Linking the diversity and abundance of stream biota to landscapes in the mid-Atlantic USA

Remote Sensing of Environment

Volumn 112, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 4075-4085

  Goetz, Scott ^a   Fiske, Gregory ^a  

^a WOODS HOLE RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Aquatic; Biodiversity; Habitat; Impervious; Land cover; Land use; Landscape; Management; Species richness; Stream; Water quality; Watershed

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; DECISION TREES; GEOMORPHOLOGY; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; LANDFORMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL METHODS; SURFACE MEASUREMENT; TREES (MATHEMATICS); VEGETATION; WATER QUALITY; WATERSHEDS;

AQUATIC; BIODIVERSITY; HABITAT; IMPERVIOUS; LAND COVER; LAND USE; LANDSCAPE; MANAGEMENT; SPECIES RICHNESS; STREAM; WATERSHED;

RIVERS;

BIODIVERSITY; CROP; GRASS; HABITAT; HUMAN ACTIVITY; LAND COVER; LAND USE; LANDSCAPE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; RIPARIAN ZONE; SPECIES RICHNESS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VEGETATION; WATER QUALITY; WATERSHED;

MARYLAND; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

INVERTEBRATA;

EID: 53149140605     PISSN: 00344257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2008.01.023     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Allan J.D. Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35 (2004) 257-284
2. Baker M.E., Weller D.E., and Jordan T.E. Improved methods for quantifying potential nutrient interception by riparian buffers. Landscape Ecology 21 (2006) 1327-1345
3. Baker M.E., Weller D.E., and Jordan T.E. Comparison of automated watershed delineations: Effects on land cover areas, percentages, and relationships to nutrient discharge. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 72 (2006) 159-168
4. Basnyat P., Teeter L.D., Lockaby B.G., and Flynn K.M. The use of remote sensing and GIS in watershed level analyses of non-point source pollution problems. Forest Ecology and Management 128 (2000) 65-73
5. Breiman L., Friedman J.H., Olshen R.A., and Stone C.J. Classification and regression trees (1984) Belmont, CA
6. Brown D.G., Johnson K.M., Loveland T.R., and Theobald D.M. Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950-2000. Ecological Applications 15 (2005) 1851-1863
7. Brun S.E., and Band L.E. Simulating runoff behavior in an urbanizing watershed. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 24 (2000) 5-22
8. Carlisle D.M., and Meador M.R. A biological assessment of streams in the eastern United States using a predictive model for macroinvertebrate assemblages. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43 (2007) 1194-1207
9. Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake 2000: A watershed partnership (2000). http://www.chesapeakebay.net/agreement.htm Available at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/agreement.htm (accessed January 2008)
10. Dougherty M., Dymond R., Goetz S.J., Jantz C., and Goulet N. Evaluation of impervious surface estimates in a rapidly urbanizing watershed. Photogrammetic Engineering and Remote Sensing 70 (2004) 1275-1284
11. Fisher T.R., Correll D., Costanza R., Hollibaugh J.T., Hopkinson C.S., Howarth R.W., et al. Synthesizing drainage basin inputs to coastal systems. In: Hobbie J.E. (Ed). Estuarine science: A synthetic approach to research and practice (2000), Island Press, Washington DC 81-101
12. Goetz S.J. Remote sensing of riparian buffers: Past progress and future prospects. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42 (2006) 133-144
13. Goetz S.J., and Jantz P. Satellite maps show Chesapeake Bay urban development. AGU Eos Transactions 87 (2006) 149-152
14. Goetz S.J., Jantz C.A., Prince S.D., Smith A.J., Wright R., and Varlyguin D. Integrated analysis of ecosystem interactions with land use change: The Chesapeake Bay Watershed. In: Asner G.P., DeFries R.S., and Houghton R.A. (Eds). Ecosystem interactions with land use change (2004), American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 263-275
15. Goetz S.J., Wright R.K., Smith A.J., Zinecker E., and Schaub E. IKONOS imagery for resource management: Tree cover, impervious surfaces and riparian buffer analyses in the Mid-Atlantic region. Remote Sensing of the Environment 88 (2003) 195-208
16. Groffman P.M., Bain D.J., Band L.E., Belt K.T., Brush G.S., Grove J.M., et al. Down by the riverside: Urban riparian ecology. Frontiers of Ecology and Environment 1 (2003) 315-321
17. Homer C.G., Huang C., Yang L., Wylie B., and Coan M. Development of a 2001 national landcover database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 70 (2004) 829-840
18. Jantz P., Goetz S.J., and Jantz C.A. Urbanization and the loss of resource lands within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environmental Management 36 (2005) 808-825
19. Jantz C.A., Goetz S.J., and Shelley M.K. Using the SLEUTH urban growth model to simulate the impacts of future policy scenarios on urban land use in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan area. Environment and Planning B 31 (2003) 251-271
20. Jennings D.B., and Jarnagin S.T. Changes in anthropogenic impervious surfaces, precipitation and daily streamflow discharge: A historical perspective in a mid-Atlantic subwatershed. Landscape Ecology 17 (2002) 471-489
21. Jones B.K., Neale A.C., Nash M.S., Van Remortel R.D., Wickham J.D., Riitters K.H., et al. Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: A multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic region. Landscape Ecology 16 (2001) 301-312
22. Jordan T.J., Correll D.L., and Weller D.E. Nutrient interception by a riparian forest receiving inputs from adjacent cropland. Journal of Environmental Quality 22 (1993) 467-473
