Landscape Ecology

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 113–125 | Cite as

A method for the use of landscape metrics in freshwater research and management

  • Faith R. Kearns
  • N. Maggi Kelly
  • James L. Carter
  • Vincent H. Resh
Research article


Freshwater research and management efforts could be greatly enhanced by a better understanding of the relationship between landscape-scale factors and water quality indicators. This is particularly true in urban areas, where land transformation impacts stream systems at a variety of scales. Despite advances in landscape quantification methods, several studies attempting to elucidate the relationship between land use/land cover (LULC) and water quality have resulted in mixed conclusions. However, these studies have largely relied on compositional landscape metrics. For urban and urbanizing watersheds in particular, the use of metrics that capture spatial pattern may further aid in distinguishing the effects of various urban growth patterns, as well as exploring the interplay between environmental and socioeconomic variables. However, to be truly useful for freshwater applications, pattern metrics must be optimized based on characteristic watershed properties and common water quality point sampling methods. Using a freely available LULC data set for the Santa Clara Basin, California, USA, we quantified landscape composition and configuration for subwatershed areas upstream of individual sampling sites, reducing the number of metrics based on: (1) sensitivity to changes in extent and (2) redundancy, as determined by a multivariate factor analysis. The first two factors, interpreted as (1) patch density and distribution and (2) patch shape and landscape subdivision, explained approximately 85% of the variation in the data set, and are highly reflective of the heterogeneous urban development pattern found in the study area. Although offering slightly less explanatory power, compositional metrics can provide important contextual information.


