No abstract

Contact CEH NORA team at noraceh@ceh.ac.ukThe NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner. 1The following paper is the final version prior to publication on 22 September 2015. are proposed, the way in which indicators could contribute to classification is discussed. All of the methods described in Table 1 consider a hierarchy of spatial units, but the degree to which they develop the other aspects of the conceptual approach proposed by Frissell et al.(1986) varies widely.2. Many of the frameworks focus entirely on hydromorphological processes and forms that are either directly measured or inferred. This is because interactions between processes and forms control the dynamic morphology or behaviour of rivers and their mosaics of habitats.Hydromorphological processes drive longitudinal and lateral connectivity within river networks and corridors, the assemblage and turnover of physical habitats, and the sedimentary and vegetation structures associated with those habitats.3. Some frameworks are conceptual, providing a way of thinking about or structuring analyses of river systems, and interpreting their processes, morphology and function (e.g. Frissell et al., 1986;Habersack, 2000;Fausch et al., 2002;Thorp et al., 2006;Beechie et al., 2010;McCluney et al., 2014). Some frameworks are more quantitative, generating one or more indices or classifications of spatial units that support assessment of river systems (e.g. Rosgen, 1994;González del Tánago and García de Jalón, 2004;Merovich et al., 2013;Rinaldi et al., 2013Rinaldi et al., , 2015a MacDonald, 2002;Brierley and Fryirs, 2005;Beechie et al., 2010; Rinaldi et al., 2013a Rinaldi et al., , 2015.In some cases, theoretical or historical analyses or consideration of specific future scenarios are used to develop space-time understanding that can support management decisionmaking (e.g. Buffington, 1997, 1998;Montgomery and MacDonald, 2002;Benda et al., 2004;Brierley and Fryirs, 2005;McCluney et al., 2014 , 1997, 1998Montgomery and MacDonald, 2002;Benda et al., 2004;Brierley and Fryirs, 2005;Merovich et al., 2013;Rinaldi et al., 2013Rinaldi et al., , 2015a. Furthermore, some of the frameworks include indicators of human pressures and their impacts (e.g. Merovich et al., 2013;McCluney et al., 2014;Rinaldi et al., 2013Rinaldi et al., , 2015a.6. Finally, although most frameworks could be described as incorporating processes to some degree, some methods are particularly process-based, even when processes are inferred from forms and associations rather than being quantified by direct measurements.Frameworks that consider temporal dynamics and trajectories of historical change (see point 4, above) are particularly effective in developing understanding of processes and the impacts of changed processes cascading through time and across spatial scales.Although the list of frameworks presented in Table 1 is far from comprehensive, ...

Suspended sediment is a natural part of river systems and plays an essential role in structuring the landscape, creating ecological habitats and transporting nutrients. It is also a common management problem, where alterations to sediment quantity and quality negatively impact ecological communities, increase flood hazard and shorten the lifespan of infrastructure. To address these challenges and develop appropriate sustainable management strategies, we need a thorough understanding of sediment sources, pathways and transport dynamics and the drivers that underlie spatial and temporal variability in suspended sediment transport in rivers. However, research to date has not sufficiently addressed the temporal complexity of sediment transport processes, which is limiting our ability to disentangle the hydro-meteorological, catchment, channel and anthropogenic drivers of suspended sediment transport in rivers. This review critically evaluates previously published work on suspended sediment dynamics to demonstrate how the interpretation of sediment sources and pathways is influenced by the temporal scale and methodology of the study. To do this, the review (i) summarizes the main drivers of temporal variation in suspended sediment transport in rivers; (ii) critically reviews the common empirical approaches used to analyze and quantify sediment sources and loads, and their capacity to account for temporal variations; (iii) applies these findings to recent case studies to illustrate how method and timescale affect the interpretation of suspended sediment transport dynamics; and finally (iv) synthesizes the findings of the review into a set of guidelines for a multi-timescale approach to sediment regime characterization. By recognizing a priori that study design and temporal scale have an impact on the interpretation of SS dynamics and employing methods that address these issues, future research will be better able to identify the drivers of suspended sediment transport in rivers, improve sediment transport modelling, and propose effective, sustainable solutions to sediment management problems.

We propose a conceptual model of vegetation-hydrogeomorphology interactions and feedbacks within river corridors (i.e. river channels and their floodplains) that builds on previous similar hydrogeomorphologically centred models by (i) incorporating hydrogeomorphological constraints on river corridor vegetation from region to reach scales; (ii) defining five dynamic river corridor zones within which different hydrogeomorphological processes are dominant so that plants and physical processes interact in different ways, and considering the potential distribution of these zones longitudinally from river headwaters to mouth, laterally across the river corridor, and in relation to different river planform styles; (iii) considering the way in which vegetation-related landforms within each zone may reflect processes of self-organization and the role of particular plant species as physical ecosystem engineers within the context of the dominant hydrogeomorphological processes; (iv) focussing, in particular, upon a 'critical zone' at the leading edge of plant-hydrogeomorphological process interactions that is located somewhere within the area of the river corridor perennially inundated by flowing water (zone 1) and the area that is frequently inundated and subject to both sediment erosion and deposition processes (zone 2). Within the critical zone some plant species strongly influence the position and character of the margin between the river channel and floodplain, affecting channel width, channel margin form and dynamics, and the transition from one river planform type to another; and (v) considering the vegetated pioneer landforms that develop within the critical zone and how their morphological impact needs to be scaled to the river size.The model is illustrated using three example reaches from rivers within different biogeographical zones of Europe, and its potential application in the context of river management and restoration/rehabilitation is discussed.

Rivers are important ecosystems under continuous anthropogenic stresses. The hyporheic zone is a ubiquitous, reactive interface between the main channel and its surrounding sediments along the river network. We elaborate on the main physical, biological, and biogeochemical drivers and processes within the hyporheic zone that have been studied by multiple scientific disciplines for almost half a century. These previous efforts have shown that the hyporheic zone is a modulator for most metabolic stream processes and serves as a refuge and habitat for a diverse range of aquatic organisms. It also exerts a major control on river water quality by increasing the contact time with reactive environments, which in turn results in retention and transformation of nutrients, trace organic compounds, fine suspended particles, and microplastics, among others. The paper showcases the critical importance of hyporheic zones, both from a scientific and an applied perspective, and their role in ecosystem services to answer the question of the manuscript title. It identifies major research gaps in our understanding of hyporheic processes. In conclusion, we highlight the potential of hyporheic restoration to efficiently manage and reactivate ecosystem functions and services in river corridors.