effects of urbanization and forest fragmentation on water quality …
Post on 04-Feb-2016
56 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Effects of urbanization and forest fragmentation on water quality …
Rachel Riemann USFS-FIA
Karen Murray USGS-NAWQA
Opportunity for collaboration
In this study we take advantage of current USGS-NAWQA water quality monitoring efforts and link it to USFS-FIA’s current investigations into monitoring forest fragmentation and urbanization -- in order to better understand the relations between the two.
Problem
We already know that urbanization has been linked to water quality in other studies
But, what aspects of urbanization and/or forest fragmentation are most highly correlated with the biological, chemical, and physical responses observed in streams?
a combination of interests…
• USGS-NAWQA
– Improve understanding of the components impacting water quality in order to better provide management guidelines for preventing or minimizing degradation in the face of development pressure
– Improve understanding of the forms and/or thresholds of that impact
• USFS-FIA
– Identify the components of frag/urban that are most related to observed changes in water quality,
– Develop methods to monitor these relevant parameters of frag/urbanization with sufficient accuracy over large areas
Two rapidly urbanizing areas:
• Appalachian ecoregion, especially the Pocono Mountains area– Fastest growing counties in Pennsylvania
– Second home and primary home development
– Transitioning from forested to suburban
• Piedmont ecoregion– Including Philadelphia – Trenton corridor
– Rapidly transitioning from agriculture to suburban
Appalachian Plateau
Valley and Ridge
Piedmont
Coastal Plain
Objectives
• Identify which management-relevant landscape characteristics are most related to stream water quality and ecological health.
• Describe the forms of these relationships.
• Determine the influence of landscape data source (on interpretation/findings).
• If necessary develop corrections or recommendations for use of those broad-area datasets currently available.
20 40 60 80
-5
-4
-3
% Urban - photointerp.
log1
0 P
TI
Predictor data used
NLCD’92 wasn’t sufficiently accurate to do the job, particularly in the less urbanized Poconos region
%urban (source: NLCD’92)
Predictor data used
• From photointerpretation of land use and land cover from digital aerial photography (1999-2000; some CIR, some B&W)
– Land use polygons
– land cover data recorded for each urban developed land use class (% tree, grass, house, road)
• From Census Bureau data (2000)
– Population
– House density
– Roads and road density (2000 TIGER data)
Site selection
• Minimize point sources• Minimize natural variation –
- basin size all 20-60 mi2 - slope - all upland, riffle/pool sites
• Accessible for sampling during both low and high flows• Selected representative sampling reach 150-300m long
33 sites
0 5 10 15 20
flatlbusbrodvandhaycsawkpidcfrenebbrlhgowbbrtoby
marspick
macoraympigeridl
tomsdingebrcpinevall
crumlnesdarfmill
shabwyom
tacocobb
Road density (road miles/ sq. mi. basin)
Piedmont sitesPoconos sites
Bar graph-fixed
Similar %forest and same amount of urban development, but different % forest in buffer, and different %C/I
Illus maps
East Branch Red Clay
East Branch Brandywine
Similar %forest and amount of development, but a different distribution of land uses (COR, AI, and forest patch size covariance)
Illus maps
DingmansHay
• Macroinvertebrates• Algae
Field data collected
• Habitat & geomorphology
• Nutrients, ions
• Pesticides in water
• Discharge (instantaneous)
• Temperature
Primary responses related to urbanization (rdden)
What are the primary biological, physical, and chemical responses that are related to urbanization?
EP
T r
ichn
ess
Road density in basin (mi/mi2)
• Loss of sensitive macroinvertebrates
Road density in basin (mi/mi2)
Hab
itat Q
ualit
y In
dex
• Decrease in habitat quality
Chl
orid
e (m
g/l)
Road density in basin (mi/mi2)
• Increase in chloride, sulfate, other major ions
log1
0 to
tal N
(m
g/l)
Road density in basin (mi/mi2)
• Increase in nutrient concentrations
2
log1
0 P
estic
ide
Toxi
city
Inde
x
Road density in basin (mi/mi2)
Road density in basin (mi/mi2)
What are the primary biological, physical, and chemical responses that are related to urbanization?
• Increase in Pesticide Toxicity Index• Increased variety and amounts of pesticides detected
(especially insecticides) • Increased potential toxicity of streamwater to fish and
invertebrates
Ecosystem responses…
Results--What are the changes we see?
• Loss of sensitive macroinvertebrates
• Decrease in habitat quality
• Increase in chloride, sulfate, other major ions
• Increase in nutrient concentrations
• Increase in Pesticide Toxicity Index
To what specific landscape characteristics (or combination of characteristics) are these
responses related?
• basin-wide land use
• buffer zone land use
• fragmentation indices for basin
Buffer-zone variables
“Buffer – zone”
landscape variable
Sensitive invertebrates
Chloride conc.
Pesticide toxicity
Habitat quality
Forested % + - - +
Multi-family residential % - + + -
Commercial-industrial % - + + -
Impervious % - + + -
Urban % - + + -
Buffer-zone variables
* Buffer zone = 100m on either side of the stream
Landscape indices
Landscape index
Sensitive invertebrates
Chloride conc.
Pesticide toxicity
Habitat quality
Mean patch size - forest + - - +
Avg patch perimeter-forest + - - +
Aggregation index - forest + - -
Centroid connectivity - forest + - -
Edge - urban - +
Avg patch perimeter - urban +
Distribution/frag measures
Can we combine some of these landscape factors to develop models of stream ecosystem response?
Multiple linear regression –Invertebrate community structure*
Variable added
to model
Model R-Square
(p<0.01)% Forest in basin (+) 0.77
% Commercial in basin (-) 0.82
% Urban in buffer (-) 0.86
*ordination site scores
MLR - invertebrates
Multiple linear regression –Total nitrogen (spring sample)
Landscape variable
added to model
Model R-Square
% Forest in basin (-) 0.68
Relative contagion (-) 0.76
% commercial/industrial in basin (+)
0.81
MLR-total nitrogen (spring)
What is the form of the response?
What is the form of the response
And how does data source affect observed patterns?
• NLCD’92– Currently available over entire US
• NLCD2000– Currently only exists in pilot areas.
Expected to have US-wide coverage in the next 5 years or so…
20 40 60 805
10
15
20
25
EP
T r
ichn
ess
% Urban - NLCD 1992
20 40 60 805
10
15
20
25
% Urban - photointerp.
EP
T r
ichn
ess
20 40 60 80
-5
-4
-3
log1
0 P
TI
% Urban - NLCD 2000
20 40 60 80
-5
-4
-3
% Urban - NLCD 1992
log1
0 P
TI
20 40 60 80
-5
-4
-3
% Urban - photointerp.
log1
0 P
TI
“Correcting” the NLCD92 dataset
NLCD’92
…with roads overlaid on top
NLCD’92 – ‘corrected’ using local road density
example in to the Poconos area…
Differences-plotsBasin stats Buffer stats
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PI
NL
CD
92
%forest
%total urban
%residential
%ag
%dev
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PI
NL
CD
92-c
orr
ecte
d (
circ
7)%forest
%total urban
%residential
%ag
%dev
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
pi
nlcd
92-c
orre
cted
(ci
rc7)
%forest
%total urban
%residential
%ag
%dev
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80 100
pi
nlcd
92
%forest
%total urban
%residential
%ag
%dev
Where it helps and where it doesn’t…
20 40 60 805
10
15
20
25
% Urban - Corrected NLCD 1992
EP
T r
ichn
ess
20 40 60 805
10
15
20
25
EP
T r
ichn
ess
% Urban - NLCD 1992
20 40 60 805
10
15
20
25
% Urban - photointerp.
EP
T r
ichn
ess
Helps:
–%urban land in basin
20 40 60 805
10
15
20
25
% Buffer as urban -corrected NLCD 1992
EP
T r
ichn
ess
20 40 60 805
10
15
20
25
EP
T r
ichn
ess
% Buffer as urban - NLCD 1992
20 40 60 805
10
15
20
25
EP
T r
ichn
ess
% Buffer as urban - photointerp.
Not much help:
–%urban land in buffer
Where it helps and where it doesn’t…
Differences between them• Description, comparison maps and comparison plots
Photointerpretedland use (1999)
NLCD’92(note missing development)
NLCD2000(note land cover focus)
Looking at NLCD2000…
Being a land cover product, NLCD2000 urban developed land uses are more related to impervious surface than the entire developed area.
And, areas that are sparsely developed, have small house footprints, and/or have trees overshadowing roads or buildings may still contain only a few ‘developed’ pixels in the NLCD2000 dataset within a background of grass (or forest)
Concluding thoughts…
– %Forest in the basin (and its close opposite--%developed)
– The type of developed land in the basin (e.g. C/I)
– Distribution of land uses within the basin can be a factor • Amount of forest or urban in the buffer
• COR, AI-Forest, diversity of forest patch sizes
– Land cover• % impervious
• And, although the data wasn’t fully analyzed, there was some evidence suggesting that the land cover of developed land uses may be a factor as well (e.g. forest vs. grass covered residential).
• Landscape variables most related to stream ecosystem response
Concluding thoughts
• Data source– You sometimes need the detailed land use/land cover
information to find out what’s really going on
– And you need an understanding of its relationship to the broadly available datasets for extrapolation over large areas
• Be very careful using threshold values derived using one land use data source and applying them to another
Concluding thoughts
• The cooperative effort provided a unique opportunity– To link forest and water studies to expand
ecosystem knowledge
– To investigate the linkage between a process-level study establishing relationships between factors and broad scale methods for scaling the results up to an entire region.
top related