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

Recent research into the physical and ecological status of rivers has focused upon rapid field-based assessments of mesoscale habitat features in order to satisfy international regulatory requirements for habitat inventory and appraisal. Despite the low cost and time efficient nature of rapid field surveys, the robustness of such techniques remains uncertain. This paper uses data from over 4,000 surveyed UK river reaches in the UK River Habitat Survey (RHS) database in order to seek linkages between surface flow conditions (flow biotopes), local channel morphology (physical biotopes) and biologically distinct vegetative and minerogenic habitat units (functional habitats). Attempts to identify one-to-one connections between surface flow types, units of channel morphology and functional habitats oversimplify a complex and dynamic hydraulic environment. Instead, a nested hierarchy of reach-scale physical and ecological habitat structures exists, characterised by transferable assemblages of habitat units. Five flow biotopes show strong correlations with functional habitats, and differing combinations of three of these account for over 60% of the distribution for all functional habitats. On this basis, a classification of environments for ecological purposes is proposed. Principal components analysis and agglomerative hierarchical clustering analysis are employed to objectively validate the proposed classification. Flow biotope assemblages may also represent reach-scale channel morphologies (step-pool, riffle-pool and glide-pool), although functional habitats exhibit differing 'preferences' for rougher or more tranquil environments within these. While the data and analysis are specific to the UK RHS, the methods and findings have wider application in situations, where rapid field appraisal methods and associated databases are deployed in water resource inventory and river rehabilitation design.

[1]  S. Dolédec,et al.  The intermediate disturbance hypothesis, refugia, and biodiversity in streams , 1997 .

[2]  P. Calow,et al.  River Biota: Diversity and Dynamics. , 1997 .

[3]  David M. Harper,et al.  Use of ‘functional habitats’ to link ecology with morphology and hydrology in river rehabilitation , 1999 .

[4]  J. Helešic,et al.  Advances in River Bottom Ecology , 1998 .

[5]  H. B. N. Hynes,et al.  The Ecology of Running Waters , 1971 .

[6]  D. Harper,et al.  The habitat-scale ecohydraulics of rivers , 2000 .

[7]  G. Petts,et al.  CHARACTERISTICS AND CONTROLS OF GRAVEL‐BED RIFFLES: AN ANALYSES OF DATA FROM THE RIVER‐HABITAT SURVEY , 2004 .

[8]  D. Harper,et al.  Artificial riffles in river rehabilitation: setting the goals and measuring the successes , 1998 .

[9]  B. Everitt,et al.  Applied Multivariate Data Analysis. , 1993 .

[10]  Peter Calow,et al.  River conservation and management , 1992 .

[11]  G. Dunteman.  Principal Components Analysis , 1989 .

[12]  P. J. Raven,et al.  River habitat quality : the physical character of rivers and streams in the UK and Isle of Man , 1998 .

[13]  Stewart J. Clarke,et al.  Linking form and function: towards an eco-hydromorphic approach to sustainable river restoration , 2003 .

[14]  Ter Braak,et al.  Canoco reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user''s guide: software for canonical community ord , 2002 .

[15]  Sustaining water-related ecosystems : the role of in-stream bedform design in river channel rehabilitation , 2002 .

[16]  David M. Harper,et al.  Towards the assessment of `ecological integrity' in running waters of the United Kingdom , 2000, Hydrobiologia.

[17]  M. Udvardy.  Notes on the Ecological Concepts of Habitat, Biotope and Niche , 1959 .

[18]  G. Petts,et al.  Changing river channels , 1996 .

[19]  C. L. Padmore.  The role of physical biotopes in determining the conservation status and flow requirements of British rivers , 1998 .

[20]  D. F. Westlake.  Some Effects of Low-velocity Currents on the Metabolism of Aquatic Macrophytes , 1967 .

[21]  J. Jeffers,et al.  Characterization of river habitats and prediction of habitat features using ordination techniques , 1998 .

[22]  G. Petts,et al.  Classifying the hydraulic performance of riffle–pool bedforms for habitat assessment and river rehabilitation design , 2003 .

[23]  D. Harper,et al.  A cost-effective approach for linking habitats, flow types and species requirements , 1998 .

[24]  A. Berardi,et al.  Exploring the links between natural resource use and biophysical status in the waterways of the North Rupununi , Guyana Journal Item , 2018 .

[25]  G. Minshall,et al.  The River Continuum Concept , 1980 .

[26]  F. Rohlf.  Adaptive Hierarchical Clustering Schemes , 1970 .

[27]  S. Haslam,et al.  River plants : the macrophytic vegetation of watercourses , 1980 .

[28]  C. Frissell,et al.  A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context , 1986 .

[29]  Peter Calow,et al.  The River's handbook: hydrological and ecological principles. Vol. 1 , 1993 .

[30]  M. Newson,et al.  Geomorphology, ecology and river channel habitat: mesoscale approaches to basin-scale challenges , 2000 .

[31]  G. Harvey,et al.  Physical habitat, eco-hydraulics and river design: a review and re-evaluation of some popular concepts and methods , 2006 .

[32]  Jan Lepš,et al.  Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data using CANOCO , 2003 .

[33]  P. J. Boon,et al.  Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable? , 1996 .