Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

The Theory of Island Biogeography

Freshwater biodiversity is the over-riding conservation priority during the International Decade for Action - 'Water for Life' - 2005 to 2015. Fresh water makes up only 0.01% of the World's water and approximately 0.8% of the Earth's surface, yet this tiny fraction of global water supports at least 100000 species out of approximately 1.8 million - almost 6% of all described species. Inland waters and freshwater biodiversity constitute a valuable natural resource, in economic, cultural, aesthetic, scientific and educational terms. Their conservation and management are critical to the interests of all humans, nations and governments. Yet this precious heritage is in crisis. Fresh waters are experiencing declines in biodiversity far greater than those in the most affected terrestrial ecosystems, and if trends in human demands for water remain unaltered and species losses continue at current rates, the opportunity to conserve much of the remaining biodiversity in fresh water will vanish before the 'Water for Life' decade ends in 2015. Why is this so, and what is being done about it? This article explores the special features of freshwater habitats and the biodiversity they support that makes them especially vulnerable to human activities. We document threats to global freshwater biodiversity under five headings: overexploitation; water pollution; flow modification; destruction or degradation of habitat; and invasion by exotic species. Their combined and interacting influences have resulted in population declines and range reduction of freshwater biodiversity worldwide. Conservation of biodiversity is complicated by the landscape position of rivers and wetlands as 'receivers' of land-use effluents, and the problems posed by endemism and thus non-substitutability. In addition, in many parts of the world, fresh water is subject to severe competition among multiple human stakeholders. Protection of freshwater biodiversity is perhaps the ultimate conservation challenge because it is influenced by the upstream drainage network, the surrounding land, the riparian zone, and - in the case of migrating aquatic fauna - downstream reaches. Such prerequisites are hardly ever met. Immediate action is needed where opportunities exist to set aside intact lake and river ecosystems within large protected areas. For most of the global land surface, trade-offs between conservation of freshwater biodiversity and human use of ecosystem goods and services are necessary. We advocate continuing attempts to check species loss but, in many situations, urge adoption of a compromise position of management for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem functioning and resilience, and human livelihoods in order to provide a viable long-term basis for freshwater conservation. Recognition of this need will require adoption of a new paradigm for biodiversity protection and freshwater ecosystem management - one that has been appropriately termed 'reconciliation ecology'.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/96AA265E3D88C95FB802E7A73CCB4332/S1464793105006950a.pdf/div-class-title-freshwater-biodiversity-importance-threats-status-and-conservation-challenges-div.pdf

Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges

▪ Abstract Local habitat and biological diversity of streams and rivers are strongly influenced by landform and land use within the surrounding valley at multiple scales. However, empirical associations between land use and stream response only varyingly succeed in implicating pathways of influence. This is the case for a number of reasons, including (a) covariation of anthropogenic and natural gradients in the landscape; (b) the existence of multiple, scale-dependent mechanisms; (c) nonlinear responses; and (d) the difficulties of separating present-day from historical influences. Further research is needed that examines responses to land use under different management strategies and that employs response variables that have greater diagnostic value than many of the aggregated measures in current use. In every respect, the valley rules the stream.      H.B.N. Hynes (1975)

http://deq.idaho.gov/media/525804-Landscapes_Riverscapes_Influence_landuse_stream_ecosystems_Allan_2004.pdf

Landscapes and Riverscapes: The Influence of Land Use on Stream Ecosystems

The flow regime is regarded by many aquatic ecologists to be the key driver of river and floodplain wet- land ecosystems. We have focused this literature review around four key principles to highlight the important mech- anisms that link hydrology and aquatic biodiversity and to illustrate the consequent impacts of altered flow regimes: Firstly, flow is a major determinant of physical habitat in streams, which in turn is a major determinant of biotic com- position; Secondly, aquatic species have evolved life history strategies primarily in direct response to the natural flow regimes; Thirdly, maintenance of natural patterns of longitu- dinal and lateral connectivity is essential to the viability of populations of many riverine species; Finally, the invasion and success of exotic and introduced species in rivers is facilitated by the alteration of flow regimes. The impacts of flow change are manifest across broad taxonomic groups including riverine plants, invertebrates, and fish. Despite growing recognition of these relationships, ecologists still struggle to predict and quantify biotic responses to altered flow regimes. One obvious difficulty is the ability to distin- guish the direct effects of modified flow regimes from im- pacts associated with land-use change that often accom- panies water resource development. Currently, evidence about how rivers function in relation to flow regime and the flows that aquatic organisms need exists largely as a series of untested hypotheses. To overcome these problems, aquatic science needs to move quickly into a manipulative or experimental phase, preferably with the aims of restora- tion and measuring ecosystem response.

/pdf/basic-principles-and-ecological-consequences-of-altered-flow-4u5bupofua.pdf

Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity.

Hydrologic regimes play a major role in determining the biotic composition, structure, and function of aquatic, wetland, and riparian ecosystems. But human land and water uses are substantially altering hydrologic regimes around the world. Improved quantitative evaluations of human-induced hydrologic changes are needed to advance research on the biotic implications of hydrologic alteration and to support ecosystem management and restoration plans. We propose a method for assessing the degree of hydrologic alteration attributable to human influence within an ecosystem. This method, referred to as the “Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration,” is based upon an analysis of hydrologic data available either from existing measurement points within an ecosystem (such as at stream gauges or wells) or model-generated data. We use 32 parameters, organized into five groups, to statistically characterize hydrologic variation within each year. These 32 parameters provide information on ecologically significant features of surface and ground water regimes influencing aquatic, wetland, and riparian ecosystems. We then assess the hydrologic perturbations associated with activities such as dam operations, flow diversion, groundwater pumping, or intensive land-use conversion by comparing measures of central tendency and dispersion for each parameter between user-defined “pre-impact” and “post-impact” time frames, generating 64 Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration. This method is intended for use with other ecosystem metrics in inventories of ecosystem integrity, in planning ecosystem management activities, and in setting and measuring progress toward conservation or restoration goals.

A Method for Assessing Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosystems

We propose an integrated, heuristic model of lotic biocomplexity across spatiotemporal scales from headwaters to large rivers. This riverine ecosystem synthesis (RES) provides a framework for understanding both broad, often discontinuous patterns along longitudinal and lateral dimensions of river networks and local ecological patterns across various temporal and smaller spatial scales. Rather than posing a completely new model, we arrange a conceptual marriage of eco-geomorphology (ecological aspects of fluvial geomorphology) with a terrestrial landscape model describing hierarchical patch dynamics. We modify five components of this terrestrial model for lotic ecosystems: (1) nested, discontinuous hierarchies of patch mosaics; (2) ecosystem dynamics as a composite of intra- and inter-patch dynamics; (3) linked patterns and processes; (4) dominance of non-equilibrial and stochastic processes; and (5) formation of a quasi-equilibrial, metastable state. Our conceptual model blends our perspectives on biocomplexity with aspects of aquatic models proposed from 1980–2004.

Contrasting with a common view of rivers as continuous, longitudinal gradients in physical conditions, the RES portrays rivers as downstream arrays of large hydrogeomorphic patches (e.g. constricted, braided and floodplain channel areas) formed by catchment geomorphology and climate. The longitudinal distribution of these patches, which are identifiable using standard geomorphic techniques, varies amongst rivers and is difficult to forecast above ecoregional scales. Some types of hydrogeomorphic patches may reoccur along this downstream passage. Unique ecological ‘functional process zones’ are formed by individual types of hydrogeomorphic patches because of physiochemical habitat differences which affect ecosystem structure and function.

The RES currently includes 14 tenets predicting how patterns of individual species distributions, community regulation, lotic ecosystem processes, and floodplain interactions will vary over spatiotemporal scales, especially as they relate to the functional process zones formed by hydrogeomorphic differences in the river network. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The riverine ecosystem synthesis : Biocomplexity in river networks across space and time

Summary

1. Traditionally the assessment of river water quality has been based solely on the measurement of physical, chemical and some biological characteristics. While these measurements may be efficient for regulating effluent discharges and protecting humans, they are not very useful for large-scale management of catchments or for assessing whether river ecosystems are being protected.



2. Measurements of aquatic biota, to identify structural or functional integrity of ecosystems, have recently gained acceptance for river assessment. Empirical evidence from studies of river ecosystems under stress suggests that a small group of biological ecosystem-level indicators can assess river condition. However, physical and chemical features of the environment affect these indicators, the structure and function of which may be changed by human activities.



3. The term ‘river health’, applied to the assessment of river condition, is often seen as being analogous with human health, giving many a sense of understanding. Unfortunately, the meaning of ‘river health’ remains obscure. It is not clear what aspects of river health sets of ecosystem-level indicators actually identify, nor how physical, chemical and biological characteristics may be integrated into measures rather than just observations of cause and effect.



4. Increased examination of relationships between environmental variables that affect aquatic biota, such as habitat structure, flow regime, energy sources, water quality and biotic interactions and biological condition, are required in the study of river health.

What is river health

Australian dryland rivers are acknowledged as being among the most variable and unpredictable in the world in terms of their flow regimes. Although renowned for their spectacular floods over vast and complex floodplains, rivers exist for much of the time as discrete waterholes, which are important refugia for aquatic biota. Recent work has shown that waterholes are filled by surface flows and there is little evidence of groundwater contributions. The permanence of these refugia is largely determined by waterhole morphology and evaporative loss, and some waterholes can clearly persist for 2 years or more without surface flow connection. As a consequence, the spatial distribution of refugia for aquatic biota is determined not only by the physical template but also by the duration of dry spells and the timing of flow events. Flow variability also has a major influence on aquatic production in these systems and ultimately influences food availability for fish and other consumers. During dry spells, aquatic food webs in waterholes are largely supported by algal production in the shallow littoral zone. At the other extreme, during floods, the boom of aquatic production on floodplains provides an immense food resource. However, there are many occasions when in-channel flows (flow pulses) result in periods where neither of these sources of production is likely to be available. Although such flow pulses are essential for the physical persistence and connectivity of waterholes, we propose that they may lead to food limitation and stress for populations of fish and other consumers. Water resource development in dryland rivers often leads to an increase in the frequency and duration of flow pulses, due to reduced floods and elevated base flows. This increase in the ‘bits in between’ natural boom or bust conditions may help to explain the observed decline in ecosystem health in dryland river systems with significant water resource development. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Flow variability in dryland rivers: boom, bust and the bits in between

Before regulation flows in the lower Murray were highly variable, as for most rivers in semi-arid regions. Major floods promoted large-scale recruitment of flora and fauna in riverine and floodplain communities, and seasonal floods maintained lower levels of recruitment. The regime changed with the construction of 10 low-level weirs in 1922-35, supplemented by the effects of dams in upstream areas. Flows remain variable but are much reduced in volume (about 44%). Low flows (100-300 GI per month) have decreased five-fold and moderate flows (500-1500 GI per month) have increased two-fold. Although the magnitude of peak seasonal flows has been diminished, the timing of flows is unaffected. The effects differ in the Valley and Gorge sections of the river, depending on local development of the floodplain and associated wetlands. The weirs have flooded once-temporary wetlands and contributed to problems of salinization. Weir operations cause daily stage fluctuations that diminish downstream, and the channel is developing a stepped gradient as a consequence of active deposition and erosion. Regulation has limited exchanges between the river and its floodplain, changed the nature of the littoral zone and generally created an environment inimical to many native species, notably fish. The key to rehabilitation may be to restore a more natural balance of low and medium flows, but this may be unrealistic. given the needs of irrigators and other water users. Despite its evolutionary history of wide spatial and temporal variation, the Murray river-floodplain ecosystem evidently cannot accommodate these forms of disturbance.

Martin Thoms

Papers

The riverine ecosystem synthesis : Biocomplexity in river networks across space and time

What is river health

Flow variability in dryland rivers: boom, bust and the bits in between

Environmental effects of flow regulation on the lower river Murray, Australia

Floodplain–river ecosystems: lateral connections and the implications of human interference