The importance of seasonal flow timing for riparian vegetation dynamics: a systematic review using causal criteria analysis: Effects of seasonal flow timing on riparian flora
Abstract
Summary 1. Whilst it is widely recognised that a natural flow regime is important for sustaining riverine ecosystems, the relative importance of the various components of flow regime for riparian vegetation dynamics is poorly understood. We sought to determine the current extent of knowledge on the importance of seasonal flow timing for riparian plants by conducting a systematic review of the literature using causal criteria analysis. 2. Using a definition of ‘riparian’ that included riverine, wetland and floodplain systems, we found sufficient evidence to provide strong support for the existence of causal relations between seasonal flow timing and a number of riparian plant processes, namely rates of waterborne dispersal (hydrochory), germination and growth, as well as riparian community composition. There was insufficient evidence to infer a causal relationship between flow timing and the reproduction or survival of riparian plants. 3. Thus, we argue that seasonal flow timing is important for many of the processes that generate and sustain riparian vegetation communities. River regulation, and/or flow management aimed at restoring ecological values, should consider flow timing and its implication for riparian flora. Because of regulation, many of the rivers of south-eastern Australia have inverted seasonal flow patterns. Whilst direct evidence of the effects of this inversion on the flora of these rivers is lacking, the results of our causal analysis allow us to predict how…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The evidence evaluation used rules adapted from Norris et al. (2012) and Greet et al. (2011) and a four-element conclusion framework from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
“To evaluate the results, we applied rules adapted from Norris et al. (2012) and Greet et al. (2011), and adapted the four-element conclusion framework developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as follows:”
From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Greet et al. (2011)
The widely accepted approach to evidence-based review of global literature was augmented by developing an additional six lines of evidence derived from data analyses suitable for ecological restoration.
“We have augmented the widely accepted approach to the evidence-based review of global literature (Glasziou et al. 2004, Suter et al. 2010, Greet et al. 2011, Norris et al. 2012) by developing an additional six lines of evidence derived from data analyses suitable for ecological restoration.”
From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Greet et al. 2011
Evidence-based assessment of literature allowed a much larger proportion of the body of evidence to be considered than would a quantitative meta-analysis.
“Like others have reported (Greet et al. 2011, Norris et al. 2012, Webb et al. 2012), evidence-based assessment of literature allowed a much larger proportion of the body of evidence to be considered than would a quantitative meta-analysis.”
From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Greet et al. 2011
Cites
The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?
Hill, A. B. (1965) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/003591576505800503 · Cited by 6,974 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Analyzing cause and effect in environmental assessments: using weighted evidence from the literature
Norris, R. H., Webb, J. A., Nichols, S. J., Stewardson, M. J., & Harrison, E. T. (2012) · Freshwater Science · doi:10.1899/11-027.1 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Self-citationEvidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration
Diefenderfer, H. L., Johnson, G. E., Thom, R. M., Buenau, K. E., Weitkamp, L. A., Woodley, C. M., Borde, A. B., & Kropp, R. K. (2016) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.1242 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Ziegler, C. R., Webb, J. A., Norton, S. B., Pullin, A. S., & Melcher, A. H. (2015) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.003 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- GREET, J., ANGUS WEBB, J., & COUSENS, R. D.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Venue
- Freshwater Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-01-26
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1231-1247
- ISSN
- 0046-5070 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1754069460
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 1.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Freshwater Biology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
- Keywords
- natural flow regime, riparian vegetation dynamics, hydrochory, river regulation, river ecosystems, floodplain vegetation, wetland vegetation, river restoration, south-eastern Australia
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