Flow variability in New Zealand rivers and its relationship to in‐stream habitat and biota

Jowett, Ian G.; Duncan, Maurice J.

doi:10.1080/00288330.1990.9516427

Cited by 133 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instream faunal communities are adapted to the 'natural' flow regime and the variability in magnitude, frequency, timing and duration of high, low and intermediate flow events (e.g., Jowett and Duncan, 1990;Lytle and Poff, 2004;Monk et al, 2006). As a result, there is a growing interest in the identification of ecologically relevant hydrological descriptors, which may be used to characterise and quantify 'natural', seminatural, and anthropogenic modifications to river flow regimes (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, there is a growing interest in the identification of ecologically relevant hydrological descriptors, which may be used to characterise and quantify 'natural', seminatural, and anthropogenic modifications to river flow regimes (e.g. Clausen and Biggs, 1997;Jowett and Duncan, 1990;Monk et al, 2006;Olden and Poff, 2003;Richter et al, 1998;Sheldon and Thoms, 2006). When combined with biological data, these hydrological descriptors can be used as a basis for the development of ecologically sustainable management strategies that balance anthropogenic demands on water resources against protecting, conserving and even enhancing, instream habitat and communities (Petts et al, 2006;Poff et al, 2003;Richter et al, 2006;Tharme, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Macroinvertebrate community response to inter‐annual and regional river flow regime dynamics

Monk

Wood

Hannah

et al. 2008

River Research & Apps

127

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatio‐temporal variability in river flow is a fundamental control on instream habitat structure and riverine ecosystem biodiversity and integrity. However, long‐term riverine ecological time‐series to test hypotheses about hydrology–ecology interactions in a broader temporal context are rare, and studies spanning multiple rivers are often limited in their temporal coverage to less than five years. To address this research gap, a unique spatio‐temporal hydroecological analysis was conducted of long‐term instream ecological responses (1990–2000) to river flow regime variability at 83 sites across England and Wales. The results demonstrate clear hydroecological associations at the national scale (all data). In addition, significant differences in ecological response are recorded between three ‘regions’ identified (RM1–3*) associated with characteristics of the flow regime. The effect of two major supra‐seasonal droughts (1990–1992 and 1996–1997) on inter‐annual (IA) variability of the LIFE scores is evident with both events showing a gradual decline before and recovery of LIFE scores after the low flow period. The instream community response to high magnitude flow regimes (1994 and 1995) is also apparent, although these associations are less striking. The results demonstrate classification of rivers into flow regime regions offers a way to help unravel complex hydroecological associations. The approach adopted herein could easily be adapted for other geographical locations, where datasets are available. Such work is imperative to understand flow regime–ecology interactions in a longer term, wider spatial context and so assess future hydroecological responses to climate change and anthropogenic modification of riverine ecosystems. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macroinvertebrate community response to inter‐annual and regional river flow regime dynamics

Monk

Wood

Hannah

et al. 2008

River Research & Apps

127

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The strength of grazing pressure upon epibenthic algae can vary according to flow conditions (Poff & Ward, 1995;Chester & Norris, 2006), potentially influencing the intensity of topdown control of assemblage composition and biomass (Opsahl et al, 2003). Because of the complex interactions among abiotic factors, such as discharge and nutrients, and biotic factors (Peterson & Stevenson, 1992;Ledger et al, 2008), the effects of flow on epibenthic algal assemblages vary substantially according to stream conditions (Jowett & Duncan, 1990;Downes et al, 2003;Wu et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responses of epibenthic algal assemblages to water abstraction in Hong Kong streams

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied the effects of flow reduction on epibenthic algal assemblages by comparing up-and down-stream reaches of ten Hong Kong streams subject to different degrees of water abstraction during [2007][2008]. Downstream discharge declined by 71 and 54% during the wet and dry seasons, respectively. Algal responses varied seasonally and according to morphological guild and reflecting reductions in discharge and current velocity, or changes in total nitrogen and phosphate, or their combined effects. Significant inter-reach assemblage differences were observed during the both seasons, but wet-season assemblage structure was not directly influenced by any flow-related variable. During the dry season, scouring-tolerant prostrate/adnate diatoms (especially Achnanthes, Cocconeis) were relatively abundant upstream, whereas intolerant stalked (Eunotia, Gomphonema) and mobile diatoms were more numerous downstream. Both low-and high-profile (erect diatoms, Chamaesiphon, Calothrix) guilds were sensitive to changes in nutrients. Low-flow conditions downstream, surprisingly, enhanced algal diversity, and richness. Based on the linear response of Cocconeis (mainly C. placentula) to discharge reduction, we recommend that[65% of dry-season discharge should be maintained in downstream reaches in order to sustain near-natural algal assemblages; 32% of discharge is required to avoid substantial alterations in assemblage structure.

show abstract

“…We also calculated these measures for surveyed tributaries with gauges on them (four of nine). Coefficient of variation is a standard measure of hydrological variability that has been shown to influence aquatic communities (Jowett and Duncan 1990), and both C v and high-to-low flow ratio influence the distribution of juvenile coho salmon (O. kisutch) in the Klamath River (Hillemeier et al 2009). The high-to-low flow ratio is the ratio of the median annual peak flow to the median annual low flow.…”

Section: Surveysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution and Abundance of Freshwater Mussels in the mid Klamath Subbasin, California

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flow variability in New Zealand rivers and its relationship to in‐stream habitat and biota

Cited by 133 publications

References 15 publications

Macroinvertebrate community response to inter‐annual and regional river flow regime dynamics

Macroinvertebrate community response to inter‐annual and regional river flow regime dynamics

Responses of epibenthic algal assemblages to water abstraction in Hong Kong streams

Distribution and Abundance of Freshwater Mussels in the mid Klamath Subbasin, California

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About