Watershed classification using canonical correspondence analysis and clustering techniques: A cautionary note

Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Volumn 40, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 1257-1268

  Caratti, John F ^a   Nesser, John A ^b   Maynard, C Lee ^c  

^a Systems for Environmental Management   (United States)

^b USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

^c Watershed Research Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

Basin morphometrics; Climate; Geographic information systems; Modeling; Multiscaled data; Rosgen stream types; Statistical analysis; Watershed classification

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA REDUCTION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; HYDROLOGY; RANDOM PROCESSES; RIVERS; STATISTICAL METHODS; WATER ANALYSIS;

CANONICAL CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES; WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION;

WATERSHEDS;

CLASSIFICATION; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS; GIS; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; WATERSHED;

COLUMBIA BASIN; NORTH AMERICA; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 7044233491     PISSN: 1093474X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb01584.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Andrews, D.F., 1972. Plots of High Dimensional Data. Biometrics 28:125-136.
2. Armstrong, J.S., 1967. Derivation of Theory by Means of Factor Analysis, or Tom Swift and His Electric Factor Analysis Machine. Am. Stat. 21:17-21.
3. Bailey, Robert G., 1996. Ecosystem Geography. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.
4. Banfield, J.D. and A.E. Rafferty, 1992. Model Based Gaussian and Non-Gaussian Clustering. Biometrics 49:803-822.
5. Bryce, S.A., J.M. Omernik, and D.P. Larson, 1999. Ecoregions: A Geographic Framework to Guide Risk Characterization and Ecosystem Management. Environmental Practice 1(3):1-15.
6. Cleland, D.T., P.E. Avers, W.H. McNab, M.E. Jensen, R.G. Bailey, T. King, and W.E. Russell, 1997. National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. In: Ecosystem Management Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources, M.S. Boyce and A. Haney (Editors). Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 181-200.
7. Everitt, B.S., 1978. Graphical Techniques for Multivariate Data. North-Holland, New York, New York.
8. Gauch, H., 1982. Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Ithaca, New York.
9. Goodall, D.W., 1953. Objective Methods for the Classification of Vegetation. I. The Use of Positive Interspecific Correlation. Australian Journal of Botany 1:39-63.
10. Griffith G., J.M. Omernik, and A.J. Woods, 1999. Ecoregions, Watersheds, Basins, and HUCs: How State and Federal Agencies Frame Water Quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(4):666-667.
11. Jensen, M. E., I. Goodman, P. Bougeron, N.L. Poff, and K. Brewer, 2001. Effectiveness of Biophysical Criteria in the Hierarchical Classification of Drainage Basins. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 37(5):1155-1167.
12. Jensen, M.E., Iris Goodman, Ken Brewer, Tom Frost, Gary Ford, and John Nesser, 1997. Biophysical Environments of the Basin. In: Volume 1: An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Thomas M. Quigley and Sylvia J. Arbelbide (Editors). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, Vol. 1, Chapter 2, pp. 138-143.
13. Jongman, R.H.G, C.J.F. Ter Braak, and O.F.R. Van Tongeren, 1995. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
14. MathSoft, 1995. S-Plus Guide to Statistical and Mathematical Analysis. StatSci Division, MathSoft, Inc., Seattle, Washington.
15. McCune, B., 1997. Influence of Noisy Environmental Data on Canonical Correspondence Analysis. Ecology 78(8):2617-2623.
16. Nathan, R.J. and T.A. McMahon, 1990. Identification of Homogeneous Regions for the Purpose of Regionalization. J. Hydrol. 121:217-238.
17. Omernik, J.M., 1987. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118-125.
18. Omernik, J.M. and R.G. Bailey, 1997. Distinguishing Between Watersheds and Ecoregions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 33(5):935-949.
19. Okland, R.H., 1996. Are Ordination and Constrained Ordination Alternative or Complementary Strategies in General Ecological Studies? Journal of Vegetation Science 7:289-292.
20. Rexstad, E., D. Miller, C. Flather, E. Anderson, J. Hupp, and D. Anderson, 1988. Questionable Multivariate Statistical Inference in Wildlife Habitat and Community Studies. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(4):794-798.
21. Rosgen , D.L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
22. Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos, and G.L. Knapp, 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2294, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
23. Ter Braak, C.J.F., 1986. Canonical Correspondence Analysis: A New Eigenvector Technique for Multivariate Direct Gradient Analysis. Ecology 67:1167-1179.
24. Ter Braak, C.J.F., 1992. CANOCO - A FORTRAN Program for Canonical Community Ordination. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New York.
25. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999. Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States (revision of Omernik, 1987). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon (map, various scales).
26. Ward, J.H., 1963. Hierarchical Groupings to Optimize an Objective Function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58: 236-244.