Towards an ecologically meaningful classification of the flow biotope for river inventory, rehabilitation, design and appraisal purposes

Harvey, Gemma L.; Clifford, Nicholas J.; Gurnell, Angela M.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.039

Cited by 32 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…pools, riffles and cascades) and functional habitats (i.e. wood debris, leaf litter, cobbles and gravel; sensu Harper et al, 1995, Harvey et al, 2008; however, during a flood event, these streams become homogeneous as water rises to form a uniform flood biotope.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benthic community structure and ecosystem functions in above- and below-waterfall pools in Borneo

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Waterfalls are geomorphic features that often partition streams into discrete zones. Our study examined aquatic communities, litter decomposition and periphyton growth rates for above-and belowwaterfall pools in Ulu Temburong National Park, Brunei. We observed higher fish densities in belowwaterfall pools (0.24 fish m -2 vs. 0.02 fish m -2 in above-waterfall pools) and higher shrimp abundance in above-waterfall pools (eight shrimp/pool vs. less than one shrimp/pool in below-waterfall pools). However, macroinvertebrate densities (excluding shrimp) were similar among both pool types. Ambient periphyton was higher in below-waterfall pools in 2013 (4.3 vs. 2.8 g m -2 in above-waterfall pools) and 2014 (4.8 vs. 3.4 g m -2 in above-waterfall pools), while periphyton growth rates varied from 0.05 to 0.26 g m -2 days -1 and were significantly higher in below-waterfall pools in 2014. Leaf litter decomposition rates (0.001 to 0.024 days -1 ) did not differ between pool types, suggesting that neither shrimp nor fish densities had consistent impacts on this ecosystem function. Regardless, this research demonstrates the varied effects of biotic and abiotic factors on community structure and ecosystem function. Our results have highlighted the importance of discontinuities, such as waterfalls, in tropical streams.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benthic community structure and ecosystem functions in above- and below-waterfall pools in Borneo

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For purely illustrative purposes in this paper, rivers have been categorized according to stream-flow character (Table 2), with examples illustrated in Plate 1. The five categories (rapid; rapidmoderate; moderate; moderate-slow; slow) are based on predominant flow-types, each of which is associated with an aquatic biotope Harvey et al, 2008). The categories are broadly similar to those in the river typology used by Montgomery and Buffington (1997), as modified by Cianfrani et al (2009), and also the Lentic-lotic River Descriptor developed by Buffagni et al (2009b) for Mediterranean rivers.…”

Section: Describing Rivers According To Stream-flow Charactermentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking habitat quality: observations using River Habitat Survey on near‐natural streams and rivers in northern and western Europe

Raven

Holmes²,

Vaughan

et al. 2010

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT1. Some ecological effects of physically modifying rivers are still unclear, partly due to scale factors, but also because the character of high quality habitat is poorly understood.2. Surveys at 278 sites on 141 near-natural streams and rivers in northern and western Europe were carried out between 1994 and 2009 to benchmark the habitat quality assessment system used for River Habitat Survey (RHS).3. The objectives were to establish if RHS was suitable outside the UK, investigate if 500 m was still valid as the survey length, suggest a benchmarking strategy and recommend improvements to habitat quality assessment protocols.4. Some modifications to RHS are needed to take account of differences in hydrological conditions, land-use and, most importantly, riparian habitat structure found in mainland Europe.5. On average, 82-87% of channel attributes and 87-98% of channel and bank features were recorded within the first of consecutive RHS sites, confirming that 500 m is an effective sample length for characterizing small rivers.6. Stream-flow character appeared to influence the distribution of several in-channel features, with greater diversity and between-site variation associated with rivers of mixed flow-types. To account for local variation and for effective use of survey time, it is recommended that two or more consecutive RHS sites are used for benchmarking purposes.7. A suite of assessment protocols with agreed criteria and analytical rules, linked to specific objectives (e.g. nature conservation, geomorphic condition), is needed to establish the character and habitat quality of rivers in a consistent fashion.8. A multi-discipline benchmarking programme using hydro-ecological regions in Europe would build on existing knowledge and help to improve both the inter-calibration and local application of quality assessment protocols. Data-sharing by hydrologists, river ecologists and fluvial geomorphologists would improve the basis for managing rivers in support of the European Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive.

show abstract

“…Three broad clusters are observed, emphasizing the importance of river character in habitat organization at the reach scale (Harvey et al, 2008). The Kent and Harbourne clusters show greater similarity in habitat indices, while the Eden is relatively distinct, highlighting the influence of energy conditions in determining the physical and ecological structure of the river environment.…”

Section: Comparison Of Reach-scale Habitat Indices Between Study Reachesmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Traditionally, river ecology and ecohydraulics work has focused on 'natural' or 'semi-natural' river reaches to explore form and process under physically and ecologically high-value 'reference' conditions (Brookes and Shields, 1996;Kondolf and Downs, 1996). Because of historical modifications, such work is biased towards upland river reaches where physical disturbance is less and these studies are therefore not geographically representative (Graf, 2001;Newson and Large, 2006;Harvey et al, 2008). Similarly, while contemporary flood risk studies integrate climatic, hydrological, hydraulic and socio-economic drivers (Evans et al, 2004a,b), environmental impacts of different management scenarios are often explored in a relatively broad sense, as part of more general sustainability assessments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Variations in diversity and spatial organization (patchiness) of such features can be used as an indication of habitat quality (Padmore, 1998). Furthermore, the two concepts are linked at relatively broad scales (Harper et al, 2000;Harvey et al, 2008), providing ecological validation for the geomorphologically-defined biotopes. Their attributes allow efficient, low-cost field surveys and offer a means of exploring habitat response to human disturbance (Kemp et al, 1999) and a focus for management efforts (Padmore, 1998;Dyer and Thoms, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the interactions between flood defence maintenance works and river habitats: the use of River Habitat Survey data

Harvey

Wallerstein

2009

Aquatic Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT1. More extensive physical management of rivers in response to increasing flood risk, and action to improve the ecological quality of rivers represent two major, and potentially conflicting, challenges.2. Improved understanding of the interactions between flood defence works and habitat structure must be achieved in order to satisfy both of these demands in the context of flood risk management and habitat improvement.3. This paper examines the 'extensive' and 'intensive' use of data derived from a standardized method of assessing habitat character to explore the effects of flood risk maintenance works on river habitat quality.4. Analysis of the UK River Habitat Survey (RHS) data set reveals some broad trends towards reduced habitat heterogeneity associated with recent flood defence works such as dredging and weed-cutting.5. These observations correspond with published localized experimental work and suggest that the RHS database can be a useful resource for identifying relationships at relatively broad scales.6. Applying the RHS methodology at finer spatial scales for sites experiencing continuing maintenance reveals contrasting results and highlights some key methodological issues; these include the availability and selection of high quality benchmark conditions, the legacy of past management, lag times associated with maintenance and recovery, and recording of marginal habitat features.7. Small modifications to the RHS method could enable calculation of more detailed habitat indices while maintaining comparability with the national dataset.8. If the issues identified in this paper can be addressed or accounted for, RHS could be an important tool for assessing the relationship between flood defence management and new statutory obligations for ecological improvement.

show abstract

Towards an ecologically meaningful classification of the flow biotope for river inventory, rehabilitation, design and appraisal purposes

Cited by 32 publications

References 24 publications

Benthic community structure and ecosystem functions in above- and below-waterfall pools in Borneo

Benthic community structure and ecosystem functions in above- and below-waterfall pools in Borneo

Benchmarking habitat quality: observations using River Habitat Survey on near‐natural streams and rivers in northern and western Europe

Exploring the interactions between flood defence maintenance works and river habitats: the use of River Habitat Survey data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About