1. The flow regime is a primary determinant of the structure and function of aquatic and riparian ecosystems for streams and rivers. Hydrologic alteration has impaired riverine ecosystems on a global scale, and the pace and intensity of human development greatly exceeds the ability of scientists to assess the effects on a river-by-river basis. Current scientific understanding of hydrologic controls on riverine ecosystems and experience gained from individual river studies support development of environmental flow standards at the regional scale. 2. This paper presents a consensus view from a group of international scientists on a new framework for assessing environmental flow needs for many streams and rivers simultaneously to foster development and implementation of environmental flow standards at the regional scale. This framework, the ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA), is a synthesis of a number of existing hydrologic techniques and environmental flow methods that are currently being used to various degrees and that can support comprehensive regional flow management. The flexible approach allows

No abstract

Cumulatively, headwater streams contribute to maintaining hydrologic connectivity and ecosystem integrity at regional scales. Hydrologic connectivity is the water‐mediated transport of matter, energy and organisms within or between elements of the hydrologic cycle. Headwater streams compose over two‐thirds of total stream length in a typical river drainage and directly connect the upland and riparian landscape to the rest of the stream ecosystem. Altering headwater streams, e.g., by channelization, diversion through pipes, impoundment and burial, modifies fluxes between uplands and downstream river segments and eliminates distinctive habitats. The large‐scale ecological effects of altering headwaters are amplified by land uses that alter runoff and nutrient loads to streams, and by widespread dam construction on larger rivers (which frequently leaves free‐flowing upstream portions of river systems essential to sustaining aquatic biodiversity). We discuss three examples of large‐scale consequences of cumulative headwater alteration. Downstream eutrophication and coastal hypoxia result, in part, from agricultural practices that alter headwaters and wetlands while increasing nutrient runoff. Extensive headwater alteration is also expected to lower secondary productivity of river systems by reducing stream‐system length and trophic subsidies to downstream river segments, affecting aquatic communities and terrestrial wildlife that utilize aquatic resources. Reduced viability of freshwater biota may occur with cumulative headwater alteration, including for species that occupy a range of stream sizes but for which headwater streams diversify the network of interconnected populations or enhance survival for particular life stages. Developing a more predictive understanding of ecological patterns that may emerge on regional scales as a result of headwater alterations will require studies focused on components and pathways that connect headwaters to river, coastal and terrestrial ecosystems. Linkages between headwaters and downstream ecosystems cannot be discounted when addressing large‐scale issues such as hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and global losses of biodiversity.

We examined microhabitat use among fishes in a 37‐m section of Coweeta Creek, North Carolina. Numerical abundances of species changed substantially during the 17‐month study period. Microhabitat availability, however, did not change markedly during our investigation. Seasonal principal component analyses of microhabitat availability and fish microhabitat use data extracted two main patterns of non‐random microhabitat use. Clinostomus funduloides, Notropis eoccogenis and Semotilus atromaculatm were significantly over‐represented in deep areas with low to intermediate velocities and depositional substrata. Campostoma oligolepis, Coitus bairdi, Etheostoma blennioides, Rhinichthys cataractae and Salmo gairdneri all occurred in intermediate to deep microhabitats with moderate to high velocities and erosional substrata. Five of seven species exhibited seasonal variation in microhabitat utilization, whereas six species displayed size‐related variation in use. Size‐related variation was probably ontogenetic. We attributed most seasonal changes in microhabitat use to variations in microhabitat availability. We used canonical analysis of discriminants to identify factors maximizing interspecific differences in microhabitat use. This analysis indicated that species could be assigned to either a benthic or a water column guild. Species within a guild generally could not be differentiated statistically, whereas members of different guilds were readily separable. These patterns persisted throughout the study, despite changes in numerical abundances of assemblage members. There was no evidence of either exploitation or interference competition for microhabitat, consequently it is unlikely that spatial resources were limiting during our study.

We assessed the relative importance of environmental variation, interspecific competition for space, and predator abundance on assemblage structure and microhabitat use in a stream fish assemblage inhabiting Coweeta Creek, North Carolina, USA. Our study encompassed a 10–yr time span (1983–1992) and included some of the highest and lowest flows in the last 58 years. We collected 16 seasonal samples which included data on: (1) habitat availability (total and microhabitat) and microhabitat diversity, (2) assemblage structure (i.e., the number and abundances of species comprising a subset of the community), and (3) microhabitat use and overlap. We classified habitat availability data on the basis of year, season, and hydrologic period. Hydrologic period (i.e., pre–drought [PR], drought [D], and post–drought [PO]) represented the temporal location of a sample with respect to a four–year drought that occurred during the study. Hydrologic period explained a greater amount of variance in habitat availability data than either season or year. Total habitat availability was significantly greater during PO than in PR or D, although microhabitat diversity did not differ among either seasons or hydrologic periods. There were significantly fewer high–flow events (i.e., ≥2.1 m3/s) during D than in either PR or PO periods. We observed a total of 16 species during our investigation, and the total number of species was significantly higher in D than in PR samples. Correlation analyses between the number of species present (total and abundant species) and environmental data yielded limited results, although the total number of species was inversely correlated with total habitat availability. A cluster analysis grouped assemblage structure samples by hydrologic period rather than season or year, supporting the contention that variation in annual flow had a strong impact on this assemblage. The drought had little effect on the numerical abundance of benthic species in this assemblage; however, a majority of water–column species increased in abundance. The increased abundances of water–column species may have been related to the decrease in high‐flow events observed during the drought. Such high–flow events are known to cause mortality in stream fishes. Microhabitat use data showed that species belonged to one of three microhabitat guilds: benthic, lower water column, and mid water column. In general, species within the same guild did not exhibit statistically distinguishable patterns of microhabitat use, and most significant differences occurred between members of different guilds. However, lower water–column guild species frequentlywere not separable from all members of either benthic or mid–water–column species. Variations in the abundance of potential competitors or predators did not produce strong shifts in microhabitat use by assemblage members. Predators were present in the site in only 9 of 16 seasonal samples and never were abundant (maximum number observed per day was 2). In conclusion, our results demonstrate that variability...