Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70024739

Preliminary comparison of landscape pattern-normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) relationships to central plains stream conditions

J. A. Griffith·E. A. Martinko·J. L. Whistler·K. P. Price
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We explored relationships of water quality parameters with landscape pattern metrics (LPMs), land use–land cover (LULC) proportions, and the advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) or NDVI-derived metrics. Stream sites (271) in Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri were sampled for water quality parameters, the index of biotic integrity, and a habitat index in either 1994 or 1995. Although a combination of LPMs (interspersion and juxtaposition index, patch density, and percent forest) within Ozark Highlands watersheds explained >60% of the variation in levels of nitrite–nitrate nitrogen and conductivity, in most cases the LPMs were not significantly correlated with the stream data. Several problems using landscape pattern metrics were noted: small watersheds having only one or two patches, collinearity with LULC data, and counterintuitive or inconsistent results that resulted from basic differences in land use–land cover patterns among ecoregions or from other factors determining water quality. The amount of variation explained in water quality parameters using multiple regression models that combined LULC and LPMs was generally lower than that from NDVI or vegetation phenology metrics derived from time-series NDVI data. A comparison of LPMs and NDVI indicated that NDVI had greater promise for monitoring landscapes for stream conditions within the study area.

Explore related subjects

Journal of Environmental QualityArticle
90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 37.09023980307208° to 42.97250158602597° latitude; -103.6669921875° to -91.58203125° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J. A. Griffith, E. A. Martinko, J. L. Whistler, K. P. Price. 2002. Preliminary comparison of landscape pattern-normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) relationships to central plains stream conditions. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2002.8460

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Association of runoff risk with private well contamination in a fractured dolostone aquifer

In the United States, private well owners are responsible for monitoring and maintaining their drinking water but have little control over neighboring contamination sources and limited information about daily water quality. Potential for rapid contamination in karst settings exacerbates the challenge. The Runoff Risk Advisory Forecast (RRAF) is a real-time online tool available in five US states that helps nutrient applicators avoid times and locations of high runoff risk. We wanted to determine if RRAF could be repurposed in areas susceptible to groundwater contamination to inform well owners of conditions when contamination is likely. Private wells were repeatedly sampled on seven dates (32–36 wells per date) and analyzed for nitrate-nitrogen, total coliforms, and bovine manure markers. Three-day windows of RRAF risk prior to sampling were selected post hoc, ranging from 1 to 3 days prior for manure markers to 10–12 days prior for nitrate. Contaminants were associated with RRAF values of ≥75% within these windows based on observed weather. A hydrologic association between RRAF risk and groundwater depth was also apparent. Overall, results suggest the RRAF model anticipates conditions of elevated contamination risk for susceptible wells. For nitrate, between-well variation and delayed peak concentration suggested that well location and construction factors may be more informative than runoff events. Microbial contamination was rapid and distributed among wells, with one or more detections of coliforms in 31% of wells and bovine markers in 61% of wells. Thus, a warning system based on the RRAF model could help identify conditions of acute pathogen exposure.

Wisconsin↗
USGS2026

Quantitative microbial risk assessment with microbial source tracking for enteric pathogens in southwest Wisconsin private wells

Private wells supply drinking water for many households, and their contamination by fecal microbes presents a risk of acute gastrointestinal illness (AGI). Risk is thought to vary by contaminating fecal source, but specific associations with fecal source are unknown for most private wells in the United States. This study characterizes AGI risk in Grant, Iowa, and Lafayette counties in southwestern Wisconsin. AGI risk was assessed for 10 viral, bacterial, and protozoan pathogens detected in private wells using quantitative microbial risk assessment. Exposure assessment was based on sampling 138 private wells in the study area, and risk was associated with fecal source by microbial source tracking (MST). Median Monte Carlo estimates indicated 4450 AGI cases/year in the study area associated with drinking water from contaminated private wells (95% confidence interval: 90–37,990). Most annual cases were associated with detection of human MST markers, including median estimates of 2550 associated with only human markers and 880 with human and livestock MST markers detected together. Note that 50 AGI cases/year were associated with detection of only livestock markers, and nearly 1000 cases were estimated to occur in the absence of detectable MST markers. This study characterizes AGI risk for households served by private wells in southwestern Wisconsin. It illustrates that human fecal sources can predominate risk associated with drinking water from private wells, even in a rural region characterized by substantial agricultural activity. MST can characterize the relationship between risk and fecal source; contributions of fecal sources to risk cannot be assumed from land use.

Wisconsin↗