fluvial geomorphology

Progress report

Fluvial geomorphology

Evan S.J. DollarCentre for Water in the Environment, School of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering, University of the Witwatersrand, WITS 2050, Johannesburg,South Africa

I Introduction

Rivers are complex systems. The breadth and scope of research into fluvial geomor-phology for the two-year period between July 2001 and July 2003 is evidence of this.It is also evident that river form, process and behaviour can be understood in a scale-sensitive, hierarchical manner. This requires that the spatial and temporalcomplexities of fluvial systems be given due recognition. Thus, while small-scale process studies are vital, these need to be nested within the context of broad-scale, long-term studies (cf. Cammeraat, 2002; Fukuoka, 2002; Goudie, 2002; Thorne,2002; Vandenberghe, 2002; Beckedahl et al., 2002; Kjeldsen et al., 2002; Phillips, 2003a).Smith et al. (2002) in fact argue that much of the accumulated process knowledgeshould be used to bring longer-term and broader-scale perspectives of landscapechange back to prominence.

Fluvial geomorphology is also in a stronger position now than it ever has been.Research has broadened and strengthened, and the contribution of fluvial geomor-phology to resolving complex interdisciplinary problems is now widely recognized(Conacher, 2002; Benda et al., 2002; Frei et al., 2002). This represents both an opportu-nity and a challenge, as too many policy decisions are made without adequateconsideration of the spatial and temporal complexity of systems; this is an area inwhich fluvial geomorphologists can offer crucial insight (Knuepfer and Petersen,2002).

II Palaeofluvial geomorphology

Most geomorphologists consider that current environmental conditions are stronglycontingent on past processes. Palaeofluvial investigations continue to provideimportant clues about the evolution of fluvial systems and the imprint of the past

WC Arnold 2004 10.1191/0309133304pp419pr

Progress in Physical Geography 28,3 (2004) pp. 405–450

on present-day forms (Magny, 2001; Moore and Larkin, 2001; Saito et al., 2001; Zalehaet al., 2001; Bullard, 2002; Garcia-Castellanos, 2002; Hereford, 2002; Kraus, 2002;Latrubesse, 2002; Lewis, 2002; Liu, 2002; Erskine and Peacock, 2002; Heine andHeine, 2002; Latrubesse and Kalicki, 2002; Lorenz and Nadon, 2002; Maas and Mack-lin, 2002; Moore and Blenkinsop, 2002; Pope and Millington, 2002; Rogers and Li,2002; Ardies et al., 2002; Guccione et al., 2002; Lauriol et al., 2002; Reheis et al.,2002; Ringrose et al., 2002; Sander et al., 2002; Schildgen et al., 2002; Thomas, D.S.et al., 2002; Jiongxin, 2003a; Kukulak, 2003; Colman and Bratton, 2003; Manvilleand White, 2003; Meisina and Piccio, 2003; Nash and Smith, 2003; Prange and Loh-mann, 2003; Brandt et al., 2003; Candy et al., 2003; Goodbred et al., 2003; Hou et al.,2003; Srivastava et al., 2003). Common threads that run through much of the palaeo-fluvial research is that fluvial evolution is effected by multicausal drivers of varyingspatial and temporal dominance and complexity. These drivers include sea-level andclimate changes, tectonic activity, variable sediment supply and transport (Schulte,2002; Gibbard and Lewin, 2002; Johnson and Warburton, 2002a; Novak and Bjorck,2002; Wegmann and Pazzaglia, 2002; Wisniewski and Pazzaglia, 2002; Andres et al.,2002; Ben-David et al., 2002; Formento-Trigilio et al., 2002; Nott et al., 2002; Polyaket al., 2002; Snyder et al., 2002, 2003; Brooks, 2003; Forsyth and Nott, 2003; Allisonet al., 2003; Benito et al., 2003; Kumar et al., 2003; Mayer et al., 2003; Pekarova et al.,2003; Rigsby et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2003; Weber et al., 2003) and hydrologicalchanges (Pisut, 2002; Magny et al., 2002; O’Sullivan et al., 2002; Viles and Goudie,2003; Noon et al., 2003). A variety of morphological, lithological, palaeohydrological,pedogenetical, sedimentological and dating techniques are applied to help elucidatethe evolution of fluvial systems (Dambeck and Thiemeyer, 2002; Latrubesse andFranzinelli, 2002; Saez and Cabrera, 2002; Stanistreet and Stallhofen, 2002; Bourkeet al., 2003; Rittenour et al., 2003; Sanderson et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2003).

While palaeofluvial research provides valuable insight into the evolution of fluvialsystems, the imprint of the past on present fluvial behaviour needs to be made expli-cit to better understand present-day forms and processes. An example of how thismight be achieved is the River Styles approach (Fryirs, 2002; Brierley et al., 2002).The River Styles approach demonstrates how antecedent controls such as differentvalley forms (River Styles) operate under a set of boundary conditions that constrainform and processes at lower spatial (and temporal) scales. Central to the concept ofRiver Styles is that geomorphic diversity needs to be recognized in order to comparelike with like, thereby recognizing that different basins/ecosystems have differentlevels of resilience and cannot be managed in a homogenous manner. Fryirs (2003)provides guiding principles for assessing geomorphic river condition through theapplication of the River Styles framework.

III Sediment transfer

The transfer of sediment from hillslopes to rivers, flood plains, lakes and transitionaland coastal waters is, in part, a function of sediment delivery. The assessment ofbasin sediment budgets (Wasson, 2002; Fuller et al., 2002; Van Rompaey et al.,2002), sediment delivery (Golosov, 2002) and sediment flux (Jiongxin, 2002; Jonesand Frostick, 2002; Nelson and Booth, 2002; Owens and Walling, 2002; Verstraetenand Poesen, 2002; Xu and Cheng, 2002; Gangyan et al., 2002; Fontana and March,

406 Fluvial geomorphology

2003; Phippen and Wohl, 2003; Donohue et al., 2003; Vanacker et al., 2003) are criticalfor fluvial system understanding. Delivery is spatially and temporally highly vari-able (Macaire et al., 2002) and requires hillslope – channel/flood plain coupling(Michaelides and Wainwright, 2002; Slattery et al., 2002). Consequently, the interpret-ation of the stratigraphic record for determining sediment delivery is complicated bybuffering, especially in larger basins (see Castelltort and Van Den Driessche, 2003), asis the application of techniques for estimating sediment yield (cf. Hancock andAnderson, 2002; Meadows and Hoffman, 2002; Symader and Roth, 2002; Fulleret al., 2003).

Sourcing sediment is also critical for understanding transfer and for targeted man-agement (Wasson et al., 2002; Cawood et al., 2003). Recent advances in the techniquesfor discriminating sediment sources provide valuable tools in this regard (Stefani,2002; Collins and Walling, 2002; Foster et al., 2002; Jenns et al., 2002; Yeager et al.,2002; van der Perk and Slavak 2003; Di Giulio et al., 2003) and may aid in distinguish-ing between human-induced and natural, dynamic changes in storage (Klimek, 2002;Larue, 2002). Valuable lessons have been learnt, as evidence has shown that there isno simple relationship between event magnitude and sediment yield in basins, nor isthere a simple relationship between river and flood plain sedimentation rates andevent magnitude, duration, frequency or timing. What is clear is that sediment trans-fer may be asynchronous with disturbance drivers and therefore requires a long-term perspective. Trimble (1999) provides an excellent example of this. In theCoon Creek catchment, USA, basin sediment yield has not changed since the mid-1850s, despite major land use changes. Storage change has provided a buffer thathas decoupled basin sediment yield from land use change. Similarly, Fryirs andBrierly (2001) have shown that for many of the catchments of southeastern Australia,alluvial stores are the primary sources of fluvial clastic sediment since Europeansettlement. In the Bega catchment, however, only 16% of the delivered sedimenthas reached the estuary. They argue that this is due to antecedent controls on valleywidth that have resulted in the lowland plain acting as sediment sink.

Numerous studies have focused on quantifying sediment loads and rates ofsedimentation in modern systems (Panin et al., 2001; Franzinelli and Igreja, 2002;Orfeo and Stevaux, 2002; Kothyari et al., 2002; Warne et al., 2002; White et al.,2002). Examples include estimating the total sediment load delivered from theYangtze River (Higgitt and Lu, 2001) to the Three Gorges Project (TGP) in China(Lu and Higgitt, 2001). It is estimated that 84% of the eroded soil from the catchmentsis delivered to the reservoir; the remainder is deposited in valley floor paddy fields.Cao, S. et al. (2002) estimate the average annual sediment load entering the TGP is 523million tons. Of this, 47% is sourced from the Jinsha River, one of the main tributariesof the Yangtze.

Reductions in sediment load are reported for various fluvial systems worldwide(Chen et al., 2001; Xu, 2002a; Ta et al., 2002; Yang et al., 2002). Jiongxin (2003b) hasshown, for example, that since the 1970s, the sediment flux into the Yellow Riverhas declined as a result of effective soil control measures in upstream basins. Simi-larly, the reforestation of basins in Slovenia has reduced sediment loads, resultingin bed incision and reduced flood plain deposition (Keesstra, 2002). Similar incision(and associated consequences) has been reported for the Rhone River in France inresponse to decreased sediment yields (Kondolf et al., 2002; Arnaud-Fassetta, 2003).Increased sediment delivery to channels results in the opposite effect: increases in

E.S.J. Dollar 407

channel width, bank collapse, increased flood risk, lowering of water tables and theundermining of bridges and embankments (Kondolf et al., 2002).

IV Channel pattern and morphology

The growth of fluvial geomorphology as a science has led to the description andanalysis of previously unreported channel patterns. For example, Bartholdy andBilli (2002) report on a river planform ‘type’ in Tuscany, Italy, that is neither straightnor meandering. These rivers are typically almost straight, with a slightly incisedmain channel eroded into a former flood plain. They suggest the term ‘pseudomean-dering’ to describe this channel pattern. Discrimination of channel pattern and chan-nel pattern change based on planform and process, however, remains an importantarea of research (Simpson and Smith, 2001; Zimmerman and Church, 2001; Hudson,P.F., 2002; Xu, 2002b; Lancaster and Bras, 2002; Mosselman and Sloff, 2002; Shafieefarand Husseini, 2002; Buhman et al., 2002; Ramonell et al., 2002). Numerical proceduresfor predicting pattern are common (Termini, 2002; Vignoli and Tubino, 2002; Kura-bayashi et al., 2002; Watanabe et al., 2002; Yokoyama et al., 2002), less common aresemi-empirical predictive methods (Richardson and Thorne, 2001; Young et al., 2002).

The prediction of channel morphology has been a pursuit of river practitionerssince the late nineteenth century. Two broad approaches are common: an engineeringapproach that favours a numerical, hydrodynamic perspective (Neary et al., 2001; Maet al., 2002; Chitale, 2003; Olsen, 2003; Nicklow et al., 2003) and a qualitative, semi-empirical approach that favours field observation and data collection (Halwasand Church, 2002). Most numerical models are based on asynchronous solution ofsimplified governing equations. This, however, ignores to some extent the strongrelationship between discharge, sediment transport and morphological evolutionof fluvial systems. Cao, Z. et al. (2002) recommend that in order to refine the model-ling of alluvial rivers, the coupled system of complete governing equations needs tobe synchronously solved.

Investigations into downstream changes in channel morphology continue to pro-vide important insights into the relationship between discharge descriptors andchannel form parameters (Griffiths, 2002; Radecki-Pawlick, 2002; Molnar andRamirez, 2002; Moody and Troutman, 2002; Pitlick and Cress, 2002; Merritt andWohl, 2003), and remain critical to modelling and understanding river behaviour.Amsler and Ramonell (2002), for example, were able to show that increases in thal-weg sinuosity, channel width and bank erosion were related to high dominant dis-charges. Heritage et al. (2001), however, reject the notion of a channel-forming‘dominant’ or ‘bankfull’ discharge for the Sabie River in South Africa. Resultsfrom 23 monitoring sites show that the sections are related to the entire flow regime,not a single-channel forming discharge. Similarly, Lewin and Brewer (2001) reject theassumption that it is possible to distinguish between meandering and braided chan-nels on the basis of bankfull specific stream power and bed material size alone. Theysuggest that it is useful to consider the patterning processes that underlie the patternscatter on the bankfull stream power/bed material size plots. They argue that large-scale bedform development and stability is important for meandering and braiding.

Field-based investigations provide valuable empirical data on channel mor-phology (Wohl and Legleiter, 2003). Thompson and Hoffman (2001), for example,


characterised 145 pools in New England to better understand pool geometry andsorting characteristics. Pool dimensions were related to drainage area and channelslope through stream power at larger scales and local hydraulic conditions at finerscales. Similarly, Jackson and Sturm (2002) found that stream power and unit streampower were the dominant channel shaping factors in small first- and second-orderforested channels in Washington’s coast ranges in the USA. Buffington et al. (2003)demonstrate that pools in coarse-grained forest rivers in the USA were formedmainly by flow obstruction and that their geometry and frequency of occurrencedepended on flow obstruction characteristics. These controls, in turn depended ona variety of factors, with their relative influence depending on channel type andlocation within the drainage basin.

V Channel change

Predicting channel pattern and morphology is, of course, contingent on understand-ing channel change. The drivers of channel change are widely known (Manville,2002; Marchetti, 2002; Lach and Wyzga, 2002; Liebault and Piegay, 2002; Maingiand Marsh, 2002; Talbot and Lapointe, 2002a, b; Liebault et al., 2002; Perona et al.,2002; Thomas, R. et al., 2002; Warburton et al., 2002; Surian and Rinaldi, 2003;Heroy et al., 2003; Skelly et al., 2003), and predicting morphological change in riversand flood plains using numerical methods and GIS/DEM technology is common(Rosatti, 2002; Basson and Beck, 2002; Cellino and Essyad, 2002; Kassem andChaudhry, 2002; Olesen and Tjerry, 2002; Vetsch and Faeh, 2002; Langendoen et al.,2002; Willems et al., 2002). However, all these methods are influenced by variousdegrees of uncertainty, assumptions and choices of model schematization (vanVuren et al., 2002). Cao and Carling (2002: 470) in fact state that many computationalriver models remain ‘. . . at best imperfectly constructed, and worst invalid’. This isdue to the fact that model calibration is often subjective, verification is impossibleand validation does not necessarily establish model truth. They therefore suggestthat high-level expertise, physical insight and experience are critical for meaningfulsolutions to be acquired and model limitations properly assessed. It is important tobe aware of the limitations of computational/numerical modelling, as ‘Modelperformance is overstated by using the affirmative terms verification and validation,which can mislead the public and decision-making’. Despite these cautions, predict-ing change in response to changing drivers remains an important goal in fluvialresearch (Gautier and Peters, 2002).

Examples of empirical studies of channel change reported in the literature arenumerous. A few are mentioned here. Magilligan et al. (2002) report on geomorphicchanges in response to the 1996 jokulhlaup on Skeioararsandur, southeasternIceland. The impacts of the jokulhlaup are explained in relation to antecedent con-ditions, particularly the asymmetric decoupling of the ice front from the sandurduring the recent recession. Channel narrowing following impoundments are alsowell known. The style and degree of change, however, depend on the geomorphiccontext, type of streamflow regulation and post-impoundment sediment transportregime (Phillips, 2002). Grams and Schmidt (2002), working in the Green River inColorado and Utah, USA, for example, determined that the degree of channel nar-rowing below the Flaming Gorge Dam in reaches with abundant sediment supply

E.S.J. Dollar 409

was proportional to specific stream power. Reaches with the greatest reductionsin specific stream power showed the greatest reductions in bankfull channelwidth and vice versa. Hassan and Klein (2002) report on the channel changes ofthe Lower Jordan River associated with a drop in the Dead Sea level of �22 m inthe last 70 years. Rapid drops in sea level since the late 1980s have resulted inmajor morphological changes and channel incision. Channel widths have narrowedby almost a factor of four and sinuosity has dropped by �25%. Incision is coinciden-tal with sea level reductions, with the incision having moved upstream by �11 kmby 1993.

Holistic interpretations of channel changes in the context of past climate changes,shorter-term human impacts and potential future climate change, however, remainelusive (cf. Franks, 2002). Effort is being made in this regard, with some success(Stouthamer and Berendsen, 2001; Clague et al., 2003). This is of significance, asBrooks et al. (2003) have shown that sound and realistic management programmescannot be achieved in rivers and basins without an understanding of long-term chan-nel and flood plain evolutionary history. From a study of paired catchments in south-eastern Australia, they demonstrated that the removal of riparian vegetation andwoody debris from the Cann River resulted in orders of magnitude changes in var-ious channel parameters (e.g., depth, slope and capacity). Importantly, they pointout that management intervention through reintroducing pre-existing riparianvegetation and woody debris will simply not result in channel recovery, as nume-rous thresholds were crossed as a result of historical changes. Clearly, channelchange needs to be understood in a historical, evolutionary context, otherwisethe ultimate controls on and changes to river form and process will not be fullyappreciated.

VI Fluvial features

The international literature is replete with descriptions and explanations of diversefluvial features (Blair, 2001; Leclair and Bridge, 2001; Prent and Hickin, 2001;Smith and Pearce, 2001; Yang et al., 2001; Bourke, 2002, 2003; Bridgland, 2002;Gupta, 2002; Harvey, 2002a; Inbar, 2002; Lowey, 2002; Miall, 2002; Nino, 2002;Purkait, 2002; Surian, 2002; Wittenberg, 2002; Knighton and Nanson, 2002; Latrubesseand Stevaux, 2002; Walsh and Hicks, 2002; Bendjoudi et al., 2002; Davis et al., 2002;De Souza et al., 2002; Hirayama et al., 2002; Kleinhans et al., 2002; Kostic et al.,2002; Loncke et al., 2002; Makaske et al., 2002; Strasser et al., 2002; Sun et al., 2002;Tooth et al., 2002a, b; Weissmann et al., 2002; Defina, 2003; Ferguson, 2003; Stockand Dietrich, 2003; Villard and Church, 2003; Willis and Griggs, 2003; Constantineet al., 2003; Fielding et al., 2003; Montgomery et al., 2003a; Radoane et al., 2003; Samuelet al., 2003). Some examples are described below.

Outburst floods produce impressive and dramatic fluvial features. QuaternaryInternational has devoted an entire edition to this topic–(Volume 90, 2002). Theirrole in modifying landscapes has generated considerable interest and debate (Cutleret al., 2002; Fisher et al., 2002). Since description of the Lake Missoula flood (Baker,1973), research has demonstrated that these outburst floods were more commonthan first thought. For example, Rudoy (2002) reports on Late Pleistocene super-floods following glacier-dam breaks in southern Siberia. These cataclysmic floods


transformed the landscape and resulted in morphological associations of moun-tainous scablands, similar to those reported in North America. In some locations, dis-charges of up to 18 000 000 m3 s21 created features such as giant current ripplemarks, giant diluvial ramparts and terrace bars. Maximum unit stream powers of�10 000 000 W m22 are estimated to have occurred, greater than those estimatedfor Lake Missoula.

Drylands cover around half the world’s surface, but there is limited informationon dryland rivers (Nanson et al., 2002). A timely book fills this gap (Bull and Kirkby,2002) and provides a broad overview with a few case studies that will be of interest togeomorphologists interested in dryland environments. Bullard and Livingstone(2002) call for greater recognition of the interaction between aeolian and fluvial sys-tems in dryland areas. They argue that aeolian and fluvial systems do not operateindependently as commonly perceived, and that their interaction has importantimplications for understanding the geomorphology of dryland environments.

A number of innovative techniques have also been developed to aid in the under-standing of river behaviour. Many of these techniques allows us to address geo-morphic questions that have not been addressed before (Lane et al., 2002; Laneand Chandler, 2003; Brasington et al., 2003). Table 1 presents an incomplete list ofsome of these techniques.

VII Flood plains

Flood plains are an integral part of the fluvial system. Much of the work on floodplains is directed towards understanding present (Brunke, 2002; Middelkoop,2002; Asselman and van Wijngaarden, 2002; Nicholas and Mitchell, 2003; Lusket al., 2003) and past sedimentation rates (Walling and Owens, 2002; Foster, I.D.L.et al., 2002; Paine et al., 2002; Page, K.J. et al., 2003) and their relationship to the trans-portation of nutrients, organics (Morozova and Smith, 2003), contaminants (Rowanand Franks, 2002; Maurice-Bourgoin et al., 2002; Middelkoop et al., 2002), vegetation(Sims and Thoms, 2002; Webb et al., 2002) and to hydrology (Dyer, 2002; Aalto et al.,2002). Again, a variety of approaches are adopted in an attempt to understandflood plain behaviour; from laboratory experiments (Bathurst et al., 2002) to thelonger-term interpretation of flood plain histories (Wasson, 2002). Nanson andCroke (2002) argue that flood plain research is critical for understanding materialfluxes, contaminant storage, longitudinal and lateral connectivity and riverine ecol-ogy. They suggest that the following research directions are fundamental to movingthe research field forward: flood plain formation processes, flood plain instabilityand changes in flood plain state, scale, the role of vegetation in flood plain systemsand flood plains in interdisciplinary research.

VIII Vegetation

Vegetation plays an important role as an agent in fluvial geomorphology. At finerscales, this is effected through its influence on local hydraulics that determines sedi-ment transport. At this scale, vegetation reduces bed shear through absorbingmomentum by drag on the stems (Wilson and Horritt, 2002; Samuels et al., 2002;

E.S.J. Dollar 411

Jordanova and James, 2003). This enhances deposition and reduces sediment trans-port capacity (Helmio, 2002; Righetti and Armanini, 2002). Complexity is introducedthrough large spatial and temporal variations between different vegetation types,growth stages, densities and locations (Jarvela, 2002a, b; Sellin and van Beesten,2002; Yoshida and Dittrich, 2002). Flexible vegetation also behaves differently withstage changes and, as a consequence, roughness becomes variable and dynamic (Shi

Table 1 List of recent techniques applied to understand fluvial system behaviour

Technique Author(s)

Use of World Wide Web Schroder et al. (2002)Physical models De Boer and Ali (2002); Milana and Tietze (2002);

Moreton et al. (2002); Davies et al. (2003)Landscape-genesis (LG) models Al Bakri (2002)GPS and sonar Chang et al. (2003)Measuring sediment transport Dinehart (2002); Antonelli and Provansal (2002);

Gupta and Cvetkovic (2002); Rakoczi andSzekeres (2002); Sterling and Church (2002);De Bonis et al. (2002); Muller et al. (2002);Puertas et al. (2002); Rennie et al. (2002);Shteinman et al. (2002)

Hydrodynamic models Thomas and Nicholas (2002); Lee et al. (2002)High resolution survey data Lane et al. (2001); Adriaensen et al. (2002);

Asselman et al. (2002); Hicks et al. (2002);Whited et al. (2002); Baily et al. (2003); Mason et al.(2003)

GIS Bardossy and Schmidt (2002); Puech and Raclot(2002); Dawson et al. (2002); Sinha et al. (2002);Finlayson and Montgomery (2003); Khan and Islam(2003); Vogt et al. (2003)

Remote sensing Gupta and Ping (2002); Toro and Mayerle (2002);Gupta et al. (2002)

Laser Induced Direction and Ranging (LiDAR) French (2003); Charlton et al. (2003)Digital Elevation Models (DEM) Brasington and Smart (2003); Chappell et al.

