Advertisement

Advancing science for water resources management

  • G. E. Petts
  • J. Nestler
  • R. Kennedy
Chapter
  • 856 Downloads
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 187)

Abstract

Despite the major advances in science to underpin water resources and river management that have taken place over the past two decades, a need remains to establish a unifying framework that will lead to new, appropriate tools for water resources management. In Europe, this need has been highlighted by the promotion of the Water Framework Directive. From a scientific perspective, key questions focus on the ecological significance of flow variability over a range of timescales and the linkage between flow variability, habitat variability and biological population responses, and the biological interactions among these populations. Creation of scientifically sound tools requires development of knowledge at the level of first principles to realize sustainable developments within the context of adaptive management. Similitude analyses provide a mechanism for upscaling from fine ‘research’ scales to the coarser scales of water resource managers. Lack of appropriate data is the major obstacle to the development of these tools, especially those concerned with large rivers.

Key words

flow variability integrated physical-biological models long-term datasets science-based management water resources 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amon, R. M. W., G. Budeus & B. Meon, 2003. Dissolved organic carbon distribution and origin in the Nordic Seas: exchanges with the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic. Journal of Geophysical Research 108/27: 1–17.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, E., C. Nilsson & M.E. Johansson, 2000. Effects of river fragmentation on plant dispersal and riparian flora. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 16: 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, A., 2001. Fluorescence excitation-emission matrix characterisation of some sewage impacted rivers. Environmental Science and Technology 35: 948–953.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, A., 2002. Fluorescence properties of some farm wastes: implications for water quality monitoring. Water Research 36: 189–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boon, P. J., B. R. Davies & G. E. Petts, (eds), 2000. Global Perspectives on River Conservation. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  6. Cattanéo, F., N. Lamouroux, P. Breil & H. Capra, 2002. The influence of hydrological and biotic processes on brown trout (Salmo trutta) population dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capra, H., C. Sabaton, V. Gournaud, Y. Souchon & P. Lim, 2003. A population dynamics model and habitat simulation as a tool to predict brown trout demography in natural and bypassed stream reaches. River Research and Applications 19: 551–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cioffi, F. & F. Gallerano, 2003. A 2D self-adaptive hydrodynamic scheme for the assessment of the effects of structures on flooding phenomena in river basins. River Research and Applications 19: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Church, M., 2002. Geomorphic thresholds in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47: 541–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, M. J., 2002. Dealing with uncertainty: adaptive approaches to sustainable river management. Aquatic Conservation 12: 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cosgrove, D. & G. E. Petts (eds), 1990. Water, Engineering and Landscape. Belhaven Press, London.Google Scholar
  12. Environment Agency, 2001. Our Vision: Making It Happen. Environment Agency, Bristol.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, H., A. Sukhodolov, S. Wilczek & C. Engelhardt, 2003. Effects of flow dynamics and sediment movement on microbial activity in a lowland river. River Research and Applications 19: 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geerling, G. W., A. M. J. Ragas, R. S. E. W. Leuven, J. H. van den Berg, M. Breedveld, D. Liefhebber & A. J. M. Smits, 2006. Succession and rejuvenation in floodplains along the river Allier (France). Hydrobiologia 565: 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodson, J. M., A. M. Gurnell, P. G. Angold & I. P. Morrissey, 2002. Riparian seed banks along the lower River Dove, UK: their structure and ecological implications. Geomorphology 47: 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gouraud, V., J. L. Baglinière, P. Baran, C. Sabaton, P. Lim & D. Ombredane, 2001. Factors regulating brown trout populations in two French rivers: application of a dynamic population model. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17: 557–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gurnell, A. M. & G. E. Petts, 2002. Island-dominated landscapes of large floodplain rivers, a European perspective. Freshwater Biology 47: 581–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Irvine, K., 2004. Classifying ecological status under the European Water Framework Directive: the need for monitoring to account for natural variability. Aquatic Conservation 14: 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley & R. E. Sparks, 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. In Dodge D. P. (ed.), Proceedings International Large River Symposium. Canadian Special Publication Fisheries Aquatic Sciences 106: 110–127.Google Scholar
  20. Latterell, J. J., K. D. Fausch, C. Gowan & S. C. Riley, 1998. Relationship of trout recruitment to snowmelt runoff flows and adult trout abundance in six Colorado Mountain streams. Rivers 6: 240–250.Google Scholar
  21. Leuven, R. S. E. W., A. J. M. Smits & P. H. Nienhuis, 2000. From integrated approaches to sustainable river basin management. In Smits, A. J. M., P. H. Nienhuis & R. S. E. W. Leuven (eds), New Approaches to River Management. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden: 329–347.Google Scholar
  22. Logan, P. & M. Furse, 2002. Preparing for the European Water Framework Directive-making the links between habitat and aquatic biota. Aquatic Conservation 12: 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J.P. Grime, A. Hector, D. U. Hooper, M. A. Huston, D. Raffaelli, B. Schmid, D. Tilman & D. A. Wardle, 2001. Ecology-biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294: 804–808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milner, A. M., J. E. Brittain & G. E. Petts, 2001. Trends of macroinvertebrate community structure in glacier-fed rivers in relation to environmental conditions: a synthesis. Freshwater Biology 46: 1833–1848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Naiman, R. J., S. E. Bunn, C. Nilsson, G. E. Petts, G. Pinay & L. Thompson, 2002. Legitimizing fluvial ecosystems as users of water: an overview. Environmental Management 30: 455–467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nienhuis, P. H. & R. S. E. W. Leuven, 2001. River restoration and flood protection: controversy or synergism. Hydrobiologia 444: 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pasternack, G. B., C. L. Wang & J. E. Merz, 2004. Application of a 2D hydrodynamic model to design of reseach-scale spawning gravel replenishment on the Mokelumne River, California. River Research and Applications 20: 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petts, G. E., 1987. Timescales for ecological change in regulated rivers. In Craig, J. & J. B. Kemper (eds), Regulated Streams: Advances in Ecology. Plenum, New York, 257–266.Google Scholar
  29. Petts, G. E., 1996. Water allocation to protect river ecosystems. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12: 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petts, G. E., 2000. A perspective on the abiotic processes sustaining the ecological integrity of running waters. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 15–27.Google Scholar
  31. Petts, G. E., M. A. Bickerton, C. Crawford, D. N. Lerner & D. Evans, 1999. Flow management to sustain groundwater-dominated stream ecosystems. Hydrological Processes 13: 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petts, G. E. & A. M. Gurnell, 2005. Dams and geomorphology: research progress and future directions. Geomorphology 71: 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petts, J. I., S. Owens & H. Bulkeley, 2005. Summary of discussions and recommendations. ESRC Transdisciplinary Seminar Series: knowledge and power, exploring the science/ society interface in the urban environment context. http://www.cert.bham.ac.uk/urbanenvironments/index.htm.
  34. Poff, N. L. & J. V. Ward, 1989. Implication of streamflow variability and predictability for lotic community structure: a regional analysis of streamflow patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1805–1818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. A. Palmer, D. D. Hart, B. D. Richter, A. H. Arthington, K. H. Rogers, J. L. Meyer & J. A. Stanford, 2003. River flows and water wars? Emerging science for environmental decision-making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 298–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. Richter, R. Sparks & J. Stromberg, 1997. The natural flow regime: a new paradigm for riverine conservation and restoration. BioScience 47: 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Poff, N. L. & J. V. Ward, 1990. The physical habitat template of lotic systems: recovery in the context of historical pattern of spatio-temporal heterogeneity. Environmental Management 14: 629–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poff, N. L. & J. D. Allan, 1995. Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrologic variability. Ecology 76: 606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Postel, S. & S. Carpenter, 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. In Daily, G. C. (ed.), Nature’s Services. Island Press. Washington DC: 195–214.Google Scholar
  40. Railsback, S. F. & B. C. Harvey, 2003. An Individual-based Trout Model for Instream Flow Assessment: Validity, Advantages, and Disadvantages International IFIM Users’ Workshop. Fort Collins: Colorado USA.Google Scholar
  41. Resh, V. H., A. V. Brown, A. P. Covich, M. E. Gurtz, H. W. Li, G. W. Minshall, S. R. Reice, A. L. Sheldon, J. B. Wallace & R. C. Wissmar, 1988. The role of disturbance in stream ecology. Journal of North American Benthological Society 7: 433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Richards, K., J. Brasington & F. Hughes, 2002. Geomorphic dynamics of floodplains: ecological implications and a potential modelling strategy. Freshwater Biology 47: 559–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell & P. D. Braun, 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10: 1163–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, R. Wingington & P. D. Braun, 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sadler, J. P., D. Bell & A. P. Fowles, 2004. The hydroecological controls and conservation value of beetles on exposed riverine sediments in England and Wales. Biological Conservation 118: 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sauvage, S., S. Teissier, P. Vervier, T. Ameziane, F. Garabetian, F. Delmas & B. Caussade, 2003. A numerical tool to integrate biophysical diversity of a large regulated river: hydrobiogeochemical bases. The case of the Garonne River (France). River Research and Applications 19: 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sinsaburgh, R. L. & S. E. G. Findley, 2003. Dissolved organic matter: out of the black box and into the mainstream. In: Findlay, S. E. G. & R. L. Sinsabaugh (eds), Aquatic Ecosystems: Interactivity of DOM, Academic Press: 479–488.Google Scholar
  48. Smits, A. J. M., P. H. Nienhuis & H. L. F. Saeijs, 2006. Changing estuaries, changing views. Hydrobiologia 565: 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, W. J. Liss, C. A. Frissell, R. N. Williams, J. A. Lichatowich & C. C. Coutant, 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12: 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tabacchi, E., D. L. Correll, R. Hauer, G. Pinay, A.-M. Planty-Tabacchi & R. C. Wissmar, 1998. Development, maintenance and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscape. Freshwater Biology 40: 497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tockner, K., F. Malard & J. V. Ward, 2000. An extension of the flood pulse concept. Hydrological Processes 14: 2861–2883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Townsend, C. R., 1989. The patch dynamic concept of stream community ecology. Journal North American Benthological Society 8: 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Stokkom, H. T. C., A. J. M. Smits & R. S. E. W. Leuven, 2005. Flood defense in the Netherlands: a new era, a new approach. Water International 30/1: 76–87.Google Scholar
  54. Vannotte, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushing, 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130–137.Google Scholar
  55. Vugteveen, P., R. S. E. W. Leuven, M. A. J. Huijbregts & H. J. R. Lenders, 2006. Redefinition and elaboration of river ecosystem health: perspective for river management. Hydrobiologia 565: 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walters, C., 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Blackburn Press, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  57. Ward, J. V., K. Tockner, U. Uehlinger & F. Malard, 2001. Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17: 311 323.Google Scholar
  58. Whittaker, D. & B. Shelby, 2000. Managed flow regimes and resources values: traditional versus alternative strategies. Rivers 7: 233–244.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer2006 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. E. Petts
    • 1
  • J. Nestler
    • 2
  • R. Kennedy
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Geography, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of BirminghamUK
  2. 2.US Army Engineer Research and Development CentreVicksburgUSA
  3. 3.US Army Engineer Research and Development CentreEuropean Research OfficeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations