Cited by 121Hydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFish Ecology and Management StudiesEcology and biodiversity studies

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

GREET, JOE, ANGUS WEBB, J., COUSENS, ROGER D.·2011·Freshwater Biology

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02564.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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