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, ...

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

Before adolescence, youths with type 1 diabetes showed only slight problems in psychological adjustment and QoL, with an association with disease duration reported by parents. In adolescence, both youths and their parents reported more emotional and behavioural problems, independent of disease duration. Better metabolic control and psychological well-being seemed directly related.

No abstract

Riverbank retreat along a bend of the Cecina River, Tuscany (central Italy) was monitored across a near annual cycle (autumn 2003 to summer 2004) with the aim of better understanding the factors influencing bank changes and processes at a seasonal scale. Seven flow events occurred during the period of investigation, with the largest having an estimated return period of about 1·5 years. Bank simulations were performed by linking hydrodynamic, fluvial erosion, groundwater flow and bank stability models, for the seven flow events, which are representative of the typical range of hydrographs that normally occur during an annual cycle. The simulations allowed identification of (i) the time of onset and cessation of mass failure and fluvial erosion episodes, (ii) the contributions to total bank retreat made by specific fluvial erosion and mass-wasting processes, and (iii) the causes of retreat. The results show that the occurrence of bank erosion processes (fluvial erosion, slide failure, cantilever failure) and their relative dominance differ significantly for each event, depending on seasonal hydrological conditions and initial bank geometry. Due to the specific planimetric configuration of the study bend, which steers the core of high velocity fluid away from the bank at higher flow discharges, fluvial erosion tends to occur during particular phases of the hydrograph. As a result fluvial erosion is ineffective at higher peak discharges, and depends more on the duration of more moderate discharges. Slide failures appear to be closely related to the magnitude of peak river stages, typically occurring in close proximity to the peak phase (preferentially during the falling limb, but in some cases even before the peak), while cantilever failures more typically occur in the late phase of the flow hydrograph, when they may be induced by the cumulative effects of any fluvial erosion.