100,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
Ecohydraulics: An Integrated Approachprovides a research level text which highlights recent developments of this emerging and expanding field. With a focus on interdisciplinary research the text examines:-
- the evolution and scope of ecohydraulics
- interactions between hydraulics, hydrology, fluvial geomorphology and aquatic ecology
- the application of habitat modelling in ecohydraulic studies
- state of the art methodological developments and approaches
- detailed case studies including fish passage design and the management of environmental flow regimes
- research needs and the future of ecohydraulics research
The contributions offer broad geographic coverage to encapsulate the wide range of approaches, case studies and methods used to conduct ecohydraulics research. The book considers a range of spatial and temporal scales of relevance and aquatic organisms ranging from algae and macrophytes to macroinvertebrates and fish. River management and restoration are also considered in detail, making this volume of direct relevance to those concerned with cutting edge research and its application for water resource management.
Aimed at academics and postgraduate researchers in departments of physical geography, earth sciences, environmental science, environmental management, civil engineering, biology, zoology, botany and ecology; Ecohydraulics: An Integrated Approach will be of direct relevance to academics, researchers and professionals working in environmental research organisations, national agencies and consultancies.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 1205
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013
Ähnliche
Contents
Cover
Dedication
Title Page
Copyright
List of Contributors
Chapter 1: Ecohydraulics: An Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 The emergence of ecohydraulics
1.3 Scope and organisation of this book
References
Part I: Methods and Approaches
Chapter 2: Incorporating Hydrodynamics into Ecohydraulics: The Role of Turbulence in the Swimming Performance and Habitat Selection of Stream-Dwelling Fish
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Turbulence: theory, structure and measurement
2.3 The role of turbulence in the swimming performance and habitat selection of river-dwelling fish
2.4 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
Chapter 3: Hydraulic Modelling Approaches for Ecohydraulic Studies: 3D, 2D, 1D and Non-Numerical Models
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Types of hydraulic modelling
3.3 Elements of numerical hydrodynamic modelling
3.4 3D modelling
3.5 2D models
3.6 1D models
3.7 River floodplain interaction
3.8 Non-numerical hydraulic modelling
3.9 Case studies
3.10 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
Chapter 4: The Habitat Modelling System CASiMiR: A Multivariate Fuzzy Approach and its Applications
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Theoretical basics of the habitat simulation tool CASiMiR
4.3 Comparison of habitat modelling using the multivariate fuzzy approach and univariate preference functions
4.4 Simulation of spawning habitats considering morphodynamic processes
4.5 Habitat modelling on meso- to basin-scale
4.6 Discussion and conclusions
References
Chapter 5: Data-Driven Fuzzy Habitat Models: Impact of Performance Criteria and Opportunities for Ecohydraulics
5.1 Challenges for species distribution models
5.2 Fuzzy modelling
5.3 Case study
References
Chapter 6: Applications of the MesoHABSIM Simulation Model
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Model summary
Acknowledgements
References
Chapter 7: The Role of Geomorphology and Hydrology in Determining Spatial-Scale Units for Ecohydraulics
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Continuum and dis-continuum views of stream networks
7.3 Evolution of the geomorphic scale hierarchy
7.4 Defining scale units
7.5 Advancing the scale hierarchy: future research priorities
References
Chapter 8: Developing Realistic Fish Passage Criteria: An Ecohydraulics Approach
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Developing fish passage criteria
8.3 Conclusions
8.4 Future challenges
References
Part II: Species–Habitat Interactions
Chapter 9: Habitat Use and Selection by Brown Trout in Streams
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Observation methods and bias
9.3 Habitat
9.4 Abiotic and biotic factors
9.5 Key hydraulic factors
9.6 Habitat selection
9.7 Temporal variability: light and flows
9.8 Energetic and biomass models
9.9 The hyporheic zone
9.10 Spatial and temporal complexity of redd microhabitat
9.11 Summary and ways forward
References
Chapter 10: Salmonid Habitats in Riverine Winter Conditions with Ice
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Ice processes in running waters
10.3 Salmonids in winter ice conditions
10.4 Summary and ways forward
References
Chapter 11: Stream Habitat Associations of the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii): The Importance of Habitat Heterogeneity
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Methods for quantifying stream habitat
11.3 Observed relationships between R. boylii and stream habitat
11.4 Discussion
References
Chapter 12: Testing the Relationship Between Surface Flow Types and Benthic Macroinvertebrates
12.1 Background
12.2 Ecohydraulic relationships between habitat and biota
12.3 Case study
12.4 Discussion
12.5 Wider implications
12.6 Conclusion
References
Chapter 13: The Impact of Altered Flow Regime on Periphyton
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Modified flow regimes
13.3 The impact of altered flow regime on periphyton
13.4 Case studies from Slovenia
13.5 Conclusions
References
Chapter 14: Ecohydraulics and Aquatic Macrophytes: Assessing the Relationship in River Floodplains
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Macrophytes
14.3 Life forms of macrophytes in running waters
14.4 Application of ecohydraulics for management: a case study on the Danube River and its floodplain
14.5 Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
Chapter 15: Multi-Scale Macrophyte Responses to Hydrodynamic Stress and Disturbances: Adaptive Strategies and Biodiversity Patterns
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Individual and patch-scale response to hydrodynamic stress and disturbances
15.3 Community responses to temporary peaks of flow and current velocity
15.4 Macrophyte abundance, biodiversity and succession
15.5 Conclusion
References
Part III: Management Application Case Studies
Chapter 16: Application of Real-Time Management for Environmental Flow Regimes
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Real-time management
16.3 The setting
16.4 The context and challenges with present water allocation strategies
16.5 The issues concerning the implementation of environmental flow regimes
16.6 Underlying science for environmental flows in the Klamath River
16.7 The Water Resource Integrated Modelling System for The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
16.8 The solution – real-time management
16.9 Example RTM implementation
16.10 RTM performance
16.11 Discussion
16.12 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
Chapter 17: Hydraulic Modelling of Floodplain Vegetation in Korea: Development and Applications
17.1 Introduction
17.2 Modelling of vegetated flows
17.3 Floodplain vegetation modelling: From white rivers to green rivers
17.4 Conclusions
References
Chapter 18: A Historical Perspective on Downstream Passage at Hydroelectric Plants in Swedish Rivers
18.1 Introduction
18.2 Historical review of downstream bypass problems in Sweden
18.3 Rehabilitating downstream passage in Swedish Rivers today
18.4 Concluding remarks
References
Chapter 19: Rapid Flow Fluctuations and Impacts on Fish and the Aquatic Ecosystem
19.1 Introduction
19.2 Rapid flow fluctuations
19.3 Methods to study rapid flow fluctuations and their impact
19.4 Results
19.5 Mitigation
19.6 Discussion and future work
Acknowledgements
References
Chapter 20: Ecohydraulic Design of Riffle-Pool Relief and Morphological Unit Geometry in Support of Regulated Gravel-Bed River Rehabilitation
20.1 Introduction
20.2 Experimental design
20.3 Results
20.4 Discussion and conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
Chapter 21: Ecohydraulics for River Management: Can Mesoscale Lotic Macroinvertebrate Data Inform Macroscale Ecosystem Assessment?
21.1 Introduction
21.2 Lotic macroinvertebrates in a management context
21.3 Patterns in lotic macroinvertebrate response to hydraulic variables
21.4 Linking ecohydraulics and lotic macroinvertebrate traits
21.5 Trait variation among lotic macroinvertebrates in LIFE flow groups
21.6 Upscaling from ecohydraulics to management
21.7 Conclusions
References
Chapter 22: Estuarine Wetland Ecohydraulics and Migratory Shorebird Habitat Restoration
22.1 Introduction
22.2 Area E of Kooragang Island
22.3 Ecohydraulic and ecogeomorphic characterisation
22.4 Modifying vegetation distribution by hydraulic manipulation
22.5 Discussion
22.6 Conclusions and recommendations
References
Chapter 23: Ecohydraulics at the Landscape Scale: Applying the Concept of Temporal Landscape Continuity in River Restoration Using Cyclic Floodplain Rejuvenation
23.1 Introduction
23.2 The inspiration: landscape dynamics of meandering rivers
23.3 The concept: temporal continuity and discontinuity of landscapes along regulated rivers
23.4 Application: floodplain restoration in a heavily regulated river
23.5 The strategy in regulated rivers: cyclic floodplain rejuvenation (CFR)
23.6 General conclusions
References
Chapter 24: Embodying Interactions Between Riparian Vegetation and Fluvial Hydraulic Processes Within a Dynamic Floodplain Model: Concepts and Applications
24.1 Introduction
24.2 Physical habitat and its effects on floodplain vegetation
24.3 Succession phases and their environmental context
24.4 Response of floodplain vegetation to fluvial processes
24.5 Linking fluvial processes and vegetation: the disturbance regime approach as the backbone for the dynamic model
24.6 Model applications
24.7 Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
Part IV: Conclusion
Chapter 25: Research Needs, Challenges and the Future of Ecohydraulics Research
25.1 Introduction
25.2 Research needs and future challenges
References
Index
By Ian Maddock: For Katherine, Ben, Joe and Alice.
By Atle Harby: Dedicated to Cathrine, Sigurd and Brage.
By Paul Kemp: Dedicated to Clare, Millie, Noah and Florence.
By PaulWood: For Maureen, Connor and Ryan.
This edition first published 2013 © 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Maddock, Ian (Ian Philip) Ecohydraulics : an integrated approach / Ian Maddock, Atle Harby, Paul Kemp, Paul Wood. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-470-97600-5 (cloth) 1. Ecohydrology. 2. Aquatic ecology. 3. Wetland ecology. 4. Fish habitat improvement. 5. Stream conservation. I. Harby, Atle, 1965– II. Kemp, Paul, 1972– III. Wood, Paul J. IV. Title. QH541.15.E19M33 2013 577.6–dc23 2013008534
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.
