Science of the Total Environment 654 (2019) 1305–1315

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Quantifying relationships between watershed characteristics and

hydroecological indices of Missouri streams
Sean J. Zeiger a,⁎, Jason A. Hubbart b,c
a
University of Missouri, School of Natural Resources, 203-T ABNR Building, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
b
Institute of Water Security and Science, West Virginia University, 4121 Agricultural Sciences Building, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
c
Davis College, Schools of Agriculture and Food, and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, 4121 Agricultural Sciences Building, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Natural and anthropic influences on

hydroecological indices were quanti-
fied.
• Low flow hydroecological indices
were significantly different between
ecoregions.
• Empirical relationships confirmed an
urban influence on hydroecological
indices.
• Urban land use alterations on high
flow frequency (0.77 ≤ R 2 ≥ 0.85)
were obvious.
• Results help to focus regional environ-
mental flows policy and management
efforts.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: There is an ongoing need for multidisciplinary investigations that will lead to policy changes that target and reduce
Received 1 October 2018 natural and anthropic alterations to hydroecological indices important for regional environmental flows manage-
Received in revised form 13 November 2018 ment. The hydroecological indices assessed in this study were all deemed ecologically relevant due to causal linkages
Accepted 13 November 2018
with hydrogeomorphology, physical habitat, water quality, and/or ecological processes. Watershed characteristics
Available online 14 November 2018
(i.e. topography, land use and land cover (LULC), soils, and geomorphic variables) and hydroecological data were
Editor: Damia Barcelo assessed for general trends between ecoregions at gauged watersheds (n = 115) in Missouri, USA. Univariate ordi-
nary least squares (OLS) and multivariate least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression models
Keywords: were fit to selected hydroecological indices, and models were validated using a split-site approach. Key results in-
Environmental flows cluded: 1) significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were observed between hydroecological indices of different ecoregions,
Ecohydrology particularly low flows statistics; 2) urban land use was associated with moderate (0.25 b R2 adj. N 0.75) to strong (R2
Hydroecology adj. ≥ 0.75) influence on more hydroecological indices (31 of 171 indices) compared to other LULC indices and wa-
EflowStats tershed characteristics assessed, especially urban land use - high flow frequency relationships (5 of 11 indices; 0.77 ≤
R2 ≥ 0.85); and 3) univariate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models performed better overall relative to
least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression models at validation sites. Given the ecological
relevance of the hydroecological indices assessed in this study, results indicated management efforts should focus
on mitigating urban land use influence on environmental flows in Missouri, USA. These results hold important im-
plications for other regions globally, where urban land use has altered environmental flows.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ZeigerS@Missouri.edu (S.J. Zeiger), Jason.Hubbart@mail.wvu.edu (J.A. Hubbart).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.205
0048-9697/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1306 S.J. Zeiger, J.A. Hubbart / Science of the Total Environment 654 (2019) 1305–1315
1. Introduction
Environmental flows analysis provides a mechanism to define the
major components of a flow regime (i.e. flow magnitude, duration, fre-
quency, timing and rate of change) necessary to improve water quality
and sustain the ecological health of receiving waters (Arthington et al.,
2006; Poff et al., 2010). Historically, management of hydrologic modifi-
cation was often focused on maintaining low flows of streams altered
by hydrologic infrastructure (Poff et al., 2010). More recently, regional
efforts have been made to mitigate alterations to environmental flow
regimes in streams altered by human development (particularly urban-
ization) (Walsh et al., 2012; Fletcher et al., 2007). Regional frameworks
like Hydroecological Integrity Assessment Process (HIP) (Kennen et al.,
2009), and Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) (Poff
et al., 2010) have been developed to improve water quality and sustain
ecological health through regional environmental flow assessment.
It is important to account for all key components of an environmen-
tal flow regime when performing a regional environmental flow assess-
ment (Poff et al., 2010; Kennen et al., 2009). However, the task can be
daunting considering there are many hydrologic indices to choose
from, all of which influence ecological health. For example, the statisti-
cal package “EflowStats” developed by the US Geological Survey uses
R computer language to estimate 171 hydrologic indices deemed “eco-
logically relevant” (i.e. hydroecological indices) appropriate for envi-
ronmental flow analysis (Olden and Poff, 2003; Hughes and James,
1989; Poff and Ward, 1989; Richards, 1989, 1990; Poff, 1996; Richter
et al., 1996, 1997, 1998; Clausen and Biggs, 1997, 2000; Puckridge
et al., 1998; Clausen et al., 2000; Wood et al., 2000). While EflowStats
can be used to represent all key components of the natural flow regime,
many of the hydroecological indices are intercorrelated (Olden and Poff,
2003). Intercorrelated variables can cause statistical problems associ-
ated with multicollinearity (Olden and Poff, 2003), biased estimates of
regression coefficients (Zar, 1999), and biased model selection (Olden
and Jackson, 2000). Thus, it is important to reduce redundancy of
hydroecological variables prior to implementation in a regional envi-
ronmental flow assessment.
To reduce variable redundancy, researchers have successfully used
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to identify a curtailed and parsi-
monious set of hydroecological indices important in regional character-
ization of environmental flow regimes (Olden and Poff, 2003; Kennen
et al., 2009). For example, Olden and Poff (2003) used PCA procedures
to identify a subset of indices that characterize flow regimes at 420
gauging sites across the contiguous US. A study by Kennen et al.
(2009) completed a regional Hydroecological Integrity Assessment Pro-
cess (HIP) analysis to select indices important for hydroecological char-
acterization of Missouri streams. Results from the aforementioned
studies helped focus regional environmental flows management efforts
on a subset of non-redundant high-information hydroecological indices
that represent each key component of an environmental flow regime
(Olden and Poff, 2003; Kennen et al., 2009).
Results from Kennen et al. (2009) showed that the following eleven
hydroecological indices best exemplified environmental flows regimes
across all Missouri stream types: annual variability of flow (ma3),
baseflow (ml20), high flow discharge (mh16), variability of annual min-
imum flow duration (dl10), high flow pulse duration (dh15), variability
in low pulse count (fl2), high flow frequency (fh8), predictability of flow
timing (ta2), timing of minimum annual flow (tl1), time of annual max-
imum (th1), and variability of reversals (ra9). The aforementioned indi-
ces were deemed important for sustaining environmental flows, and
thus, are believed to collectively mediate many important biological
and ecological processes of Missouri streams (e.g. spawning, recruit-
ment, species distribution and abundance, and community dynamics)
(Bunn and Arthington, 2002). Given the clear complexities of environ-
mental flow management practices, there is an ongoing need for multi-
disciplinary studies that will supply policy makers and regional
managers with the science-based information necessary to target and
mitigate natural and anthropogenic alterations. Such information can
be derived from empirical assessments (Hannah et al., 2007).
Empirical relationships between watershed characteristics (i.e. to-
pography, land use and land cover (LULC), soils, and geomorphic vari-
ables) and hydroecological variables can be quantified along gradients
of hydroecological alteration to generate useful tools (i.e. models) ap-
propriate for regional environmental flows management (Arthington
et al., 2010). However, many important factors that occur simulta-
neously across a landscape are subject to covariation (Allan, 2004).
Thus, empirical models fit should be validated to help ensure indepen-
dent variables (e.g. topography, LULC, soils, and geomorphic variables)
are casually linked to hydroecological indices.
The main objective of this research was to quantify relationships be-
tween watershed characteristics (i.e. topography, LULC, soils, and geo-
morphic variables) and hydroecological indices that are important for
regional environmental flows management of Missouri streams. Sub-
objectives were to: i) assess observed hydroecological data for general
trends between ecoregions, ii) fit univariate and multivariate empirical
regression models to select hydroecological indices, and iii) validate
models fit for selection. Finally, results from this research will be pre-
sented to highlight key findings from the current work with implica-
tions to regional hydroecological assessments that could be applied
globally.
2. Methods
2.1. Study site
State of Missouri is located entirely within the Mississippi River
Basin in the central US (Fig. 1), and drains into three great rivers (Mis-
souri, Mississippi, and Arkansas Rivers). Mixed-land-use watersheds of
Missouri have elevations that range from 540 to 70 m above mean sea
level. Land use and land cover (LULC) was 53% agriculture, 37% forested,
7% urban, and 4% wetland/water at the time of this study (Table 1, Fig. 1)
(Homer et al., 2015). There was generally more agricultural land use
north of Missouri River, and more forested land use south of Missouri
River where an ecoregion boundary divides the state (Table 1, Fig. 1).
Missouri is a physiographically diverse state divided laterally by two
ecoregions (Fig. 1). Generally located north of Missouri River, the Great
Plains Ecoregion is dominated by agricultural land uses (37% pasture,
36% row crop) (Table 1, Fig. 1), and upland soils comprised of loess
over glacial till where glaciation results in gently rolling prairie soils
suited for crop production (Nigh and Schroeder, 2002). South of Mis-
souri River, The Eastern Temperate Forest Ecoregion is largely com-
prised of oak-hickory dominated deciduous forest (46%), and pasture
(26%) (Table 1, Fig. 1). Geologic processes of uplift and subsequent de-
nudation have resulted in highly dissected surface features (Nigh and
Schroeder, 2002). A complex mosaic of soils is largely underlain by car-
bonate bedrock (karst topography) that influences streamflow regimes
via thousands of sinkholes, caves and springs (Nigh and Schroeder,
2002; Miller and Vandike, 1997).
Missouri climate is characterized by strong seasonality (http://
climate.missouri.edu/). During winter, continental polar cold-dry air
masses cause freezing air temperatures (Hubbart et al., 2010). During
spring, a wet season occurs when maritime and continental tropical
air masses move back into the region during March through June
(Hubbart et al., 2014). A recent 18-year climate record (2000–2017)
showed average air temperature and annual total precipitation of 13.5
°C and 967 mm, respectively in central Missouri. There are no apparent
physiographic boundaries associated with differences of average annual
climate in Missouri. However, there is a general gradient of climate
characteristics from northwest to southeast Missouri with average an-
nual air temperature ranging from 12.2 °C to 14.8 °C, and average annual
total precipitation ranging from 780 to 1187 mm (http://climate.
missouri.edu/).
 S.J. Zeiger, J.A. Hubbart / Science of the Total Environment 654 (2019) 1305–1315 1307

