Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The hydro-morphological index of diversity: a tool for describing habitat heterogeneity in river engineering projects

  • FORM AND FUNCTION
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a new hydro-morphological index of diversity (HMID), a tool aimed for use in river engineering projects and firstly developed at gravel-bed streams in Switzerland, but intended for a broader use. We carried out field work with extensive hydraulic and geomorphic data collection, conducted correlation analysis with hydro-morphological variables, formulated the HMID, and analyzed the correlation between HMID and a visual habitat assessment method. The HMID is calculated by means of the coefficient of variation of the hydraulic variables flow velocity and water depth, which have been demonstrated to sufficiently represent the hydro-morphological heterogeneity of alpine gravel-bed stream reaches. Based on numerical modeling, the HMID can be calculated easily for a comparison of different alternatives in river engineering projects and thus achieves predictive power for design decisions. HMID can be applied at a reach-related scale in engineering programs involving geomorphic measures that aim at the enhancement of habitat heterogeneity of a stream. However, the application of HMID has to be integrated with evaluations of the long-term streambed evolvements that are considered at a catchment scale and strongly related to the sediment regime of the stream under study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agences de l’Eau & Ministère de l’Environnement, 1998. SEQ Physique: A System for the Evaluation of the Physical Quality of Watercourses.

  • Allan, J. D. & M. M. Castillo, 2007. Stream Ecology. Structure and Function of Running Waters, 2nd ed. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Armanini, D. G., N. Horrigan, W. A. Monk, D. L. Peters & D. J. Baird, 2010. Development of a benthic macroinvertebrate flow sensitivity index for canadian rivers. River Research and Applications. doi:10.1002/rra.1389.

  • Armstrong, J. D., P. S. Kemp, G. J. A. Kennedy, M. Ladle & N. J. Milner, 2003. Habitat requirements of Atlantic salmon and brown trout in rivers and streams. Fisheries Research 62: 143–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arscott, D. B., K. Tockner, D. Nat & J. V. van der Ward, 2002. Aquatic habitat dynamics along a braided Alpine river ecosystem (Tagliamento River, Northeast Italy). Ecosystems 5: 802–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T. & J. B. Stribling, 1991. Use of habitat assessment in evaluating the biological integrity of stream communities. In Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation: 25–38.

  • Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

  • Bartley, R. & I. Rutherford, 2005. Measuring the reach-scale geomorphic diversity of streams: application to a stream disturbed by a sediment slug. River Research and Applications 21: 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D. J., 2000. Comparison of select life history features in wild versus hatchery coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) and the implications toward species fitness. PhD Dissertation, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.

  • Beck, M. W., 1998. Comparison of the measurement and effects of habitat structure on gastropods in rocky intertidal and mangrove habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series 169: 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisson, P. A., K. Sullivan & J. L. Neilson, 1998. Channel hydraulics, habitat use and body form of juvenile coho salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout in streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 262–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boavida, I., J. M. Santos, R. Cortes, A. Pinheiro & M. T. Ferreira, 2011. Benchmarking river habitat improvement. River Research and Applications. doi:10.1002/rra.1561.

  • Bovee, K. D., B. L. Lamb, J. M. Bartholow, C. B. Stalnaker, J. Taylor & J. Henriksen, 1998. Stream Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Report USGS/BRD-(1998)-004. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Information and Technology.

  • Brierley, G. J. & K. A. Fryirs, 2005. Geomorphology and River Management: Application of the River Styles Framework. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brierley, G. J. & K. A. Fryirs, 2008. Space, place and a healthy dose of realism: grounding the process of river repair. In Gumiero, M. R. & B. Fokkens (eds), 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration, Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island. CIRF – Centro Italiano per la Riqualificazione Fluviale: 381–390.

  • Buffagni, A., S. Erba & D. G. Armanini, 2009. The lentic-lotic character of Mediterranean rivers and its importance to aquatic invertebrate communities. Aquatic Sciences. doi:10.1007/s00027-009-0112-4.

  • Bunte, K. & S. R. Abt, 2001. Sampling Surface and Subsurface Particle-Size Distributions in Wadable Gravel and Cobble-Bed Streams for Analysis in Sediment Transport, Hydraulics, and Streambed Monitoring. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-74. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountains Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

  • BUWAL, 1998. Methoden zur Untersuchung und Beurteilung der Fließgewässer: Modul-Stufen-Konzept. BUWAL-Reihe: Vollzug Umwelt. Bern, Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft.

