Temporary streams in temperate zones: recognizing, monitoring and restoring transitional aquatic-terrestrial ecosystems

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2017, Pages

  Stubbington, Rachel ^a   England, Judy ^b   Wood, Paul J ^c   Sefton, Catherine E M ^d  

^a NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b ENVIRONMENT AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^c LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85100683776     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20491948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/WAT2.1223     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. Leigh C, Boulton AJ, Courtwright JL, Fritz K, May CL, Walker RH, Datry T. Ecological research and management of intermittent rivers: an historical review and future directions. Freshwater Biol 2016, 61:1181–1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12646.
2. Rolls RJ, Heino J, Chessman BC. Unravelling the joint effects of flow regime, climatic variability and dispersal mode on beta diversity of riverine communities. Freshwater Biol 2016, 61:1350–1364. https://doi.org/10. 1111/fwb.12793.
3. Larned ST, Datry T, Arscott DB, Tockner K. Emerging concepts in temporary-river ecology. Freshwater Biol 2010, 55:717–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02322.x.
4. Datry T, Corti R, Philippe M. Spatial and temporal aquatic–terrestrial transitions in the temporary Albar-ine River, France: responses of invertebrates to experimental rewetting. Freshwater Biol 2012, 57:716–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2012.02737.x.
5. Dell AI, Alford RA, Pearson RG. Intermittent pool beds are permanent cyclic habitats with distinct wet, moist and dry phases. PLoS One 2014, 9:e108203. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108203.
6. Shute J. Why Britain’s chalk rivers are under threat [online]; 2016. Jersey, UK: Telegraph Media Group. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/06/why-britains-chalk-rivers-are-under-threat/. (Accessed December 18, 2016).
7. Goulsbra C, Evans M, Lindsay J. Temporary streams in a peatland catchment: pattern, timing, and controls on stream network expansion and contraction. Earth Surf Proc Land 2014, 39:790–803. https://doi.org/10. 1002/esp.3533.
8. Meyer JL, Strayer DL, Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Helfman GS, Leonard NE. The contribution of head-water streams to biodiversity in river networks. JAm Water Resour Assoc 2007, 43:86–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00008.x.
9. Mainstone CP, Holmes NT, Armitage PD, Wilson AM, Marchant JH, Evans K, Solomon D. Chalk rivers – nature conservation and management; 1999. WRc Report to English Nature and the Environment Agency, Medmenham, 184.
10. Larned ST, Hicks DM, Schmidt J, Davey AJ, Dey K, Scarsbrook M, Arscott DB, Woods RA. The Selwyn River of New Zealand: a benchmark system for alluvial plain rivers. River Res Appl 2008, 24:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1054.
11. Jarvie HP, Neal C, Withers PJ. Sewage-effluent phos-phorus: a greater risk to river eutrophication than agricultural phosphorus? Sci Total Environ 2006, 360:246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005. 08.038.
12. Datry T, Larned ST, Fritz KM, Bogan MT, Wood PJ, Meyer EI, Santos AN. Broad-scale patterns of invertebrate richness and community composition in temporary rivers: effects of flow intermittence. Ecography 2014, 37:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587. 2013.00287.x.
13. Welborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE. Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1996, 1:337–363. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.337.
14. Smith H, Wood PJ, Gunn J. The influence of habitat structure and flow permanence on invertebrate communities in karst spring systems. Hydrobiologia 2003, 510:53–66. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HYDR.000000 8501.55798.20.
15. Holmes NT. Recovery of headwater stream flora following the 1989–1992 groundwater drought. Hydrol Process 1999, 13:341–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(19990228)13:3<341::AID-HYP742> 3.0.CO;2-L.
16. Hammett MJ. Nemoura lacustris Pictet, 1865 (Plecoptera: Nemouridae) – an addition to the British list. Entomologist’s Mon Mag 2012, 148:43–45.
17. Bratton JH. A review of the scarcer Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera of Great Britain. Research & Survey in Nature Conservation. Nature Conservancy Council, No. 29; 2010. Peterborough, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Available at: http://jncc.defra. gov.uk/page-2552 (Accessed March 12, 2017).