Cover image: Images supplied by Author Cover design by Dan Jubb
List of Contributors
Michael C. AcremanCentre for Ecology and Hydrology Maclean Building Benson Lane Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8BB UK
Donald J. BairdEnvironment Canada Canadian Rivers Institute Department of Biology 10 Bailey Drive P.O. Box 4400 University of New Brunswick Fredericton New Brunswick E3B 5A3 Canada
Rohan BenjankarCenter for Ecohydraulics Research University of Idaho 322 E. Front Street Boise ID 83702 USA
Melanie BickertonGeography, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT UK
Bernadette BlamauerChristian Doppler Laboratory for Advanced Methods in River Monitoring, Modelling and Engineering Institute of Water Management, Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna Muthgasse 107 1190 Vienna Austria
Gudrun BornetteUniversité Lyon 1 UMR 5023 Ecologie des hydrosystèmes naturels et anthropisés (Université Lyon 1; CNRS; ENTPE) 43 boulevard du 11 novembre 1918 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex France
Rocko A. BrownDepartment of Land, Air, and Water Resources University of California One Shields Avenue Davis CA 95616 USA
Anthonie D. BuijseDeltares P.O. Box 177 2600 MH Delft The Netherlands
Olle CallesDepartment of Biology Karlstad University S-651 88 Karlstad Sweden
Sung-Uk ChoiDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering Yonsei University 134 Shinchon-dong Seodaemun-gu Seoul Korea
Claudio ComoglioTurin Polytechnic Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24 c/o DITAG 10129 Torino Italy
Bernard De BaetsDepartment of Mathematical Modelling Statistics and Bioinformatics Ghent University Coupure links 653 9000 Gent Belgium
Harm DuelDeltares P.O. Box 177 2600 MH Delft The Netherlands
Lynda R. EakinsInternational Centre for Ecohydraulics Research University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ UK
Gregory EggerEnvironmental Consulting Ltd Bahnhofstrasse 39 9020 Klagenfurt Austria
Teresa FerreiraForest Research Centre Instituto Superior de Agronomia Technical University of Lisbon Tapada da Ajuda 1349-017 Lisbon Portugal
Virginia Garófano-GómezInstitut d'Investigació per a la Gestió Integrada de Zones Costaneres (IGIC) Universitat Politècnica de València C/ Paranimf, 1 46730 Grau de Gandia (València) Spain
Gertjan W. GeerlingDeltares P.O. Box 177 2600 MH Delft The Netherlands
Peter GoethalsAquatic Ecology Research Unit Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Biology Ghent University J. Plateaustraat 22 B-9000 Gent Belgium
Javier GortázarEcohidráulica S.L. Calle Rodríguez San Pedro 13 4°7 28015 Madrid Spain
Larry GreenbergDepartment of Biology Karlstad University S-651 88 Karlstad Sweden
Helmut HabersackChristian Doppler Laboratory for Advanced Methods in River Monitoring, Modelling and Engineering Institute of Water Management, Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna Muthgasse 107 1190 Vienna Austria
Atle HarbySINTEF Energy Research P.O. Box 4761 Sluppen 7465 Trondheim Norway
Thomas B. HardyThe Meadows Center for Water and Environment Texas State University 601 University Drive San Marcos Texas 78666 USA
Jan HeggenesTelemark University College Department of Environmental Sciences Hallvard Eikas Plass N-3800 Bø i Telemark Norway
Graham HillInstitute of Science and the Environment University of Worcester Henwick Grove Worcester WR2 6AJ UK
Alice HoweSchool of Engineering The University of Newcastle Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia
Ari HuuskoFinnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute Manamansalontie 90 88300 Paltamo Finland
Georg A. JanauerDepartment of Limnology University of Vienna Althanstrasse 14 A-1090 Vienna Austria
Klaus JordeKJ Consulting/SJE Schneider & Jorde Ecological Engineering Gnesau 11 A-9563 Gnesau Austria
Paul KempInternational Centre for Ecohydraulics Research University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ UK
James R. KerrInternational Centre for Ecohydraulics Research University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ UK
Aleksandra Krivograd KlemenčičUniversity of Ljubljana Faculty of Health Sciences Department of Sanitary Engineering SI-1000 Ljubljana Slovenia
Ian MaddockInstitute of Science and the Environment University of Worcester Henwick Grove Worcester WR2 6AJ UK
Wendy A. MonkEnvironment Canada Canadian Rivers Institute Department of Biology 10 Bailey Drive P.O. Box 4400 University of New Brunswick Fredericton New Brunswick E3B 5A3 Canada
Ans MoutonResearch Institute for Nature and Forest Department of Management and Sustainable Use Ghent University Kliniekstraat 25 B-1070 Brussels Belgium
Markus NoackFederal Institute of Hydrology Department M3 – Groundwater, Geology, River Morphology Mainzer Tor 1 D-56068 Koblenz Germany
Jessica M. OrlofskeCanadian Rivers Institute Department of Biology 10 Bailey Drive P.O. Box 4400 University of New Brunswick Fredericton New Brunswick E3B 5A3 Canada
Piotr ParasiewiczRushing Rivers Institute 592 Main Street Amherst MA 01002 USA; The Stanisław Sakowicz Inland Fisheries Institute ul. Oczapowskiego 10 10-719 Olsztyn 4 Poland
Gregory B. PasternackDepartment of Land, Air, and Water Resources University of California One Shields Avenue Davis CA 95616 USA
Mark PeggUniversity of Nebraska 402 Hardin Hall Lincoln NE 68583-0974 USA
Adam T. PiperInternational Centre for Ecohydraulics Research University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ UK
Emilio PolittiEnvironmental Consulting Ltd Bahnhofstrasse 39 9020 Klagenfurt Austria
Sara PuijalonUniversité Lyon 1 UMR 5023 Ecologie des hydrosystèmes naturels et anthropisés (Université Lyon 1; CNRS; ENTPE) 43 boulevard du 11 novembre 1918 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex France
Walter ReckendorferWasserCluster Lunz – Biologische Station GmbH Dr Carl Kupelwieser Promenade 5 A-3293 Lunz am See Austria
Rui RivaesForest Research Centre Instituto Superior de Agronomia Technical University of Lisbon Tapada da Ajuda 1349-017 Lisbon Portugal
Peter RivinojaDepartment of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) Umeå 901 83 Sweden
José F. RodríguezSchool of Engineering The University of Newcastle Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia
Joseph N. RogersRushing Rivers Institute 592 Main Street Amherst MA 01002 USA
Udo Schmidt-MummDepartment of Limnology University of Vienna Althanstrasse 14 A-1090 Vienna Austria
Matthias SchneiderSchneider & Jorde Ecological Engineering GmbH Viereichenweg 12 D-70569 Stuttgart Germany
Thomas SeagerRushing Rivers Institute 592 Main Street Amherst MA 01002 USA
Thomas A. ShawU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata California 95521 USA
Antonius J.M. SmitsDSMR Radboud University P.O. Box 9010 6500 GL Nijmegen The Netherlands
Nataša Smolar-ŽvanutInstitute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia Hajdrihova 28c SI-1000 Ljubljana Slovenia
Michael StewardsonDepartment of Infrastructure Engineering Melbourne School of Engineering The University of Melbourne Melbourne 3010 Australia
Morten SticklerStatkraft AS Lilleakerveien 6 0216 Oslo Norway
Daniele ToninaCenter for Ecohydraulics Research University of Idaho 322 E Front Street Suite 340 Boise ID 83702 USA
Teppo VehanenFinnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute Paavo Havaksen tie 3 90014 Oulun yliopisto Finland
Paolo VezzaTurin Polytechnic Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24 c/o DITAG 10129 Torino Italy
Fleur VisserInstitute of Science and the Environment University of Worcester Henwick Grove Worcester WR2 6AJ UK
Andrew S. VowlesInternational Centre for Ecohydraulics Research University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ UK
Silke WieprechtInstitute for Modelling Hydraulic and Environmental Systems Department of Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources Management University of Stuttgart Pfaffenwaldring 61 D-70569 Stuttgart Germany
Martin A. WilkesInstitute of Science and the Environment University of Worcester Henwick Grove Worcester WR2 6AJ UK
Wiesław WiśniewolskiThe Stanisław Sakowicz Inland Fisheries Institute ul. Oczapowskiego 10 10-719 Olsztyn 4 Poland
Jens WollebækThe Norwegian School of Veterinary Science Department of Basic Sciences and Aquatic Medicine Box 8146 Dep. 0033 Oslo Norway
Hyoseop WooKorea Institute of Construction Technology 2311 Daehwa-dong Illsanseo-gu Goyang-si Gyeonggi-do Korea
Paul WoodDepartment of Geography Loughborough University Leicestershire LE11 3TU UK
Sarah YarnellCenter for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue Davis CA 95616 USA
Elisa ZavadilAlluvium Consulting Australia 21–23 Stewart Street Richmond Victoria 3121 Australia
1
Ecohydraulics: An Introduction
Ian Maddock1, Atle Harby2, Paul Kemp3 and Paul Wood4
1Institute of Science and the Environment, University of Worcester, Henwick Grove, Worcester, WR2 6AJ, UK
2SINTEF Energy Research, P.O. Box 4761 Sluppen, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
3International Centre for Ecohydraulics Research, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
4Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK
1.1 Introduction
It is well established that aquatic ecosystems (streams, rivers, estuaries, lakes, wetlands and marine environments) are structured by the interaction of physical, biological and chemical processes at multiple spatial and temporal scales (Frothingham et al., 2002; Thoms and Parsons, 2002; Dauwalter et al., 2007). The need for interdisciplinary research and collaborative teams to address research questions that span traditional subject boundaries to address these issues has been increasingly recognised (Dollar et al., 2007) and has resulted in the emergence of new ‘sub-disciplines’ to tackle these questions (Hannah et al., 2007). Ecohydraulics is one of these emerging fields of research that has drawn together biologists, ecologists, fluvial geomorphologists, sedimentologists, hydrologists, hydraulic and river engineers and water resource managers to address fundamental research questions that will advance science and key management issues to sustain both natural ecosystems and the demands placed on them by contemporary society.
Lotic environments are naturally dynamic, characterised by variable discharge, hydraulic patterns, sediment and nutrient loads and thermal regimes that may change temporally (from seconds to yearly variations) and spatially (from sub-cm within habitat patches to hundreds of km2 at the drainage basin scale). This complexity produces a variety of geomorphological features and habitats that sustain the diverse ecological communities recorded in fresh, saline and marine waters. Aquatic organisms, ranging from micro-algae and macrophytes to macroinvertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, have evolved adaptations to persist and thrive in hydraulically dynamic environments (Lytle and Poff, 2004; Townsend, 2006; Folkard and Gascoigne, 2009; Nikora, 2010). However, anthropogenic impacts on aquatic systems have been widespread and probably most marked on riverine systems. A report by the World Commission on Dams (2000) and a recent review by Kingsford (2011) suggested that modification of the river flow regime as a result of regulation by creating barriers, impoundment and overabstraction, the spread of invasive species, overharvesting and the effects of water pollution were the main threats to the world's rivers and wetlands and these effects could be compounded by future climate change.
