How much water does a river need
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors proposed a new approach for setting streamflow-based river ecosystem management targets and this method is called the "Range of Variability Approach" (RVA), which derives from aquatic ecology theory concerning the critical role of hydrological variability, and associated characteristics of timing, frequency, duration and rates of change, in sustaining aquatic ecosystems.
Abstract: > * SUMMARY 1. This paper introduces a new approach for setting streamflow-based river ecosystem management targets and this method is called the 'Range of Variability Approach' (RVA). The proposed approach derives from aquatic ecology theory concerning the critical role of hydrological variability, and associated characteristics of timing, frequency, duration, and rates of change, in sustaining aquatic ecosystems. The method is intended for application on rivers wherein the conservation of native aquatic biodiversity and protection of natural ecosystem functions are primary river management objectives. 2. The RVA uses as its starting point either measured or synthesized daily streamflow values from a period during which human perturbations to the hydrological regime were negligible. This streamflow record is then characterized using thirty-two different hydrological parameters, using methods defined in Richter et al. (1996). Using the RVA, a range of variation in each of the thirty-two parameters, e.g. the values at t 1 standard deviation from the mean or the twenty-fifth to seventy-fifth percentile range, are selected as initial flow management targets. 3. The RVA targets are intended to guide the design of river management strategies (e.g. reservoir operations rules, catchment restoration) that will lead to attainment of these targets on an annual basis. The RVA will enable river managers to define and adopt readily interim management targets before conclusive, long-term ecosystem research results are available. The RVA targets and management strategies should be adaptively refined as suggested by research results and as needed to sustain native aquatic ecosystem biodiversity and integrity.
Citations
More filters
Stockholm Resilience Centre1, Australian National University2, University of Copenhagen3, McGill University4, Stellenbosch University5, University of Wisconsin-Madison6, Wageningen University and Research Centre7, Stockholm University8, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences9, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research10, International Livestock Research Institute11, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation12, University College London13, Stockholm Environment Institute14, The Energy and Resources Institute15, University of California, San Diego16, Royal Institute of Technology17
TL;DR: An updated and extended analysis of the planetary boundary (PB) framework and identifies levels of anthropogenic perturbations below which the risk of destabilization of the Earth system (ES) is likely to remain low—a “safe operating space” for global societal development.
Abstract: The planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system. Here, we revise and update the planetary boundary framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified, each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.
7,169 citations
TL;DR: This article explores the special features of freshwater habitats and the biodiversity they support that makes them especially vulnerable to human activities and advocates continuing attempts to check species loss but urges adoption of a compromise position of management for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem functioning and resilience, and human livelihoods.
Abstract: Freshwater biodiversity is the over-riding conservation priority during the International Decade for Action - 'Water for Life' - 2005 to 2015. Fresh water makes up only 0.01% of the World's water and approximately 0.8% of the Earth's surface, yet this tiny fraction of global water supports at least 100000 species out of approximately 1.8 million - almost 6% of all described species. Inland waters and freshwater biodiversity constitute a valuable natural resource, in economic, cultural, aesthetic, scientific and educational terms. Their conservation and management are critical to the interests of all humans, nations and governments. Yet this precious heritage is in crisis. Fresh waters are experiencing declines in biodiversity far greater than those in the most affected terrestrial ecosystems, and if trends in human demands for water remain unaltered and species losses continue at current rates, the opportunity to conserve much of the remaining biodiversity in fresh water will vanish before the 'Water for Life' decade ends in 2015. Why is this so, and what is being done about it? This article explores the special features of freshwater habitats and the biodiversity they support that makes them especially vulnerable to human activities. We document threats to global freshwater biodiversity under five headings: overexploitation; water pollution; flow modification; destruction or degradation of habitat; and invasion by exotic species. Their combined and interacting influences have resulted in population declines and range reduction of freshwater biodiversity worldwide. Conservation of biodiversity is complicated by the landscape position of rivers and wetlands as 'receivers' of land-use effluents, and the problems posed by endemism and thus non-substitutability. In addition, in many parts of the world, fresh water is subject to severe competition among multiple human stakeholders. Protection of freshwater biodiversity is perhaps the ultimate conservation challenge because it is influenced by the upstream drainage network, the surrounding land, the riparian zone, and - in the case of migrating aquatic fauna - downstream reaches. Such prerequisites are hardly ever met. Immediate action is needed where opportunities exist to set aside intact lake and river ecosystems within large protected areas. For most of the global land surface, trade-offs between conservation of freshwater biodiversity and human use of ecosystem goods and services are necessary. We advocate continuing attempts to check species loss but, in many situations, urge adoption of a compromise position of management for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem functioning and resilience, and human livelihoods in order to provide a viable long-term basis for freshwater conservation. Recognition of this need will require adoption of a new paradigm for biodiversity protection and freshwater ecosystem management - one that has been appropriately termed 'reconciliation ecology'.
5,857 citations
Cites background from "How much water does a river need"
...…growing awareness that maintenance of natural variability in flows and water levels is essential to underpin conservation strategies for freshwater or water-associated biodiversity and their habitats (Poff et al., 1997; Richter et al., 1997, 2003; Pollard & Huxham, 1998; Arthington & Pusey, 2003)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, Naiman et al. pointed out that harnessing of streams and rivers comes at great cost: Many rivers no longer support socially valued native species or sustain healthy ecosystems that provide important goods and services.
Abstract: H umans have long been fascinated by the dynamism of free-flowing waters. Yet we have expended great effort to tame rivers for transportation, water supply, flood control, agriculture, and power generation. It is now recognized that harnessing of streams and rivers comes at great cost: Many rivers no longer support socially valued native species or sustain healthy ecosystems that provide important goods and services (Naiman et al. 1995, NRC 1992).
5,799 citations
TL;DR: This literature review has focused this literature review around four key principles to highlight the important mechanisms that link hydrology and aquatic biodiversity and to illustrate the consequent impacts of altered flow regimes.
Abstract: The flow regime is regarded by many aquatic ecologists to be the key driver of river and floodplain wet- land ecosystems. We have focused this literature review around four key principles to highlight the important mech- anisms that link hydrology and aquatic biodiversity and to illustrate the consequent impacts of altered flow regimes: Firstly, flow is a major determinant of physical habitat in streams, which in turn is a major determinant of biotic com- position; Secondly, aquatic species have evolved life history strategies primarily in direct response to the natural flow regimes; Thirdly, maintenance of natural patterns of longitu- dinal and lateral connectivity is essential to the viability of populations of many riverine species; Finally, the invasion and success of exotic and introduced species in rivers is facilitated by the alteration of flow regimes. The impacts of flow change are manifest across broad taxonomic groups including riverine plants, invertebrates, and fish. Despite growing recognition of these relationships, ecologists still struggle to predict and quantify biotic responses to altered flow regimes. One obvious difficulty is the ability to distin- guish the direct effects of modified flow regimes from im- pacts associated with land-use change that often accom- panies water resource development. Currently, evidence about how rivers function in relation to flow regime and the flows that aquatic organisms need exists largely as a series of untested hypotheses. To overcome these problems, aquatic science needs to move quickly into a manipulative or experimental phase, preferably with the aims of restora- tion and measuring ecosystem response.
3,018 citations
TL;DR: A global review of the present status of environmental flow methodologies revealed the existence of some 207 individual methodologies, recorded for 44 countries within six world regions, with a further two categories representing combination-type and other approaches as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Recognition of the escalating hydrological alteration of rivers on a global scale and resultant environmental degradation, has led to the establishment of the science of environmental flow assessment whereby the quantity and quality of water required for ecosystem conservation and resource protection are determined.
A global review of the present status of environmental flow methodologies revealed the existence of some 207 individual methodologies, recorded for 44 countries within six world regions. These could be differentiated into hydrological, hydraulic rating, habitat simulation and holistic methodologies, with a further two categories representing combination-type and other approaches.
Although historically, the United States has been at the forefront of the development and application of methodologies for prescribing environmental flows, using 37% of the global pool of techniques, parallel initiatives in other parts of the world have increasingly provided the impetus for significant advances in the field.
Application of methodologies is typically at two or more levels. (1) Reconnaissance-level initiatives relying on hydrological methodologies are the largest group (30% of the global total), applied in all world regions. Commonly, a modified Tennant method or arbitrary low flow indices is adopted, but efforts to enhance the ecological relevance and transferability of techniques across different regions and river types are underway. (2) At more comprehensive scales of assessment, two avenues of application of methodologies exist. In developed countries of the northern hemisphere, particularly, the instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) or other similarly structured approaches are used. As a group, these methodologies are the second most widely applied worldwide, with emphasis on complex, hydrodynamic habitat modelling. The establishment of holistic methodologies as 8% of the global total within a decade, marks an alternative route by which environmental flow assessment has advanced. Such methodologies, several of which are scenario-based, address the flow requirements of the entire riverine ecosystem, based on explicit links between changes in flow regime and the consequences for the biophysical environment. Recent advancements include the consideration of ecosystem-dependent livelihoods and a benchmarking process suitable for evaluating alternative water resource developments at basin scale, in relatively poorly known systems. Although centred in Australia and South Africa, holistic methodologies have stimulated considerable interest elsewhere. They may be especially appropriate in developing world regions, where environmental flow research is in its infancy and water allocations for ecosystems must, for the time being at least, be based on scant data, best professional judgement and risk assessment. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1,462 citations
Cites background or methods from "How much water does a river need"
...Such methodologies include the Texas method (Matthews and Bao, 1991) and basic flow method (Palau and Alcazar, 1996), used in at least four and two countries, respectively (Appendix I), as well as the range of variability approach (RVA; Richter et al., 1996, 1997) and flow translucency approach (Gippel, 2001)....
[...]
...…include the Texas method (Matthews and Bao, 1991) and basic flow method (Palau and Alcazar, 1996), used in at least four and two countries, respectively (Appendix I), as well as the range of variability approach (RVA; Richter et al., 1996, 1997) and flow translucency approach (Gippel, 2001)....
[...]
...These trends suggest that many countries have not yet recognized and embedded in water resources policy and management the critical importance of the hydrological regime as the primary driver of ecological processes in river–floodplain systems (Junk et al., 1989; Poff et al., 1997; Richter et al., 1997) and the role of environmental flows in the long-term maintenance and sustainability of such systems, or have not yet made such assessments a priority (Tharme, 1996)....
[...]
...In recent years, more sophisticated hydrology-based methodologies, most notably RVA (Richter et al., 1996, 1997), have drawn interest outside of the countries in which they were developed, through their increased emphasis on flow variability and/or utilization of ecologically relevant, multiple hydrological indices in the determination of environmental flows....
[...]
...In recent years, more sophisticated hydrology-based methodologies, most notably RVA (Richter et al., 1996, 1997), have drawn interest outside of the countries in which they were developed, through their increased emphasis on flow variability and/or utilization of ecologically relevant, multiple…...
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: Suggestions are offered to statisticians and editors of ecological journals as to how ecologists' under- standing of experimental design and statistics might be improved.
Abstract: Pseudoreplication is defined. as the use of inferential statistics to test for treatment effects with data from experiments where either treatments are not replicated (though samples may be) or replicates are not statistically independent. In ANOVA terminology, it is the testing for treatment effects with an error term inappropriate to the hypothesis being considered. Scrutiny of 176 experi- mental studies published between 1960 and the present revealed that pseudoreplication occurred in 27% of them, or 48% of all such studies that applied inferential statistics. The incidence of pseudo- replication is especially high in studies of marine benthos and small mammals. The critical features of controlled experimentation are reviewed. Nondemonic intrusion is defined as the impingement of chance events on an experiment in progress. As a safeguard against both it and preexisting gradients, interspersion of treatments is argued to be an obligatory feature of good design. Especially in small experiments, adequate interspersion can sometimes be assured only by dispensing with strict random- ization procedures. Comprehension of this conflict between interspersion and randomization is aided by distinguishing pre-layout (or conventional) and layout-specifit alpha (probability of type I error). Suggestions are offered to statisticians and editors of ecological j oumals as to how ecologists' under- standing of experimental design and statistics might be improved.
7,808 citations
3,626 citations
Book•
31 Dec 1994
TL;DR: An overview of the diversity of rivers and streams, including some of the causes of this diversity, and some of their consequences, can be found in this article, where the authors provide a roadmap for individual chapters that follow, rather than define terms and explain principles in any detail.
Abstract: 1 An Introduction to Fluvial Ecosystems An overview of the diversity of rivers and streams, including some of the causes of this diversity, and some of the consequences. The intent is to provide a roadmap for the individual chapters that follow, rather than define terms and explain principles in any detail. 2 Streamflow Fluvial ecosystems exhibit tremendous variability in the quantity, timing and temporal patterns of river flow, and this profoundly influences their physical, chemical and biological condition. This chapter covers the essentials of hydrology, from the global water cycle to the myriad ways that humans alter water flowpaths and river flow. 3 Fluvial Geomorphology Fluvial geomorphology emphasizes the dynamic interplay between rivers and landscapes in the shaping of river channels and drainage networks. It includes study of the linkages among channel, floodplain, network and catchment and helps make sense of the enormous variety exhibited among fluvial systems, and thus the habitat and environmental conditions experienced by the biota. 4 Streamwater Chemistry The constituents of river water include suspended inorganic matter, dissolved major ions, dissolved nutrients, suspended and dissolved organic matter, gases, and trace metals. River chemistry changes temporally under the multiple influences of seasonal changes in discharge regime, precipitation inputs, and biological activity and usually is greatly altered owing to direct and indirect human influences. 5 The Abiotic Environment The abiotic environment includes all physical and chemical variables that influence the distribution and abundance of organisms. Current, substrate and temperature often are the most important variables in fluvial environments, and all organisms show adaptations that limit them to a subset of conditions. Species differ in the specific conditions under which they thrive, and whether those conditionsare narrow or comparatively broad. 6 Primary Producers Primary producers acquire their energy from sunlight and their materials from nonliving sources. The major autotrophs of running waters include the benthic algae and macrophytes in larger rivers, phytoplankton also can be important. Benthic algae occur in intimate association with heterotrophic microbes within an extracellular matrix, referred to as biofilm. Benthic algae are important in fluvial food webs, especially in headwater and midsized streams, and also influence the benthic habitat and nutrient cycling. 7 Detrital Energy Sources Particulate and dissolved organic matter originating both within the stream and in the surrounding landscape is an important basal resource to fluvial food webs. Detritus-based energy pathways can be particularly important, relative to pathways originating from living primary producers, in small streams shaded by a terrestrial canopy and in large, turbid rivers with extensive floodplains. Recent advances in microbial ecology have greatly expanded our understanding of the synergies between autotrophs and heterotrophs. 8 Trophic Relationships The network of consumers and resources that constitute fluvial food webs is supported by a diverse mix of energy supplies that originate within the stream and beyond its banks. These include the living resources of algae and macrophytes, and the non-living resources of particulate and dissolved organic matter. Microorganisms are important mediators of organic matter availability and there is increasing evidence of their importance as a resource to both small and large consumers. Additionally, energy subsidies in the form of falling terrestrial arthropods and the eggs and carcasses of migrating fish contribute to the support of many stream-dwellers. 9 Species interactions The basal resources of algae and detritus and associated microorganisms sustain higher consumers includin
2,648 citations
"How much water does a river need" refers background in this paper
...Increased frequency or duration of high flow levels may displace velocity-sensitive organisms, such as some periphyton, phytoplankton, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, young fish and deposited eggs (Moog, 1993; Allan, 1995 )....
[...]
...A myriad of environmental attributes are known to shape the habitat templates (sensu Southwood, 1977, 1988) that control aquatic and riparian species distributions, including flow depth and velocity, temperature, substrate size distributions, oxygen content, turbidity, soil moisture/saturation, and other physical and chemical conditions and biotic influences ( Allan, 1995 )....
[...]
...First, as discussed previously, many other abiotic characteristics of riverine ecosystems vary with streamflow conditions, including dissolved oxygen levels, water temperature, suspended and bed-load sediment size distributions, and streambed stability (Ward & Stanford, 1983; Sparks, 1992; Nestler, Schneider & Latka, 1994; Allan, 1995; Richter et al., 1996)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors proposed a method for assessing the degree of hydrologic alteration attributable to human influence within an ecosystem, referred to as the "Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration".
Abstract: Hydrologic regimes play a major role in determining the biotic composition, structure, and function of aquatic, wetland, and riparian ecosystems. But human land and water uses are substantially altering hydrologic regimes around the world. Improved quantitative evaluations of human-induced hydrologic changes are needed to advance research on the biotic implications of hydrologic alteration and to support ecosystem management and restoration plans. We propose a method for assessing the degree of hydrologic alteration attributable to human influence within an ecosystem. This method, referred to as the “Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration,” is based upon an analysis of hydrologic data available either from existing measurement points within an ecosystem (such as at stream gauges or wells) or model-generated data. We use 32 parameters, organized into five groups, to statistically characterize hydrologic variation within each year. These 32 parameters provide information on ecologically significant features of surface and ground water regimes influencing aquatic, wetland, and riparian ecosystems. We then assess the hydrologic perturbations associated with activities such as dam operations, flow diversion, groundwater pumping, or intensive land-use conversion by comparing measures of central tendency and dispersion for each parameter between user-defined “pre-impact” and “post-impact” time frames, generating 64 Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration. This method is intended for use with other ecosystem metrics in inventories of ecosystem integrity, in planning ecosystem management activities, and in setting and measuring progress toward conservation or restoration goals.
2,204 citations