河流评估程序中的地貌测量 1:当前做法全球概览

IF 2.6 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL Journal of The American Water Resources Association Pub Date : 2023-08-07 DOI:10.1111/1752-1688.13146
Elli Papangelakis, Marwan A. Hassan, David Luzi, Leif M. Burge, Sarah Peirce
{"title":"河流评估程序中的地貌测量 1:当前做法全球概览","authors":"Elli Papangelakis,&nbsp;Marwan A. Hassan,&nbsp;David Luzi,&nbsp;Leif M. Burge,&nbsp;Sarah Peirce","doi":"10.1111/1752-1688.13146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite geomorphic processes being increasingly recognized as a vital component of river management projects, evidence suggests that they may not be adequately captured in common river assessment procedures. We reviewed 91 river assessment procedures from around the world to evaluate their effectiveness in capturing geomorphic processes relevant for river management goals. Our objectives were to summarize which common geomorphic indicators are measured and how in different types of river assessments categorized based on their main focus: geomorphic, physical habitat, mixed geomorphic and habitat, and hydromorphology. Our analysis identified differences in the types of geomorphic indicators included and measurement methodologies between the types of assessment procedures. Some geomorphic processes, such as sediment transport, are nearly completely absent from all assessments, despite their importance for geomorphic processes. The variability among assessment procedures suggests that a single procedure is unlikely to capture all geomorphic components required to support every river management programs. Here, we discuss how the strengths and limitations of different assessment types can be used to guide decisions around how to select assessments and geomorphic indicators to support management project goals. A companion paper expands the discussion of how to plan effective river assessment procedures to support unique management goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":17234,"journal":{"name":"Journal of The American Water Resources Association","volume":"59 6","pages":"1342-1359"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1752-1688.13146","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring geomorphology in river assessment procedures 1: A global overview of current practices\",\"authors\":\"Elli Papangelakis,&nbsp;Marwan A. Hassan,&nbsp;David Luzi,&nbsp;Leif M. Burge,&nbsp;Sarah Peirce\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1752-1688.13146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Despite geomorphic processes being increasingly recognized as a vital component of river management projects, evidence suggests that they may not be adequately captured in common river assessment procedures. We reviewed 91 river assessment procedures from around the world to evaluate their effectiveness in capturing geomorphic processes relevant for river management goals. Our objectives were to summarize which common geomorphic indicators are measured and how in different types of river assessments categorized based on their main focus: geomorphic, physical habitat, mixed geomorphic and habitat, and hydromorphology. Our analysis identified differences in the types of geomorphic indicators included and measurement methodologies between the types of assessment procedures. Some geomorphic processes, such as sediment transport, are nearly completely absent from all assessments, despite their importance for geomorphic processes. The variability among assessment procedures suggests that a single procedure is unlikely to capture all geomorphic components required to support every river management programs. Here, we discuss how the strengths and limitations of different assessment types can be used to guide decisions around how to select assessments and geomorphic indicators to support management project goals. A companion paper expands the discussion of how to plan effective river assessment procedures to support unique management goals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of The American Water Resources Association\",\"volume\":\"59 6\",\"pages\":\"1342-1359\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1752-1688.13146\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of The American Water Resources Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1752-1688.13146\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of The American Water Resources Association","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1752-1688.13146","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

尽管人们日益认识到地貌过程是河流管理项目的重要组成部分,但有证据表明,常见的河流评估程序可能没有充分反映地貌过程。我们审查了世界各地的 91 项河流评估程序,以评估它们在捕捉与河流管理目标相关的地貌过程方面的有效性。我们的目标是总结不同类型的河流评估根据其主要侧重点(地貌、物理栖息地、混合地貌和栖息地以及水文形态)测量了哪些常见地貌指标以及如何测量。我们的分析发现,不同类型的评估程序所包含的地貌指标类型和测量方法存在差异。有些地貌过程,如沉积物运移,尽管对地貌过程非常重要,但在所有评估中几乎完全没有出现。不同评估程序之间的差异表明,单一程序不可能涵盖支持每种河流管理计划所需的所有地貌要素。在此,我们将讨论如何利用不同评估类型的优势和局限性来指导如何选择评估和地貌指标,以支持管理项目目标。另一篇论文将进一步讨论如何规划有效的河流评估程序,以支持独特的管理目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring geomorphology in river assessment procedures 1: A global overview of current practices

Despite geomorphic processes being increasingly recognized as a vital component of river management projects, evidence suggests that they may not be adequately captured in common river assessment procedures. We reviewed 91 river assessment procedures from around the world to evaluate their effectiveness in capturing geomorphic processes relevant for river management goals. Our objectives were to summarize which common geomorphic indicators are measured and how in different types of river assessments categorized based on their main focus: geomorphic, physical habitat, mixed geomorphic and habitat, and hydromorphology. Our analysis identified differences in the types of geomorphic indicators included and measurement methodologies between the types of assessment procedures. Some geomorphic processes, such as sediment transport, are nearly completely absent from all assessments, despite their importance for geomorphic processes. The variability among assessment procedures suggests that a single procedure is unlikely to capture all geomorphic components required to support every river management programs. Here, we discuss how the strengths and limitations of different assessment types can be used to guide decisions around how to select assessments and geomorphic indicators to support management project goals. A companion paper expands the discussion of how to plan effective river assessment procedures to support unique management goals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of The American Water Resources Association
Journal of The American Water Resources Association 环境科学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
100
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: JAWRA seeks to be the preeminent scholarly publication on multidisciplinary water resources issues. JAWRA papers present ideas derived from multiple disciplines woven together to give insight into a critical water issue, or are based primarily upon a single discipline with important applications to other disciplines. Papers often cover the topics of recent AWRA conferences such as riparian ecology, geographic information systems, adaptive management, and water policy. JAWRA authors present work within their disciplinary fields to a broader audience. Our Associate Editors and reviewers reflect this diversity to ensure a knowledgeable and fair review of a broad range of topics. We particularly encourage submissions of papers which impart a ''take home message'' our readers can use.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Evaluation of reported and unreported water uses in various sectors of the Potomac basin for the year 2017 Rapid geomorphic assessment walkabouts as a tool for stream mitigation monitoring Sources of seasonal water supply forecast uncertainty during snow drought in the Sierra Nevada
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1