The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows
Abstract
Summary: 1. In an effort to develop quantitative relationships between various kinds of flow alteration and ecological responses, we reviewed 165 papers published over the last four decades, with a focus on more recent papers. Our aim was to determine if general relationships could be drawn from disparate case studies in the literature that might inform environmental flows science and management. 2. For all 165 papers we characterised flow alteration in terms of magnitude, frequency, duration, timing and rate of change as reported by the individual studies. Ecological responses were characterised according to taxonomic identity (macroinvertebrates, fish, riparian vegetation) and type of response (abundance, diversity, demographic parameters). A ‘qualitative’ or narrative summary of the reported results strongly corroborated previous, less comprehensive, reviews by documenting strong and variable ecological responses to all types of flow alteration. Of the 165 papers, 152 (92%) reported decreased values for recorded ecological metrics in response to a variety of types of flow alteration, whereas 21 papers (13%) reported increased values. 3. Fifty‐five papers had information suitable for quantitative analysis of ecological response to flow alteration. Seventy per cent of these papers reported on alteration in flow magnitude, yielding a total of 65 data points suitable for analysis. The quantitative analysis provided some insight into the relative sensitivities of different ecological groups to alteration in flow magnitudes, but robust statistical relationships were not supported. Macroinvertebrates showed mixed responses to changes in flow magnitude, with abundance and diversity both increasing and decreasing in response to elevated flows and to reduced flows. Fish abundance, diversity and demographic rates consistently declined in response to both elevated and reduced flow magnitude. Riparian vegetation metrics both increased and decreased in response to reduced peak flows, with increases reflecting mostly enhanced non‐woody vegetative cover or encroachment into the stream channel. 4. Our analyses do not support the use of the existing global literature to develop general, transferable quantitative relationships between flow alteration and ecological response; however, they do support the inference that flow alteration is associated with ecological change and that the risk of ecological change increases with increasing magnitude of flow alteration. 5. New sampling programs and analyses that target sites across well‐defined gradients of flow alteration are needed to quantify ecological response and develop robust and general flow alteration–ecological response relationships. Similarly, the collection of pre‐ and post‐alteration data for new water development programs would significantly add to our basic understanding of ecological responses to flow alteration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of the World's Large River Systems
Nilsson, C., Reidy, C. A., Dynesius, M., & Revenga, C. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1107887 · Cited by 3,509
Cited by
Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., et al. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1259855 · Cited by 12,527
Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity
Reid, A. J., Carlson, A. K., Creed, I. F., Eliason, E. J., Gell, P. A., Johnson, P. T. J., Kidd, K. A., MacCormack, T. J., Olden, J. D., Ormerod, S. J., et al. (2019) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12480 · Cited by 3,645
Grill, G., Lehner, B., Lumsdon, A. E., MacDonald, G. K., Zarfl, C., & Reidy Liermann, C. (2015) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/015001 · Cited by 646
The impacts of climate change on ecosystem structure and function
Grimm, N. B., Chapin, F. S., Bierwagen, B., Gonzalez, P., Groffman, P. M., Luo, Y., Melton, F., Nadelhoffer, K., Pairis, A., Raymond, P. A., et al. (2013) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/120282 · Cited by 647
Kuriqi, A., Pinheiro, A. N., Sordo-Ward, A., Bejarano, M. D., & Garrote, L. (2021) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.110833 · Cited by 555
Metadata
- Authors
- POFF, N. L., & ZIMMERMAN, J. K. H.
- Venue
- Freshwater Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-12-15
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 194-205
- ISSN
- 0046-5070 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2427
- OpenAlex
- W2120716973
- Cited by
- 2,078
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 49.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02272.x
- The paper
- POFF, N. L., & ZIMMERMAN, J. K. H. (2010). Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02272.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.