4.7 Article

Impact of landscape pattern at multiple spatial scales on water quality: A case study in a typical urbanised watershed in China

Journal

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Volume 48, Issue -, Pages 417-427

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.019

Keywords

Landscape pattern; Water quality; Buffer zones; Redundancy analysis; Change-point analysis

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars [51025933]
  2. National Science Foundation for Innovative Research Group [51121003]
  3. Open Research Fund Program of Key Laboratory of Urban Stormwater System and Water Environment (Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture), Ministry of Education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Buffer zones along rivers and streams can provide water quality services by filtering nutrients, sediment and other contaminants from the surface. Redundancy analysis was used to determine the influence of the landscape pattern at the entire catchment scale and at multiple buffer zone scales (100 m, 300 m, 500 m, 1000 m and 1500 m) on the water quality in a highly urbanised watershed. Change-point analysis was further applied to estimate the specific locations along a gradient of landscape metric that result in a sudden change in the water quality variable. The landscape characteristics for 100 m buffer zones appeared to have a slightly greater influence on the water quality than the entire catchment. The patch density of urban land and the large patch index of water were recognised as the dominant variables influencing the water quality for a 100 m buffer zone. The result of change-point analysis indicated key interval values of the two landscape metrics within the 100 m buffer zone. When the patch density of urban land was >30-40 n/100 ha and the largest patch index of water was >2.5-3.5%, the watershed water quality appeared to be better protected. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available