The impacts of dam construction, river regulation and channelisation have significantly reduced the natural variability of the flow regime and channel morphology. This results in degradation, fragmentation and loss of habitat structure and availability, with subsequent reductions in aquatic biodiversity (Vörösmarty et al., 2010). Recognition of the long history, widespread and varied extent of human impacts on river systems, coupled with an increase in environmental awareness has led to the development of a range of approaches to minimise and mitigate their impacts. These include river restoration and rehabilitation techniques to restore a more natural channel morphology (e.g. Brookes and Shields Jr, 1996; de Waal et al., 1998; Darby and Sear, 2008), methods to define ways to reduce or mitigate the impact of abstractions and river regulation through the definition and application of instream or environmental flows (Dyson et al., 2003; Acreman and Dunbar, 2004; Annear et al., 2004; Acreman et al., 2008), and the design of screens and fish passes to divert aquatic biota from hazardous areas (e.g. abstraction points) and to enable them to migrate past physical barriers, especially, but not solely associated with dams (Kemp, 2012).
Key legislative drivers have been introduced to compel regulatory authorities and agencies to manage and mitigate historic and contemporary anthropogenic impacts and, where appropriate, undertake restoration measures. The EU Water Framework Directive (Council of the European Communities, 2000) requires the achievement of ‘good ecological status’ in all water bodies across EU member states by 2015 (European Commission, 2012). This, in turn, has required the development of methods and techniques to assess the current status of chemical and biological water quality (Achleitner et al., 2005), hydromorphology and flow regime variability, and identify ways of mitigating impacts and restoring river channels and flow regimes where they are an impediment to the improvement of river health (Acreman and Ferguson, 2010). Similar developments have occurred in North America with the release of the United States Environmental Protection Agency guidelines (US EPA, 2006). In Australia, provision of water for environmental flows has been driven by a combination of national policy agreements including the National Water Initiative in 2004, national and state level legislation and government-funded initiatives to buy back water entitlements from water users including the ‘Water for the Future’ programme (Le Quesne et al., 2010). Important lessons can be learned from South Africa, where implementation of the National Water Act of 1998 is recognised as one of the most ambitious pieces of water legislation to protect domestic human needs and environmental flows on an equal footing ahead of economic uses. However, Pollard and du Toit (2008) suggest that overly complicated environmental flow recommendations have inhibited their implementation. This provides a key message for ecohydraulic studies aimed at providing environmental flow or indeed other types of river management recommendations (e.g., river restoration) worldwide.
1.2 The emergence of ecohydraulics
During the 1970s and 1980s it was common for multidisciplinary teams of researchers and consultants to undertake pure and/or applied river science projects and to present results collected as part of the same study independently to stakeholders and regulatory/management authorities, each from the perspective of their own disciplinary background. More recently, there has been a shift towards greater interdisciplinarity, with teams of scientists, engineers, water resource and river managers and social scientists working together in collaborative teams towards clearly defined common goals (Porter and Rafols, 2009). Developments in river science reflect this overall pattern, with the emergence of ecohydrology at the interface of hydrology and ecology (Dunbar and Acreman, 2001; Hannah et al., 2004; Wood et al., 2007) and hydromorphology, which reflects the interaction of the channel morphology and flow regime (hydrology and hydraulics) in creating ‘physical habitat’ (Maddock, 1999; Orr et al., 2008; Vaughan et al., 2009).
Like ‘ecohydrology’, ‘ecohydraulics’ has also developed at the permeable interface of traditional disciplines, combining the study of the hydraulic properties and processes associated with moving water typical of hydraulic engineering and geomorphology and their influence on aquatic ecology and biology (Vogel, 1996; Nestler et al., 2007). Ecohydraulics has been described as a sub-discipline of ecohydrology (Wood et al., 2007) although it has become increasingly distinct in recent years (Rice et al., 2010). Hydraulic engineers have been engaged with design criteria for fish passage and screening facilities at dams for many years. Recognition of the need to solve river management problems like these by adopting an interdisciplinary approach has been the driver for the development of ecohydraulics. Interdisciplinary research that incorporates the expertise of hydrologists, fluvial geomorphologists, engineers, biologists and ecologists has begun to facilitate the integration of the collective expertise to provide holistic management solutions. Ecohydraulics has played a critical role in the development of methods to assess and define environmental flows (Statzner et al., 1988). Although pre-dating the use of the term ‘ecohydraulics’, early approaches, such as the Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) in the 1980s and 1990s, were widely applied (Gore et al., 2001) but often criticised due to an over-reliance on simple hydraulic models and a lack of ecological relevance because of the way that habitat suitability was defined and calculated (Lancaster and Downes, 2010; Shenton et al., 2012). State-of-the-art developments associated with ecohydraulics are attempting to address these specific gaps between physical scientists (hydraulic engineers, hydrologists and fluvial geomorphologists) and biological scientists (e.g. aquatic biologists and ecologists) by integrating hydraulic and biological tools to analyse and predict ecological responses to hydrological and hydraulic variability and change (Lamouroux et al. in press). These developments intend to support water resource management and the decision-making process by providing ecologically relevant and environmentally sustainable solutions to issues associated with hydropower operations, river restoration and the delineation of environmental flows (Acreman and Ferguson, 2010).
The growing worldwide interest in ecohydraulics can be demonstrated by increasing participation in the international symposia on the subject. The first symposium (then titled the 1st International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics) was organised in 1994 in Trondheim, Norway by the Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research (SINTEF), the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) and the Norwegian Institute of Nature Research (NINA) with about 50 speakers and 70 delegates. Subsequent symposia in Quebec City (Canada, 1996), Salt Lake City (USA, 1999), Cape Town (South Africa, 2002), Madrid (Spain, 2004), Christchurch (New Zealand, 2007), Concepción (Chile, 2009), Seoul (South Korea, 2010) and most recently in Vienna (Austria, 2012) have taken the scientific community across the globe, typically leading to more than 200 speakers and approximately 300 delegates at each meeting.
A recent bibliographic survey by Rice et al. (2010) indicated that between 1997 and the end of 2009 a total of 146 publications had used the term ‘ecohydraulic’ or a close variant (eco hydraulic, ecohydraulics or eco-hydraulics) in the title, abstract or keywords (ISI Web of Knowledge, http://wok.mimas.ac.uk/). This meta-analysis indicated greater use of the term ‘ecohydraulics’ amongst water resources and engineering journals (48%) and geoscience journals (31%) compared to a more limited use in (21%) biological or ecological journals. By the end of 2011 this figure had risen to 211 publications, with 65 papers being published between 2010 and the end of 2011 (Figure 1.1). This suggests a significant increase in the use of the terms more recently, and strongly mirrors the rapid rise in the use of the term ‘ecohydrology’, which has been used in the title, abstract or as a keyword 635 times since 1997 (186 between 2010 and 2011). However, bibliographic analysis of this nature only identifies those publications that have specifically used one of the terms and there is an extensive unquantified literature centred on ecohydraulics and ecohydrology that has not specifically used these terms.
Figure 1.1 Number of peer-reviewed articles using the terms (a) ecohydraulic(s), eco-hydraulic(s) or eco hydraulic(s) and (b) ecohydrology, eco-hydrology or eco hydrology 1997–2012 as listed on Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Knowledge (http://wok.mimas.ac.uk/). Note: WoK data for 2012 compiled on 22/11/2012.
Porter and Rafols (2009) suggested that interdisciplinary developments in science have been greatest between closely allied disciplines and less well developed and slower for fields with a greater distance between them. This appears to be the case when comparing developments in ecohydrology and ecohydraulics. Ecohydrology has increasingly been embraced by an interdisciplinary audience and even witnessed the launch of a dedicated journal, Ecohydrology, in 2008 (Smettem, 2008), drawing contributions from across physical, biological and social sciences as well as engineering and water resources management. In contrast, publications explicitly referring to ‘ecohydraulics’ predominately appeared in water resources, geosciences and engineering journals and the affiliation of the primary authors remains firmly within engineering and geosciences departments and research institutes. However, the greatest number of papers has appeared in the interdisciplinary journal River Research and Applications (17 papers since 2003). This figure includes five out of ten papers within a special issue devoted to ecohydraulics in 2010 (Rice et al., 2010) and two out of nine papers within a special issue devoted to ‘Fish passage: an ecohydraulics approach’ in 2012 (Kemp, 2012), and clearly demonstrates that many authors do not routinely use the term ‘ecohydraulics’. Biologists have been investigating organism responses to their abiotic environments, including the role of fluid dynamics on aquatic communities, for decades and well before the term ‘ecohydraulics’ was coined. For example, from an environmental flow perspective, biological scientists have been involved with determining the relationship between fish (and other biota) and hydraulics since at least the 1970s (e.g. Bovee and Cochnauer, 1978). What this bibliographic analysis highlights is that geoscientists and engineers have more readily adopted the terms than colleagues in biology and ecology.
The dominance of physical scientists and engineers within some studies, many of them using modelling approaches, has been highlighted as a potential weakness of some research. It is argued they rely on faulty assumptions and lack any ecological or biological reality due to inadequate consideration of biological interactions between organisms (inter- or intra-specific), or natural population dynamics (Lancaster and Downes, 2010; Shenton et al., 2012). However, these criticisms have been contested and there is growing evidence that interdisciplinarity is being embraced more widely (Lamouroux et al., 2010; Lamouroux et al., Lamouroux et al., in press). This issue is discussed further in the concluding chapter of this volume.
1.3 Scope and organisation of this book
The aim of this research-level edited volume is to provide the first major text to focus on ecohydraulics. It is comprised of chapters reflecting the range and scope of research being undertaken in this arena (spanning engineering, geosciences, water resources, biology, ecology and interdisciplinary collaborations). Individual chapter authors have provided overviews of cutting-edge research and reviews of the current state of the art in ecohydraulics. In particular, authors have been encouraged to demonstrate how their work has been informed by and is influencing the on-going development of ecohydraulics research. The contributions use case study examples from across the globe, highlighting key methodological developments and demonstrating the real-world application of ecohydraulic theory and practice in relation to a variety of organisms ranging from riparian vegetation and instream algae, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish to birds and amphibians. The chapters reflect a spectrum of research being undertaken within this rapidly developing field and examine the interactions between hydraulics, hydrology, fluvial geomorphology and aquatic ecology on a range of spatial (individual organism in a habitat patch to catchment) and temporal scales.
The book is structured into four parts: Part One considers the range and type of methods and approaches used in ecohydraulics research, with a particular focus on aquatic habitat modelling; Part Two considers a range of species–habitat relationships in riverine and riparian habitats; Part Three consists of detailed ecohydraulics case studies that have a clear management application, mostly, but not exclusively, relating to environmental flow determination, fish passage design, river channel and habitat restoration and ecosystem assessment. The final chapter (Part Four) aims to draw together the work contained in the book to outline key research themes and challenges in ecohydraulics and discuss future goals and directions. A number of chapters involve methods, species–habitat relationships and case studies and therefore could have been located in more than one part of the book. The final decision regarding which part to place them in was in some cases clear-cut and in others fairly arbitrary.
We realise that the coverage provided in this volume is not complete and are conscious that the chapters are almost exclusively centred on freshwater, riverine ecosystems. Indeed there has been a considerable volume of research centred on marine (e.g. Volkenborn et al., 2010), estuarine (e.g. Yang et al., 2012) and lentic (lake) ecosystems (e.g. Righetti and Lucarelli, 2010), where equally challenging and exciting ecohydraulic research questions are being addressed. Their exclusion is driven by a desire to keep this book within a manageable size and scope rather than a view that these other parts of the natural environment are somehow less important than riverine ecosystems.
Research currently being undertaken in the arena of ecohydraulics is developing rapidly and is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, drawing on a range of academic and practitioner traditions and addressing real-world problems. As this interdisciplinary science matures there is a growing demand from river managers and end users to be involved not just at the inception and conclusion, but throughout the studies to enhance the possibility that any management recommendations can be implemented successfully. The occurrence of this would signal a move from interdisciplinarity (between traditional disciplines) to ‘transdisciplinarity’ (that also engages with managers and end users during the research). The editors hope that the realisation of this development will be one mark of this book's success.
References
Achleitner, S., de Toffol, S., Engelhard, C. and Rauch, W. (2005) The European Water Framework Directive: water quality classification and implications to engineering planning. Environmental Management, 35: 517–525.
Acreman, M. and Dunbar, M.J. (2004) Defining environmental flow requirements – a review. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 8: 861–876.
Acreman, M., Dunbar, M., Hannaford, J., Mountfield, O., Wood, P., Holmes, N., Cowx, I., Noble, R., King, J., Black, A., Extence, C., Aldrick, J., Kink, J., Black, A. and Crookall, D. (2008) Developing environmental standards for abstractions from UK rivers to implement the EU Water Framework Directive. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53: 1105–1120.
Acreman, M. and Ferguson, A.J.D. (2010) Environmental flows and the European Water Framework Directive. Freshwater Biology, 55: 32–48.
Annear, T., Chisholm, I., Beecher, H., Locke, A. et al. (2004) Instream Flows for Riverine Resource Stewardship, (revised edition). Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne, WY.
Bovee, K.D. and Cochnauer, T. (1978) Development and evaluation of weighted criteria, probability-of-use curves for instream flow assessment: fisheries. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 3. Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group, Western Energy and Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior.
Brookes, A. and Shields Jr., F.D. (eds) (1996) River Channel Restoration: Guiding Principles for Sustainable Projects, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK.
Council of the European Communities (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, L327: 1–73.
Darby, S. and Sear, D. (eds) (2008) River Restoration: Managing the Uncertainty in Restoring Physical Habitat, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK.
Dauwalter, D.C., Splinter, D.K., Fisher, W.L. and Marston, R.A. (2007) Geomorphology and stream habitat relationships with smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) abundance at multiple spatial scales in eastern Oklahoma. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 64: 1116–1129.
de Waal, L.C., Large, A.R.G. and Wade, P.M. (eds) (1998) Rehabilitation of Rivers: Principles and Implementation, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK.
Dollar, E.S.J., James, C.S., Rogers, K.H. and Thoms, M.C. (2007) A framework for interdisciplinary understanding of rivers as ecosystems. Geomorphology, 89: 147–162.
Dunbar, M.J. and Acreman, M. (2001) Applied hydro-ecological science for the twenty-first century. In Acreman, M. (ed.) Hydro-Ecology: Linking Hydrology and Aquatic Ecology. IAHS Publication no. 288. pp. 1–17.
Dyson, M., Bergkamp, G. and Scanlon, J. (eds) (2003) Flow: The Essentials of Environmental Flows. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
European Commission (2012) The EU Water Framework Directive: integrated river basin management for Europe. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html [Date accessed: 20/7/12].
Folkard, A.M. and Gascoigne, J.C. (2009) Hydrodynamics of discontinuous mussel beds: Laboratory flume simulations. Journal of Sea Research, 62: 250–257.
Frothingham, K.M., Rhoads, B.L. and Herricks, E.E. (2002) A multiple conceptual framework for integrated ecogeomorphological research to support stream naturalisation in the agricultural Midwest. Environmental Management, 29: 16–33.
Gore, J.A., Layzer, J.B. and Mead, J. (2001) Macroinvertebrate instream flow studies after 20 years: A role in stream management and restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 17: 527–542.
Hannah, D.M., Wood, P.J. and Sadler, J.P. (2004) Ecohydrology and hydroecology: a new paradigm. Hydrological Processes, 18: 3439–3445.
Hannah, D.M., Sadler, J.P. and Wood, P.J. (2007) Hydroecology and ecohydrology: a potential route forward? Hydrological Processes, 21: 3385–3390.
Kemp, P. (2012) Bridging the gap between fish behaviour, performance and hydrodynamics: an ecohydraulics approach to fish passage research. River Research and Applications, 28: 403–406.
