Search for: All records

Abstract Climate change is leading to global increases in extreme events, such as drought, that threaten the persistence of freshwater biodiversity. Identification and management of drought refuges, areas that promote resistance and resilience to drought, will be critical for preserving and recovering aquatic biodiversity in the face of climate change and increasing human water use. Although several reviews have addressed the effects of droughts and highlighted the role of refuges, a need remains on how to identify functional refuges that can be used in a drought management framework to support fish assemblages. We synthesize literature on drought refuges and propose a framework to identify and manage functional refuges that incorporate species physiological tolerances, behaviours and life‐history strategies. Stream pools, perennial reaches and off‐channel habitat were identified as important drought refuges for fish. The ability of refuges to improve species resistance and resilience to drought requires careful consideration of the biology of the target species and targeted management to promote persistence, quality and connectivity of refuges. Case studies illustrate that management of drought refuges can be challenging because of competing demands for water, incomplete knowledge of ecological requirements for target species and the increasing occurrence of multi‐year droughts. Climate adaptation is increasingly important, and drought refuges can increase fish resistance and resilience to climate‐related drought across the riverscape. 

ABSTRACT Zero‐flow recordings in gauged streamflow data are critically important for intermittent stream research. Acknowledging the high uncertainty in zero‐flow recordings, many studies pick a small number as zero‐flow threshold, below which the flow is considered to be zero. The choice of zero‐flow threshold is often arbitrary or unjustified, which leads us to wonder: would selecting a slightly different threshold change analysis result significantly? Here, we used a simple sensitivity analysis to assess how the choice of zero‐flow threshold impacts the calculated values of relevant metrics to intermittent stream research. Results show that these metrics tended to be more sensitive to lower zero‐flow thresholds, suggesting that even choosing a slightly different threshold could lead to meaningfully different results from the management perspective. This study highlights the need for reasonable justification of the choice of zero‐flow threshold and concludes with potential ways to reduce uncertainty in zero‐flow measurement. 

Abstract Accelerating the design and implementation of environmental flows (e-flows) is essential to curb the rapid, ongoing loss of freshwater biodiversity and the benefits it provides to people. However, the effectiveness of e-flow programs may be limited by a singular focus on ensuring adequate flow conditions at local sites, which overlooks the role of other ecological processes. Recent advances in metasystem ecology have shown that biodiversity patterns and ecosystem functions across river networks result from the interplay of local (environmental filtering and biotic interactions) and regional (dispersal) ecological processes. No guidelines currently exist to account for these processes in designing e-flows. We address this gap by providing a step-by-step operational framework that outlines how e-flows can be designed to conserve or restore metasystem dynamics. Our recommendations are relevant to diverse regulatory contexts and can improve e-flow outcomes even in basins with limited in situ data. 

Abstract Rivers that do not flow year-round are the predominant type of running waters on Earth. Despite a burgeoning literature on natural flow intermittence (NFI), knowledge about the hydrological causes and ecological effects of human-induced, anthropogenic flow intermittence (AFI) remains limited. NFI and AFI could generate contrasting hydrological and biological responses in rivers because of distinct underlying causes of drying and evolutionary adaptations of their biota. We first review the causes of AFI and show how different anthropogenic drivers alter the timing, frequency and duration of drying, compared with NFI. Second, we evaluate the possible differences in biodiversity responses, ecological functions, and ecosystem services between NFI and AFI. Last, we outline knowledge gaps and management needs related to AFI. Because of the distinct hydrologic characteristics and ecological impacts of AFI, ignoring the distinction between NFI and AFI could undermine management of intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams and exacerbate risks to the ecosystems and societies downstream.