Landscape Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 381–395 | Cite as

Longitudinal- and transverse-scale environmental influences on riparian vegetation across multiple levels of ecological organization

  • Jian Yang
  • Thomas E. Dilts
  • Lea A. Condon
  • P. Lee Turner
  • Peter J. Weisberg
Research Article


Riparian vegetation is distinct from adjacent upland terrestrial vegetation and its distribution is affected by various environmental controls operating at the longitudinal scale (along the river) or transverse scale (perpendicular to the river). Although several studies have shown how the relative importance of transverse or longitudinal influences varies with the scale of observation, few have examined how the influences of the two scales vary with the level of ecological organization. We modeled vegetation-environment relationships at three hierarchically nested levels of ecological organization: species, plant community, and vegetation type. Our hierarchically structured analyses differentiated the spatial extent of riparian zones from adjacent upland vegetation, the distribution of plant community types within the riparian zone, and the distribution of plant species within community types. Longitudinal gradients associated with climate and elevation exerted stronger effects at the species level than at the community level. Transverse gradients related to lateral surface water flux and groundwater availability distinguished riparian and upland vegetation types, although longitudinal gradients of variation better predicted species composition within either riparian or upland communities. We concur with other studies of riparian landscape ecology that the relative predictive power of environmental controls for modeling patterns of biodiversity is confounded with the spatial extent of the study area and sampling scheme. A hierarchical approach to spatial modeling of vegetation-environment relationships will yield substantial insights on riparian landscape patterns.


Gradient analysis Scale Hierarchy Great Basin Riparian vegetation Ordination Random Forests 



Funding for Jian Yang, Thomas Dilts, and Peter Weisberg was provided by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Cooperative Agreement 06FC204044). Funding for Otis Bay Ecological Consultants was provided through the USFWS—Lahontan National Fish Hatchery Complex using Desert Terminal Lakes Funds (Public Law 109-103, Sect. 208(c) administered through the BOR). LiDAR was provided by the USFWS—Lahontan National Fish Hatchery Complex using Desert Terminal Lakes Funds (Public Law 109-103, Sect. 208(c) administered through the BOR). Stephanie Kilburn, Gina Jones, Shwetha Bayya, Randy Goetz, Serena Rogers and Kurt Sable at Otis Bay Ecological Consultants provided assistance in the field or in the office. Blake Engelhardt, Joy Giffin, Dr. Jianguo (Jingle) Wu, and two anonymous reviewers provided comments on earlier drafts.