23. King R.S., Baker M.E., Whigham D.F., Weller D.E., Jordan T.E., Kazyak P.F., et al. Spatial considerations for linking watersheds land cover to ecological indicators in streams. Ecological Applications 15 (2005) 137-153
24. Liu Z.J., Weller D.E., Correll D.L., and Jordan T.E. Effects of land cover and geology on stream chemistry in watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36 (2000) 1349-1365
25. Lyons J., Thimble S.W., and Paine L.K. Grass versus tress: Managing riparian areas to benefit streams of central North America. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36 (2000) 919-930
26. MD-DNR. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Biological Stream Survey (2007). http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/mbss www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/mbss (accessed January 2008)
27. Meador M.R., and Goldstein R.M. Assessing water quality at large geographic scales: Relations among land use, water physicochemistry, riparian condition, and Fish community structure. Environmental Management 31 (2003) 504-517
28. Moglen G.E., and Beighley R.E. Spatially explicit hydrologic modeling of land use change. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38 (2002) 241-253
29. Nilsson C., Pizzuto J.E., Moglen G.E., Palmer M.A., Stanley E.H., Bockstael N.E., et al. Ecological forecasting and the urbanization of stream ecosystems: Challenges for economists, hydrologists, geomorphologists, and ecologists. Ecosystems 6 (2003) 659-674
30. Palmer M.A., Moglen G.E., Bockstael N.E., Brooks S., Pizzuto J.E., Wiegand C., et al. The ecological consequences of changing land use for running waters, with a case study of urbanizing watersheds in Maryland. In: Krchnak K.M. (Ed). Human population and freshwater resources: U.S. cases and international perspectives (2002), Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut 85-113
31. Paul J.F., Comeleo R.L., and Copeland J. Landscape metrics and estuarine sediment contamination in the mid-Atlantic and southern New England regions. Journal of Environmental Quality 31 (2002) 836-845
32. Potter K.M., Cubbage F.W., Blank G.B., and Schaberg R.H. A watershed-scale model for predicting nonpoint pollution risk in North Carolina. Environmental Management 34 (2004) 62-74
33. Reed T., and Carpenter S.R. Comparisons of P-yield, riparian buffer strips, and land cover in six agricultural watersheds. Ecosystems 5 (2002) 568-577
34. Roth N.E., Allan D., and Erickson D.L. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11 (1996) 41-156
35. Roth N.E., Vølstad J.H., Erb L., Weber E., Kazyak P., Stranko S., et al. Maryland Biological Stream Survey 2000-2004. Laboratory, field, and analytical methods, monitoring and non-tidal assessment division Vol. 6 (2005), Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. http://dnr.md.gov/streams/pubs/ea05 Report DNR-12-0305-0108, 318 pp., http://dnr.md.gov/streams/pubs/ea05-3_methods.pdf (accessed January 2008)
36. Schueler T.R. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1 (1994) 100-111
37. Snyder M., Goetz S.J., and Wright R. Stream health rankings predicted by satellite-derived land cover metrics: Impervious area, forest buffers and landscape configuration. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41 (2005) 659-677
38. Snyder C.D., Young J.A., Villella R., and Lemarie D.P. Influences of upland and riparian land use patterns on stream biotic integrity. Landscape Ecology 18 (2003) 647-664
39. Sokal R.R., and Rohlf F.J. Biometry (1994), W. H. Freeman, New York 880pp
40. Stewart J.S., Wang L., Lyons J., Horwatich J.A., and Bannerman R. Influences of watershed, riparian-corridor, and reach-scale characteristics on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37 (2001) 1475-1487
41. Strahler A.N. Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63 (1952) 923-938
42. Strayer D.L., Beighley R.E., Thompson L.C., Brooks S., Nilsson C., Pinay G., et al. Effects of land-cover change on stream ecosystems: Roles of empirical models and scaling issues. Ecosystems 6 (2003) 407-423
43. Stribling J.B., Jessup B.K., White J.S., Boward D., and Hurd M. Development of a benthic index of biotic integrity for Maryland streams (1998), Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis MD. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/1998_benthic_ibi.pdf Report CBWP-EA-98-3, 62 pp., www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/1998_benthic_ibi.pdf (accessed October 2007)
44. USDA (2002). United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service's 1:100,000-scale cropland data layer for Maryland, 2006 January 01. Edition 2002. USDA-NASS Marketing Division, Washington, D.C. http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/SARS1a.htm (accessed August 2006).
45. US-EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency, biological indicators of watershed health (2002). http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators (accessed October 2008)
46. Urban M.C., Skelly D.K., Burchsted D., Price W., and Lowry S. Stream communities across a rural-urban landscape gradient. Diversity and Distributions 12 (2006) 337-350
47. Weller D.E., Jordan T.E., and Correll D.L. Heuristic models for material discharge from landscapes with riparian buffers. Ecological Applications 81 (1998) 1156-1169
48. Yang L., Xian G., Klaver J.M., and Deal B. Urban land cover change detection through sub-pixel imperviousness mapping using remotely sensed data. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 69 (2003) 1003-1010
49. Wickham J.D., Riitters K.H., Wade T.G., and Jones K.B. Evaluating the relative roles of ecological regions and land-cover composition for guiding establishment of nutrient criteria. Landscape Ecology 20 (2005) 791-798