Incorporating climate change projections into riparian ...

ECOHYDROLOGY Ecohydrol. (2015) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/eco.1645

Incorporating climate change projections into riparian restoration planning and design Laura G. Perry,1,2* Lindsay V. Reynolds,1,2 Timothy J. Beechie,3 Mathias J. Collins4 and Patrick B. Shafroth2 1 Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg C, Fort Collins, CO, USA Fish Ecology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2725 Montlake Blvd E., Seattle, WA, USA Restoration Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA, USA 2

3 4

ABSTRACT Climate change and associated changes in streamflow may alter riparian habitats substantially in coming decades. Riparian restoration provides opportunities to respond proactively to projected climate change effects, increase riparian ecosystem resilience to climate change, and simultaneously address effects of both climate change and other human disturbances. However, climate change may alter which restoration methods are most effective and which restoration goals can be achieved. Incorporating climate change into riparian restoration planning and design is critical to long-term restoration of desired community composition and ecosystem services. In this review, we discuss and provide examples of how climate change might be incorporated into restoration planning at the key stages of assessing the project context, establishing restoration goals and design criteria, evaluating design alternatives, and monitoring restoration outcomes. Restoration planners have access to numerous tools to predict future climate, streamflow, and riparian ecology at restoration sites. Planners can use those predictions to assess which species or ecosystem services will be most vulnerable under future conditions, and which sites will be most suitable for restoration. To accommodate future climate and streamflow change, planners may need to adjust methods for planting, invasive species control, channel and floodplain reconstruction, and water management. Given the considerable uncertainty in future climate and streamflow projections, riparian ecological responses, and effects on restoration outcomes, planners will need to consider multiple potential future scenarios, implement a variety of restoration methods, design projects with flexibility to adjust to future conditions, and plan to respond adaptively to unexpected change. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEY WORDS

climate adaptation; global change; hydrology; ecological restoration; riparian ecosystems; river management; streamflow

Received 30 September 2014; Revised 30 April 2015; Accepted 3 May 2015

INTRODUCTION Mandates to protect endangered species or clean water and promote ecosystem recovery drive riparian restoration efforts around the world (Palmer et al., 2005; Beechie et al., 2013a; Verhoeven, 2014). However, increasing impacts of human population growth and climate change, combined with the daunting magnitude of restoration needed along the world’s rivers, create enormous challenges for restoration practitioners and resource managers (Seavy et al., 2009). Climate change increases the importance of riparian restoration, because restoring riparian ecosystem functions *Correspondence to: Laura Perry, Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

may lessen impacts of climate change on water availability and flood damage to human infrastructure, as well as on riparian biodiversity and biological invasion (Palmer et al., 2009). Further, riparian restoration actions designed to address effects of human water management may ameliorate similar effects of climate-driven changes in streamflow (Seavy et al., 2009; Beechie et al., 2013b; Capon et al., 2013). Moreover, riparian restoration may increase ecosystem resilience to climate change, because human activities have simplified riparian ecosystems, making them more vulnerable to change (Seavy et al., 2009; Beechie et al., 2013a; Capon et al., 2013). Riparian restoration increases biodiversity by increasing habitat diversity, favourable conditions for native species, landscape-scale species richness (Naiman et al., 2005; Sabo et al., 2005), and habitat connectivity to facilitate

L. G. PERRY et al.

range shifts in response to change (Lawler, 2009). Greater biodiversity in turn increases ecosystem resilience by increasing the likelihood that at least some species present will be able to adapt to new conditions and maintain desired ecosystem functions (Folke et al., 2004). Including climate change in riparian restoration planning is key to restoring ecosystems that can persist, adjust, and ameliorate climate change effects as climate change intensifies through the 21st century (Harris et al., 2006). Current restoration planning generally is based on specific goals for restored habitat structure or species composition, an understanding of the specific causes of ecosystem degradation at the site, and identification of restoration actions necessary to address that degradation (Clewell et al., 2000; Beechie et al., 2008). Climate change, however, may exacerbate or ameliorate other sources of ecosystem degradation, alter which restoration actions are most effective for achieving restoration goals, or even alter which restoration goals are achievable. Incorporating climate change into restoration planning allows practitioners to evaluate restoration goals and methods in the context of projected future change and, thus, increases the likelihood of selecting necessary and effective restoration actions aimed at achievable restoration goals under future conditions. In this paper, we describe approaches for incorporating climate and streamflow projections into multiple stages of riparian restoration planning and design. We discuss potential ways to adjust restoration planning to address projected climate change, describe risks associated with failing to plan for climate change, highlight restoration actions that may ameliorate or exacerbate climate change effects, and consider solutions to problems arising from uncertainty in future projections.

HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED CLIMATE CHANGE, AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS Historical records indicate significant recent changes in the Earth’s climate, and future climate models predict that these trends will intensify in the future. Average annual air temperatures have increased by 0.8–2 °C in most regions over the last century, although temperatures have decreased in some areas (Hughes, 2003; Klein Tank and Konnen, 2003; Trenberth et al., 2007). Global circulation models (GCMs) project that global temperatures will continue to increase, by 0.5–3 °C in 2020–2029 (relative to 1980–1999) and 2–8 °C in 2090–2099, with the greatest warming at northern latitudes (IPCC, 2013). Long-term changes in annual and seasonal precipitation are less clear in most regions, with high variability sometimes masking slight trends (Hughes, 2003; IPCC, 2013; Kunkel et al., 2013b). Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

However, the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation has increased in several regions (Kunkel et al., 2013a) and is projected to increase over the next century in many parts of North America, Europe, and Asia (Kundzewicz et al., 2014). Most GCMs also agree that total annual precipitation will increase near the poles, but future precipitation trends at lower latitudes are uncertain (IPCC, 2013). Despite this uncertainty, the combination of warming temperatures and stable or decreasing precipitation is projected to increase drought frequency, severity, and extent on parts of every continent (Burke, 2011; Dai, 2011). Warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation are also altering streamflows (Figure 1a). Globally, on snowmelt-dominated rivers, warmer temperatures are increasing winter streamflows, reducing snowpacks, shifting spring snowmelt high flows earlier, and reducing late spring streamflows (Barnett et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2005; Hodgkins and Dudley, 2006; Dery et al., 2009; Stahl et al., 2010). These trends are most pronounced on rivers draining mid-elevation or mid-latitude basins near the rain– snow transition, many of which may shift from snowmeltdominated to rainfall-dominated flow regimes (Regonda et al., 2005; Mantua et al., 2010; Laghari et al., 2012). Over the next century, the magnitudes of both spring snowmelt high flows and seasonal low flows are projected to decrease on many snowmelt-dominated rivers, due to smaller snowpacks and earlier snowmelt (Arora and Boer, 2001; Dettinger et al., 2004), while winter flooding may increase due to greater rain-on-snow events and winter snowmelt (Kim, 2005; Freudiger et al., 2014). High and low flows may also decline on some rainfall-dominated rivers because of greater evapotranspiration and infiltration capacity, and lower soil moisture and surface runoff (Hayhoe et al., 2007; Hay et al., 2011). High and low flows may increase, however, where precipitation increases (Githui et al., 2009; Stahl et al., 2010; Hodgkins and Dudley, 2011). Further, flood flows may increase where extreme precipitation events become larger or more frequent (Armstrong et al., 2014; Kundzewicz et al., 2014). Potential effects of climate change on riparian ecosystems include direct effects of climate change on wildlife and vegetation as well as indirect effects driven by changes in streamflow (Perry et al., 2012; Kominoski et al., 2013). Warmer temperatures and associated drought may increase heat and water stress (Saxe et al., 2001; Wahid et al., 2007; Boyles et al., 2011; Schilthuizen and Kellermann, 2014), shift springtime phenology earlier and lengthen the growing season (Menzel et al., 2006; Parmesan, 2007; Chambers et al., 2013), increase fire frequency and severity (Hughes, 2003; Mote et al., 2003; Pechony and Shindell, 2010), shift species distributions poleward and to higher elevations (Parmesan, 2006; Chen et al., 2011), and disrupt plant–pollinator, plant–herbivore, and predator–prey Ecohydrol. (2015)

RIPARIAN RESTORATION FOR A CHANGING CLIMATE

Figure 1. (a) Projected changes in annual high flows (exceeded 5% of the time) and low flows (exceeded 95% of the time) between the recent past (1971–2000) and the future (2071–2100), reprinted with permission from Koirala et al. (2014) under the Creative Commons License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode). Koirala et al. (2014) modelled streamflow using the Catchment-based Macro-scale Floodplain Model forced with simulated runoff from 11 CMIP5 global circulation models and the RCP8.5 future emission scenario. Light grey indicates areas where projected change in either high flows or low flows was not statistically significant (34% of global land cover), while dark grey indicates areas where projected change in neither high flows nor low flows was significant (3% of global land cover). We modified the figure legend from Koirala et al. (2014) for clarity. Note that our ‘lower flows’ and ‘higher flows’ scenarios (defined in Incorporating Climate Change into Riparian Restoration Planning and Design) do not correspond exactly to the yellow and green areas because the specific climatic mechanisms for the Koirala et al. (2014) projected changes in high and low flows vary among regions (e.g. smaller snowpacks, warmer winter temperatures, greater evapotranspiration, greater total precipitation, and more extreme precipitation events). (b) Likely changes in the spatial distribution and composition of riparian vegetation along an idealized riparian cross-section in regions with different projected changes in low and flood flows. Flood flows here refer to high flows capable of going overbank (i.e. flows exceeded substantially less than 5% of the time), which often have greater prediction uncertainty than other projected changes in streamflow and may change in different ways and different regions than the changes in 5% exceedance flows shown in (a).

relationships (Visser and Both, 2005; Hegland et al., 2009; Thackeray et al., 2010). Lower flood magnitudes and frequencies due to climate change may reduce fluvial disturbance and geomorphic complexity, stabilize channels, and reduce hydrologic connectivity between the channel and floodplain (Ward and Stanford, 1995; Hughes, 1997). In turn, these changes Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

may contribute to riparian forest expansion, favor latersuccessional riparian vegetation, and reduce vegetation patch-type diversity (Figure 1b) (Williams and Wolman, 1984; Start and Handasyde, 2002; Graf, 2006; Ollero, 2010; Johnson et al., 2012). Conversely, higher flood magnitudes and frequencies may increase fluvial disturbance and geomorphic complexity, encourage Ecohydrol. (2015)

L. G. PERRY et al.

channel migration and abandonment, and increase abundance of early-successional riparian vegetation (Figure 1b) (Hering et al., 2004; Beechie et al., 2006; Parsons et al., 2006; Stromberg, 2007). Reduced low flows due to climate change may increase riparian water stress and mortality, reduce the width of mesic riparian corridors, and shift community composition towards more xeric species (Rood et al., 2003; Auble et al., 2005; Horner et al., 2009; O’Connor, 2010; Stromberg et al., 2010) (Figure 1b). On smaller streams, lower low flows may lead to increased streamflow intermittency, with large effects on riparian vegetation (Shaw and Cooper, 2008; Stromberg et al., 2010; Warfe et al., 2014) and organisms that rely on surface water. Conversely, increased low flows may reduce riparian water stress, increase plant growth and cover, increase inundation, and shift species composition towards more hydric and obligate wetland species (Merritt and Cooper, 2000; Magdaleno and Fernandez, 2011) (Figure 1b). INCORPORATING CLIMATE CHANGE INTO RIPARIAN RESTORATION PLANNING AND DESIGN Restoration planning and design ideally includes at least eight main steps: (A) identify the ecological problem and

its causes, (B) assess the project context, (C) define project goals, (D) conduct site-level investigations, (E) evaluate alternative actions, (F) finalize the design, (G) implement the design, and (H) monitor outcomes and perform adaptive management (Pastorok et al., 1997; Clewell et al., 2000; Palmer et al., 2005; Skidmore et al., 2013). In subsequent sections, we describe ways to incorporate climate change into steps B, C, E, and H (Figure 2). These approaches may be applied to, or modified for application to, riparian restorations around the globe. However, we pay particular attention to two specific scenarios of projected streamflow change (‘lower flows’ and ‘higher flows’), in order to provide concrete examples of incorporating climate change into restoration planning (Table I). In a ‘lower flows’ scenario, warmer temperatures in snowmeltdominated basins lead to both lower spring-floods flows and lower summer low flows (e.g. much of the southwestern United States and southern Europe; Garcia-Ruiz et al., 2011; Perry et al., 2012; Figure 1a). In contrast, in a ‘higher flows’ scenario, greater precipitation at northern latitudes, together with greater winter runoff due to warmer temperatures, leads to higher winter low flows and higher spring high flows, including larger major floods (e.g. much of Russia; Semyonov and Korshunov, 2006; Adam and Lettenmaier, 2008; Figure 1a).

Figure 2. Conceptual flow diagram of eight basic steps in restoration planning and design (left), and options for incorporating climate change considerations into individual planning and design steps (right).


Ecohydrol. (2015)


H. Monitoring and adaptive management

E. Evaluating alternative actions

C. Defining project goals

B. Assessing the project context

Restoration planning step

When feasible, design water releases to restore natural magnitude and timing of high and low flows Increase human water use efficiency and Increase storage capacity for increased precipitation conservation to reduce water demand and snowmelt

Water management

Adjusting goals and methods

Monitor restoration outcomes, climate and streamflow change, and new developments in climate and streamflow projections Adjust restoration goals in response to unexpected climate and streamflow change or updates to climate and streamflow projections Implement additional or alternative restoration actions in response to undesired restoration outcomes

Size channels to accommodate current flow regimes Increase sediment retention to raise the water table Configure channels to withstand higher flood flows Add meanders, depressions, and beaver dams to Increase floodplain surface area and complexity increase water retention to increase flood attenuation Construct lower surfaces to increase water availability Construct higher surfaces that are protected from major fluvial disturbance

Channel and floodplain reconfiguration

Monitoring

Plan for greater control of more xeric exotic species

Invasive species

Locate plantings on higher surfaces Select more hydric, disturbance-adapted, or bank-stabilizing genotypes or species Plan for greater control of more hydric and disturbance-adapted exotic species

Focus efforts on sites with current relatively low water availability Expect more hydric, more temporally dynamic, and more uniformly earlier-successional communities

Locate plantings on lower surfaces Select more xeric genotypes or species

Focus restoration efforts on sites with current relatively high water availability Expect more xeric, less temporally dynamic, and more uniformly later-successional communities

Obtain climate change projections for the watershed based on a wide array of GCMs and CO2 scenarios Use appropriate stationary or non-stationary techniques to predict current and/or future streamflows Predict extent of riparian water stress due to Predict extent of riparian anoxia stress due to higher lower low flows and shifts to later-successional low flows and shifts to early-successional vegetation due to lower high flows vegetation due to higher high flows

Higher flows

Planting

Adjusting goals

Selecting sites

Riparian ecology

Streamflow

Climate

Lower flows

Table I. Potential changes to riparian restoration planning and design given projected climate and streamflow change in ‘lower flows’ scenarios (i.e. snowmelt-dominated rivers with projected declines in both spring high and summer low flow magnitudes due to warmer winters) and ‘higher flows’ scenarios (i.e. northern-latitude rivers with projected increases in both spring flood and winter low flow magnitudes due to greater precipitation).


Ecohydrol. (2015)

L. G. PERRY et al.

ASSESSING THE PROJECT CONTEXT To incorporate climate change into assessing the project context (step B), restoration planners must obtain sitespecific or watershed-specific predictions of future climate, streamflow, and potential effects on riparian ecology. Spatially downscaled, bias-corrected current and projected future climate data, derived from numerous GCMs and CO2 emissions scenarios, can be obtained for the globe from a variety of sources, including the University of California, Berkeley (http://www.worldclim.org/) and Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum (http://www.dkrz.de/ daten-en/data-access). Higher-resolution downscaled data also can be obtained for specific regions or nations, such as the Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate and Hydrology Projections archive (http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/ downscaled_cmip_projections/) for the United States and Adapt NSW (http://climatechange.environment.nsw.gov. au/) for New South Wales, Australia. Predicting streamflow magnitude and frequency for restoration design under climate change requires novel approaches (Milly et al., 2008; Rosner et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2014), because long-accepted techniques for estimating flow quantiles for infrastructure design (i.e. design flows) have assumed climate stationarity (e.g. IACWD, 1981). Nonetheless, traditional methods may still be applicable in some circumstances (Matalas, 2012; Rosner et al., 2014). The literature suggests four general approaches for climateinformed design flow estimates: (1) stationary methods using updated or recent precipitation and streamflow records (e.g. Olsen et al., 1999; Douglas and Fairbank, 2011); (2) non-stationary statistical techniques (O’Brien and Burn, 2014; Salas and Obeysekera, 2014; Westra et al., 2014); (3) modelling of site-specific streamflow changes under projected future climates (e.g. Hodgkins and Dudley, 2013); and (4) modelling of streamflow changes throughout a stream network under projected future climates (e.g. Hay et al., 2011; Addor et al., 2014). These approaches can be used to determine important design flows, including comparatively small, frequent floods responsible for channel formation and floodplain construction (e.g. 1 to 5-year recurrence interval events), low frequency low flows that induce water stress in riparian areas (e.g. 7Q10, the lowest 7-day average flow in an average 10-year period), and rare, large floods that generate fluvial disturbance and riparian ecosystem dynamics (e.g. 50-year events) (Rosgen, 1996; Shields et al., 2003; Doyle et al., 2007). Process-based modelling of future streamflow may be preferable for predicting long-term changes in floods and low flows but can be difficult to implement. Because streamflows often are influenced by dam operations, diversions, or groundwater pumping, restoration planners may need to adjust future streamflow Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

predictions to account for changes in human water use and management. Generally, water demand is expected to rise with increasing population density and warming, but demand may stabilize or decline where growing-season precipitation, water-use efficiency, or water-conservation increase, or the economic viability of irrigated agriculture declines (IPCC, 2007). Site-specific, quantitative assessments of future water use and management are rarely available, but planners can also use simple, qualitative assessments of likely change (e.g. Laize et al., 2014). Once projections of future climate and streamflow are obtained, restoration planners need to assess likely biological and ecological responses. Specifically, are projected changes sufficient to affect whether and where different species and functional groups will thrive? Which native species or functional groups are likely to fail, and on which geomorphic surfaces? Which native species or functional groups might replace them? Which invasive species might increase or decline? How might changes in environmental conditions and species composition affect competition, herbivory, or pollination? For example, at projected ‘lower flows’ sites, planners must assess the likelihood of channel narrowing and increased abundance of more xeric and later-successional species, whereas at ‘higher flows’ sites, planners must assess the likelihood of channel widening and increased abundance of more hydric and early-successional species. Bioclimatic envelope models are often used to address these types of questions with regard to effects of projected future temperatures (Araujo and Peterson, 2012; Schwartz, 2012; Ikeda et al., 2014), but similar quantitative approaches are lacking for assessing effects of changes in streamflow on most riparian organisms. Instead, planners must evaluate which rivers, habitats, or species are at greater risk by examining relative magnitudes of projected streamflow change (e.g. Mantua et al., 2010; Laize et al., 2014). In addition, planners can predict changes in species and functional group composition by examining local or regional analogue ecosystems with similar current conditions to the projected future conditions at the restoration site (Catford et al., 2013). For example, in projected ‘lower flows’ watersheds, differences between riparian communities along moisture gradients may provide insights into likely future changes in community composition. Likewise, where effects of river regulation on streamflows are similar to projected effects of climate change (e.g. lower high and higher low flows), sites along regulated rivers may provide useful insights into future communities. Where specific streamflow-survival or streamflow-abundance relationships are known for key species or functional groups (e.g. the ‘recruitment box’ for riparian Populus species (cottonwoods) or the CASiMiR-vegetation model; Mahoney and Rood, 1998; Benjankar et al., 2011), planners can make more quantitative predictions (e.g. Rivaes et al., 2014). Ecohydrol. (2015)


Unfortunately, there is considerable uncertainty in predictions of future climate, streamflow, and effects on riparian ecology and geomorphology (Wilby et al., 2010). Uncertainty in climate projections includes uncertainty in GCMs, CO2 scenarios, and downscaling techniques and can be especially high with regard to extreme events that drive riparian fluvial dynamics (Stainforth et al., 2007; Kundzewicz et al., 2014). Restoration planners can evaluate uncertainty by considering multiple potential future scenarios, including multiple climates, streamflow, and ecological projections, in their conceptual or quantitative models of climate change effects on riparian ecosystems and restoration outcomes (Fuller et al., 2008; Wilby, 2010; Veloz et al., 2013). From this suite of projections, planners can base decisions on the most consistent predictions, or select restoration methods that are expected to achieve a desired outcome across the widest array of projections (Prudhomme et al., 2010). Planners might also choose adjustments to restoration design that are reversible or have additional benefits (Wilby et al., 2010).

DEFINING PROJECT GOALS To address climate change when defining project goals (step C), restoration planners must consider whether modifications to project goals are necessary to accommodate short-term or long-term projections of climate, streamflow, and riparian ecology from step B. Ideally, restoration goals should be developed first at the watershed scale, based on analyses of landscape-scale processes, sources of habitat degradation, and status of desired and undesired biota (Harris and Olson, 1997; Palmer et al., 2005; Beechie et al., 2013b). Planning at the watershed scale allows restoration planners to select restoration sites that maximize connectivity between riparian habitats, facilitating species range shifts in response to climate change (Seavy et al., 2009). Further, planners can assign greater priority to desired riparian species, habitats, and ecosystem services that may be at increased risk under projected future conditions (Trabucchi et al., 2014). For example, in projected ‘lower flows’ watersheds, planners might focus restoration goals more on maintaining water availability to support riparian communities than they would under current conditions, whereas in ‘higher flows’ watersheds, planners might focus restoration goals more on increasing riparian capacity for flood attenuation. Planners also can use climate and streamflow projections to identify sites within the watershed that are most likely to support restoration of desired habitats or species under projected future conditions. For example, under current conditions, a range of riparian sites with relatively high low flows and flood frequencies might all be considered suitable for restoration of a diverse, dynamic mosaic of Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

early-successional to late-successional, mesic riparian plant communities. In projected ‘lower flows’ watersheds, however, only sites with the highest current low flows and flood frequencies may be suitable to achieve those goals under future conditions. In projected ‘higher flows’ watersheds, only sites with the lowest low flows and flood frequencies may be suitable. Where restoration of historic community composition becomes challenging under climate change, restoration goals may shift towards restoring desired ecosystem functions and facilitating transitions to new ecosystem states (Harris et al., 2006; West et al., 2009; Wilby et al., 2010; Acreman et al., 2014). In these cases, restoration planners will need to identify and manage for alternative community structures that can still provide desired ecosystem services.

EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS To address climate change when evaluating alternative restoration actions (step E), restoration planners need to select appropriate methods for achieving the restoration goals developed in step C in the context of predicted changes in climate, streamflow, and riparian ecology obtained in step B. Riparian restoration actions that can be adjusted to address projected climate change include planting of desired vegetation, invasive species control, channel and floodplain reconfiguration, and water management (Table II). Planting Many riparian restoration efforts are aimed at increasing riparian plant cover to improve water quality, bank stability, or wildlife habitat, where plant cover has declined due to urban or agricultural development (Palmer et al., 2005; Gonzalez del Tanago et al., 2012). Revegetation can simultaneously address those issues and serve as a measure of proactive adaptation to climate change, by expanding riparian wildlife habitat and migration corridors, and by reducing surface runoff and increasing flood attenuation where larger floods are projected (Palmer et al., 2008). In some cases, riparian revegetation may be accomplished by creating suitable hydrologic and geomorphic conditions and allowing natural establishment from dispersing seeds and seed banks (Kauffman et al., 1997; Hough-Snee et al., 2013; Meli et al., 2013). Planting may be necessary, however, where desired species propagules are absent or where suitable conditions for natural establishment cannot be restored (e.g. Ruwanza et al., 2013). Planting is usually implemented at the site scale and is only a temporary solution to problems with unsuitable conditions for natural establishment (Weisberg et al., 2013) but can be a longerterm solution to problems with lack of propagules. Ecohydrol. (2015)


Decreased flood attenuation Channel widening Increased flood disturbance

Increased high flow

Increase vegetative cover Reduce impervious surface area Reroute drainage away from streams Add retention or detention structures to slow runoff to streams

Remove or set back levees to restore natural attenuation of floodsb

Re-engineer ditches and incised channels to allow overbank floodingb Remove or set back levees to restore channel-floodplain connectivityb Adjust dam releases to generate lower low flowsa Construct higher surfacesb

Adjust dam releases to generate larger high flowsa

Reduce water abstraction via dams, diversions, or groundwater pumpinga Aggrade incised channels to increase groundwater storage and streamflowb Construct lower surfacesb

Restoration actions that directly address changes in hydrology

Seed or plant desired native species on higher surfacesc,d Remove mesic or hydric exotic vegetation Introduce regionally native, hydric species or genotypesd,e Seed or plant desired native species on surfaces protected from scourc,d Remove earlier-successional exotic vegetation Introduce regionally native, disturbanceadapted species or genotypesd,e

Introduce regionally native, xeric species or genotypesd,e Remove patches of later-successional vegetation, including exotic species Seed or plant desired native species on created open surfacesc,d Introduce regionally native, latersuccessional species or genotypesd,e

Seed or plant desired native species on lower surfacesc,d Irrigate desired native species Remove xeric exotic vegetation

Restoration actions that address indirect effects on riparian ecosystems

Potential risks of restoration actions: a negotiating insufficient or inappropriate changes to water management, b sizing or configuring the channel or floodplain incorrectly, c selecting unsuitable locations for planting, d selecting unsuitable species or genotypes for planting, e introducing ecologically damaging novel species or genotypes. Restoration actions in bold may have long-term, reach-scale, or watershed-scale benefits, whereas restoration actions in plain type most often have only site-scale effects, and those in italics most often have only site-scale and short-term effects. Where climate change and prior human impacts have similar effects on streamflow, restoration may offset local impacts of climate change by ameliorating prior human impacts.

Increased surface runoff

Shifts to earlier-successional communities Increased earlier-successional exotic species

Shifts to more hydric species Increased plant cover Increased hydric exotic species

Delayed release of high flows from reservoirs

Decreased overbank flooding

Increased low flow

Reduced plant cover Shifts to more xeric species Increased xeric exotic species

Indirect, streamflow-driven effects on riparian vegetation

Channel narrowing Decreased flood disturbance Shifts to later-successional communities Increased later-successional exotic species

Loss of groundwater storage via incision

Abstraction of water

Prior anthropogenic changes

Decreased high flow Retention of high flows in reservoirs

Decreased low flow

Climate change effect

Table II. Examples of riparian restoration actions that address anthropogenic and climate change effects on riparian ecosystems (modified from Beechie et al., 2013b).

L. G. PERRY et al.

Ecohydrol. (2015)


Incorporating climate change projections into restoration planning may alter decisions on where to plant species within sites, and on which genotypes or species to plant. Plantings designed for current flow regimes may be located too high or low relative to the channel for future flows, leading to poor establishment or long-term survival (Figure 1b). Similarly, species currently considered ecologically important may be unlikely to persist under future conditions, whereas other locally native species that are currently sub-dominant or occupy other ecological niches might become more successful. At sites where many of the locally native species are unlikely to thrive under future conditions, planners may need to consider introducing regionally native but locally novel genotypes or species that are better adapted to projected future conditions (Beauchamp and Shafroth, 2011; Breed et al., 2013; Capon et al., 2013). For example, in ‘lower flows’ sites, planners might select genotypes or species that are better adapted to lower water availability and infrequent fluvial disturbance than current native genotypes or species and might locate relatively mesic plantings on both appropriate surfaces for current conditions (e.g. 10-year flood stage) and lower geomorphic surfaces relative to the channel (Figure 3). In contrast, in ‘higher flows’ sites, planners might select genotypes or species that are better adapted to frequent or severe fluvial disturbance and higher water availability and locate plantings on both appropriate surfaces for current conditions and higher surfaces protected from increased disturbance. Planting locations designed for future conditions will be at greater risk of desiccation or flood disturbance while current conditions persist, but may succeed if there is adequate precipitation and no major flooding in the first few years while plantings grow larger and more resilient. Planting design will be particularly challenging where flood flows increase and low flows decline; plantings located on high surfaces to avoid disturbance may need to be either more xeric species or

Figure 3. Potential adjustments to locations for riparian revegetation efforts along an idealized riparian cross-section given projected changes in streamflow towards higher high and low flows (‘higher flows’) or lower high flows and low flows (‘lower flows’). Darker shading indicates overlap in promising areas for riparian revegetation between the two scenarios.


irrigated during establishment and dry periods between floods. Where possible, planners should design plantings to maintain natural functional group or guild composition, thus minimizing changes in ecosystem structure and function (Merritt et al., 2010; Januschke et al., 2014). Restoration planners can use many of the same tools for designing plantings that were discussed for step B. First, planners can refer to local analogue ecosystems (i.e. ecosystems with current conditions similar to projected conditions for the restoration site) for examples of appropriate species and planting locations for future conditions (e.g. Stromberg et al., 2010; Catford et al., 2013). This approach has the benefit of not requiring preexisting models or data sets but provides limited information, because analogue ecosystems rely on correlations between environmental conditions and community structure, which could be spurious, site specific, or altered under future conditions (Catford et al., 2013). Second, planners can use mechanistic models of riparian plant responses to climate and streamflow, based on observed responses to experimental treatments, natural variation, or human disturbance. Conceptual mechanistic models of species or functional group responses to change can provide general insights into appropriate species selection and planting locations for future conditions (Catford et al., 2013; Kominoski et al., 2013). Quantitative models can provide more detailed predictions but require quantitative knowledge to parameterize for specific riparian ecosystems (e.g. HEC-EFM (http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/ hec-efm/); Merritt and Bateman, 2012; Rivaes et al., 2014). Third, planners can select species from databases of regional or local riparian species traits (e.g. adaptation to temperature, moisture, geomorphic position, and flood disturbance) (Merritt et al., 2010; Ikeda et al., 2014). Finally, common garden experiments can be used to identify species or genotypes that are better adapted to projected future conditions (Grady et al., 2011; Sgro et al., 2011; Breed et al., 2013). Uncertainty in projected climate, streamflow, and ecological responses, however, leads to risks of selecting the wrong species or locations for planting. For example, if future flows are lower than projected for a ‘lower flows’ site, then plantings located on relatively low surfaces to maximize water availability while avoiding flood scour may still be too high above the water table to survive. Restoration plantings may have the greatest likelihood of long-term success under uncertain future conditions if they include a broad mix of species and genotypes adapted to current and various projected future conditions (Rice and Emery, 2003; Seastedt et al., 2008; Benito-Garzon et al., 2013) and if each species is planted on multiple surfaces near and far from the channel. Another risk is that introducing novel species or genotypes might displace locally native species that otherwise might persist under Ecohydrol. (2015)

L. G. PERRY et al.

future conditions (Rout et al., 2013). To avoid introducing novel invasive species, non-local species and genotypes should be limited to those that could be expected to migrate to the site under climate change given time and absence of human barriers to dispersal (Hallfors et al., 2014). Further, except where there is considerable certainty that locally native vegetation will not persist, planners should err towards planting local natives and plan to adjust with future introductions of novel taxa if necessary. Invasive species control Invasive, non-native species tend to be particularly abundant in riparian areas and often replace desired riparian species and alter ecosystem functions (Stohlgren et al., 1999; Richardson et al., 2007; Catford and Jansson, 2014). In restorations where invasive plants are abundant, removing invasive vegetation is often necessary for native plant establishment and is sometimes the primary restoration goal (e.g. Shafroth et al., 2005; Holmes et al., 2008). Mechanical or chemical removal of invasive species usually provides only site-scale and short-term control because it is labour-intensive and invasive species readily reinvade, but can have long-term benefits if concurrent restoration actions create conditions that favour desired species over invasive species (Taylor and McDaniel, 2004; James et al., 2010). For example, environmental flows may favour flow-adapted native species over invasive species, and planting native species that are well-adapted to current or future conditions may create communities that outcompete invasive species (Catford et al., 2014). Biocontrol, when feasible, also can provide landscape-scale and long-term control (Van Driesche et al., 2010). Under climate change, riparian restoration planners should anticipate greater invasive species control needs, changes in which invasive species require most control, and new invasions by species from warmer latitudes and lower elevations (Schnitzler et al., 2007; Murray et al., 2012; Nilsson et al., 2013; Ikeda et al., 2014). Climate change is generally expected to favour invasive species, because their high fecundity and dispersal ability may allow them to shift geographic ranges rapidly (Dukes and Mooney, 1999), and because they tend to be highly plastic and adaptable to changing environmental conditions (Bradley et al., 2010). For example, in at least some riparian ecosystems, changes in temperature and hydrology impact invasive plants less than natives (Catford et al., 2014; Flanagan et al., 2015). In projected ‘lower flows’ sites, invasive species control efforts may need to shift towards more xeric and later-successional species, while in ‘higher flows’ sites, control efforts may need to shift towards more hydric and disturbance-adapted species. Invasive species that are projected to decline under future Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

conditions still need to be managed, however, because future projections are uncertain and invasions can have persistent ecological effects (Corbin and D’Antonio, 2012). Channel and floodplain reconfiguration Floodplain alterations such as levees, ditches, channelization, and incision often contribute to riparian degradation by restricting flood flows within the channel, draining the alluvial aquifer, and reducing floodplain fluvial disturbance and rewetting (Bravard et al., 1999; Gregory, 2006; Steinfeld and Kingsford, 2013). Climate change may exacerbate those effects where it reduces flood or low flows. Restoring floodplain-channel connectivity may simultaneously address prior human disturbances and provide proactive adaptation to climate change by increasing water retention, base flows, flood attenuation, and riparian habitat (Palmer et al., 2008). Floodplain connectivity can be restored by removing or setting back levees (Konrad et al., 2008; Opperman et al., 2010), rerouting streamflow from ditches to historical or reengineered channels (Kristensena et al., 2014; Spencer and Bousquin, 2014), actively widening channels and lowering floodplains (Hammersmark et al., 2008; Fitzpatrick et al., 2009; Roni et al., 2013), or increasing instream sediment retention by re-establishing vegetation, woody debris, boulders, or beaver dams to aggrade the channel and raise the water table (Lester and Boulton, 2008; Polvi and Wohl, 2013; Moore et al., 2014). These actions can be implemented at the site or reach scale and have longterm benefits, because they remove major barriers to natural riparian ecosystem dynamics (Beechie et al., 2010). Designing channels and floodplains for future climates can be challenging because of feedbacks and complex responses in hydrogeomorphic systems (Schumm, 1973). For example, in ‘higher flows’ watersheds, it is logical to consider designing channel geometry and floodplain elevations based on the estimated magnitude of future, larger channel-forming floods. However, oversizing the channel to accommodate future floods will reduce overbank flooding in the short-term, which may lead to channel sediment deposition where sediment supply is relatively high, encroachment by riparian vegetation where sediment supply is low, or channel incision if floods confined to the oversized channel increase shear stress and erode the channel bed (Montgomery and Buffington, 1998; Doyle et al., 2007; McBain and Trush, 2007). Therefore, we suggest scaling channel dimensions to the current hydrologic regime based on streamflow and climate records from recent decades (e.g. NOAA 2011) and designing the channel and floodplain to adjust naturally to future changes in flows by constructing erodible channels where possible and maximizing floodplain area to allow natural channel resizing and migration (Miller, 1999; Florsheim et al., 2008). Ecohydrol. (2015)


Water management Human water use and flow regulation have profoundly altered riparian ecosystems around the globe. Diversions and groundwater pumping have reduced total and base streamflows, thus increasing riparian water stress (McKay and King, 2006; Caskey et al., 2014), while dam operations have increased low flows, reduced flood magnitude and frequency, altered flood timing, and impeded sediment movement, thus reducing fluvial disturbance and hindering riparian ecosystem dynamics (Graf, 2006; Poff and Zimmerman, 2010; Grill et al., 2015). Restoring key aspects of natural flow regimes can simultaneously address those prior human impacts and provide proactive adaptation to climate change (Palmer et al., 2008), especially where climate change and current water management have similar effects on streamflow (Beechie et al., 2013a). On rivers with reduced low flows, adequate low flows may be restored by purchasing water rights, setting flow targets during dam relicensing, or increasing water-use efficiency to reduce water demand (Marchetti and Moyle, 2001; Poff et al., 2007; Acreman et al., 2014). On regulated rivers, flood flows can be managed by adjusting dam operations; experimental high flow releases have been implemented around the globe to increase floodplain and channel geomorphic complexity and restore riparian and riverine habitats (Konrad et al., 2011; Olden et al., 2014). Such changes can be implemented at the reach, watershed, or landscape scale, depending on the scale of water management operations, and have long-term benefits because they restore primary drivers of riparian ecosystem structure and function (Rood et al., 2005; Catford et al., 2014). However, legacy effects of prior water management on sediment regimes, floodplain geomorphology, invasive species, and native propagules may need to be addressed concurrently to restore riparian ecosystems (Kondolf, 1998; Wohl et al., 2005; Cooper and Andersen, 2012; Formann et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2014; Wohl et al., 2015). Although restoring natural flows is often the most direct, lasting approach to restoring riparian ecosystems, it can be extremely difficult to implement in the context of conflicting human water demand and existing flow regulation infrastructure (Gonzalez del Tanago et al., 2012; Acreman et al., 2014). For example, the Australian Murray-Darling Basin Plan, designed to re-allocate water from cropland to riparian and riverine ecosystems, was unpopular with many farmers and only feasible because of the extreme dysfunction of the river system and the political will of the central government, yet is still unlikely to provide sufficient water to sustain riparian habitats under projected future climate change (Kirby et al., 2014; Wheeler et al., 2014). Likewise, existing water laws make changes to water management in water-stressed southwestern North America challenging (Palmer et al., 2009; Sabo Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

et al., 2010), although experimental flows have been implemented on some rivers (Patten et al., 2001; Shafroth et al., 2010; Flessa et al., 2013). Climate change may further reduce the feasibility of adjusting water management operations for riparian restoration, especially in regions where warmer temperatures increase water demand and reduce supply (e.g. ‘lower flows’ regions) (Kirby et al., 2014). However, in regions where greater precipitation increases water supply (e.g. ‘higher flows’ regions), climate change may necessitate changes to water management that benefit riparian ecosystems by increasing diminished flood or low flows. Where changes to water-use policies, dam operations, or other water control structures are feasible, they should be designed to address current and projected future changes in streamflow (e.g. Ward et al., 2013; Condon et al., 2015) and include the flexibility to adjust for unexpected future changes. Negotiated changes to water management that are based only on correcting historic streamflow change may be insufficient to address more severe current or future changes (Carey et al., 2014; Kirby et al., 2014) or, worse, may exacerbate future streamflow change. For example, current changes to dam operations for riparian restoration are often aimed at restoring flood flows and fluvial disturbance (e.g. Melis et al., 2011), but managing low flows may become more important where low flows decline and flood flows increase. In ‘higher flows’ watersheds, restoration planners might adjust water management to increase storage of excess water (Palmer et al., 2008) and design flow releases to restore natural flow regimes. In ‘lower flows’ watersheds, planners also might try to increase storage of winter and early spring water for release in late spring and summer (Palmer et al., 2008), but excess water may be too scarce to support desired riparian communities. Therefore, restoration efforts in ‘lower flows’ watersheds may need to focus on reducing human water demand, by increasing water-use efficiency or reducing economically marginal water use (Hargrove et al., 2013).

MONITORING OUTCOMES AND PERFORMING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Long-term monitoring (step H) is critical for assessing both whether restoration projects are progressing towards desired outcomes and which restoration actions are effective under different conditions (Palmer et al., 2005). Uncertainty in projected future conditions makes such monitoring even more important for gaining insights into how climate and streamflow are changing, and how those changes affect riparian ecosystems and restoration methods. Monitoring also provides opportunities for adaptive management (Brierley et al., 2010). Monitoring data can be Ecohydrol. (2015)

L. G. PERRY et al.

used to revise projections for climate, streamflow, and ecological change (step B) and adjust restoration goals (step C) or identify additional restoration actions needed to achieve original or adjusted goals (step E). For example, in projected ‘lower flows’ sites where low flows decline more than expected and limit desired native species establishment, restoration planners might introduce more xeric species to increase plant cover, irrigate to increase mesic species establishment, add plantings on lower floodplain surfaces, adjust channel and floodplain design to encourage floodplain water retention and instream sediment retention, or intensify human water conservation programmes. Similarly, in projected ‘higher flows’ sites where flood flows increase more than expected, planners might acquire additional land to widen riparian areas and increase flood attenuation, add retention or detention structures to reduce surface runoff, add plantings on higher floodplain surfaces, or adjust restoration goals for a more dynamic, earliersuccessional riparian ecosystem. Implementing monitoring and adaptive management plans that are sufficiently long-term to address decadescale and century-scale climate change effects will be challenging, however, because current restoration monitoring is rare and short-term (Bernhardt et al., 2005; Palmer et al., 2007). At most sites, long-term monitoring might need to be limited to infrequent, cursory observations aimed at identifying obvious problems. In addition to field observations, remote sensing data and imagery might be used to track plant cover, greenness, aboveground biomass, canopy species composition, and channel movement at larger spatial scales (Dufour et al., 2013; Guneralp et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2014; Norman et al., 2014). Planners might select a subset of sites to monitor more thoroughly, including sites with particular ecological importance or sites designed as experiments to compare methods (Howe and Martinez-Garza, 2014).

CONCLUSIONS Incorporating climate change into riparian restoration planning and design increases the likelihood of restoring long-term desired community composition and ecosystem services and presents numerous opportunities for pro-active climate change adaptation. Restoration planning that ignores climate change, in contrast, is more likely to result in communities that cannot persist under future conditions and, in the worst cases, may exacerbate climate change effects. The frequent similarities between effects of prior human disturbances on riparian ecosystems and expected future impacts of climate change present win–win scenarios in which restoration actions address both prior and future sources of degradation, with multiple benefits including increased water storage, flood attenuation, and Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

riparian habitat (Seavy et al., 2009; Beechie et al., 2013a; Capon et al., 2013). Uncertainty in projected future climate, streamflow, and riparian responses remains a significant challenge for restoration design (Wilby et al., 2010). This uncertainty can be addressed by planning for multiple potential future scenarios, using a variety of restoration methods, designing projects to function under current conditions but with flexibility to adjust to future conditions, and implementing targeted long-term monitoring and adaptive management. Large-scale restoration efforts that increase floodplain connectivity and restore key aspects of natural flow regimes are more likely to be successful, because they directly address effects of climate change and other major human disturbances on riparian hydrology and geomorphology, and they increase riparian ecosystem resilience to future change (Seavy et al., 2009; Capon et al., 2013).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Mark Dixon, Ted Grantham, and four anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript. REFERENCES Acreman M, Arthington AH, Colloff MJ, Couch C, Crossman ND, Dyer F, Overton I, Pollino CA, Stewardson MJ, Young W. 2014. Environmental flows for natural, hybrid, and novel riverine ecosystems in a changing world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 466–473. Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP. 2008. Application of new precipitation and reconstructed streamflow products to streamflow trend attribution in northern Eurasia. Journal of Climate 21: 1807–1828. Addor N, Rossler O, Koplin N, Huss M, Weingartner R, Seibert J. 2014. Robust changes and sources of uncertainty in the projected hydrological regimes of Swiss catchments. Water Resources Research 50: 7541–7562. Araujo MB, Peterson AT. 2012. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modeling. Ecology 93: 1527–1539. Armstrong WH, Collins MJ, Snyder NP. 2014. Hydroclimatic flood trends in the northeastern United States and linkages with large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns. Hydrological Sciences Journal 59: 1636–1655. Arora VK, Boer GJ. 2001. Effects of simulated climate change on the hydrology of major river basins. Journal of Geophysical ResearchAtmospheres 106: 3335–3348. Auble GT, Scott ML, Friedman JM. 2005. Use of individualistic streamflow–vegetation relations along the Fremont River, Utah, USA to assess impacts of flow alteration on wetland and riparian areas. Wetlands 25: 143–154. Barnett TP, Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP. 2005. Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438: 303–309. Beauchamp VB, Shafroth PB. 2011. Floristic composition, beta diversity, and nestedness of reference sites for restoration of xeroriparian areas. Ecological Applications 21: 465–476. Beechie T, Imaki H, Greene J, Wade A, Wu H, Pess G, Roni P, Kimball J, Stanford J, Kiffney P, Mantua N. 2013a. Restoring salmon habitat for a changing climate. River Research and Applications 29: 939–960. Beechie TJ, Liermann M, Pollock MM, Baker S, Davies J. 2006. Channel pattern and river-floodplain dynamics in forested mountain river systems. Geomorphology 78: 124–141.

Ecohydrol. (2015)

RIPARIAN RESTORATION FOR A CHANGING CLIMATE Beechie T, Pess G, Morley S, Butler L, Downs P, Maltby A, Skidmore P, Clayton S, Muhlfeld C, Hanson K. 2013b. Watershed assessments and identification of restoration needs. In Stream and Watershed Restoration: A Guide to Restoring Riverine Processes and Habitats, Roni P, Beechie T (eds). Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK; 50–113. Beechie T, Pess G, Roni P. 2008. Setting river restoration priorities: a review of approaches and a general protocol for identifying and prioritizing actions. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 891–905. Beechie TJ, Sear DA, Olden JD, Pess GR, Buffington JM, Moir H, Roni P, Pollock MM. 2010. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. Bioscience 60: 209–222. Benito-Garzon M, Ruiz-Benito P, Zavala MA. 2013. Interspecific differences in tree growth and mortality responses to environmental drivers determine potential species distributional limits in Iberian forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography 22: 1141–1151. Benjankar R, Egger G, Jorde K, Goodwin P, Glenn NF. 2011. Dynamic floodplain vegetation model development for the Kootenai River, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 3058–3070. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E. 2005. Ecology – synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308: 636–637. Boyles JG, Seebacher F, Smit B, McKechnie AE. 2011. Adaptive thermoregulation in endotherms may alter responses to climate change. Integrative and Comparative Biology 51: 676–690. Bradley BA, Blumenthal DM, Wilcove DS, Ziska LH. 2010. Predicting plant invasions in an era of global change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25: 310–318. Bravard JP, Kondolf GM, Piegay H. 1999. Environmental and societal effects of channel incision and remedial strategies. In Incised River Channels: Processes, Forms, Engineering, and Management, Darby SE, Simon A (eds). Wiley: New York, NY, USA; 303–341. Breed MF, Stead MG, Ottewell KM, Gardner MG, Lowe AJ. 2013. Which provenance and where? Seed sourcing strategies for revegetation in a changing environment. Conservation Genetics 14: 1–10. Brierley G, Reid H, Fryirs K, Trahan N. 2010. What are we monitoring and why? Using geomorphic principles to frame eco-hydrological assessments of river condition. Science of the Total Environment 408: 2025–2033. Burke EJ. 2011. Understanding the sensitivity of different drought metrics to the drivers of drought under increased atmospheric CO2. Journal of Hydrometeorology 12: 1378–1394. Capon SJ, Chambers LE, Mac Nally R, Naiman RJ, Davies P, Marshall N, Pittock J, Reid M, Capon T, Douglas M, Catford J, Baldwin DS, Stewardson M, Roberts J, Parsons M, Williams SE. 2013. Riparian ecosystems in the 21st century: hotspots for climate change adaptation? Ecosystems 16: 359–381. Carey M, Baraer M, Mark BG, French A, Bury J, Young KR, McKenzie JM. 2014. Toward hydro-social modeling: merging human variables and the social sciences with climate-glacier runoff models (Santa River, Peru). Journal of Hydrology 518: 60–70. Caskey ST, Blaschak TS, Wohl E, Schnackenberg E, Merritt DM, Dwire KA. 2014. Downstream effects of stream flow diversion on channel characteristics and riparian vegetation in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. DOI:10.1002/esp.3651. Catford JA, Jansson R. 2014. Drowned, buried and carried away: effects of plant traits on the distribution of native and alien species in riparian ecosystems. New Phytologist 204: 19–36. Catford JA, Morris WK, Vesk PA, Gippel CJ, Downes BJ. 2014. Species and environmental characteristics point to flow regulation and drought as drivers of riparian plant invasion. Diversity and Distributions 20: 1084–1096. Catford JA, Naiman RJ, Chambers LE, Roberts J, Douglas M, Davies P. 2013. Predicting novel riparian ecosystems in a changing climate. Ecosystems 16: 382–400. Chambers LE, Altwegg R, Barbraud C, Barnard P, Beaumont LJ, Crawford RJM, Durant JM, Hughes L, Keatley MR, Low M, Morellato PC, Poloczanska ES, Ruoppolo V, Vanstreels RET, Woehler EJ,


Wolfaardt AC. 2013. Phenological changes in the southern hemisphere. PLoS ONE 8: e75514. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0075514. Chen IC, Hill JK, Ohlemuller R, Roy DB, Thomas CD. 2011. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333: 1024–1026. Clewell A, Rieger J, Munro J. 2000. Guidelines for developing and managing ecological restoration projects. Society for Ecological Restoration: URL: http://www.ser.org/content/guidelines_ecological_restoration.asp. (Accessed September 23, 2014). Condon LE, Gangopadhyay S, Pruitt T. 2015. Climate change and nonstationary flood risk for the upper Truckee River basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 19: 159–175. Cooper DJ, Andersen DC. 2012. Novel plant communities limit the effects of a managed flood to restore riparian forests along a large regulated river. River Research and Applications 28: 204–215. Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM. 2012. Gone but not forgotten? Invasive plants’ legacies on community and ecosystem properties. Invasive Plant Science and Management 5: 117–124. Dai AG. 2011. Drought under global warming: a review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews – Climate Change 2: 45–65. Dery SJ, Stahl K, Moore RD, Whitfield PH, Menounos B, Burford JE. 2009. Detection of runoff timing changes in pluvial, nival, and glacial rivers of western Canada. Water Resources Research 45: W04426. DOI:10.1029/2008wr006975. Dettinger MD, Cayan DR, Meyer M, Jeton AE. 2004. Simulated hydrologic responses to climate variations and change in the Merced, Carson, and American River basins, Sierra Nevada, California, 1900–2099. Climatic Change 62: 283–317. Douglas EM, Fairbank CA. 2011. Is precipitation in northern New England becoming more extreme? Statistical analysis of extreme rainfall in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine and updated estimates of the 100-year storm. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 16: 203–217. Doyle MW, Shields D, Boyd KF, Skidmore PB, Dominick D. 2007. Channel-forming discharge selection in river restoration design. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering – ASCE 133: 831–837. Dufour S, Bernez I, Betbeder J, Corgne S, Hubert-Moy L, Nabucet J, Rapinel S, Sawtschuk J, Trolle C. 2013. Monitoring restored riparian vegetation: how can recent developments in remote sensing sciences help? Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 410. DOI:10.1051/kmae/2013068. Dukes JS, Mooney HA. 1999. Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14: 135–139. Fitzpatrick FA, Knox JC, Schubauer-Berigan JP. 2009. Channel, floodplain, and wetland responses to floods and overbank sedimentation, 1846–2006, Halfway Creek Marsh, Upper Mississippi Valley, Wisconsin. In Geological Society of America Special Paper 451, Rothenberg J (ed). Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA; 23–42. Flanagan NE, Richardson CJ, Ho M. 2015. Connecting differential responses of native and invasive riparian plants to climate change and environmental alteration. Ecological Applications 25: 753–767. Flessa KW, Glenn EP, Hinojosa-Huerta O, de la Parra-Renteria CA, Ramirez-Hernandez J, Schmidt JC, Zamora-Arroyo FA. 2013. Flooding the Colorado River Delta: a landscape-scale experiment. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 94: 485–486. Florsheim JL, Mount JF, Chin A. 2008. Bank erosion as a desirable attribute of rivers. Bioscience 58: 519–529. Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 557–581. Formann E, Egger G, Hauer C, Habersack H. 2014. Dynamic disturbance regime approach in river restoration: concept development and application. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 10: 323–337. Freudiger D, Kohn I, Stahl K, Weiler M. 2014. Large-scale analysis of changing frequencies of rain-on-snow events with floodgeneration potential. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18: 2695–2709. Fuller MM, Gross LJ, Duke-Sylvester SM, Palmer M. 2008. Testing the robustness of management decisions to uncertainty: Everglades restoration scenarios. Ecological Applications 18: 711–723.

