Hydropeaking impact on a riparian ground beetle community

River Research and Applications

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 223-233

  Van Looy, Kris ^a   Jochems, Hans ^a   Vanacker, Stijn ^a   Lommelen, Els ^a  

^a RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR NATURE AND FOREST INBO   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Boundary conditions; Carabidae; Gravel bars; Habitat templet; Hydropeaking

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; BOUNDARY CONDITION; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; RIPARIAN ZONE; STREAMFLOW;

CARABIDAE; COLEOPTERA;

EID: 33847764925     PISSN: 15351459     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rra.975     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Andersen J, Hanssen O. 2005. Riparian beetles, a unique, but vulnerable element in the fauna of Fennoscandia. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 3497-3524.
2. Boulton AJ, Sheldon F, Thoms MC, Stanly EH. 2000. Problems and constraints in managing rivers with variable flow regimes. In Global Perspectives on River Conservation: Science, Policy and Practice, Boon PJ, Davies BR, Petts GE (eds). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: 415-430.
3. Bovee KD. 1985. Evaluation of the effects of hydropeaking on aquatic macroinvertebrates using PHABSIM. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Small Hydropower and Fisheries, Olson FW, White RG, Hamre RH (eds). American Fisheries Society: Denver, CO; 236-242.
4. Cushman RM. 1985. Review of ecological effects of rapidly varying flows downstream from hydroelectric facilities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5: 330-339.
5. Den Boer PJ, Thiele HU, Weber F (eds). 1979. On the Evolution of Behaviour in Carabid Beetles. Miscellaneous papers 18. Agricultural University Wageningen: The Netherlands.
6. Desender K. 1989. Ecomorphological adaptations of riparian carabid beetles. Proceedings of the symposium 'Invertebrates of Belgium' Brussels, 25-26 november 1988: 309-314.
7. Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (eds). 1994. Carabid Beetles, Ecology and Evolution. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London; p. 474.
8. Friedman JM, Auble GT. 1999. Mortality of riparian box elder from sediment mobilization and extended inundation. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 15: 463-476.
9. Gore JA, Layzer JB, Mead J. 2001. Macroinvertebrate instream flow studies after 20 years: a role in stream management and restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 17: 527-542.
10. Growns IO, Growns JE. 2001. Ecological effects of flow regulation on macroinvertebrate and periphytic diatom assemblages in the Hawkesbury-Nepean river, Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 17: 275-293.
11. Hering D. 1998. Riparian beetles along a small stream in the Oregon coast range and their interactions with the aquatic environment. The Coleopterists Bulletin 52: 161-170.
12. Hering D, Plachter H. 1997. Riparian ground beetles (Coeloptera, Carabidae) preying on aquatic invertebrates: a feeding strategy in alpine floodplains. Oecologia 111: 261-270.
13. Jochems H, Van Looy K. 2001. Method and instruments for physical habitat evaluation in spatial planning alternatives, based on carabid beetle communities. Intermeuse report No.7 RIZA, Alterra, University of Metz, Institute of Nature conservation, in commission of IRMA, part of IRMA/ SPONGE and governed by NCR. Institute for Nature conservation, Brussels.
14. Kauffman JB, Beschta RL, Otting N, Lytjen D. 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the Western United States. Fisheries 22: 12-24.
15. Kershner JL. 1997. Setting riparian/aquatic restoration objectives within a watershed context. Restoration Ecology 5: 15-24.
16. Micha J-C, Borlee M-C. 1989. Recent historical changes on the Belgian Meuse. In Historical Change of Large Alluvial Rivers: Western Europe, Petts GE (ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: pp. 269-295.
17. Pedroli B, De Blust G, Van Looy K, van Rooij S. 2002. Setting targets in strategies for river restoration. Landscape ecology 17: 5-18.
18. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC. 1997. The natural flow regime. A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47: 769-784.
19. Richter BD, Baumgarmer JV, Powell J, Braun DP. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10: 1163-1174.
20. Sadler JP, Bell D, Fowles A. 2004. The hydroecological controls and conservation value of beetles on exposed riverine sediments in England and Wales. Biological Conservation 118: 41-56.
21. Saltveit SJ, Halleraker JH, Amekleiv JV, Harby A. 2001. Field experiments on stranding in juvenile atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) during rapid flow decreases caused by hydropeaking. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 17: 609-622.
22. Salverda AP, Klein JD, Schulze FH. 1998. Defining in-stream flow requirements for the Common Meuse. Reports of the project 'Ecological Rehabilitation of the River Meuse'. Report no. 31. Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA) and Directorate Limburg.
23. Scruton DA, Clarke KD, Anderson TC, Hoddinott AS, van Zyll de Jong MC, Houston KA. 1997. Evaluation of habitat improvement and restoration initiatives for salmonids in Newfoundland, Canada. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2413.
24. Sparks RE, Nelson JC, Yin Y. 1998. Naturalization of the flood regime in regulated rivers. The case of the upper Mississippi River. Bioscience 48: 706-721.
25. Stalnaker C, Lamb BL, Henriksen J, Bovee K, Bartholow J. 1995. The instream flow incremental methodology. A primer for IFIM. Biological report 29, National Biology Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC.
26. StatSoft Inc. 2001. STATISTICA Data Analysis Software System, Version 6. StatSoft, Inc: Tulsa.
27. Stork NE (ed.). 1990. The Role of Ground Beetles in Ecological and Environmental Studies. Intercept Limited: Andover, Hampshire, England.
28. ter Braak CJF. 1988. CANOCO - a fortran program for canonical community ordination by (partial) (detrended)(canonical) correspondance analysis, principal components and redundancy analysis (version 2.1). Updated in 1990 (version 3.1). Agricultural Mathematics Group, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
29. Tockner K, Schiemer F. 1997. Ecological aspects of the restoration strategy for a river-floodplain system on the Danube River in Austria. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 6: 321-329.
30. Townsend CR, Hildrew AG. 1994. Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river systems. Freshwater Biology 31: 265-276.
31. Townsend CR, Doledec S, Scarsbrook MR. 1997. Species traits in relation to temporal and spatial heterogeneity in streams: a test of habitat templet theory. Freshwater Biology 37: 367-387.
32. Valentin S, Souchon Y, Wasson J-G. 1994. Evaluation of hydropeaking effects on fish community and habitat. In Rehabilitation of Freshwater Fisheries, Cowx I (ed.). Fishing News Books: Blackwell, Oxford; 138-151.
33. Van Looy K, Vanacker S, Jochems H, De Blust G, Dufrêne M. 2005. Ground beetle habitat templets and riverbank integrity. River Research and Applications 21: 1133-1146.
34. Walker KF, Hillman TJ, Willims WD. 1979. The effects of impoundment on rivers: an Australian case study. Verh Int Verein Limnol 20: 1695-1701.
35. Wallin M, Wiederholm T, Jolmson RK. 2003. Guidance on establishing reference conditions and ecological status class boundaries for inland surface waters. Produced by CIS Working Group 2.3-REFCOND. Final Version 7.0 http://www-nrciws.slu.se/REFCOND.
36. Ward JV, Stanford JA. 1979. Ecological factors controlling stream zoobenthos with emphasis on thermal modification of regulated streams. In The Ecology of Regulated Streams, Ward JV, Stanford JA (eds). Plenum Press: New York; pp. 35-55.