Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 523

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

SPATIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LINKING WATERSHED LAND COVER TO ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS IN STREAMS

King, Ryan S., Baker, Matthew E., Whigham, Dennis F., Weller, Donald E., Jordan, Thomas E., Kazyak, Paul F., Hurd, Martin K.·2005·Ecological Applications

Abstract

Watershed land cover is widely used as a predictor of stream-ecosystem condition. However, numerous spatial factors can confound the interpretation of correlative analyses between land cover and stream indicators, particularly at broad spatial scales. We used a stream-monitoring data set collected from the Coastal Plain of Maryland, USA to address analytical challenges presented by (1) collinearity of land-cover class percentages, (2) spatial autocorrelation of land cover and stream data, (3) intercorrelations among and spatial autocorrelation within abiotic intermediaries that link land cover to stream biota, and (4) spatial arrangement of land cover within watersheds. We focused on two commonly measured stream indicators, nitrate-nitrogen (NO3–N) and macroinvertebrate assemblages, to evaluate how different spatial considerations may influence results. Partial correlation analysis of land-cover percentages revealed that simple correlations described relationships that could not be separated from the effects of other land-cover classes or relationships that changed substantially when the influences of other land-cover classes were taken into account. Partial Mantel tests showed that all land-cover percentages were spatially autocorrelated, and this spatial phenomenon accounted for much of the variation in macroinvertebrate assemblages that could naively be attributed to certain classes (e.g., percentage cropland). We extended our use of partial Mantel tests into a path-analytical framework and identified several independent pathways between percentage developed land and in-stream measurements after factoring out spatial autocorrelation and other confounding variables; however, under these conditions, percentage cropland was only linked to nitrate-N. Further analyses revealed that spatial arrangement of land cover, as measured by areal buffers and distance weighting, influenced the amount of developed land, resulting in a threshold change in macroinvertebrate-assemblage composition. Moreover, distance-weighted percentage cropland improved predictions of stream nitrate-N concentrations in small watersheds, but not in medium or large ones. Collectively, this series of analyses clarified the magnitude and critical scales of effects of different land-cover classes on Coastal Plain stream ecosystems and may serve as an analytical framework for other studies. Our results suggest that greater emphasis should be placed on these important spatial considerations; otherwise, we risk obscuring the relationships between watershed land cover and the condition of stream ecosystems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/04-0481

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 523

Metadata

Authors
King, R. S., Baker, M. E., Whigham, D. F., Weller, D. E., Jordan, T. E., Kazyak, P. F., & Hurd, M. K.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-02
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
137-153
ISSN
1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144356599
Cited by
523
References
1
FWCI
19.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: SPATIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LINKING WATERSHED LAND COVER TO ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS IN STREAMS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/04-0481
The paper
King, R. S., Baker, M. E., Whigham, D. F., Weller, D. E., Jordan, T. E., Kazyak, P. F., & Hurd, M. K. (2005). SPATIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LINKING WATERSHED LAND COVER TO ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS IN STREAMS. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0481

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.