Review of theoretical developments in stream ecology and their influence on stream classification and conservation planning
Article first published online: 17 NOV 2011
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Volume 57, Issue 3, pages 415–434, March 2012
How to Cite
MELLES, S. J., JONES, N. E. and SCHMIDT, B. (2012), Review of theoretical developments in stream ecology and their influence on stream classification and conservation planning. Freshwater Biology, 57: 415–434. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02716.x
- Issue published online: 15 JAN 2012
- Article first published online: 17 NOV 2011
- (Manuscript accepted 19 October 2011)
- fresh waters;
- large-scale ecology;
- running water/rivers
1. We review some of the classic literature on geomorphology and ecology of streams in an effort to examine how theoretical developments in these aquatic sciences have influenced the way fresh flowing waters are classified. Our aim was to provide a historical examination of conceptual developments related to fluvial classification, and to discuss implications for conservation planning and resource management.
2. Periods of conceptual influences can be separated into three overlapping phases each distinguished by theoretical, analytical or technological advances: (i) early Darwinian perspectives; (ii) the quantitative revolution; and, (iii) age of the computer, hierarchy and scale.
3. During the first phase, stream geomorphologists were largely influenced by Darwinian metaphors. The study of stream origin and change through time became more important than the study of stream systems themselves. The idea that streams progress deterministically through successive stages of development seemed to create a veil, most prevalently in North America, that barred analysis of the full scope of variability in these systems for over 50 years.
4. The quantitative revolution brought about many new ideas and developments, including the laws of stream numbers. This period focused on predictive and mechanistic explanations of stream processes, setting the stage for physically based stream classifications that assume that streams can be restored by engineering their physical characteristics.
5. In the most recent ‘age of the computer’, concepts from the fields of geographic information science and landscape ecology have been incorporated into stream ecology and aquatic classification. This has led to investigations in stream and aquatic ecosystems at hierarchical spatial scales and along different dimensions (upstream/downstream, riparian/floodplain, channel/ground water and through time). Yet, in contrast to terrestrial landscapes, flowing waters are not as easily classified into spatially nested hierarchical regions wherein upper levels can be subdivided into smaller and smaller regions at finer spatial scales. Riverscapes are perhaps best described as directionally nested hierarchies: aquatic elements further downstream cannot be rendered equivalently to elements upstream. Moreover, fully integrated aquatic ecosystem classifications that incorporate lake and river networks, wetlands, groundwater reservoirs and upland areas are exceedingly rare.
6. We reason that the way forward for classification of flowing waters is to account for the directionally nested nature of these networks and to encode flexibility into modern digital freshwater inventories and fluvial classification models.