Fig. 1. Land use and land cover (LULC) and select streamflow monitored watersheds contained within the state boundary of Missouri, USA. Great Plains and Eastern Temperate Forest
ecoregions are located north and south, respectively, of the ecoregion boundary shown. These LULC data were obtained from the most recent publicly available National Land Cover
Database 2011 (Homer et al., 2015).

2.2. Observed data 2.3. Statistical analysis

Streamflow data from select US Geological Survey gauging sites 2.3.1. Observed trends between ecoregions
were downloaded using data retrieval tools from the R software pack- Watershed characteristics (n = 15) chosen as independent variables
age “EflowStats” (https://github.com/USGS-R/EflowStats). Methods for model fitting included percent cumulative LULC variables, physical
used to estimate observed discharge included standards published by soil characteristics, roughness, slope, and channel geomorphic variables
Turnipseed and Sauer (2010). Selected sites included active US Geolog- (Table 2). These independent variables were selected as they have all
ical Survey gauging sites where stage has been continuously monitored been shown to have important physical controls on streamflow pro-
over the past ten calendar years (January 2008 to December 2017). Best cesses (Kumar et al., 2017; Gupta et al., 2015; Neitsch et al., 2011;
professional judgment was used to exclude gauges where streams were Price, 2011; Arnold et al., 1998; Poff, 1996). Watershed characteristics
not free-flowing and/or substantially altered due to the presence of attributed to each gauging site were tested for significant differences
man-made hydrological infrastructure (Kennen et al., 2009). Further, between ecoregions (i.e. Great Plains vs. Eastern Temperate Forest
all selected sites corresponded to watersheds contained within the sites) using one-way ANOVA [confidence interval (CI) = 95%; α =
state boundary of Missouri (Table 1, Fig. 1). The aforementioned criteria 0.05; n = 115] (Wolock et al., 2004).
used to select gauging sites resulted in a grand total of 115 sites in this The United States Geological Survey (USGS) developed R package
assessment. Drainage areas corresponding to selected sites ranged “EflowStats” was downloaded (https://github.com/USGS-R/EflowStats)
from 5 to 9811 km2 with a mean of 1160 km2. and used to calculate 171 hydroecological indices (Kennen et al., 2009)
at each selected gauging site. A detailed description of the 171 indices in-
cluded in EflowStats can be found in “Users' Manual for the Hydroecological
Integrity Assessment Process Software” (Henriksen et al., 2006). It was im-
Table 1
practical to show results of all 171 indices at each site in a table, thus de-
Land use and land cover (LULC) of Missouri, USA, derived from the most recent publicly scriptive statistics of select response indices were summarized and
available National Land Cover Database 2011 (Homer et al., 2015). Percent of cumulative tabulated. Select response indices (n = 11) used in this study were de-
land area values are shown parenthetically. rived from principal components analysis (PCA) of reference streams of
LULC [km2 (%)] State of Great Plains of Eastern Temperate Missouri (Kennen et al., 2009). One primary hydroecological index was
Missouri Missouri Forest of Missouri selected for each major facet of the flow regime including flow magni-
Urban 12,895 (7.2) 5048 (7.2) 7846 (7.1) tude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change across low, average
Forest 66,036 (36.6) 10,897 (15.5) 55,139 (50.0) and high flows as per methods used by Olden and Poff (2003). A total of
Agricultural 95,180 (52.7) 51,220 (73.1) 43,960 (39.8) 11 flow components were considered including low, average and high
Water/wetland 6339 (3.5) 2949 (4.2) 3390 (3.1) flow magnitude; low and high flow duration; low and high flow fre-
Total area 180,449 70,114 110,335
quency; average, low and high flow timing, and average rate of change
1308 S.J. Zeiger, J.A. Hubbart / Science of the Total Environment 654 (2019) 1305–1315

Table 2 Table 3
Independent variables of empirical models used to quantify relationships between water- Definitions for select hydrologic indices used to quantitatively define major facets of the
shed characteristics and environmental flows of select watersheds of Missouri, USA. flow regime in Missouri, USA.
Definitions were sourced from Kennen et al. (2009).
Variable Description Data source(s)
Index Definition
%urban Cumulative percent urban land use NLCD 2011
%agricultural Cumulative percent agricultural land use NLCD 2011 ma3 Annual variability of flow. The average annual coefficient of variation (standard
%forested Cumulative percent forested land use NLCD 2011 deviation/mean) of daily flow.
%wetland Cumulative percent surface water/wetland NLCD 2011 ma33 Monthly variability of flow during October. The average monthly coefficient of
land cover variation (standard deviation/mean) of daily flow during October.
CN Curve number (area-weighted average) NLCD 2011; SSURGO; ml4 Monthly minimum flow. Average monthly minimum daily flow during April.
USDA TR-55 ml20 Baseflow. A ratio of total baseflow to total flow.
OV_N Manning's n of overland flow (area-weighted NLCD 2011; SSURGO; mh9 Monthly maximum flow. Average monthly maximum daily flow during
average) USDA TR-55 September.
Keff Soil effective hydraulic conductivity (soil SSURGO mh16 High flow discharge index is the ten percent exceedance divided by median
depth-weighted average) daily flow of the entire record.
DAWC Total depth of available soil water content SSURGO dl10 Variability of annual minimum flow duration. The standard deviation for the
AWC Available soil water content (soil SSURGO minimum 90-day moving averages, multiplied by 100, and divided by the
depth-weighted average) mean.
OV_S Overland slope (area-weighted average) 30-meter DEM dl16 Low flow pulse duration. Compute the average pulse duration for each year for
CH_W Channel width (sub-basin average) 30-meter DEM flow events below a threshold equal to the 25th percentile value for the entire
CH_D Channel depth (sub-basin average) 30-meter DEM flow record. DL16 is the median of the yearly average durations (number of
CH_S Channel slope (sub-basin average) 30-meter DEM days–temporal).
CH_L Channel length (sub-basin average) 30-meter DEM dh15 High flow pulse duration. Compute the average duration for flow events with
CH_WDR Channel width to depth ratio (sub-basin 30-meter DEM flows above a threshold equal to the 75th percentile value for each year in the
average) flow record. DH15 is the median of the yearly average durations
(days/year–temporal).
NLCD 2011 is land use and land cover data available from the National Land Cover Dataset
dh21 High flow duration. Compute the 25th percentile value for the entire flow
(Homer et al., 2015).
record. Compute the average duration of flow events with flows above a
SSURGO are soils data available from the Soil Survey Geographical Dataset (SSURGO,
threshold equal to the 25th percentile value for the entire set of flows.
2018).
DH21 is the average (or median–Use Preference option) duration of the
USDA TR-55 is a United States Department of Agriculture technical report (USDA, 1986).
events (days–temporal).
30-m DEM are 30-meter Digital Elevation Model data available from the U.S. Geological
fl1 Low flood pulse count. Compute the average number of flow events with flows
Survey (https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/NED).
below a threshold equal to the 25th percentile value for the entire flow record.
FL1 is the average (or median–Use Preference option) number of events
(Olden and Poff, 2003). Hydroecological indices attributed to each gaug- (number of events/year–temporal).
fl2 Variability in low pulse count. Compute the standard deviation in the annual
ing site were grouped by ecoregion (i.e. Great Plains, Eastern Temperate
pulse counts for FL1. FL2 is 100 times the standard deviation divided by the
Forest), averaged, and tested for significant differences using one-way mean pulse count (percent–spatial).
ANOVA [confidence interval (CI) = 95%; α = 0.05; n = 115] (Kennen fh8 High flow frequency. Compute the average number of flow events with flows
et al., 2009). above a threshold equal to 25 percent exceedance flow value for the entire
flow record. FH8 is the average (or median–Use Preference option) number of
events (number of events/year–temporal).
2.3.2. Empirical hydroecological assessment ta1 Flow constancy is computed using methods outlined in Colwell (1974).
A preliminary empirical analysis was completed to scan the ob- ta2 Predictability of flow timing. Predictability is computed from the same matrix
served data set for general trends (Poff, 1996). Univariate linear regres- as constancy
sion relationships were quantified between watershed characteristics tl1 Time of annual minimum daily flow (Julian date).
tl4 Seasonal predictability of non-low flow is the maximum number of days flows
and hydroecological indices (Poff, 1996). Empirical relationships were
are above a 5-year flood threshold equal in ratio with the total number of days
categorized by correlation of determination values (R2 values) as weak in a year.
(i.e. R2 ≤ 0.25), moderate (0.25 b R2 N 0.75), and strong (R2 ≥ 0.75) cor- th1 Time of annual maximum daily flow (Julian date).
relation as per the methods of Hair et al. (2013). ra1 Rise rate. The average increase of daily flow during the study.
ra9 Variability in reversals. The coefficient of variation associated with the number
All flow metrics substantially correlated (R2 ≥ 0.50) to drainage area
of negative and positive changes in flow. Compute the standard deviation for
were area-normalized prior to model fitting (Kennen et al., 2009). Inde- the yearly reversal values. RA9 is 100 times the standard deviation divided by
pendent variables chosen for model fitting (n = 15) included percent the mean (percent–spatial).
cumulative LULC variables, physical soil characteristics, roughness,
slope, and channel geomorphic variables (Table 2). Dependent variables
consisted of select indices (n = 11) derived from principal components term, n is the number of data values, α is the estimated value of the con-
analysis (PCA) of reference streams of Missouri (Table 3) (Kennen et al., stant term a, and β is the estimated value of the slope coefficient b.
2009). Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression
Linear regression is one of the most widely used techniques in hy- approach was also used to fit empirical models as per methods used
drologic data exploration and analysis (Hirsch and Gilroy, 1984). Uni- by Bardsley et al. (2015). The LASSO approach seeks to minimize the fol-
variate empirical models were fit using ordinary least squares (OLS) lowing function (Bardsley et al., 2015):
linear regression on select response indices (n = 11). The OLS method
used to fit linear regression models follows Hirsch and Gilroy, 1984:  !
n 
X X
j  X
j
 
yi ¼ a þ bxi þ εi ð1Þ min yi − a þ β i xi  þ λ jβ i j ð3Þ
 
i¼1 i¼1 i¼0

by minimizing the sum of squared residuals (RSS):

where λ is a tuning parameter that controls the complexity of the
X
n
RSS ¼ ðyi −ðα þ βxi ÞÞ 2
ð2Þ model. As λ approaches ∞ the complexity of the model increases. In
i¼1 the current work, the optimal value of λ corresponding to the most reg-
ularized model was determined using cross-validation plots. Values of λ
where yi is the ith dependent variable, a is the y-intercept coefficient, b (n = 100) were generated to fit a cross-validation curve using R soft-
is the slope coefficient, xi is the ith independent variable, εi is an error ware (Tibshirani et al., 2012). The value of λ within one standard error
 S.J. Zeiger, J.A. Hubbart / Science of the Total Environment 654 (2019) 1305–1315 1309

