape. MS thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
49. Wilson, M. A., and S. R. Carpenter. 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States: 1971-1997. Ecological Applications 9(3):772-783.
50. Zedler, J. B., M. Q. Fellows, and S. Trnka. 1998. Wastelands to wetlands: links between habitat protection and ecosystem science. In M. L. Pace and P. M. Groffman (eds.), Successes, imitations, and frontiers in ecosystem science. Springer-Verlag, New York.