Scenarios of changes in biodiversity for the year 2100 can now be developed based on scenarios of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, climate, vegetation, and land use and the known sensitivity of biodiversity to these changes. This study identified a ranking of the importance of drivers of change, a ranking of the biomes with respect to expected changes, and the major sources of uncertainties. For terrestrial ecosystems, land-use change probably will have the largest effect, followed by climate change, nitrogen deposition, biotic exchange, and elevated carbon dioxide concentration. For freshwater ecosystems, biotic exchange is much more important. Mediterranean climate and grassland ecosystems likely will experience the greatest proportional change in biodiversity because of the substantial influence of all drivers of biodiversity change. Northern temperate ecosystems are estimated to experience the least biodiversity change because major land-use change has already occurred. Plausible changes in biodiversity in other biomes depend on interactions among the causes of biodiversity change. These interactions represent one of the largest uncertainties in projections of future biodiversity change.

1. In an effort to develop quantitative relationships between various kinds of flow alteration and ecological responses, we reviewed 165 papers published over the last four decades, with a focus on more recent papers. Our aim was to determine if general relationships could be drawn from disparate case studies in the literature that might inform environmental flows science and management. 2. For all 165 papers we characterised flow alteration in terms of magnitude, frequency, duration, timing and rate of change as reported by the individual studies. Ecological responses were characterised according to taxonomic identity (macroinvertebrates, fish, riparian vegetation) and type of response (abundance, diversity, demographic parameters). A 'qualitative' or narrative summary of the reported results strongly corroborated previous, less comprehensive, reviews by documenting strong and variable ecological responses to all types of flow alteration. Of the 165 papers, 152 (92%) reported decreased values for recorded ecological metrics in response to a variety of types of flow alteration, whereas 21 papers (13%) reported increased values. 3. Fifty-five papers had information suitable for quantitative analysis of ecological response to flow alteration. Seventy per cent of these papers reported on alteration in flow magnitude, yielding a total of 65 data points suitable for analysis. The quantitative analysis provided some insight into the relative sensitivities of different ecological groups to alteration in flow magnitudes, but robust statistical relationships were not supported. Macroinvertebrates showed mixed responses to changes in flow magnitude, with abundance and diversity both increasing and decreasing in response to elevated flows and to reduced flows. Fish abundance, diversity and demographic rates consistently declined in response to both elevated and reduced flow magnitude. Riparian vegetation metrics both increased and decreased in response to reduced peak flows, with increases reflecting mostly enhanced non-woody vegetative cover or encroachment into the stream channel. 4. Our analyses do not support the use of the existing global literature to develop general, transferable quantitative relationships between flow alteration and ecological response; however, they do support the inference that flow alteration is associated with ecological change and that the risk of ecological change increases with increasing magnitude of flow alteration. 5. New sampling programs and analyses that target sites across well-defined gradients of flow alteration are needed to quantify ecological response and develop robust and

No abstract

No abstract

1. The flow regime is a primary determinant of the structure and function of aquatic and riparian ecosystems for streams and rivers. Hydrologic alteration has impaired riverine ecosystems on a global scale, and the pace and intensity of human development greatly exceeds the ability of scientists to assess the effects on a river-by-river basis. Current scientific understanding of hydrologic controls on riverine ecosystems and experience gained from individual river studies support development of environmental flow standards at the regional scale. 2. This paper presents a consensus view from a group of international scientists on a new framework for assessing environmental flow needs for many streams and rivers simultaneously to foster development and implementation of environmental flow standards at the regional scale. This framework, the ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA), is a synthesis of a number of existing hydrologic techniques and environmental flow methods that are currently being used to various degrees and that can support comprehensive regional flow management. The flexible approach allows