Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (1)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = geomorphic response units (GRU)

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
18 pages, 2988 KiB  
Article
Using a Geospatial Model to Relate Fluvial Geomorphology to Macroinvertebrate Habitat in a Prairie River—Part 2: Matching Family-Level Indices to Geomorphological Response Units (GRUs)
by Anna Grace Nostbakken Meissner, Meghan Kathleen Carr, Iain David Phillips and Karl-Erich Lindenschmidt
Water 2016, 8(3), 107; https://doi.org/10.3390/w8030107 - 18 Mar 2016
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 7066
Abstract
Many rivers are intensely managed due to anthropogenic influences such as dams, channelization, and water provision for municipalities, agriculture, and industry. With this growing pressure on fluvial systems comes a greater need to evaluate the state of their ecosystems. The purpose of this [...] Read more.
Many rivers are intensely managed due to anthropogenic influences such as dams, channelization, and water provision for municipalities, agriculture, and industry. With this growing pressure on fluvial systems comes a greater need to evaluate the state of their ecosystems. The purpose of this research is to use a geospatial model of the Qu’Appelle River in Saskatchewan to distinguish instream macroinvertebrate habitats at the family level. River geomorphology was assessed through the use of ArcGIS and digital elevation models; with these tools, the sinuosity, slope, fractal dimension, and stream width of the river were processed. Subsequently, Principal Component Analysis, a clustering technique, revealed areas with similar sets of geomorphological characteristics. These similar typology sequences were then grouped into geomorphological response units (GRUs), designated a color, and mapped into a geospatial model. Macroinvertebrate data was then incorporated to reveal several relationships to the model. For instance, certain GRUs contained more highly sensitive species and healthier diversity levels than others. Future possibilities for expanding on this project include incorporating stable isotope data to evaluate the food-web structure within the river basin. Although GRUs have been very successful in identifying fish habitats in other studies, the macroinvertebrates may be too sessile and their habitat too localized to be identified by such large river units. Units may need to be much shorter (250 m) to better identify macroinvertebrate habitat. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Geospatial Modeling of River Systems)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop