Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 719, Issue 1, pp 509–525 | Cite as

Maintaining and restoring hydrologic habitat connectivity in mediterranean streams: an integrated modeling framework

  • Adina M. Merenlender
  • Mary K. MatellaEmail author
MEDITERRANEAN CLIMATE STREAMS Review Paper

Abstract

Hydrologic alterations designed to provide a stable water supply and to prevent flooding are commonly used in mediterranean-climate river (med-rivers) basins, and these alterations have led to habitat loss and significant declines in aquatic biodiversity. Often the health of freshwater ecosystems depends on maintaining and recovering hydrologic habitat connectivity, which includes structural components related to the physical landscape, functionality of flow dynamics, and an understanding of species habitat requirements for movement, reproduction, and survival. To advance our understanding of hydrologic habitat connectivity and benefits of habitat restoration alternatives we provide: (1) a review of recent perspectives on hydrologic connectivity, including quantitative methods; and (2) a modeling framework to quantify the effects of restoration on hydrologic habitat connectivity. We then illustrate this approach through a case study on lateral hydrologic habitat connectivity that results from channel restoration scenarios using scenarios with different historic and climate-change flows to restore fish floodplain habitat in a med-river, the San Joaquin River, California. Case study results show that in addition to the channel alterations, higher flows are required to recover significant flooded habitat area, especially given reductions in flows expected under climate change. These types of studies will help the planning for restoration of hydrologic habitat connectivity in med-rivers, a critical step for mediterranean species recovery.

Keywords

River restoration Ecosystem functions model GIS Sacramento splittail Chinook salmon 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Núria Bonada and Vince Resh for constructive comments throughout and David Hines for helping with references. We appreciate Kerry Heise and Ted Grantham for their feedback on this manuscript and feedback from anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Acreman, M. C., J. R. Blake, D. J. Booker, R. J. Harding, N. Reynard, J. O. Mountford & C. J. Stratford, 2009. A simple framework for evaluating regional wetland ecohydrological response to climate change with case studies from Great Britain. Ecohydrology 2: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aparicio, E., M. J. Vargas, J. M. Olmo & A. de Sostoa, 2000. Decline of native freshwater fishes in a Mediterranean watershed on the Iberian Peninsula: a quantitative assessment. Environmental Biology of Fishes 59: 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arriana Brand, L., J. C. Stromberg, D. C. Goodrich, M. D. Dixon, K. Lansey, D. Kang, D. S. Brookshire & D. J. Cerasale, 2011. Projecting avian response to linked changes in groundwater and riparian floodplain vegetation along a dryland river: a scenario analysis. Ecohydrology 4: 130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arthington, A. H. & S. R. Balcombe, 2011. Extreme flow variability and the ‘boom and bust’ ecology of fish in arid-zone floodplain rivers: a case history with implications for environmental flows, conservation and management. Ecohydrology 4: 708–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates, P. D. & A. P. J. De Roo, 2000. A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation. Journal of Hydrology 236: 54–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, P. D., M. D. Wilson, M. S. Horritt, D. C. Mason, N. Holden & A. Currie, 2006. Reach scale floodplain inundation dynamics observed using airborne synthetic aperture radar imagery: data analysis and modelling. Journal of Hydrology 328: 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bêche, L. A., P. G. Connors, V. H. Resh & A. M. Merenlender, 2009. Resilience of fishes and invertebrates to prolonged drought in two California streams. Ecography 32: 778–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernardo, J. M., M. Ilheu, P. Matono & A. M. Costa, 2003. Interannual variation of fish assemblage structure in a Mediterranean River: implications of streamflow on the dominance of native or exotic species. River Research and Applications 19: 521–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Besnard, A. & N. Goutal, 2011. Comparison between 1D and 2D models for hydraulic modeling of a floodplain: case of Garonne River. Houille Blanche-Revue Internationale De L’Eau 3: 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bockelmann, B., E. Fenrich, B. Lin & R. Falconer, 2004. Development of an ecohydraulics model for stream and river restoration RID A-3714-2008. Ecological Engineering 22: 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonada, N., M. Rieradevall, N. Prat & V. H. Resh, 2006. Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and macrohabitat connectivity in mediterranean-climate streams of northern California. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bornette, G., C. Amoros, H. Piegay, J. Tachet & T. Hein, 1998. Ecological complexity of wetlands within a river landscape. Biological Conservation 85: 35–45.Google Scholar
  13. Boulton, A. J., 2003. Parallels and contrasts in the effects of drought on stream macroinvertebrate assemblages. Freshwater Biology 48: 1173–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bracken, L. J. & J. Croke, 2007. The concept of hydrological connectivity and its contribution to understanding runoff-dominated geomorphic systems. Hydrological Processes 21: 1749–1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown, R. A. & G. B. Pasternack, 2009. Comparison of methods for analysing salmon habitat rehabilitation designs for regulated rivers. River Research and Applications 25: 745–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bunn, S. E. & A. H. Arthington, 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30: 492–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cadbury, S. L., A. M. Milner & D. M. Hannah, 2010. Hydroecology of a New Zealand glacier-fed river: linking longitudinal zonation of physical habitat and macroinvertebrate communities. Ecohydrology 4: 520–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cai, X., L. Lasdon & A. M. Michelsen, 2004. Group decision making in water resources planning using multiple objective analysis. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 130: 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cain J. R., R. P. Walkling, S. Beamish, E. Cheng, E. Cutter & M. Wickland, 2003. San Joaquin Basin Ecological Flow Analysis. Prepared for the Bay-Delta Authority by the Natural Heritage Institute, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  20. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1990. Status and Management of Spring-Run Chinook Salmon. Inland Fisheries Division, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  21. California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2005. Flood Warnings: Responding to California’s flood crisis. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  22. California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2010. 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. Regional Conditions Report—A Working Document. DWR, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  23. California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2011. 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan: A Path for Improving Public Safety, Environmental Stewardship, and Long-Term Economic Stability. Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  24. California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2010. Development of Flow Criteria for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Ecosystem. Prepared Pursuant to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Christian-Smith, J. & A. M. Merenlender, 2010. The disconnect between restoration goals and practices: a case study of watershed restoration in the Russian River Basin, California. Restoration Ecology 18: 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cloern, J. E., N. Knowles, L. R. Brown, D. R. Cayan, M. D. Dettinger, T. L. Morgan, D. H. Schoellhamer, M. Stacey, M. van der Wegen, R. W. Wagner & A. D. Jassby, 2011. Projected evolution of California’s San Francisco Bay-Delta-River system in a century of climate change. PLoS ONE 6: e24465.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. de Jalón, D. G., 2003. The Spanish experience in determining minimum flow regimes in regulated streams. Canadian Water Resources Journal 28: 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. de Jalón, D. G., M. G. del Tinago & C. Casado, 1992. Ecology of regulated streams in Spain: an overview. Limnetica 8: 161–166.Google Scholar
  29. Florsheim, J. L. & M. D. Dettinger, 2007. Climate and floods still govern California levee breaks. Geophysical Research Letters 34: L22403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Freeman, M. C., C. M. Pringle & C. R. Jackson, 2007. Hydrologic connectivity and the contribution of stream headwaters to ecological integrity at regional scales. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43: 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gallardo, B., S. Gascón, M. González-Sanchís, A. Cabezas & F. Comín, 2009. Modelling the response of floodplain aquatic assemblages across the lateral hydrological connectivity gradient. Marine and Freshwater Research 60: 924–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gangodagamage, C., E. Barnes & E. Foufoula-Georgiou, 2007. Scaling in river corridor widths depicts organization in valley morphology. Geomorphology 91: 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gasith, A. & V. H. Resh, 1999. Streams in mediterranean climate regions: abiotic influences and biotic responses to predictable seasonal events. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Geist, J., 2011. Integrative freshwater ecology and biodiversity conservation. Ecological Indicators 11: 1507–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grantham, T. E., 2011. Use of hydraulic modelling to assess passage flow connectivity for salmon in streams. River Research and Applications 29: 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hermoso, V. & M. Clavero, 2011. Threatening processes and conservation management of endemic freshwater fish in the Mediterranean basin: a review. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hunter, N. M., P. D. Bates, M. S. Horritt & M. D. Wilson, 2007. Simple spatially-distributed models for predicting flood inundation: a review. Geomorphology 90: 208–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jackson, C. R. & C. M. Pringle, 2010. Ecological benefits of reduced hydrologic connectivity in intensively developed landscapes. Bioscience 60: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jassby, A. & J. Cloern, 2000. Organic matter sources and rehabilitation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (California, USA) RID C-1499-2011. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 10: 323–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson, L. B. & G. E. Host, 2010. Recent developments in landscape approaches for the study of aquatic ecosystems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Katibah, E. F., 1984. California riparian systems: ecology, conservation, and productive management. In Warner, R. E. & K. M. Hendrix (eds), A Brief History of Riparian Forests in the Central Valley of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA: 25–29.Google Scholar
  42. Kelley, R., 1989. Battling the Inland Sea—Floods, Public Policy, and the Sacramento Valley. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  43. King, E. G. & K. K. Caylor, 2011. Ecohydrology in practice: strengths, conveniences, and opportunities. Ecohydrology 4: 608–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kondolf, G. M. & R. J. Batalla, 2005. Hydrological effects of dams and water diversions on rivers of Mediterranean-climate regions: examples from California. In Garcia, C. & R. J. Batalla (eds), Catchment Dynamics and River Processes: Mediterranean and Other Climate Regions. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kondolf, G. M., A. J. Boulton, S. O’Daniel, G. C. Poole, F. J. Rachel, E. H. Stanley, E. Wohl, A. Bang, J. Carlstrom, C. Cristoni, H. Huber, S. Koljonen, P. Louhi & K. Nakamura, 2006. Process-based ecological river restoration: visualizing three-dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecology and Society 11: 5.Google Scholar
  46. Lane, S., K. Bradbrook, K. Richards, P. Biron & A. Roy, 1999. The application of computational fluid dynamics to natural river channels: three-dimensional versus two-dimensional approaches. Geomorphology 29: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Larsen, L. G., J. Choi, M. Nungesser & J. W. Harvey, 2012. Directional connectivity in hydrology and ecology. Ecological Applications 22: 2204–2220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lexartza-Artza, I. & J. Wainwright, 2009. Hydrological connectivity: linking concepts with practical implications. Catena 79: 146–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Logan, P. & M. Furse, 2002. Preparing for the European Water Framework Directive—making the links between habitat and aquatic biota. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12: 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lytle, D. A. & N. L. Poff, 2004. Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McKinney, D. C., X. Cai, M. W. Rosegrant, C. Ringler & C. A. Scott, 1999. Modeling water resources management at the basin level: review and future directions. SWIM Paper 6. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 60 pp.Google Scholar
  52. Meerkerk, A. L., B. van Wesemael & N. Bellin, 2009. Application of connectivity theory to model the impact of terrace failure on runoff in semi-arid catchments. Hydrological Processes 23: 2792–2803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Minor, E. S. & D. L. Urban, 2008. A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conservation Biology 22: 297–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moran, T. C., 2012. Shaping water in wine country. Boom: A Journal of California 2(1): 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moussa, R. & C. Bocquillon, 2009. On the use of the diffusive wave for modelling extreme flood events with overbank flow in the floodplain. Journal of Hydrology 374: 116–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moyle, P. B., 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  57. Moyle, P. B. & T. Light, 1996. Biological invasions of fresh water: Empirical rules and assembly theory. Biological Conservation 78: 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Newburn, D. A., N. Brozovic & M. Mezzatesta, 2011. Agricultural water security and instream flows for endangered species. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93: 1212–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nilsson, C., J. E. Pizzuto, G. E. Moglen, M. A. Palmer, E. H. Stanley, N. E. Bockstael & L. C. Thompson, 2003. Ecological forecasting and the urbanization of stream ecosystems: challenges for economists, hydrologists, geomorphologists, and ecologists. Ecosystems 6: 659–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nunes, J. P., J. Seixas, J. J. Keizer & A. J. D. Ferreira, 2009. Sensitivity of runoff and soil erosion to climate change in two Mediterranean watersheds. Part II: assessing impacts from changes in storm rainfall, soil moisture and vegetation cover. Hydrological Processes 23: 1212–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Opperman, J. J., R. Luster, B. A. McKenney, M. Roberts & A. W. Meadows, 2010. Ecologically functional floodplains: connectivity, flow regime, and scale. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46(2): 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Oxley, T., B. McIntosh, N. Winder, M. Mulligan & G. Engelen, 2004. Integrated modelling and decision-support tools: a Mediterranean example RID D-2764-2009. Environmental Modelling & Software 19: 999–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), 1984. A Review of the 1983 Ocean Salmon Fisheries and Status of Stocks and Management Goals for the 1984 Salmon Season Off the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  64. Pasternack, G., C. Wang & J. Merz, 2004. Application of a 2D hydrodynamic model to design of reach-scale spawning gravel replenishment on the Mokelumne River, California. River Research and Applications 20: 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming & S. R. Carpenter, 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17: 358–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Poff, N. L. & J. K. H. Zimmerman, 2010. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology 55: 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Poff, N. L., B. D. Richter, A. H. Arthington, S. E. Bunn, R. J. Naiman, E. Kendy, M. Acreman, C. Apse, B. P. Bledsoe, M. C. Freeman, J. Henriksen, R. B. Jacobson, J. G. Kennen, D. M. Merritt, J. H. O’Keeffe, J. D. Olden, K. Rogers, R. E. Tharme & A. Warner, 2010. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology 55: 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Postel, S. L., G. C. Daily & P. R. Ehrlich, 1996. Human appropriation of renewable fresh water. Science 271: 785–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pringle, C. M., 2001. Hydrologic connectivity and the management of biological reserves: a global perspective. Ecological Applications 11: 981–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pringle, C., 2003. What is hydrologic connectivity and why is it ecologically important? Hydrological Processes 17: 2685–2689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ramireddygari, S. R., M. A. Sophocleous, J. K. Koelliker, S. P. Perkins & R. S. Govindaraju, 2000. Development and application of a comprehensive simulation model to evaluate impacts of watershed structures and irrigation water use on streamflow and groundwater: the case of Wet Walnut Creek Watershed, Kansas, USA. Journal of Hydrology 236: 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Resh, V. H., A. V. Brown, A. P. Covich, M. E. Gurtz, H. W. Li, G. W. Minshall, S. R. Reice, A. L. Sheldon, J. B. Wallace & R. C. Wissmar, 1988. The role of disturbance in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rosenberg, D. M., P. McCully & C. M. Pringle, 2000. Global-scale environmental effects of hydrological alterations: introduction. Bioscience 50: 746–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rudnick, D. A., S. J. Ryan, P. Beier, S. A. Cushman, F. Dieffenbach, C. W. Epps, L. R. Gerber, J. Hartter, J. S. Jenness, J. Kintsch, A. M. Merenlender, R. M. Perkl, D. V. Preziosi, & S. C. Trombulak, 2012. The Role of Landscape Connectivity in Planning and Implementing Conservation and Restoration Priorities. Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology Issue 16 [available on internet at http://www.esa.org/science_resources/issues/FileEnglish/issuesinecology16.pdf].
  75. Shafroth, P. B., A. C. Wilcox, D. A. Lytle, J. T. Hickey, D. C. Andersen, V. B. Beauchamp, A. Hautzinger, L. E. McMullen & A. Warner, 2010. Ecosystem effects of environmental flows: modelling and experimental floods in a dryland river. Freshwater Biology 55: 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sommer, T., R. Baxter & B. Herbold, 1997. Resilience of splittail in the Sacramento San Joaquin estuary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126: 961–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sommer, T. R., M. L. Nobriga, W. C. Harrell, W. Batham & W. J. Kimmerer, 2001. Floodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sommer, T. R., W. C. Harrell, A. M. Solger, B. Tom & W. Kimmerer, 2004. Effects of flow variation on channel and floodplain biota and habitats of the Sacramento River, California, USA. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sommer, T. R., C. Armor, R. Baxter, R. Breuer, L. Brown, M. Chotkowski, S. Culberson, F. Feyrer, M. Gingras, B. Herbold, W. Kimmerer, A. Mueller-Solger, M. Nobriga & K. Souza, 2007. The collapse of pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Fisheries 32: 270–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tarekegn, T. H., A. T. Haile, T. Rientjes, P. Reggiani & D. Alkema, 2010. Assessment of an ASTER-generated DEM for 2D hydrodynamic flood modeling. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 12: 457–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tetzlaff, D., C. Soulsby, P. Bacon, A. Youngson, C. Gibbins & I. Malcolm, 2007. Connectivity between landscapes and riverscapes—a unifying theme in integrating hydrology and ecology in catchment science? Hydrological Processes 21: 1385–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Twilley, R. R. & V. H. Rivera-Monroy, 2005. Developing performance measures of mangrove wetlands using simulation models of hydrology, nutrient biogeochemistry, and community dynamics. RID G-7329-2011. Journal of Coastal Research 40: 79–93.Google Scholar
  83. Urban, D. L., E. S. Minor, E. A. Treml & R. S. Schick, 2009. Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecology Letters 12: 260–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Reclamation Board, State of California (Rec Board), 2002. Ecosystem Functions Model—Technical Studies Documentation, Appendix G. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  85. van Delden, H., P. Luja & G. Engelen, 2007. Integration of multi-scale dynamic spatial models of socio-economic and physical processes for river basin management. Environmental Modelling & Software 22: 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushing, 1980. River Continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Viers, J. H. & D. E. Rheinheimer, 2011. Freshwater conservation options for a changing climate in California’s Sierra Nevada. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ward, J. V., K. Tockner, D. B. Arscott & C. Claret, 2002. Riverine landscape diversity. Freshwater Biology 47: 517–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Western, A. W., G. Blöschl & R. B. Grayson, 2001. Toward capturing hydrologically significant connectivity in spatial patterns. Water Resources Research 37: 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yoshiyama, R. M., F. W. Fisher & P. B. Moyle, 1998. Historical abundance and decline of Chinook salmon in the Central Valley region of California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18: 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and ManagementUC BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations