The Wetland Book pp 1829-1834 | Cite as

Environmental Flows: Habitat Modeling

  • Ian Maddock
Reference work entry


Aquatic habitat modelling is commonly used in riverine wetlands for environmen.tal flow assessments as a means of defining the empirical relationship between environmental variables, and usable habitat for selected target species, life stages or aquatic communities. Aquatic habitat modelling is used to determine environmental flow strategies by estimating the effects of historic, current or future flow scenarios on habitat availability. The origins of aquatic habitat modelling for determining environmental flows can be traced to the development of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) and the set of computer programs required to implement an IFIM study, i.e. the Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) system. More recently, other models have used alternative approaches, such as CASiMiR (Computer Aided Simulation Model for Instream Flow and Riparia) that utilises a mix of expert opinion and fuzzy logic based rules to describe the habitat use of target species or the application of multidimensional, i.e., two-dimensional and to a lesser extent three-dimensional hydraulic-habitat models. These enable an enhanced representation of the hydraulic environment and allow the calculation and modelling of turbulent flow properties. However, a knowledge of how biota respond to and are influenced by these properties remains an ongoing challenge to incorporate them into environmental flow setting.


IFIM PHABSIM CASiMiR Habitat suitability curves Hydraulic habitat models Fuzzy logic 


  1. Beesley L, King AJ, Gawne B, Koehn JD, Price A, Nielsen D, Amtstaetter F, Meredith SN. Optimising environmental watering of floodplain wetlands for fish. Freshw Biol. 2014;59(10):2024–37. Scholar
  2. Bovee KD. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the IFIM – report FWS/OBS-82/26. Fort Collins: US Fish and Wildlife Service; 1982.Google Scholar
  3. Costa RMS, Martínez-Capel F, Muñoz-Mas R, Alcaraz-Hernández JD, Garófano-Gómez V. Habitat suitability modelling at mesohabitat scale and effects of dam operation on the endangered Júcar Nase, Parachondrostoma Arrigonis (River Cabriel, Spain). River Res Appl. 2012;28:740–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunbar MJ, Alfredsen K, Harby A. Hydraulic-habitat modelling for setting environmental flow needs for salmonids. Fish Manag Ecol. 2012;19:500–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gippel CJ, Stewardson MJ. Use of wetted perimeter in defining minimum environmental flows. Regul Rivers Res Manag. 1998;14:53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heggenes J. Habitat selection by Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) and young Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in streams: static and dynamic modelling. Regul Rivers Res Manag. 1996;12:155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Janauer GA, Schmidt-Mumm U, Reckendorfer W. Ecohydraulics and aquatic macrophytes: assessing the relationships in river floodplains. In: Maddock I, Harby A, Kemp P, Wood P, editors. Ecohydraulics: an integrated approach. New York: Wiley; 2013. p. 245–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jowett Consulting. RYHABSIM. 2011. Accessed 23 June 2014.
  9. Maddock IP, Bickerton MA, Spence R, Pickering T. Reallocation of compensation releases to restore river flows and improve instream habitat availability in the Upper Derwent catchment, Derbyshire, UK. Regul Rivers Res Manag. 2001;17:417–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maynard CM, Lane SN. Reservoir compensation releases: impact on the macroinvertebrate community of the Derwent River, Northumberland, UK – a longitudinal study. River Res Appl. 2012;28:692–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mouton A, de Baets B, Goethals P. Data-driven fuzzy habitat models: impact of performance criteria and opportunities for ecohydraulics. In: Maddock I, Harby A, Kemp P, Wood P, editors. Ecohydraulics: an integrated approach. New York: Wiley; 2013. p. 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nestler J, Milhous RT, Layzer JB. Instream habitat modelling techniques. In: Gore JA, Petts GE, editors. Alternatives in regulated river management. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1989. p. 295–316.Google Scholar
  13. Noack M, Schneider M, Wieprecht S. The habitat modelling system CASiMiR: a multivariate fuzzy approach and its applications. In: Maddock I, Harby A, Kemp P, Wood P, editors. Ecohydraulics: an integrated approach. New York: Wiley; 2013. p. 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Olsen M, Boegh E, Pedersen S, Pedersen MF. Impact of groundwater abstraction on physical habitat of brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a small Danish stream. Hydrol Res. 2009;40:394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ormerod SJ, Durance I. Understanding and managing climate change effects on river ecosystems. In: Boon PJ, Raven PJ, editors. River conservation and management. New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. p. 107–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rodriguez JF, Howe A. Estuarine wetland ecohydraulics and migratory shorebird habitat restoration. In: Maddock I, Harby A, Kemp P, Wood P, editors. Ecohydraulics: an integrated approach. New York: Wiley; 2013. p. 375–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomas R. Payne and Associates. RHABSIM version 3.0. 2013. Accessed 23 June 2014.
  18. Waters BF. A methodology for evaluating the effects of different stream flows on salmonid habitat. In: Orsborn JF, Allman CH, editors. Instream flow needs. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society; 1976. p. 254–66.Google Scholar
  19. Wilkes MA, Maddock I, Visser F, Acreman MC. Incorporating hydrodynamics into ecohydraulics: the role of turbulence in the swimming performance and habitat selection of steam-dwelling fish. In: Maddock I, Harby A, Kemp P, Wood P, editors. Ecohydraulics: an integrated approach. New York: Wiley; 2013. p. 9–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Science and the EnvironmentUniversity of WorcesterWorcesterUK

Personalised recommendations