18. Chadd R, Extence C. The conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate populations: a community-based classification scheme. Aquat Conserv 2004, 14:597–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.630.
19. Armitage PD, Bass J. Long-term resilience and short-term vulnerability of South Winterbourne macroinver-tebrates. Proc Dorset Nat Hist Archaeol Soc 2013, 134:43–55.
20. Hill MJ, Death RG, Mathers KL, Ryves DB, White JC, Wood PJ. Macroinvertebrate community composition and diversity in ephemeral and perennial ponds on unregulated floodplain meadows in the UK. Hydrobiologia 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-28 56-x.
21. Leberfinger K, Herrmann J. Secondary production of invertebrate shredders in open-canopy, intermittent streams on the island of Öland, southeastern Sweden. J N Am Benthol Soc 2010, 29:934–944. https://doi. org/10.1899/09-179.1.
22. Steward AL, Marshall JC, Sheldon F, Harch B, Choy S, Bunn SE, Tockner K. Terrestrial invertebrates of dry river beds are not simply subsets of riparian assemblages. Aquat Sci 2011, 73:551–566. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00027-011-0217-4.
23. Steward AL, von Schiller D, Tockner K, Marshall JC, Bunn SE. When the river runs dry: human and ecological values of dry riverbeds. Front Ecol Environ 2012, 10:202–209. https://doi.org/10.1890/110136.
24. Corti R, Datry T. Terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates in the riverbed of an intermittent river: parallels and contrasts in community organisation. Freshwater Biol 2016, 61:1308–1320. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb. 12692.
25. Sadler JP, Bell D, Fowles A. The hydroecological controls and conservation value of beetles on exposed riv-erine sediments in England and Wales. Biol Conserv 2004, 118:41–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon. 2003.07.007.
26. Meyer A, Meyer EI, Meyer C. Lotic communities of two small temporary karstic stream systems (East Westphalia, Germany) along a longitudinal gradient of hydrological intermittency. Limnologica 2003, 33:271–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0075-9511(03) 80022-1.
27. Řeznícková P, Pařil P, Zahrádková S. The ecological effect of drought on the macroinvertebrate fauna of a small intermittent stream – an example from the Czech Republic. Int Rev Hydrobiol 2007, 92:514–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.200610997.
28. Dieterich M, Anderson NH. The invertebrate fauna of summer-dry streams in western Oregon. Arch Hydro-biol 2000, 147:273–295. https://doi.org/10.1127/archiv-hydrobiol/147/2000/273.
29. Wissinger SA, Greig H, McIntosh A. Absence of species replacements between permanent and temporary lentic communities in New Zealand. J N Am Benthol Soc 2009, 28:12–23. https://doi.org/10.1899/08-007.1.
30. Datry T, Bonada N, Heino J. Towards understanding the organisation of metacommunities in highly dynamic ecological systems. Oikos 2016, 125:149–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02922.
31. Li F, Sundermann A, Stoll S, Haase P. A newly developed dispersal capacity metric indicates succession of benthic invertebrates in restored rivers. Sci Total Environ 2016, 569–570:1570–1578. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.251.
32. Schriever TA, Lytle DA. Convergent diversity and trait composition in temporary streams and ponds. Eco-sphere 2016, 7:e01350. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1350.
33. Korhonen JJ, Soininen J, Hillebrand H. A quantitative analysis of temporal turnover in aquatic species assemblages across ecosystems. Ecology 2010, 91:508–517. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0392.1.
34. Bogan MT, Lytle DA. Seasonal flow variation allows ‘time-sharing’ by disparate aquatic insect communities in montane desert streams. Freshwater Biol 2007, 52:290–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427. 2006.01691.x.
35. Perrow M, Leeming D, England J, Tomlinson M. Life after low flow–ecological recovery of the River Mis-bourne. British Wildlife 2007, 18:335–346.
36. Vander Vorste R, Malard F, Datry T. Is drift the primary process promoting the resilience of river invertebrate communities? A manipulative field experiment in an intermittent alluvial river. Freshwater Biol 2016, 61:1276–1292. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12658.
37. Bogan MT, Boersma KS, Lytle DA. Resistance and resilience of invertebrate communities to seasonal and supraseasonal drought in arid-land headwater streams. Freshwater Biol 2015, 60:2547–2558. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12522.
38. Feminella JW. Comparison of benthic macroinverte-brate assemblages in small streams along a gradient of flow permanence. J N Am Benthol Soc 1996, 15:651–669. https://doi.org/10.2307/1467814.
39. Sánchez-Montoya MM, von Schiller D, Ruhí A, Pechar GS, Proia L, Miñano J, Vidal-Abarca MR, Suárez ML, Tockner K. Responses of ground-dwelling arthropods to surface flow drying in channels and adjacent habitats along Mediterranean streams. Ecohy-drology 2016, 9:1376–1387. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1733.
40. Stubbington R, Datry T. The macroinvertebrate seed-bank promotes community persistence in temporary rivers across climate zones. Freshwater Biol 2013, 58:1202–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12121.
41. Stubbington R, Gunn J, Little S, Worrall TP, Wood PJ. Macroinvertebrate seedbank composition in relation to antecedent duration of drying and multiple wet-dry cycles in a temporary stream. Freshwater Biol 2016, 61:1293–1307. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12770.
42. Westwood CG, Teeuw RM, Wade PM, Holmes NT, Guyard P. Influences of environmental conditions on macrophyte communities in drought-affected headwa-ter streams. River Res Appl 2006, 22:703–726. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.934.
43. Fenchel TO, Finlay BJ. The ubiquity of small species: patterns of local and global diversity. Bioscience 2004, 54:777–784. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004) 054[0777:TUOSSP]2.0.CO;2.
44. Soininen J, Bartels P, Heino J, Luoto M, Hillebrand H. Toward more integrated ecosystem research in aquatic and terrestrial environments. BioScience 2015, 65:174–182. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu216.
45. Sánchez-Montoya MM, Moleón M, Sánchez-Zapata JA, Tockner K. Dry riverbeds: corridors for terrestrial vertebrates. Ecosphere 2016, 7:e01508. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1508.
46. Coetzee CG. The distribution of mammals in the Namib desert and adjoining inland escarpment. Sci Pap Namib Desert Res Station 1969, 40:23–36.
47. Acuña V, Hunter M, Ruhí A. Managing temporary streams and rivers as unique rather than second-class ecosystems. Biol Conserv 2017. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.biocon.2016.12.025.
48. Cooper SM, Perotto-Baldivieso HL, Owens MK, Meek MG, Figueroa-Pagan M. Distribution and interaction of white-tailed deer and cattle in a semi-arid grazing system. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2008, 127:85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.03.0 04.
49. Lugon-Moulin N, Hausser J. Phylogeographical struc-ture, postglacial recolonization and barriers to gene flow in the distinctive Valais chromosome race of the common shrew (Sorex araneus). Mol Ecol 2002, 11:785–794. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X. 2002.01469.x.
50. Mockford SW, Herman TB, Snyder M, Wright JM. Conservation genetics of Blanding’s turtle and its application in the identification of evolutionarily significant units. Conserv Genet 2007, 8:209–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-006-9163-4.
51. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Spear SF, Holderegger R, Waits LP. Landscape genetics: where are we now? Mol Ecol 2010, 19:3496–3514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-294X.2010.04691.x.
52. Corti R, Datry T. Invertebrates and sestonic matter in an advancing wetted front travelling down a dry river bed (Albarine, France). Freshwater Sci 2012, 31:1187–1201. https://doi.org/10.1899/12-017.1.
53. Jacobson PJ, Jacobson KN, Seely MK. Ephemeral Rivers and their Catchments: Sustaining People and Development in Western Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: Desert Research Foundation of Namibia; 1995, 164.
54. O’Neal BJ, Stafford JD, Larkin RP. Migrating ducks in inland North America ignore major rivers as leading lines. Ibis 2015, 157:154–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12193.
55. Bogan MT, Boersma KS, Lytle DA. Flow intermittency alters longitudinal patterns of invertebrate diversity and assemblage composition in an arid-land stream network. Freshwater Biol 2013, 58:1016–1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12105.