  • Conallin, J., E. Boegh & J. K. Jensen, 2010. Instream physical habitat modelling types: an analysis as stream hydromorphological modelling tools for EU water resource managers. International Journal of River Basin Management 8: 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, M. J., M. Warren, C. Extence, L. Baker, D. Cadman, D. J. Mould, J. Hall & R. Chadd, 2010. Interaction between macroinvertebrates, discharge and physical habitat in upland rivers. Aquatic Conservation: Marine And Freshwater Ecosystems. doi:10.1002/aqc.1089.

  • Elosegi, A., J. Diez & M. Mutz, 2010. Effects of hydromorphological integrity on biodiversity and functioning of river ecosystems. Hydrobiologia 657: 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, J. C., A. M. Gurnell, N. J. Clifford, G. E. Petts, I. P. Morrissey & P. J. Soar, 2003. Classifying the hydraulic performance of riffle-pool bedforms for habitat assessment and river rehabilitation design. River Research and Applications 19: 533–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 23 October 2000: establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327.

  • European Commission, 2007. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. Official Journal of the European Communities L288/27.

  • Extence, C. A., D. M. Balbi & R. P. Chadd, 1999. River flow indexing using British benthic macroinvertebrates: a framework for setting hydroecological objectives. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 15: 543–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faeh, R., R. Mueller, P. Rousselot, D. Vetsch, C. Volz, L. Vonwiller, R. Veprek & D. Farshi, 2006–2011. BASEMENT – Basic simulation environment for environmental flow and natural hazard simulation. Version 2.2. VAW, ETH Zurich.

  • Fleischhacker, T. & K. Kern, 2002. Ecomorphological Survey of Large Rivers. German Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryirs, K. & G. J. Brierley, 2008. The importance of reach sensitivity and catchment connectivity in river rehabilitation planning. In Gumiero, M. R. & B. Fokkens (eds), IVth ECRR International Conference on River Restoration, Italy, Venice, San Servolo Island. CIRF – Centro Italiano per la Riqualificazione Fluviale: 401–408.

  • Ghanem, A., P. Steffler, F. Hicks & C. Katopodis, 1996. Two-dimensional hydraulic simulation of physical habitat conditions in flowing streams. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 12: 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbins, C. N. & R. M. Acornley, 2000. Salmonid habitat modelling studies and their contribution to the development of an ecologically acceptable release policy for Kielder Reservoir, North-East England. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 16: 203–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gostner, W., A. J. Schleiss, W. K. Annable & M. Paternolli, 2010. Gravel bar inundation frequency: an indicator for the ecological potential of a river. In Dittrich, A., J. Aberle & P. Geisenhainer (eds), Proceedings of “River Flow 2010” Conference. Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau ISBN 978-3-939230-00-7, Braunschweig: 1485–1493.

  • Graham, M. H., 2003. Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84: 2809–2815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurnell, A. M., G. E. Petts, D. M. Hannah, B. P. G. Smith, P. J. Edwards, J. Kollmann, J. V. Ward & K. Tockner, 2001. Riparian vegetation and island formation along the gravel-bed Fiume Tagliamento, Italy. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 31–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heede, B. H. & J. N. Rinne, 1991. Hydrodynamic in fluvial morphologic processes: implications for fisheries management and research. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9: 35–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jähnig, S. C., A. W. Lorenz & D. Hering, 2008. Morphological parameters indicating differences between single- and multiple-channel mountain rivers in Germany, in relation to their modification and recovery. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 1200–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jähnig, S. C., S. Brunzel, S. Gacek, A. W. Lorenz & D. Hering, 2009. Effects of re-braiding measures on hydromorphology, floodplain vegetation, ground beetles and benthic invertebrates in mountain rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 406–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jähnig, S. C., K. Brabec, A. Buffagni, S. Erba, A. W. Lorenz, T. Ofenböck, P. F. M. Verdonschot & D. Hering, 2010. A comparative analysis of restoration measures and their effects on hydromorphology and benthic invertebrates in 26 central and southern European rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 671–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorde, K., M. Schneider & F. Zöllner, 2000. Analysis of instream habitat quality – preference functions and fuzzy models. In Hu, W. (ed.), Stochastic Hydraulics 2000. Balkema, Rotterdam: 671–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jowett, I. G., 1997. Instream flow methods: a comparison of approaches. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13: 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jungwirth, M., S. Muhar & S. Schmutz, 2002. Re-establishing and assessing ecological integrity in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47: 867–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jungwirth, M., G. Haidvogl, O. Moog, S. Muhar & S. Schmutz, 2003. Angewandte Fischökologie an Fließgewässern. Facultas Universitätsverlag, Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, K., 1992. Restoration of lowland rivers: the German experience. In Carling, P. A. & G. E. Petts (eds), Lowland Floodplain Rivers: Geomorphological Perspectives. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK: 279–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kondolf, G. M., M. W. Smeltzer & S. Railsbach, 2001. Design and performance of a channel reconstruction project in a coastal California gravel-bed stream. Environmental Management 28: 761–776.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kondolf, G. M., S. Anderson, R. Lave, L. Pagano, A. Merenlender & E. S. Bernhardt, 2007. Two decades of river restoration in California: what can we learn? Restoration Ecology 15: 516–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamouroux, N. & I. G. Jowett, 2005. Generalized instream habitat models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamouroux, N., H. Capra & M. Pouilly, 1998. Predicting habitat suitability for lotic fish: linking statistical hydraulic models with multivariate habitat use models. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 14: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, M. G., D. B. Booth & S. A. Morley, 2001. Effectiveness of large woody debris in stream rehabilitation projects in urban basins. Ecological Engineering 18: 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LAWA, 1999. Gewässerstrukturgütekartierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Übersichtsverfahren. Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser, Munich.

  • LAWA, 2000a. Gewässerstrukturgütekartierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Handbuch zum Übersichtsverfahren. Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser, Munich.

  • LAWA, 2000b. Gewässerstrukturgütekartierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Verfahrensbeschreibung für Vor-Ort-Kartierungen kleiner bis mittelgroßer Fließgewässer. Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser, Munich.

  • Lepori, F., D. Palm, E. Brännäs & B. Malmqvist, 2005. Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological Applications 15: 2060–2071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddock, I., 1999. The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 373–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmqvist, B. & S. Rundle, 2002. Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environmental Conservation 29: 134–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, M. I., 1994. Comparison of field methods for measuring surface topography and their associations with a tropical reef assemblage. Marine Ecology Progress Series 112: 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. W., P. Budy & J. C. Schmidt, 2009. Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to in-stream habitat restoration: applications of meta-analysis to river restoration. Restoration Ecology 18: 8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minshall, G. W., 1984. Aquatic insect substratum relationships. In Resh, V. H. & D. M. Rosenberg (eds), Ecology of Aquatic Insects. Praeger Publishers, New York: 359–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moerke, A. H., K. J. Gerard, J. A. Latimore, R. A. Hellenthal & G. A. Lamberti, 2004. Restoration of an Indiana, USA, stream: bridging the gap between basic and applied lotic ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 647–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monk, W. A., P. J. Wood, D. M. Hannah & D. A. Wilson, 2008. Macroinvertebrate community response to inter-annual and regional river flow regime dynamics. River Research and Applications 24: 988–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhar, S., M. Schwarz, S. Schmutz & M. Jungwirth, 2000. Identification of rivers with high and good habitat quality: methodological approach and applications in Austria. Hydrobiologia 422(423): 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Negishi, J. N. & J. S. Richardson, 2003. Responses of organic matter and macroinvertebrates to placements of boulder clusters in a small stream of southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M. A., C. C. Hakenkamp & K. Nelson Baker, 1997. Ecological heterogeneity in streams: why variance matters. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, J. D. Allan, P. S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, D. L. Galat, S. G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D. D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G. M. Kondolf, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, P. Srivastava & E. Sudduth, 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 208–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M. A., H. L. Menninger & E. Bernhardt, 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology 55: 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasiewicz, P., 2001. MesoHABSIM: a concept for application of instream flow models in river restoration planning. Fisheries Research 26: 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, M., M. Thoms & R. Norris, 2002a. Australian River Assessment System: AusRivAS Physical Assessment Protocol, Monitoring River Health Initiative. Technical Report no 22, Commonwealth of Australia and University of Canberra, Canberra.

  • Parsons, M., M. Thoms & R. Norris, 2002b. Australian River Assessment System. Review of Physical River Assessment Methods: A Biological Perspective. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra.

  • Petersen Jr., R. C., 1992. The RCE: a riparian, channel and environmental inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. Freshwater Biology 27: 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross & R. M. Hughes, 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington.

  • R Development Core Team, 2010. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org.

  • Rankin, E. T., 1995. The use of habitat assessments in water resource management programs. In Simon, W. D. T. (ed.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 181–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven, P. J., N. T. H. Holmes, M. Naura & F. H. Dawson, 2000. Using river habitat survey for environmental assessment and catchment planning in the U.K. Hydrobiologia 422(423): 359–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, R. E., D. J. Mulla, A. G. Journel & E. H. Franz, 1992. Geostatistical tools for modeling and interpreting ecological spatial dependence. Ecological Monographs 62: 277–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleiss, A. J., 2005. Flussbauliche Hochwasserschutzmaßnahmen und Verbesserung der Gewässerökologie – Vorschlag eines hydraulisch – morphologischen Vielfältigkeitsindexes. Wasser, Energie, Luft 97: 195–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmedtje, U., 1996. Ökologisch begründete Festlegung von Mindestabflüssen: die zentrale Bedeutung der sohlennahen Strömungsverhältnisse. Wasserwirtschaft 86: 326–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. C., 1994. Quantitative Ecology: Spatial and Temporal Ecology. Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siligardi, M., S. Bernabei, C. Cappelletti, E. Chierici, F. Ciutti, F. Egaddi, F. Franceschini, B. Maiolini, L. Mancini, M.R. Minciardi, C. Monauni, G. Rossi, G. Sansoni, R. Spaggiari & M. Zanetti, 2000. I. F. F. Indice di Funzionalità Fluviale. Manuale NPA.

  • Simonson, D. S., J. Lyons & P. D. Kanehl, 1994. Quantifying fish habitat in streams: transect spacing, sample size, and a proposed framework. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14: 607–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statzner, B., J. A. Gore & V. H. Resh, 1988. Hydraulic stream ecology: observed patterns and potential applications. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 307–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statzner, B., F. Kohmann & A. G. Hildrew, 1991. Calibration of FST-hemispheres against bottom shear stress in a laboratory flume. Freshwater Biology 26: 227–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffler, P. M. & J. Blackburn, 2002. River2D: Two-Dimensional Depth-Averaged Model of River Hydrodynamics and Fish Habitats. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoms, M. C., 2006. Variability in riverine ecosystems. River Research and Applications 22: 115–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorp, J. H., M. C. Thoms & M. D. Delong, 2006. The riverine ecosystem synthesis: biocomplexity in river networks across space and time. River Research and Applications 22: 123–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorp, J. H., J. E. Flotemersch, M. D. Delong, A. F. Casper, M. C. Thoms, F. Ballantyne, B. S. Williams, B. J. O’Neill & C. S. Haase, 2010. Linking ecosystem services, rehabilitation, and river hydrogeomorphology. BioScience 60: 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, I. P., M. Diamond, A. M. Gurnell, K. A. Hall, A. Jenkins, N. J. Milner, L. A. Naylor, D. A. Sear, G. Woodward & S. J. Ormerod, 2009. Integrating ecology with hydromorphology: a priority for river science and management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19: 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vörösmarty, C. J., P. B. McIntyre, M. O. Gessner, D. Dudgeon, A. Prusevich, P. Green, S. E. Bunn, C. A. Sullivan, C. Reidy Liermann & P. M. Davies, 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467: 555–561.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, C., I. Maddock, F. Visser & M. Acreman, 2010. A framework for evaluating the spatial configuration and temporal dynamics of hydraulic patches. River Research and Applications. doi:10.1002/rra.1468.

  • Wolman, M. G., 1954. A method of sampling coarse bed material. American Geophysical Union, Transactions 35: 951–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolsey, S., F. Capelli, T. Gonser, E. Hoehn, M. Hostmann, B. Junker, A. Paetzold, C. Roulier, S. Schweizer, S. D. Tiegs, K. Tockner, C. Weber & A. Peter, 2007. A strategy to assess river restoration success. Freshwater Biology 52: 752–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zappia, H. & D. C. Hayes, 1998. A Demonstration of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology, Shenandoah River, Virginia Report: 98–157. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Simone Blaser and Christa Jolidon for help in the field, Laura Vigne for hydromorphological data on the River Venoge, Pascale Derleth-Sartori (Canton Vaud) for valuable hints regarding the river Venoge, the team of Patscheider & Partner Engineers (Italy) for great assistance in field work and elaboration of graphs, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the different stages of the manuscript. This project was funded by the Federal Department of the Environment (FOEN) and the Autonomous Province of South Tyrol/Italy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Hydraulic Constructions (LCH), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Station 18, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Walter Gostner & Anton J. Schleiss

  2. Department of Aquatic Ecology, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology EAWAG, 8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland

    Maria Alp & Christopher T. Robinson

Authors
  1. Walter Gostner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Alp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anton J. Schleiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher T. Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walter Gostner.

Additional information

Guest editors: A. Elosegi, M. Mutz & H. Piégay / Form and function: channel form, hydraulic integrity, and river ecosystem functioning

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 33 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gostner, W., Alp, M., Schleiss, A.J. et al. The hydro-morphological index of diversity: a tool for describing habitat heterogeneity in river engineering projects. Hydrobiologia 712, 43–60 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1288-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1288-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation