We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Causes, Responses, and Implications of Anthropogenic versus Natural Flow Intermittence in River Networks
Summary
Researchers reviewed the differences between natural and human-caused flow intermittence in rivers, examining how anthropogenic drivers such as dams and water diversions alter drying patterns compared to natural seasonal cycles. They found that human-caused flow intermittence produces distinct ecological impacts because the affected organisms have not evolved adaptations to these artificial drying regimes. The study emphasizes that failing to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic intermittence could undermine river management and increase risks to downstream ecosystems.
Abstract Rivers that do not flow year-round are the predominant type of running waters on Earth. Despite a burgeoning literature on natural flow intermittence (NFI), knowledge about the hydrological causes and ecological effects of human-induced, anthropogenic flow intermittence (AFI) remains limited. NFI and AFI could generate contrasting hydrological and biological responses in rivers because of distinct underlying causes of drying and evolutionary adaptations of their biota. We first review the causes of AFI and show how different anthropogenic drivers alter the timing, frequency and duration of drying, compared with NFI. Second, we evaluate the possible differences in biodiversity responses, ecological functions, and ecosystem services between NFI and AFI. Last, we outline knowledge gaps and management needs related to AFI. Because of the distinct hydrologic characteristics and ecological impacts of AFI, ignoring the distinction between NFI and AFI could undermine management of intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams and exacerbate risks to the ecosystems and societies downstream.
Sign in to start a discussion.