56. Verdonschot R, van Oosten-Siedlecka AM, ter Braak CJ, Verdonschot PF. Macroinvertebrate survival during cessation of flow and streambed drying in a lowland stream. Freshwater Biol 2015, 60:282–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12479.
57. Morán-López R, Pérez-Bote JL, Da Silva E, Casildo AP. Hierarchical large-scale to local-scale influence of abiotic factors in summer-fragmented Mediterranean rivers: structuring effects on fish distri-butions, assemblage composition and species richness. Hydrobiologia 2012, 696:137–158. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10750-012-1189-7.
58. Richardson JS, Danehy RJ. A synthesis of the ecology of headwater streams and their riparian zones in temperate forests. Forest Sci 2007, 53:131–147.
59. von Schiller D, Marcé R, Obrador B, Gómez-Gener L, Casas-Ruiz JP, Acuña V, Koschorreck M. Carbon dioxide emissions from dry watercourses. Inland Waters 2014, 4:377–382. https://doi.org/10.5268/IW-4.4.746.
60. Corti R, Datry T, Drummond L, Larned ST. Natural variation in immersion and emersion affects breakdown and invertebrate colonization of leaf litter in a temporary river. Aquat Sci 2011, 73:537–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-011-0216-5.
61. Datry T, Corti R, Claret C, Philippe M. Flow intermit-tence controls leaf litter breakdown in a French temporary alluvial river: the “drying memory”. Aquat Sci 2011, 73:471–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-011-0193-8.
62. Box JB, Duguid A, Read RE, Kimber RG, Knapton A, Davis J, Bowland AE. Central Australian waterbodies: the importance of permanence in a desert landscape. J Arid Environ 2008, 72:1395–1413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.02.022.
63. Courtwright J, May CL. Importance of terrestrial sub-sidies for native brook trout in Appalachian intermittent streams. Freshwater Biol 2013, 58:2423–2438. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12221.
64. Sanzone DM, Meyer JL, Marti E, Gardiner EP, Tank JL, Grimm NB. Carbon and nitrogen transfer from a desert stream to riparian predators. Oecologia 2003, 134:238–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-1113-3.
65. Progar RA, Moldenke AR. Insect production from temporary and perennially flowing headwater streams in western Oregon. J Freshwater Ecol 2002, 17:391–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2002. 9663913.
66. Leigh C, Reis TM, Sheldon F. High potential subsidy of dry-season aquatic fauna to consumers in riparian zones of wet-dry tropical rivers. Inland Waters 2013, 3:411–420. https://doi.org/10.5268/IW-3.4.620.
67. Döll P, Schmied HM. How is the impact of climate change on river flow regimes related to the impact on mean annual runoff? A global-scale analysis. Environ Res Lett 2012, 7:014037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014037.
68. Hannaford J. Climate-driven changes in UK river flows: a review of the evidence. Prog Phys Geogr 2015, 39:29–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913331 4536755.
69. Watts G, Battarbee RW, Bloomfield JP, Crossman J, Daccache A, Durance I, Elliott JA, Garner G, Hannaford J, Hannah DM, et al. Climate change and water in the UK – past changes and future prospects. Prog Phys Geogr 2015, 39:6–28. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0309133314542957.
70. Arnell NW, Gosling SN. The impacts of climate change on river flow regimes at the global scale. J Hydrol 2013, 486:351–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.02.010.
71. Boé J, Terray L, Martin E, Habets F. Projected changes in components of the hydrological cycle in French river basins during the 21st century. Water Resour Res 2009, 45:W08426. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008 WR007437.
72. Tallaksen LM, van Lanen HA. Hydrological Drought: Processes and Estimation Methods for Streamflow and Groundwater. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier; 2004, 579.
73. Ledger ME, Milner AM. Extreme events in running waters. Freshwater Biol 2015, 60:2455–2460. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12673.
74. Hisdal H, Stahl K, Tallaksen LM, Demuth S. Have streamflow droughts in Europe become more severe or frequent? Int J Climatol 2001, 21:317–333. https://doi. org/10.1002/joc.619.
75. Marsh T, Cole G, Wilby R. Major droughts in England and Wales 1800–2006. Weather 2007, 2:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.67.
76. McKerchar AI, Schmidt J. Decreases in low flows in the lower Selwyn River? J Hydrol (New Zeal) 2007, 46:63–72.
77. Gilvear DJ, Heal KV, Stephen A. Hydrology and the ecological quality of Scottish river ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 2002, 294:131–159. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0048-9697(02)00060-8.
78. Habets F, Philippe E, Martin E, David CH, Leseur F. Small farm dams: impact on river flows and sustaina-bility in a context of climate change. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2014, 18:4207–4222. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4207–2014.
79. Luthy RG, Sedlak DL, Plumlee MH, Austin D, Resh VH. Wastewater-effluent-dominated streams as ecosystem-management tools in a drier climate. Front Ecol Environ 2015, 13:477–485. https://doi.org/10. 1890/150038.
80. Bogan MT, Lytle DA. Severe drought drives novel community trajectories in desert stream pools. Freshwater Biol 2011, 56:2070–2081. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02638.x.
81. Ledger ME, Brown LE, Edwards FK, Milner AM, Woodward G. Drought alters the structure and functioning of complex food webs. Nat Clim Change 2013, 3:223–227. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate 1684.
82. Skoulikidis NT, Sabater S, Datry T, Morais MM, Buffagni A, Dörflinger G, Zogaris S, Sánchez-Montoya MM, Bonada N, Kalogianni E, et al. Non-perennial Mediterranean rivers in Europe: status, pressures, and challenges for research and management. Sci Total Environ 2017, 577:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2016.10.147.
83. Water Framework Directive UK Technical Advisory Group (WFD UK TAG). Updated Recommendations on Environmental Standards, River Basin Management (2015-21), Final Report; 2013. WFD UK TAG. Available at: http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Environmental%20standards/UKTAG%20Environmen tal%20Standards%20Phase%203%20Final%20Repor t%2004112013. (Accessed December 18, 2016).
84. Reyjol Y, Argillier C, Bonne W, Borja A, Buijse AD, Cardoso AC, Daufresne M, Kernan M, Ferreira MT, Poikane S, et al. Assessing the ecological status in the context of the European Water Framework Directive: where do we go now? Sci Total Environ 2014, 497:332–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014. 07.119.
85. Snelder TH, Datry T, Lamouroux N, Larned ST, Sauquet E, Pella H, Catalogne C. Regionalization of patterns of flow intermittence from gauging station records. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2013, 17:2685–2699. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2685-2013.
86. Water Framework Directive UK Technical Advisory Group (WFD UK TAG). UK environmental standards and conditions (phase 1): SR1 – 2006; 2008. WFD UK TAG. Available at: https://www.wfduk.org/resources% 20/uk-environmental-standards-and-conditions-report-phase-1/(Accessed March 15, 2017).
87. Gallart F, Llorens P, Latron J, Cid N, Rieradevall M, Prat N. Validating alternative methodologies to esti-mate the regime of temporary rivers when flow data are unavailable. Sci Total Environ 2016, 565:1001–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2016.05.116.
88. Olden JD, Kennard MJ, Pusey BJ. A framework for hydrologic classification with a review of methodologies and applications in ecohydrology. Ecohydrology 2012, 5:503–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.251.
89. Datry T, Pella H, Leigh C, Bonada N, Hugueny B. A landscape approach to advance intermittent river ecol-ogy. Freshwater Biol 2016, 61:1200–1213. https://doi. org/10.1111/fwb.12645.
90. European Commission. Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/6-/ EC) guidance document No. 10: rivers and lakes – typology, reference conditions and classification systems; 2003. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/ facts_figures/guidance:docs_en.htm (Accessed March 12, 2017).
91. Nikolaidis NP, Demetropoulou L, Froebrich J, Jacobs C, Gallart F, Prat N, Lo Porto AL, Campana C, Papadoulakis V, Skoulikidis N, et al. Towards sustainable management of Mediterranean river basins: policy recommendations on management aspects of temporary streams. Water Policy 2013, 15:830–849. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2013.158.
92. Cid N, Verkaik I, García-Roger EM, Rieradevall M, Bonada N, Sánchez-Montoya MM, Gómez R, Suárez ML, Vidal-Abarca MR, Demartini D, et al. A biological tool to assess flow connectivity in reference temporary streams from the Mediterranean Basin. Sci Total Environ 2016, 540:178–190. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.scitotenv.2015.06.086.
93. Morais M, Pinto P, Guilherme P, Rosado J, Antunes I. Assessment of temporary streams: the robustness of metric and multimetric indices under different hydrological conditions. In: Hering D, Verdonschot PFM, Moog O, Sandin L, eds. Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004, 229–249.
94. Deiner K, Fronhofer EA, Mächler E, Walser JC, Altermatt F. Environmental DNA reveals that rivers are conveyer belts of biodiversity information. Nat Commun 2016, 7:12544. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12544.
95. Mainstone CP. An evidence base for setting flow targets to protect river habitat. Natural England research reports, No. 035; 2010. Sheffield, UK: Natural England. Available at: http://publications. naturalengland.org.uk/publication/9025/(Accessed March 12, 2017).
96. Biggs J, von Fumetti S, Kelly-Quinn M. The importance of small waterbodies for biodiversity and ecosystem services: implications for policy makers. Hydrobiologia 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-3007-0.
97. European Commission. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Commun 2000, L327:1–72.
98. European Commission. Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/6-/ EC) guidance document No. 2: identification of water bodies; 2003. Office for the Luxembourg: Official Publications of the European Communities. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance:docs_en.htm (Accessed March 12, 2017).
99. Dunbar M, Murphy J, Clarke R, Baker R, Davies C, Scarlett P. Headwater streams report from 2007 – CS technical report no. 8/07. Lancaster, UK: Countryside Survey. Available at: http://www.countrysidesurvey. org.uk/content/headwater-streams-report-2007 (Accessed March 3, 2017).
100. Fritz KM, Johnson BR, Walters DM. Field operations manual for assessing the hydrologic permanence and ecological condition of headwater streams – EPA/600/ R-06/126. 2006. Washington, DC: U.-S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/water-research/headwater-stream s-studies/(Accessed March 8, 2017).
101. Reich P, McMaster D, Bond N, Metzeling L, Lake PS. Examining the ecological consequences of restoring flow intermittency to artificially perennial lowland streams: patterns and predictions from the Broken-Boosey creek system in Northern Victoria, Australia. River Res Appl 2010, 26:529–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1265.
102. Seaman M, Watson M, Avenant M, Joubert A, King J, Barker C, Esterhuyse S, Graham D, Kemp M, le Roux P, et al. DRIFT-ARID: Application of a method for environmental water requirements (EWRs) in a non-perennial river (Mokolo River) in South Africa. Water SA 2016, 42:368–383. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v42i3.02.
103. Acuña V, Datry T, Marshall J, Barceló D, Dahm CN, Ginebreda A, McGregor G, Sabater S, Tockner K, Palmer MA. Why should we care about temporary waterways? Science 2014, 7:1080–1081. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1246666.
104. Mainstone CP, Hall R, Diack I. A narrative for conserving freshwater and wetland habitats in England. Natural England research reports, no. 064; 2016. Sheffield, UK: Natural England. Available at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/65244 33387749376?category=429415/(Accessed March 12, 2017).
105. Stubbington R. Dry rivers are living rivers – with our care and protection [online]; 2016. The Ecologist, Bideford, UK. Available at: http://www.theecologist. org/essays/2987876/dry_rivers_are_living_rivers_with_ our_care_and_protection.html (Accessed December 18, 2016).
106. Heino J. The importance of metacommunity ecology for environmental assessment research in the freshwater realm. Biol Rev 2013, 88:166–178. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00244.x.
107. Mainstone CP. Developing a coherent narrative for conserving freshwater and wetland habitats: experiences in the UK. WIREs Water 2017, 4. https://doi. org/10.1002/wat2.1189.
108. CA COST Action CA15113 Science and Management of Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams (SMIRES), 2016. Available at: http://www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/ca/CA15113 (Accessed August 9, 2016).