More for less: a study of environmental flows during drought in two Australian rivers

Susan Nichols, Wayne Robinson, Richard Norris

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    9 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    1. In rivers affected by drought, flow regulation can further reduce flow and intensify its effects. We measured ecological responses to environmental flows, during a prolonged drought in a regulated river (Cotter River), compared with a drought affected, unregulated river (Goodradigbee River) in south-eastern Australia. 2. Environmental flows in the regulated Cotter River were reduced from a monthly average base flow of 15 MLd)1 to only 5 MLd)1, which was implemented as two test flow regimes. Initially, flows were delivered in cycles of 14 days at 3 MLd)1 followed by 3 days at 14 MLd)1 and then another 14 days at 3 MLd)1 to make up the monthly average of 5 MLd)1. This flow regime continued for 6 months, after which a preliminary ecological assessment indicated deterioration in river condition. Consequently, the flow regime was altered to a cycle of 2 MLd)1 for 28 days followed by 20 MLd)1 for either 3 or 4 days. This new flow regime continued for another 5 months. 3. The ecological outcomes of the test flow regimes were assessed in terms of (i) the provision of available habitat (wetted channel) for aquatic biota; (ii) the accumulation of periphyton; and (iii) the structure and richness of macroinvertebrate assemblages. 4. Flow of 20 MLd)1 covered most of the streambed in the Cotter River, thus providing more wetted area and connectivity between habitats than flows of 2, 3 or 14 MLd)1. Depth and velocity were always less in the Cotter River than in the unregulated Goodradigbee River. Periphyton decreased in the Cotter River during the 2 �20 MLd)1 flow regime, which combined the lowest and greatest test flow volumes, while periphyton did not change significantly in the unregulated river. 5. The reduced flow in the Cotter River resulted in fewer macroinvertebrates than expected (13) compared with unregulated Goodradigbee sites (19), although the magnitude of the differences did not depend on the test flow releases. Macroinvertebrates in the Cotter River became numerically dominated by Diptera and Oligochaeta, while Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera decreased in abundance. 6. In the Cotter River, the monthly average flow of 5 MLd)1 (exceeded 97% of the time preregulation) was insufficient to maintain the macroinvertebrate assemblages in reference condition, regardless of release patterns. However, short-term ecological objectives were achieved, such as reduced periphyton accumulation and increased habitat availability, and the environmental flows maintained the river⿿s ability to recover (resilience) when higher flows returned.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)858-873
    Number of pages16
    JournalFreshwater Biology
    Volume57
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Fingerprint

    drought
    rivers
    river
    macroinvertebrate
    macroinvertebrates
    periphyton
    habitats
    testing
    flow regulation
    base flow
    habitat availability
    Oligochaeta
    habitat
    Plecoptera
    baseflow
    Trichoptera
    Ephemeroptera
    stream channels
    connectivity
    biota

    Cite this

    Nichols, Susan ; Robinson, Wayne ; Norris, Richard. / More for less: a study of environmental flows during drought in two Australian rivers. In: Freshwater Biology. 2012 ; Vol. 57, No. 4. pp. 858-873.
    @article{5c39d4efbe4948a3bdee26b09335005c,
    title = "More for less: a study of environmental flows during drought in two Australian rivers",
    abstract = "1. In rivers affected by drought, flow regulation can further reduce flow and intensify its effects. We measured ecological responses to environmental flows, during a prolonged drought in a regulated river (Cotter River), compared with a drought affected, unregulated river (Goodradigbee River) in south-eastern Australia. 2. Environmental flows in the regulated Cotter River were reduced from a monthly average base flow of 15 MLd)1 to only 5 MLd)1, which was implemented as two test flow regimes. Initially, flows were delivered in cycles of 14 days at 3 MLd)1 followed by 3 days at 14 MLd)1 and then another 14 days at 3 MLd)1 to make up the monthly average of 5 MLd)1. This flow regime continued for 6 months, after which a preliminary ecological assessment indicated deterioration in river condition. Consequently, the flow regime was altered to a cycle of 2 MLd)1 for 28 days followed by 20 MLd)1 for either 3 or 4 days. This new flow regime continued for another 5 months. 3. The ecological outcomes of the test flow regimes were assessed in terms of (i) the provision of available habitat (wetted channel) for aquatic biota; (ii) the accumulation of periphyton; and (iii) the structure and richness of macroinvertebrate assemblages. 4. Flow of 20 MLd)1 covered most of the streambed in the Cotter River, thus providing more wetted area and connectivity between habitats than flows of 2, 3 or 14 MLd)1. Depth and velocity were always less in the Cotter River than in the unregulated Goodradigbee River. Periphyton decreased in the Cotter River during the 2 {\^a}�¿20 MLd)1 flow regime, which combined the lowest and greatest test flow volumes, while periphyton did not change significantly in the unregulated river. 5. The reduced flow in the Cotter River resulted in fewer macroinvertebrates than expected (13) compared with unregulated Goodradigbee sites (19), although the magnitude of the differences did not depend on the test flow releases. Macroinvertebrates in the Cotter River became numerically dominated by Diptera and Oligochaeta, while Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera decreased in abundance. 6. In the Cotter River, the monthly average flow of 5 MLd)1 (exceeded 97{\%} of the time preregulation) was insufficient to maintain the macroinvertebrate assemblages in reference condition, regardless of release patterns. However, short-term ecological objectives were achieved, such as reduced periphyton accumulation and increased habitat availability, and the environmental flows maintained the river{\^a}¿¿s ability to recover (resilience) when higher flows returned.",
    keywords = "drought, flow variability, habitat, macroinvertebrates, periphyton.",
    author = "Susan Nichols and Wayne Robinson and Richard Norris",
    year = "2012",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02732.x",
    language = "English",
    volume = "57",
    pages = "858--873",
    journal = "Freshwater Biology",
    issn = "0046-5070",
    publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
    number = "4",

    }

    More for less: a study of environmental flows during drought in two Australian rivers. / Nichols, Susan; Robinson, Wayne; Norris, Richard.

    In: Freshwater Biology, Vol. 57, No. 4, 2012, p. 858-873.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - More for less: a study of environmental flows during drought in two Australian rivers

    AU - Nichols, Susan

    AU - Robinson, Wayne

    AU - Norris, Richard

    PY - 2012

    Y1 - 2012

    N2 - 1. In rivers affected by drought, flow regulation can further reduce flow and intensify its effects. We measured ecological responses to environmental flows, during a prolonged drought in a regulated river (Cotter River), compared with a drought affected, unregulated river (Goodradigbee River) in south-eastern Australia. 2. Environmental flows in the regulated Cotter River were reduced from a monthly average base flow of 15 MLd)1 to only 5 MLd)1, which was implemented as two test flow regimes. Initially, flows were delivered in cycles of 14 days at 3 MLd)1 followed by 3 days at 14 MLd)1 and then another 14 days at 3 MLd)1 to make up the monthly average of 5 MLd)1. This flow regime continued for 6 months, after which a preliminary ecological assessment indicated deterioration in river condition. Consequently, the flow regime was altered to a cycle of 2 MLd)1 for 28 days followed by 20 MLd)1 for either 3 or 4 days. This new flow regime continued for another 5 months. 3. The ecological outcomes of the test flow regimes were assessed in terms of (i) the provision of available habitat (wetted channel) for aquatic biota; (ii) the accumulation of periphyton; and (iii) the structure and richness of macroinvertebrate assemblages. 4. Flow of 20 MLd)1 covered most of the streambed in the Cotter River, thus providing more wetted area and connectivity between habitats than flows of 2, 3 or 14 MLd)1. Depth and velocity were always less in the Cotter River than in the unregulated Goodradigbee River. Periphyton decreased in the Cotter River during the 2 �20 MLd)1 flow regime, which combined the lowest and greatest test flow volumes, while periphyton did not change significantly in the unregulated river. 5. The reduced flow in the Cotter River resulted in fewer macroinvertebrates than expected (13) compared with unregulated Goodradigbee sites (19), although the magnitude of the differences did not depend on the test flow releases. Macroinvertebrates in the Cotter River became numerically dominated by Diptera and Oligochaeta, while Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera decreased in abundance. 6. In the Cotter River, the monthly average flow of 5 MLd)1 (exceeded 97% of the time preregulation) was insufficient to maintain the macroinvertebrate assemblages in reference condition, regardless of release patterns. However, short-term ecological objectives were achieved, such as reduced periphyton accumulation and increased habitat availability, and the environmental flows maintained the river⿿s ability to recover (resilience) when higher flows returned.

    AB - 1. In rivers affected by drought, flow regulation can further reduce flow and intensify its effects. We measured ecological responses to environmental flows, during a prolonged drought in a regulated river (Cotter River), compared with a drought affected, unregulated river (Goodradigbee River) in south-eastern Australia. 2. Environmental flows in the regulated Cotter River were reduced from a monthly average base flow of 15 MLd)1 to only 5 MLd)1, which was implemented as two test flow regimes. Initially, flows were delivered in cycles of 14 days at 3 MLd)1 followed by 3 days at 14 MLd)1 and then another 14 days at 3 MLd)1 to make up the monthly average of 5 MLd)1. This flow regime continued for 6 months, after which a preliminary ecological assessment indicated deterioration in river condition. Consequently, the flow regime was altered to a cycle of 2 MLd)1 for 28 days followed by 20 MLd)1 for either 3 or 4 days. This new flow regime continued for another 5 months. 3. The ecological outcomes of the test flow regimes were assessed in terms of (i) the provision of available habitat (wetted channel) for aquatic biota; (ii) the accumulation of periphyton; and (iii) the structure and richness of macroinvertebrate assemblages. 4. Flow of 20 MLd)1 covered most of the streambed in the Cotter River, thus providing more wetted area and connectivity between habitats than flows of 2, 3 or 14 MLd)1. Depth and velocity were always less in the Cotter River than in the unregulated Goodradigbee River. Periphyton decreased in the Cotter River during the 2 �20 MLd)1 flow regime, which combined the lowest and greatest test flow volumes, while periphyton did not change significantly in the unregulated river. 5. The reduced flow in the Cotter River resulted in fewer macroinvertebrates than expected (13) compared with unregulated Goodradigbee sites (19), although the magnitude of the differences did not depend on the test flow releases. Macroinvertebrates in the Cotter River became numerically dominated by Diptera and Oligochaeta, while Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera decreased in abundance. 6. In the Cotter River, the monthly average flow of 5 MLd)1 (exceeded 97% of the time preregulation) was insufficient to maintain the macroinvertebrate assemblages in reference condition, regardless of release patterns. However, short-term ecological objectives were achieved, such as reduced periphyton accumulation and increased habitat availability, and the environmental flows maintained the river⿿s ability to recover (resilience) when higher flows returned.

    KW - drought

    KW - flow variability

    KW - habitat

    KW - macroinvertebrates

    KW - periphyton.

    U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02732.x

    DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02732.x

    M3 - Article

    VL - 57

    SP - 858

    EP - 873

    JO - Freshwater Biology

    JF - Freshwater Biology

    SN - 0046-5070

    IS - 4

    ER -