(2003); Lane et al. (2003); Rippin et al. (2003)Electrical Resistivity Ground Imaging (ERGI) Baines et al. (2002)Artificial turf maps Steiger et al. (2003)Tracers Golz (2002); Ferguson and Hoey (2002); Blade et al.

(2002); Ferguson et al. (2002); Milan et al. (2002)Cosmogenic nuclides and sediment fingerprinting Bierman and Caffee (2002); Singh and France-

Lanard (2002); Clapp et al. (2002); Nichols et al.(2002); Schaller et al. (2002); Small et al. (2002);Terry et al. (2002); van Wijngaarden et al. (2002a,b, c); Wallbrink et al. (2002); He and Walling(2003); Brocard et al. (2003); Vance et al. (2003)

Magnetostratigraphic techniques Tinkler (2001); Auler et al. (2002)Documentary evidence and oral records Jiongxin (2003a)Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) Valle and Pasternack (2002)River measurement techniques Le Roux (2001); Bartley and Rutherfurd (2002);

Lindsay and Ashmore (2002)Magnitude frequency techniques Marren et al. (2002); McKee et al. (2002); Navratil

et al. (2002); Rushmer et al. (2002); Heritage et al.(2003)


and Hughes, 2002; Stephan and Gutknecht, 2002). Consideration of the hydraulics offlow through and over vegetation therefore remains an important field of study, bothexperimentally (Rowinski and Kubrak, 2002a, b; Bennett et al., 2002; Carollo et al., 2002;James et al., 2002) and in the field (Baptist and Mosselman, 2002; Goodson et al., 2003).The important question remains the prediction of velocity profiles in open channels.

At larger scales vegetation is also of importance (Steiger and Gurnell, 2002;Huisink et al., 2002). At the flood plain scale for example, the importance of vege-tation in reducing the risk of flooding in the Waal River, the Netherlands, is recog-nized (van Vuren et al., 2002). At the channel-type scale, Gradzinski et al. (2003)have shown how in-channel vegetation enhances channel aggradation and contrib-utes to avulsion by blocking channels in the anastomosing upper Narew River inPoland. Similarly, Gumbricht et al. (2001) have demonstrated that local topographicfeatures and channel flanking vegetation exert an important influence on the distri-bution of water in the Okavango Delta, Botswana.

At the reach scale, it is also generally accepted that riparian vegetation increasesbank stability and reduces stream bank erosion through enhancing resistance to ero-sion (Micheli and Kirchner, 2002a; Murray and Paola, 2003; Hession et al., 2003;McKergow et al., 2003). Birkeland (2002) quantified changes in flood power andriparian vegetation on the Escalante River, Utah, USA. Increased growth in riparianvegetation (86%), channel widening and flood plain narrowing resulted in anincrease in flood power of between 11 and 53% in the active channel between 1922and 1988, and a decrease in flood plain flood power of between 44 and 97% forthe same period. At least 20–45% of this decrease was attributed to increased resist-ance resulting from vegetation growth. Similarly, Micheli and Kirchner (2002b)report on a study that demonstrated that for the Kern River in California’s SierraNevada, riparian banks with dry meadow vegetation are ten times more susceptibleto erosion than banks with wet meadow vegetation.

Simon and Collinson (2002), however, argue that many studies that consider thestabilizing effects of riparian vegetation under-represent the importance of hydro-logical processes, some of which may be detrimental to bank stability. They reportthat in some instances, the hydrological effects (pore-water pressure, soil moisturemodification) of trees may in fact reduce bank stability, although the stabilizingmechanical effects usually offset this. This would suggest that hydrological, mechan-ical and ecological criteria should be jointly considered in determining the potentialstabilizing and destabilizing effects of riparian vegetation on bank stability.

Integrated research between ecology and geomorphology is gaining momentum(Viles and Naylor, 2002; Steiger et al., 2003). This endeavour will continue to providenew insights into both ecosystem behaviour and Earth surface processes (Nayloret al., 2002). However, as with most integrative endeavours, the issue of dealingwith scale in an appropriate manner is critical to its success. A number of examplesare evidence of this in the recent literature. Brooks and Brierley (2002) have shown,for example, that over thousands of years, channel capacity, hydraulics, bed loadtransport rates and bank erosion are influenced substantially by vegetation andwood, both within the channel and on the flood plain. Cowell and Dyer (2002)have shown how impoundments have affected the natural flooding dynamicsalong the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania, USA, which in turn has resulted in afunctional change from floods acting as a disturbance (that generates early succes-sional habitat) to a stressor. Changes in hydrological regime (lower peak discharges,

E.S.J. Dollar 413

longer duration) have favoured non-native species resulting in altered compositionand vegetation dynamics. Jeffries et al. (2003) argue that given the importance ofvegetation in fluvial form and process, its pigeon-holing as a dependent variable(e.g., Schumm and Lichty, 1965) should no longer be accepted.

IX Bank erosion

Bank erosion and its associated consequence, channel migration, has received con-siderable attention in the literature (Duan, 2001; Darby and Delbano, 2002), andremains a significant engineering (Shimizu, 2002; Schmautz and Aufleger, 2002)and environmental concern (Simon and Thomas, 2002; Simon et al., 2002). The pre-diction of bank erosion remains a priority, but many existing models fail to simulatethis process adequately. Wright et al. (2002) suggest that this is due to the fact thatmost models can only simulate one or two components of the bank erosion process(erosion by water flow; bank collapse under gravity and removal of failed debris)and cannot account for the influence of secondary currents. Darby et al. (2002)make a similar point and suggest that these models tend to be limited to steadystate conditions, utilize idealized and nonmechanistic relationships to link bank ero-sion rates and near-bank velocities through an erodibility coefficient determined bycalibration rather than via the characteristics of the sedimentary environment. Recentinterventions have encouraged the use of vegetative-based approaches in dealingwith the problems associated with bank erosion that offer ecological advantagesand long-term sustainability (Environment Agency, 1999). Not all problems associ-ated with bank erosion are, however, unidirectional. Couper et al. (2002), forexample, report on negative erosion-pin recordings for some rivers in the UK.

X Woody debris

The role of Coarse and Large Woody Debris (CWD and LWD) across a range ofspatial and temporal scales has been recognized as being significant in channelform and process studies for nearly two decades. The effect of centuries of ‘ripariangardening’ in Europe (Montgomery and Piegay, 2003) and widespread riparian veg-etation clearing in North America (Collins et al., 2002) and Australia (Erskine andWebb, 2003) is startling. Regional differences in wood size, density, shape, avail-ability, recruitment, character, geomorphic context, river size and pattern exist, how-ever, that complicate understanding and the modelling of woody debris distributionand effects (Gurnell et al., 2002; Kraft et al., 2002; Kraft and Warren, 2003). Montgom-ery and Piegay (2003) argue that the key uncertainties related to woody debris are itsinfluence on pristine rivers and how it controls hydraulics and geomorphologicalfeatures in channels of different sizes and regional locations.

The geomorphic impact of woody debris depends on how the wood acts as anobstruction (distribution and function) and the consequent impact of the obstructionon local hydraulics and sediment processes (Bocchiola et al., 2002; Wallerstein, 2003;Daniels and Rhoads, 2003; Hygelund and Manga, 2003), as well as the additionalmaterial that it obstructs and collects (Curran and Wohl, 2003; Webb and Erskine,


2003; O’Connor et al., 2003). This impact can operate at a number of scales, fromaffecting local hydraulics and sediment transport at local scales to affecting channelgeometry and morphological features at reach scales (Hughes and Thoms, 2002;Abbe and Montgomery, 2003; Montgomery et al., 2003b). For example, Marcus et al.(2002) suggest that for the Snake River, Soda Butte Creek and Cache Creek in theGreater Yellowstone Ecosystem, USA, the movement of woody debris is perhapsthe opposite of most sediment transport systems in mountains. In first- andsecond-order streams, the wood is too large to be moved so that the system istransport-limited, with floods introducing new material but not removing woodby downstream transport. In third- and fourth-order streams, the system displaysa form of dynamic equilibrium in that the channel is able to move woody debrisat the same rate it is introduced. In fifth-order and larger channels, the system canbe considered to be supply-limited.

Faustini and Jones (2003) have shown how sediment-limited streams in Oregonmay, when deprived of woody debris, exhibit less morphological variation at thechannel unit scale, store less sediment and release it more rapidly than those withwoody debris. Similarly, Kail (2003) has shown from work on six central Europeanrivers that structural diversity is greater in woody debris sections at almost all scales.At the reach scale, woody debris also creates greater variability in the longitudinalwater profile of a river than a similar river without woody debris. Woody debris istherefore also critical in influencing the diversity and availability of aquatic habitat(Zika and Peter, 2002; Haga et al., 2002; Lehane et al., 2002). Montgomery and Piegay(2003) conclude that it is time that wood and vegetation assume their place besidesediment regime (supply and calibre for example) and discharge as a primary controlon the dynamics and morphology of fluvial systems.

XI Sediment transport

The prediction of sediment transport (Cheng, 2002a; Yen, 2002; Abril and Knight,2002; Cerda and Garcıa-Fayos, 2002; Huang and Nanson, 2002; Kleinhans and vanRijn, 2002; Ogawa and Watanabe, 2002; Wilcock and Kenworthy, 2002; Di Cristoet al., 2002; Hairsine et al., 2002; Link et al., 2002; Nikora et al., 2002; Nino et al.,2002; Delleur, 2003; Metivier and Meunier, 2003; Schmeeckle and Nelson, 2003; DeSutter et al., 2003), particle entrainment, settling velocity and deposition (Papanico-laou et al., 2001; Malmaeus and Hassan, 2002; Milburn and Prowse, 2002; Wu andLin, 2002; Dancey et al., 2002; Paphitis et al., 2002; Seminara et al., 2002; Strom et al.,2002; Smith and Cheung, 2003; Wu and Chous, 2003; Aguirre-Pe et al., 2003; Haralam-pides et al., 2003; Nino et al., 2003; Papanicolaou et al., 2003) is of great interest to flu-vial geomorphologists, but tends to be the domain of river engineers.

The limitations of sediment and bed load equations are widely known and predic-tions of all transport formulae show large uncertainties. Difficulties introduced bysediment packing, variability of the near-bed turbulent velocity field, modificationof the velocity field by upstream protruding grains and variable supply mean thata universal transport equation has not been developed. Field measurements of sedi-ment transport confirm the limits of applying transport equations for prediction(Pearce et al., 2003). Obtaining reliable field data are almost impossible, particularlywhen evidence of extreme events does not survive (Coppus and Imeson, 2002; Sheets

E.S.J. Dollar 415

et al., 2002). Despite these challenges, researchers continue to develop new modelsfor prediction (Cheng, 2002b; Le Roux, 2002; Richardson, 2002; Hunziker and Jaeggi,2002; Monteith and Pender, 2002; Nagy et al., 2002; Pena et al., 2002; Ribberink et al.,2002; Wongsa et al., 2002; Wilcock and Crowe, 2003; Yang and Lim, 2003). Lisle andChurch (2002) suggest that a better understanding of transport–storage relationsmay improve predictive model capacity in the future.

Studies that emphasize the collection of field data are rare, but important (Eatonand Lapointe, 2001; Habersack and Laronne, 2002; Hayes et al., 2002; Julien et al.,2002; Rodriguez et al., 2002; Ryan et al., 2002). These studies add much to our under-standing of river behaviour. Some examples are presented below. Martin (2003) pre-sents results from a study in which bed load transport formulae are evaluatedagainst field data collected over a 10-year period along an 8-km-long study reachon the Vedder River, British Columbia, Canada. Martin (2003) found that the Bag-nold stream power formula and the Meyer–Peter and Muller formula underpre-dicted gravel transport for the period of record. Interestingly, however, thesimple stream power correlation captured the downstream pattern of depositionbest. Bagnold’s formula was found to most realistically predict bed load transport,although Martin (2003) indicates that no one formula predicts best under allconditions.

Johnson and Warburton (2002b) measured the annual sediment budget of a UKmountain torrent. They found that over the period of 1 year, 184 tonnes of sedimentwas removed from a 2.4 ha study area. Channel (70%) and bank (25%) sources domi-nated the supply, with surface processes and rockfall on hillslopes accounting foronly 5% of the total budget. Konrad et al. (2002) report on spatial patterns of bedmaterial entrainment by floods using bed tags. They showed that although the prob-ability of bed material entrainment was approximately uniform over a gravel barduring individual floods and independent from flood to flood, regions of stabilityand instability occurred at some bars over the course of a season.

XII River and flood plain hydraulics

Knowledge of the hydraulics of open channel flow including flow resistance (Bathurst,2002; Katul et al., 2002), flow types (Crowley, 2002; Ferro and Carollo, 2002; Bironet al., 2002; Jordanova et al., 2002), velocity and turbulence (DeVries, 2002; Lee andFerguson, 2002; Babaeyan-Koopaei et al., 2002; Chen and Chiew, 2003) and the roleof flood plains in open channel flow (Carling et al., 2002) is of obvious importanceto the fluvial geomorphologist. A recent two-volume proceedings from the Riverflow 2002 conference in Belgium (Bousmar and Zech, 2002a, b) covers three majortopics in this regard. These are the hydrodynamics of river flow (overbank flowsand flood propagation, resistance determination and interactions with vegetation,river engineering, rapid transients and dam-break hydraulics and interactionsbetween river hydraulics and ecology), sediment transport in rivers (river mor-phology and morphodynamics, scour and techniques of sediment transport model-ling) and methods and techniques (laboratory techniques and application of remotesensing and GIS technology to river modelling). The main message that emergesfrom the proceedings is that current river management requires practitioners andmanagers both to protect human lives and properties, while at the same time main-


taining river function for a variety of purposes (including ecological). There is alsorecognition that there is a need to manage rivers in sympathy with their naturaloperation, rather than focusing on traditional river engineering approaches (cf. deVriend, 2002). An additional focus of the proceedings related to ecohydraulics, afield of study that seeks to integrate water resource development with the sustain-able utilization of aquatic ecosystems (Caruso, 2001; Leclerc, 2002; Clifford et al.,2002; Franks et al., 2002). However, the tools that are available to convert habitattime series (habitat regime) into meaningful operating rules require considerablevalidation and refinement. Of particular importance is the development of a concep-tual framework to create a common understanding of the relationship between eco-logical and physical subsystems (Franzin et al., 2002).

XIII River management and remediation

Human activities have influenced rivers for millennia (World Commission on Dams,2000; Taylor and Kesterton, 2002; Asmal, 2002; Doyle et al., 2003; Thomas, D.S., et al.,2004). As a result, widespread changes to fluvial systems have taken place (Bonacciand Roje-Bonacci, 2003; Landwehr and Rhoads, 2003; Dennis et al., 2003; Ellery et al.,2003). Recognition of these impacts, and the need for management intervention hasled to fluvial geomorphologists applying their skills to a variety of river managementand remediation efforts. This importance is reflected in the literature [Dorn (2002),for example, makes the point that the most cited geomorphological literature inthe 1990s related to river research with a biological emphasis]. Four recent bookson this topic (Anthony et al., 2001; Kondolf and Piegay, 2003; Sear et al., 2003; Gordonet al., 2004) also reflect this interest.

Management and remediation of rivers requires decision-makers to intervene ina manner that is beneficial to people and the environment (Goodwin, 2001; Fenget al., 2001; Gregory, 2002; Kurashige, 2002; Thompson, 2002a, 2003; Archer andNewson, 2002; Bhuiyan and Hey, 2002; Falkenmark and Folke, 2002; Larsen andGreco, 2002; Sato and Watanabe, 2002; Simon and Darby, 2002; Williams and Archer,2002; Islam et al., 2002; Mount et al., 2002; Newson et al., 2002; Pedroli et al., 2002;Poole et al., 2002; Ward et al., 2002; Spaliviero, 2003; Cioffi and Gallerana, 2003;Amos et al., 2003). This means managing ecosystem functionality (Frothinghamet al., 2002) and the integration of physical, chemical and biological characteristicsof a river at appropriate scales (Dovciak and Perry, 2002; Graf et al., 2002; Poudevigneet al., 2002; Cadenasso et al., 2003; Sauvage et al., 2003). The management of rivers as‘integrated ecosystems’ (Rodda, 2001) comprises at least four interacting subsystems:the active channel, flood plain (or, where absent, macro-channel), alluvial aquiferand riparian vegetation (Poole et al., 2002). Together these comprise the integratedfluvial system, emphasizing the importance of lateral and longitudinal connectivityand interdependence. Four broad themes are considered under river managementand remediation. These are: river landscape and classification, ecological waterrequirements, the European Water Framework Directive and river restoration andremediation. Each of these will be discussed in turn.

E.S.J. Dollar 417

1 River and landscape classification

It is common knowledge that hierarchical landscape classification is a useful meansto organize, interpret and understand complex systems such as fluvial landscapes(Vannote et al., 1980; Ward and Stanford, 1995; Wu and Loucks, 1995; Tockner et al.,2000; Berman, 2002; Poole, 2002; Wright and Li, 2002; Pess et al., 2002; Ralph andPoole, 2003). Two broad types of classification system are evident: structure-basedclassification systems (cf. Jensen et al., 2001; Berman, 2002) and process-based classi-fication systems (cf. Montgomery, 1999; Winter, 2001; Berman, 2002; Church, 2002).Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses (see Berman, 2002 for a full descrip-tion). Both approaches, however, recognize that a hierarchical system helps dealwith the complexity and variability of river systems and the importance of spatialand temporal scale. Hierarchical classification systems recognize that river channelsand flood plains are inextricably linked to the landscape and that basin features andscale-specific disturbance processes influence ecosystems at multiple scales andinfluence response and recovery times. Importantly, connectivity vector strength(longitudinal, lateral, vertical and temporal) between system components drivessystem heterogeneity and hence biotic distribution and pattern (Montgomery, 1999;Berman, 2002). These discontinuities (Rice et al., 2001) at multiple scales generate‘patches’ that represent distinct structural and process units and result in the hetero-geneous distribution in space and time of biotic and abiotic environmental resources.These influence the flow of materials through the system. For a river system, struc-tural and process patches at different scales form a nested, interactive hierarchy(Berman, 2002). Patch dynamics and geometry play a critical role in the distributionof biota (Crook et al., 2001). River and landscape classification methods must attemptto capture this complexity through partitioning ecosystem variability and deter-mining patch response to disturbance at multiple scales. Identifying anddelineating unique landscape classes therefore needs to account for the following(Berman, 2002):

1 catchment influences on river structure and resource dynamics;2 disturbance and recovery processes influencing the strength of connectivity

vectors, resource dynamics and biotic pattern; and3 hierarchy, scale and patch dynamics influence on energy and materials flow

through the system.

Furthermore, classification systems need to capture that fact that large-scale factorsconstrain the structure and function of patches at smaller-scales and that small-scalefactors shape the structure and function of patches at larger scales. This is needed topredict biotic pattern and distribution and to diagnose system impairment(Fausch et al., 2002). Classification must also allow for the prediction of humanimpacts on natural disturbance processes that alter the relationships betweenpatches and the resource dynamics including the availability, delivery, transportand processing of materials fundamental to biotic communities (Berman, 2002).Berman (2002) considers that at the core of classification is the ability to categorizeacross scales those ecosystem processes driving the discontinuous distribution ofbiotic and abiotic resources. These concepts are not new to the fluvial geomorphol-ogist (cf. Schumm and Lichty, 1965). The challenge remains developing a hierarchi-


cal, scale-based classification system that can meet the requirements of ecologicaland geomorphological theory and the operational requirements of managementintervention.

2 Ecological water requirements

An important tool in river management and remediation is the determination ofEcological Water Requirements (EWR) or Environmental Flow Allocations (EFA)for rivers. Demands placed on a variety of specialists, including fluvial geomorphol-ogists to predict these EWRs are reflected in the amount of ‘air-time’ given to thistopic in the literature (cf. Rood et al., 2003; Special issue of Rivers Research and Appli-cation (Volume 19, 2003)). Naiman et al. (2002) argue that the ecosystem is a legiti-mate user of water and that one of the challenges to river science is forecastingthe consequences of changing water regimes, especially as environmental issuesrelated to water escalate over the next two to three decades. The determination ofthese requirements has progressed to the point where the information requirementsneed to be nested within the context of adaptive management, integrated ecosys-tem-based perspectives and increasing public participation (and scrutiny) (Hillmanand Brierley, 2002; Thoms and Sheldon, 2002). (Some have questioned whetherEWRs of rivers can be effectively integrated with management objectives, socio-economic demands or a water market system (cf. Doupe and Pettit, 2002; Ladsonand Finlayson, 2002).) This requires information about changes from a ‘natural con-dition’ or ‘virgin state’. While numerous indices are available to characterize hydro-logical changes from a reference condition (Indicators of Hydrological Alteration)(cf. Olden and Poff, 2003) these are lacking from a geomorphological and ecologicalperspective.

3 European Water Framework Directive

A third important focus in river management and remediation is the European WaterFramework Directive (WFD) (European Union, 2000). The main objective of the WFDis the achievement of a ‘good water status’ (Chave, 2001) through preventing furtherdeterioration of water bodies and protecting and enhancing the status of aquaticecosystems and associated wetlands. Fluvial geomorphology is central both tothe design and implementation of the WFD (Newson, 2002; Raven et al., 2002; BSI,2003; Sear et al., 2003). This requires the description, monitoring and predictionof river channel conditions and behaviour; a major challenge, as discussed earlier.In Europe, the WFD recognizes the importance of considering hydromorphologyin river management and protection. This includes consideration of:

. the extent of modification of the flow regime;

. the extent to which water flow, sediment transport and the migration of biota areimpacted by artificial barriers; and

. the extent to which the morphology of the river has been modified; including theconstraints to the free movement of a river across its flood plain.

Chave (2001) makes the point that the WFD implicitly recognizes that certain com-mon hydromorphic features will emerge that will enable the ecosystem to flourishwhere there is no human intervention. The WFD therefore provides both an oppor-

E.S.J. Dollar 419

tunity to entrench the position of fluvial geomorphology in applied studies, but alsooffers a challenge to ensure that the ‘science’ is appropriate, transparent and accoun-table. Monitoring and auditing are critical in measuring the success (and learning) ofthe WFD (cf. Osterkamp, 2002; Thorne, 2002; Bash and Ryan, 2002; Downs andKondolf, 2002; Walker, J. et al., 2002).

4 River restoration and remediation

It has been recognized that while whole river training methods have brought manyadvantages (e.g., flood control), many disadvantages have also resulted, for example,continuous degradation of the bed, impacted aquatic ecosystems (Marti, 2002),groundwater recharge and social concerns (Ono, 2002). As a consequence, ecologicallyacceptable remediation has gained momentum as an approach (cf. River RestorationCentre, 2002). However, there is also a pragmatic realization that complete ‘restoration’of fluvial systems is seldom attainable, nor desirable. The real questions are what is anacceptable rate of change and how sustainable is the change? The fourth broad themetherefore considers the recent contribution of fluvial geomorphology to river remedia-tion efforts (Hudson, H.H., 2002; Lenzi, 2002; Logan and Furse, 2002; Parsons andGilvear, 2002; Boon et al., 2002; Filipe et al., 2002; Walker et al., 2002; Williams et al.,2002; Environment Agency, 2003; Zimmerman et al., 2003). Examples of river remedia-tion approaches that consider the importance of ecosystem functionality and the con-tribution of fluvial geomorphology in resolving these issues comes from five continents(cf. Meyer, 2001; Thompson, 2002b; Florsheim and Mount, 2002; Steveaux and Takeda,2002; Jonker et al., 2002; McGinness et al., 2002; Rowntree and du Plessis, 2003; Walterset al., 2003). A limitation of many river remediation projects, however, has been thatthey have tended to be small-scale in nature, without adequate consideration of thedrainage basin linkages that provide the template for remediation and rehabilitation(Gregory and Chin, 2002).

An example of a basin-scale perspective to river management and remediation isthe River Styles approach (as described earlier). The approach provides a typologyupon which spatial and temporal linkages of biophysical processes are assessedwithin a drainage basin (Brierley et al., 2002). River character and behaviour arerecorded and the capacity for each river reach to adjust varies with each Style.This is important, as different rivers will respond differently to imposed changes.For example, despite the fact that the Toledo Bend Reservoir impounds 74% ofthe Sabine basin in the USA, minimal geomorphic impacts were experiencedbelow the impoundment (Phillips, 2003b). This would suggest that the reach wastransport-limited before impoundment; thus reduced sediment supply afterimpoundment had a limited effect on the channel boundary. Impacts thereforeneed to be interpreted within a broader geomorphic context. This illustrates thevalue of the River Styles framework in that it assesses geomorphic river conditionand recovery potential in the context of the evolutionary pathways of the systems.The approach is also one of few that successfully manages to cross scale boundariesand provide a reasoned, integrated and implementable scale-based approach forriver management and remediation.

The aforementioned discussion illustrates the point that there is a need to recog-nize that predictions in geomorphology tend to be qualitative and imprecise. Fur-thermore, the ability of the discipline to apply experimental and laboratory data


are limited, and repeatable observations and falsifying hypotheses are few becauseeach geomorphic situation is unique (cf. Schumm, 1991; Benda et al., 2002). Evenwhere quantitative approaches are applied (particularly in the field of sedimenttransport and hazard forecasting), these are only appropriate at limited scalesand domains. Benda et al. (2002) point out, for example, that sediment transportis difficult to predict accurately (even though it may be done with precision) becauseof the problems mentioned earlier. Furthermore, accurate predictions are unlikelybecause larger-scale processes constrain smaller-scale processes. For example,hydrodynamic and hydromorphological models that seek to predict changes inthe physical dimensions of channels rely on sediment input information fromthe contributing basins, another unresolved issue. Similar problems exist in pre-dicting the effects of land use changes on fluvial systems. It could be arguedthat, a rigorous, defensible scale-based conceptual approach to prediction (andmanagement) is preferable to a precise, yet conceptually flawed scale-less numeri-cal approach.

XIV Ecohydrology

It is widely acknowledged that hydrology plays a critical role in present-day fluvialsystems and associated ecosystems (Arscott et al., 2001; Bonnel, 2002; Caruso, 2002;Collier, 2002; Alfredsen and Tesaker, 2002; Bovee and Scott, 2002; Brown and Ford,2002; Bunn and Arthington, 2002; Prowse and Conly, 2002; Wu and Wang, 2002; Annearet al., 2002; Bond et al., 2002; Cortes et al., 2002; Dugger et al., 2002; Gibbins et al., 2002;McIntosh et al., 2002; Parkinson et al., 2002; Peel et al., 2002; Prowse et al., 2002; Rech et al.,2002; Smolders et al., 2002; Wanner et al., 2002; Hughes and Rood, 2003). This recog-nition has evolved into the field of ecohydrology. Evidence derived from palaeohydro-logical studies (Runge, 2002; Barker et al., 2002; Uliana et al., 2002; St Georgeand Nielson, 2003; Keefer et al., 2003; Russell et al., 2003) can also help contextualizepresent-day problems through reconstructing past processes; shifts, for example, inecotonal zones (cf. Starkel, 2002). There has also been recognition that there is alinkage between streamflow variability, precipitation and climate forcing (e.g.,ENSO) (Chiew and McMahon, 2002; Jones and Woo, 2002; Woo and Thorne, 2003)that should be of considerable interest to geomorphologists, hydrologists and ecolo-gists alike.

Models are being developed, for example, to assist in providing rapid estimates ofthe ecological instream flow requirements of rivers (Hughes and Hannart, 2003). Eco-hydrology has close links with fluvial geomorphology (cf. Marani et al., 2001) andhydraulics (cf. Walker et al., 2002; Booker, 2003; Odeh, 2003; Rowland et al., 2003). Infact, the concept of ecogeomorphology has also been mooted (Thoms and Parsons,2002). While there is some debate as to exactly what ecohydrology is, there is consen-sus that there is a need for research into the interface between ecology and hydrology(Black et al., 2002). This is reflected in the recent launching of the International Journal onEcohydrology and Hydrobiology and a special edition in the Hydrological Sciences Journaldedicated to ecohydrology. The special edition contains five broad discussion papers(Kundzewicz, 2002; Nuttle, 2002; Moir et al., 2002; Porporato and Rodriguez-Iturbe,2002; Zalewski, 2002) that may be of interest to fluvial geomorphologists.

E.S.J. Dollar 421

XV Conclusions

Fluvial geomorphology has much to offer both as a science, and as input into mana-ging complex river systems. One of its strengths is that it views the world as a nestedhierarchical system, in which consideration of spatial and temporal scale providesthe context for understanding system behaviour. This presents a useful perspectivethat adds considerable value and offers much insight into interpreting a naturalworld characterized by complex multiscale and multidimensional problems. Thebreadth of research considered in this review demonstrates that within this broadsystems umbrella, there is space for the continuum of spatial and temporal scalesof research that, considered together, offers a potentially holistic understandingof river behaviour. Much of the future progress in fluvial geomorphology willrest on its ability to understand and interpret the links within and connectivitybetween patches of fluvial forms and processes at different spatial and temporalscales.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to my wife Lynette who has helped with sourcing much of thereviewed material and helping in the laborious task of editing and checking themanuscript.

References

Aalto, R., Dunne, T., Nittrouer, C.A., Maurice-Bourgoin, L. and Montgomery, D.R. 2002:Fluvial transport of sediment across a pristinetropical foreland basin: channel– flood plaininteraction and episodic flood plain depo-sition. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley,J.M., editors, The structure, function and manage-ment of fluvial sedimentary systems. Wallingford:IAHS Publication No. 276, 339–44.

Abbe, T.B. and Montgomery, D.R. 2003: Patternsand processes of wood accumulation in theQueets river basin, Washington. Geomorphology51, 81–107.

Abril, J.B. and Knight, D.W. 2002: Sedimenttransport simulation of the Paute river usinga depth-averaged flow model. In Bousmar,D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Pro-ceedings of the international conference on flu-vial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium,4–6 September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Pub-lishers, 2, 895–901.

Adriaensen, C., Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y. 2002:Integration of high resolution survey data forRiver Meuse modelling. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedingsof the international conference on fluvial

hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 2, 1261–67.

Aguirre-Pe, J., Olivero, M.L. and Moncada, A.T.2003: Particle densimetric Froude Number forestimating sediment transport. Journal ofHydraulic Engineering 129(6), 428–37.

Al Bakri, D. 2002: Geoscience and sustainablecatchment and resource management: theBed Chifley catchment case study. Environ-mental Geology 42(6), 588–96.

Alfredsen, K. and Tesaker, E. 2002: Winterhabitat assessment strategies and incorpora-tion of winter habitat in the Norwegian habitatassessment tools. Hydrological Processes 16,927–36.

Allison, M.A., Khan, S.R., Goodbred Jr, S.L.and Kuehl, S.A. 2003: Stratigraphic evolutionof the late Holocene Ganges-Brahmaputralower delta plain. Sedimentary Geology 155,317–42.

Amos, C.L., Droppo, I.G., Gomez, E.A.and Murphy, T.P. 2003: The stability of aremediated bed in Hamilton Harbour,Lake Ontario, Canada. Sedimentology 50,149–68.


Amsler, M.L. and Ramonell, C.G. 2002: Paranariver channel adjustments to dominant dis-charge changes. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y.,editors, River flow 2002. Proceedings of theinternational conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2,921–30.

Andres, W., Reis, J. and Seegar, M. 2002: Pre-Holocene sediments in the Barranco de lasLenas, Central Ebro Basin, Spain, as indicatorsfor climate-induced fluvial activities. Quatern-ary International 93–94, 65–72.

Annear, T.C., Hubert, W., Simpkins, D. andHebden, L. 2002: Behavioural and physiologi-cal response of trout to winter habitat in tail-waters in Wyoming, USA. HydrologicalProcesses 16, 915–25.

Anthony, D.J., Harvey, M.D., Laronne, J.B. andMosley, M.P., editors 2001: Applying geomor-phology to environmental management, High-lands Ranch CO: Water ResourcesPublications, LLC.

Antonelli, C. and Provansal, M. 2002: Character-isation and assessment of sand fluxes in thelower Rhone river, France. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedingsof the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 1, 587–93.

Archer, D. and Newson, M. 2002: The use of indi-ces of flow variability in assessing the hydrolo-gical and instream habitat impacts of uplandafforestation and drainage. Journal of Hydrology268, 244–58.

Ardies, G.W., Dalrymple, R.W. and Zaitlin, B.A.2002: Controls on the geometry of incisedvalleys in the basal quartz unit (Lower Cre-taceous), Western Canada sedimentarybasin. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72(5),602–18.

Arnaud-Fassetta, G. 2003: River channel changesin the Rhone Delta (France) since the end of theLittle Ice Age: geomorphological adjustment tohydroclimatic change and natural resourcemanagement. Catena 51, 141–72.

Arscott, D.B., Tockner, K. and Ward, J.V. 2001:Thermal heterogeneity along a braided flood-plain river (Tagliamento River, northeasternItaly). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and AquaticScience 58, 2359–73.

Asmal, K. 2002: Parting the waters. Journal ofWater Resources Planning and Management128(2), 87–90.

Asselman, N.E., Middelkoop, H., Ritzen, M.R.and Straatsma, M.W. 2002: Assessment of the

hydraulic roughness of river flood plainsusing laser altimetry. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms,M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The structure, func-tion and management of fluvial sedimentary sys-tems. Wallingford: IAHS Publication No. 276,381–88.

Asselman, N.E.M. and van Wijngaarden, M.2002: Development and application of a 1Dfloodplain sedimentation model for the RiverRhine in The Netherlands. Journal of Hydrology268, 127–42.

Auler, A.S., Smart, P.L., Tarling, D.H. andFarrant, A.R. 2002: Fluvial incision ratesderived from magnetostratigraphy of cavesediments in the cratonic area of easternBrazil. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphlogie N.F.46(3), 391–403.

Babaeyan-Koopaei, K., Ervine, D.A., Carling,P.A. and Cao, Z. 2002: Velocity and turbulencemeasurements for two overbank flow events inthe River Severn. Journal of Hydraulic Engineer-ing 128(10), 891–900.

Baily, B., Collier, P., Farres, P., Inkpen, R. andPearson, A. 2003: Comparative assessment ofanalytical and digital photogrammetricmethods in the construction of DEMs of geo-morphological forms. Earth Surface Processesand Landforms 28, 307–20.

Baines, D., Smith, D.G., Freox, D.G., Bauman, P.and Nimeck, G. 2002: Electrical resistivityground imaging (ERGI): a new tool for map-ping the lithology and geometry of channel-belts and valley-fills. Sedimentology 49(3),441–50.

Baker, V.R. 1973: Paleohydrology and sedimentologyof Lake Missoula flooding in eastern Washington.Geological Society of America Special Paper144, 79 pp.

Baptist, M.J. and Mosselman, E. 2002: Biogeo-morphological modelling of secondary chan-nels in the Waal River. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedingsof the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 2, 773–82.

Bardossy, A. and Schmidt, F. 2002: GIS approachto scale issues of perimeter-based shape indi-ces for drainage basins. Hydrological SciencesJournal 47(6), 931–42.

Barker, P., Telford, R., Gasse, F. and Thevenon, F.2002: Late Pleistocene and Holocene palaeohy-drology of Lake Rukwa, Tanzania, inferredfrom diatom analysis. Palaeogeography, Palaeo-climatology, Palaeoecology 187, 295–305.

E.S.J. Dollar 423

Bartholdy, J. and Billi, P. 2002: Morphodynamicsof a pseudomeandering gravel bar reach. Geo-morphology 42, 293–310.

Bartley, R. and Rutherfurd, I. 2002: Techniques toquantify the variability of thalweg profiles. InDyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors,The structure, function and management of fluvialsedimentary systems. Wallingford: IAHS Publi-cation No. 276, 35–44.

Bash, J.S. and Ryan, C.M. 2002: Stream restor-ation and enhancement projects: is anyonemonitoring? Environmental Management 30(2),209–24.

Basson, G.R. and Beck, J.S. 2002: Simulation ofartificial flood releases from Skuifraam Damto limit its impact on the Berg River mor-phology. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 941–50.

Bathurst, J.C. 2002: At-a-site variation and mini-mum flow resistance for mountain rivers. Jour-nal of Hydrology 269, 11–26.

Bathurst, J.C., Benson, I.A., Valentine, E.M. andNalluri, C. 2002: Overbank sediment depo-sition patterns for straight and meanderingflume channels. Earth Surface Processes andLandforms 27, 659–65.

Beckedahl, H.R., Sumner, P.D. and Garland, G.2002: South African geomorphology: criticalchoices for the future. South African Geographi-cal Journal 84(1), 145–52.

Benda, L.E., Poff, N.L., Tague, C., Palmer, M.A.,Pizzuto, J., Cooper, S., Stanley, E. andMoglen, G. 2002: How to avoid train wreckswhen using science in environmental problemsolving. Bioscience 52(12), 1127–36.

Ben-David, R., Eyal, Y., Zilberman, E. andBowman, D. 2002: Fluvial systems responseto rift margin tectonics: Makhtesh Ramonarea, southern Israel. Geomorphology 45, 147–63.

Bendjoudi, H., Weng, P., Guerin, R. and Pastre,J.F. 2002: Riparian wetlands of the middlereach of the Seine River (France): historicaldevelopment, investigation and presenthydrologic functioning. A case study. Journalof Hydrology 263, 131–55.

Benito, G., Sanchez-Moya, Y. and Sopena, A.2003: Sedimentology of high-stage flooddeposits of the Tagus River, Central Spain.Sedimentary Geology 157, 107–32.

Bennett, S.J., Pirim, T. and Barkdoll, B.D.2002: Using simulated emergent vegetation toalter streamflow direction within a straightexperimental channel. Geomorphology 44,115–26.

Berman, C. 2002: Assessment of landscape character-ization and classification methods. Wood compat-ibility initiative. Cooperative AgreementNumber PNW 99-9053-1-CA. United StatesDepartment of Agriculture Forest Service Paci-fic Northwest Research Station, 31 pp.

Bhuiyan, F. and Hey, R. 2002: Sediment transportin a meandering channel with instreamhydraulic structures. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedingsof the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 2, 1091–98.

Bierman, P.R. and Caffee, M. 2002: Cosmogenicexposure and erosion history of Australianbedrock landforms. Geological Society ofAmerica (GSA) Bulletin 114(7), 787–803.

Birkeland, G.H. 2002: Historical changes in floodpower and riparian vegetation in lower HarrisWash, Escalante River, Utah. Physical Geogra-phy 23(1), 59–78.

Biron, P.M., Richer, A., Kirkbride, A.D., Roy,A.G. and Han, S. 2002: Spatial patterns ofwater surface topography at a river conflu-ence. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27,913–28.

Black, A.R., Bragg, O.M., Duck, R.W. andRowan, J.S. 2002: Development of a methodto assess ecological impact due to hydrologicalregime alteration of Scottish river. In Dyer, F.J.,Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The struc-ture, function and management of fluvial sedimen-tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 45–51.

Blade, W.H., Walling, D.E. and He, Q. 2002:Using cosmogenic beryllium-7 as a tracer insediment budget investigations. GeografiskaAnnaler 84A, 89–102.

Blair, T.C. 2001: Outburst flood sedimentation onthe proglacial Tuttle Canyon alluvial fan,Owens Valley, California, U.S.A. Journal of Sedi-mentary Research 71(5), 657–79.

Bocchiola, D., Catalano, F., Menduni, G. and Pas-soni, G. 2002: An analytical-numerical approachto the hydraulics of floating debris in river chan-nels. Journal of Hydrology 269, 65–78.

Bonacci, O. and Roje-Bonacci, T. 2003: The influ-ence of hydroelectrical development on theflow regime of the karstic river Cetina. Hydro-logical Processes 17, 1–15.

Bond, B.J., Jones, J.A., Moore, G., Phillips, N.,Post, D. and McDonnell, J.J. 2002: The zoneof vegetation influence on baseflow revealedpatterns of streamflow and vegetation wateruse in a headwater basin. Hydrological Processes16, 1671–77.


Bonnel, M. 2002: Ecohydrology – a completelynew idea? Hydrological Sciences Journal 47(5),809–10.

Booker, D.J. 2003: Hydraulic modelling of fishhabitat in urban rivers during high flows.Hydrological Processes 17, 577–99.

Boon, P.J., Holmes, N.T.H., Maitland, P.S. andFozzard, I.R. 2002: Developing a new versionof SERCON (System for Evaluating Rivers forConservation). Aquatic Conservation: Marine &Freshwater Ecosystems 12(4), 439–55.

Bourke, M.C. 2002: Suspended sediment concen-trations and the geomorphic effect of sub-bankfull flow in a central Australian stream.In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., edi-tors, The structure, function and management offluvial sedimentary systems. Wallingford: IAHSPublication No. 276, 315–24.

—— 2003: Current ripples: a small-scale through-flow outburst in a heterolithic ephemeral chan-nel. Journal of Sedimentary Research 73(1), 2–4.

Bourke, M.C., Child, A. and Stokes, S. 2003:Optimal age estimates for hyper-arid fluvialdeposits at Homeb, Namibia. QuaternaryScience Reviews 10–13, 1099–107.

Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors 2002a: Riverflow 2002. Proceedings of the international con-ference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1, 711 pp.

—— editors 2002b: River flow 2002. Proceedings ofthe international conference on fluvial hydrau-lics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium,4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 568 pp.

Bovee, K.D. and Scott, M.L. 2002: Implications offlood pulse restoration for populus regener-ation on the upper Missouri River. RiversResearch and Applications 18(3), 287–98.

Brandt, D., Andreoli, M.A.G. and McCarthy, T.S.2003: Mesozoic fluvial deposits on a rifted con-tinental margin near Vaalputs, Namaqualand,South Africa. South African Journal of Geology106, 11–16.

Brasington, J. and Smart, R.M.A. 2003: Closerange digital photogrammetric analysis ofexperimental drainage basin evolution. EarthSurface Processes and Landforms 28, 231–47.

Brasington, J., Langham, J. and Rumsby, B. 2003:Methodological sensitivity of morphometricestimates of coarse fluvial sediment transport.Geomorphology 53, 299–316.

Bridgland, D.R. 2002: Fluvial deposition onperiodically emergent shelves in the Quatern-ary: example records from the shelf aroundBritain. Quaternary International 92, 25–34.

Brierley, G., Fryirs, K., Outhet, D. and Massey, C.2002: Application of the River Styles frame-

work as a basis for river management in NewSouth Wales, Australia. Applied Geography 22,91–122.

Brocard, G.Y., van der Beek, P.A., Bourles, D.L.,Siame, L.L. and Mugnier, J-L. 2003: Long-term fluvial incision rates and postglacialriver relaxation time in the French WesternAlps from 10Be dating of alluvial terraceswith assessment of inheritance, soil develop-ment and wind ablation effects. Earth and Pla-netary Science Letters 209, 197–214.

Brooks, A.P. and Brierley, G.J. 2002: Mediatedequilibrium: the influence of riparian veg-etation and wood on the long-term evolutionand behaviour of a near-pristine river. EarthSurface Processes and Landforms 27, 343–67.

Brooks, A.P., Brierley, G.J. and Millar, R.G. 2003:The long-term control of vegetation andwoody debris on channel and flood-plain evol-ution: insights from a paired catchment studyin southeastern Australia. Geomorphology 51,7–29.

Brooks, G.R. 2003: Alluvial deposits of a mud-dominated stream: the Red River, Manitoba,Canada. Sedimentology 50(3), 441–58.

Brown, L.R. and Ford, T. 2002: Effects of flow onthe fish communities of a regulated Californiariver: implications for managing native fishes.Rivers Research and Applications 18(4), 331–42.

Brunke, M. 2002: Floodplains of a regulatedsouthern Alpine river (Brenno, Switzerland):ecological assessment and conservationoptions. Aquatic Conservation: Marine & Fresh-water Ecosystems 12(6), 583–99.

BSI 03/300309 DC. 2003: Draft British Standard BSEN 14614 Water Quality – Guidance standard forassessing the hydromorphological features of Brit-ish Rivers. Milton Keynes: British StandardsInstitute.

Buffington, J.M., Lisle, T.E., Woodsmith, R.D.and Hilton, S. 2003: Controls on the size andoccurrence of pools in coarse-grained forestrivers. Rivers Research and Applications 18(6),507–31.

Buhman, D.L., Gates, T.K. and Watson, C.C.2002: Stochastic variability of fluvial hydraulicgeometry: Mississippi and Red Rivers. Journalof Hydraulic Engineering 128(4), 426–37.

Bull, L.J. and Kirkby, M.J., editors 2002: Drylandrivers: hydrology and geomorphology of semi-aridchannels. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons,388 pp.

Bullard, J.E. and Livingstone, I. 2002: Inter-actions between aeolian and fluvial systemsin dryland environments. Area 34(1), 8–16.

Bullard, T.F. 2002: Geomorphic history and flu-vial response to active tectonics and climate

E.S.J. Dollar 425

change in an uplifted forearc region, Pacificcoast of southern Costa Rica, Central America.Zeitschrift fur Geomorpholgie N.F. 129, 1–29.

Bunn, S.E. and Arthington, A.H. 2002: Basic prin-ciples and ecological consequences of alteredflow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ-mental Management 30(4), 492–507.

Cadenasso, M.L., Pickett, S.T.A., Weathers, K.C.and Jones, C.G. 2003: A framework for a the-ory of ecological boundaries. BioScience 53(8),750–57.

Cammeraat, L.H. 2002: A review of two stronglycontrasting geomorphological systems withinthe context of scale. Earth Surface Processes andLandforms 27, 1201–22.

Candy, I., Black, S., Sellwood, B.W. and Rowan,J.S. 2003: Calcrete profile development in Qua-ternary alluvial sequences, southeast Spain:implications for using calcretes as a basis forlandform chronologies. Earth Surface Processesand Landforms 28, 169–85.

Cao, S., Liu, X., Huang, E. and Chen, Y. 2002:Influences of Xiluodu reservoir to sedimenttransport of the Three Gorges Project inYangtze River, China. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedingsof the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 2, 1041–46.

Cao, Z. and Carling, P.A. 2002: A critical reflectionof computational fluid dynamics applicationto fluvial sedimentary systems. In Dyer, F.J.,Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The struc-ture, function and management of fluvial sedimen-tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 463–70.

Cao, Z., Day, R. and Egashira, S. 2002: Coupledand decoupled numerical modelling of flowand morphological evolution of alluvial rivers.Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 128(3), 306–21.

Carling, P.A., Cao, Z. and Ervine, D.A. 2002:Flood plain contribution to open channelflow structure. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. andOlley, J.M., editors, The structure, function andmanagement of fluvial sedimentary systems. Wall-ingford: IAHS Publication No. 276, 227–37.

Carollo, F.G., Ferro, V. and Termini, D. 2002:Flow velocity measurements in vegetationchannels. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering128(7), 664–73.

Caruso, B. 2001: Regional river flow, water qual-ity, aquatic ecological impacts and recoveryfrom drought. Hydrological Sciences Journal46(5), 677–704.

Caruso, B.S. 2002: Temporal and spatial patternsof extreme low flows and effects on stream eco-systems in Otago, New Zealand. Journal ofHydrology 257, 115–33.

Castelltort, S. and Van Den Driessche, J. 2003:How plausible are high-frequency sedimentsupply-driven cycles in the stratigraphicrecord? Sedimentary Geology 157, 3–13.

Cawood, P.A., Nemchin, A.A., Freeman, M.and Sircombe, K. 2003: Linking source andsedimentary basin: detrital zircon record ofsediment flux along a modern river sys-tem and implications for provenancestudies. Earth and Planetary Science Letters1–2, 259–68.

Cellino, M. and Essyad, K. 2002: Reduction ofsediment deposition by introducing an artifi-cial stony bank. A practical example in upperRhodes river, Switzerland. In Bousmar, D.and Zech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceed-ings of the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 2, 951–59.

Cerda, A. and Garcıa-Fayos, P. 2002: The influ-ence of seed size and shape on their removalby water erosion. Catena 48, 293–301.

Chang, T.J., Bayes, T.D. and McKeever, S. 2003:Investigating reservoir sediment andwatershed erosion using a geographical infor-mation system. Hydrological Processes 17,979–87.

Chappell, A., Heritage, G.L., Fuller, I.C., Large,A.R.G. and Milan, D.J. 2003: Geostatisticalanalysis of ground-survey elevation data toelucidate spatial and temporal river channelchange. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms28, 349–70.

Charlton, M.E., Large, A.R.G. and Fuller, I.C.2003: Application of airborne LiDAR in riverenvironments: the river Coquet, Northumber-land, UK. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms28, 299–306.

Chave, P.A. 2001: The EU water framework directive:an introduction. London: International WaterAssociation (IWA) Publishing, 208 pp.

Chen, X. and Chiew, Y-M. 2003: Response ofvelocity and turbulence to sudden changeof bed roughness in open channel flow. Journalof Hydraulic Engineering 129(1), 35–43.

Chen, Z., Li. J., Shen, H. and Zhanghua, W. 2001:Yangtze River of China; historical analysis ofdischarge variability and sediment flux. Geo-morphology 41, 77–91.

Cheng, N-S. 2002a: Bedload transport rates forlow, moderate and high shear stresses. InBousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow


2002. Proceedings of the international confer-ence on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1, 575–78.

—— 2002b: Exponential formula for bedloadtransport. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering128(10), 942–46.

Chiew, F.H.S. and McMahon, T.A. 2002: GlobalENSO-streamflow teleconnection, streamflowforecasting and interannual variability. Hydro-logical Sciences Journal 47(3), 505–22.

Chitale, S.V. 2003: Modeling for width adjust-ments in alluvial rivers. Journal of HydraulicEngineering 129(5), 404–407.

Church, M.E. 2002: Geomorphic thresholds in riv-erine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47, 107–18.

Cioffi, F. and Gallerana, F. 2003: A two-dimen-sional self-adaptive hydrodynamic schemefor the assessment of the effects of structureson flooding phenomena in river basins. RiversResearch and Applications 19(1), 1–26.

Clague, J.J., Turner, R.J.W. and Reyes, A.V. 2003:Record of recent river channel instability,Cheakamus Valley, British Columbia. Geomor-phology 53, 317–32.

Clapp, E.M., Bierman, P.R. and Caffee, M. 2002:Using 10Be and 26Al to determine sedimentgeneration rates and identify sediment sourceareas in an arid region drainage basin. Geomor-phology 45, 89–104.

Clifford, N.J., Soar, P.J., Petts, G.E., Gurnell, A.M.and Emery, J.C. 2002: Numerical flow modellingfor eco-hydraulic rehabilitation applications:a case study of the River Cole, Birmingham,UK. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, Riverflow 2002. Proceedings of the international con-ference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 1195–204.

Collier, K.J. 2002: Effects of flow regulation andsediment flushing on instream habitat andbenthic invertebrates in a New Zealand streaminfluenced by volcanic eruption. RiversResearch and Applications 18(3), 213–26.

Collins, A.L. and Walling, D.E. 2002: Selectingfingerprint properties for discriminatingpotential suspended sediment sources inriver basins. Journal of Hydrology 261, 218–44.

Collins, B.D., Montgomery, D.R. and Haas, A.2002: Historic changes in the distribution andfunctions of large woody debris in Puget Low-land rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences 59, 66–76.

Colman, S.M. and Bratton, J.F. 2003: Anthropo-genically induced changes in sediment andbiogenic silica fluxes in Chesapeake Bay.Geology 31(1), 71–74.

Conacher, A. 2002: A role for geomorphology inintegrated catchment management. AustralianGeographical Studies 40(2), 179–95.

Constantine, C.R., Mount, J.F. and Florsheim, J.L.2003: The effects on longitudinal differences ingravel mobility on the downstream fining pat-tern in the Cosumnes River, California. TheJournal of Geology 111, 233–41.

Coppus, R. and Imeson, A.C. 2002: Extremeevents controlling erosion and sediment trans-port in a semi-arid sub-Andean valley.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27,1365–75.

Cortes, R.M.V., Ferreira, M.T., Oliveira, S.V. andOliveira, D. 2002: Macroinvertebrate commu-nity structure in a regulated river segmentwith different flow conditions. Rivers Researchand Applications 18(4), 367–82.

Couper, P., Stott, T. and Maddock, I. 2002:Insights into river bank erosion processesderived from analysis of negative erosion-pinrecordings: observations from three recentUK studies. Earth Surface Processes and Land-forms 27, 59–79.

Cowell, C.M. and Dyer, J.M. 2002: Vegetationdevelopment in a modified riparian environ-ment: human imprints on an Allegheny Riverwilderness. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 92(2), 189–202.

Crook, D.A., Robertson, A.I., King, A.J. andHumphries, P. 2001: The influence of spatialscale and habitat arrangement on diel patternsof habitat use by two lowland river fishes.Oecologia 129(4), 525–33.

Crowley, J.M. 2002: Rough water, smooth water: acomprehensive classification of water-flowcharacteristics. Focus 46(4), 29–32.

Curran, J.H. and Wohl, E.E. 2003: Large woodydebris and flow resistance in step-pool chan-nels, Cascade Range, Washington. Geomorphol-ogy 51, 141–57.

Cutler, P.M., Colgan, P.M. and Mickelson, D.M.2002: Sedimentologic evidence for outburstfloods from the Laurentide Ice Sheet margin inWisconsin, USA: implications for tunnel-channelformation. Quaternary International 90, 23–40.

Dambeck, R. and Thiemeyer, H. 2002: Fluvialhistory of the northern Upper Rhine River(southwestern Germany) during the Lategla-cial and Holocene times. Quaternary Inter-national 93–94, 53–63.

Dancey, C.L., Diplas, P., Papanicolau, A. andBala, M. 2002: Probability of individual grainmovement and threshold condition. Journal ofHydraulic Engineering 128(12), 1069–75.

E.S.J. Dollar 427

Daniels, M.D. and Rhoads, B.L. 2003: Influenceof a large woody debris obstruction on three-dimensional flow structure in a meanderbend. Geomorphology 51, 159–73.

Darby, S.E. and Delbano, I. 2002: A model ofequilibrium bed topography for meanderbends with erodible banks. Earth Surface Pro-cesses and Landforms 27, 1057–85.

Darby, S.E., Alabyan, A.M. and Van de Wiel,M.J. 2002: Numerical simulation of bank ero-sion and channel migration in meandering riv-ers. Water Resources Research 38(9), 2-1-2-21.

Davies, T.R.H., McSaveney, M.J. and Clarkson,P.J. 2003: Anthropic aggradation of the WaihoRiver, Westland New Zealand: microscalemodelling. Earth Surface Processes and Land-forms 28, 209–18.

Davis, L., Thoms, M.C., Fellows, C. and Bunn, S.2002: Physical and ecological associations indryland refugia: waterholes of the CooperCreek, Australia. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C.and Olley, J.M., editors, The structure, func-tion and management of fluvial sedimentary sys-tems. Wallingford: IAHS Publication No. 276,77–84.

Dawson, F.H., Hornby, D.D. and Hilton, J. 2002: Amethod for the automated extraction ofenvironmental variables to help the classifi-cation of rivers in Britain. Aquatic Conservation:Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12(4),391–403.

De Boer, D.H. and Ali, K.F. 2002: Sediment bud-gets and self-organization in a cellular land-scape model. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. andOlley, J.M., editors, The structure, function andmanagement of fluvial sedimentary systems. Wall-ingford: IAHS Publication No. 276, 365–72.

De Bonis, P., Fattoruso, G., Grauso, S., Onori, F.and Pagano, A. 2002: An improved methodfor evaluation of sediment loads for river man-agement. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley,J.M., editors, The structure, function and manage-ment of fluvial sedimentary systems. Wallingford:IAHS Publication No. 276, 219–25.

Defina, A. 2003: Numerical experiments on bargrowth. Water Resources Research 39(4), 2-1-2-12.

Delleur, J.W. 2003: Hydraulics of sediment move-ment in urban drainage systems. Journal ofHydraulic Engineering 129(4), 251–52.

Dennis, I.A., Macklin, M.G., Coulthard, T.J. andBrewer, P.A. 2003: The impact of the October–November 2000 floods on contaminant metaldispersal in the River Swale catchment,North Yorkshire, UK. Hydrological Processes17, 1641–57.

De Souza, O.C., Araujo, M.R., Mertes, L.A.K.and Melak, J.M. 2002: Form and process

along the Taquari River Alluvial Fan, Pantanal,Brazil. Zeitschrift fur Geomorpholgie N.F. 129,73–107.

De Sutter, R., Rushforth, P., Tait, S., Huygens,M., Verhoeven, R. and Saul, A. 2003: Vali-dation of existing bed load transport formulasusing in-sewer sediment. Journal of HydraulicEngineering 129(4), 325–33.

De Vriend, H.J. 2002: Model-based morphologi-cal prediction: from art to science. In Bousmar,D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Pro-ceedings of the international conference on flu-vial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium,4–6 September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Pub-lishers, 1, 3–12.

DeVries, P. 2002: Bedload layer thickness and dis-turbance depth in gravel bed streams. Journalof Hydraulic Engineering 128(10), 983–91.

Di Cristo, C., Leopardi, A. and Greco, M. 2002: Abed load transport model for non-uniformflows. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics. Lou-vain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002.Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 859–63.

Di Giulio, A., Ceriani, A., Ghia, E. and Zucca, F.2003: Composition of modern stream sandsderived from sedimentary sources rocks in atemperate climate (Northern Apennines,Italy). Sedimentary Geology 158, 145–61.

Dinehart, R.L. 2002: Bedform movementrecorded by sequential single-beam surveysin tidal rivers. Journal of Hydrology 258, 25–39.

Donohue, I., Duck, R.W. and Irvine, K. 2003:Land use, sediment loads and dispersal path-ways from two catchments at the southernend of Lake Tanganyika, Africa: implicationsfor lake management. Environmental Geology44(4), 448–55.

Dorn, R.I. 2002: Analysis of geomorphology cita-tions in the last quarter of the 20th century.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27,667–72.

Doupe, R.G. and Pettit, N.E. 2002: Ecological per-spectives on regulation and water allocationfor the Ord River, Western Australia. RiversResearch and Applications 18(3), 307–20.

Dovciak, A.L. and Perry, J.A. 2002: In search ofeffective scales for stream management: doesAgroecoregion, watershed, or their intersec-tion best explain variance in stream macroin-vertebrate communities? EnvironmentalManagement 30(3), 365–77.

Downs, P.W. and Kondolf, G.M. 2002: Post-project appraisals in adaptive managementof river channel restoration. EnvironmentalManagement 29(4), 477–96.


Doyle, M.W., Harbor, J.M. and Stanley, E.H.2003: Towards policies and decision-makingfor dam removal. Environmental Management31(4), 453–65.

Duan, J.G. 2001: Numerical analysis of riverchannel processes with bank erosion. Journalof Hydraulic Engineering 126(4), 702–703.

Dugger, K.M., Ryan, M.R., Galat, D.L., Renken,R.B. and Smith, J.W. 2002: Reproductive suc-cess of the interior least tern (Sterna antillanum)in relation to hydrology on the lower Missis-sippi River. Rivers Research and Applications18(2), 97–105.

Dyer, F.J. 2002: Assessing the hydrologicalchanges to flood plain wetland inundationcaused by river regulation. In Dyer, F.J.,Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, Thestructure, function and management of flu-vial sedimentary systems. Wallingford: IAHSPublication No. 276, 245–53.

Eaton, B.C. and Lapointe, M.F. 2001: Effects oflarge floods on sediment transport and reachmorphology in the cobble-bed Sainte Marguer-ite River. Geomorphology 40, 291–309.

Ellery, W.N., Dahlberg, A.C., Strydom, R., Neal,M.J. and Jackson, J. 2003: Diversion of waterflow from a floodplain wetland stream: ananalysis of geomorphological setting andhydrological and ecological consequences.Journal of Environmental Management 68(1),51–71.

Environment Agency 1999: Waterway bank protec-tion: a guide to erosion assessment and manage-ment. Bristol: Environment Agency.

—— 2003: River habitat survey in Britain andIreland: field survey guidance manual. Bristol:Environment Agency.

Erskine, W.D. and Peacock, C.T. 2002: LateHolocene flood plain development followinga cataclysmic flood. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms,M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The structure,function and management of fluvial sedimen-tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 177–84.

Erskine, W.D. and Webb, A.A. 2003: Desnaggingto re-snagging: new directions in river rehabi-litation in southeastern Australia. RiversResearch and Applications 19(3), 233–49.

European Union (EU) 2000: Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of thecouncil. October 2003: Establishing a frame-work for Community action in the field ofwater policy. Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities L327/1.

Falkenmark, M. and Folke, C. 2002: The ethics ofsocio-ecohydrological catchment manage-ment: towards solidarity. Hydrology and EarthSystem Sciences 6, 1–9.

Fausch, K.D., Torgersen, C.E., Baxter, C.V. and Li,H.W. 2002: Landscapes to riverscapes: brid-ging the gap between research and conserva-tion of stream fishes. BioScience 52(6), 1–16.

Faustini, J.M. and Jones, J.A. 2003: Influence oflarge woody debris on channel morphologyand dynamics in steep, boulder-rich mountainstreams, western Cascades, Oregon. Geomor-phology 51, 187–205.

Feng, Q., Cheng, G.D. and Endo, K.N. 2001:Towards sustainable development of the envir-onmentally degraded River Heihe basin, China.Hydrological Sciences Journal 46(5), 647–58.

Ferguson, R.I. 2003: Emergence of abrupt gravelto sand transitions along rivers through sort-ing processes. Geology 31(2), 159–62.

Ferguson, R.I. and Hoey, T.B. 2002: Long-termslowdown of rive tracer pebbles: Genericmodels and implications for interpretingshort-term tracer studies. Water ResourcesResearch 38(8), 17-1-17–11.

Ferguson, R.I., Bloomer, D.J., Hoey, T.B. andWerritty, A. 2002: Mobility of river tracer peb-bles over different timescales. Water ResourcesResearch 38(5), 3-1-3-9.

Ferro, V. and Carollo, F.G. 2002: Discussion on‘estimating depth-averaged velocities inrough channels’. Earth Surface Processes andLandforms 27, 1021–25.

Fielding, C.R., Trueman, J.D., Dickens, G.R. andPage, M. 2003: Anatomy of the buried Burde-kin River channel across the Great BarrierReef shelf: how does a major river operate ona tropical mixed siliciclastic/carbonate marginduring sea level lowstand. Sedimentary Geology157, 291–301.

Filipe, A.F., Cowx, I.G., Collares-Pereira, M.J.2002: Spatial modelling of freshwater fish insemi-arid river systems: a tool for conserva-tion. Rivers Research and Applications 18(2),123–36.

Finlayson, D.P. and Montgomery, D.R. 2003:Modeling large-scale fluvial erosion in geo-graphic information systems. Geomorphology53, 147–64.

Fisher, T.G., Clague, J.J. and Teller, J.T. 2002:Preface: the role of outburst floods and glacialmeltwater in subglacial and proglacial land-form genesis. Quaternary International 90, 1–4.

Florsheim, J.L. and Mount, J.F. 2002: Restorationof floodplain topography by sand-splay com-plex formation in response to intentionallevee breaches. Geomorphology 44, 67–94.

E.S.J. Dollar 429

Fontana, G.D. and March, L. 2003: Slope–arearelationships and sediment dynamics in twoAlpine streams. Hydrological Processes 17,73–87.

Formento-Trigilio, M.L., Burbank, D.W., Nicol,A., Shulmeister, J. and Rieser, U. 2002: Riverresponse to an active fold-and-thrust belt in aconvergent margin setting, North Island,New Zealand. Geomorphology 49, 125–52.

Forsyth, A. and Nott, J. 2003: Evolution of drai-nage patterns on Cape York Peninsula, north-east Queensland. Australian Journal of EarthSciences 50, 145–55.

Foster, I.D.L., Lees, J.A., Jones, A.R., Chapman,A.S. and Turner, S.E. 2002: The possible roleof agricultural land drains in sediment deliv-ery to a small reservoir, Worcestershire, UK: amultiparameter fingerprint study. In Dyer,F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, Thestructure, function and management of fluvial sedi-mentary systems. Wallingford: IAHS Publi-cation No. 276, 433–42.

Foster, J.M., Thoms, M.C. and Parsons, M. 2002:Using multivariate statistical techniques tointerpret patterns of flood plain sedimentation.In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., edi-tors, The structure, function and management offluvial sedimentary systems. Wallingford: IAHSPublication No. 276, 451–61.

Franks, C.A., Rice, S.P. and Wood, P.J. 2002:Hydraulic habitat in confluences: an ecologicalperspective on confluence hydraulics. In Dyer,F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, Thestructure, function and management of fluvial sedi-mentary systems. Wallingford: IAHS Publi-cation No. 276, 61–68.

Franks, S.W. 2002: Assessing hydrologicalchange: deterministic general circulationmodels or spurious solar correlation? Hydrolo-gical Processes 16, 559–64.

Franzin, W.G., Nelson, P.A. and Cooley, P.M.2002: Erosion, transport and deposition; ahydraulics-based approach to fish habitat. InBousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow2002. Proceedings of the international confer-ence on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1, 527–32.

Franzinelli, E. and Igreja, H. 2002: Modern sedi-mentation in the Lower Negro River, Amazo-nas State, Brazil. Geomorphology 44, 259–71.

Frei, A., Armstrong, R.L., Clark, M.P. andSerreze, M.C. 2002: Catskill Mountain waterresources: vulnerability, hydroclimatology,and climate-change sensitivity. Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers 92(2),203–24.

French, J.R. 2003: Airborne LiDAR in support ofgeomorphological and hydraulic modelling.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 28,321–35.

Frothingham, K.M., Rhoads, B.L. and Herricks,E.E. 2002: A multiscale conceptual frameworkfor integrated ecogeomorphological researchto support stream naturalization in the agricul-tural Midwest. Environmental Management29(1), 16–33.

Fryirs, K. 2002: Antecedent landscape controls onriver character, behaviour and evolution at thebase of the escarpment in Bega catchment,South Coast, New South Wales, Australia.Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie N.F 46(4),475–504.

—— 2003: Guiding principles for assessing geo-morphic river condition: application of a fra-mework in the Bega catchment, South Coast,New South Wales, Australia. Catena 53,17–52.

Fryirs, K. and Brierley, G.J. 2001: Variability insediment delivery and storage along rivercourses in Bega catchment, NSW, Australia:implications for geomorphic river recovery.Geomorphology 38, 237–65.

Fukuoka, S. 2002: River management for hydrau-lic harmony between flood control andenvironmental considerations. In Bousmar, D.and Zech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceed-ings of the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 1, 45–54.

Fuller, C.W., Willett, S.D., Hovius, N. andSlingerland, R. 2003: Erosion rates for TaiwanMountain Basins: new determinations fromsuspended sediment records and a stochasticmodel of their temporal variation. The Journalof Geology 111, 71–87.

Fuller, I.C., Passmore, D.G., Heritage, G.L.,Large, A.R.G., Milan, D.J. and Brewer, P.A.2002: Annual sediment budgets in an unstablegravel-bed river: the River Coquet, northernEngland. In Jones, S.J. and Frostick, L.E., edi-tors, Sediment flux to basins: causes, controls andconsequences. London: Geological Society,Special Publications 191, 115–31.

Gangyan, Z., Goel, N.K. and Bhatt, V.K. 2002:Stochastic modelling of the sediment load ofthe upper Yangtze River (China). HydrologicalSciences Journal 47, S93–S105.

Garcia-Castellanos, D. 2002: Interplay betweenlithospheric flexure and river transport in fore-land basins. Basin Research 14, 89–104.


Gautier, J.N. and Peters, J.J. 2002: Morphology,bedload surveys and studies in the LoireRiver. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2,1177–84.

Gibbard, P.L. and Lewin, J. 2002: Climate andrelated controls on interglacial fluvial sedi-mentation in lowland Britain. SedimentaryGeology 151, 187–210.

Gibbins, C.N., Moir, H.J., Webb, J.H. andSoulsby, C. 2002: Assessing discharge use byspawning Atlantic salmon: a comparison ofdischarge elective indices and PHABSIMsimulations. Rivers Research and Applications(18)4, 383–95.

Golosov, V. 2002: Temporal–spatial variations inthe sediment delivery ratio of small drainagebasins: the Russian Plain example. In Dyer,F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, Thestructure, function and management of fluvial sedi-mentary systems. Wallingford: IAHS Publi-cation No. 276, 345–53.

Golz, E. 2002: Iffezheim field test – threeyears experience with a petrographictracer. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. andOlley, J.M., editors, The structure, functionand management of fluvial sedimentarysystems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 417–24.

Goodbred, S.L., Kuehl, S.A., Steckler, M.S. andSarker, M.H. 2003: Controls on facies distri-bution and stratigraphic preservation in theGanges-Brahmaputra delta sequence. Sedimen-tary Geology 155, 301–16.

Goodson, J.M., Gurnell, A.M., Angold, P.G. andMorrissey, I.P. 2003: Evidence for hydrochoryand the deposition of viable seeds within win-ter flow-deposited sediments: the River Dove,Derbyshire, UK. Rivers Research and Appli-cations 19(4), 317–34.

Goodwin, P. 2001: Forum: Nato workshop: newparadigms in river and estuarine manage-ment. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 122,792–93.

Gordon, N.D., McMahon, T.A., Finlayson, B.L.,Gippel, C. and Nathan, R. 2004: Stream hydrol-ogy: an introduction for ecologists. Chichester:John Wiley and Sons, 736 pp.

Goudie, A.S. 2002: Aesthetics and relevance ingeomorphological outreach. Geomorphology47, 245–49.

Gradzinski, R., Baryła, J., Doktor, M., Gmur, D.,Gradzinski, M., Kedzior, A., Paszkowski, M.,Soja, R., Zielinski, T. and Zurek, S. 2003:

Vegetation-controlled modern anastomosingsystem of the upper Narew River (NE Poland)and its sediments. Sedimentary Geology 157,253–76.

Graf, W.L., Stromberg, J. and Valentine, B. 2002:Rivers, dams and willow flycatchers: a sum-mary of their science and policy connections.Geomorphology 47, 169–88.

Grams, P.E. and Schmidt, J.C. 2002: Streamflowregulation and multi-level flood plain for-mation: channel narrowing on the aggradingGreen River in the eastern Uinta Mountains,Colorado and Utah. Geomorphology 44, 337–60.

Gregory, K.J. 2002: Urban channel adjustments ina management context: an Australasianexample. Environmental Management 29(5),620–33.

Gregory, K.J. and Chin, A. 2002: Urban streamchannel hazards. Area 34(3), 312–21.

Griffiths, G.A. 2002: Downstream hydraulic geo-metry and hydraulic similitude. WaterResources Research 39(4), 3-1-3-4.

Guccione, M.J., Mueller, K., Champion, J.,Shepherd, S., Carlson, S.D., Odhiambo, B.and Tate, A. 2002: Stream response to repeatedcoseismic folding, Tiptonville dome, NewMadrid seismic zone. Geomorphology 43,313–49.

Gumbricht, T., McCarthy, T.S. and Merry, C.L.2001: The topography of the Okavango Delta,Botswana, and its tectonic and sedimentologi-cal implications. South African Journal ofGeology 104, 243–64.

Gupta, A. 2002: Editorial: large rivers. Geomor-phology 44, 173–74.

Gupta, A. and Cvetkovic, V. 2002: Material trans-port from different sources in a network ofstreams through a catchment. Water ResourcesResearch 38(7), 3-1-3-3.

Gupta, A. and Ping, C. 2002: Sediment movementon steep slopes to the Mekong River: an appli-cation of remote sensing. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms,M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The structure,function and management of fluvial sedimen-tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 399–406.

Gupta, A., Hock, L., Xiaojing, H. and Ping, C.2002: Evaluation of part of the Mekong Riverusing satellite imagery. Geomorphology 44,221–39.

Gurnell, A.M., Piegay, H., Gregory, S.V. andSwanson, F.J. 2002: Large wood and fluvialprocesses. Freshwater Biology 47, 601–19.

Habersack., H.M. and Laronne, J.B. 2002: Evalu-ation and improvement of bed load discharge

E.S.J. Dollar 431

formulas based on Helley-Smith sampling inan alpine gravel bed river. Journal of HydraulicEngineering 128(5), 484–99.

Haga, H., Kumagai, T., Otsuki, K. and Ogawa, S.2002: Transport and retention of coarse woodydebris in mountain streams: an in situ fieldexperiment of log transport and a field surveyof coarse woody debris distribution. WaterResources Research 38(8), 1-1-1-16.

Hairsine, P.B., Beuselinck, L. and Sander, G.C.2002: Sediment transport through an area ofnet deposition. Water Resources Research 38(6),22-1-22-7.

Halwas, K.L. and Church, M. 2002: Channel unitsin small, high gradient streams on VancouverIsland, British Columbia. Geomorphology43(3–4), 243–56.

Hancock, G.S. and Anderson, R.S. 2002: Numeri-cal modelling of fluvial strath-terrace for-mation in response to oscillating climate.Geological Society of America Bulletin 114(9),1131–42.

Haralampides, K., McCorquodale, J.A. andKrishnappen, B.G. 2003: Deposition proper-ties of fine sediment. Journal of Hydraulic Engin-eering 129(3), 230–34.

Harvey, A.M. 2002a: The role of base-level changein the dissection of alluvial fans: case studiesfrom southeast Spain and Nevada. Geomorphol-ogy 45, 67–87.

—— 2002b: Effective timescales of couplingwithin fluvial systems. Geomorphology 44,175–201.

Hassan, M.A. and Klein, M. 2002: Fluvial adjust-ment of the Lower Jordan River to a drop in theDead Sea level. Geomorphology 45, 21–33.

Hayes, S.K., Montgomery, D.R. and Newhall,C.G. 2002: Fluvial sediment transport anddeposition following the eruption of MountPinatubo. Geomorphology 45, 211–24.

He, Q. and Walling, D.E. 2003: Testing distribu-ted soil erosion and sediment delivery modelsusing 137Cs measurements. Hydrological Pro-cesses 17, 901–16.

Heine, K. and Heine, J.T. 2002: A paleohydrologi-cal reinterpretation of the Homeb silts, KuisebRiver, central Namib Desert (Namibia)and paleoclimatic implications. Catena 48,107–30.

Helmio, T. 2002: Unsteady 1D flow model of com-pound channel with vegetated floodplains.Journal of Hydrology 269, 89–99.

Hereford, R. 2002: Valley-fill alluviation duringthe Little Ice Age (ca. A.D. 1400–1880) PariaRiver basin and southern Colorado Plateau,United States. Geological Society of America Bul-letin 114(12), 1550–63.

Heritage, G.L., Broadhurst, L.J. and Birkhead,A.L. 2001: The influence of contemporaryflow regime on the geomorphology of theSabie River, South Africa. Geomorphology 38,197–211.

Heritage, G.L., Large, A.R.G., Moon, B.P. andBirkhead, A.L. 2003: Estimating extremeflood magnitude in bedrock-influenced chan-nels using representative reach-based channelresistance data. Geografiska Annaler 85A(1),1–11.

Heroy, D.C., Kuehl, S.A. and Goodbred Jr, S.L.2003: Mineralogy of the Ganges and Brahma-putra Rivers: implications for river switchingand Late Quaternary climate change. Sedimen-tary Geology 155, 343–59.

Hession, W.C., Pizzuto, J.E., Johnson, T.E. andHorwitz, R.J. 2003: Influence of bankvegetation on channel morphology in ruraland urban watersheds. Geology 31(2),147–50.

Hicks, D.M., Duncan, M.J., Walsh, J.M., West-way, R.M. and Lane, S.N. 2002: New viewsof the morphodynamics of large braided riversfrom high-resolution topographic surveys andtime-lapse video. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C.and Olley, J.M., editors, The structure, functionand management of fluvial sedimentary systems.Wallingford: IAHS Publication No. 276,373–80.

Higgitt, D.L. and Lu, X.X. 2001: Sediment deliv-ery to three gorges: 1. Catchment controls. Geo-morphology 41, 143–56.

Hillman, M. and Brierley, G. 2002: Informationneeds for environmental-flow allocation: acase study from the Lachlan River, NewSouth Wales, Australia. Annals of the Associ-ation of American Geographers 92(4), 617–30.

Hirayama, K., Yamazaki, M. and Shen, H.T. 2002:Aspects of river ice hydrology in Japan. Hydro-logical Processes 16, 891–904.

Hou, B., Frakes, L.A., Alley, N.F. and Clarke,J.D.A. 2003: Characteristics and evolution ofthe Tertiary palaeovalleys in northwest GawlerCraton, South Australia. Australian Journal ofEarth Sciences 50, 215–30.

Huang, H.Q. and Nanson, G.C. 2002: A stabilitycriterion inherent in laws governing alluvialchannel flow. Earth Surface Processes and Land-forms 27, 929–44.

Hudson, H.H. 2002: Linking the physical formand processes of rivers with ecologicalresponse. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. andOlley, J.M., editors, The structure, functionand management of fluvial sedimentary systems.Wallingford: IAHS Publication No. 276,121–39.


Hudson, P.F. 2002: Pool-riffle morphology in anactively migrating alluvial channel: the lowerMississippi River. Physical Geography 23(2),154–69.

Huggett, R.J. 2002: Cranks, conventionalists andgeomorphology. Area 34(2), 182–89.

Hughes, D.A. and Hannart, P. 2003: A desktopmodel used to provide an initial estimate ofthe ecological instream flow requirements ofrivers in South Africa. Journal of Hydrology270, 167–81.

Hughes, F.M.R. and Rood, S.B. 2003: Allocationof river flows for restoration of floodplain for-est ecosystems: a review of approaches andtheir applicability in Europe. EnvironmentalManagement 31(1), 12–33.

Hughes, V. and Thoms, M.C. 2002: Associationsbetween channel morphology and largewoody debris in a lowland river. In Dyer, F.J.,Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The struc-ture, function and management of fluvial sedimen-tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 11–18.

Huisink, M., De Moor, J.J.W., Kasse, C. andVirtanen, T. 2002: Factors influencing perigla-cial fluvial morphology in the northern Euro-pean Russian tundra and Taiga. Earth SurfaceProcesses and Landforms 27, 1223–35.

Hunziker, R.P. and Jaeggi, M.N.R. 2002: Grainsorting processes. Journal of Hydraulic Engineer-ing 128(12), 1060–68.

Hygelund, B. and Manga, M. 2003: Fieldmeasurements of drag coefficients for modellarge woody debris. Geomorphology 51, 175–85.

Inbar, M. 2002: A geomorphic and environmentalevaluation of the Hula drainage project, Israel.Australian Geographical Studies 40(2), 155–66.

Islam, M.M., Hassan, K.I. and Tjerry, S. 2002:Simulation of hydro-morphological processesfor the prediction of the effect of dredging. InBousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow2002. Proceedings of the international confer-ence on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 851–58.

Jackson, C.R. and Sturm, C.A. 2002: Woody deb-ris and channel morphology in first- andsecond-order forested channels in Washing-ton’s coast ranges. Water Resources Research38(9), 16-1-16–14.

James, C.S., Jordanova, A.A. and Nicolson, C.R.2002: Flume experiments and modelling offlow – sediment – vegetation interactions. InDyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors,The structure, function and management of fluvial

sedimentary systems. Wallingford: IAHS Publi-cation No. 276, 3–9.

Jarvela, J. 2002a: Determination of flow resistanceof vegetated channel banks and floodplains.In Bousmar,D. and Zech, Y., editors, Riverflow 2002. Proceedings of the internationalconference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1, 311–18

—— 2002b: Flow resistance of flexible and stiffvegetation: a flume study with natural plants.Journal of Hydrology 269, 44–54.

Jeffries, R., Darby, S.E. and Sear, D.A. 2003: Theinfluences of vegetation and organic debris offlood-plain sediment dynamics: case studyof a low-order stream in the New Forest,England. Geomorphology 51, 61–80.

Jenns, N., Heppell, C.M., Burt, T.P., Walden, J.and Foster, I.D.L. 2002: Investigating contem-porary and historical sediment inputs to Slap-ton Higher Ley: an analysis of the robustnessof source ascription methods when appliedto lake sediment data. Hydrological Processes16, 3467–86.

Jensen, M.E., Goodman, I.A., Bourgeron, P.S.,Poff, N.L. and Brewer, C.K. 2001: Effectivenessof biophysical criteria in the hierarchical classi-fication of drainage basins. Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association 37(5),1155–67.

Jiongxin, X. 2002: Sediment flux into the sea asinfluenced by different source areas in thedrainage basin: example of the Yellow River,China. Hydrological Sciences Journal 47(2),187–202.

—— 2003a: Growth of the Yellow River deltaover the past 800 years, as influenced byhuman activities. Geografiska Annaler 85A(1),21–30.

—— 2003b: Sediment flux to the sea as influencedby changing human activities and precipi-tation: an example of the Yellow River, China.Environmental Management 31(3), 328–41.

Johnson, R.M. and Warburton, J. 2002a: Floodingand geomorphic impacts in a mountain tor-rent: Raise Beck, Central Lake District,England. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms27, 945–69.

—— 2002b: Annual sediment budget of a UKmountain torrent. Geografiska Annaler 84A(2),73–89.

Jones, J.A.A. and Woo, M.-K. 2002: Modellingthe impact of climate change on hydro-logical regimes. Hydrological Processes 16,1135–45.

Jones, S.J. and Frostick, L.E., editors 2002: Sedi-ment flux to basins: causes, controls and conse-

E.S.J. Dollar 433

quences. London: Geological Society, SpecialPublications 191.

Jonker, V., Rooseboom, A. and Gorgens, A.H.M.2002: Environmentally significant morphologicaland hydraulic characteristics of cobble andboulder bed rivers in the Western Cape. WaterResearch Commission Report No. 979/1/01,Pretoria: Water Research Commission,238 pp.

Jordanova, A.A. and James, C.S. 2003: Exper-imental study of bed load transport throughemergent vegetation. Journal of HydraulicEngineering 129(6), 474–78.

Jordanova, A.A., James, C.S. and Birkhead, A.L.2002: The role of hydraulics in holisticinstream flow requirement assessment. InBousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow2002. Proceedings of the internationalconference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002.Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1, 515–19.

Julien, P.Y., Klaassen, G.J., Ten Brinke, W.B.M.and Wilbers, A.W.E. 2002: Case study: bedresistance of Rhines River during 1998 flood.Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 128(12),1042–50.

Kail, J. 2003: Influence of large woody debris onthe morphology of six central Europeanstreams. Geomorphology 51, 207–23.

Kassem, A.A. and Chaudhry, M.H. 2002:Numerical modelling of bed evolution in chan-nel bends. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering128(5), 507–14.

Katul, G., Wiberg, P., Albertson, J. and Hornber-ger, G. 2002: A mixing layer theory for flowresistance in shallow streams. Water ResourcesResearch 38(11), 32-1-32-8.

Keefer, D.K., Moseley, M.E. and deFrance, S.D.2003: A 38 000-year record of floods and debrisflows in the Ilo region of southern Peru and itsrelation to El Nino events and great earth-quakes. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology 194, 41–77.

Keesstra, S.D. 2002: Channel and flood plainresponse to reforestation in the Dragonjabasin, southwestern Slovenia: linkingpast and present. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C.and Olley, J.M., editors, The structure, functionand management of fluvial sedimentary systems.Wallingford: IAHS Publication No. 276,185–94.

Khan, N.I. and Islam, A. 2003: Quantification oferosion patterns in the Brahmaputra-JamunaRiver using geographical information systemand remote sensing techniques. HydrologicalProcesses 17, 959–66.

Kjeldsen, T.R., Smithers, J.C. and Schulze, R.E.2002: Regional flood frequency analysis in theKwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa, usingthe index-flood method. Journal of Hydrology255, 194–211.

Kleinhans, M.G. and van Rijn, L.C. 2002: Sto-chastic prediction of sediment transport ingravel-bed rivers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineer-ing 128(4), 412–25.

Kleinhans, M.G., Wilbers, A.W.E., De Swaaf, A.and van den Berg, J.H. 2002: Sedimentsupply-limited bedforms in sand-gravel bedrivers. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72(5),629–40.

Klimek, K. 2002: Human-induced overbank sedi-mentation in the foreland of the eastern Sudetymountains. Earth Surface Processes and Land-forms 27, 391–402.

Knighton, A.D. and Nanson, G.C. 2002: Inbankand overbank velocity conditions on an aridzone anastomosing river. Hydrological Processes16, 1771–91.

Knuepfer, P.L.K. and Petersen, J.F. 2002: Intro-duction: geomorphology in the public eye: pol-icy issues, education, and the public.Geomorphology 47, 95–105.

Kondolf, G.M. and Piegay. H., editors 2003: Toolsin fluvial geomorphology. Chichester: John Wileyand Sons, 696 pp.

Kondolf, G.M., Piegay, H. and Landon, N. 2002:Channel response to increased and decreasedbedload supply from land use changes: con-trasts between two catchments. Geomorphology45, 35–51.

Konrad, C.P., Booth, D.B., Burges, S.J. and Mon-tgomery, D.R. 2002: Partial entrainment ofgravel bars during floods. Water ResourcesResearch 38(7), 9-1-9-13.

Kostic, S., Parker, G. and Marr, J.G. 2002: Role ofturbidity currents in setting the foreset slope ofclinoforms prograding into standing freshwater. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72(3),353–62.

Kothyari, U.C., Jain, M.K. and Ranga Raju, K.G.2002: Estimation of temporal variation of sedi-ment yield using a GIS. Hydrological SciencesJournal 47(5), 693–706.

Kraft, C.E. and Warren, D.R. 2003: Development ofspatial pattern in large woody debris and debrisdams in streams. Geomorphology 51, 127–139.

Kraft, C.E., Schneider, R.L. and Warren,D.R. 2002: Ice storm impacts on woodydebris and debris dam formation innortheastern US streams. Canadian Journalof Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54, 1677–84.

Kraus, M.J. 2002: Basin-scale changes in flood-plain paleosols: implications for interpreting


alluvial architecture. Journal of SedimentaryResearch 72(4), 500–509.

Kukulak, J. 2003: Impact of mediaeval agricultureon the alluvium in the San River headwaters(Polish Eastern Carpathians). Catena 51,255–66.

Kumar, R., Ghosh, S.K., Mazari, R.K. and San-gode, S.J. 2003: Tectonic impact on the fluvialdeposits of the Plio-Pleistocene Himalayanforeland basin, India. Sedimentary Geology 158,209–34.

Kundzewicz, Z.W. 2002: Ecohydrology – seekingconsensus on interpretation of the notion.Hydrological Sciences Journal 47(5), 799–807.

Kurabayashi, H., Shimizu, Y. and Hoshi, K. 2002:Numerical analysis on bed configuration inbraided stream with emerged mid-channelbars. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2,803–808.

Kurashige, Y. 2002: Topographical change andsediment transport after habitat improvementin the Pankenai River, Japan. In Dyer, F.J.,Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The struc-ture, function and management of fluvial sedimen-tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 93–101.

Lach, J. and Wyzga, B. 2002: Channel incision andflow increase of the Upper WisŁoka River,southern Poland, subsequent to the reaffores-tation of its catchment. Earth Surface Processesand Landforms 27, 445–62.

Ladson, A. and Finlayson, B. 2002: Rhetoric andreality in the allocation of water to the environ-ment: a case study of the Goulburn River,Victoria, Australia. Rivers Research and Appli-cations 18(6), 555–68.

Lancaster, S.T. and Bras, R.L. 2002: A simplemodel of river meandering and its comparisonto natural channels. Hydrological Processes 16,1–26.

Landwehr, K. and Rhoads, B.L. 2003: Deposi-tional response of a headwater stream to chan-nelization, east central Illinois, USA. RiversResearch and Applications 19(1), 77–100.

Lane, S.N. and Chandler, J.H. 2003: Editorial: thegeneration of high quality topographic datafor hydrology and geomorphology: new datasources, new applications and new problems.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 28, 229–30.

Lane, S.N., Chandler, J.H. and Porfiri, K. 2001:Monitoring river channel and flume surfaces

with digital photogrammetry. Journal ofHydraulic Engineering 127(10), 871–77.

Lane, S.N., Hardy, R.J., Elliott, L. and Ingham,D.B. 2002: High-resolution numerical model-ling on three-dimensional flows over complexriver bed topography. Hydrological Processes 16,2261–72.

Lane, S.N., Westaway, R.M. and Hicks, D.M.2003: Estimation of erosion and depositionvolumes in a large, gravel-bed, braided riverusing synoptic remote sensing. Earth SurfaceProcesses and Landforms 28, 249–71.

Langendoen, E.J., Thomas, R.E. and Bingner,R.L. 2002: Numerical simulation of the mor-phology of the Upper Yalobusha River, Missis-sippi between 1968 and 1997. In Bousmar,D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Pro-ceedings of the international conference on flu-vial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium,4 – 6 September 2002. Lisse: A.A. BalkemaPublishers, 2, 931–39.

Larsen, E.W. and Greco, S.E. 2002: Modelingchannel management impacts on river mig-ration: a case study of Woodson Bridge Staterecreation area, Sacramento River, California,USA. Environmental Management 30(2), 209–24.

Larue, J.P. 2002: Small valley bottom deposits inthe sandy districts of the Sarthe basin (France):climate and/or human origin? Geomorphology45, 309–23.

Latrubesse, E.M. 2002: Evidence of Quaternarypalaeohydrological changes in the middleAmazonia: The Aripuana-Roosevelt and Jipar-ana “fans”. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie N.F.129, 61–72.

Latrubesse, E.M. and Franzinelli, E. 2002: TheHolocene alluvial plain of the middle AmazonRiver, Brazil. Geomorphology 44, 241–57.

Latrubesse, E.M. and Kalicki, T. 2002: Late Qua-ternary palaeohydrological changes in theupper Purus basin, southwestern Amazonia,Brazil. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie N.F. 129,41–59.

Latrubesse, E.M. and Stevaux, J.C. 2002: Geomor-phology and environmental aspects of the Ara-guaia fluvial basin, Brazil. Zeitschrift furGeomorphologie N.F. 129, 109–27.

Lauriol, B., Duguay, C.R. and Reil, A. 2002:Response of the Porcupine and Old Crow Riv-ers in northern Yukon, Canada, to Holoceneclimate change. The Holocene 12(1), 27–34.

Leclair, S.F. and Bridge, J.S. 2001: Quantitativeinterpretation of sedimentary structuresformed by river dunes. Journal of SedimentaryResearch 71(5), 713–16.

Leclerc, M. 2002: Ecohydraulics, last frontier forfluvial hydraulics: research challenges and

E.S.J. Dollar 435

multidisciplinary perspectives. In Bousmar, D.and Zech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceed-ings of the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 1, 13–25.

Lee, A.J. and Ferguson, R.I. 2002: Velocity andflow resistance in step-pool streams. Geomor-phology 46, 59–71.

Lee, H-Y., You, J-Y. and Lin, Y-T. 2002: Continu-ous saltating process of multiple sediment par-ticles. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 128(4),443–50.

Lehane, B.M., Giller, P.S., O’Halloran, J., Smith,C. and Murphy, J. 2002: Experimental pro-vision of large woody debris in streams as atrout management technique. Aquatic Conser-vation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12(3),289–311.

Lenzi, M.A. 2002: Stream bed stabilization usingboulder check dams that maintain step-poolmorphology features in Northern Italy. Geo-morphology 45, 243–60.

Le Roux, J.P. 2001: Estimation of channel sinuos-ity from paleocurrent data: a method usingfractal geometry – discussion. Journal of Sedi-mentary Research 71(6), 1029–30.

—— 2002: Shape entropy and settling velocity ofnatural grains. Journal of Sedimentary Research72(3), 363–66.

Lewin, J. and Brewer, P.A. 2001: Predicting chan-nel patterns. Geomorphology 40, 329–39.

Lewis, C.A. 2002: Radiocarbon dates and the LateQuaternary palaeogeography of the Provinceof the Eastern Cape, South Africa. QuaternaryInternational 89, 59–69.

Liebault, F. and Piegay, H. 2002: Causes of 20thcentury channel narrowing in mountain andpiedmont rivers of southeastern France. EarthSurface Processes and Landforms 27, 425–44.

Liebault, F., Clement, P., Piegay, H., Rogers, C.F.,Kondolf, G.M. and Landon, N. 2002: Contem-porary channel changes in the Eygues basin,southern French Prealps: the relationship ofsubbasin variability to watershed character-istics. Geomorphology 45, 53–66.

Lindsay, J.B. and Ashmore, P.E. 2002: The effectsof survey frequency on estimates of scour andfill in a braided river model. Earth Surface Pro-cesses and Landforms 27, 27–43.

Link, O., Cecioni, A., Duyvestein, A. and Vargas,J. 2002: Hydrology of the Bio Bio River.Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie N.F. 129, 31–39.

Lisle, T.E. and Church, M. 2002: Sediment trans-port–storage relations for degrading, gravelbed channels. Water Resources Research 38(11),1-1-1-14.

Liu, K.W. 2002: Deep-burial diagenesis of the sili-ciclastic Ordovician Natal Group, SouthAfrica. Sedimentary Geology 154, 177–89.

Logan, P. and Furse, M. 2002: Preparing for theEuropean Water Framework Directive –making links between habitat and aquaticbiota. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Fresh-water Ecosystems 12(4), 425–37.

Loncke, L., Gaullier, V., Bellaiche, G. andMascle, J. 2002: Recent depositional patternsof the Nile deep-sea fan from echo-charactermapping. The American Association of PetroleumGeologists 86(7), 1165–86.

Lorenz, J.C. and Nadon, G.C. 2002: Braided-riverdeposits in a muddy depositional setting: theMolina member of the Wasatch formation(Paleogene), West-Central Colorado, U.S.A.Journal of Sedimentary Research 72(3), 376–85.

Lowey, G.W. 2002: Sedimentary processes of theKusawa Lake torrent system, Yukon, Canada,as revealed by the September 16, 1982 event.Sedimentary Geology 151, 293–312.

Lu, X.X. and Higgitt, D.L. 2001: Sediment deliv-ery to the Three Gorges 2: local response. Geo-morphology 41, 157–69.

Lusk, S., Halaoka, K. and Luskova, V. 2003:Rehabilitating the floodplain of the lowerRiver Dyje for fish. Rivers Research and Appli-cations 19(3), 281–88.

Ma, L., Ashworth, P.J., Best, J.L., Elliot, L.,Ingham, D.B. and Whitcombe, L.J. 2002: Com-putational fluid dynamics and the physicalmodelling of an upland urban river. Geomor-phology 44, 375–91.

Maas, G.S. and Macklin, M.G. 2002: The impactof recent climate change on flooding and sedi-ment supply within a Mediterranean moun-tain catchment, southwestern Crete, Greece.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27,1087–105.

Macaire, J-J., Bellemlih, S., Di-Giovanni, C., DeLuca, P., Visset, L. and Bernard, J. 2002: Sedi-ment yield and storage variations in theNegron River catchment (South Western Pari-sian Basin, France) during the Holoceneperiod. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms27, 991–1009.

Magilligan, F.J., Gomez, B., Mertes, L.A.K.,Smith, L.C., Smith, N.D., Finnegan, D. andGarvin, J.B. 2002: Geomorphic effectiveness,sandur development, and the pattern of land-scape response during jokulhlaups: Skeioarar-sandur, southeastern Iceland. Geomorphology44, 95–113.

Magny, M. 2001: Palaeohydrological changesas reflected by lake-level fluctuations in


the Swiss Plateau, the Jura Mountiansand the northern French Pre-Alps during theLast Glacial–Holocene transition: a regionalsynthesis. Global and Planetary Change 30,85–101.

Magny, M., Miramont, C. and Sivan, O. 2002:Assessment of the impact of climate andanthropogenic factors on Holocene Mediterra-nean vegetation in Europe on the basis ofpalaeohydrological records. Palaeogeography,Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 186, 47–59.

Maingi, J.K. and Marsh, S.E. 2002: Quantifyinghydrological impacts following dam construc-tion along the Tana River, Kenya. Journal ofArid Environments 50(1), 53–79.

Makaske, B., Smith, D.G. and Berendsen, H.J.A.2002: Avulsions, channel evolution and flood-plain sedimentation rates of the anastomosingupper Columbia River, British Columbia,Canada. Sedimentology 49(5), 1049–72.

Malmaeus, J.K. and Hassan, M.A. 2002: Simu-lation of individual particle movement in agravel streambed. Earth Surface Processes andLandforms 27, 81–97.

Manville, V. 2002: Sedimentary and geomorphicresponses to ignimbrite emplacement: read-justment of the Waikato River after the A.D.181 Taupo Eruption, New Zealand. The Journalof Geology 110, 519–41.

Manville, V. and White, J.D.L. 2003: Incipientgranular mass flows at the base of sediment-laden floods, and the roles of flow competenceand flow capacity in the deposition of strati-fied bouldery sands. Sedimentary Geology 155,157–73.

Marani, M., Eltahir, E. and Rinaldo, A. 2001: Geo-morphic controls on regional base flow. WaterResources Research 37(10), 2619–30.

Marchetti, M. 2002: Environmental changes in thecentral Po Plain (northern Italy) due to fluvialmodifications and anthropogenic activities.Geomorphology 44, 361–73.

Marcus, W.A., Marston, R.A., Colvard, C.R. andGray, R.D. 2002:Mapping the spatial and tem-poral distributions of woody debris in streamsof the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, USA.Geomorphology 44, 323–35.

Marren, P.M., Russell, A.J. and Knudsen, O.2002: Discharge magnitude and frequencyas a control on proglacial fluvial sedimentarysystems. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. andOlley, J.M., editors, The structure, functionand management of fluvial sedimentary systems.Wallingford: IAHS Publication No. 276,297–303.

Marti, C. 2002: Morphodynamics of widenings insteep rivers. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., edi-

tors, River flow 2002, Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2,865–73.

Martin, Y. 2003: Evaluation of bed load transportformulae using field evidence from the VedderRiver, British Columbia. Geomorphology 53,75–95.

Mason, D.C., Cobby, D.M., Horritt, M.S. andBates, P.D. 2003: Floodplain friction parame-terization in two-dimensional river floodmodels using vegetation heights derivedfrom airborne scanning laser altimetry. Hydro-logical Processes 17, 1711–32.

Maurice-Bourgoin, L, Aalto, R. and Guyot, J.L.2002: Sediment-associated mercury distri-bution within a major Amazon tributary: cen-tury-scale contamination history andimportance of floodplain accumulation. InDyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors,The structure, function and management of fluvialsedimentary systems. Wallingford: IAHS Publi-cation No. 276, 161–68.

Mayer, L., Menichetti, M., Nesci, O. and Savelli,D. 2003: Morphotectonic approach to the drai-nage analysis in the North Marche region, cen-tral Italy. Quaternary International 101 – 102,157–67.

McGinness, H.M., Thoms, M.C. and Southwell,M.R. 2002: Connectivity and fragmentation offlood plain river exchanges in a semiarid, ana-branching river system. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms,M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The structure,function and management of fluvial sedimentarysystems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 19–26.

McIntosh, M.D., Benbow, M.E. and Burky, A.J.2002: Effects of stream diversion on rifflemacroinvertebrate communities in a Maui,Hawaii stream. Rivers Research and Applications18(6), 569–81.

McKee, L.J., Hossain, S. and Eyre, B.D. 2002:Magnitude–frequency analysis of suspendedsediment loads in the subtropical RichmondRiver basin, northern New South Wales,Australia. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. andOlley, J.M., editors, The structure, functionand management of fluvial sedimentary systems.Wallingford: IAHS Publication No. 276,289–96.

McKergow, L.A., Weaver, D.M., Prosser, I.P.,Grayson, R.B. and Reed, A.E.G. 2003: Beforeand after riparian management: sedimentand nutrient exports from a small agriculturalcatchment, Western Australia. Journal ofHydrology 270, 253–72.

E.S.J. Dollar 437

Meadows, M.E. and Hoffman, M.T. 2002: Thenature, extent and causes of land degradationin South Africa: legacy of the past, lessons forthe future? Area 34(4), 428–37.

Meisina, C. and Piccio, A. 2003: River dynamicsand slope processes along a sector of the Villal-vernia–Varzi Line (Northern Italy). QuaternaryInternational 101–102, 179–90.

Merritt, D.M. and Wohl, E.E. 2003: Downstreamhydraulic geometry and channel adjustmentduring a flood along an ephemeral, arid-regiondrainage. Geomorphology 52, 165–80.

Metivier, F. and Meunier, P. 2003: Input and out-put mass flux correlations in an experimentalbraided stream. Journal of Hydrology 271,22–38.

Meyer, G.A. 2001: Recent large-magnitude floodsand their impact on valley-floor environmentsof northeastern Yellowstone. Geomorphology 40,271–90.

Miall, A.D. 2002: Architecture and sequence stra-tigraphy of Pleistocene fluvial systems in theMalay Basin, based on seismic time-sliceanalysis. The American Association of PetroleumGeologists 86(7), 1201–16.

Michaelides, K. and Wainwright, J. 2002: Model-ling the effects of hillslope–channel couplingon catchment hydrological response. EarthSurface Processes and Landforms 27, 1441–57.

Micheli, E.R. and Kirchner, J.W. 2002a: Effects ofwet meadow riparian vegetation on stream-bank erosion. 1. Remote sensing measure-ments of streambank migration anderodibility Earth Surface Processes and Landforms27, 627–39.

—— 2002b: Effects of wet meadow riparian veg-etation on streambank erosion. 2. Measure-ments of vegetated bank strength andconsequences for failure mechanics. Earth Sur-face Processes and Landforms 27, 687–97.

Middelkoop, H. 2002: Reconstructing floodplainsedimentation rates from heavy metal profilesby inverse modelling. Hydrological Processes 16,47–64.

Middelkoop, H., Thonon, I. and van der Perk,M. 2002: Effective discharge for heavy metaldeposition on the lower River Rhine floodplains. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley,J.M., editors, The structure, function and manage-ment of fluvial sedimentary systems. Wallingford:IAHS Publication No. 276, 151–59.

Milan, D.J., Heritage, G.L. and Large, A.R.G.2002: Tracer pebble entrainment anddeposition loci: influence of flow characterand implications for riffle-pool maintenance.In Jones, S.L. and Frostick, L.E., editors,Sediment flux to basins: causes, controls and conse-

quences. London: Geological Society, SpecialPublications 191, 133–48.

Milana, J.P. and Tietze, K-W. 2002: Three-dimen-sional analogue modelling of an alluvial basinmargin affected by hydrological cycles: pro-cesses and resulting depositional sequences.Basin Research 14, 237–64.

Milburn, D. and Prowse, T.D. 2002: Under-icemovement of cohesive sediments beforeriver-ice breakup. Hydrological Processes 16,823–34.

Moir, H.J., Soulsby, C. and Youngson, A.F. 2002:Hydraulic and sedimentary controls on theavailability and use of Atlantic salmon (Salmosalar) spawning habitat in the River Dee sys-tem, north-east Scotland. Geomorphology 45,291–308.

Molnar, P. and Ramirez, J.A. 2002: On down-stream hydraulic geometry and optimal energyexpenditure: case study of the Ashley andTaieri Rivers. Journal of Hydrology 259, 105–15.

Monteith, H.L. and Pender, G. 2002: The responseof graded sediment beds to flow abstraction. InBousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow2002, Proceedings of the international confer-ence on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1, 699–702.

Montgomery, D.R. 1999: Process domains and theriver continuum. Journal of the American WaterResources Association 35(2), 397–410.

Montgomery, D.R. and Piegay, H. 2003: Editorial:wood in rivers: interactions with channelmorphology and processes. Geomorphology 51,1–5.

Montgomery, D.R., Greenberg, H.M. and Smith,D.T. 2003a: Streamflow response to the Nisqu-ally earthquake. Earth and Planetary ScienceLetters 115(1–2), 19–28.

Montgomery, D.R., Massong, T.M. and Hawley,S.C.S. 2003b: Influence of debris flows andlog jams on the location of pools and alluvialchannel reaches, Oregon Coast Range. Geologi-cal Society of America Bulletin 115(1), 78–88.

Moody, J.A. and Troutman, B.M. 2002: Character-ization of the spatial variability of channelmorphology. Earth Surface Processes and Land-forms 27, 1251–66.

Moore, A. and Blenkinsop, T. 2002: The role ofmantle plumes in the development of conti-nental-scale drainage basins: the southernAfrican example revisited. South African Jour-nal of Geology 105, 353–60.

Moore, A.E. and Larkin, P.A. 2001: Drainage evol-ution in south-central Africa since the breakupof Gondwana. South African Journal of Geology104, 47–68.


Moreton, D.J., Ashworth, P.J. and Best, J.L. 2002:The physical scale modelling of braided allu-vial architecture and estimation of subsurfacepermeability. Basin Research 14, 265–85.

Morozova, G.S. and Smith, N.D. 2003: Organicmatter deposition in the Saskatchewan Riverfloodplain (Cumberland Marshes, Canada):effects of progradational avulsions. Sedimen-tary Geology 157, 15–29.

Mosselman, E. and Sloff, K. 2002: Effect oflocal scour holes on macroscale rivermorphology. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., edi-tors, River flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2,767–72.

Mount, J.F., Florsheim, J.L. and Trowbridge,W.B. 2002: Restoration of dynamic floodplain topography and riparian vegetationestablishment through engineered leveebreaching. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. andOlley, J.M., editors, The structure, functionand management of fluvial sedimentary systems.Wallingford: IAHS Publication No. 276,85–91.

Muller, G., Bruce, T. and Kauppert, K. 2002: Par-ticle image velocimetry: a simple technique forcomplex surface flows. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedingsof the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 2, 1227–32.

Murray, A.B. and Paola, C. 2003: Modelling theeffect of vegetation on channel pattern in bed-load rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Land-forms 28, 131–43.

Nagy, H.M., Watanabe, K. and Hirano, M. 2002:Prediction of sediment load concentrationin rivers using artificial neural networkmodel. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 128(6),588–95.

Naiman, R.J., Bunn, S.E., Nilsson, C., Petts, G.E.,Pinay, G. and Thompson, L.C. 2002: Legiti-mizing fluvial ecosystems as users of water:an overview. Environmental Management 30(4)455–67.

Nanson, G.C. and Croke, J.C. 2002: Emergingissues in flood plain research. In Dyer, F.J.,Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The struc-ture, function and management of fluvial sedimen-tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 271–78.

Nanson, G.C., Tooth, S. and Knighton, A.D.2002: A global perspective on dryland rivers:

perceptions, misconceptions and distinctions.In Bull, L.J. and Kirkby, M.J., editors, Drylandrivers: hydrology and geomorphology of semi-aridchannels. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons,17–54.

Nash, D.J. and Smith, R.F. 2003: Properties anddevelopment of channel calcretes in a moun-tain catchment, Tabernas Basin, southeastSpain. Geomorphology 50, 227–50.

Navratil, O., Albert, M.B. and Breil, P. 2002:Water level time-series analysis for bank-fullflow studies in rivers. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedingsof the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 2, 1167–75.

Naylor, L.A., Viles, H.A. and Carter, N.E.A. 2002:Biogeomorphology revisited: looking towardsthe future. Geomorphology 47, 3–14.

Neary, V.S., Wright, S.A. and Bereciartua, P.2001: Case study: sediment transport inproposed geomorphic channel for NapaRiver. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 127(11),901–10.

Nelson, E.J. and Booth, D.B. 2002: Sedimentsources in an urbanizing, mixed land-usewatershed. Journal of Hydrology 264, 51–68.

Newson, M.D. 2002: Geomorphological conceptsand tools for sustainable river ecosystem man-agement. Aquatic Conservation: Marine & Fresh-water Ecosystems 12(4), 365–81.

Newson, M.D., Pitlick, J. and Sear, D.A. 2002:Running water: fluvial geomorphology andriver restoration. In Peerow, M.R. and Davy,A.J., editors, Handbook of ecological restoration.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,133–53.

Nicholas, A.P. and Mitchell, C.A. 2003: Numeri-cal simulation of overbank processes in topo-graphically complex floodplain sediments.Hydrological Processes 17, 727–46.

Nichols, K.K., Bierman, P.R., Hooke, R. LeB.,Clapp, E.M. and Caffee, M. 2002: Quan-tifying sediment transport on desert pied-monts using 10Be and 26Al. Geomorphology 45,105–25.

Nicklow, J.W., Ozkurt, O. and Bringer Jr, J.A.2003: Control of channel bed morphology ina large-scale river networks using a geneticalgorithm. Water Resources Management 17,113–32.

Nikora, V., Habersack, H., Huber, T. andMcEwan, I. 2002: On bed particle diffusionin gravel bed flows under weak bed loadtransport. Water Resources Research 38(6),17-1-17-9.

E.S.J. Dollar 439

Nino, Y. 2002: Simple model for downstream vari-ation of median sediment size for Chilean Riv-ers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 128(10),934–41.

Nino, Y., Atala, A., Barahona, M. and Aracena, D.2002: Discrete particle model for analysingbedform development. Journal of HydraulicEngineering 128(4), 381–89.

Nino, Y., Lopez, F. and Cearcia, M. 2003:Threshold for particle entrainment into sus-pension. Sedimentology 50(2), 247–64.

Noon, P.E., Leng, M.J. and Jones, V.J. 2003: Oxy-gen isotope (d18O) evidence of Holocenehydrological changes at Signy Island, maritimeAntarctica. The Holocene 13(2), 251–63.

Nott, J., Price, D. and Nanson, G. 2002: Streamresponse to Quaternary climate change: evi-dence form the Shoahowen River catchment,southeastern Highlands, temperate Australia.Quaternary Science Reviews 21(8), 965–74.

Novak, B. and Bjorck, S. 2002: Late Pleistocene–early Holocene fluvial facies and depositionalprocesses in the Fehmarn Belt, betweenGermany and Denmark, revealed by high-res-olution seismic and lithofacies analysis. Sedi-mentology 49(3), 451–66.

Nuttle, W.K. 2002: Is ecohydrology one idea ormany? Hydrological Sciences Journal 47(5),805–808.

O’Connor, J.E., Jones, M.A. and Haluska, T.L.2003: Flood plain and channel dynamics ofthe Quinault and Queets Rivers, Washington,USA. Geomorphology 51, 31–59.

Odeh, M. 2003: Discharge rating equation andhydraulic characteristics of Standard Denilfishways. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering129(5), 341–48.

Ogawa, T. and Watanabe, Y. 2002: Experimentalstudy on bed load transportation of large-sizematerial. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of theinternational conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1,579–85

Olden, J.D. and Poff, N.L. 2003: Redundancy andthe choice of hydrological indices for charac-terizing streamflow regimes. Rivers Researchand Applications 19(2), 101–21.

Olesen, K.W. and Tjerry, S. 2002: Morphologicalmodelling of the Chaktomuk Junction. InBousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow2002. Proceedings of the international confer-ence on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 879–87.

Olsen, N.R.B. 2003: Three-dimensional CFDmodelling of self-forming meandering chan-nel. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(5),366–72.

Ono, Y. 2002: Landform conservation and floodcontrol: the issue of the Chitose diversionchannel project in Hokkaido, Japan. AustralianGeographical Studies 40(2), 143–54.

Orfeo, O. and Stevaux, J. 2002: Hydraulic andmorphological characteristics of middle andupper reaches of the Parana River (Argentinaand Brazil). Geomorphology 44, 309–22.

Osterkamp, W. 2002: Geoindicators for river andriver-valley monitoring in the humid tropics.Environmental Geology 42(7), 725–35.

O’Sullivan, P.E., Moyeed, R., Cooper, M.C.and Nicholson, M.J. 2002: Comparisonbetween instrumental, observational andhigh resolution proxy sedimentary records ofLate Holocene climatic change – a discussionof possibilities. Quaternary International 88,27–44.

Owens, P.N. and Walling, D.E. 2002: Changesin sediment sources and floodplain depo-sition rates in the catchment of the RiverTweed, Scotland, over the last 100 years:the impact of climate and land use change.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27,403–23.

Page, K.J., Nanson, G.C. and Frazier, P.S. 2003:Floodplain formation and sediment stratigra-phy resulting from oblique accretion on theMurrumbidgee River, Australia. Journal of Sedi-mentary Research 73(1), 5–14.

Paine, J.L., Rowan, J.S. and Werritty, A. 2002:Reconstructing historic floods using sedimentsfrom embanked floodplains: a case study ofthe river Tay in Scotland. In Dyer, F.J.,Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The struc-ture, function and management of fluvial sedimen-tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 211–18.

Panin, A.V., Walling, D.E. and Golosov, V.N.2001: The role of soil erosion and fluvial pro-cesses in the post-fallout redistribution ofChernobyl-derived caesium-137: a case studyof the Lapki catchment, Central Russia. Geo-morphology 40, 185–204.

Papanicolaou, A.N., Diplas, P., Evaggelopoulos,N. and Fotopoulos, S. 2001: Stochastic incipi-ent motion criterion for spheres under variousbed packing conditions. Journal of HydraulicEngineering 128(4), 369–80.

Papanicolaou, A.N., Strom, K., Schuyler, A. andTalebbetdokhti, N. 2003: The role of sedimentspecific gravity and availability on cluster


evolution. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms28, 69–86.

Paphitis, D., Collins, M.B., Nash, L.A. andWallbridge, S. 2002: Setting velocities andentrainment thresholds of biogenic sands(shell fragments) under unidirectional flow.Sedimentology 49(1), 211–30.