Kingsford, R.T. (2011) Conservation management of rivers and wetlands under climate change – a synthesis. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62: 217–222.
Lamouroux, N., Merigoux, S., Capra, H., Doledec, S., Jowette, I.G. and Statzner, B. (2010) The generality of abundance–environment relationships in micro-habitats: a comment on Lancaster and Downes (2009). River Research and Applications, 26: 915–920.
Lamouroux, N., Merigoux, S., Doledec, S. and Snelder, T.H. (in press) Transferability of hydraulic preference models for aquatic macroinvertebrates. River Research and Applications, DOI: 10.1002/rra.2578.
Lancaster, J. and Downes, B.J. (2010) Linking the hydraulic world of individual organisms to ecological processes: putting ecology into ecohydraulics. River Research and Applications, 26: 385–403.
Le Quesne, T., Kendy, E. and Weston, D. (2010) The Implementation Challenge: taking stock of government policies to protect and restore environmental flows. The Nature Conservancy, World Wide fund for Nature Report, 2010. Available at: http://19assets.dev.wwf.org.uk/downloads/global_flows.pdf [Date accessed: 19/10/12].
Lytle, D.A. and Poff, N.L. (2004) Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19: 94–100.
Maddock, I. (1999) The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology, 41: 373–391.
Nestler, J.M., Goodwin, R.A., Smith, D.L. and Anderson, J.J. (2007) A mathematical and conceptual framework for ecohydraulics. In Wood, P.J., Hannah, D.M. and Sadler, J.P. (eds) Hydroecology and Ecohydrology: Past, Present and Future, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp. 205–224.
Nikora, V. (2010) Hydrodynamics of aquatic ecosystems: An interface between ecology, biomechanics and environmental fluid mechanics. River Research and Applications, 26: 367–384.
Orr, H.G., Large, A.R.G., Newson, M.D. and Walsh, C.L. (2008) A predictive typology for characterising hydromorphology. Geomorphology, 100: 32–40.
Pollard, S. and du Toit, D. (2008) Integrated water resource management in complex systems: how the catchment management strategies seek to achieve sustainability and equity in water resources in South Africa. Water SA 34 (IWRM Special Edition): 671–679. Available at: http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/wsa/v34n6/a03v34n6.pdf [Date accessed: 19/10/12].
Porter, A.L. and Rafols, I. (2009) Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81: 719–745.
Rice, S.P., Little, S., Wood, P.J., Moir, H.J. and Vericat, D. (2010) The relative contributions of ecology and hydraulics to ecohydraulics. River Research and Applications, 26: 1–4.
Righetti, M. and Lucarelli, C. (2010) Resuspension phenomena of benthic sediments: the role of cohesion and biological adhesion. River Research and Applications, 26: 404–413.
Shenton, W., Bond, N.R., Yen, J.D.L. and MacNally, R. (2012) Putting the “Ecology” into environmental flows: ecological dynamics and demographic modelling. Environmental Management, 50: 1–10.
Smettem, K.R.J. (2008) Editorial: Welcome address for the new ‘Ecohydrology’ Journal. Ecohydrology, 1: 1–2.
Statzner, B., Gore, J.A. and Resh, J.V. (1988) Hydraulic stream ecology – observed patterns and potential applications. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 7: 307–360.
Thoms, M.C. and Parsons, M. (2002) Eco-geomorphology: an interdisciplinary approach to river science. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M. (eds) The Structure, Function and Management Implications of Fluvial Sedimentary Systems (Proceedings of an international symposium held at Alice Springs, Australia, September 2002) International Association of Hydrological Sciences,276: 113–119.
Townsend, S.A. (2006) Hydraulic phases, persistent stratification, and phytoplankton in a tropical floodplain lake (Mary River, northern Australia). Hydrobiologia, 556: 163–179.
USEPA (2006) Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/upload/2006irg-report.pdf
Vaughan, I.P., Diamond, M., Gurnell, A.M., Hall, K.A., Jenkins, A., Milner, N.J., Naylor, L.A., Sear, D.A., Woodward, G. and Ormerod, S.J. (2009) Integrating ecology with hydromorphology: a priority for river science and management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19: 113–125.
Vogel, S. (1996) Life in moving fluids: the physical biology of flow. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Volkenborn, N., Polerecky, L., Wethey, D.S. and Woodin. S.A. (2010) Oscillatory porewater bioadvection in marine sediments induced by hydraulic activities of Arenicola marina. Limnology and Oceanography, 55: 1231–1247.
Vörösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S.E., Sullivan, C.A., Reidy Liermann, C. and Davies, P.M. (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467: 555–561.
Wood, P.J., Hannah, D.M. and Sadler, J.P. (eds) (2007) Hydroecology and Ecohydrology: An Introduction. In Wood, P.J., Hannah, D.M. and Sadler, J.P. (eds) Hydroecology and Ecohydrology: Past, Present and Future, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp. 1–6.
World Commission on Dams (2000) Dams and Development: a new framework for decision-making. The report of the World Commission on Dams. Earthscan.
Yang, Z., Wang, T., Khangaonkar, T. and Breithaupt, S. (2012) Integrated modelling of flood flows and tidal hydrodynamics over a coastal floodplain. Environmental Fluid Mechanics, 12: 63–80.
I Methods and Approaches
