Geomorphic and process domain controls on riparian zones in the Colorado Front Range

Polvi, Lina E.; Wohl, Ellen; Merritt, David M.

doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.10.012

Cited by 57 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, local conditions such as channel geometry can vary greatly over small distances or short time periods [75] because of changes in lithology and vegetation, tributary confluences, beaver activity, climate, or land use [76][77][78]. Therefore, it is essential to quantify the range of natural variability by compiling sufficient information from historical reference periods, multiple regional reference sites (using space for time substitution), or patterns, gradients, and processes that define reference conditions.…”

Section: Controlling For Time Space and Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Stream Restoration Projects: What Do We Learn from Monitoring?

Rubin

Kondolf

Ríos-Touma

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two decades since calls for stream restoration projects to be scientifically assessed, most projects are still unevaluated, and conducted evaluations yield ambiguous results. Even after these decades of investigation, do we know how to define and measure success? We systematically reviewed 26 studies of stream restoration projects that used macroinvertebrate indicators to assess the success of habitat heterogeneity restoration projects. All 26 studies were previously included in two meta-analyses that sought to assess whether restoration programs were succeeding. By contrast, our review focuses on the evaluations themselves, and asks what exactly we are measuring and learning from these evaluations. All 26 studies used taxonomic diversity, richness, or abundance of invertebrates as biological measures of success, but none presented explicit arguments why those metrics were relevant measures of success for the restoration projects. Although changes in biodiversity may reflect overall ecological condition at the regional or global scale, in the context of reach-scale habitat restoration, more abundance and diversity may not necessarily be better. While all 26 studies sought to evaluate the biotic response to habitat heterogeneity enhancement projects, about half of the studies (46%) explicitly measured habitat alteration, and 31% used visual estimates of grain size or subjectively judged 'habitat quality' from protocols ill-suited for the purpose. Although the goal of all 26 projects was to increase habitat heterogeneity, 31% of the studies either sampled only riffles or did not specify the habitats sampled. One-third of the studies (35%) used reference ecosystems to define target conditions. After 20 years of stream restoration evaluation, more work remains for the restoration community to identify appropriate measures of success and to coordinate monitoring so that evaluations are at a scale capable of detecting ecosystem change.

show abstract

Section: Controlling For Time Space and Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Stream Restoration Projects: What Do We Learn from Monitoring?

Rubin

Kondolf

Ríos-Touma

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Topographical characteristics reflect the geomorphic processes that in turn link to ecological systems (Montgomery, 1999;Polvi et al, 2011). We obtained topographic data from the Maricopa County Flood Control district with 1.22-m (4-ft) contour intervals.…”

Section: Topographic Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The confinement ratio (Polvi et al, 2011) or the degree to which a channel is constricted was calculated from the DEM using the width of the active channel for valley, which is observed during field surveys (Eq. (3)).…”

Section: Topographic Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Process domains (Montgomery, 1999) work well to better articulate geomorphology and ecosystem dynamics in the Pacific Northwest (Brardinoni and Hassan, 2006;Collins and Montgomery, 2011), in southeastern North America (Troia et al, 2015), in Michigan (Neeson et al, 2012), and in different settings within the Rocky Mountains (Wohl, 2010(Wohl, , 2011Polvi et al, 2011;Bellmore and Baxter, 2014;Livers and Wohl, 2015). As originally presented, Montgomery (1999, p. 402) considers process domains 'predictable areas of a landscape within which distinct suites of geomorphic processes govern physical habitat type, structure and dynamics; the disturbance regimes associated with process domains dictate the template upon which ecosystems develop.'…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating process domains in small arid granitic watersheds: Case study of Pima Wash, South Mountains, Sonoran Desert, USA

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In contrast, the uniform flow and sediment transport processes exhibited by very low topographic variability (e.g., upland valley uniform channels) are associated with long hyporheic flow paths that modify the reach's mean daily temperature (Poole et al, 2008) and biogeochemistry (Findlay, 1995) from average channel conditions, in turn affecting habitat quality (Poole et al, 2008;Tonina and Buffington, 2009) and salmonid population structure (e.g., Burnett et al, 2003) throughout the reach. Unconfined uniform channels with the propensity for these long hyporheic flow paths have also been shown to provide low-velocity refugia for biota during periods of high flow (e.g., Wenger et al, 2011) and support wider riparian zones (Polvi et al 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of topographic variability in river channel classification

Lane

Pasternack

Dahlke

et al. 2017

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, subreach-scale variations in flow width and bed elevation have rarely been included in channel classifications. Variability in topographic features of rivers, however, in conjunction with sediment supply and discharge produces a mosaic of channel forms that provides unique habitats for sensitive aquatic species. In this study we investigated the utility of topographic variability attributes (TVAs) in distinguishing channel types and dominant channel formation and maintenance processes in montane and lowland streams of the Sacramento River basin, California, USA. A stratified random survey of 161 stream sites was performed to ensure balanced sampling across groups of stream reaches with expected similar geomorphic settings. For each site surveyed, width and depth variability were measured at baseflow and bankfull stages, and then incorporated in a channel classification framework alongside traditional reach-averaged geomorphic attributes (e.g., channel slope, width-to-depth, confinement, and dominant substrate) to evaluate the significance of TVAs in differentiating channel types. In contrast to more traditional attributes such as slope and contributing area, which are often touted as the key indicators of hydrogeomorphic processes, bankfull width variance emerged as a first-order attribute for distinguishing channel types. A total of nine channel types were distinguished for the Sacramento Basin consisting of both previously identified and new channel types. The results indicate that incorporating TVAs in channel classification provides a quantitative basis for interpreting nonuniform as well as uniform geomorphic processes, which can improve our ability to distinguish linked channel forms and processes of geomorphic and ecological significance.

show abstract

Geomorphic and process domain controls on riparian zones in the Colorado Front Range

Cited by 57 publications

References 50 publications

Evaluating Stream Restoration Projects: What Do We Learn from Monitoring?

Evaluating Stream Restoration Projects: What Do We Learn from Monitoring?

Evaluating process domains in small arid granitic watersheds: Case study of Pima Wash, South Mountains, Sonoran Desert, USA

The role of topographic variability in river channel classification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About