Skip to main content
Log in

Improving Ecological Response Monitoring of Environmental Flows

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Environmental flows are now an important restoration technique in flow-degraded rivers, and with the increasing public scrutiny of their effectiveness and value, the importance of undertaking scientifically robust monitoring is now even more critical. Many existing environmental flow monitoring programs have poorly defined objectives, nonjustified indicator choices, weak experimental designs, poor statistical strength, and often focus on outcomes from a single event. These negative attributes make them difficult to learn from. We provide practical recommendations that aim to improve the performance, scientific robustness, and defensibility of environmental flow monitoring programs. We draw on the literature and knowledge gained from working with stakeholders and managers to design, implement, and monitor a range of environmental flow types. We recommend that (1) environmental flow monitoring programs should be implemented within an adaptive management framework; (2) objectives of environmental flow programs should be well defined, attainable, and based on an agreed conceptual understanding of the system; (3) program and intervention targets should be attainable, measurable, and inform program objectives; (4) intervention monitoring programs should improve our understanding of flow-ecological responses and related conceptual models; (5) indicator selection should be based on conceptual models, objectives, and prioritization approaches; (6) appropriate monitoring designs and statistical tools should be used to measure and determine ecological response; (7) responses should be measured within timeframes that are relevant to the indicator(s); (8) watering events should be treated as replicates of a larger experiment; (9) environmental flow outcomes should be reported using a standard suite of metadata. Incorporating these attributes into future monitoring programs should ensure their outcomes are transferable and measured with high scientific credibility.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acreman M, Dunbar MJ (2004) Defining environmental river flow requirements—a review. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 8:861–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander GG, Allen JD (2007) Ecological success in stream restoration: case studies from the midwestern United States. Environ Manage 40:245–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DR (2001) The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildl Soc Bull 29:1294–1297

    Google Scholar 

  • Archaux F, Henry P, Gimenez O (2012) When can we ignore the problems of imperfect detection in comparative studies? Methods Ecol Evol 3:188–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthington AH (2012) Environmental flows. Saving rivers in the Third Millenium. University of California Press, California

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff LN, Naiman RJ (2006) The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecol Appl 16(4):1311–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthington AH, Naiman RJ, McClain ME, Nilsson C (2010) Preserving the biodiversity and ecological services of rivers: new challenges and research opportunities. Freshwater Biol 55(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur A, Reid J, Kingsford RT, McGinness H, Ward K, Harper M (2012) Breeding flow thresholds of colonial breeding waterbirds in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Wetlands 1–9. doi:10.1007/s13157-011-0235-y

  • Balcombe SR, Arthington AH, Foster ND, Thoms MC, Wilson GG, Bunn SE (2006) Fish assemblages of an Australian dryland river: abundance, assemblage structure and recruitment patterns in the Warrego River, Murray-Darling Basin. Mar Freshw Res 57(6):619–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balcombe SR, Lobegeiger JS, Marshall SM, Marshall JC, Ly D, Jones DN (2012) Fish body condition and recruitment success reflect antecedent flows in an Australian dryland river. Fish Sci 78:841–847

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett R, Nielsen D, Croome R (2010) Associations between the plant communities of floodplain wetlands, water regime and wetland type. River Res Appl 26:866–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bearlin AR, Schreiber ES, Nicol SJ, Starfield AM, Todd CR (2002) Identifying the weakest link: simulating adaptive management of the re-introduction of a threatened fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beesley L, King AJ, Amtstaetter F, Koehn JD, Gawne B, Price A, Nielsen DL, Vilizzi L, Meredith SN (2012) Does flooding affect spatiotemporal variation of fish assemblages in temperate floodplain wetlands? Freshwater Biol 57(11):2230–2246. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2012.02865.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beesley L, King AJ, Gawne B, Koehn JD, Price AP, Nielsen D, Amtstaetter F, Meredith SN (2014a) Optimising environmental watering of floodplain wetlands for fish. Freshwater Biol 59(10):2024–2032. doi:10.1111/fwb.12404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beesley L, Gwinn DC, Price A, King AJ, Gawne B, Koehn JD, Nielsen DL (2014b) Juvenile fish response to wetland inundation: how antecedent conditions can inform environmental flow policies for native fish. J Appl Ecol 51(6):1613–1621. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Follstad-Shah J, Galat DL, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford MJ, Higgins PS, Korman J, Sneep J (2011) Test of an environmental flow release in a British Columbia river: does more water mean more fish? Freshwater Biol 56(10):2119–2134. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02633.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandis KJ, Kingsford RT, Ren S, Ramp D (2011) Crisis Water Management and Ibis Breeding at Narran Lakes in Arid Australia. Environ Manage 48:489–498

