Aquatic habitat assessments encompass large and small wadeable streams which vary from many meters wide to ephemeral. Differences in stream sizes within or across watersheds, however, may lead to incompatibility of da...Aquatic habitat assessments encompass large and small wadeable streams which vary from many meters wide to ephemeral. Differences in stream sizes within or across watersheds, however, may lead to incompatibility of data at varying spatial scales. Specifically, issues caused by moving between scales on large and small streams are not typically addressed by many forms of statistical analysis, making the comparison of large (>30 m wetted width) and small stream (<10 m wetted width) habitat assessments difficult. Geographically weighted regression (GWR) may provide avenues for efficiency and needed insight into stream habitat data by addressing issues caused by moving between scales. This study examined the ability of GWR to consistently model stream substrate on both large and small wadeable streams at an equivalent resolution. We performed GWR on two groups of 60 randomly selected substrate patches from large and small streams and used depth measurements to model substrate. Our large and small stream substrate models responded equally well to GWR. Results showed no statistically significant difference between GWR R<sup>2 </sup>values of large and small stream streams. Results also provided a much needed method for comparison of large and small wadeable streams. Our results have merit for aquatic resource managers, because they demonstrate ability to spatially model and compare substrate on large and small streams. Using depth to guide substrate modeling by geographically weighted regression has a variety of applications which may help manage, monitor stream health, and interpret substrate change over time.展开更多
文摘Aquatic habitat assessments encompass large and small wadeable streams which vary from many meters wide to ephemeral. Differences in stream sizes within or across watersheds, however, may lead to incompatibility of data at varying spatial scales. Specifically, issues caused by moving between scales on large and small streams are not typically addressed by many forms of statistical analysis, making the comparison of large (>30 m wetted width) and small stream (<10 m wetted width) habitat assessments difficult. Geographically weighted regression (GWR) may provide avenues for efficiency and needed insight into stream habitat data by addressing issues caused by moving between scales. This study examined the ability of GWR to consistently model stream substrate on both large and small wadeable streams at an equivalent resolution. We performed GWR on two groups of 60 randomly selected substrate patches from large and small streams and used depth measurements to model substrate. Our large and small stream substrate models responded equally well to GWR. Results showed no statistically significant difference between GWR R<sup>2 </sup>values of large and small stream streams. Results also provided a much needed method for comparison of large and small wadeable streams. Our results have merit for aquatic resource managers, because they demonstrate ability to spatially model and compare substrate on large and small streams. Using depth to guide substrate modeling by geographically weighted regression has a variety of applications which may help manage, monitor stream health, and interpret substrate change over time.