California Freshwater Pattern metrics San Jose Spatial configuration Urban ecology Water quality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allan, J.D., Erickson, D.L., Fay, J. 1997The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scalesFreshwater Biology37149161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barbour, M.T. 1997The re-invention of biological assessment in the USHuman and Ecology and Risk Assessment3933940Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basnyat, P., Teeter, L.D., Flynn, K.M., Lockaby, B.G. 1999Relationships between landscape characteristics and nonpoint source pollution inputs to coastal estuariesEnvironmental Management23539549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basnyat, P., Teeter, L.D., Lockaby, B.G., Flynn, K.M. 2000The use of remote sensing and GIS in watershed level analyses of non-point source pollution problemsForest Ecology and Management1286573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cifaldi, R.L., Allan, J.D., Duh, J.D., Brown, D.G. 2004Spatial patterns in land cover of exurbanizing watersheds in southeastern MichiganLandscape and Urban Planning66107123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper, S.D., Diehl, S., Kratz, K., Sarnelle, O. 1998Implications of scale for patterns and processes in stream ecologyAustralian Journal of Ecology232740Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Croissant, C. 2004Landscape patterns and parcel boundaries: an analysis of composition and configuration of land use and land cover in south-central IndianaAgricultureEcosystems, and Environment101219232Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dovciak, A.L., Perry, J.A. 2002In search of effective scales for stream management: does agroecoregion, watershedor their intersection best explain the variance in stream macroinvertebrate communities?Environmental Management30365377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gasith, A., Resh, V.H. 1999Streams in Mediterranean climate regions: abiotic influences and biotic responses to predictable seasonal eventsAnnual Review of Ecology and Systematics305181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gergel, S.E., Turner, M.G., Miller, J.R., Melack, J.M., Stanley, E.H. 2002Landscape indicators of human impacts to riverine systemsAquatic Sciences64118128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Griffith, J.A. 2002Geographic techniques and recent applications of remote sensing to landscape-water quality studiesWater Air and Soil Pollution138181197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griffith, J.A., Martinko, E.A., Price, K.P. 2000Landscape structure analysis of Kansas at three scalesLandscape and Urban Planning524561Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gustafson, E.J. 1998Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art?Ecosystems1143156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herold M., Couclesis H. and Clarke K.C. in press. The role of spatial metrics in the analysis and modeling of urban land use change. Computers Environment and Urban SystemsGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herzog, F., Lausch, A. 2001Supplementing land-use statistics with landscape metrics: some methodological considerationsEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment723750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hynes, H.B.N. 1975The stream and its valleyVerhandlungen Int. Vereinigung Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologi19115Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson, L.B., Gage, S.H. 1997Landscape approaches to the analysis of aquatic ecosystemsFreshwater Biology37113132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jones, K.B., Heggem, D.T., Wade, T.G., Neale, A.C., Eber, D.W., Nash, M.S., Mehaffey, M.H., Hermann, K.A., Selle, A.R., Augustine, S., Goodman, I.A., Pedersen, J., Bolgrien, D., Viger, J.M., Chiang, D., Lin, C.J., Zhong, Y., Baker, J., Van Remortel, R.D. 2000Assessing landscape condition relative to water resources in the western United States: a strategic approachEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment64227245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knighton, D.K. 1984Fluvial Forms and ProcessesEdward ArnoldBaltimoreMDGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lammert, M., Allan, J.D. 1999Assessing biotic integrity of streams: effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebratesEnvironmental Management23257270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luck, M., Wu, J. 2002A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan regions, ArizonaUSALandscape Ecology17327339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McDonnell, M.J., Pickett, S.T.A. 1990Ecosystem structure and function along urban–rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecologyEcology7112311237Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McGarigal K. and Marks B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS. Spatial analysis program for quantifying landscape structure USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McLaughlin R.J., Clark J.C., Brabb E.E., Helley E.J. and Colón C.J. 2001. Geologic maps and structure sections of the southwestern Santa Clara Valley and southern Santa Cruz Mountains, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, California. (accessed March 28, 2003).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mertes, L.A.K. 2002Remote sensing of riverine landscapesFreshwater Biology47799816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morley, S.A., Karr, J.R. 2002Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basinConservation Biology1614981509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nagendra, H., Munroe, D.K., Southworth, J. 2004From pattern to process: landscape fragmentation and the analysis of land use/land cover changeAgricultureEcosystems, and Environment101111115Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parker, D.C., Meretsky, V. 2004Measuring pattern outcomes in an agent-based model of edge-effect externalities using spatial metricsAgricultureEcosystems and Environment101223250Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paul, M.J., Meyer, J.L. 2001Streams in the urban landscapeAnnual Review of Ecology and Systematics32333365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Richards, C., Host, G. 1994Examining land use influences on stream habitats and macroinvertebrates – a GIS approachWater Resources Bulletin30729738Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Riitters, K.H., Oȁ9Neill, R.V., Hunsaker, C.T., Wickham, J.D., Yankee, D.H., Timmins, S.P., Jones, K.B., Jackson, B.L. 1995A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metricsLandscape Ecology102339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roth, N.E., Allan, J.D., Erickson, D.L. 1996Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scalesLandscape Ecology11141156Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roy, A.H., Rosemond, A.D., Paul, M.J., Leigh, D.S., Wallace, J.B. 2003Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (GeorgiaUSA)Freshwater Biology48329346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative. 2000. Watershed characteristics report. (accessed February 3, 2003).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saura, S., Martinez-Millan, J. 2001Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extentPhotogrammetric Engineering And Remote Sensing6710271036Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sponseller, R.A., Benfield, E.F., Valett, H.M. 2001Relationships between land usespatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communitiesFreshwater Biology4614091424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Theobald, D.M. 2004Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification frameworkFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment2139144Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., Oȁ9Neill, R.V. 2001Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and ProcessSpringer-VerlagNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    US Geological Survey. 2000. National Land Cover Data – California North. (accessed February 12, 2003).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vogelmann, J.E., Howard, S.M., Yang, Y., Larson, C.R., Wylie, B.K., Van Driel, N. 2001Completion of the 1990s National Land Cover Data Set for the conterminous United States from Landsat Thematic Mapper Data and ancillary datasourcesPhotogrammetric Engineering And Remote Sensing67650652Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P. 1998Development and evaluation of a habitat rating system for low-gradient Wisconsin streamsNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management18775785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wear, D.N., Turner, M.G., Naiman, R.J. 1998Land cover along an urban–rural gradient: implications for water qualityEcological Applications8619630Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    World Bank. 2004. Urbanization and cities: facts and figures, (accessed April 6, 2004).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faith R. Kearns
    • 1
  • N. Maggi Kelly
    • 1
  • James L. Carter
    • 2
  • Vincent H. Resh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and ManagementUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.United States Geological SurveyMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations