fellettiD fF nd qri de venizD gF nd tonesD tF nd fizziD F nd f¤ orgerD vF nd egurD qF nd gstellettiD eF nd n de fundD F nd erestrupD uF nd frryD tF nd felkD uF nd ferkhuysenD eF nd firnieEquvinD uF nd fussettiniD wF nd grolliD wF nd gonsuegrD F nd hopioD iF nd peierfeilD F nd pern¡ ndezD F nd pernndez qrridoD F nd qriEzquezD iF nd qrridoD F nd qinnioD qF nd qoughD F nd tepsenD xF nd tonesD FiF nd uempD F nd uerrD tF nd uingD tF nd Lpi¡ nskD wF nd v¡ zroD qF nd vusD wFgF nd wrelloD vF nd wrtinD F nd wqinnityD F nd y9rnleyD tF nd ylivo del emoD F nd rsiewizD F nd inonD qF nd odriguezD gF nd oyteD tF nd hneiderD gFF nd ummersD tFF nd llesiD F nd owlesD eFF nd erspoorD iF nd nningenD rF nd ntzenD uFwF nd ildmnD vF nd lewskiD wF @PHPHA 9wore thn one million rriers frgment iurope9s riversF9D xtureFD SVV F ppF RQTERRIF Further information on publisher's website: httpsXGGdoiForgGIHFIHQVGsRISVTEHPHEQHHSEP Publisher's copyright statement:Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Contact CEH NORA team at noraceh@ceh.ac.ukThe NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner. 1The following paper is the final version prior to publication on 22 September 2015. are proposed, the way in which indicators could contribute to classification is discussed. All of the methods described in Table 1 consider a hierarchy of spatial units, but the degree to which they develop the other aspects of the conceptual approach proposed by Frissell et al.(1986) varies widely.2. Many of the frameworks focus entirely on hydromorphological processes and forms that are either directly measured or inferred. This is because interactions between processes and forms control the dynamic morphology or behaviour of rivers and their mosaics of habitats.Hydromorphological processes drive longitudinal and lateral connectivity within river networks and corridors, the assemblage and turnover of physical habitats, and the sedimentary and vegetation structures associated with those habitats.3. Some frameworks are conceptual, providing a way of thinking about or structuring analyses of river systems, and interpreting their processes, morphology and function (e.g. Frissell et al., 1986;Habersack, 2000;Fausch et al., 2002;Thorp et al., 2006;Beechie et al., 2010;McCluney et al., 2014). Some frameworks are more quantitative, generating one or more indices or classifications of spatial units that support assessment of river systems (e.g. Rosgen, 1994;González del Tánago and García de Jalón, 2004;Merovich et al., 2013;Rinaldi et al., 2013Rinaldi et al., , 2015a MacDonald, 2002;Brierley and Fryirs, 2005;Beechie et al., 2010; Rinaldi et al., 2013a Rinaldi et al., , 2015.In some cases, theoretical or historical analyses or consideration of specific future scenarios are used to develop space-time understanding that can support management decisionmaking (e.g. Buffington, 1997, 1998;Montgomery and MacDonald, 2002;Benda et al., 2004;Brierley and Fryirs, 2005;McCluney et al., 2014 , 1997, 1998Montgomery and MacDonald, 2002;Benda et al., 2004;Brierley and Fryirs, 2005;Merovich et al., 2013;Rinaldi et al., 2013Rinaldi et al., , 2015a. Furthermore, some of the frameworks include indicators of human pressures and their impacts (e.g. Merovich et al., 2013;McCluney et al., 2014;Rinaldi et al., 2013Rinaldi et al., , 2015a.6. Finally, although most frameworks could be described as incorporating processes to some degree, some methods are particularly process-based, even when processes are inferred from forms and associations rather than being quantified by direct measurements.Frameworks that consider temporal dynamics and trajectories of historical change (see point 4, above) are particularly effective in developing understanding of processes and the impacts of changed processes cascading through time and across spatial scales.Although the list of frameworks presented in Table 1 is far from comprehensive, ...

No abstract

Geomorphic units are the elementary spatial physical features of the river mosaic at the reach scale that are nested within the overall hydromorphological structure of a river and its catchment. Geomorphic units also constitute the template of physical habitats for the biota. The assessment of river hydromorphological conditions is required by the European Water Framework Directive 2000/60 (WFD) for the classification and monitoring of water bodies and is useful for establishing links between their physical and biological conditions. The spatial scale of geomorphic units, incorporating their component elements and hydraulic patches, is the most appropriate to assess these links. Given the weakness of existing methods for the characterisation and assessment of geomorphic units and physical habitats (e.g., lack of a well-defined spatiotemporal framework, terminology issues, etc.), a new system for the survey and characterisation of river geomorphic units is needed that fits within a geomorphologically meaningful framework. This paper presents a system for the survey and classification of geomorphic units (GUS, geomorphic units survey and classification system) aimed at characterising physical habitats and stream morphology. The method is embedded into a multiscale, hierarchical framework for the analysis of river hydromorphological conditions. Three scales of geomorphic units are considered (i.e., macro-units, units, sub-units), organised within two spatial domains (i.e., bankfull channel and floodplain). Different levels of characterisation can be applied, depending on the aims of the survey: broad, basic, and detailed level. At each level, different, complementary information is collected. The method is applied by combining remote sensing analysis and field survey, according to the spatial scale and the level of description required. The method is applicable to most of fluvial conditions, and has been designed to be flexible and adaptable according to the objectives (e.g., reach characterisation, assessment, monitoring) and available data (e.g., image resolution). The method supports integrated hydromorphological assessment at the reach scale (e.g., the Morphological Quality Index, MQI) and therefore contributes to better establishing links between hydromorphological conditions at the reach scale, characteristic geomorphic units, and related biological conditions

The rivers of the world are undergoing accelerated change in the Anthropocene, and need to be managed at much broader spatial and temporal scales than before. Fluvial remote sensing now offers a technical and methodological framework that can be deployed to monitor the processes at work and to assess the trajectories of rivers in the Anthropocene. In this paper, we review research investigating past, present and future fluvial corridor conditions and processes using remote sensing and we consider emerging challenges facing fluvial and riparian research. We introduce a suite of remote sensing methods designed to diagnose river changes at reach to regional scales. We then focus on identification of channel patterns and acting processes from satellite, airborne or ground acquisitions. These techniques range from grain scales to landform scales, and from real time scales to inter-annual scales. We discuss how remote sensing data can now be coupled to catchment scale models that simulate sediment transfer within connected river networks. We also consider future opportunities in terms of datasets and other resources which are likely to impact river management and monitoring at the global scale. We conclude with a summary of challenges and prospects for remotely sensed rivers in the Anthropocene.

Peer-review status of attached le: eerEreviewed Citation for published item: tonesD toshu nd f¤ orgerD vu nd ummersD teroen nd tonesD eter nd vusD wrtyn nd uerrD tim nd uempD ul nd fizziD imone nd gonsuegrD o( nd wrelloD vuio nd owlesD endrew nd fellettiD frr nd erspoorD iri nd de fundD nd qoughD eter nd de venizD grlos qri @PHIWA 9e omprehensive ssessment of strem frgmenttion in qret fritinF9D iene of the totl environmentFD TUQ F ppF USTEUTPF

Riparian vegetation actively interacts with fluvial systems affecting river hydrodynamics, morphodynamics and groundwater. These interactions can be coupled because both vegetation and hydromorphology (i.e. the combined scientific study of hydrology and fluvial geomorphology) involve dynamic processes with similar temporal and spatial scales. To predict and assess the consequences of restoration measures, maintenance operations or human pressures in rivers, managers and planners may wish to model these interactions considering the different and interdisciplinary implications in the fields of ecology, geomorphology and hydrology. In this paper, we review models that are currently available and that incorporate the processes that relate riparian vegetation to hydromorphology. The models that are considered include those emphasizing hydraulic-geomorphological processes (such as flow resistance, sediment transport and bank dynamics) as well as those emphasizing ecological processes (seed dispersal, plant survival, growth, succession and mortality). Models interpreting the coupled evolution between riparian vegetation and river morphology and groundwater are also presented. The aim is to provide an overview of current modelling capabilities and limitations and to identify future modelling challenges.

No abstract