Ecohydrological model parameter selection for stream health evaluation

Science of the Total Environment

Volumn 511, Issue , 2015, Pages 341-353

  Woznicki, Sean A ^a   Nejadhashemi, A Pouyan ^a   Ross, Dennis M ^b   Zhang, Zhen ^c   Wang, Lizhu ^d   Esfahanian, Abdol Hossein ^b  

^a Michigan State University   (United States)

^b Michigan State University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^d International Joint Commission   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biological Integrity; Clustering; Fish; Fuzzy logic; Macroinvertebrate; SWAT

Indexed keywords

FISH; FORECASTING; FUZZY INFERENCE; FUZZY LOGIC; FUZZY SYSTEMS; HEALTH; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; WATER QUALITY; WATERSHEDS;

ADAPTIVE NEURO-FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM; BAYESIAN VARIABLE SELECTION; BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY; CLUSTERING; K-MEANS CLUSTERING TECHNIQUES; MACROINVERTEBRATES; SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL; SWAT;

RIVERS;

CADDISFLY; ECOHYDROLOGY; FISH; FUZZY MATHEMATICS; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; MACROINVERTEBRATE; MAYFLY; STONEFLY; STREAMWATER; TAXONOMY; WATER QUALITY;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS; EPHEMEROPTERA; FAMILY INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY; FISH INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY; FUZZY SYSTEM; HILSENHOFF BIOTIC INTEGRITY; HYDROLOGIC INDEX TOOL; INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES; PLECOPTERA; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SOIL ANALYSIS; SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL; STREAM (RIVER); TRICHOPTERA; UNITED STATES; WATER ANALYSIS; WATER QUALITY; WATERSHED; ANALYSIS; ANIMAL; BIODIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEM; FISH; HYDROLOGY; INSECT; PROCEDURES; RIVER; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; THEORETICAL MODEL; WATER POLLUTION;

MICHIGAN; RAISIN RIVER; UNITED STATES;

EPHEMEROPTERA; PLECOPTERA; TRICHOPTERA;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; BIODIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FISHES; HYDROLOGY; INSECTS; MICHIGAN; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RIVERS; WATER POLLUTION;

EID: 84920118418     PISSN: 00489697     EISSN: 18791026     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.066     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Adriaenssens V., Baets B.D., Goethals P.L.M., Pauw N.D. Fuzzy rule-based models for decision support in ecosystem management. Sci. Total Environ. 2004, 319(1-3):1-12.
2. Adriaenssens V., Goethals P.L.M., De Pauw N. Fuzzy knowledge-based models for prediction of Asellus and Gammarus in watercourses in Flanders (Belgium). Ecol. Model. 2006, 195(1-2):3-10.
3. Allan J.D. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004, 35:257-284.
4. Allan D., Erickson D., Fay J. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshw. Biol. 1997, 37(1):149-161.
5. Arnold J.G., Srinivasan R., Muttiah R.S., Williams J.R. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: Model development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1998, 34(1):73-89.
6. Barbour M.T., Gerritsen J., Snyder B.D., Stribling J.B. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish 1999, USEPA, Washington, DC, (Report No.: EPA 841-B-99-002).
7. Bryce S.A., Lomnicky G.A., Kaufmann P.R., McAllister L.S., Ernst T.L. Development of biologically based sediment criteria in mountain streams of the western United States. N. Am. J. Fish Manag. 2008, 28(6):1714-1724.
8. Chen Q., Mynett A.E. Integration of data mining techniques and heuristic knowledge in fuzzy logic modelling of eutrophication in Taihu Lake. Ecol. Model. 2003, 162(1):55-67.
9. Clapcott J.E., Collier K.J., Death R.G., Goodwin E.O., Harding J.S., Kelly D., et al. Quantifying relationships between land-use gradients and structural and functional indicators of stream ecological integrity: stream integrity along land-use gradients. Freshw. Biol. 2012, 57(1):74-90.
10. Cobaner M. Evapotranspiration estimation by two different neuro-fuzzy inference systems. J. Hydrol. 2011, 398:292-302.
11. Compin A., Céréghino R. Spatial patterns of macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups in streams in relation to physical variables and land-cover in Southwestern France. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22(8):1215-1225.
12. Dodge K.E. River Raisin Assessment 1998, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Ann Arbor, MI, (Report No.: 23).
13. Einheuser M.D., Nejadhashemi A.P., Sowa S.P., Wang L., Hamaamin Y.A., Woznicki S.A. Modeling the effects of conservation practices on stream health. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 435-436:380-391.
14. Einheuser M.D., Nejadhashemi A.P., Wang L., Sowa S.P., Woznicki S.A. Linking biological integrity and watershed models to assess the impacts of historical land use and climate changes on stream health. Environ. Manag. 2013, 51(6):1147-1163.
15. Einheuser M.D., Nejadhashemi A.P., Woznicki S.A. Simulating stream health sensitivity to landscape changes due to bioenergy crops expansion. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 58:198-209.
16. Fellows C.S., Clapcott J.E., Udy J.W., Bunn S.E., Harch B.D., Smith M.J., et al. Benthic metabolism as an indicator of stream ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia 2006, 572(1):71-87.
17. Frimpong E.A., Sutton T.M., Engel B.A., Simon T.P. Spatial-scale effects on relative importance of physical habitat predictors of stream health. Environ. Manag. 2005, 36(6):899-917.
18. Gassman P.W., Reyes M.R., Green C.H., Arnold J.G. The soil and water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions. Trans ASABE. 2007, 50:1211-1250.
19. Gevrey M., Dimopoulos I., Lek S. Review and comparison of methods to study the contribution of variables in artificial neural network models. Ecol. Model. 2003, 160(3):249-264.
20. Hamaamin Y.A., Nejadhashemi A.P., Einheuser M.D. Application of fuzzy logic techniques in estimating the regional index flow for Michigan. Trans. ASABE 2013, 56(1):103-115.
21. Hawkins C.P., Norris R.H., Hogue J.N., Feminella J.W. Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10(5):1456-1477.
22. Henriksen J.A., Heasley J., Kennen J.G., Nieswand S. Users' Manual for the Hydroecological Integrity Assessment Process Software (Including the New Jersey Assessment Tools) 2006, 71. United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, (Report No.: 2006-1093).
23. Hilsenhoff W.L. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1988, 7(1):65-68.
24. Huang Y., Lan Y., Thomson S.J., Fang A., Hoffmann W.C., Lacey R.E. Development of soft computing and applications in agricultural and biological engineering. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2010, 71(2):107-127.
25. Hundecha Y., Bardossy A. Modeling the effect of land use changes on the runoff generation of a river basin through parameter regionalization of a watershed model. J. Hydrol. 2004, 292(1-4):281-295.
26. Jang J.-S.R. ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1993, 23(3):665-685.
27. Johnson L.B., Host G.E. Recent developments in landscape approaches for the study of aquatic ecosystems. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2010, 29(1):41-66.
28. Junk W.J., Bayley P.B., Sparks R.E. The Flood Pulse Concept in river-floodplain systems. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1989, 106(1):110-127.
29. Karr J.R. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 1981, 6(6):21-27.
30. Karr J.R. Defining and measuring river health. Freshw. Biol. 1999, 41(2):221-234.