of the minimum mean cross-validated error was selected for model Table 4
fitting (Tibshirani et al., 2012). Summary of watershed characteristics at active US Geological Survey gauging sites (n = 115)
located in Missouri, USA. Values of watershed characteristics are averages of all streams, and
A split-site validation approach was implemented as a quality con- two ecoregions (i.e. Great Plains and Eastern Temperate Forest). Standard deviations are
trol measure to assess model integrity in ungauged watersheds in the shown parenthetically. Definitions of variables are presented in Table 2.
region (Arnold et al., 2012). Data from 86 gauging sites were selected
Variable All streams Great Plains Eastern Temperate
for model fitting. The remaining 29 gauging sites were reserved for
(n = 115) (n = 15) Forest (n = 100)
model validation of the empirical equations generated during model
Area (km2) 1009.1 (1558.4) 719.1 (515.1) 1052.6 (1656.6)
fitting. To be more specific, model performance was tested against a
Urban (%) 24.9 (34.4) 10.4 (13.2) 27.0 (36.1)
subset of observed data collected from different sites that were not in- Agricultural (%)⁎ 37.4 (28.7) 71.9 (14.7) 32.2 (26.6)
cluded in the model fitting process to ensure site-specific models Forested (%)⁎ 36.5 (27.6) 15.0 (6.0) 39.7 (28.2)
were capable of sufficiently simulating dependent variables (i.e. split- Wetland (%)⁎ 1.1 (1.0) 2.7 (1.0) 0.8 (0.8)
site model validation) (Arnold et al., 2012; Refsgaard, 1997). While it CN (–)⁎ 76.2 (7.0) 82.0 (2.1) 75.4 (7.1)
OV_N (–)⁎ 0.39 (0.2) 0.29 (0.05) 0.4 (0.21)
is understood that watershed-scale models may never be fully vali- Keff (mm h−1)⁎ 24.2 (13.8) 13.2 (6.0) 25.8 (13.8)
dated, the term validation remains widely in-use within the hydrologic DAWC (mm)⁎ 194.0 (70.2) 272.4 (29.1) 182.3 (66.9)
modeling community in compliance with traditional literature syntax AWC (mm/mm)⁎ 0.12 (0.04) 0.15 (0.02) 0.11 (0.05)
(Abbaspour et al., 2007, 2015; Arnold et al., 2012). The split-site OV_S (m/m)⁎ 0.0822 (0.0477) 0.0496 (0.0192) 0.0871 (0.0488)
CH_W (m) 66.6 (59.5) 60.5 (32.0) 67.5 (62.7)
model validation methods used in this study helped to expose potential
CH_D (m) 1.7 (1.0) 1.6 (0.7) 1.7 (1.1)
problems often associated with empirical hydrologic models such as co- CH_S (m/m) 0.0031 (0.0048) 0.0014 (0.0011) 0.0033 (0.0051)
variation of natural and/or anthropic factors that occurred simulta- CH_L (m) 41.3 (39.4) 49.3 (38.5) 40.1 (39.6)
neously in the landscape, scale-dependent mechanisms, nonlinear CH_WDR (m/m) 33.6 (11.1) 34.2 (8.1) 33.5 (11.6)
responses, and/or legacy influences (Allan, 2004). Models that ex- ⁎ Denotes a significant difference (α b 0.05) between Great Plains and Eastern Tem-
plained sufficient amounts of variance in hydroecological indices at perate Forest sites.
model fitting and validation sites were assumed to exhibit physically
meaningful cause–effect linkages. Conversely, models that did not per-
form well at validation sites were deemed not physically meaningful, in drainage area, cumulative percent urban LULC, and channel geomor-
and thus, should be used with caution. phic variables.
Model performance criteria were selected that are appropriate for Significant differences in watershed characteristics were also
comparing univariate and multivariate empirical models considering coupled to differences in hydroecological indices between ecoregions.
increasing the number of explanatory variables has been found to artifi- Low flow magnitude, frequency and duration were significantly differ-
cially increase model performance (Visser et al., 2018). Adjusted coeffi- ent (p b 0.01; CI = 95%) between GP and ETF gauging sites. For example,
cient of determination (R2adj), and Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) average baseflow index (ml20) values were 0.28 at ETF sites and 0.16 at
were assumed appropriate model evaluation criteria given each was de- GP sites (Table 5). Variability of annual minimum flow duration (dl10),
signed to apply some penalty to help offset any artificial increase in and variability in low pulse count (fl2) were lesser at ETF sites compared
model performance. The formula used to quantify R2adj follows (Gao to GP sites by 12 and 82%, respectively. Thus, ecoregions characterized
et al., 2009): with unique topographic features, LULC, soils and/or underlying geology
. were also associated with different environmental flow regimes, partic-
ðxi −yi Þ ularly during low flows.
R2adj ¼ 1− .ðn−p−1Þ ð4Þ While differences in low flow components were apparent between
ðxi −X Þ
ðn−1Þ
ecoregions, differences in high flow magnitude, frequency and duration
were not significant (p ≥ 0.088; CI = 95%) (Table 5). Average high flow
where X is the mean of the observed data, p is the number of explana- frequency (fh8) was slightly greater at ETF sites compared to GP sites by
tory variables. The preferred model maximized R2adj with a value of a 9% difference. The lack of significant differences in high flow magni-
1.0 being perfect. tude, frequency and duration were surprising considering the observed
The formula used to quantify AIC follows (Visser et al., 2018): differences in watershed characteristics that have long been understood
to influence stormflows. These results highlight how independent and
AIC ¼ 2k−2 ln ðLÞ ð5Þ interacting natural and anthropic factors can confound assumed

where k is the number of parameters in the model, and L is the maxi- Table 5
mum value of the likelihood function. The preferred model minimized Summary of hydroecological indices for each major flow component of an environmental
AIC. Ultimately, one model was selected for each major facet of the flow regime at active US Geological Survey gauging sites (n = 115) located in Missouri,
USA. Values of hydroecological indices are averages of all streams, and two ecoregions
flow regime.
(i.e. Great Plains and Eastern Temperate Forest). Standard deviations are shown paren-
thetically. Definitions of indices are presented in Table 3.
3. Results
Flow Flow Index All streams Great Plains Eastern Temperate
component condition (n = 115) (n = 15) Forest (n = 100)
3.1. Observed trends between ecoregions
Magnitude Average ma3⁎ 285.1 (84.2) 279.1 (84.6) 324.9 (71.5)
Low ml20⁎ 0.26 (0.17) 0.28 (0.17) 0.13 (0.06)
Analysis of observed data showed many watershed characteristics
High mh16 10.7 (15.6) 10.4 (16.7) 13.1 (3.3)
were significantly different (p b 0.045; CI = 95%) between Great Plains Frequency Low fl2⁎ 49.6 (13.9) 48.0 (13.0) 60.0 (15.4)
(GP) and Eastern Temperate Forest (ETF) gauging sites (Table 4). For ex- High fh8 16.5 (10.0) 16.6 (10.7) 15.6 (1.9)
ample, average agricultural LULC, wetland LULC, curve number, avail- Duration Low dl10⁎ 66.8 (43.5) 56.1 (33) 137.9 (38.4)
High dh15 7.1 (3.2) 7.3 (3.3) 5.8 (0.9)
able water capacity, and depth of available water capacity were all
Average ta2⁎ 57.2 (13.2) 58.7 (13.4) 47.2 (6.1)
significantly greater (p b 0.045; CI = 95%) at GP sites compared to ETF Timing Low tl1 266.3 (65) 265 (68.2) 274.8 (37.2)
sites (Table 4). Conversely, average forested LULC, overland slope, sur- High th1⁎ 122.5 (41.2) 118.1 (41.6) 152.1 (21.9)
face roughness, and soil hydrologic conductivity were significantly Rate of change Average ra9 10.6 (4.2) 10.4 (3.6) 12.3 (6.8)
lesser (p b 0.045; CI = 95%) at GP sites compared to ETF sites ⁎ Denotes a significant difference (α b 0.05) between Great Plains and Eastern Tem-
(Table 4). There were no significant differences (p N 0.088; CI = 95%) perate Forest sites.
1310 S.J. Zeiger, J.A. Hubbart / Science of the Total Environment 654 (2019) 1305–1315

relationships between watershed characteristics and hydroecological Table 7

indices during high flows. Univariate empirical models used to quantify relationships between select hydroecological
indices [dependent variables (y)] and watershed characteristics [independent variables
(x)] at active US Geological Survey gauging sites (n = 86) located in Missouri, USA. b is
3.2. Empirical hydroecological assessment y-intercept, m is slope, and R2 is coefficient of determination. Definitions of indices are pre-
sented in Tables 2 and 3.
When univariate linear regression models were fit to all 171
Flow component Flow condition y X m b R2
hydroecological indices to delve further into the observed data for gen-
Magnitude Average ma3 CH_WDR −4.764 439.2 0.419
eral trends, results showed most relationships between watershed char-
Low ml20 AWC −1.512 0.525 0.489
acteristics and hydroecological indices were moderately correlated (100 High mh16 OV_N −29.30 22.40 0.122
of 171 indices; 0.25 b R2 N 0.75). However, many relationships between Frequency Low fl2 DAWC 0.096 30.37 0.338
watershed characteristics and hydroecological indices (56 of 171 indi- High fh8 %urban 0.269 9.793 0.851
ces) showed weak correlation (i.e. R2 ≤ 0.25). Few relationships were Duration Low dl10 %agriculture 1.012 28.18 0.414
High dh15 %urban −0.069 8.981 0.490
strong (5 of 171 indices; R2 ≥ 0.75). In fact, urban land use was the Timing Average ta2 CN −1.151 145.5 0.473
only watershed characteristic strongly correlated to the hydroecological Low tl1 DAWC −0.212 306.0 0.029
indices tested. High th1 OV_N −145.4 179.8 0.497
Relationships between percent cumulative urban LULC were associ- Rate of change Average ra9 %urban −0.044 11.83 0.141
ated with greater R2 values relative to all other indices assessed
(Table 6). Most notable were relationships between urban land use
and high flow frequency with 5 of 11 high flow frequency indices annual maximum (th1) (Table 7, Fig. 2). The observed weak to moder-
strongly correlated with urban land use (0.77 ≤ R2 ≥ 0.85). Many indices ate relationships indicated a need for a different modeling approach to
also better correlated with urban land use compared to other land use reduce model error and capture more of the variance observed in se-
indices included duration of high flows (5 of 24 indices; 0.25 ≤ R2 ≥ lected hydroecological indices.
0.56) and rate of change indices (3 of 9 indices; 0.25 ≤ R2 ≥ 0.47). When multivariate empirical models were fit to select hydroecological
While management efforts are often focused solely on reduction of indices, results generally showed increased explained variance during
high flow magnitude in urban areas, the influence of urban land use model fitting with few exceptions. Similar to univariate analysis, many
on high flow frequency evident in this study pointed to a need for addi- hydroecological indices were weakly correlated to watershed characteris-
tional attention on urban land use influenced high flow frequency. tics including high flow discharge (mh16) (R2 adj. = 0.12), timing of min-
Other watershed characteristics that stood out with greatest signifi- imum annual flow (tl1) (R2 adj. = 0.03), and variability of reversals (ra9)
cant correlation (CI = 95%; p b 0.001) to hydroecological indices in- (R2 adj. = 0.14). Models that showed moderate to strong relationships
cluded AWC, OV_N and CH_WDR (Table 6). Monthly minimum flow (0.28 N R2 adj. b 0.88) included annual variability of flow (ma3), baseflow
(ml4) was most correlated to soil available water capacity (AWC) (R2 (ml20), variability in low pulse count (fl2), high flow frequency (fh8),
= 0.51; p b 0.001), low flow pulse duration (dl16) was most correlated variability of annual minimum flow duration (dl10), high flow pulse du-
to surface roughness (OV_N) (R2 = 0.47; p b 0.001), and rise rate (ra1) ration (dh15), predictability of flow timing (ta2), and time of annual max-
was most correlated to channel width to depth ratios (CH_WDR) (R2 = imum (th1) (Table 8). While multivariate models (i.e. LASSO models)
0.68; p = 0). Cumulative percent wetland (%wetland) explained most of were generally associated with greater R2 adj. and lesser AIC values
the variance in low flow timing. However, the relationship was weak
(R2 = 0.23; p b 0.001) indicating a need for further assessment to ade-
quately model low flow timing indices.
When univariate empirical models were fit to select hydroecological
indices, results showed weak correlations (R2 ≤ 0.14; p ≤ 0.015) to high
flow discharge (mh16), timing of minimum annual flow (tl1), and var-
iability of reversals (ra9) (Table 7, Fig. 2). Conversely, there was a strong
correlation between cumulative percent urban land use and high flow
frequency (fh8) (R2 = 0.85; p b 0.001) (Table 7, Fig. 2). Moderate corre-
lations (0.40 b R2 values N 0.58; p b 0.001) were observed of annual var-
iability of flow (ma3), baseflow (ml20), variability in low pulse count
(fl2), variability of annual minimum flow duration (dl10), high flow
pulse duration (dh15), predictability of flow timing (ta2), and time of

Table 6
Univariate empirical models that explained the most variance of hydrologic indices for
each major flow component of an environmental flow regime at active US Geological Sur-
vey gauging sites (n = 86) located in Missouri, USA. y is dependent variable, x is indepen-
dent variable, m is slope, b is y-intercept, and R2 is coefficient of determination. Definitions
of indices are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Flow component Flow condition y x m b R2

Magnitude Average ma33 %urban 2.087 62.73 0.636

Low ml4 AWC −1.379 0.409 0.507
High mh9 %urban 0.068 1.649 0.645
Frequency Low fl1 %urban 0.112 5.498 0.563
High fh8 %urban 0.269 9.793 0.851
Duration Low dl16 OV_N 21.31 3.966 0.466
High dh21 %urban −0.436 52.82 0.595
Average ta1 CH_D 0.096 0.262 0.405
Fig. 2. Coefficient of determination (R2 values) corresponding to univariate relationships
Timing Low tl4 %wetland 0.006 0.001 0.225
between select hydroecological indices [dependent variables (y)] and watershed
High th1 OV_N −145.4 179.8 0.497
characteristics [independent variables (x)] at active US Geological Survey gauging sites
Rate of change Average ra1 CH_WDR −0.022 1.312 0.681
(n = 86) located in Missouri, USA. Definitions of indices are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
 S.J. Zeiger, J.A. Hubbart / Science of the Total Environment 654 (2019) 1305–1315 1311

Table 8
Multivariate empirical models that explained the most variance of hydrologic indices for each major flow component of an environmental flow regime at active US Geological Survey gaug-
ing sites (n = 86) located in Missouri, USA. y is dependent variable, x is independent variable, m is slope, and b is y-intercept. Definitions of indices are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Flow Flow y = b + (x1 ∗ m1) + (x2 ∗ m2) + (x3 ∗ m3) + … R2 adj.

component condition

Magnitude Average ma3 = 311.7 + (keff ∗ −0.6904) + (AWC ∗ 256.7) + (CH_D ∗ −28.76) + (CH_WDR ∗ −0.0367) 0.515
Low ml20 = 0.5290 + (CN ∗ −0.0017) + (keff ∗ 0.0019) + (AWC ∗ −1.651) + (CH_D ∗ 0.0136) 0.592
High mh16 = 22.40 ∗ (OV_N ∗ −29.3) 0.122
Frequency Low fl2 = 28.04 + (%agriculture ∗ 0.0507) + (CN ∗ 0.1044) + (keff ∗ −0.1116) + (DAWC ∗ 0.0490) + (AWC ∗ 23.89) 0.398
High fh8 = 5.691 + (%urban ∗ 0.1683) + (%agriculture ∗ −0.0040) + (keff ∗ −0.01677) + (DAWC ∗ −0.0202) + (AWC ∗ 91.84) + (CH_S ∗ 90.14) 0.918
Duration Low dl10 = 21.63 + (%agriculture ∗ 0.4388) + (%wetland ∗ 11.23) + (OV_S ∗ 70.56) + (keff ∗ −0.7093) + (DAWC ∗ 0.0411) + (AWC ∗ 189.1) + 0.669
(CH_W ∗ −0.0677)
High dh15 = 10.99 + (%urban ∗ −0.0183) + (AWC ∗ −29.09) + (CH_WDR ∗ 0.0015) 0.658
Timing Average ta2 = 109.9 + (%agriculture ∗ −0.0305) + (%forested ∗ 0.0011) + (%wetland ∗ −0.5427) + (CN ∗ −0.7083) + (keff ∗ 0.0277) + (AWC ∗ −30.76) 0.672
+ (CH_W ∗ 0.0485) + (CH_D ∗ 1.603) + (CH_S ∗ 118.4)
Low tl1 = 306.0 + (DAWC ∗ −0.212) 0.029
High th1 = 166.1 + (%forested ∗ −0.0153) + (OV_N ∗ −102.8) + (CH_S ∗ −243.6) 0.500
Rate of change Average ra9 = 11.83 + (%urban ∗ −0.044) 0.141

