Skip to main content
Log in

The river-scaling concept (RSC): a basis for ecological assessments

  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss the river-scaling concept (RSC) as a basis for ecological assessments. Since river morphology is a result of two major boundary conditions – transport of water and sediments – the size of project areas and the analysis procedure were found to be critical. Restricting the assessment of abiotic and biotic river components and its variability to a certain scale neglects the fact that ecological integrity depends on the process scale of boundary conditions. A newly developed two-step procedure for assessing the ecological integrity at various temporal and spatial scales is presented. During the so-called downscaling phase, abiotic and biotic components are analysed at the regional–continental (only for special questions), catchment-wide, sectional, local, and point scales. Catchment-wide analyses are based on digital elevation models (DEMs) and geographic information systems (GISs). Mass balance analysis, the application of fractals, and self-similarity studies for channel developments gain increasing importance. The application of linear and non-linear theories allows analytical tools to be derived to describe abiotic components like morphodynamics at sectional and local scales. Point scale investigations are based on deterministic models, where input data can be measured directly in nature. As the scale varies dramatically, the results obtained from various analysis tools are significantly different but interdependent. Biotic analysis are also performed at the same scales, so that the interrelations between morphodynamics and habitat quality can be derived at the end of this first phase. In a second phase an upscaling integrates and aggregates the results from the first step in order to yield overall conclusions on ecological integrity.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan, J.D., D.L. Erickson & J. Fay, 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwat. Biol. 37: 149–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beeby, A. (ed.), 1993. Applying Ecology. Chapman & Hall, London, 441 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blöschl, G., 1996. Scale and scaling in hydrology. Wiener Mitteilungen 132.

  • Bult, T.P., R.L. Haedrich & D.C. Schneider, 1998. New technique describing spacial scaling and habitat selection in riverine habitats. Regul. Rivers: Res. Mgmt. 14: 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatfield, C., 1980. The Analysis of Time Series: an Introduction, 4th edn. Chapman and Hall, London, 241 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, C.D., 1993. A review of theory and estimation of fractal dimension. Tech. Rep. Ser. STAT-93–06. Dept. of Stat. and Act. Science, Univ. of Waterloo, Ontario, 107 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayton, P.D. & M.J. Tegner, 1984. The importance of scale in community ecology: a kelp forest example with terrestrical analogs. In Price, P.W., C.M. Slobodchikoff & W.S. Gaud (eds), A New Ecology: Novel Approaches to Interactive Systems. John Wiley & Sons, New York: 457–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes, B.J., P.S. Lake & E.S.G. Schreiber, 1993. Spatial variation in the distribution of stream invertebrates: implications of patchiness for models of community organization. Freshwat. Biol. 30: 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, S.G., 1994. Pattern, process and scale in freshwater systems: some unifying thoughts. In Giller, P.S., A.G. Hildrew & D.G. Raffaelli (eds), Aquatic Ecology: Scale, Pattern and Process. Blackwell, Oxford: 575–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisell, C.A., W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren & M.D. Hurley, 1986. A hierachical framework for stream classification: viewing streams in a watershed context, Envir. Mgmt. 10: 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Getis, A. & J. Franklin, 1987. Second-order neighborhood analysis of mapped point patterns. Ecology 68: 473–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giller P.S., A.G. Hildrew & D.G. Raffaelli (eds), 1994. Aquatic Ecology: Scale, Pattern and Process. Blackwell, Oxford, 649 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greig-Smith, P., 1983. Quantitative Plant Ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 359 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habersack, H., 1998. Numerical sediment transport models-theoretical and practical aspects, IAHS Publ. 249: 299–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habersack, H., 1997. Catchment-wide, sectional and local aspects in sediment transport modelling and monitoring. J. Sediment Res. 12: 120–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habersack, H. & H.P. Nachtnebel, 1995. Short term effects of local river restoration on morphology, flow field, substrate and biota, Regul. Riv. Res. Mgmt. 10: 291–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habersack, H. & H.P. Nachtnebel, 1997. Changes in sediment transport and river engineering concepts, case study of the river Drau in Austria, UNESCO-IHP-V/Tech. Doc. Hydrol. 10: 277–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey, R.D., 1988. Mathematical models of channel morphology. In Anderson, M.G. (ed.), Modelling Geomorphological Systems. Wiley, Chichester: 99–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C.S., 1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 62: 447–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne, J.K. & D.C. Schneider, 1995. Spatial variance in ecology. Oikos 74: 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, R.E., 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basin: hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol. Soc. am. Bull. 38: 275–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huston, M.A., 1994. Biological Diversity, the Coexistence of Species on Changing Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 681 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungwirth, M., 1998. River continuum and fish migration. In Jungwirth, M., S. Schmutz & S. Weiss (ed.), Fish Migration and Bypass Channels. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford: 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knighton, D., 1984. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Edward Arnold, London, 218 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, L.B. & T. Maddock, 1953. The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications. US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 252: 57 pp.

  • Levin, S.A., 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943–1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C.A., N.P. Lester, A.D. Bradshaw, J.E. Fitzgibbon, K. Fuller, L. Hakanson & C. Richards, 1996. Consideration of scale in habitat conservation and restoration. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 53 (suppl. 1): 440–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, M., 1967. Mean crowding. J. anim. Ecol. 36: 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomolino, M.V., 1989. Interpretations and comparisons of constants in the species-area relationship: an additional caution. Am. Nat. 133: 277–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackas, D.L., H.L. Denman & M.R. Abbott, 1985. Plankton patchiness: biology in the physical vernacular. Bull. mar. Sci. 37: 652–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot, B.B., 1977. Fractals: Form, Chance and Dimension. Freeman, San Francisco, 365 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menge, B.A. & A.M. Olson, 1990. Role of scale and environment factors in regulation of community structure. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5: 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michor, K., A. Zedrosser & M. Unterlercher, 1993. Mammal investigations at the river Drau, special report of the interdisciplinary project Gewässerbetreuungskonzept Obere Drau. Lienz, Austria.

  • Montgomery, D.R. & E. Foufoula-Georgiou, 1993. Channel network source representation using digital elevation models. Wat. Resour. Res. 29: 3925–3934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morisita, M., 1959. Measuring of the dispersion of individuals and analysis of the distributional patterns. Mem. Fac. Sci., Kyushu Univ. 2: 215–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muotka, T. & A. Penttinen, 1994. Detecting small-scale spatial patterns in lotic predator-prey relationship: statistical methods and a case study. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 51: 2210–2218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naiman, A.J., D.G. Lonzarich, T.J. Beechie & S.C. Ralph, 1992. General principles of classification and the assessment of conservation potential in rivers, In Boon, Calow, Petts, G.E. (eds), River Conservation and Management. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, Sussex: 93–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt, T. & K.L. Denman, 1975. Spectral analysis in ecology. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 6: 189–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poizat, G. & D. Pont, 1996. Multi-scale approach to species-habitat relationship-juvenile fish in a large river section. Freshwat. Biol. 36: 611–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffaelli, D.G., A.G. Hildrew & P.S. Giller, 1994. Scale, pattern and process in aquatic systems: concluding remarks. In Giller, P.S., A.G. Hildrew & D.G. Raffaelli (eds), Aquatic Ecology: Scale, Pattern and Process. Blackwell, Oxford: 601–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, C., L.B. Johnson & G.E. Host, 1996. Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 53 (suppl. 1): 295–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, K., 1982. Rivers-Form and Process in Alluvial Channels. Methuen, London, 361 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Iturbe, I., A. Rinaldo, R. Rigon, R.L. Bras, Marani & E. Ijjász-Vásquez, 1992. Energy dissipation, runoff production and the 3–dimensional structure of river basins. Wat. Resour. Res. 28: 1095–1103.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D.C., 1994. Quantitative Ecology: Spacial and Temporal Scaling. Academic Press, CA, 395 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R.R. & N.L. Oden, 1978. Spatial autocorrelation in biology 1. Methodology. Biol. J. linn. Soc. 10: 199–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stommel, H., 1963. The varieties of oceanographic experience. Science 139: 572–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strahler, A.N., 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans. am. Geophys. Union 38: 913–920.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugihara, G. & R.M. May, 1990. Application of fractals in ecology. Trends Res. Ecol. Evol. 5: 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syms, C., 1995. Multi-scale analysis of habitat association in a guild of blennioid fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 125: 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarboton, D.G., R.L. Bras & I. Rodríguez-Iturbe, 1989. Scaling and elevation in river networks. Wat. Resour. Res. 25: 2037–2051.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, L.R., 1961. Aggregation, variance and the mean. Nature 189: 732–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, R.F., 1985. Random fractals: characterisation and measurement. In Pynn, R. & A. Skjeltorp (eds), Scaling Phenomena in Disordered Systems. Plenum Press, New York: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens, J.A., 1989. The Ecology of Bird Communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 276 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, M.H. & J.H. Lawton, 1991. Fractal geometry of habitats. In Bell, S.S., E.D. McCoy & H.R. Mushinsky (eds), Habitat Structure. Chapman and Hall, London: 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Habersack, H.M. The river-scaling concept (RSC): a basis for ecological assessments. Hydrobiologia 422, 49–60 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017068821781

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017068821781

Navigation