Major rivers worldwide have experienced dramatic changes in flow, reducing their natural ability to adjust to and absorb disturbances. Given expected changes in global climate and water needs, this may create serious problems, including loss of native biodiversity and risks to ecosystems and humans from increased flooding or water shortages. Here, we project river discharge under different climate and water withdrawal scenarios and combine this with data on the impact of dams on large river basins to create global maps illustrating potential changes in discharge and water stress for dam‐impacted and free‐flowing basins. The projections indicate that every populated basin in the world will experience changes in river discharge and many will experience water stress. The magnitude of these impacts is used to identify basins likely and almost certain to require proactive or reactive management intervention. Our analysis indicates that the area in need of management action to mitigate the impacts of climate change is much greater for basins impacted by dams than for basins with free‐flowing rivers. Nearly one billion people live in areas likely to require action and approximately 365 million people live in basins almost certain to require action. Proactive management efforts will minimize risks to ecosystems and people and may be less costly than reactive efforts taken only once problems have arisen.

Summary 1. Faced with widespread degradation of riverine ecosystems, stream restoration has greatly increased. Such restoration is rarely planned and executed with inputs from ecological theory. In this paper, we seek to identify principles from ecological theory that have been, or could be, used to guide stream restoration. 2. In attempts to re‐establish populations, knowledge of the species’ life history, habitat template and spatio‐temporal scope is critical. In many cases dispersal will be a critical process in maintaining viable populations at the landscape scale, and special attention should be given to the unique geometry of stream systems 3. One way by which organisms survive natural disturbances is by the use of refugia, many forms of which may have been lost with degradation. Restoring refugia may therefore be critical to survival of target populations, particularly in facilitating resilience to ongoing anthropogenic disturbance regimes. 4. Restoring connectivity, especially longitudinal connectivity, has been a major restoration goal. In restoring lateral connectivity there has been an increasing awareness of the riparian zone as a critical transition zone between streams and their catchments. 5. Increased knowledge of food web structure – bottom‐up versus top‐down control, trophic cascades and subsidies – are yet to be applied to stream restoration efforts. 6. In restoration, species are drawn from the regional species pool. Having overcome dispersal and environmental constraints (filters), species persistence may be governed by local internal dynamics, which are referred to as assembly rules. 7. While restoration projects often define goals and endpoints, the succession pathways and mechanisms (e.g. facilitation) by which these may be achieved are rarely considered. This occurs in spite of a large of body of general theory on which to draw. 8. Stream restoration has neglected ecosystem processes. The concept that increasing biodiversity increases ecosystem functioning is very relevant to stream restoration. Whether biodiversity affects ecosystem processes, such as decomposition, in streams is equivocal. 9. Considering the spatial scale of restoration projects is critical to success. Success is more likely with large‐scale projects, but they will often be infeasible in terms of the available resources and conflicts of interest. Small‐scale restoration may remedy specific problems. In general, restoration should occur at the appropriate spatial scale such that restoration is not reversed by the prevailing disturbance regime. 10. The effectiveness and predictability of stream ecosystem restoration will improve with an increased understanding of the processes by which ecosystems develop and are maintained. Ideas from general ecological theory can clearly be better incorporated into stream restoration projects. This will provide a twofold benefit in providing an opportunity both to improve restoration outcomes and to test ecological theory.

SUMMARY1. Headwater streams are ubiquitous in the landscape and are important sources of water, sediments and biota for downstream reaches. They are critical sites for organic matter processing and nutrient cycling, and may be vital for maintaining the 'health' of whole river networks. 2. Macroinvertebrates are an important component of biodiversity in stream ecosystems and studies of macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams have mostly viewed stream systems as linear reaches rather than as networks, although the latter may be more appropriate to the study of diversity patterns in headwater systems. 3. Studies of macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams from around the world illustrated that taxonomic richness is highly variable among continents and regions, and studies addressing longitudinal changes in taxonomic richness of macroinvertebrates generally found highest richness in mid-order streams. 4. When stream systems are viewed as networks at the landscape-scale, a-diversity may be low in individual headwater streams but high b-diversity among headwater streams within catchments and among catchments may generate high c-diversity. 5. Differing ability and opportunity for dispersal of macroinvertebrates, great physical habitat heterogeneity in headwater streams, and a wide range in local environmental conditions may all contribute to high b-diversity among headwater streams both within and among catchments. 6. Moving beyond linear conceptual models of stream ecosystems to consider the role that spatial structure of river networks might play in determining diversity patterns at the landscape scale is a promising avenue for future research.

Southeastern Australia is presently experiencing one of the worst droughts observed in the region in the last 200 years. The consequences of drought have been far reaching both for human consumptive uses and for aquatic ecosystems, and serve to highlight several important aspects of the nature of droughts, their ecological impacts, and how humans respond to them. Running water ecosystems are the dominant form of freshwater ecosystem in Australia, yet, despite the high frequency of drought we lack a basic understanding of the consequences of long-term droughts (as distinct from seasonal droughts) as an ecosystem disturbance, and more is known about drought effects on flowing than on standing waters. Drought is well defined and characterised meteorologically, but hydrologically its characterisation is equivocal. While drought severely impacts natural aquatic ecosystems, its effects have been and are exacerbated by direct and indirect anthropogenic modifications to streams and their catchments. In streams the major impacts are the loss of water and habitat availability, and the reduction, if not severing, of connectivity (lateral, longitudinal and vertical). Despite the relative frequency of drought in Australia we have failed to develop long-term management strategies capable of contending with droughts and their impacts, particularly in catchments where human disturbances have reduced the natural resistance and resilience of aquatic ecosystems, and where the demand for consumptive water use is high and rising. Here, we provide a commentary on drought and its implications for the management of freshwater ecosystems. We begin with a general discussion of drought and its impacts on streams and rivers before discussing some of the more specific management issues and response strategies that have arisen in response to the current drought in Australia. Throughout we consider global as well as local examples. We conclude by highlighting important knowledge gaps and by providing some general principles for better incorporating droughts and their impacts into river management strategies.

Summary  The restoration of physical habitat has emerged as a key activity for managers charged with reversing the damage done by humans to streams and rivers, and there has been a great expenditure of time, money and other resources on habitat restoration projects. Most restoration projects appear to assume that the creation of habitat is the key to restoring the biota (‘the field of dreams hypothesis’). However, in many streams where new habitat is clearly required if populations and communities are to be restored, there may be numerous other factors that cause the expected link between habitat and biotic restoration to break down. We discuss five issues that are likely to have a direct bearing on the success, or perceived success of local habitat restoration projects in streams: (i) barriers to colonization, (ii) temporal shifts in habitat use, (iii) introduced species, (iv) long‐term and large‐scale processes, and (v) inappropriate scales of restoration. The purpose of the study was primarily to alert ecologists and managers involved in stream habitat restoration to the potential impacts of these issues on restoration success. Furthermore, the study highlights the opportunities provided by habitat restoration for learning how the factors we discuss affect populations, communities and ecosystems.