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks SS, Lake PS (2007) River Restoration in Victoria, Australia: change is in the Wind, and None too Soon. Restor Ecol 15(3):584–591. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00253.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckland S, Anderson D, Burnham K, Laake J (1993) Distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Chapman and Hall, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manage 30(4):492–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns J, McCormick P, Niederlehner B (1993) A proposed framework for developing indicators of ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia 263:1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chee Y, Webb J, Stewardson M, Cottingham P (2009) Victorian environmental flows monitoring and assessment program: monitoring and assessing environmental flow releases in the Thomson River. Report prepared for the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority and the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment by eWater Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra

  • Cochran W (1946) Relative accuracy of systematic and stratified random samples for a certain class of populations. Ann Math Stat 17:146–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coggins LG Jr, Pine WE, Walters CJ, Van Haverbeke DR, Ward D (2006) Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of humpback chub. North Am J Fish Manag 26(1):233–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottingham P, Quinn G, King A, Norris R, Chessman B, Marshall C (2005) Environmental flows monitoring and assessment framework. Version 1.1. Technical report. CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra. pp. 39. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra

  • Davies P (2000) Development of a national river bioassessment system (AUSRIVAS) in Australia. In: Wright J, Sutcliffe D, Furse M (eds) Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, pp 113–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies PE, Harris JH, Hillman TJ, Walker KF (2010) The sustainable rivers audit: assessing river ecosystem health in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Marine Freshw Res 61(7):764–777. doi:10.1071/MF09043

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davies PM, Naiman RJ, Warfe DM, Pettit NE, Arthington AH, Bunn SE (2014) Flow–ecology relationships: closing the loop on effective environmental flows. Mar Freshw Res 65:133–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes BJ, Barmuta LA, Fairweather PG, Faith DP, Keough MJ, Lake PS, Mapstone BD, Quinn GP (2002) Monitoring ecological impacts. Concepts and practise in flowing waters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gawne B, Price A, Koehn J, King A, Nielsen D, Meredith S, Beesley L, Vilizzi L (2012) A bayesian belief network decision support tool for watering wetlands to maximise native fish outcomes. Wetlands 32:277–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawne B, Brooks S, Butcher R, Cottingham P, Everingham P, Hale J, Nielson D, Stewardson M, Stoffels R (2013) Long term intervention monitoring logic and rationale document. Final Report prepared for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office. MDFRC Publication 01/2013. The Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre

  • Gerig B, Dodrill MJ, Pine WE (2014) Habitat selection and movement of adult Humpback Chub in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, during an experimental steady flow release. N Am J Fish Manage 34(1):39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerow K (2007) Power and sample size estimation techniques for fisheries management: assessment and a new computational tool. North Am J Fish Manag 27:397–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie BR, Desmet S, Kay P, Tillotson MR, Brown LE (2014) A critical analysis of regulated river ecosystem responses to managed environmental flows from reservoirs. Freshwater Biol 60(2):410–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould W, Pollock K (1997) Catch-effort maximum likelihood estimation of important population parameters. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:880–897

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross JE (2003) Developing conceptual models for monitoring programs. On-line at http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/docs/Conceptual_Modelling.pdf. 12 Nov 2013

  • Growns I (2004) Monitoring environmental flow regimes: potential problems with management decision errors and their consequences. Ecol Manage Restor 5:216–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris GP, Heathwaite AL (2012) Why is achieving good ecological outcomes in rivers so difficult? Freshwater Biol 57:91–107. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02640.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howitt JA, Baldwin DS, Rees G, Williams JL (2007) Modelling blackwater: predicting water quality during flooding of lowland river forests. Ecol Model 203:229–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes FMR, Colston A, Owen Mountford J (2005) Restoring riparian ecosystems: the challenge of accommodating variability and designing restoration trajectories. Ecol Soc 10(1):12. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art12/

  • Hunsaker C, Carpenter D, Messer J (1990) Ecological indicators for regional monitoring. Bull Ecol Soc Am 71(3):165–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansson R, Backx H, Boulton AJ, Dixon M, Dudgeon D, Hughes FMR, Nakamura K, Stanley EH, Tockner K et al (2005) Stating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: a comment on Palmer et al. (2005). J Appl Ecol 42(2):218–222. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01022.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DH (2007) In defence of indices: the case of bird surveys. J Wildl Manag 72:858–868

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolly GM (1982) Mark-recapture models with parameters constant in time. Biometrics 38:301–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • King AJ, Brooks J, Quinn GP, Sharpe A, McKay S (2003) Monitoring programs for environmental flows in Australia—a literature review. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment; Sinclair Knight Merz; Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology and Monash University

  • King AJ, Tonkin Z, Mahoney J (2009) Environmental flow enhances native fish spawning and recruitment in the Murray River, Australia. River Res Appl 25(10):1205–1218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King AJ, Ward KA, O’Connor P, Green D, Tonkin Z, Mahoney J (2010) Adaptive management of an environmental watering event to enhance native fish spawning and recruitment. Freshwater Biol 55(1):17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King AJ, Tonkin Z, Lieschke J (2012) Short-term effects of a prolonged blackwater event on aquatic fauna in the Murray River, Australia: considerations for future events. Mar Freshw Res 63:576–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsford RT, Auld KM (2005) Waterbird breeding and environmental flow management in the Macquarie Marshes, arid Australia. River Res Appl 21:187–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsford RT, Biggs HC, Pollard SR (2011) Strategic adaptive management in freshwater protected areas and their rivers. Biol Conserv 144(4):1194–1203. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondolf GM, Anderson S, Lave R, Pagano L, Merenlender A, Bernhardt ES (2007) Two decades of river restoration in California: what can we learn? Restor Ecol 15(3):516–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konrad CP, Olden JD, Lytle DA, Melis TS, Schmidt JC, Bray EN, Freeman MC, Gido KB, Hemphill NP, Kennard MJ, McMullen LE, Mims MC, Pyron M, Robinson CT, Williams JG (2011) Large-scale flow experiments for managing river systems. Bioscience 61(12):948–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korman J, Ahrens RNM, Higgins PS, Walters CJ (2002) Effects of observer efficiency, arrival timing, and survey life on estimates of escapement for steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) derived from repeat mark–recapture experiments. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59(7):1116–1131. doi:10.1139/f02-081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs CJ (1989) Ecological methodology. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake PS, Bond N, Reich P (2007) Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biol 52(4):597–615. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01709.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster J, Downes BJ (2010) Linking the hydraulic world of individual organisms to ecological processes: putting ecology into ecohydraulics. River Res Appl 26(4):385–403. doi:10.1002/rra.1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2009) Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends Ecol Evol 24(9):482–486. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2010) Effective ecological monitoring. CSIRO Publishing and Earthscan, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Gibbons P, Bourke M, Burgman M, Dickman CR, Ferrier S, Fitzsimons J, Freudenberger D, Garnett ST, Groves C, Hobbs RJ, Kingsford RT, Krebs C, Legge S, Lowe AJ, McLean R, Montambault J, Possingham H, Radford JIM, Robinson D, Smallbone L, Thomas D, Varcoe T, Vardon M, Wardle G, Woinarski J, Zerger A (2012) Improving biodiversity monitoring. Aust Ecol 37(3):285–294. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd N, Quinn G, Thoms M, Arthington A, Gawne B, Humphries P, Walker K (2004) Does flow modification cause geomorphological and ecological response in rivers? A literature review from an Australian perspective. Technical report 1/2004. CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra

  • Lyon JP, Bird T, Nicol S, Kearns J, O’Mahony J, Todd CR, Cowx IG, Bradshaw CJA (2014) Efficiency of electrofishing in turbid lowland rivers: implications for measuring temporal change in fish populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 71:878–886. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Kendall WL (2002) How should detection probabilities be incorporated into estimates of relative abundance? Ecology 83:2387–2393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals, statistical design and analysis for field studies, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Mao F, Richards K (2012) Irreversible river water quality and the concept of the reference condition. Area 44:423–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald-Madden E, Baxter PWJ, Fuller RA, Martin TG, Game ET, Montambault J, Possingham HP (2010) Monitoring does not always count. Trends Ecol Evol 25(10):547–550. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MDBA (2010) Guide to the proposed basin plan: overview. Canberra: Murray–Darling Basin Authority, pp 262 www.download.mdba.gov.au/Guide_to_the_Basin_Plan_Volume_1_web.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2012

  • Melis TS, Korman J, Kennedy TA (2012) Abiotic & biotic responses of the Colorado River to controlled floods at Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, USA. River Res Appl 28:764–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith S, Beesley L (2009) Watering floodplain wetlands in the Murray-Darling basin to benefit fish: a discussion with managers. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental research Technical Report Series No. 189. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria

  • Nyberg JB (1998) Statistics and the practises of adaptive management. In: Sit V, Taylor B (eds) Statistical methods for adaptive management studies. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Forestry Division Services Branch Victoria, British Columbia, pp 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Olden JD, Konrad CP, Melis TS, Kennard MJ, Freeman MC, Mims MC, Bray EN, Gido KB, Hemphill NP, Lytle DA, McMullen LE, Pyron M, Robinson CT, Schmidt JC, Williams JG (2014) Are large-scale flow experiments informing the science and management of freshwater ecosystems? Front Ecol Environ 12:176–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Follstad Shah J, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol 42(2):208–217. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL, Zimmerman JKH (2010) Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biol 55(1):194–205. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02272.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47(11):769–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff LN, Allan JD, Palmer MA, Hart DA, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Rogers KH, Meyer JL, Stanford JA (2003) River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making. Front Ecol Environ 1(6):298–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E, Acreman M, Apse C, Bledsoe BP, Freeman MC, Henriksen J, Jacobson RB, Kennen JG, Merritt DM, O’Keeffe JH, Olden JD, Rogers K, Tharme RE, Warner A (2010) The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biol 55(1):147–170. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02204.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsar (2012) Limits of acceptable change: the definition and operation of concepts and approaches for “limits of acceptable change” which may be applicable to the Ramsar context of defining and detecting change in the ecological character of wetlands. An information paper prepared by the Scientific and Technical Review Panel Ramsar. COP11 DOC. 24. http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/cop11/doc/cop11-doc24-e-limits.pdf

  • Reid MA, Brooks J (2000) Detecting effects of environmental water allocations in wetlands of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Regul Rivers: Res Manage 16:479–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Wigington R, Braun DP (1997) How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biol 37:231–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter BD, Mathews R, Harrison DL, Wigington R (2003) Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecol Appl 13(1):206–224. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0206:eswmmr]2.0.co;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson CT, Uehlinger U (2008) Experimental floods cause ecosystem regime shift in a regulated river. Ecol Appl 18:511–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson C, Uehlinger U, Monaghan M (2003) Effects of a multi-year experimental flood regime on macroinvertebrates downstream of a reservoir. Aquat Sci 65:210–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA (2004) N-Mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60:108–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA, Nichols JD (2003) Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 84:777–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumpff L, Duncan DH, Vesk PA, Keith DA, Wintle BA (2011) State-and-transition modelling for adaptive management of native woodlands. Biol Conserv 144(4):1224–1236. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenton W, Bond N, Yen JL, Mac Nally R (2012) Putting the “ecology” into environmental flows: ecological dynamics and demographic modelling. Environ Manage 50(1):1–10. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9864-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson JC, Norris RH (2000) Biological assessment of river quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. In: Wright JF, Sutcliffe DW, Furse MT (eds) Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambelside, pp 125–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Souchon Y, Sabaton C, Diebel R, Reiser D, Kershner JL, Gard M, Katopodis C, Leonard P, Poff LN, Miller WJ, Lamb BL (2008) Detecting biological responses to flow management: missed opportunities; future directions. River Res Appl 24:506–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks RE (1995) Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. Bioscience 45(3):168–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewardson MJ, Webb A (2010) Chapter 3: modelling ecological responses to flow alteration: making the most of existing data and knowledge. In: Saintilan N, Overton I (eds) Ecosystem response modelling in the Murray-Darling Basin. CSIRO, Collingwood, pp 37–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone DM (2010) Overriding effects of species-specific turbidity thresholds on Hoop-Net catch rates of native fishes in the Little Colorado River, Arizona. Trans Am Fish Soc 139(4):1150–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tate KW, Dahlgren RA, Singer MJ, Allen-Diaz B, Atwill ER (1999) Timing, frequency of sampling affect accuracy of water-quality monitoring. Calif Agric 53:44–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyre AJ, Tenhumberg B, Field SA, Niejalke D, Parris K, Possingham H (2003) Improving precision and reducing bias in biological surveys: estimating false-negative error rates. Ecol Appl 13:1790–1801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine-Rose L, Layman CA (2011) Response of fish assemblage structure and function following restoration of two small Bahamian Tidal Creeks. Restor Ecol 19:205–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts R, Ryder D, Allan C, Commens S (2010) Using river-scale experiments to inform variable releases from large dams: a case study of emergent adaptive management. Mar Freshw Res 61:786–797

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Webb A, Stewardson M, Koster W (2010) Detecting ecological responses to flow variation using Bayesian hierarchical models. Freshwater Biol 55:108–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster IT, Sherman BS, Bormans M, Jones G (2000) Management strategies for cyanobacterial blooms in an impounded lowland river. Regul Rivers: Res Manage 16:513–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski JM, Rankin NM, Weiler DA, Strickland BA, Chandler HC (2013) Occupancy and detection of benthic macroinvertebrates: a case study of unionids in the lower Flint River, Georgia, USA. Freshw Sci 32(4):1122–1135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16:446–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zampatti BP, Leigh SJ (2013) Within-channel flows promote spawning and recruitment of golden perch, Macquaria ambigua ambigua—implications for environmental flow management in the River Murray, Australia. Mar Freshw Res 64:618–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the CSIRO Cluster Collaboration Fund, CSIRO Ecological Responses to Altered Flow Regimes Research Cluster and the Australian National Water Commission through their Raising National Water Standards (RNWS) Program. This RNWS Australian Government program supports the implementation of the National Water Initiative by funding projects that are improving Australia’s national capacity to measure, monitor, and manage its water resources. The Cluster Collaboration Fund and the Ecological Responses to Altered Flow Regimes Research Cluster represent a collaboration between the CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Griffith University, the University of New South Wales, Monash University, Charles Sturt University, La Trobe University and the Arthur Rylah Institute of the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment. The authors would like to thank Anthea Brecknell (NWC); the managers who contributed to the project, especially the members of the project steering committee (Deb Nias, Keith Ward, Mark Lintermans, Jack Chubb, Fern Hames, Wayne Tennant and Janet Pritchard); and the anonymous reviewers and the Editor-In-Chief for valuable comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alison J. King.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

King, A.J., Gawne, B., Beesley, L. et al. Improving Ecological Response Monitoring of Environmental Flows. Environmental Management 55, 991–1005 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0456-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0456-6

Keywords

Navigation