Ecohydrol. (2015)

L. G. PERRY et al. Garcia-Ruiz JM, Lopez-Moreno JI, Vicente-Serrano SM, LasantaMartinez T, Begueria S. 2011. Mediterranean water resources in a global change scenario. Earth-Science Reviews 105: 121–139. Githui F, Gitau W, Mutua F, Bauwens W. 2009. Climate change impact on SWAT simulated streamflow in western Kenya. International Journal of Climatology 29: 1823–1834. Gonzalez del Tanago M, Garcia de Jalon D, Roman M. 2012. River restoration in Spain: theoretical and practical approach in the context of the European Water Framework Directive. Environmental Management 50: 123–139. Grady KC, Ferrier SM, Kolb TE, Hart SC, Allan GJ, Whitham TG. 2011. Genetic variation in productivity of foundation riparian species at the edge of their distribution: implications for restoration and assisted migration in a warming climate. Global Change Biology 17: 3724–3735. Graf WL. 2006. Downstream hydrologic and geomorphic effects of large dams on American rivers. Geomorphology 79: 336–360. Gregory KJ. 2006. The human role in changing river channels. Geomorphology 79: 172–191. Grill G, Lehner B, Lumsdon AE, MacDonald GK, Zarfl C, Liermann CR. 2015. An index-based framework for assessing patterns and trends in river fragmentation and flow regulation by global dams at multiple scales. Environmental Research Letters 10. DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/ 1010/1081/015001. Guneralp I, Filippi AM, Randall J. 2014. Estimation of floodplain aboveground biomass using multispectral remote sensing and nonparametric modeling. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 33: 119–126. Hallfors MH, Vaara EM, Hyvarinen M, Oksanen M, Schulman LE, Siipi H, Lehvavirta S. 2014. Coming to terms with the concept of moving species threatened by climate change – a systematic review of the terminology and definitions. PLoS ONE 9: e102979. DOI:10.1371/ journal.pone.0102979. Hammersmark CT, Rains MC, Mount JF. 2008. Quantifying the hydrological effects of stream restoration in a montane meadow, northern California, USA. River Research and Applications 24: 735–753. Hargrove WL, Borrok DM, Heyman JM, Tweedie CW, Ferregut C. 2013. Water, climate, and social change in a fragile landscape. Ecosphere 4. DOI:10.1890/ES1812-00269.00261. Harris JA, Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Aronson J. 2006. Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restoration Ecology 14: 170–176. Harris R, Olson C. 1997. Two-stage system for prioritizing riparian restoration at the stream reach and community scales. Restoration Ecology 5: 34–42. Hay LE, Markstrom SL, Ward-Garrison C. 2011. Watershed-scale response to climate change through the twenty-first century for selected basins across the United States. Earth Interactions 15: 17. DOI:10.1175/2010ei1370.1171. Hayhoe K, Wake CP, Huntington TG, Luo LF, Schwartz MD, Sheffield J, Wood E, Anderson B, Bradbury J, DeGaetano A, Troy TJ, Wolfe D. 2007. Past and future changes in climate and hydrological indicators in the US Northeast. Climate Dynamics 28: 381–407. Hegland SJ, Nielsen A, Lazaro A, Bjerknes AL, Totland O. 2009. How does climate warming affect plant–pollinator interactions? Ecology Letters 12: 184–195. Hering D, Gerhard M, Manderbach R, Reich M. 2004. Impact of a 100year flood on vegetation, benthic invertebrates, riparian fauna and large woody debris standing stock in an alpine floodplain. River Research and Applications 20: 445–457. Hodgkins GA, Dudley RW. 2006. Changes in the timing of winter–spring streamflows in eastern North America, 1913–2002. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L06402. DOI:10.1029/2005gl025593. Hodgkins GA, Dudley RW. 2011. Historical summer base flow and stormflow trends for New England rivers. Water Resources Research 47: W07528. DOI:10.1029/2010wr009109. Hodgkins GA, Dudley RW. 2013. Modeled future peak streamflows in four coastal Maine rivers. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5080. Holmes PM, Esler KJ, Richardson DM, Witkowski ETF. 2008. Guidelines for improved management of riparian zones invaded by alien plants in South Africa. South African Journal of Botany 74: 538–552.


Horner GJ, Baker PJ, Mac Nally R, Cunningham SC, Thomson JR, Hamilton F. 2009. Mortality of developing floodplain forests subjected to a drying climate and water extraction. Global Change Biology 15: 2176–2186. Hough-Snee N, Roper BB, Wheaton JM, Budy P, Lokteff RL. 2013. Riparian vegetation communities change rapidly following passive restoration at a northern Utah stream. Ecological Engineering 58: 371–377. Howe HF, Martinez-Garza C. 2014. Restoration as experiment. Botanical Sciences 92: 459–468. Hughes FMR. 1997. Floodplain biogeomorphology. Progress in Physical Geography 21: 501–529. Hughes L. 2003. Climate change and Australia: trends, projections and impacts. Austral Ecology 28: 423–443. IACWD. 1981. Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency (Bulletin 17-B of the Hydrology Committee originally published by the Water Resources Council). U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA. Ikeda DH, Grady KC, Shuster SM, Whitham TG. 2014. Incorporating climate change and exotic species into forecasts of riparian forest distribution. PLoS ONE 9: e107037. DOI:10.1371/journal. pone.0107037. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. James JJ, Smith BS, Vasquez EA, Sheley RL. 2010. Principles for ecologically based invasive plant management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 3: 229–239. Januschke K, Jahnig SC, Lorenz AW, Hering D. 2014. Mountain river restoration measures and their success(ion): effects on river morphology, local species pool, and functional composition of three organism groups. Ecological Indicators 38: 243–255. Johnson WC, Dixon MD, Scott ML, Rabbe L, Larson G, Volke M, Werner B. 2012. Forty years of vegetation change on the Missouri River floodplain. Bioscience 62: 123–135. Johnson WC, Volke MA, Scott ML, Dixon MD. 2014. The dammed Missouri: prospects for recovering Lewis and Clark’s river. Ecohydrology. DOI:10.1002/eco.1534. Kauffman JB, Beschta RL, Otting N, Lytjen D. 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 22: 12–24. Kim J. 2005. A projection of the effects of the climate change induced by increased CO2 on extreme hydrologic events in the western US. Climatic Change 68: 153–168. Kirby JM, Connor J, Ahmad MD, Gao L, Mainuddin M. 2014. Climate change and environmental water reallocation in the Murray–Darling Basin: impacts on flows, diversions and economic returns to irrigation. Journal of Hydrology 518: 120–129. Klein Tank AMG, Konnen GP. 2003. Trends in indices of daily temperature and precipitation extremes in Europe, 1946–99. Journal of Climate 16: 3665–3680. Koirala S, Hirabayashi Y, Mahendran R, Kanae S. 2014. Global assessment of agreement among streamflow projections using CMIP5 model outputs. Environmental Research Letters 9: 064017. DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064017. Kominoski JS, Shah JJF, Canhoto C, Fischer DG, Giling DP, Gonzalez E, Griffiths NA, Larranaga A, LeRoy CJ, Mineau MM, McElarney YR, Shirley SM, Swan CM, Tiegs SD. 2013. Forecasting functional implications of global changes in riparian plant communities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 423–432. Kondolf GM. 1998. Lessons learned from river restoration projects in California. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 39–52. Konrad CP, Black RW, Voss F, Neale CMU. 2008. Integrating remotely acquired and field data to assess effects of setback levees on riparian and aquatic habitats in glacial-melt water rivers. River Research and Applications 24: 355–372. Konrad CP, Olden JD, Lytle DA, Melis TS, Schmidt JC, Bray EN, Freeman MC, Gido KB, Hemphill NP, Kennard MJ, McMullen LE,

Ecohydrol. (2015)

RIPARIAN RESTORATION FOR A CHANGING CLIMATE Mims MC, Pyron M, Robinson CT, Williams JG. 2011. Large-scale flow experiments for managing river systems. Bioscience 61: 948–959. Kristensena EA, Kronvang B, Wiberg-Larsen P, Thodsen H, Nielsen C, Amor E, Friberg N, Pedersen ML, Baattrup-Pedersen A. 2014. 10 years after the largest river restoration project in Northern Europe: hydromorphological changes on multiple scales in River Skjern. Ecological Engineering 66: 141–149. Kundzewicz ZW, Kanae S, Seneviratne SI, Handmer J, Nicholls N, Peduzzi P, Mechler R, Bouwer LM, Arnell N, Mach K, Muir-Wood R, Brakenridge GR, Kron W, Benito G, Honda Y, Takahashi K, Sherstyukov B. 2014. Flood risk and climate change: global and regional perspectives. Hydrological Sciences Journal 59: 1–28. Kunkel KE, Karl TR, Brooks H, Kossin J, Lawrimore JH, Arndt D, Bosart L, Changnon D, Cutter SL, Doesken N, Emanuel KY, Groisman PY, Katz RW, Knutson T, O’Brien J, Paciorek CJ, Peterson TC, Redmond K, Robinson D, Trapp J, Vose R, Weaver S, Wehner M, Wolter K, Wuebbles D. 2013a. Monitoring and understanding trends in extreme storms state of knowledge. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94: 499–514. Kunkel KE, Stevens LE, Stevens SE, Sun L, Janssen E, Wuebbles D, Dobson JG. 2013b. Regional climate trends and scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment: part 9. Climate of the Contiguous United States. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service: Washington, DC, USA. Laghari AN, Vanham D, Rauch W. 2012. To what extent does climate change result in a shift in Alpine hydrology? A case study in the Austrian Alps. Hydrological Sciences Journal 57: 103–117. Laize CLR, Acreman MC, Schneider C, Dunbar MJ, Houghton-Carr HA, Florke M, Hannah DM. 2014. Projected flow alteration and ecological risk for pan-European rivers. River Research and Applications 30: 299–314. Lawler JJ. 2009. Climate change adaptation strategies for resource management and conservation planning. Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 1162: 79–98. Lester RE, Boulton AJ. 2008. Rehabilitating agricultural streams in Australia with wood: a review. Environmental Management 42: 310–326. Liu D, Guo S, Lian Y, Xiong L, Chen X. 2014. Climate-informed low flow frequency analysis using nonstationary modeling. Hydrological Processes 29: 2112–2124. Liu GL, Kurban A, Duan HM, Halik U, Ablekim A, Zhang LC. 2014. Desert riparian forest colonization in the lower reaches of Tarim River based on remote sensing analysis. Environmental Earth Sciences 71: 4579–4589. Magdaleno F, Fernandez JA. 2011. Hydromorphological alteration of a large Mediterranean river: relative role of high and low flows on the evolution of riparian forests and channel morphology. River Research and Applications 27: 374–387. Mahoney JM, Rood SB. 1998. Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling recruitment – an integrative model. Wetlands 18: 634–645. Mantua N, Tohver I, Hamlet A. 2010. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State. Climatic Change 102: 187–223. Marchetti MP, Moyle PB. 2001. Effects of flow regime on fish assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecological Applications 11: 530–539. Matalas NC. 2012. Comment on the announced death of stationarity. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management-ASCE 138: 311–312. McBain and Trush I. 2007. Coarse Sediment Management Plan: Lewiston Dam to Douglas City, Trinity River, California. Weaverville, CA, USA: Trinity River Restoration Program. McKay SF, King AJ. 2006. Potential ecological effects of water extraction in small, unregulated streams. River Research and Applications 22: 1023–1037. Meli P, Martinez-Ramos M, Rey-Benayas JM. 2013. Selecting species for passive and active riparian restoration in southern Mexico. Restoration Ecology 21: 163–165. Melis TS, Grams PE, Kennedy TA, Ralston BE, Robinson CT, Schmidt JC, Schmit LM, Valdez RA, Wright SA. 2011. Three experimental


high-flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona; effects on the downstream Colorado River ecosystem: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011–3012. Menzel A, Sparks TH, Estrella N, Koch E, Aasa A, Ahas R, Alm-Kubler K, Bissolli P, Braslavska O, Briede A, Chmielewski FM, Crepinsek Z, Curnel Y, Dahl A, Defila C, Donnelly A, Filella Y, Jatcza K, Mage F, Mestre A, Nordli O, Penuelas J, Pirinen P, Remisova V, Scheifinger H, Striz M, Susnik A, Van Vliet AJH, Wielgolaski FE, Zach S, Zust A. 2006. European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Global Change Biology 12: 1969–1976. Merritt DM, Bateman HL. 2012. Linking stream flow and groundwater to avian habitat in a desert riparian system. Ecological Applications 22: 1973–1988. Merritt DM, Cooper DJ. 2000. Riparian vegetation and channel change in response to river regulation: a comparative study of regulated and unregulated streams in the Green River Basin, USA. Regulated RiversResearch & Management 16: 543–564. Merritt DM, Scott ML, Poff NL, Auble GT, Lytle DA. 2010. Theory, methods and tools for determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation: riparian vegetation-flow response guilds. Freshwater Biology 55: 206–225. Miller DE. 1999. Deformable stream banks: can we call it restoration without them?. In Wildland Hydrology: Specialty Conference Proceedings. American Water Resources Association: Bozeman, MT; 293–300. Milly PCD, Betancourt J, Falkenmark M, Hirsch RM, Kundzewicz ZW, Lettenmaier DP, Stouffer RJ. 2008. Climate change – stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science 319: 573–574. Montgomery DR, Buffington JM. 1998. Channel processes, classification, and response. In River Ecology and Management – Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion, Naiman RJ, Bilby RE (eds). SpringerVerlag: New York; 13–42. Moore CE, Loheide SP, Lowry CS, Lundquist JD. 2014. Instream restoration to improve the ecohydrologic function of a subalpine meadow: pre-implementation modeling with HEC-RAS. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 50: 1033–1050. Mote PW, Parson E, Hamlet AF, Keeton WS, Lettenmaier D, Mantua N, Miles EL, Peterson D, Peterson DL, Slaughter R, Snover AK. 2003. Preparing for climatic change: the water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 61: 45–88. Murray JV, Stokes KE, van Klinken RD. 2012. Predicting the potential distribution of a riparian invasive plant: the effects of changing climate, flood regimes and land-use patterns. Global Change Biology 18: 1738–1753. Naiman RJ, Decamps H, McClain ME. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Streamside Communities. Elsevier Academic Press: London, UK. Nilsson C, Jansson R, Kuglerova L, Lind L, Strom L. 2013. Boreal riparian vegetation under climate change. Ecosystems 16: 401–410. Norman L, Villarreal M, Pulliam HR, Minckley R, Gass L, Tolle C, Coe M. 2014. Remote sensing analysis of riparian vegetation response to desert marsh restoration in the Mexican Highlands. Ecological Engineering 70: 241–254. O’Brien NL, Burn DH. 2014. A nonstationary index-flood technique for estimating extreme quantiles for annual maximum streamflow. Journal of Hydrology 519: 2040–2048. O’Connor TG. 2010. Transformation of riparian forest to woodland in Mapungubwe National Park, South Africa, between 1990 and 2007. Austral Ecology 35: 778–786. Olden JD, Konrad CP, Melis TS, Kennard MJ, Freeman MC, Mims MC, Bray EN, Gido KB, Hemphill NP, Lytle DA, McMullen LE, Pyron M, Robinson CT, Schmidt JC, Williams JG. 2014. Are large-scale flow experiments informing the science and management of freshwater ecosystems? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 176–185. Ollero A. 2010. Channel changes and floodplain management in the meandering middle Ebro River, Spain. Geomorphology 117: 247–260. Olsen JR, Stedinger JR, Matalas NC, Stakhiv EZ. 1999. Climate variability and flood frequency estimation for the Upper Mississippi and Lower Missouri Rivers. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1509–1523. Opperman JJ, Luster R, McKenney BA, Roberts M, Meadows AW. 2010. Ecologically functional floodplains: connectivity, flow regime, and scale. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46: 211–226.

Ecohydrol. (2015)

L. G. PERRY et al. Palmer M, Allan JD, Meyer J, Bernhardt ES. 2007. River restoration in the twenty-first century: data and experiential future efforts. Restoration Ecology 15: 472–481. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Shah JF, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 208–217. Palmer MA, Liermann CAR, Nilsson C, Florke M, Alcamo J, Lake PS, Bond N. 2008. Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 81–89. Palmer MA, Lettenmaier DP, Poff NL, Postel SL, Richter B, Warner R. 2009. Climate change and river ecosystems: protection and adaptation options. Environmental Management 44: 1053–1068. Parmesan C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37: 637–669. Parmesan C. 2007. Influences of species, latitudes and methodologies on estimates of phenological response to global warming. Global Change Biology 13: 1860–1872. Parsons M, McLoughlin CA, Rountree MW, Rogers KH. 2006. The biotic and abiotic legacy of a large infrequent flood disturbance in the Sabie River, South Africa. River Research and Applications 22: 187–201. Pastorok RA, MacDonald A, Sampson JR, Wilber P, Yozzo DJ, Titre JP. 1997. An ecological decision framework for environmental restoration projects. Ecological Engineering 9: 89–107. Patten DT, Harpman DA, Voita MI, Randle TJ. 2001. A managed flood on the Colorado River: background, objectives, design, and implementation. Ecological Applications 11: 635–643. Pechony O, Shindell DT. 2010. Driving forces of global wildfires over the past millennium and the forthcoming century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 19167–19170. Perry LG, Andersen DC, Reynolds LV, Nelson SM, Shafroth PB. 2012. Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Global Change Biology 18: 821–842. Poff NL, Olden JD, Merritt DM, Pepin DM. 2007. Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 5732–5737. Poff NL, Zimmerman JKH. 2010. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology 55: 194–205. Polvi LE, Wohl E. 2013. Biotic drivers of stream planform: implications for understanding the past and restoring the future. Bioscience 63: 439–452. Prudhomme C, Wilby RL, Crooks S, Kay AL, Reynard NS. 2010. Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies: application to flood risk. Journal of Hydrology 390: 198–209. Regonda SK, Rajagopalan B, Clark M, Pitlick J. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the western United States. Journal of Climate 18: 372–384. Rice KJ, Emery NC. 2003. Managing microevolution: restoration in the face of global change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 469–478. Richardson DM, Holmes PM, Esler KJ, Galatowitsch SM, Stromberg JC, Kirkman SP, Pysek P, Hobbs RJ. 2007. Riparian vegetation: degradation, alien plant invasions, and restoration prospects. Diversity and Distributions 13: 126–139. Rivaes RP, Rodriguez-Gonzalez PM, Ferreira MT, Pinheiro AN, Politti E, Egger G, Garcia-Arias A, Frances F. 2014. Modeling the evolution of riparian woodlands facing climate change in three European rivers with contrasting flow regimes. PLoS ONE 9: e110200. DOI:10.1371/journal. pone.0110200. Roni P, Pess G, Hanson K, Pearsons M. 2013. Selecting appropriate stream and watershed restoration techniques. In Stream and Watershed Restoration: A Guide to Restoring Riverine Processes and Habitats, Roni P, Beechie T (eds). Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK; 144–188. Rood SB, Braatne JH, Hughes FMR. 2003. Ecophysiology of riparian cottonwoods: stream flow dependency, water relations and restoration. Tree Physiology 23: 1113–1124.


Rood SB, Samuelson GM, Braatne JH, Gourley CR, Hughes FMR, Mahoney JM. 2005. Managing river flows to restore floodplain forests. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 193–201. Rosgen DL. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO, USA: Wildland Hydrology. Rosner A, Vogel RM, Kirshen PH. 2014. A risk-based approach to flood management decisions in a nonstationary world. Water Resources Research 50: 1928–1942. Rout TM, McDonald-Madden E, Martin TG, Mitchell NJ, Possingham HP, Armstrong DP. 2013. How to decide whether to move species threatened by climate change. PLoS ONE 8: e75814. DOI:10.1371/ journal.pone.0075814. Ruwanza S, Gaertner M, Esler KJ, Richardson DM. 2013. The effectiveness of active and passive restoration on recovery of indigenous vegetation in riparian zones in the Western Cape, South Africa: a preliminary assessment. South African Journal of Botany 88: 132–141. Sabo JL, Sinha T, Bowling LC, Schoups GHW, Wallender WW, Campana ME, Cherkauer KA, Fuller PL, Graf WL, Hopmans JW, Kominoski JS, Taylor C, Trimble SW, Webb RH, Wohl EE. 2010. Reclaiming freshwater sustainability in the Cadillac Desert. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 21263–21270. Sabo JL, Sponseller R, Dixon M, Gade K, Harms T, Heffernan J, Jani A, Katz G, Soykan C, Watts J, Welter A. 2005. Riparian zones increase regional species richness by harboring different, not more, species. Ecology 86: 56–62. Salas JD, Obeysekera J. 2014. Revisiting the concepts of return period and risk for nonstationary hydrologic extreme events. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 19: 554–568. Saxe H, Cannell MGR, Johnsen B, Ryan MG, Vourlitis G. 2001. Tree and forest functioning in response to global warming. New Phytologist 149: 369–399. Schilthuizen M, Kellermann V. 2014. Contemporary climate change and terrestrial invertebrates: evolutionary versus plastic changes. Evolutionary Applications 7: 56–67. Schnitzler A, Hale BW, Alsum EM. 2007. Examining native and exotic species diversity in European riparian forests. Biological Conservation 138: 146–156. Schumm SA. 1973. Geomorphic thresholds and complex response of drainage systems. Fluvial Geomorphology 6: 69–85. Schwartz MW. 2012. Using niche models with climate projections to inform conservation management decisions. Biological Conservation 155: 149–156. Seastedt TR, Hobbs RJ, Suding KN. 2008. Management of novel ecosystems: are novel approaches required? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 547–553. Seavy NE, Gardali T, Golet GH, Griggs FT, Howell CA, Kelsey R, Small SL, Viers JH, Weigand JF. 2009. Why climate change makes riparian restoration more important than ever: recommendations for practice and research. Ecological Restoration 27: 330–338. Semyonov VA, Korshunov AA. 2006. Floods on the Russian rivers in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. Issues of Geography and Geo-ecology 5: 6–12. Sgro CM, Lowe AJ, Hoffmann AA. 2011. Building evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change. Evolutionary Applications 4: 326–337. Shafroth PB, Cleverly JR, Dudley TL, Taylor JP, Van Riper C, Weeks EP, Stuart JN. 2005. Control of Tamarix in the western United States: implications for water salvage, wildlife use, and riparian restoration. Environmental Management 35: 231–246. Shafroth PB, Wilcox AC, Lytle DA, Hickey JT, Andersen DC, Beauchamp VB, Hautzinger A, McMullen LE, Warner A. 2010. Ecosystem effects of environmental flows: modelling and experimental floods in a dryland river. Freshwater Biology 55: 68–85. Shaw JR, Cooper DJ. 2008. Linkages among watersheds, stream reaches, and riparian vegetation in dryland ephemeral stream networks. Journal of Hydrology 350: 68–82. Shields FD, Copeland RR, Klingeman PC, Doyle MW, Simon A. 2003. Design for stream restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering – ASCE 129: 575–584. Skidmore P, Beechie T, Pess G, Castro J, Cluer B, Thorne C, Shea C, Chen R. 2013. Developing, designing, and implementing restoration

Ecohydrol. (2015)

RIPARIAN RESTORATION FOR A CHANGING CLIMATE projects. In Stream and Watershed Restoration: A Guide to Restoring Riverine Processes and Habitats, Roni P, Beechie T (eds). WileyBlackwell: Chichester, UK; 215–253. Spencer LJ, Bousquin SG. 2014. Interim responses of floodplain wetland vegetation to phase I of the Kissimmee River Restoration Project: comparisons of vegetation maps from five periods in the river’s history. Restoration Ecology 22: 397–408. Stahl K, Hisdal H, Hannaford J, Tallaksen LM, van Lanen HAJ, Sauquet E, Demuth S, Fendekova M, Jodar J. 2010. Streamflow trends in Europe: evidence from a dataset of near-natural catchments. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 14: 2367–2382. Stainforth DA, Downing TE, Washington R, Lopez A, New M. 2007. Issues in the interpretation of climate model ensembles to inform decisions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A – Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 365: 2163–2177. Start AN, Handasyde T. 2002. Using photographs to document environmental change: the effects of dams on the riparian environment of the lower Ord River. Australian Journal of Botany 50: 465–480. Steinfeld CMM, Kingsford RT. 2013. Disconnecting the floodplain: earthworks and their ecological effect on a dryland floodplain in the Murray Darling Basin, Australia. River Research and Applications 29: 206–218. Stewart IT, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136–1155. Stohlgren TJ, Binkley D, Chong GW, Kalkhan MA, Schell LD, Bull KA, Otsuki Y, Newman G, Bashkin M, Son Y. 1999. Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. Ecological Monographs 69: 25–46. Stromberg JC. 2007. Seasonal reversals of upland-riparian diversity gradients in the Sonoran Desert. Diversity and Distributions 13: 70–83. Stromberg JC, Lite SJ, Dixon MD. 2010. Effects of stream flow patterns on riparian vegetation of a semiarid river: implications for a changing climate. River Research and Applications 26: 712–729. Taylor JP, McDaniel KC. 2004. Revegetation strategies after saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) control in headwater, transitional, and depositional watershed areas. Weed Technology 18: 1278–1282. Thackeray SJ, Sparks TH, Frederiksen M, Burthe S, Bacon PJ, Bell JR, Botham MS, Brereton TM, Bright PW, Carvalho L, Clutton-Brock T, Dawson A, Edwards M, Elliott JM, Harrington R, Johns D, Jones ID, Jones JT, Leech DI, Roy DB, Scott WA, Smith M, Smithers RJ, Winfield IJ, Wanless S. 2010. Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments. Global Change Biology 16: 3304–3313. Trabucchi M, O’Farrell PJ, Notivol E, Comin FA. 2014. Mapping ecological processes and ecosystem services for prioritizing restoration efforts in a semi-arid Mediterranean river basin. Environmental Management 53: 1132–1145. Trenberth KE, Jones PD, Ambenje P, Bojariu R, Easterling D, Klein Tank A, Parker D, Rahimzadeh F, Renwick JA, Rusticucci M, Soden B, Zhai P. 2007. Observations: surface and atmospheric climate change. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. Van Driesche RG, Carruthers RI, Center T, Hoddle MS, Hough-Goldstein J, Morin L, Smith L, Wagner DL, Blossey B, Brancatini V, Casagrande


R, Causton CE, Coetzee JA, Cuda J, Ding J, Fowler SV, Frank JH, Fuester R, Goolsby J, Grodowitz M, Heard TA, Hill MP, Hoffmann JH, Huber J, Julien M, Kairo MTK, Kenis M, Mason P, Medal J, Messing R, Miller R, Moore A, Neuenschwander P, Newman R, Norambuena H, Palmer WA, Pemberton R, Panduro AP, Pratt PD, Rayamajhi M, Salom S, Sands D, Schooler S, Schwarzlander M, Sheppard A, Shaw R, Tipping PW, van Klinken RD. 2010. Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biological Control 54: S2–S33. Veloz SD, Nur N, Salas L, Jongsomjit D, Wood J, Stralberg D, Ballard G. 2013. Modeling climate change impacts on tidal marsh birds: restoration and conservation planning in the face of uncertainty. Ecosphere 4: 49. DOI:10.1890/Es1812-00341.00341. Verhoeven JTA. 2014. Wetlands in Europe: perspectives for restoration of a lost paradise. Ecological Engineering 66: 6–9. Visser ME, Both C. 2005. Shifts in phenology due to global climate change: the need for a yardstick. Proceedings of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences 272: 2561–2569. Wahid A, Gelani S, Ashraf M, Foolad MR. 2007. Heat tolerance in plants: an overview. Environmental and Experimental Botany 61: 199–223. Ward MN, Brown CM, Baroang KM, Kaheil YH. 2013. Reservoir performance and dynamic management under plausible assumptions of future climate over seasons to decades. Climatic Change 118: 307–320. Ward JV, Stanford JA. 1995. Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. Regulated Rivers – Research & Management 11: 105–119. Warfe DM, Hardie SA, Uytendaal AR, Bobbi CJ, Barmuta LA. 2014. The ecology of rivers with contrasting flow regimes: identifying indicators for setting environmental flows. Freshwater Biology 59: 2064–2080. Weisberg PJ, Mortenson SG, Dilts TE. 2013. Gallery forest or herbaceous wetland? The need for multi-target perspectives in riparian restoration planning. Restoration Ecology 21: 12–16. West JM, Julius SH, Kareiva P, Enquist C, Lawler JJ, Petersen B, Johnson AE, Shaw MR. 2009. US natural resources and climate change: concepts and approaches for management adaptation. Environmental Management 44: 1001–1021. Westra S, Thyer M, Leonard M, Kavetski D, Lambert M. 2014. A strategy for diagnosing and interpreting hydrological model nonstationarity. Water Resources Research 50: 5090–5113. Wheeler S, Loch A, Zuo A, Bjornlund H. 2014. Reviewing the adoption and impact of water markets in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Journal of Hydrology 518: 28–41. Wilby RL. 2010. Evaluating climate model outputs for hydrological applications. Hydrological Sciences Journal 55: 1090–1093. Wilby RL, Orr H, Watts G, Battarbee RW, Berry PM, Chadd R, Dugdale SJ, Dunbar MJ, Elliott JA, Extence C, Hannah DM, Holmes N, Johnson AC, Knights B, Milner NJ, Ormerod SJ, Solomon D, Timlett R, Whitehead PJ, Wood PJ. 2010. Evidence needed to manage freshwater ecosystems in a changing climate: turning adaptation principles into practice. Science of the Total Environment 408: 4150–4164. Williams GP, Wolman MG. 1984. Downstream effects of dams on alluvial rivers. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1286. Wohl E, Angermeier PL, Bledsoe B, Kondolf GM, MacDonnell L, Merritt DM, Palmer MA, Poff NL, Tarboton D. 2005. River restoration. Water Resources Research 41: W10301. DOI:10.1029/2005WR003985. Wohl E, Bledsoe BP, Jacobson RB, Poff NL, Rathburn SL, Walters DM, Wilcox AC. 2015. The “natural” sediment regime in rivers: broadening the foundation for ecosystem management. Bioscience. DOI:10.1093/ biosci/biv1002.

Ecohydrol. (2015)

Incorporating climate change projections into riparian ...

Incorporating climate change projections into riparian ...

Suggest Documents

Incorporating Climate Change Projections into Building design: A ...

Incorporating Climate Change into NOAA's Stewardship ...

Incorporating Climate Change into NOAA's Stewardship

Incorporating Climate Change into Environmental ... - ScienceDirect

Incorporating climate change information into transportation research ...

Incorporating climate change into spatial conservation

Incorporating Climate Change into NOAA's Stewardship ...

climate change projections agriculture.pdf

INCORPORATING CLIMATE CHANGE ... - Infoscience - EPFL

Grove et al. 2012. Incorporating climate change into systematic ...

Incorporating Climate Change Feedbacks into a General Economic ...

Incorporating climate change into pest risk models for ... - NeoBiota

Grove et al. 2012. Incorporating climate change into systematic ...

A Tool for Incorporating Climate Change into Natural Resource

climate change trends, projections, impacts, vulnerabilities and ...

European and Global Climate Change Projections - ClimateCost ...

Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and ...

Australian climate change projections derived from ... - CiteSeerX

marine reanalyses and climate change projections

Probabilistic climate change projections using neural networks

Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability

Comparision of Climate Change Projections for ...

Statistically Downscaled Climate Change Projections ...

Regional climate change projections of streamflow ... - Core