  1. Baker ME, Barnes BV (1998) Landscape ecosystem diversity of river floodplains in northwestern Lower Michigan, USA. Can J For Res 28:1405–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bendix J (1994) Scale, direction, and pattern in riparian vegetation-environment relationships. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 84:652–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bendix J (1999) Stream power influence on Southern Californian riparian vegetation. J Veg Sci 10:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caissie D (2006) The thermal regime of rivers: a review. Freshw Biol 51:1389–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers JC, Tausch RJ, Korfmacher JL, Germanoski D, Miller JR, Jewett D (2004) Effects of geomorphic processes and hydrologic regimes on riparian vegetation. In: Chambers JC, Miller JR (eds) Great Basin riparian ecosystems: ecology, management and restoration. Island Press, Covelo, CA, pp 196–231Google Scholar
  7. Cherrill AJ, McClean C, Watson P, Tucker K, Rushton SP, Sanderson R (1995) Predicting the distributions of plant species at the regional scale: a hierarchical matrix model. Landscape Ecol 10:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diez JM, Pulliam HR (2007) Hierarchical analysis of species distributions and abundance across environmental gradients. Ecology 88:3144–3152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dufrène M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  10. Ferrier S, Guisan A (2006) Spatial modelling of biodiversity at the community level. J Appl Ecol 43:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher SG, Grimm NB, Marti E, Gomez R (1998) Hierarchy, spatial configuration, and nutrient cycling in a desert stream. Aust J Ecol 23:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forbis TA, Provencher L, Turner L, Medlyn G, Thompson J, Jones G (2007) A method for landscape-scale vegetation assessment: application to Great Basin rangeland ecosystems. Rangel Ecol Manag 60:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franklin J (1995) Predictive vegetation mapping: geographic modelling of biospatial patterns in relation to environmental gradients. Prog Phys Geogr 19:474–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franklin J, McCullough P, Gray C (2000) Terrain variables used for predictive mapping of vegetation communities in Southern California. In: Wilson J, Gallant J (eds) Terrain analysis: principles and applications. Wiley & Sons, New York, US, pp 331–353Google Scholar
  15. Friedman JM, Auble GT, Andrews ED, Kittel G, Madole RF, Griffin ER, Allred TM (2006) Transverse and longitudinal variation in woody riparian vegetation along a montane river. West North Am Nat 66:79–91Google Scholar
  16. Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW (1991) An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41:540–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill MO (1979) TWINSPAN: a FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Cornell University, Section of Ecology and Systematics, Ithaca, NY, USGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill MO, Gauch HG (1980) Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Plant Ecol 42:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Junk JW, Bayley PB, Sparks RE (1989) The flood pulse concept in river floodplain systems. Canad Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 106:110–127Google Scholar
  21. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyon J, Gross NM (2005) Patterns of plant diversity and plant-environmental relationships across three riparian corridors. For Ecol Manag 204:267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) PC-ORD: multivariate analysis of ecological data; Version 4 for Windows; User’s Guide. MjM Software DesignGoogle Scholar
  24. Naiman RJ, Décamps H (1997) The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:621–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oneal A, Rotenberry J (2008) Riparian plant composition in an urbanizing landscape in southern California, USA. Landscape Ecol 23:553–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peters J, Verhoest NEC, Samson R, Boeckx P, De Baets B (2008) Wetland vegetation distribution modelling for the identification of constraining environmental variables. Landscape Ecol 23:1049–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poole GC (2002) Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum. Freshw Biol 47:641–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reed PB (1988) National list of vascular plant species that occur in wetlands. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. Biological report 88:24Google Scholar
  29. Richardson DM, Holmes PM, Esler KJ, Galatowitsch SM, Stromberg JC, Kirkman SP, Pysek P, Hobbs RJ (2007) Riparian vegetation: degradation, alien plant invasions, and restoration prospects. Divers Distrib 13:126–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saab V (1999) Importance of spatial scale to habitat use by breeding birds in riparian forests: a hierarchical analysis. Ecol Appl 9:135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sandercock PJ, Hooke JM (2010) Assessment of vegetation effects on hydraulics and of feedbacks on plant survival and zonation in ephemeral channels. Hydrol Process 24:695–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shafroth PB, Stromberg JC, Patten DT (2002) Riparian vegetation response to altered disturbance and stress regimes. Ecol Appl 12:107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stromberg JC, Tiller R, Richter B (1996) Effects of groundwater decline on riparian vegetation of semiarid regions: The San Pedro, Arizona. Ecol Appl 6:113–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thorp JH, Thoms MC, Delong MD (2006) The riverine ecosystem synthesis: biocomplexity in river networks across space and time. River Res Appl 22:123–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turner MG, Gergel SE, Dixon MD, Miller JR, Woods K (2004) Distribution and abundance of trees in floodplain forests of the Wisconsin River: environmental influences at different scales. J Veg Sci 15:729–738Google Scholar
  36. United States Fish Wildlife Service, prepared by Otis Bay Ecological Consultants (2009) Walker river biophysical assessment. Lahontan NHF Complex, Reno, NVGoogle Scholar
  37. Urban D, Goslee S, Pierce K, Lookingbill T (2002) Extending community ecology to landscapes. Ecoscience 9:200–212Google Scholar
  38. van Coller AL, Rogers KH, Heritage GL (2000) Riparian vegetation-environment relationships: complimentarity of gradients versus patch hierarchy approaches. J Veg Sci 11:337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ward JV, Florian M, Klement T (2002) Landscape ecology: a framework for integrating pattern and process in river corridors. Landscape Ecol 17:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Webster JR, Meyer JL (1997) Organic matter budgets for streams: a synthesis. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wiens J (2002) Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshw Biol 47:501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolock DM, McCabe-Jr GJ (1995) Comparison of single and multiple flow direction algorithms for computing topographic parameters in TOPMODEL. Water Resour Res 31:1315–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecol 17:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wu J, Loucks OL (1995) From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology. Q Rev Biol 70:439CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jian Yang
    • 1
  • Thomas E. Dilts
    • 1
  • Lea A. Condon
    • 2
  • P. Lee Turner
    • 3
  • Peter J. Weisberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and Environmental ScienceUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA
  2. 2.Otis Bay Ecological ConsultantsVerdiUSA
  3. 3.Nevada Division of Wildlife, Partnership for Conservation and DevelopmentRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations