Riparian and Associated Habitat Characteristics Related to Nutrient Concentrations and Biological Responses of Small Streams in Selected Agricultural Areas, United States, 2003-04

Physical factors, including both in-stream and riparian habitat characteristics that limit biomass or otherwise regulate aquatic biological condition, have been identified by previous studies. However, linking the ecological significance of nutrient enrichment to habitat or landscape factors that could allow for improved management of streams has proved to be a challenge in many regions, including agricultural landscapes, where many ecological stressors are strong and the variability among watersheds typically is large. Riparian and associated habitat characteristics were sampled once during 2003–04 for an intensive ecological and nutrients study of small perennial streams in five contrasting agricultural landscapes across the United States to determine how biological communities and ecosystem processes respond to varying levels of nutrient enrichment. Nutrient concentrations were determined in stream water at two different sampling times per site and biological samples were collected once per site near the time of habitat characterization. Data for 141 sampling sites were compiled, representing five study areas, located in parts of the Delmarva Peninsula (Delaware and Maryland), Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Nebraska, and Washington. This report examines the available data for riparian and associated habitat characteristics to address questions related to studyunit contrasts, spatial scale-related differences, multivariate correlation structure, and bivariate relations between selected habitat characteristics and either stream nutrient conditions or biological responses. Riparian and associated habitat characteristics were summarized and categorized into 22 groups of habitat variables, with 11 groups representing land-use and landcover characteristics and 11 groups representing other riparian or in-stream habitat characteristics. Principal components analysis was used to identify a reduced set of habitat variables that describe most of the variability among the sampled sites. The habitat characteristics sampled within the five study units were compared statistically. Bivariate correlations between riparian habitat variables and either nutrient-chemistry or biological-response variables were examined for all sites combined, and for sites within each study area. Nutrient concentrations were correlated with the extent of riparian cropland. For nitrogen species, these correlations were more frequently at the basin scale, whereas for phosphorus, they were about equally frequent at the segment and basin scales. Basin-level extents of riparian cropland and reachlevel bank vegetative cover were correlated strongly with both total nitrogen and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) among multiple study areas, reflecting the importance of agricultural land-management and conservation practices for reducing nitrogen delivery from near-stream sources. When sites lacking segment-level wetlands were excluded, the negative correlation of riparian wetland extent with DIN among 49 sites was strong at the reach and segment levels. Riparian wetland vegetation thus may be removing dissolved nutrients from soil water and shallow groundwater passing through riparian zones. Other habitat variables that correlated strongly with nitrogen and phosphorus species included suspended sediment, light availability, and antecedent water temperature. Chlorophyll concentrations in seston were positively correlated with phosphorus concentrations for all sites combined. Benthic chlorophyll was correlated strongly with nutrient concentrations in only the Delmarva study area and only in fine-grained habitats. Current velocity or hydraulic scour could explain correlation patterns for benthic chlorophyll among Georgia sites, whereas chlorophyll in seston was correlated with antecedent water temperature among Washington and Delmarva sites. The lack of any consistent correlation pattern between habitat characteristics and organic material density (ash-free dry mass) within study areas may indicate that the density of organic matter is not generally sensitive to nutrient enrichment in small agricultural streams. For all sites, and for the Nebraska, Delmarva, and Georgia subsets of sites, the reach-mean areal coverage of aquatic macrophytes and macroalgae was strongly related to channel shading. 2 Riparian and Associated Habitat Characteristics in Selected Agricultural Areas, United States, 2003–04 Data reduction techniques were applied to select a subset of 29 variables, representing 20 categories of habitat characteristics, for multivariate analysis. Factor analysis was used to identify and interpret three leading modes of variation (principal factors) in two data subsets—one for the Georgia sites and one for all other sites combined. The factor analysis for Georgia sites indicated that riparian land use and land cover (LULC) (wetland extent in particular) and channel shading correspond to dominant modes of variability in the habitat data set. The variables that best characterize variation in riparian habitat for the other four study areas included midchannel measures of canopy shading, riparian cropland extent in the 15-meter buffer and 150-meter buffer, and measures of the patchiness of woodland cover in the 15-meter buffer (patch length and gap frequency). LULC metrics calculated for riparian buffers, particularly at the segment scale, were more correlated with the principal modes of variation in the overall habitat data set than was LULC extent for the total basin drained by each site. Correlations of woodland extent within 15 to 50 meters of the channel (reachand segment-level data) with woodland extent in a series of longitudinal bands of the riparian buffer that were located at increasing distance from the channel showed decreased strength as the compared band shifted beyond the first 50 meters from the channel, becoming negligible for areas beyond 100 meters from the channel. For many of the studied agricultural streams, the riparian buffer includes a heterogeneous mix of riparian and upland land covers when the summarized buffer area extends more than about 50 to 100 meters from the streambank, depending upon basin (or stream) size. Comparisons between the extent of reachand segment-level median values of woodland and other cover types within the riparian buffer extending 50 meters from the stream suggest that the reach length used for this study generally is not long enough to accurately represent both the overall composition and patch structure that characterizes the riparian areas along small, agricultural streams. The mean extent of forest plus woody wetland ranged from 5.4 to 76 percent of the riparian buffer area. For the Georgia sites, where riparian woody wetlands were more extensive than for any other study area, canopy closure over the channel was greatest, whereas it was least for sites in Washington and Nebraska. To the extent that riparian woodland is the most important LULC type affecting algal-nutrient relations, correlations indicated that basin characteristics might be effective surrogate predictors of riparian effects at the drainage-network scale. But the results also indicated that basin-level cropland was not an accurate surrogate for riparian cropland extent. Introduction Effective stream management depends on a comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions among riparian and stream habitat, water chemistry, and biological communities. The importance of nutrient enrichment as a stressor on aquatic communities has been widely recognized (Mosisch and others, 2001; Dodds and others, 2002; Mulholland and others, 2004; Alexander and Smith, 2006; Scott and others, 2007; Munn and others, in press). Relations between algal biomass and nutrient concentrations in stream environments typically have been weak (Dodds and others, 2002; Munn and others, in press) because of the interaction of physical and biological factors. These interactions include direct and indirect effects of riparian habitat on aquatic biota, such as the direct effects of riparian woodland shading or the indirect effects of retaining eroded upland sediment by riparian ground cover. Naiman and others (1993) defined the riparian corridor as the area that includes the stream channel and adjacent overbank terrestrial zone, where vegetation is affected by a shallow water table and (or) regime of frequent flooding. Channel banks clearly are key components of riparian corridors, and bank habitat and functions are to some degree inseparable from the function of the larger riparian system (Florsheim and others, 2008). The factors governing biota-habitat relations include chemical and physical characteristics of the habitat. Riparian zone functions are related to stream chemistry through retention and cycling of nutrients and other contaminants (Florsheim and others, 2008). Some of the physical factors that also have commonly been identified as controlling algal biomass or biodiversity include light limitation from canopy shading (Mosisch and others, 2001; Kiffney and others, 2004) and turbidity (Munn and others, 1989), water temperature (Kilkus and others, 1975; Munn and others, 1989), and hydraulic disturbances (Powers, 1992; Biggs, 1995) including floods, fluvial erosion, and mass wasting of streambanks. Present-day understanding of biota-habitat relations in streams is based primarily on comparative studies that described statistical relations between habitat variables and measures of aquatic community structure or function (Hawkins and others, 1993; Kiffney and others, 2004) or, more recently, between habitat-related stressors and ecological condition (Van Sickle and others, 2006; Munn and others, in press). Results from comparison studies may be confounded if the relative importance of various habitat factors varies with habitat type; thus, it may be important to study the effects of individual habitat features (for example, cover or stream shading) while holding o

[1]  J. A. López del Val,et al.  Principal Components Analysis , 2018, Applied Univariate, Bivariate, and Multivariate Statistics Using Python.

[2]  A. Tesoriero,et al.  The Influence of Nutrients and Physical Habitat in Regulating Algal Biomass in Agricultural Streams , 2010, Environmental management.

[3]  David M Wolock,et al.  Identifying pathways and processes affecting nitrate and orthophosphate inputs to streams in agricultural watersheds. , 2009, Journal of environmental quality.

[4]  J. Mount,et al.  Bank Erosion as a Desirable Attribute of Rivers , 2008 .

[5]  D. K. Mueller,et al.  Efficacy of algal metrics for assessing nutrient and organic enrichment in flowing waters , 2008 .

[6]  J. Barbash,et al.  National, holistic, watershed-scale approach to understand the sources, transport, and fate of agricultural chemicals. , 2008, Journal of environmental quality.

[7]  J. Duff,et al.  Whole-stream response to nitrate loading in three streams draining agricultural landscapes. , 2008, Journal of environmental quality.

[8]  W. Dodds,et al.  Headwater Influences on Downstream Water Quality , 2007, Environmental management.

[9]  宋金平,et al.  美国地理学百年发展脉络分析―基于《Annals of the Association of American Geographers》学术论文的统计分析 , 2007 .

[10]  J. Stoddard,et al.  Using Relative Risk to Compare the Effects of Aquatic Stressors at a Regional Scale , 2006, Environmental management.

[11]  P. Dixon Nondetects and Data Analysis: Statistics for Censored Environmental Data , 2006 .

[12]  Richard A. Smith,et al.  Trends in the nutrient enrichment of U.S. rivers during the late 20th century and their relation to changes in probable stream trophic conditions , 2006 .

[13]  Jackson R. Webster,et al.  Coupled cycling of dissolved organic nitrogen and carbon in a forest stream , 2005 .

[14]  Brian P. Bledsoe,et al.  WIDTH OF STREAMS AND RIVERS IN RESPONSE TO VEGETATION, BANK MATERIAL, AND OTHER FACTORS 1 , 2004 .

[15]  J. Richardson,et al.  Establishing light as a causal mechanism structuring stream communities in response to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width , 2004, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[16]  M. Acreman,et al.  Wetland nutrient removal: a review of the evidence , 2004 .

[17]  Jackson R. Webster,et al.  Stream denitrification and total nitrate uptake rates measured using a field 15N tracer addition approach , 2004 .

[18]  Dale M. Robertson,et al.  INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT TEMPORAL SAMPLING STRATEGIES ON ESTIMATING TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION AND TRANSPORT IN SMALL STREAMS 1 , 2003 .

[19]  P. Gemperline,et al.  Principal Component Analysis , 2009, Encyclopedia of Biometrics.

[20]  B. Rhoads,et al.  Stream geomorphology, bank vegetation, and three‐dimensional habitat hydraulics for fish in midwestern agricultural streams , 2003 .

[21]  L. A. Smock Freshwater ecology: concepts and environmental applications , 2002, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[22]  Walter K. Dodds,et al.  Nitrogen and phosphorus relationships to benthic algal biomass in temperate streams , 2002 .

[23]  W. C. Johnson,et al.  Riparian vegetation diversity along regulated rivers: contribution of novel and relict habitats , 2002 .

[24]  C. Borror An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, 5th Ed. , 2002 .

[25]  J. Allan,et al.  Streams: Their Ecology and Life , 2001 .

[26]  Stuart E. Bunn,et al.  The relative importance of shading and nutrients on algal production in subtropical streams , 2001 .

[27]  D. Hannah,et al.  Wood storage within the active zone of a large European gravel-bed river , 2000 .

[28]  M. Mutz Influences of Woody Debris on Flow Patterns and Channel Morphology in a Low Energy, Sand‐Bed Stream Reach , 2000 .

[29]  Walter K. Dodds,et al.  Suggested classification of stream trophic state: distributions of temperate stream types by chlorophyll, total nitrogen, and phosphorus , 1998 .

[30]  M. V. Boland,et al.  Multivariate Analysis , 1998, Current protocols in cytometry.

[31]  B. Biggs,et al.  HYDRAULIC HABITAT OF PLANTS IN STREAMS , 1996 .

[32]  W. Marion,et al.  Solar radiation data manual for buildings , 1995 .

[33]  J. Stanford,et al.  Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation , 1995 .

[34]  Angela M. Gurnell,et al.  The role of coarse woody debris in forest aquatic habitats: Implications for management , 1995 .

[35]  B. Biggs,et al.  The contribution of flood disturbance, catchment geology and land use to the habitat template of periphyton in stream ecosystems , 1995 .

[36]  Donald A. Jackson STOPPING RULES IN PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS: A COMPARISON OF HEURISTICAL AND STATISTICAL APPROACHES' , 1993 .

[37]  Michael K. Young,et al.  A hierarchical approach to classifying stream habitat features , 1993 .

[38]  R. Naiman,et al.  The Role of Riparian Corridors in Maintaining Regional Biodiversity. , 1993, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[39]  G. Schnell,et al.  Factors determining population density and size distribution of a freshwater snail in streams: effects of spatial scale , 1990 .

