4.8 Article

Geostatistical Prediction of Microbial Water Quality Throughout a Stream Network Using Meteorology, Land Cover, and Spatiotemporal Autocorrelation

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 52, Issue 14, Pages 7775-7784

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01178

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina [70252]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Predictive modeling is promising as an inexpensive tool to assess water quality. We developed geostatistical predictive models of microbial water quality that empirically modeled spatiotemporal autocorrelation in measured fecal coliform (FC) bacteria concentrations to improve prediction. We compared five geostatistical models featuring different autocorrelation structures, fit to 676 observations from 19 locations in North Carolina's Jordan Lake watershed using meteorological and land cover predictor variables. Though stream distance metrics (with and without flow-weighting) failed to improve prediction over the Euclidean distance metric, incorporating temporal autocorrelation substantially improved prediction over the space-only models. We predicted FC throughout the stream network daily for one year, designating locations impaired, unimpaired, or unassessed if the probability of exceeding the state standard was >= 90%, <= 10%, or >10% but <90%, respectively. We could assign impairment status to more of the stream network on days any FC were measured, suggesting frequent sample-based monitoring remains necessary, though implementing spatiotemporal predictive models may reduce the number of concurrent sampling locations required to adequately assess water quality. Together, these results suggest that prioritizing sampling at different times and conditions using geographically sparse monitoring networks is adequate to build robust and informative geostatistical models of water quality impairment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available