|
<br />ground-
<br />
<br />in flood
<br />Le catch-
<br />Isly con-
<br />>arent as
<br />md lake
<br />:AuIiffe,
<br />lIy flood
<br />,counng
<br />
<br />ver con-
<br />:levation
<br />)eads on
<br />nal tem-
<br />el across
<br />nization
<br />~sity and
<br />'egory et
<br />lOuntain
<br />j diverse
<br />i; Lowe-
<br />are also
<br />
<br />.or
<br />
<br />RESTORATION OF REGULATED RIVERS
<br />
<br />399
<br />
<br />foci for human activities within the catchment basin (Amoros el af., 1987; Petts et al., 1989; Wissmar el al.,
<br />1994)
<br />Additional data are needed to confirm explicitly the pattern of biodiversity hypothesized in Figure 2 for a
<br />spectrum of rivers world-wide, but the importance of alluvial zones as biological 'hot spots' within river con-
<br />tinua is very clear (e,g. riparian plants: Junk et ai" 1989; Gregory el al., 1991; benthic insects: Zwick, 1992;
<br />Roth et aJ., in press; fishes: Welcomme, 1979; Rieman and McIntyre, 1995), Moreover, metapopulation the-
<br />ory suggests that core populations are critical for persistence of metapopulations with core-satellite struc-
<br />tures (Schoener 1991; Harrison 1991, 1994). Core populations are relatively large populations occupying
<br />high quality habitat. In rivers, large alluvial reaches may support core populations of fishes (Lichatowich
<br />and Mobrand, 1995). These productive populations can serve as stable sources of dispersers that can reco-
<br />lonize peripheral habitats where less productive satellite populations have undergone local extinctions (Har-
<br />rison, 1991, 1994; Reiman and McIntyre 1993; Li el af., 1995; Schlosser and Angermeier, 1995); or, core
<br />populations may 'rescue' from extinction satellite populations whose abundance has been severely reduced
<br />(Brown and Kodrick-Brown, 1977; Gotelli 1991; Stacey and Taper, 1992). Thus, core populations can buffer
<br />meta populations against environmental change and contribute to resiliency of regional fish production. Cer-
<br />tain riparian plant species also appear to exist as metapopulations with cores on alluvial floodplains
<br />(Decamps and Tabacchi, 1994), Therefore, we propose that alluvial reaches should also be foci for large river
<br />conservation and restoration.
<br />
<br />THE RIVER DISCONTINUUM: HUMAN ALTERATION OF LARGE RIVER ECOSYSTEMS
<br />
<br />Humans vastly reduce the capacity of river ecosystems to sustain natural biodiversity and bioproduction by
<br />severing or compromising the dynamic interactive pathways of the river continuum, As described above,
<br />native biota of rivers display life history traits that allow populations to survive within a certain range of
<br />environmental variation that characterizes a particular river. If this range of variation changes, organisms
<br />must locally adapt to the new range of environmental conditions or be extirpated, Recolonization of extir-
<br />pated areas may occur over time as environmental constraints ameliorate and/or as a consequence of immi-
<br />gration of suitably adapted populations. However, human-mediated environmental change can be so rapid
<br />and so severe as to exceed the ability of biota to adapt. The interactive pathways of the river continuum too
<br />often are permanently severed by human activities, and native biodiversity and bioproduction decline,
<br />Pervasive human perturbations that uncouple important ecological processes linking ecosystem compo-
<br />nents in large river basins can be lumped into three broad classes: (a) water pollution of all types; (b)
<br />food-web manipulation by harvest, stocking and exotic invasions; and (c) alteration of water, temperature
<br />and materials flux by dams. diversions and revetment. Human land use creates direct and diffuse inputs of
<br />water-borne wastes from the catchment and its airshed (Hynes, 1966; Warren, 1971), accelerates erosion and
<br />sediment loading related to deforestation and road building (Waters, 1995), alters flux rates of materials in
<br />rivers (e.g. eutrophication, acidification) and uncouples lotic food-webs by toxic effects, Harvest of fishes and
<br />invertebrates, and the purposeful and accidental introduction of non-native species, induces strong interac-
<br />tions that alter food-webs by causing biomass and bioproduction shifts, species replacements and other
<br />trophic effects (Mooney, 1986) that may cascade through all trophic levels and even involve terrestrial spe-
<br />cies that feed on aquatic biota (Spencer el aI., 1991). Pollution and food-web manipulation are interactive
<br />with stream regulation effects in most catchments, However, alteration offlow regimes and associated sever-
<br />ing of connectivity in the three spatial dimensions of riverine ecosytems perhaps are the most strikingly per-
<br />vasive influence of humans on river landscapes world-wide (Dynesius and Nilsson, 1994),
<br />
<br />Three first principles of the ecology of stream regulation
<br />
<br />At least three fundamental commonalties emerge from the large literature on the ecology of regulated
<br />rivers (reviewed by Baxter, 1977; Ward and Stanford, 1979, 1987; Lillehammer and Saltveit, 1984; Petts,
<br />1.989; Calow and Petts, 1992), These principles must be recognized in the derivation of large river restora-
<br />tion strategies,
<br />
<br />], Habitat diversity is substantially reduced. Large storage dams world-wide inundate piedmont or
<br />
<br />
|