Parkinson, A., MacNally, R. and Quinn, G.P.2002: Differential macrohabitat use by birdson the unregulated Ovens River floodplain ofsoutheastern Australia. Rivers Research andApplications 18(5), 495–506.

Parsons, H. and Gilvear, D. 2002: Valley floorlandscape change following almost 100 yearsof flood embankment abandonment on a wan-dering gravel-bed river. Rivers Research andApplications 18(5), 461–79.

Pearce, J.T., Pazzaglia, F.J., Evenson, E.B.,Lawson, D.E., Alley, R.B., Germanoski, D.and Denner, J.D. 2003: Bedload componentof glacially discharged sediment: insightsfrom the Matanuska Glacier, Alaska. Geology31(1), 7–10.

Pedroli, B., de Blust, G., van Looy, K. and vanRooij, S. 2002: Setting targets in strategies inriver restoration. Landscape Ecology 17(1), 5–18.

Peel, M.C., McMahon, T.A., Finlayson, B.L. andWatson, F.G.R. 2002: Implications of therelationship between catchment vegetationtype and the variability of annual runoff.Hydrological Processes 16, 2995–3002.

Pekarova, P., Miklanek, P. and Pekar, J. 2003:Spatial and temporal runoff oscillation analy-sis of the main rivers of the world during the19th–20th centuries. Journal of Hydrology 274,62–79.

Pena, E., Fe, J., Puertas, J. and Sanchez-Tem-bleque, F. 2002: A 2D numerical modelusing finite volume method for sedimenttransport in rivers. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceed-ings of the international conference on flu-vial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium,4–6 September 2002. Lisse: A.A. BalkemaPublishers, 1, 693–98.

Perona, P., Porporato, A. and Ridolfi, L. 2002:River dynamics after cutoff: a discussion ofdifferent approaches. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedingsof the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 2, 715–21.

Pess, G.R., Montgomery, D.R., Steel, E.A., Bilby,R.E., Feist, B.E. and Greenberg, H.M. 2002:Landscape characteristics, land use, and cohosalmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) abundance,

Snohomish River, Washington, U.S.A. Cana-dian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science59, 613–23.

Phillips, J.D. 2002: Geomorphic impacts of flashflooding in a forested headwater basin. Journalof Hydrology 269, 236–50.

—— 2003a: Sources of nonlinearity and complex-ity in geomorphic systems. Progress in PhysicalGeography 27(1), 1–23.

—— 2003b: Toledo Bend Reservoir and geo-morphic response in the lower Sabine River.Rivers Research and Applications 19(2), 137–59.

Phippen, S.J. and Wohl, E.E. 2003: An assessmentof land use and other factors affecting sedi-ment loads in the Rio Puerco watershed,New Mexico. Geomorphology 52, 269–87.

Pisut, P. 2002: Channel evolution of the pre-chan-nelized Danube River in Bratislava, Slovakia(1712–1886). Earth Surface Processes and Land-forms 27, 369–90.

Pitlick, J. and Cress, R. 2002: Downstreamchanges in the channel geometry of a largegravel bed river. Water Resources Research38(10), 34-1–34-11.

Polyak, L., Levitan, M., Khusid, T., Merklin, L.and Mukhina, V. 2002: Variations in the influ-ence of riverine discharge on the Kara Seaduring the last deglaciation and the Holocene.Global and Planetary Change 32, 291–309.

Poole, G.C. 2002: Fluvial landscape ecology:addressing uniqueness within the river dis-continuum. Freshwater Biology 47, 641–60.

Poole, G.C., Stanford, J.A., Frissell, C.A. andRunning, S.W. 2002: Three-dimensional map-ping of geomorphic controls on flood-plainhydrology and connectivity from aerialphotos. Geomorphology 48, 329–47.

Pope, R.J.J. and Millington, A.C. 2002: The role ofalluvial fans in mountainous and lowlanddrainage systems: Examples from the SpartaBasin, Lakonia, southern Greece. Zeitschriftfur. Geomorphologies N.F. 46(1), 109–36.

Porporato, A. and Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. 2002:Ecohydrology – a challenging multidisciplin-ary research perspective. Hydrological SciencesJournal 47(5), 811–2 1.

Poudevigne, I., Alard, D., Leuven, R.S.E.W. andNienhuis, P.H. 2002: A systems approach toriver restoration: a case study in the lowerSeine valley, France. Rivers Research and Appli-cations 18(3), 239–47.

Prange, M. and Lohmann, G. 2003: Effects of mid-Holocene river runoff of the Arctic Ocean/sea-ice system: a numerical model study. TheHolocene 13(3), 335–42.

Prent, M.T.H. and Hickin, E.J. 2001: Annualregime of bedforms, roughness and flow

E.S.J. Dollar 441

resistance, Lillooet River, British Columbia,BC. Geomorphology 41, 369–90.

Prowse, T.D. and Conly, F.M. 2002: A review ofhydroecolgical results of the Northern RiverBasins study, Canada. Part 2. Peace-AthabascaDelta. Rivers Research and Applications 18(5),447–60.

Prowse, T.D., Conly, F.M., Church, M. andEnglish, M.C. 2002: A review of hydroecolgi-cal results of the Northern River Basinsstudy, Canada. Part 1. Peace and Slave Rivers.Rivers Research and Applications 18(5), 429–46.

Puech, C. and Raclot, D. 2002: Using geographi-cal information systems and aerial photo-graphs to determine water levels duringfloods. Hydrological Processes 16, 1593–602.

Puertas, J., Pena, E. and Sanchez-Tembleque, F.2002: Experimental techniques for sedimenttransport using PIV and 3D scanning technol-ogies. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics. Lou-vain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4 – 6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2,1233–37.

Purkait, B. 2002: Patterns of grain-size distri-bution in some point bars of the Usri River,India. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72(3),367–75.

Radecki-Pawlik, A. 2002: Bankfull discharge inmountain streams: theory and practice. EarthSurface Processes and Landforms 27, 115–23.

Radoane, M., Radoane, N. and Dimitriu, D. 2003:Geomorphological evolution of river profilesin the Carpathians. Geomorphology 50, 293–306.

Rakoczi, L. and Szekeres, J. 2002: In-situ check-ing the performance of bed-load samplers byunderwater video. In Bousmar, D. and Zech,Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedings of theinternational conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2,1145–49.

Ralph, S.C. and Pool, G.C. 2003: Putting moni-toring first: designing accountable ecosys-tem restoration and management plans. InMontgomery, D.R., Bolton, S., Booth, D.B. andWalls, L., editors, Restoration of Puget SoundRivers. Seattle WA: University of WashingtonPress.

Ramonell, C.G., Amsler, M.L. and Toniolo, H.2002: Shifting modes of the Parana River thal-weg in its middle/lower reach. Zeitschrift fur.Geomorphologie. N.F. 129, 129–42.

Raven, P.J., Holmes, N.T.H., Charrier, P.,Dawson, F.H., Naura, M. and Boon, P.J.,

editors 2002: Towards a harmonized approachfor hydromorphology assessment of rivers inEurope: a qualitative assessment of three sur-vey methods. Aquatic Conservation: Marine &Freshwater Ecosystems 12(4), 405–24.

Rech, J.A., Quade, J. and Betancourt, J.L. 2002:Late Quaternary paleohydrology of the centralAtacama Desert (alt 228–248S), Chile. Geologi-cal Society of America Bulletin 114(3), 334–48.

Reheis, M.C., Stine, S. and Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M.2002: Drainage reversals in Mono Basin duringthe Pliocene and Pleistocene. Geological Societyof America Bulletin 114(8), 991–1006.

Rennie, C.D., Millar, R.G. and Church, M.A.2002: Measurement of bed load velocityusing an acoustic Doppler current profiler.Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 128(5), 473–83.

Ribberink, J.S., Blom, A., van der Scheer, P. andvan Stralen, M.P. 2002: Multi-fraction tech-niques for sediment transport and morpho-logical modelling in sand-gravel rivers. InBousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow2002. Proceedings of the international con-ference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 731–39.

Rice, S.P., Greenwood, M.T. and Joyce, C.B. 2001:Tributaries, sediment sources, and the longi-tudinal organisation of macroinvertebratefauna along river systems. Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58, 824–40.

Richardson, W.R. 2002: Simplified model forassessing meander bend migration rates. Jour-nal of Hydraulic Engineering 128(12), 1094–97.

Richardson, W.R. and Thorne, C.R. 2001: Mul-tiple thread flow and channel bifurcation in abraided river: Brahmaputra-Jamuna River,Bangladesh. Geomorphology 38, 185–96.

Righetti, M. and Armanini, A. 2002: Flow resist-ance in open channel flows with sparsely dis-tributed bushes. Journal of Hydrology 269, 55–64.

Rigsby, C.A., Baker, P.A. and Aldenderfer, M.S.2003: Fluvial history of the Rio Ilave valley,Peru, and its relationship to climate andhuman history. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatol-ogy, Palaeoecology 194, 165–85.

Ringrose, S., Kampunzu, A.B., Vink, B.W.,Matheson, W. and Downey, W.S. 2002: Originand palaeo-environmental environments ofcalcareous sediments in the Moshaweng dryvalley, southeast Botswana. Earth Surface Pro-cesses and Landforms 27, 591–611.

Rippin, D., Willis, I., Arnold, N., Hodson, A.,Moore, J., Kohler, J. and Bjornsson, H. 2003:Changes in geometry and subglacial drainageof Midre Lovenbreen, Svalbard, determined


from digital elevation models. Earth SurfaceProcesses and Landforms 28, 273–98.

Rittenour, T.M., Goble, R.J. and Blum, M.D.2003: Optical age chronology of Late Pleisto-cene fluvial deposits in the northern lowerMississippi valley. Quaternary Science Reviews10–13, 1105–10.

Rodda, J.C. 2001: Water under pressure. Hydrolo-gical Sciences Journal 46(6), 841–53.

Rodriguez, J., Admiraal, D.M., Lopez, F. andGarcıa, M.H. 2002: Unsteady bed shear stres-ses induced by navigation: laboratory obser-vations. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering128(5), 515–26.

Rogers, J. and Li, X.C. 2002: Environmentalimpact of diamond mining on continentalshelf sediments off southern Namibia.Quaternary International 92, 101–12.

Rood, S., Tymensen, W. and Middleton, R. 2003:A comparison of methods for evaluatingstreamflow needs for recreation along riversin southern Alberta, Canada. Rivers Researchand Applications 19(2), 123–35.

Rosatti, G. 2002: Validation of the physical model-ling approach for braided rivers. WaterResources Research 38(12), 31-1–31-8.

Rowan, J.S. and Franks, S.W. 2002: Heavy metalmining and flood plain response in theupper Clyde basin, Scotland. In Dyer, F.J.,Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The struc-ture, function and management of fluvial sedimen-tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 143–53.

Rowinski, P.M. and Kubrak, J. 2002a: Velocityprofiles on vegetated flood plains. InBousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow2002. Proceedings of the international con-ference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1, 303–309.

—— 2002b: A mixing-length model for predictingvertical velocity distribution in flows throughemergent vegetation. Hydrological Sciences Jour-nal 47(6), 893–99.

Rowland, E.R., Hotchkiss, R.H. and Barber, M.E.2003: Predicting fish passage design flowsat ungaged streams in eastern Washington.Journal of Hydrology 273, 177–87.

Rowntree, K.M. and Du Plessis, M. 2003:Geomorphological research for the conservationand management of Southern African rivers,volume 1: geomorphological impacts of river regu-lation. Pretoria: Water Research CommissionReport 849/2/03, 148 pp.

River Restoration Centre (RRC) 2002: Manualof river restoration techniques. 2002 update.Bedford: Area Press.

Rudoy, A.N. 2002: Glacier-dammed lakes andgeological work on glacial superfloods in theLate Pleistocene, Southern Siberia, AltaiMountains. Quaternary International 87,119–40.

Runge, J. 2002: Holocene landscape history andpalaeohydrology evidenced by stable carbonisotope (d13C) analysis of alluvial sedimentsin the Mbari valley (58N/238E), Central Afri-can Republic. Catena 48, 67–87.

Rushmer, E.L., Russell, A.J., Tweed, F.S.,Knudsen, O. and Marren, P.M. 2002: Therole of hydrograph shape in controlling glacieroutburst flood (jokulhlaup) sedimentation.In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., edi-tors, The structure, function and management offluvial sedimentary systems. Wallingford: IAHSPublication No. 276, 305–13.

Russell, J.M., Johnson, T.C., Kelts, K.R., Laerdal,T. and Talbot, M.R. 2003: An 11 000-yearlithostratigraphic and paleohydrologic recordfrom Equatorial Africa: Lake Edward,Uganda-Congo. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclima-tology, Palaeoecology 193, 25–49.

Ryan, S.E., Porth, L.S. and Troendle, C.A. 2002:Defining phases of bedload transport usingpiecewise regression. Earth Surface Processesand Landforms 27, 971–90.

Saez, A. and Cabrera, L. 2002: Sedimentologicaland palaeohydrological responses to tectonicsand climate in a small closed, lacustrinesystem: Oligocene As Pontes Basin (Spain).Sedimentology 49(5), 1073–94.

Saito, Y., Yang, Z. and Hori, K. 2001: TheHuanghe (Yellow River) and Changjiang(Yangtze River) deltas: a review on theircharacteristics, evolution and sediment dis-charge during the Holocene. Geomorphology41, 219–31.

Samuel, A., Kneller, B., Raslan, S., Sharp, A.and Parsons, C. 2003: Prolific deep-marineslope channels of the Nile Delta, Egypt. TheAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists87(4), 541–60.

Samuels, P.G., Bramley, M.E. and Evans, E.P.2002: Reducing uncertainty in conveyanceestimation. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y.,editors, River Flow 2002. Proceedings of theinternational conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1, 293–302.

Sander, M., Bengtsson, L., Holmquist, B., Wohl-farth, B. and Cato, I. 2002: The relation-ship between annual varve thickness andmaximum annual discharge. Journal of Hydro-logy 263, 23–35.

E.S.J. Dollar 443

Sanderson, D.C.W., Bishop, P., Stark, M.T. andSpencer, J.Q. 2003: Luminescence dating ofanthropogenically reset canal sediments fromAngkor Borei, Mekong Delta, Cambodia. Qua-ternary Science Reviews 10–13, 1111–21.

Sato, K. and Watanabe, Y. 2002: Influences ofbars in river channels with bifurcation andconvergence. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y.,editors, River Flow 2002, Proceedings of theinternational conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2,741–50.

Sauvage, S., Teisser, S., Vervier, P., Ameziane, T.,Garbetian, F., Delmas, F. and Caussade, B.2003: A numerical tool to integrate biophysicaldiversity of a large regulated river: hydrobio-geochemical bases. The case of the GaroneRiver (France). Rivers Research and Applications19(2), 181–98.

Schaller, M., von Blanckenburg, F., Veldkamp,A., Tebbens, L.A., Hovius, N. and Kubik, P.W.2002: A 30 000 yr record of erosion ratesfrom cosmogenic 10Be in middle European ter-races. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 1–2,307–20.

Schildgen, T., Dethier, D.P., Bierman, P. andCaffee, M. 2002: 26Al and 10Be dating of LatePleistocene and Holocene fill terraces: a recordof fluvial deposition and incision, ColoradoFront Range. Earth Surface Processes and Land-forms 27, 773–87.

Schmautz, M. and Aufleger, M. 2002: Gravelriver widening by bank erosion – theory andresults of physical and numerical modelling.In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, Riverflow 2002. Proceedings of the international con-ference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1, 639–49.

Schmeeckle, M.W. and Nelson, J.M. 2003: Directnumerical simulation of bedload transportusing a local, dynamic boundary condition.Sedimentology 50, 279–301.

Schroder, J.F., Bishop, M.P., Olsenholler, J. andCraiger, J.P. 2002: Geomorphology and theworld wide web. Geomorphology 47, 343–63.

Schulte, L. 2002: Climatic and human influenceon river systems and glacier fluctuations insoutheast Spain since the Last Glacial Maxi-mum. Quaternary International 93–94, 85–100.

Schumm, S.A. 1991: To interpret the earth, ten waysto be wrong. Sydney: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Schumm, S.A. and Lichty, R.W. 1965: Time, spaceand causality in geomorphology. AmericanJournal of Science 263, 110–19.

Sear, D.A., Newson, M.D. and Thorne, C.R. 2003:Guidebook of applied fluvial geomorphology. Swin-don: Department of Environment and RuralAffairs and Environment Agency, 229 pp.

Sellin, R.H.J. and van Beesten, D.P. 2002: Bermvegetation and its effect on flow resistance ina two-stage river channel: an analysis offield data. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1,319–27.

Seminara, G., Solari, L. and Parker, G. 2002: Bedload at low Shields stress on arbitrarily slopingbeds: failure of the Bagnold hypothesis. WaterResources Research 38(11), 31-1–31-16.

Shafieefar, M. and Husseini, S. 2002: Migrationpattern of a young meandering river. InBousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, Riverflow 2002. Proceedings of the internationalconference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 809–12.

Sheets, B.A., Hickson, T.A. and Paola, C. 2002:Assembling the stratigraphic record: deposi-tional patterns and time-scales in an exper-imental alluvial basin. Basin Research 14,287–301.

Shi, Z. and Hughes, J.M.R. 2002: Laboratory flumestudies of microflow environments of aquaticplants. Hydrological Processes 16, 3279–89.

Shimizu, Y. 2002: A method for simultaneouscomputation of bed and bank deformation ofa river. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics. Lou-vain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002.Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 793–801.

Shteinman, B., Wynne, D., Khanbilvadi, R. andInbar, M. 2002: Studies of sediment transportin the Jordan River using fluorescent tracermethods. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River Flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2,1159–64.

Simon, A. and Collinson, A.J.C. 2002: Quantify-ing the mechanical and hydrologic effects ofriparian vegetation on streambank stability.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27,527–46.

Simon, A. and Darby, S.E. 2002: Effectiveness ofgrade-control structures in reducing erosionalong incised river channels: the case of theMississippi. Geomorphology 42, 229–54.


Simon, A. and Thomas, R.E. 2002: Processes andforms of an unstable alluvial system withresistant, cohesive streambeds. Earth SurfaceProcesses and Landforms 27, 699–718.

Simon, A., Thomas, R.E., Curini, A. andShields, F.D. 2002: Case study: channel stab-ility of the Missouri River, Eastern Montana.Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 128(10), 880–90.

Simpson, C.J. and Smith, D.G. 2001: The braidedMilk River, northern Montana, fails the‘Leopold – Wolman discharge gradient test.Geomorphology 41, 337–53.

Sims, N.C. and Thoms, M.C. 2002: What happenswhen flood plains wet themselves: vegetationresponse to inundation on the lower Balonneflood plain. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. andOlley, J.M., editors, The structure, function andmanagement of fluvial sedimentary systems. Wall-ingford: IAHS Publication No. 276, 195–202.

Singh, S.K. and France-Lanard, C. 2002: Tracingthe distribution of erosion in the Brahmaputrawatershed from isotopic compositions ofstream sediments. Earth and Planetary ScienceLetters 3–4, 645–62.

Sinha, R., Das, S. and Dikshit, O. 2002: GIS-assisted mapping of catchment-scale erosionand sediment sources, Garhwal Himalaya,India. Zeitsdrift fur Geomorphlogie N.F. 46(2),145–65.

Skelly, R.L., Bristow, C.S. and Ethridge, F.G.2003: Architecture of channel-belt deposits inan aggrading shallow sandbed braided rivers:the lower Niobrara River, northeast Nebraska.Sedimentary Geology 158, 249–70.

Slattery, M.C., Gares, P.A. and Phillips, J.D. 2002:Slope–channel linkage and sediment deliveryon North Carolina coastal plain cropland.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27,1377–87.

Small, I.F., Rowan, J.S. and Franks, S.W. 2002:Quantitative sediment fingerprinting using aBayesian uncertainty estimation framework.In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., edi-tors, The structure, function and management offluvial sedimentary systems. Wallingford: IAHSPublication No. 276, 443–50.

Smith, B.J., Warke, P.A. and Whalley, W.B. 2002:Landscape development, collective amnesiaand the need for integration in geomorpholo-gical research. Area 33(4), 409–18.

Smith, D.A. and Cheung, K.F. 2003: Settlingcharacteristics of calcareous sand. Journal ofHydraulic Engineering 129(6), 479–83.

Smith, D.G. and Pearce, C.M. 2001: Ice jam-caused fluvial gullies and scour holes onnorthern river flood plains. Geomorphology 42,85–95.

Smolders, A.J.P., Guerrero Hiza, M.A., van derVelde, G. and Roelofs, J.G.M. 2002: Dynamicsof discharge, sediment transport, heavy metalpollution and Sabalo (Prochilodu linectus)catches in the lower Pilcamayo River (Bolivia).Rivers Research and Applications 18(5),415–27.

Snyder, N.P., Whipple, K.X., Tucker, G.E. andMerritts, D.J. 2002: Interactions betweenonshore bedrock–channel incision and near-shore wave-base erosion forced by eustasyand tectonics. Basin Research 14, 105–27.

—— 2003: Channel response to tectonic forcing:field analysis of stream morphology andhydrology in the Mendocino triple junctionregion, northern California. Geomorphology 53,97–127.

Spaliviero, M. 2003: Historic fluvial developmentof the Alpine-foreland Tagliamento River,Italy, and consequences for floodplain man-agement. Geomorphology 52, 317–33.

Srivastava, P., Sharma, M. and Singhvi, A.K.2003: Luminescence chronology of incisionand channel pattern changes in the RiverGanga, India. Geomorphology 51, 259–68.

Stanistreet, I.G. and Stallhofen, H. 2002: HoanibRiver flood deposits of Namib Desert inter-dunes as analogues for their permeability bar-rier mudstone layers in aeolianite Reserves.Sedimentology 49(3), 451–66.

Starkel, L. 2002: Change in the frequency ofextreme events as the indicator of climaticchange in the Holocene (in fluvial systems).Quaternary International 91, 25–32.

Stefani, C. 2002: Variation in terrigenoussupplies in the Upper Pliocene to Recentdeposits of the Venice area. SedimentaryGeology 153, 43–55.

Steiger, J. and Gurnell, A.M. 2002: Spatial hydro-geomorphological influences on sediment andnutrient deposition in riparian zones: obser-vations from the Garonne River, France. Geo-morphology 49, 1–23.

Steiger, J., Gurnell, A.M. and Goodson, J.M.2003: Quantifying and characterizing ripariansedimentation. Rivers Research and Applications19(4), 335–52.

Stephan, U. and Gutknecht, D. 2002: Hydraulicresistance of submerged flexible vegetation.Journal of Hydrology 269, 27–43.

Sterling, S.M. and Church, M. 2002: Sedimenttrapping characteristics of a pit trap and theHelley–Smith sampler in a cobble gravel bedriver. Water Resources Research 38(8), 19-1 –19-11.

Stevaux, J.C. and Takeda, A.M. 2002: Geomor-phological processes related to density and

E.S.J. Dollar 445

variety of zoobenthic community of the upperParana River, Brazil. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphol-gie N.F. 129, 143–58.

St George, S. and Nielson, E. 2003: Palaeofloodrecords for the Red River, Manitoba, Canada,derived from anatomical tree-ring signatures.The Holocene 13(4), 547–55.

Stock, J. and Dietrich, W.E. 2003: Valley incisionby debris flows: evidence of a topographicsignature. Water Resources Research 39(4),1-1–1-25.

Stouthamer, E. and Berendsen, H.J.A. 2001: Avul-sion frequency, avulsion duration, and intera-vulsion period of Holocene channel belts inthe Rhine-Meuse delta, the Netherlands. Jour-nal of Sedimentary Research 71(4), 589–98.

Strasser, M.A., Vinzon, S.B. and Kosuth, P. 2002:Bottom structures geometry of the AmazonRiver. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics. Lou-vain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002.Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 1185–93.

Strom, K., Papanicolaou, A.N. and Odeh, M. 2002:Formation of cluster microforms and effects onbedload transport. In Bousmar, D. and Zech,Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedings of theinternational conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1, 565–73.

Sun, G., McNulty, S.G., Amatya, D.M., Skaggs,R.W., Swift Jr, L.W., Shepard, J.P. and Rie-kerk, H. 2002: A comparison of the watershedhydrology of the coastal forested wetlands andthe mountainous uplands on the Southern Us.Journal of Hydrology 263, 92–104.

Surian, N. 2002: Downstream variation in grainsize long an Alpine River: analysis of controlsand processes. Geomorphology 43, 137–49.

Surian, N. and Rinaldi, M. 2003: Morphologicalresponse to river engineering and manage-ment in alluvial rivers in Italy. Geomorphology50, 307–26.

Symader, W. and Roth, M. 2002: Changes inchemical characteristics of river bed samplescaused by exceptional high floods in the Kar-telbornsbach basin near Trier. In Dyer, F.J.,Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The struc-ture, function and management of fluvial sedimen-tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 333–38.

Ta, T.K.O., Nguyen, V.L., Taleishi, M., Kobaya-shi, I., Tanabe, S. and Saito, Y. 2002: Holocenedelta evolution and sediment discharge of theMekong River, southern Vietnam. QuaternaryScience Reviews 21(16–17), 1807–19.

Talbot, T. and Lapointe, M. 2002a: Modes ofresponse of a gravel bed river to meanderingstraightening: the case of the Sainte-Marguerite River, Saguenay Region, Quebec,Canada. Water Resources Research 38(6),9-1–9-7.

—— 2002b: Numerical modelling of gravel bedriver response to meander straightening: thecoupling between the evolution of bed pave-ment and long profile. Water Resources Research38(6), 10-1–10-10.

Taylor, M.P. and Kesterton, R.G.H. 2002: Heavymetal contamination of an arid river environ-ment: Gruben River, Namibia. Geomorphology42, 311–27.

Termini, D. 2002: A numerical simulation ofbed topography in large meandering chan-nels In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2,723–29.

Terry, J.P., Garimella, S. and Kostaschuk, R.A.2002: Rates of floodplain accretion in a tropicalisland river system impacted by cyclones andlarge floods. Geomorphology 42, 171–82.

Thomas, D.S., Holmes, P.J., Bateman, M.D. andMarker, M.E. 2002: Geomorphic evidence forlate Quaternary environmental change fromthe eastern Great Karoo margin, South Africa.Quaternary International 89, 151–64.

Thomas, R. and Nicholas, A.P. 2002: Simulationof braided river flow using a new cellular rout-ing scheme. Geomorphology 43, 179–95.

Thomas, R., Nicholas, A.P. and Quine, T.A. 2002:Development and application of a cellularmodel to simulate braided process – forminteractions and morphological change.In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of the inter-national conference on fluvial hydraulics.-Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2,783–91.

Thompson, D.M. 2002a: Long-term effects ofInstream Habitat-Improvement structures onchannel morphology along the Blackledgeand Salmon Rivers, Connecticut, USA.Environmental Management 29(2), 250–65.

—— 2002b: Channel-bed scour with high versuslow deflectors. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering128(6), 640–43.

—— 2003: A geomorphic explanation for a mean-der cutoff following channel relocation of acoarse-bedded river. Environmental Manage-ment 31(3), 385–400.


Thompson, D.M. and Hoffman, K.S. 2001: Equi-librium pool dimension and sediment-sortingpatterns in coarse-grained, New Englandchannels. Geomorphology 38, 301–16.

Thoms, M.C. and Parsons, M. 2002: Eco-geomor-phology: an interdisciplinary approach toriver science. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. andOlley, J.M., editors, The structure, functionand management of fluvial sedimentary sys-tems. Wallingford: IAHS Publication No. 276,113–19.

Thoms, M.C. and Sheldon, F. 2002: An ecosystemapproach for determining environmentalwater allocations in Australian dryland riversystems: the role of geomorphology. Geomor-phology 47, 153–68.

Thorne, C.R. 2002: Geomorphic analysis of largealluvial rivers. Geomorphology 44, 203–19.

Tinkler, K.J. 2001: The case of the missing flood:the unrecorded flood of 1935 on the JamesRiver, Mason County, Texas. Geomorphology39, 239–50.

Tockner, K., Malard, F. and Ward, J.V. 2000: Anextension of the flood pulse concept. Hydrologi-cal Processes 14, 2861–83.

Tooth, S., McCarthy, T.S., Brandt, D., Hancox, P.J.and Morris, R. 2002a: Geological controls onthe formation of alluvial meaders and flood-plain wetlands: the example of the KlipRiver, eastern Free State, South Africa. EarthSurface Processes and Landforms 27, 797–815.

Tooth, S., McCarthy, T.S., Hancox, P.J., Brandt, D.,Buckley, K., Nortje, E. and McQuade, S.2002b: The geomorphology of the Nyl Riverand floodplain in the semi-arid Northern Pro-vince, South Africa. South African GeographicalJournal 84(2), 226–37.

Toro, F. and Mayerle, R. 2002: Real time handlingof in-situ measurement data using GIS andinformation technologies. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedingsof the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 2, 1269–73.

Trimble, S.W. 1999: Decreases rates of alluvialsediment storage in the Coon Creek basin, Wis-consin, 1975–1993. Science 20, 1244–46.

Uliana, E., Lange, C.B. and Wefer, G. 2002:Evidence for Congo River freshwater load inLate Quaternary sediments of ODP Site 1077(58S, 108E). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology 187, 137–50.

Valle, B.L. and Pasternack, G.B. 2002: TDRmeasurements of hydraulic jump aeration in

the South Fork of the American River, Califor-nia. Geomorphology 42, 153–65.

Vanacker, V., Govers, G., Barros, S., Poesen, J. andDeckers, J. 2003: The effect of short-term socio-economic and demographic change on land-scape on land use dynamics and its correspond-ing geomorphic response with relation to watererosion in a tropical mountainous catchment,Ecuador. Landscape Ecology 18(1), 1–15.

Vance, D., Bickle, M., Ivy-Ochs, S. andKubik, P.W. 2003: Erosion and exhumationin the Himalaya from cosmogenic isotopeinventories of river sediments. Earth and Plane-tary Science Letters 206, 273–88.

Vandenberghe, J. 2002: The relation between cli-mate and river processes, landforms anddeposits during the Quaternary. QuaternaryInternational 91, 17–23.

Van der Perk, M. and Slavak, O. 2003: Simulationof event-based and long-term spatial redistri-bution of Chernobyl-derived radiocaesiumwithin catchments using geographical infor-mation system embedded models. HydrologicalProcesses 17, 943–57.

Vannote, R.L., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W.,Sedell, J.R. and Cushing, C.E. 1980: Theriver continuum concept. Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Science 37, 130–37.

Van Rompaey, A.J.J., Govers, G. and Puttemans, C.2002: Modelling land use changes and theirimpact on soil erosion and sediment supplyto rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms27, 481–94.

Van Vuren, S., van der Klis, H. and de Vriend, H.2002: Large-scale floodplain lowering alongthe River Waal: a stochastic prediction of mor-phological impacts. In Bousmar, D. and Zech,Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedings of theinternational conference on fluvial hydraulics.Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 903–12.

Van Wijngaarden, M., Rigollet, C. and deMeijer, R.J. 2002a: Assessment of historic floodplain sedimentation rates along the RiverMeuse in The Netherlands using 137Cs datingwith PHAROS. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. andOlley, J.M., editors, The structure, functionand management of fluvial sedimentary systems.Wallingford: IAHS Publication No. 276, 389–97.

Van Wijngaarden, M., Venema, L.B. andDe Meijer, R.J. 2002b: Radiometric sandmud characterisation in the Rhine-MeuseEstuary Part B. In situ mapping. Geomorphology43, 103–16.

Van Wijngaarden, M., Venema, L.B., De Meijer,R.J., Zwolsman, J.J.G., Van Os, B. andGieske, J.M.J. 2002c: Radiometric sand-mud

E.S.J. Dollar 447

characterisation in the Rhine-Meuse Estuary PartA. Fingerprinting. Geomorphology 43, 87–101

Verstraeten, G. and Poesen, J. 2002: Using sedi-ment deposits in small ponds to quantify sedi-ment yield from small catchments: possibilitiesand limitations. Earth Surface Processes andLandforms 27, 1425–39.

Vetsch, D. and Faeh, R. 2002: Numerical simu-lation of morphological development of theriver Rhine at the lake of Constance. InBousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, Riverflow 2002. Proceedings of the internationalconference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 889–94.

Vignoli, G. and Tubino, M. 2002: A numericalmodel for sand bar stability. In Bousmar, D.and Zech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceed-ings of the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 2, 833–41.

Viles, H.A. and Goudie, A.S. 2003: Interannual,decadal and multidecadal climatic variabilityand geomorphology. Earth-Science Reviews 61,105–31.

Viles, H.A. and Naylor, L.A. 2002: Editorial.Geomorphology 47, 1–2.

Villard, P.V. and Church, M. 2003: Dunes andassociated sand transport in a tidally influ-enced sand-bed channel: Fraser River, BritishColumbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences40, 115–30.

Vogt, J.V., Colombo, R. and Bertolo, F. 2003:Deriving drainage networks and catchmentboundaries: a new method combining digitalelevation data and environmental character-istics. Geomorphology 53, 281–98.

Walker, D.R., Millar, R.G. and Newbury, R.W.2002: Hydraulic and design aspects of con-structed rock riffles in gravel-cobble bed rivers.In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow2002. Proceedings of the international confer-ence on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 1, 497–506.

Walker, J., Diamond, M. and Naura, M. 2002:The development of Physical quality objec-tives for rivers in England and Wales. AquaticConservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems12, 381–90.

Wallbrink, P., Olley, J.M. and Hancock, G. 2002:Estimating residence times of fine sediment inriver channels using fallout 210Pb. In Dyer, F.J.,Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The struc-ture, function and management of fluvial sedimen-

tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 425–32.

Wallerstein, N.P. 2003: Dynamic model forconstriction scour caused by large woodydebris. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms28, 49–68.

Walling, D.E. and Owens, P.N. 2002: The role offlood plain sedimentation in catchment sedi-ment and contaminant budgets. In Dyer, F.J.,Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., editors, The struc-ture, function and management of fluvial sedimen-tary systems. Wallingford: IAHS PublicationNo. 276, 407–16.

Walsh, J. and Hicks, D.M. 2002: Braidedchannels: Self-similar or self-affine? WaterResources Research 38(6), 18-1–18-6.

Walters, D.M., Leigh, D.S., Freeman, M.C.,Freeman, B.J. and Pringle, C.M. 2003: Geo-morphology and fish assemblages in a Pied-mont river basin, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 48,1950–70.

Wang, H., Hughes, R.E., Steele, J.D., Lepley, S.W.and Tian, J. 2003: Correlation of climate cyclesin middle Mississippi Valley loess and Green-land ice. Geology 31(2), 179–82.

Wanner, S.C., Ockenfeld, K., Brunke, M.,Fischer, H. and Pusch, M. 2002: The distri-bution and turnover of benthic organic matterin a lowland river: influence of hydrology, ses-ton load and impoundments. Rivers Researchand Applications 18(2), 107–22.

Warburton, J., Danks, M. and Wishart, D. 2002:Stability of an upland gravel-bed stream,Swinhope Burn, Northern England. Catena49, 309–29.

Ward, J.V. and Stanford, J.A. 1995: Ecologicalconnectivity in alluvial river ecosystems andits disruption by flow regulation. RegulatedRivers: Research and Management 11, 105–19.

Ward, J.V., Malard, F. and Tockner, K. 2002: Land-scape ecology: a framework for integratingpattern and process in river corridors. Land-scape Ecology 17(1), 35–45.

Warne, A.G., Meade, R.H., White, W.A.,Guevara, E.H., Gibeaut, J., Smyth, R.C.,Aslan, A. and Tremblay, T. 2002: Regionalcontrols on geomorphology, hydrology, andecosystem integrity in the Orinoco Delta, Vene-zuela. Geomorphology 44, 273–307.

Wasson, R.J. 2002: Sediment budgets, dynamics,and variability: new approaches and tech-niques. In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. andOlley, J.M., editors, The structure, function andmanagement of fluvial sedimentary systems.Wallingford: IAHS Publication No. 276, 471–78.

Wasson, R.J., Caitcheon, G., Murray, A.S.,McCulloch, M. and Quade, J. 2002: Sourcing


sediment using multiple tracers in the catch-ment of Lake Argyle, northwestern Australia.Environmental Management 29(5), 634–46.

Watanabe, Y., Sato, K., Hoshi, K. and Oyama, F.2002: Experimental study on bar forma-tions under unsteady flow conditions. InBousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, River flow2002. Proceedings of the international con-ference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 813–23.

Webb, A.A. and Erskine, W.D. 2003: Distribution,recruitment, and geomorphic significance oflarge woody debris in an alluvial forest stream:Tonghi Creek, southeastern Australia. Geomor-phology 51, 109–26.

Webb, A.A., Erskine, W.D. and Dragovitch, D.2002: Flood-driven formation and des-truction of a forested flood plain andin-channel benches on a bedrock-confinedstream: Wheeny Creek, southeast Australia.In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., edi-tors, The structure, function and management offluvial sedimentary systems. Wallingford: IAHSPublication No. 276, 203–10.

Weber, M.E., Wiedicke-Hombach, M.,Kudrass, H.R. and Erlenkeuser, H. 2003: BengalFan sediment transport activity and response toclimate forcing inferred from sediment physicalproperties. Sedimentary Geology 155, 361–81.

Wegmann, K.W. and Pazzaglia, F.J. 2002: Holo-cene strath terraces, climate change, and activetectonics: the Clearwater River basin, OlympicPeninsula, Washington State. GSA Bulletin114(6), 731–44.

Weissmann, G.S., Mount, J.F. and Fogg, G.E.2002: Glacially driven cycles in accumulationspace and sequence stratigraphy of a stream-dominated alluvial fan, San Joaquin Valley,California, U.S.A. Journal of SedimentaryResearch 72(2), 240–51.

White, W.A., Morton, R.A. and Holmes, C.W.2002: A comparison of factors controlling sedi-mentation rates and wetlands loss in fluvial-deltaic systems, Texas Gulf coast. Geomorphol-ogy 44, 47–66.

Whited, D., Stanford, J.A. and Kimball, J.S. 2002:Application of airborne multispectral digitalimagery to quantify riverine habitats anddifferent base flows. Rivers Research and Appli-cations 18(6), 583–94.

Wilcock, P.R. and Crowe, J.C. 2003: Surface-basedtransport model for mixed-size sediment. Jour-nal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(2), 120–28.

Wilcock, P.R. and Kenworthy, S.T. 2002: A two-fraction model for the transport of sand/

gravel mixtures. Water Resources Research38(10), 12-1–12-12.

Willems, P., Vaes, G., Popa, D., Timba, L. andBerlamont, J. 2002: Quasi 2D river floodmodelling. In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors,River flow 2002. Proceedings of the internationalconference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 1253–59.

Williams, A. and Archer, D. 2002: The use ofhistorical flood information in the EnglishMidlands to improve risk assessment. Hydrolo-gical Sciences Journal 47(1), 67–77.

Williams, L.R., Taylor, C.M., Warren Jr, M.L. andClingenpeel, A. 2002: Large-scale effects oftimber harvesting on stream systems in theOuachita Mountains, Arkansas, USA. Environ-mental Management 29(1), 76–87.

Willis, C.M. and Griggs, G.B. 2003: Reductions influvial sediment discharge by Coastal Dams inCalifornia and implications for beach sustain-ability. The Journal of Geology 111, 167–82.

Wilson, C.A.M.E. and Horritt, M.S. 2002:Measuring the flow resistance of submergedgrass. Hydrological Processes 16, 2589–98.

Winter, T.C. 2001: The concept of hydrologiclandscapes. Journal of the American WaterResources Association 37(2), 335–49.

Wisniewski, P.A. and Pazzaglia, F.J. 2002: Epeiro-genic controls on Canadian River incision andlandscape evolution, Great Plains of northeast-ern New Mexico. The Journal of Geology 110,437–56.

Wittenberg, L. 2002: Structural patterns in coarsegravel river beds: typology, survey and assess-ment of the roles and grain size and riverregime. Geografiska Annaler 84A(1), 25–37.

Wohl, E. and Legleiter, C.J. 2003: Controls on poolcharacteristics along a resistant-boundarychannel. The Journal of Geology 111, 103–14.

Wongsa, S., Nakui, T., Iwai, M. and Shimizu, Y.2002: Runoff and sediment transport model-ling for mountain river. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedingsof the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 1, 683–91.

Woo, M-K. and Thorne, R. 2003: Comment on‘Detection of hydrological trends and variabil-ity’ by Burn, D.H. and Hag Elnur, M.A. 2002,Journal of Hydrology 255, 107 – 122. Journal ofHydrology 277, 150–60.

World Commission on Dams 2000: Damsand development: a new framework for decision-making. London: Earthscan.

E.S.J. Dollar 449

Wright, K.J. and Li, J.L. 2002: From continua topatches: examining stream community struc-ture over large environmental gradients. Cana-dian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 59,1404–17.

Wright, N.G., Dastorani, M.T., Goodwin, P. andSlaughter, C. 2002. Using artificial neural net-works for correction of hydrodynamic riverflow modelling results. In Bousmar, D. andZech, Y., editors, River flow 2002. Proceedingsof the international conference on fluvialhydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6September 2002. Lisse: A.A. Balkema Publish-ers, 2, 1245–51.

Wu, F-C. and Chous, Y-J. 2003: Rolling and liftingprobabilities for sediment entrainment. Journalof Hydraulic Engineering 129(2), 110–19.

Wu, F-C. and Lin, Y-C. 2002: Pickup probability ofsediment under log-normal velocity distri-bution. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 128(4),438–42.

Wu, F.C. and Wang, C.F. 2002: Effect of flowrelated substrate alteration on physical habitat:a case study of the endemic river loach (Sina-gastromyson pulienis, Cypriniformes homalopteri-dae) downstream of Chi-Chi diversion weir,Chou-Shui Creek, Taiwan. Rivers Research andApplications 18(2), 155–69.

Wu, J. and Loucks, O.L. 1995: From balance ofnature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a para-digm shift in ecology. The Quarterly Review ofBiology 70(4), 439–66.

Xu, J. 2002a: Complex behaviour of natural sedi-ment-carrying streamflows and the geomor-phological implications. Earth SurfaceProcesses and Landforms 27, 749–58.

—— 2002b: River sedimentation and channeladjustment of the lower Yellow River as influ-enced by low discharges and seasonal channeldry-ups. Geomorphology 43, 151–64.

Xu, J. and Cheng, D. 2002: Relation between theerosion and sedimentation zones in the YellowRiver, China. Geomorphology 48, 365–82.

Yang, D., Li, X., Ke, X., Zhou, L., Ren, L., Zhang, J.,Chen, D., Yang, T. and Xue, G. 2001: A note onthe troughs in the Three Gorges channel of theChangjiang River, China. Geomorphology 41,137–42.

Yang, S-L., Zhao, Q-Y. and Belkin, I.M. 2002: Tem-poral variation in the sediment load of theYangtze River and the influence of humanactivities. Journal of Hydrology 263, 56–71.

Yang, S-Q. and Lim, S-Y. 2003: Total load trans-port formula for flow in alluvial channels.Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(1), 68–72.

Yeager, K.M., Santschi, P.H., Phillips, J.D. andHerbert, B.E. 2002: Sources of alluvium in acoastal plain stream based on radionuclidesignatures from the 238U and 232Th decayseries. Water Resources Research 38(11), 24-1–24-11.

Yen, B.C. 2002: Stochastic interference to sedi-ment and fluvial hydraulics. Journal of Hydrau-lic Engineering 128(4), 365–67.

Yokoyama, H., Watanabe, Y. and Shimizu, Y. 2002:Numerical simulation of sandbars using 2-Dshallow water equation under unsteady flow.In Bousmar, D. and Zech, Y., editors, Riverflow 2002. Proceedings of the international con-ference on fluvial hydraulics. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002. Lisse:A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2, 825–31.

Yoshida, H. and Dittrich, A. 2002: 1D unsteady-state flow simulation of a section of theupper Rhine. Journal of Hydrology 269, 79–88.

Young, W.J., Ogden, R.W., Hughes, A.O. andProsser, I.P. 2002: Predicting channel typefrom catchment and hydrological variables.In Dyer, F.J., Thoms, M.C. and Olley, J.M., edi-tors, The structure, function and management offluvial sedimentary systems. Wallingford: IAHSPublication No. 276, 53–60.

Zaleha, M.J., Way, J.N. and Suttner, L.J. 2001:Effects of syndepositional faulting and foldingon Early Cretaceous rivers and alluvialarchitecture (Lakota and Cloverly Formations,Wyoming, U.S.A.). Journal of Sedimentary Pet-rology 71(6), 880–94.

Zalewski, M. 2002: Ecohydrology – the use ofecological and hydrological processes for sus-tainable management of water resources.Hydrological Sciences Journal 47(5), 823–32.

Zhang, J.F., Zhou, L.P. and Yue, S.Y. 2003: Datingfluvial sediments by optimally stimulatedluminescence: selection of equivalent dosesfor age calculation. Quaternary Science Reviews10–13, 1123–29.

Zika, U. and Peter, A. 2002: The introduction ofwoody debris into a channelized stream: effecton trout populations and habitat. RiversResearch and Applications 18(4), 355–66.

Zimmerman, A. and Church, M. 2001: Channelmorphology, gradient profiles and bed stressesduring flood in a step-pool channel. Geomor-phology 40, 311–27.

Zimmerman, J.K.H., Vondracek, B. and Westra, J.2003: Agricultural land use effects on sedimentloading and fish assemblages in two Minne-sota (USA) watersheds. Environmental Manage-ment 31(1), 93–105.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

fluvial geomorphology

Documents

geografiska

geografiska

washingtons

zeitschrift

van den driessche

van der perk

earth surface

uk mountain