[40]  M. Wiley,et al.  Factors influencing periphyton growth in agricultural streams of central Illinois , 1989, Hydrobiologia.

[41]  W. Cleveland,et al.  Locally Weighted Regression: An Approach to Regression Analysis by Local Fitting , 1988 .

[42]  T. Lisle Stabilization of a gravel channel by large streamside obstructions and bedrock bends , 1986 .

[43]  D. Correll,et al.  Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations on the role of a riparian forest , 1984 .

[44]  L. E. Asmussen,et al.  Riparian Forests as Nutrient Filters in Agricultural Watersheds , 1984 .

[45]  E. Stoermer,et al.  QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BENTHIC ALGAL COMMUNITIES ALONG A DEPTH GRADIENT IN LAKE MICHIGAN 1, 2 , 1981 .

[46]  R. Marston The geomorphic significance of log steps in forest streams of the Oregon Coast Range , 1980 .

[47]  W. Cleveland Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots , 1979 .

[48]  F. Swanson,et al.  EFFECTS OF LARGE ORGANIC MATERIAL ON CHANNEL FORM AND FLUVIAL PROCESSES , 1979 .

[49]  S. Frontier Étude de la décroissance des valeurs propres dans une analyse en composantes principales: Comparaison avec le modd́le du bâton brisé , 1976 .

[50]  E. Lehmann,et al.  Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks , 1976 .

[51]  R. Cattell The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. , 1966, Multivariate behavioral research.

[52]  H. Kaiser The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis , 1958 .

[53]  F. Wilcoxon Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods , 1945 .

[54]  Frederick J. Swanson,et al.  An Ecosystem Perspective of Riparian Zones , 2007 .

[55]  Richard W. Bell,et al.  Data Delivery and Mapping Over the Web: National Water-Quality Assessment Data Warehouse , 2006 .

[56]  Protocols for mapping and characterizing land use/land cover in riparian zones , 2005 .

[57]  E. Giddings,et al.  Urbanization effects on stream habitat characteristics in Boston, Massachusetts; Birmingham, Alabama; and Salt Lake City, Utah , 2005 .

[58]  P. Hamilton,et al.  New Studies Initiated by the U.S. Geological Survey— Effects of Nutrient Enrichment on Stream Ecosystems , 2003 .

[59]  Jonathan G. Kennen,et al.  Revised Protocols for Sampling Algal, Invertebrate, and Fish Communities as Part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program , 2002 .

[60]  T. Maloney,et al.  New reporting procedures based on long-term method detection levels and some considerations for interpretations of water-quality data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory , 1999 .

[61]  J. Knox,et al.  Effects of historical land-cover changes on flooding and sedimentation, North Fish Creek, Wisconsin , 1999 .

[62]  B. Rossaro,et al.  A reference river system for the Alps: the ‘Fiume Tagliamento’ , 1999 .

[63]  R. B. Zelt,et al.  Water quality in the central Nebraska basins, Nebraska, 1992-95 , 1998 .

[64]  Patricia J. D'Arconte,et al.  Revised Methods for Characterizing Stream Habitat in the National Water-Quality Assessment Program , 1998 .

[65]  M. Power Hydrologic and trophic controls of seasonal algal blooms in northern California rivers , 1992 .

[66]  Norbert Henze,et al.  A class of invariant consistent tests for multivariate normality , 1990 .

[67]  L. J. Britton,et al.  Methods for collection and analysis of aquatic biological and microbiological samples , 1988 .

[68]  William S. Platts,et al.  Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management , 1987 .

[69]  T. Wesche,et al.  Relations of Geomorphology to Stream Habitat and Trout Standing Stock in Small Rocky Mountain Streams , 1987 .

[70]  Sam Kash Kachigan Statistical Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Introduction to Univariate & Multivariate Methods , 1986 .

[71]  Robert Kosinski,et al.  The effect of terrestrial herbicides on the community structure of stream periphyton , 1984 .

[72]  G. Minshall,et al.  The River Continuum Concept , 1980 .

[73]  J. Omernik Nonpoint source -- stream nutrient level relationships: a nationwide study , 1977 .

[74]  R. Lyman Ott.,et al.  An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis , 1977 .

[75]  R. Bachmann,et al.  Nutrients and algae in some central Iowa streams. , 1975, Journal - Water Pollution Control Federation.

[76]  H. Hotelling Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. , 1933 .