|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| Kondolf, G. Mathias; University of California, Berkeley; kondolf@berkeley.edu; Boulton, Andrew J.; Ecosystem Management, University of New England; aboulton@une.edu.au; O'Daniel, Scott; University of California-Santa Barbara; sodaniel@icess.ucsb.edu; Poole, Geoffrey C; Eco-metrics, Inc. and University of Georgia; gpoole@eco-metrics.com; Rahel, Frank J.; University of Wyoming; frahel@uwyo.edu; Stanley, Emily H.; University of Wisconsin; ehstanley@wisc.edu; Wohl, Ellen; Colorado State University; ellenw@cnr.colostate.edu; Carlstrom, Julia; National Board of Fisheries; julia.carlstrom@fiskeriverket.se; Cristoni, Chiara; ; c.cristoni@tiscali.it; Huber, Harald; University of Munich; harry.nat@t-online.de; Louhi, Pauliina; Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute; pauliina.louhi@rktl.fi; Nakamura, Keigo; Public Works Research Institute, Japan; knakamu@pwri.go.jp. |
| Human impacts to aquatic ecosystems often involve changes in hydrologic connectivity and flow regime. Drawing upon examples in the literature and from our experience, we developed conceptual models and used simple bivariate plots to visualize human impacts and restoration efforts in terms of connectivity and flow dynamics. Human-induced changes in longitudinal, lateral, and vertical connectivity are often accompanied by changes in flow dynamics, but in our experience restoration efforts to date have more often restored connectivity than flow dynamics. Restoration actions have included removing dams to restore fish passage, reconnecting flow through artificially cut-off side channels, setting back or breaching levees, and removing fine sediment deposits... |
| Tipo: Peer-Reviewed Insight |
Palavras-chave: Connectivity; Flow dynamics; Hyporheic zone; River restoration.. |
| Ano: 2006 |
|
| |
|
|
|