compared to univariate models (i.e. OLS models) during model fitting
(Table 9), LASSO models generally did not validate as well as OLS models.
Model validation results showed many OLS and LASSO models were
associated with R2 adj. values b 0.25 including annual variability of
flow (ma3), variability in low pulse count (fl2), high flow pulse duration
(dh15), predictability of flow timing (ta2), timing of minimum annual
flow (tl1), and variability of reversals (ra9) at validation sites (n = 29)
(Table 9). However, several models were associated with moderate to
strong correlations (0.31 N R2 adj. b 0.83) including baseflow (ml20),
high flow frequency (fh8), variability of annual minimum flow duration
(dl10), and time of annual maximum (th1). Nevertheless, considering
many of models fit well with moderate to strong correlations, but did
not validate well showing weak correlations at validation sites, results
indicated the benefits of a model fitting approach using LASSO regression
modeling technique coupled to model validation to ensure physically
meaningful equations suited to estimate hydroecological components
of an environmental flow regime. Overall, results showed the OLS
models were associated with slightly better model performance consid-
ering 1) the models were consistently associated with lower AIC values
at model validation sites, and 2) OLS were more practically focused on
a single dominate independent variable.
4. Discussion
4.1. Observed trends between ecoregions
Results quantitatively characterized differences of watershed char-
acteristics between ecoregions that have long been understood to influ-
ence streamflow regimes, and thus, shape ecological communities of
the region (Nigh and Schroeder, 2002). Ecoregions characterized with
unique topographic features, LULC, soils and/or underlying geology
were associated with different environmental flow regimes, particularly
during low flows. There remains a great need to better understand how
changes in watershed characteristics translate to changes in low flow
components, and ultimately, influence biological and ecological pro-
cesses (e.g. spawning, recruitment, species distribution and abundance,
and community dynamics) (Kennen et al., 2009; Bunn and Arthington,
2002).
The observed significant differences in low flow components (Fig. 3)
were largely attributed to differences in underlying geology considering
karst topographic features including thousands of sinkholes, springs and
caves have long been known to influence streamflow regimes of south-
ern Missouri, in part, through increased low flow magnitude (i.e.
baseflow) (Baffaut and Benson, 2009; Nigh and Schroeder, 2002). How-
ever, there were some watersheds influenced by karst topographic fea-
tures in the GP ecoregion of Missouri as well, especially near the
ecoregion boundary. Ecoregion boundaries often did not coincide with
watershed boundaries as shown in Fig. 1. Watersheds that exhibited wa-
tershed characteristics from both ecoregions may require a site-specific
assessment to ensure suitable management efforts adequately account
for watershed characteristics important for environmental flows man-
agement. Thus, while observed general trends in hydroecological statis-
tics between ecoregions are telling, results may not always applicable at
scales appropriate for management (i.e. watershed scale).
General trends in high flow magnitude, duration and frequency be-
tween ecological regions were not apparent (Fig. 3). The lack of signifi-
cant differences between high flow components was surprising
considering the two ecoregions were associated with significant differ-
ences (p ≤ 0.05; CI = 95%) in watershed characteristics known to influ-
ence stormflows (Neitsch et al., 2011). These results highlight how

Table 9
Univariate (OLS) and multivariant (LASSO) model performance at active US Geological Survey gauging sites (n = 86) located in Missouri, USA. Adjusted coefficient of determination (R2
adj.) and Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) values are shown. Model performance at validation sites (n = 29) is shown parenthetically. Weak correlations b 0.25 are highlighted in bold
font. Definitions of indices are presented in Table 3.

Flow component Index R2 adj. AIC

OLS LASSO OLS LASSO

Magnitude ma3 0.419 (0.235) 0.515 (0.121) 271.7 (93.0) 269.9 (101.6)
ml20 0.489 (0.396) 0.592 (0.338) 275.1 (94.3) 266.6 (100.3)
mh16 0.122 (0.347) 0.122 (0.347) 261.5 (90.4) 261.5 (90.4)
Frequency fl2 0.338 (0.011) 0.398 (−0.230) 272.3 (93.5) 271.7 (105.3)
fh8 0.851 (0.824) 0.918 (0.875) 296.7 (100.5) 249.6 (103.1)
Duration dl10 0.414 (0.580) 0.669 (0.600) 296.3 (97.9) 252.4 (111.0)
dh15 0.490 (0.202) 0.658 (0.056) 278.3 (91.8) 261.2 (99.1)
Timing ta2 0.473 (0.200) 0.672 (0.068) 291.5 (98.0) 262.2 (123.8)
tl1 0.029 (0.112) 0.029 (0.112) 266.2 (91.1) 266.2 (91.1)
th1 0.497 (0.391) 0.500 (0.310) 264.3 (93.5) 275.2 (97.4)
Rate of change ra9 0.141 (0.079) 0.141 (0.079) 260.5 (91.1) 260.5 (91.1)
1312 S.J. Zeiger, J.A. Hubbart / Science of the Total Environment 654 (2019) 1305–1315

Fig. 3. Summary of hydroecological indices for each major flow component of an environmental flow regime at active US Geological Survey gauging sites (n = 115) located in two
ecoregions [i.e. Great Plains (GP) and Eastern Temperate Forest (ETF)] of Missouri, USA. Definitions of indices are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

independent and interacting natural and anthropic factors can confound
relationships between watershed characteristics and hydroecological
indices at regional scales.
4.2. Empirical hydroecological assessment
Cumulative percent urban land use was a moderate to strong de-
scriptor of many high flow indices, especially high flow frequency indi-
ces (5 of 11 indices; 0.77 ≤ R2 adj. ≥ 0.85) (Fig. 4). It is important to note
that high flow frequency (fh8) and other flow frequency indices quan-
tified in this study did not directly translate to the frequency of flooding
events. An assessment of the effects of watershed characteristics on
flood frequency while important for future investigations, was beyond
the scope of the current work. Notably, the observed emphasis of
urban land use influence on many of the flow frequency indices
assessed merits future investigation. This is especially important consid-
ering increased frequency of flows has been shown to increase pollutant
delivery to receiving waters (Walsh et al., 2005, 2012).
Results of the current work indicate that urban land use exerts a dis-
proportionately large influence on stream condition in comparison to
other land uses in agreement with previous studies (Kellner and
Hubbart, 2018; Zeiger and Hubbart, 2018a, 2018b; Wei et al., 2017;
Allan, 2004; Paul and Meyer, 2001). For example, Zeiger and Hubbart
(2018a) analyzed data collected from five nested gauging sites of an ex-
perimental watershed, Hinkson Creek Watershed (HCW), located in
central Missouri. Results showed the rainfall – peak flow relationship
was stronger at urban sites relative to rural sites. Urban land use influ-
ence on flow frequency was also observed. Flow frequency was nearly
double at urban sites compared to rural sites during three years with
less than average annual total precipitation (including a year of extreme
drought) highlighting a potential for increased water delivery in urban
sub-basins during years of drought. Thus, results from HCW support re-
sults from this state-wide assessment that confirm a distinct urban influ-
ence on flow magnitude and frequency. This information is important
considering the increasing flux of people moving into urban areas lead-
ing to urbanization (Jacobson, 2011; Cohen, 2003).
In Missouri, an estimated 71% of approximately six million inhabi-
tants occupied urban areas that covered about 7% of total land area dur-
ing the time of this study (USCB, 2017). The remainder of residents
resided in rural areas primarily comprised of agricultural (i.e. 30% pas-
ture, 21% row crop), and forested (33.7% deciduous, 1.5% evergreen,
1.4% mixed) land use and land cover (LULC) (Table 1, Fig. 1). Annual
census records indicated urban populations have increased slightly
greater than rural populations by about 0.04% per annum since 1990
 S.J. Zeiger, J.A. Hubbart / Science of the Total Environment 654 (2019) 1305–1315 1313

Fig. 4. Univariate empirical models used to quantify relationships between select hydroecological indices [dependent variables (y)] and watershed characteristics [independent variables
(x)] at active US Geological Survey gauging sites (n = 86) located in Missouri, USA. Definitions of indices are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Corresponding coefficient of determination values
are presented in Table 9 and Fig. 4.

(USCB, 2017). The resulting urbanization, accompanied by increased
impervious surfaces, has long been known to increase the volume and
velocity of surface runoff thereby influencing ecological health (Walsh
et al., 2005, 2012). In the current work, urban LULC - high flow fre-
quency (fh8) relationships were strong at model fitting (R2 = 0.86; p
b 0.001; n = 86) and validation sites (R2 = 0.82; p b 0.001; n = 29).
Split-site model validation helped to ensure casual linkages between
watershed characteristics and hydroecological indices. Also, the models
that did not validate well were obviously less likely to perform well in
ungauged watersheds of the region. Previous studies have also shown
the benefits of model validation to help ensure adequate model perfor-
mance (Arnold et al., 2012). This was apparent in the multivariate
LASSO regression models of the current work. While increasing the
number of explanatory variables increased the explained variance dur-
ing model fitting, additional variables and associated coefficients were
sources of model uncertainty. That is largely why univariate OLS models
were deemed better suited for regional management efforts. These re-
sults show the benefits of carefully examining empirical models
through model validation prior to implementation in the field.
4.3. Study challenges, management implications and future research
While observed state-wide trends in hydroecological statistics be-
tween ecoregions are telling, results are not always applicable at scales
appropriate for environmental flows management (i.e. watershed
scale). Dynamic meteorological conditions and watershed characteris-
tics blend across a landscape, and therefore, often do not coincide
with ecoregion, watershed, or municipal boundaries. For example,
ecoregion boundaries often do not coincide with watershed, or munici-
pal boundaries as shown in Fig. 1. Nevertheless, the observed general
trends in hydroecological data between ecoregions from the current
work may be useful for regional watershed management efforts.
Threshold based regional management efforts that aim to mitigate
natural and human influence to environmental flow regimes may also
be confounded by spatiotemporal heterogeneity of watershed charac-
teristics. While there are no perfect boundaries or thresholds appropri-
ate for full description of the explained variance in hydroecological
indices, empirical analyses used in the current work are powerful
tools for describing general trends in observed hydroecological data.
1314 S.J. Zeiger, J.A. Hubbart / Science of the Total Environment 654 (2019) 1305–1315
Ultimately, results from this analysis are better suited to help guide re-
gional management efforts as opposed to define a specific threshold for
regulatory purposes.
Empirical analyses are powerful tools for data analysis (Hirsch and
Gilroy, 1984). However, great care should be taken to ensure fitted
models are physically meaningful (Allan, 2004). It is important to note
that LULC relationships implicitly substitute space for time, and yet, all
similar land uses are assumed to be equal. The influence of differences
in in age, structure and management practices exerted on relationships
between land use and hydroecological indices fit in this study were a
source of uncertainty. While spatial datasets that assume homogeneity
within each land use type do not fully capture the blending of heteroge-
neous watershed characteristics observed across a landscape, such
datasets are currently the state of the art of large scale hydrologic as-
sessments. The influence of such uncertainty, at least in part, underpins
the classic problem of scale in hydroecological research (Price, 2011).
Advancements in technology that increase the accuracy of large scale
spatial data measurement are a rich avenue for future work.
5. Conclusions
There is an urgent need for information that will help policy makers
and regional managers target and mitigate natural and anthropic alter-
ations to hydroecological indices deemed important for regional environ-
mental flows management. In the current work, observed watershed
characteristics and hydroecological data were assessed for general trends
between ecoregions, empirical regression models were fit to select
hydroecological indices, and models were validated. Results provide
science-based information to assist environmental flow management of
Missouri streams. While this analysis was focused on Missouri streams,
results from this research have implications that may extend to other re-
gional hydroecological assessments globally.
Results from this study showed relatively strong correlations (R2
adj. = 0.851) between urban land use and ecologically relevant high
flow frequency indices. Site-specific empirical models were capable
of sufficiently simulating high flow frequency at model validation
sites (R2 adj. = 0.824). Therefore, results indicate that mitigation ef-
forts should focus on reducing high flows and flow frequency in
urban areas (7% of total land area of Missouri during this study) to re-
duce impacts on environmental flows regimes of urban streams.
These results may be important in other regions where urban land
use has altered the volume and velocity of runoff and subsequent
streamflow response. While the empirical relationships observed in
the current work may be useful to help guide regional management
efforts, additional research is needed to characterize site-specific
linkages between alterations to hydroecological indices and ecolog-
ical community dynamics.
Conflict of interest disclosure
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Acknowledgements
Funding was provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 through the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (P.N.: G08-NPS-17) under
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and through joint agreement of
the University of Missouri, the City of Columbia, and Boone County Pub-
lic works and partners of the Hinkson Creek Collaborative Adaptive
Management (CAM) program. Additional funding was provided by the
National Science Foundation under Award Number OIA-1458952, the
USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project acces-
sion number 1011536, and the West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station. Results presented may not reflect the views of the
sponsors and no official endorsement should be inferred. Special thanks
are due to many scientists of the Interdisciplinary Hydrology Laboratory
(www.forh2o.net).
References
Abbaspour, K.C., Yang, J., Maximov, I., Siber, R., Bogner, K., Mieleitner, J., ... Srinivasan, R.,
2007. Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur water-
shed using SWAT. J. Hydrol. 333 (2–4), 413–430.
Abbaspour, K.C., Rouholahnejad, E., Vaghefi, S., Srinivasan, R., Yang, H., Kløve, B., 2015. A
continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: calibration and un-
certainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. J. Hydrol. 524, 733–752.
Allan, D.J., 2004. The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol.
Syst. 35, 257–284.
Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., Williams, J.R., 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling
and assessment part I: model development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34 (1), 73–89.
Arnold, J.G., Moriasi, D.N., Gassman, P.W., Abbaspour, K.C., White, M.J., Srinivasan, R., ...
Kannan, N., 2012. SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans. ASABE 55
(4), 1491–1508.
Arthington, A.H., Bunn, S.E., Poff, N.L., Naiman, R.J., 2006. The challenge of providing envi-
ronmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 16 (4), 1311–1318.
Arthington, A.H., Naiman, R.J., Mcclain, M.E., Nilsson, C., 2010. Preserving the biodiversity
and ecological services of rivers: new challenges and research opportunities. Freshw.
Biol. 55 (1), 1–16.
Baffaut, C., Benson, V.W., 2009. Modeling flow and pollutant transport in a karst water-
shed with SWAT. Trans. ASABE 52 (2), 469–479.
Bardsley, W.E., Vetrova, V., Liu, S., 2015. Toward creating simpler hydrological models: a
LASSO subset selection approach. Environ. Model. Softw. 72, 33–43.
Bunn, S.E., Arthington, A.H., 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered
flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ. Manag. 30 (4), 492–507.
Clausen, B., Biggs, B.J.F., 1997. Relationships between benthic biota and hydrological indi-
ces in New Zealand streams. Freshw. Biol. 38, 327–342.
Clausen, B., Biggs, B.J.F., 2000. Flow indices for ecological studies in temperate streams:
groupings based on covariance. J. Hydrol. 237, 184–197.
Clausen, B., Iversen, H.L., Ovesen, N.B., 2000. Ecological flow variables for Danish streams.
In: Nilsson, T (Ed.), XXI Nordic Hydrology Conference, Nordic Association for Hydrol-
ogy. 46. NHP Report, Uppsala Sweden, pp. 3–10.
Cohen, J.E., 2003. Human population: the next half century. Science 302 (5648),
1172–1175.
Colwell, R.K., 1974. Predictability, constancy, and contingency of periodic phenomena.
Ecology 55 (5), 1148–1153.
Fletcher, T.D., Mitchell, V., Deletic, A., Ladson, T.R., Seven, A., 2007. Is stormwater harvest-
ing beneficial to urban waterway environmental flows? Water Sci. Technol. 55 (4),
265–272.
Gao, Y., Vogel, R.M., Kroll, C.N., Poff, N.L., Olden, J.D., 2009. Development of representative
indicators of hydrologic alteration. J. Hydrol. 374 (1–2), 136–147.
Gupta, S.C., Kessler, A.C., Brown, M.K., Zvomuya, F., 2015. Climate and agricultural land use
change impacts on streamflow in the upper midwestern United States. Water Resour.
Res. 51 (7), 5301–5317.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2013. Editorial - partial least squares structural equa-
tion modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance (March 14,
2013). Long Range Plan. 46 (1–2), 1–12.
Hannah, D.M., Sadler, J.P., Wood, P.J., 2007. Hydroecology and ecohydrology: a potential
route forward? Hydrol. Process. 21 (24), 3385–3390.
Henriksen, J.A., Heasley, J., Kennen, J.G., Nieswand, S., 2006. Users' manual for the
Hydroecological Integrity Assessment Process software (including the New Jersey As-
sessment Tools). U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2006-1093 (72 pp.).
Hirsch, R.M., Gilroy, E.J., 1984. Methods of fitting a straight line to date: examples in water
resources. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 20 (5), 705–711.
Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D.,
Wickham, J.D., Megown, K., 2015. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Data-
base for the conterminous United States-representing a decade of land cover change
information. Photogramm. Eng. Remote. Sens. 81 (5), 345–354.
Hubbart, J.A., Holmes, J., Bowman, G., 2010. Integrating science based decision making
and TMDL allocations in urbanizing watersheds. Watershed Sci. Bull. 01, 19–24.
Hubbart, J.A., Kellner, E., Lynne, H., Lupo, A.R., Market, P.S., Guinan, P.E., Stephan, K., Fox,
N.I., Svoma, B.M., 2014. Localized climate and surface energy flux alterations across
an urban gradient in the central US. Energies 7, 1770–1791.
Hughes, J.M.R., James, B., 1989. A hydrological regionalization of streams in Victoria,
Australia, with implication for stream ecology. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 40,
303–326.
Jacobson, C.R., 2011. Identification and quantification of the hydrological impacts of im-
perviousness in urban catchments: a review. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (6), 1438–1448.
Kellner, E., Hubbart, J.A., 2018. Flow class analyses of suspended sediment concentration
and particle size in a mixed-land-use watershed. Sci. Total Environ. 648, 973–983.
Kennen, J.G., Henriksen, J.A., Heasley, J., Cade, B.S., Terrell, J.W., 2009. Application of the
hydroecological integrity assessment process for Missouri streams. U.S. Geological
Survey Open-file Report 2009-1138 (57 pp.).
Kumar, N., Singh, S.K., Srivastava, P.K., Narsimlu, B., 2017. SWAT model calibration and un-
certainty analysis for streamflow prediction of the Tons River Basin, India, using Se-
quential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2) algorithm. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 3 (1), 30.
Miller, D.E., Vandike, J.E., 1997. Groundwater Resources of Missouri. vol. 2. Missouri De-
partment of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey.
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R., 2011. Soil and water assessment tool
theoretical documentation version 2009. Available at:. Texas Water Resources
Institutehttps://swat.tamu.edu/documentation/, Accessed date: 26 August 2018.
 S.J. Zeiger, J.A. Hubbart / Science of the Total Environment 654 (2019) 1305–1315
Nigh, T., Schroeder, W., 2002. Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions. Missouri Department of Con-
servation, Jefferson City, MO, USA (212 pp.).
Olden, J.D., Jackson, D.A., 2000. Torturing data for the sake of generality: how valid are our
regression models? Ecoscience 7 (4), 501–510.
Olden, J.D., Poff, N.L., 2003. Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for charac-
terizing streamflow regimes. River Res. Appl. 19, 101–121.
Paul, M.J., Meyer, J.L., 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32 (1),
333–365.
Poff, N.L., 1996. A hydrogeography of unregulated streams in the United States and an ex-
amination of scale-dependence in some hydrological de-scriptors. Freshw. Biol. 36,
71–91.
Poff, N.L., Ward, J.V., 1989. Implications of streamflow variability and predictability for
lotic community structure—a regional analysis of streamflow patterns. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 46, 1,805–1,818.
Poff, N.L., Richter, B.D., Arthington, A.H., Bunn, S.E., Naiman, R.J., Kendy, E., Henriksen, J.,
2010. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for
developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw. Biol. 55 (1), 147–170.
Price, K., 2011. Effects of watershed topography, soils, land use, and climate on baseflow
hydrology in humid regions: a review. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35 (4), 465–492.
Puckridge, J.T., Sheldon, F., Walker, K.F., Boulton, A.J., 1998. Flow variability and the ecol-
ogy of large rivers. Mar. Freshw. Res. 49, 55–72.
Refsgaard, J.C., 1997. Parameterisation, calibration, and validation of distributed hydrolog-
ical models. J. Hydrol. 198 (1), 69–97.
Richards, R.P., 1989. Measures of flow variability for Great Lakes tributaries. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 12, 361–377.
Richards, R.P., 1990. Measures of flow variability and a new flow-based classification of
Great Lakes tributaries. J. Great Lakes Res. 16, 53–70.
Richter, B.D., Baumgartner, J.V., Powell, J., Braun, D.P., 1996. A method for assessing hydro-
logic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1163–1174.
Richter, B.D., Baumgartner, J.V., Wigington, R., Braun, D.P., 1997. How much water does a
river need? Freshw. Biol. 37, 231–249.
Richter, B.D., Baumgartner, J.V., Braun, D.P., Powell, J., 1998. A spatial assessment of hydro-
logic alteration within a river network. Regul. Rivers Res. Manag. 14, 329–340.
Soil Survey Geographic database staff (SSURGO), 2018. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online
at. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/, Accessed date: 2 July 2018.
1315
Tibshirani, R., Bien, J., Friedman, J., Hastie, T., Simon, N., Taylor, J., Tibshirani, R., 2012.
Strong rules for discarding predictors in Lasso-type problems. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B
(Stat Methodol.) 74.
Turnipseed, D.P., Sauer, V.B., 2010. Discharge Measurements at Gaging Stations (No. 3-
A8). US Geological Survey.
United States Census Bureau (USCB), 2017. U.S. Census Bureau, population division, an-
nual estimates of the resident population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017. Available
on line at:. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts, Accessed date: 25 August 2018.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Wa-
tersheds. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Divi-
sion, Washington, DC, USA (TR-55 Rev).
Visser, A.G., Beevers, L., Patidar, S., 2018. Complexity in hydroecological modelling: a com-
parison of stepwise selection and information theory. River Res. Appl. 1–12.
Walsh, C.J., Roy, A.H., Feminella, J.W., Cottingham, P.D., Groffman, P.M., Morgan, R.P., 2005.
The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. N. Am.
Benthol. Soc. 24 (3), 706–723.
Walsh, C.J., Fletcher, T.D., Burns, M.J., 2012. Urban stormwater runoff: a new class of envi-
ronmental flow problem. PLoS One 7 (9), e45814.
Wei, L., Hubbart, J.A., Zhou, H., 2017. Variable streamflow contributions in nested
subwatersheds of a US midwestern urban watershed. Water Resour. Manag. 32 (1),
213–228.
Wolock, D.M., Winter, T.C., McMahon, G., 2004. Delineation and evaluation of hydrologic-
landscape regions in the United States using geographic information system tools and
multivariate statistical analyses. Environ. Manag. 34 (1), S71–S88.
Wood, P.J., Agnew, M.D., Petts, G.E., 2000. Flow variations and macroinvertebrate commu-
nity responses in a small groundwater-dominated stream in south-east England.
Hydrol. Process. 14, 3133–3147.
Zar, J.H., 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Zeiger, S.J., Hubbart, J.A., 2018a. Rainfall-stream flow responses in a mixed-land-use and
municipal watershed of the central USA. Environ. Earth Sci. 77 (12), 438.
Zeiger, S.J., Hubbart, J.A., 2018b. Assessing environmental flow targets using pre-
settlement land cover. Water 10 (6), 791.