31. Karr J.R., Dudley D.R. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environ. Manag. 1981, 5(1):55-68.
32. Karr J., Yoder C. Biological assessment and criteria improve Total Maximum Daily Load decision making. J. Environ. Eng. 2004, 130(6):594-604.
33. Kennard M.J., Arthington A.H., Pusey B.J., Harch B.D. Are alien fish a reliable indicator of river health?. Freshw. Biol. 2005, 50(1):174-193.
34. Kennard M.J., Pusey B.J., Arthington A.H., Harch B.D., Mackay S.J. Development and application of a predictive model of freshwater fish assemblage composition to evaluate river health in eastern Australia. Hydrobiologia 2006, 572(1):33-57.
35. Kohavi R. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 1995, 1137-1143.
36. Lek S., Guégan J.F. Artificial neural networks as a tool in ecological modelling, an introduction. Ecol. Model. 1999, 120(2-3):65-73.
37. Lek S., Delacoste M., Baran P., Dimopoulos I., Lauga J., Aulagnier S. Application of neural networks to modelling nonlinear relationships in ecology. Ecol. Model. 1996, 90(1):39-52.
38. Lencioni V., Maiolini B., Marziali L., Lek S., Rossaro B. Macroinvertebrate assemblages in glacial stream systems: a comparison of linear multivariate methods with artificial neural networks. Ecol. Model. 2007, 203(1-2):119-131.
39. Lermontov A., Yokoyama L., Lermontov M., Machado M.A.S. River quality analysis using fuzzy water quality index: Ribeira do Iguape river watershed, Brazil. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9(6):1188-1197.
40. Lücke J.D., Johnson R.K. Detection of ecological change in stream macroinvertebrate assemblages using single metric, multimetric or multivariate approaches. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9(4):659-669.
41. Lyons J. Using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) to Measure Environmental Quality in Warmwater Streams of Wisconsin 1992, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, (Report No.: NC-149).
42. Mah D.Y.S., Bustami R.A. Conserving the land: the resilience of riparian wetlands and river channels by a fuzzy inference system. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7(2):267-272.
43. Mahabir C., Hicks F., Fayek A.R. Neuro-fuzzy river ice breakup forecasting system. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2006, 46(2):100-112.
44. Mahmood Z., Khan S. On the use of k-fold cross-validation to choose cutoff values and assess the performance of predictive models in stepwise regression. Int. J. Biostat. 2009, 5(1).
45. Maier H.R., Dandy G.C. Neural networks for the prediction and forecasting of water resources variables: a review of modelling issues and applications. Environ. Model. Softw. 2000, 15(1):101-124.
46. Marchini A. Modelling ecological processes with fuzzy logic approaches. Modelling Complex Ecological Dynamics 2011, 133-145. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. F. Jopp, H. Reuter, B. Breckling (Eds.).
47. Marchini A., Facchinetti T., Mistri M. F-IND: a framework to design fuzzy indices of environmental conditions. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9(3):485-496.
48. Maret T.R., Konrad C.P., Tranmer A.W. Influence of environmental factors on biotic responses to nutrient enrichment in agricultural streams. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2010, 46(3):498-513.
49. Mathon B.R., Rizzo D.M., Kline M., Alexander G., Fiske S., Langdon R., et al. Assessing Linkages in stream habitat, geomorphic condition, and biological integrity using a generalized regression neural network. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2013, 49(2):415-430.
50. MDEQ GLEAS Procedure #51 Survey Protocols for Wadable Rivers. Report No.: Fisheries Special Report 25 1997, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division, Ann Arbor, MI.
51. Metternicht G. Assessing temporal and spatial changes of salinity using fuzzy logic, remote sensing and GIS. Foundations of an expert system. Ecol. Model. 2001, 144(2-3):163-179.
52. Mondy C.P., Usseglio-Polatera P. Using fuzzy-coded traits to elucidate the non-random role of anthropogenic stress in the functional homogenisation of invertebrate assemblages. Freshw. Biol. 2014, 59(3):584-600.
53. Moriasi D.N., Arnold J.G., Van Liew M.W., Bingner R.L., Harmel R.D., Veith T.L. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50(3):885-900.
54. Mouton A.M., De Baets B., Goethals P.L.M. Knowledge-based versus data-driven fuzzy habitat suitability models for river management. Environ. Model. Softw. 2009, 24(8):982-993.
55. Mouton A.M., Dedecker A.P., Lek S., Goethals P.L.M. Selecting variables for habitat suitability of Asellus (Crustacea, Isopoda) by applying input variable contribution methods to artificial neural network models. Environ. Model. Assess. 2010, 15(1):65-79.
56. Moya N., Hughes R.M., Domínguez E., Gibon F.-M., Goitia E., Oberdorff T. Macroinvertebrate-based multimetric predictive models for evaluating the human impact on biotic condition of Bolivian streams. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11(3):840-847.
57. Naiman R.J., Latterell J.J., Pettit N.E., Olden J.D. Flow variability and the biophysical vitality of river systems. Compt. Rendus Geosci. 2008, 340(9-10):629-643.
58. NASS USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. Published Crop-Specific Data Layer [Internet] (cited 2014 Feb 2, Available from:). http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/.
59. NED USGS National Elevation Dataset [Internet] (cited 2014 Feb 2, Available from:). http://ned.usgs.gov/.
60. Neitsch S.L., Arnold J.G., Kiniry J.R., Williams J.R. Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation, Version 2005 2005, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Temple, TX.
61. Nejadhashemi A.P., Sheridan J.M., Shirmohammadi A., Montas H.J. Hydrograph separation by incorporating climatological factors: application to small experimental watersheds. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2007, 43(3):744-756.
62. Nejadhashemi A.P., Wardynski B.J., Munoz J.D. Large-scale hydrologic modeling of the Michigan and Wisconsin agricultural regions to study impacts of land use changes. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55(3):821-838.
63. Niehoff D., Fritsch U., Bronstert A. Land-use impacts on storm-runoff generation: scenarios of land-use change and simulation of hydrological response in a meso-scale catchment in SW-Germany. J. Hydrol. 2002, 267:80-93.
64. Niemi G.J., McDonald M.E. Application of ecological indicators. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004, 35:89-111.
65. NRCS Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey [Internet] (cited 2014 Feb 2, Available from:). http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
66. Ocampo-Duque W., Ferré-Huguet N., Domingo J.L., Schuhmacher M. Assessing water quality in rivers with fuzzy inference systems: a case study. Environ. Int. 2006, 32(6):733-742.
67. Olden J.D., Poff N.L. Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes. River Res. Appl. 2003, 19(2):101-121.
68. Park Y.S., Verdonschot P.F.M., Chon T.S., Lek S. Patterning and predicting aquatic macroinvertebrate diversities using artificial neural network. Water Res. 2003, 37:1749-1758.
69. Pearson K. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Lond. Edinb. Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 1901, 2(11):559-572.
70. Pinto U., Maheshwari B.L. River health assessment in peri-urban landscapes: an application of multivariate analysis to identify the key variables. Water Res. 2011, 45(13):3915-3924. (Jul).
71. Poff N.L., Allan J.D., Bain M.B., Karr J.R., Prestegaard K.L., Richter B.D., et al. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 1997, 47(11):769-784.
72. Pont D., Hughes R.M., Whittier T.R., Schmutz S. A predictive index of biotic integrity model for aquatic-vertebrate assemblages of western U.S. Streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2009, 138(2):292-305.
73. Richards C., Host G.E., Arthur J.W. Identification of predominant environmental factors structuring stream macroinvertebrate communities within a large agricultural catchment. Freshw. Biol. 1993, 29:285-294.
74. Roth N.E., Allan J.D., Erickson D.L. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landsc. Ecol. 1996, 11(3):141-156.
75. Sanikhani H., Kisi O. River flow estimation and forecasting by using two different adaptive neuro-fuzzy approaches. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26:1715-1729.
76. Seelbach P.W., Wiley M.J. Overview of the Michigan Rivers Inventory (MRI) project. Report No.: Fisheries Technical Report 97-3 1997, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Lansing, MI.
77. Sommerlot A.R., Nejadhashemi A.P., Woznicki S.A., Giri S., Prohaska M.D. Evaluating the capabilities of watershed-scale models in estimating sediment yield at field-scale. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 127:228-236.
78. Sponseller R.A., Benfield E.F., Valett H.M. Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshw. Biol. 2001, 46(10):1409-1424.
79. Statzner B., Higler B. Questions and comments on the River Continuum Concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1985, 42:1038-1044.
80. Strahler A.N. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Civ. Eng. 1957, 101:1258-1262.
81. USEPA National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress, 2004 Reporting Cycle 2009, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, DC, (Report No.: EPA 841-R-08-001).
82. USEPA A Primer on Using Biological Assessments to Support Water Quality Management 2011, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, DC, (Report No.: EPA 810-R-11-01).
83. Vannote R.L., Minshall G.W., Cummins K.W., Sedell J.R., Cushing C.E. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1980, 37(1):130-137.
84. Waite I.R., Brown L.R., Kennen J.G., May J.T., Cuffney T.F., Orlando J.L., et al. Comparison of watershed disturbance predictive models for stream benthic macroinvertebrates for three distinct ecoregions in western US. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10(6):1125-1136.
85. Wang L., Brenden T., Seelbach P., Cooper A., Allan D., Clark R., et al. Landscape based identification of human disturbance gradients and reference conditions for Michigan streams. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 141(1-3):1-17.
86. White K.L., Chaubey I. Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validations for a multisite and multivariable SWAT model. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2005, 41:1077-1089.
87. Whittaker G., Confesor R., Di Luzio M., Arnold J.G. Detection of overparameterization and overfitting in an automatic calibration of SWAT. Trans. ASABE 2010, 53(5):1487-1499.
88. Zadeh L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control. 1965, 8(3):338-353.