Elsevier

Environmental Modelling & Software

Volume 60, October 2014, Pages 320-330
Environmental Modelling & Software

Improving the predictive power of spatial statistical models of stream macroinvertebrates using weighted autocovariance functions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.06.019Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Spatial stream-network models had more predictive power than non-spatial models.

  • The scale and pattern of spatial autocorrelation varied for all three indices.

  • The choice of spatial weights strongly impacted model performance.

  • Index composition may affect the scale and pattern of spatial autocorrelation.

  • Insight into ecological processes may be gained by modelling spatial covariance.

Abstract

Spatial statistical stream-network models are useful for modelling physicochemical data, but to-date have not been fit to macroinvertebrate data. Spatial stream-network models were fit to three macroinvertebrate indices: percent pollution-tolerant taxa, taxa richness and the number of taxalacking out-of-network movement (in-stream dispersers). We explored patterns of spatial autocorrelation in the indices and found that the 1) relative strength of in-stream and Euclidean spatial autocorrelation varied between indices; 2) spatial models outperformed non-spatial models; and 3) the spatial-weighting scheme used to weight tributaries had a substantial impact on model performance for the in-stream dispersers; with weights based on percent stream slope, used as a surrogate for velocity because of its potential effect on dispersal and habitat heterogeneity, producing more accurate predictions than other spatial-weighting schemes. These results demonstrate the flexibility of the modelling approach and its ability to account for multi-scale patterns and processes within the aquatic and terrestrial landscape.

Introduction

Spatial autocorrelation represents the degree of spatial dependency in measurements collected in geographic space. It is an inherent characteristic of data collected in stream and river environments, where longitudinal and lateral connectivity, nested catchments, and broad-scale topographic and climatic gradients produce multiple, multi-scale patterns of spatial autocorrelation (Peterson et al., 2013). Spatial autocorrelation is often viewed as problematic; when traditional, non-spatial models are used to analyse spatially correlated data, it can lead to biased parameter estimates and invalid statistical inferences (Legendre, 1993). Alternatively, spatial statistical methods, such as geostatistical modelling (i.e. universal kriging) can be used to model spatially correlated data, account for influential covariates, and generate predictions with valid estimates of uncertainty at non-sampled locations (Cressie, 1993). These methods have recently been extended to represent the unique spatial relationships in stream networks (Ver Hoef et al., 2006, Ver Hoef and Peterson, 2010), which include the branching structure of the dendritic network, flow connectivity, the directionality of flow, and the 2-D terrestrial environment within which the network is embedded (Peterson et al., 2013). This provides a flexible modelling framework that can be used to account for both in-stream and Euclidean patterns of spatial autocorrelation in a single model (Peterson and Ver Hoef, 2010). Previous studies have been somewhat limited because proximity is based solely on Euclidean distance (e.g. Bonada et al., 2012, Shurin et al., 2009) or in-stream distance is used to study spatial relationships along a single, non-branching channel (e.g. Grenouillet et al., 2008).

Spatial stream-network models have been successfully applied to a number of physicochemical indicators, including temperature (Isaak et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2013, Ruesch et al., 2012), nitrate (Gardner and McGlynn, 2009) and dissolved oxygen (Cressie et al., 2006), as well as E. coli measurements (Money et al., 2009) and a modelled fish index (Peterson and Ver Hoef, 2010). There is thus a growing body of evidence suggesting that these methods are useful for up-scaling site-based measurements collected on stream networks to provide a more continuous perspective of stream characteristics (Cressie et al., 2006, Isaak et al., 2010, Money et al., 2009, Peterson and Ver Hoef, 2010, Ruesch et al., 2012), which is crucial for the spatial prioritization of management actions (Fausch et al., 2002). In contrast to many physicochemical variables, macroinvertebrate community indices are often strongly related to a combination of local-scale physicochemical and biological conditions (Downes et al., 1993, Minshall, 1984, Sawyer et al., 2004), which suggests that spatial autocorrelation may not be as prevalent in these data. Yet, many of these local-scale characteristics are thought to be influenced by the interaction of broader-scale network structure, geomorphology, and disturbance regimes (Benda et al., 2004), as well as, water chemistry and land use (Kratzer et al., 2006). Thus, it remains unclear whether this relatively new family of spatial statistical models will be equally suitable for predicting biological variables, such as macroinvertebrate indices, commonly used in broad-scale monitoring programs (e.g. Munné and Prat, 2009, Smith et al., 2011).

Another important aspect of modelling spatial relationships in stream networks is allowing for potential disjunctions at stream confluences (Peterson et al., 2013). Confluence zones (i.e. stream junctions) are biologically important elements of streams (Illies, 1961; Rice et al., 2006, Statzler and Higler, 1986), and have been linked to changes in macroinvertebrate densities (Katano et al., 2009, Rice et al., 2001). For example, Kiffney et al. (2006) found that small streams funnel materials such as nutrients and woody debris into wider main stem channels, and that this produced peaks in macroinvertebrate densities downstream of confluences; likely due to increased productivity and habitat complexity. Small, steep headwater streams may also be important drivers of downstream food webs, through the entrainment of leaf litter, in northern hemisphere streams with deciduous riparian vegetation (Cummins, 1974, Vannote et al., 1980). However, Bunn et al. (1999) showed that algae, rather than inputs of leaf litter, were the main driver of macroinvertebrate food webs in northern Queensland, Australia, where riparian vegetation tends to be evergreen. Furthermore, while macroinvertebrates in the northern hemisphere are often productive in small, steep headwater streams and drift downstream (Meyer et al., 2007), Australian studies have found that drift is usually related to death or catastrophic events (e.g. flooding) and may not be important for dispersal (Kerby et al., 1995). Although there may be uncertainty about what is causing disjunctive biological conditions at confluences, it is clear is that those drivers may be substantially different than those influencing physicochemical discontinuities at confluences.

Spatial stream-network models account for potential disjunctions at confluences using a spatial-weighting scheme that determines the degree of influence that each converging stream segment has on downstream locations (Peterson and Ver Hoef, 2010). To date, a spatial-weighting scheme based on Shreve's stream order (Shreve, 1966) has been used to generate spatial stream-network models (Cressie et al., 2006, Garreta et al., 2010), as well as spatial weights based on catchment area (Gardner and McGlynn, 2009, Isaak et al., 2010, Peterson et al., 2006; Peterson and Ver Hoef, 2010; Ruesch et al., 2012). Note that, Shreve's stream order has been used because it is additive, but Strahler's stream order (Strahler, 1957) could also be used. Catchment area and stream order have been used as surrogates for flow volume, a conceptually intuitive approach for water quality, temperature and fish because of the strong effects of longitudinal connectivity on these variables. However, catchment area and Shreve's stream order may not be as relevant for macroinvertebrates, which are strongly affected by local characteristics (e.g., Downes et al., 2000). In addition, there a variety of macroinvertebrate metrics including trophic and dominance indices, diversity, richness, and composition metrics, as well as, indices designed to represent feeding strategies, pollution tolerances, and habitat measures (Barbour et al., 1999). There are also numerous ways to construct indices within these categories and each index will have a metric-specific response to environmental perturbation. It is therefore unlikely that a single spatial-weighting scheme will be suitable in all cases given the broad range of physicochemical and biological processes affecting macroinvertebrate distribution and the diversity of indices available.

In this analysis, we used spatial stream-network models to explore patterns of spatial autocorrelation in a suite of macroinvertebrate indices collected in the wet tropics of Queensland, Australia. In particular, we wanted to test whether 1) accounting for spatial autocorrelation improved the predictive power of the models fit to biological indices; 2) patterns of spatial autocorrelation differed depending on the macroinvertebrate index used; and 3) the choice of spatial-weighting scheme affected the predictive power of the spatial model.

Section snippets

Data and study area

Macroinvertebrate data were collected at 60 sites in July and September 2009 (austral winter) in a sub-catchment of the Tully River Basin in the Wet Tropics bioregion of Queensland, Australia (Fig. 1). We collected data within a single season because there is little evidence of seasonal variability in Australian macroinvertebrate indices (Chessman et al., 1997, Marshall et al., 2001), which do not receive seasonal pulses of litterfall and subsequent increases in nutrients and productivity (

Results

Overall, the results showed that 1) there was a significant positive relationship between some, but not all of the macroinvertebrate indices; 2) there were few similarities in the optimal set of covariates for the different macroinvertebrate indices; 3) the optimal covariance structure varied between macroinvertebrate indices; 4) the relative predictive power of models based on different spatial-weighting schemes varied between response variables; and 5) the best spatial stream-network model

Patterns of spatial autocorrelation in macroinvertebrate indices

Spatial autocorrelation can arise from endogenous ecological processes such as dispersal or competition, but may also be driven exogenously, potentially arising from dependencies between the variable of interest and other spatially structured environmental variables such as broad-scale topography or microclimatic differences (Wagner and Fortin, 2005). Consequently, the spatial structure in the residual error likely represents complex interactions between both endogenous and exogenous processes.

Conclusions

The % tolerant, total richness, and in-stream dispersers indices all exhibited multiple, multi-scale patterns of spatial autocorrelation, which is similar to results obtained in other studies (Isaak et al., 2010; Peterson and Ver Hoef, 2010, Ruesch et al., 2012). However, as might be expected of macroinvertebrate data, fine-scale heterogeneity in the indices had a stronger effect than in previous studies focussing on physicochemical (Gardner and McGlynn, 2009; Garreta et al., 2010, Isaak

Acknowledgements

We thank the Water Planning Ecology team of the Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, particularly Joanna Blessing and Sara Clifford, for their assistance in collecting and interpreting the data, as well as Emma Lawrence and two anonymous reviewers for comments on previous versions of the manuscript. This project received financial support from the CSIRO Division of Computational Informatics and the Australian Water for a Healthy Country Flagship.

References (97)

  • N.D. Bennett et al.

    Characterising performance of environmental models

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2013)
  • M. Abelho et al.

    Effects of eucalyptus afforestation on leaf litter dynamics and macroinvertebrate community structure of streams in Central Portugal

    Hydrobiologia

    (1996)
  • H. Akaike

    A new look at the statistical model identification

    IEEE Trans. Autom. Control

    (1974)
  • J.D. Allan

    Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters

    (1995)
  • E. Angelier

    Ecology of Streams and Rivers

    (2003)
  • M.T. Barbour et al.

    Chaper 7: Benthic macroinvertebrate protocols

  • L. Benda et al.

    The network dynamics hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats

    BioScience

    (2004)
  • N. Bonada et al.

    Spatial autocorrelation patterns of stream invertebrates: exogenous and endogenous factors

    J. Biogeogr.

    (2012)
  • A. Borja et al.

    Current status of macroinvertebrate methods used for assessing the quality of European marine waters: implementing the Water Framework Directive

    Hydrobiologia

    (2009)
  • A. Boulton et al.

    Australian Freshwater Ecology: Processes and Management

    (1999)
  • A.J. Brooks et al.

    Hydraulic microhabitats and the distribution of macroinvertebrate assemblages in riffles

    Freshw. Biol.

    (2005)
  • B.L. Brown et al.

    Dendritic network structure constrains metacommunity properties in riverine ecosystems

    J. Anim. Ecol.

    (2010)
  • S.E. Bunn et al.

    Dispersal and recruitment in streams: evidence from genetic studies

    J. North Am. Benthol. Soc.

    (1997)
  • S.E. Bunn et al.

    Ecosystem measures of river health and their response to riparian and catchment degradation

    Freshw. Biol.

    (1999)
  • B.C. Chessman

    New sensitivity grades for river macroinvertebrates

    Mar. Freshw. Res.

    (2003)
  • B.C. Chessman et al.

    Bioassessment of streams with macroinvertebrates: effect of sampled habitat and taxonomic resolution

    J. North Am. Benthol. Soc.

    (2007)
  • B.C. Chessman et al.

    Objective derivation of macroinvertebrate family sensitivity grade numbers for the SIGNAL biotic index: application to the Hunter River system, New South Wales

    Mar. Freshw. Res.

    (1997)
  • J. Chilés et al.

    Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Uncertainty

    (1999)
  • A. Clarke et al.

    Macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: a review

    Freshw. Biol.

    (2008)
  • N. Cressie

    Statistics for Spatial Data

    (1993)
  • N. Cressie et al.

    Spatial prediction on a river network

    J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat.

    (2006)
  • K.W. Cummins

    Structure and function of stream ecosystems

    BioScience

    (1974)
  • P. Davies et al.

    Temperature and light

  • DNRM (Department of Natural Resources and Mines)

    Queensland Australian River Assessment System (AusRivAS) Sampling and Processing Manual

    (2001)
  • M.J. Dobbie et al.

    Addressing statistical and operational challenges in designing large-scale stream condition surveys

    Environ. Monit. Assess.

    (2013)
  • B.J. Downes et al.

    Spatial variation in the distribution of stream invertebrates: implications of patchiness for models of community organisation

    Freshw. Biol.

    (1993)
  • B.J. Downes et al.

    What's in a site? Variation in lotic macroinvertebrate density and diversity in a spatially replicated experiment

    Aust. Ecol.

    (2000)
  • ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.)

    ArcGIS 9.3.1 [Software]

    (2009)
  • K.D. Fausch et al.

    Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes

    Bioscience

    (2002)
  • K.K. Gardner et al.

    Seasonality in spatial variability and influence of land use/land cover and watershed characteristics on stream water nitrate concentrations in a developing watershed in the Rocky Mountain West

    Water Resour. Res.

    (2009)
  • V. Garreta et al.

    Spatial modelling and prediction on river networks: up model, down model or hybrid?

    Environmetrics

    (2010)
  • D. Genito et al.

    Response of stream macroinvertebrates to agricultural land cover in a small watershed

    J. Freshw. Ecol.

    (2002)
  • S.E. Gergel et al.

    What is the value of a good map? An example using high spatial resolution imagery to aid riparian restoration

    Ecosystems

    (2007)
  • G. Grenouillet et al.

    Concordance among stream assemblages and spatial autocorrelation along a fragmented gradient

    Divers. Distrib.

    (2008)
  • A.L. Hoffman et al.

    Current velocity and habitat patchiness shape stream herbivore movement

    Oikos

    (2006)
  • J.M. Hughes et al.

    Dispersal and recruitment of Tasiagma ciliate (Trichoptera: Tasimiidae) in rainforest streams, south-eastern Australia

    Freshw. Biol.

    (1998)
  • J.M. Hughes et al.

    Aquatic insects in eastern Australia: a window on ecology and evolution of dispersal in streams

    Insects

    (2011)
  • H.B. Hynes

    The Biology of Polluted Waters

    (1960)
  • J. Illies

    Versuch einer allgemeinen biozönotischen Gliederung der Fliessgewässer

    Int. Rev. Gesam. Hydrobiol.

    (1961)
  • D.J. Isaak et al.

    Effects of climate change and wildfire on stream temperatures and salmonid thermal habitat in a mountain river network

    Ecol. Appl.

    (2010)
  • F.C. Jones

    Taxonomic sufficiency: the influence of taxonomic resolution on freshwater bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebrates

    Environ. Rev.

    (2008)
  • L.A. Jones et al.

    Estimating thermal regimes of bull trout and assessing the potential effects of climate warming on critical habitats

    River Res. Appl.

    (2013)
  • I. Katano et al.

    Longitudinal macroinvertebrate organization over contrasting discontinuities: effects of a dam and a tributary

    J. North Am. Benthol. Soc.

    (2009)
  • B.M. Kerby et al.

    Factors influencing invertebrate drift in small forest streams, south-eastern Queensland

    Mar. Freshw. Res.

    (1995)
  • P.M. Kiffney et al.

    Tributary streams create spatial discontinuities in habitat, biological productivity, and diversity in mainstem rivers

    Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

    (2006)
  • P. Koperski

    Diversity of freshwater macrobenthos and its use in biological assessment: a critical review of current applications

    Environ. Rev.

    (2011)
  • E.B. Kratzer et al.

    Macroinvertebrate distribution in relation to land use and water chemistry in New York City drinking-water-supply watersheds

    J. North Am. Benthol. Soc.

    (2006)
  • F. Kroon

    Draft Tully Water Quality Improvement Plan

    (2008)
  • Cited by (32)

    • Spatial stream modeling of Louisiana Waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla) foraging substrate and aquatic prey in a watershed undergoing shale gas development

      2022, Food Webs
      Citation Excerpt :

      Aquatic prey community responses were weaker in 2013–2014 at a nest and territory level than in 2011 in relation to shale gas activity levels (Frantz et al., 2018b) where this may also be true of predictive power at the catchment-level. Additionally, Friedan et al. (2014) found that spatial-weighting schemes made a substantial difference in model performance and affected variables differently. Our only spatial weighting scheme consisted of reach contributing area (RCA) (i.e. catchment area, Horizon Systems Corporation, 2007) and represented the aerial extent that contributes overland flow to a stream line segment.

    • Bayesian spatio-temporal models for stream networks

      2022, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis
    • Integrating thermal infrared stream temperature imagery and spatial stream network models to understand natural spatial thermal variability in streams

      2021, Journal of Thermal Biology
      Citation Excerpt :

      SSN models are uniquely designed to address and incorporate spatial autocorrelation associated with river network structure (dendritic branching) and the influence of downstream water flow (Peterson and Ver Hoef 2010; Ver Hoef and Peterson 2010). Explicitly including this spatial autocorrelation in SSN models generates predictions across the network that are often more accurate than other statistical models which do not address the spatial autocorrelation associated with dendritic structures or predominance of downstream flow (Frieden et al., 2014; Turschwell et al., 2016; Holthuijzen 2017). Additionally, SSN models include spatially explicit estimates of prediction error that provide a measure of uncertainty to compare prediction accuracy between tributaries with and without observation data.

    • Testing the River Continuum Concept with geostatistical stream-network models

      2019, Ecological Complexity
      Citation Excerpt :

      When spatially explicit issues are investigated, such as those related to land-use, water pollution and habitat change, ignoring autocorrelation could produce bias in parameter estimates and ultimately weaken statistical inference. Nonetheless, field studies specifically accounting for spatial autocorrelation in benthic invertebrates are still rare, but the few available data indicate that spatial dependence can be very strong, especially along the stream route (Bonada et al., 2012; Frieden et al., 2014; Lloyd et al., 2006). The fact that we observed heterogeneous variations of FFG over the longitudinal dimension, which were accompanied by general trends that followed the original RCC predictions, supports a more holistic and contemporary view of river ecosystems where both patch- and continuum-based processes simultaneously regulate in-stream metabolism and biodiversity (Collins et al., 2018; Humphries et al., 2014).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text