4.2 Article

Drawing together multiple lines of evidence from assessment studies of hydropeaking pressures in impacted rivers

期刊

FRESHWATER SCIENCE
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 220-230

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/690295

关键词

Eco Evidence; evidence-based practice; systematic literature review; conceptual model diagrams; fish; hydropealdng; hydroelectric power

资金

  1. EnviPEAK project (Effects of rapid and frequent flow changes) implemented at CEDREN (Centre for Environmental Design of Renewable Energy) Norway
  2. MARS project under the 7th EU Framework Programme [603378]
  3. European Commission under the 6th Framework Programme (FP 6) [044096]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydropeaking has negative effects on aquatic biota, but the causal relationships have not been studied extensively, especially when hydropeaking occurs in combination with other environmental pressures. The available evidence comes mainly from case studies demonstrating river-specific effects of hydropeaking that result in modified microhabitat conditions and lead to declines in fish populations. We used multiple lines of evidence to attempt to strengthen the evidence base for models of ecological response to flow alteration from hydropeaking. First, we synthesized evidence of ecological responses from relevant studies published in the scientific literature. We found considerable evidence of the ecological effects of hydropeaking, but many causal pathways are poorly understood, and we found very little research on the interactive effects of hydropeaking and other pressures. As a 2nd line of evidence, we used results from analyses of large-scale data sets. These results demonstrated the extent to which hydropeaking occurs with other pressures, but did not elucidate individual or interactive effects further. Thus, the multiple lines of evidence complemented each other, but the main result was to identify knowledge gaps regarding hydropeaking and a consequent pressing need for novel approaches, new questions, and new ways of thinking that can fill them.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据