Abstract
Environmental water management is increasingly used to restore riverine, wetland and floodplain ecosystems and requires an understanding of what the flow regime or restoration objectives are, why these objectives are being targeted and how outcomes will be evaluated. This perspective paper focuses on non-woody vegetation, an important component of river-floodplain ecosystems and a targeted outcome for many environmental flow management programs, such as the Basin wide environmental watering strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia. Effective management of non-woody vegetation using environmental water requires identifying a suite of measurable condition outcomes (the “what”), understanding how these relate to broader functions and values (the “why”) and developing clear cause-and-effect relationships between management and outcomes (the “how”). A critical component of this process is to characterise what constitutes management success, which requires reimagining current definitions of condition to better incorporate dynamic functions and diverse values. We identify the need to characterise condition in a structured framework using both ecological data and societal values. This approach will not only help inform the development of benchmarks, watering objectives and monitoring metrics, but will also facilitate engagement by a broader spectrum of the community with the management and outcomes of environmental watering.
Introduction
Evaluating success is a key challenge in restoration ecology (Palmer et al., 2005; Wortley et al., 2013; Prach et al., 2019). The answer is seemingly simple—“success occurs when the ecological restoration reaches its goal” (Prach et al., 2019). However, the reality is a melting pot of divergent expectations, definitions and measures of success (Wortleyet al. 2013; Prach et al., 2019) with ongoing debates over how to define or categorize success or failure (Wortley et al., 2013; Prach et al., 2019; Galbraith et al., 2021; Marchand et al., 2021). Evaluating outcomes from environmental management actions, such as environmental flows, is important as it enables learning by doing to inform future management activities (Pollard et al., 2011; Vietz et al., 2018; McLoughlin et al., 2020). Evaluation also strengthens theoretical understanding (Török and Helm 2017), improving the predictability of restoration outcomes (; ).
Central to evaluating outcomes of management actions such as environmental flows is our understanding of what the restoration objectives are, why these objectives are being targeted and how outcomes will be assessed in relation to these. This paper focuses on non-woody vegetation condition as a targeted outcome of environmental water actions. While improved vegetation condition is a common objective of environmental water management, the construct of condition is often poorly defined (Gibbons et al., 2006; Gibbons and Freudenberger 2006). In particular, naturally dynamic responses of vegetation to variable water regimes are not well represented by static descriptions of condition (). Following the principles of , wetland ecological condition needs to consider i) various scales and levels of ecological organisation, ii) temporal context and complexity, iii) non-hydrological modifying factors, and iv) align with management objectives and ecological, sociocultural and economic functions and values. In this perspective article we consider what we want to achieve by targeting watering for wetland vegetation condition. We explore the idea of success, specifically in terms of reimagining current definitions of condition to better incorporate dynamic functions and diverse values. We conclude by highlighting the potential for a framework of condition, structured around the principles of , to provide the building blocks for a data-driven narrative that synthesises disparate pieces of information.
What Do We Want to Achieve by Watering Non-Woody Wetland-Floodplain Vegetation and why Do We Target These Outcomes?
Determining objectives for environmental management or restoration projects remains a critical first step (Prach et al., 2019) and processes and principles for setting objectives have been dealt with extensively in the literature (Tear et al., 2005; Lindenmayer et al., 2008; Horne A et al., 2017; ). Ultimately why we water rivers, wetlands and floodplains reflects what we value about them (Gonzalez Lopez and Amerigo Cuervo-Arango, 2008; ). An outcome may be valued because of its intrinsic worth, such as biodiversity or the inherent right of a species to exist (; Jax and Heink 2015). In some situations management is focussed on maintaining or restoring ecological functions (; ), such as the provision of habitat or food (Valinoti et al., 2011; ; McGinness et al., 2014). Increasingly management is focused on achieving multiple ecosystem services including: aesthetics (), cultural connection (; Moggridge and Thompson 2021), recreation (Gitau et al., 2019), education (Flitcroft et al., 2016), or tourism (; Harrison et al., 2010). There are also calls for environmental water management to increase the focus on managing for resilience to better link environmental water management to ecological sustainability and social well-being (; Poff 2018). Research has shown that the level of support for the implementation of environmental management activities is linked to stakeholder engagement, including the ability to relate to environmental outcomes by a shared belief in the value of the outcome (; Okumah et al., 2020; Liguori et al., 2021).
Non-woody vegetation (NWV) can comprise a significant proportion of biodiversity in many catchments and is fundamental to many ecosystem functions. The Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) in Australia, for example, supports a tremendous diversity of both plants and vegetation communities (; ), including more than 700 native plant species (Dyer et al., 2021) and a wide diversity of vegetation communities (). Many of these plant species can be described as non-woody—which in the context of this paper refers to all vascular plant species expect for trees and large shrubs as well as macro-algae such as charophytes. NWV comprises floating plants, submerged macrophytes, herbs, grasses, sedges, sub-shrubs, and tall reeds. NWV communities tend to be highly dynamic in space and time (Keddy 2010; ; Hunter 2021), reflecting variation in inundation patterns over multiple scales (Thoms et al., 2006; Leblanc et al., 2012; Tulbure and Broich 2019).
Functionally, non-woody plant species and vegetation communities are critical components of river-floodplain ecosystems, providing food and habitat for a large array of biota including fish (), woodland and waterbirds (Kingsford and Thomas 2004; Ma et al., 2010; McGinness et al., 2018), frogs (Wassens et al., 2010; McGinness et al., 2014), and macroinvertebrates (Warfe and Barmuta 2006). NWV also supports a wide range of ecological functions such as carbon and nutrient cycling (; ), bank stabilisation (Marden et al., 2005; ), sediment and flow dynamics (Neary et al., 2012), water quality (Withers and Jarvie 2008) and regulation of microclimates (Reeder 2011; ; James et al., 2015). Furthermore, NWV supports many social, cultural and economic values, often playing a key role in shaping aesthetically beautiful places (; Saha et al., 2020), having cultural importance for food, medicine, or fibre (; Higgisson et al., 2021), contributing to the enjoyment of recreational pursuits (Harrison et al., 2010; Zhu et al., 2011), or supporting tourism (Siikamaki et al., 2015; Hausmann et al., 2020). Thus, by watering wetlands and floodplains and supporting the vegetation communities within them, we can support a range of ecological, socio-cultural, and economic functions.
Environmental water management can also be targeted to promote ecological resilience, i.e., the ability for ecosystems to resist or respond to change and implies long-term sustainability (; ). To persist into the future, plant species and vegetation communities, as well as the functions these underpin, need to be resilient to factors such as a changing climate () that includes changes to rainfall, temperature, fire regimes and the intensity of extreme events (). Plant species and vegetation communities also need to be resilient to pressures from development, land use, pollution, pest plants and animals, and ongoing competition for water resources (Reis et al., 2017; Dudgeon 2019; Reid et al., 2019). Managing for resilience is a function of understanding the different traits of taxa and communities that contribute to resilience (; Santamaria 2002; ) to particular environmental disturbances (), key factors which underpin recovery mechanisms such as dormant seed banks (; Haines-Young et al., 2012; ; Liu et al., 2020) as well as spatial resilience (). In many modified catchments, environmental water actions are likely to play a critical role in building resilience, helping to restore the health of vegetation from a degraded state (Overton et al., 2014; ), which can require a recovery flow regime that is, more frequent than the long-term average (). Environmental water can also help fill the role of small to medium floods () which, because of regulation, have been lost from the hydrograph in locations such as the mid to lower River Murray (Maheshwari et al., 1995).
How Do We Know if We’ve Succeeded in Meeting the Objectives?
Evaluating outcomes against goals or objectives remains pivotal to determining the success of environmental water management and ecological restoration projects (Prach et al., 2019), though what constitutes success or failure is still a topic of debate (Wortley et al., 2013; Prach et al., 2019; Galbraith et al., 2021; Marchand et al., 2021). Evaluation is “the process of judging or calculating the quality, importance, amount or value of something” (), and inevitably involves some degree of subjectivity albeit informed by expert opinion and experience (Prach et al., 2019). Considerable benefit in evaluating outcomes to environmental water management comes from the knowledge gained in relation to managing future environmental water management actions. For example, determining the factors that led to objectives not being met, such as water availability, climate or other factors, can help inform future water management. Results may indicate the need for complementary actions, such as the control of pest animals, or the need to adjust future objectives or expectations. Because environmental water management is often carried out at scales that prevent the establishment of unmanaged “controls” for comparison, evaluation often requires a sophisticated “teasing apart” of the roles of different drivers and potential confounding variables (Konrad et al., 2011; Gawne et al., 2019). For long-term goals and objectives, this may require multiple scenarios of expectations based on a range of potentially interacting variables and management options that may influence water availability, or broader scale factors such as climate.
The definition of evaluation given in this paper highlights the need to know the state of what is being evaluated, i.e., its quality, importance, amount or value—which in the context of assessing vegetation outcomes to management activities such as environmental flows can be broadly defined as vegetation condition. There is no standard definition for “vegetation condition” (Gibbons et al., 2006), rather it is seen as a continuum of “good” to “bad” depending on the context or goal (Gibbons and Freudenberger 2006). Condition is also inherently a comparative concept (Parkes and Lyon 2006) and involves value judgements—good condition for whom or good condition for what (Gibbons and Freudenberger 2006). Viewing condition as representing “the quality, importance, amount, or value of something” links to key elements of what we’re trying to achieve by watering NWV namely the contribution NWV makes to ecological, socio-cultural and economic functions and values, biodiversity, and the need to support resilience to maintain these values into the future. It also aligns with Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) models used internationally (Tscherning et al., 2012; Robele Gari et al., 2015) in environmental assessments, such as Australian State of the Environment (SoE) reporting (Jackson 2017). The SoE approach describes the “State” as incorporating both current condition as well as recent trends in condition (Jackson 2017), highlighting the importance of temporal trajectories.
Definitions of condition, however, are not straightforward. Defining the state of something, such as NWV, is complex. NWV responses occur across different spatial and temporal scales. As highlighted by the SoE approach (Jackson 2017), state needs to consider current condition along with trends. Trend changes in NWV are influenced by a number of factors including flow regimes and climatic cycles across different temporal scales (Ryo et al., 2019). Considering the spatial scale across which responses and trends are assessed is important and influences ecological and spatial resilience (). Condition, as described in the paragraph above, is framed by the functions and values provided by NWV—“the quality, importance, amount, or value of something.” Functions and values also inform targets which are further used in the evaluation of the quality of condition in relation to targets (Figure 1). NWV provides numerous ecological, socio-cultural and economic functions and values, that can be broadly grouped as providing i) habitat, ii) regulating, iii) production, and iv) information functions and values (; ). NWV also contributes to biodiversity at different levels of ecological organisation (Noss 1990), such as individual plants, populations, species, communities, and vegscapes, which are landscape-scale mosaics of plant communities, and through the expression of a variety of attributes—composition, structure and process (Noss 1990) (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
As depicted in DPSIR models, the state of NWV, is further influenced by drivers and pressures (Figure 1). For NWV in floodplain-wetland systems key drivers and pressures include aspects of flow regimes across multiple temporal scales, such as individual pulses or inundation events, short-term flow regimes (e.g., annual to 10 years), and longer-term flow patterns over decades to centuries. NWV responses are also influenced by a range of non-flow drivers and stressors such as climate, pest plants and animals and land use development (Reid et al., 2019). The above components are depicted graphically in Figure 1 and further discussed in . summarised characteristics of NWV responses into four principles to guide the development of objectives and evaluation approaches: i) identify indicators that align with management objectives and ecological functions that support ecological, socio-cultural and economic values; ii) identify appropriate spatial scales and levels of ecological organisation; iii) identify relevant temporal dynamics, trajectories and uncertainties; and iv) identify non-hydrological modifying drivers. In the following section we propose a vision for NWV condition and the evaluation of outcomes, particularly across broad spatial scales such as whole-of-Basin, that encapsulates these principles, as well as the construct of condition as representing “the quality, importance, amount or value of something” as presented here. While the MDB has been the backdrop for developing these ideas, the proposed characterisation of condition is applicable to other floodplain-wetland systems where environmental water management is used to achieve non-woody vegetation outcomes.
What Does Good Condition Look Like for Wetland-Floodplain NWV?
We propose that good condition should reflect a combination of ecological-socio-cultural and economic functions and values, biodiversity, and resilience—where resilience incorporates current and projected changes to flow regimes, climate, and other non-flow stressors and drivers, and that these components of condition should be assessed across multiple spatiotemporal scales and across multiple levels of ecological organisation (Figure 1).
This characterisation of NWV condition requires a multifaceted approach that can be informed by reference to literature, ecological theory, analysis of data, and human insights. There is a wealth of knowledge and insight held by practitioners working in the environmental water management space that is, rarely captured in published literature [with notable exceptions such as Jahnig et al. (2011); Horne A. C. et al., 2017; Wineland et al. (2021)]. Relationships between vegetation responses and flow regimes to inform definitions of condition, can be derived from quantitative analysis of data (e.g., ), expert elicitation (e.g., Sinclair et al., 2015; ; Sinclair et al., 2018), professional insights (Jahnig et al., 2011; ), traditional knowledge (Jackson et al., 2015; ; Moggridge et al., 2019), structured literature reviews (e.g., Greet et al., 2011; Webb et al., 2012), conceptual models (; ), or approaches which combine multiple aspects (e.g., Webb et al., 2015).
Similarly, the values and functions supported by NWV need to be derived from a broad range of stakeholders using appropriate techniques to facilitate engagement (Moggridge et al., 2019; Sterling et al., 2019; Liguori et al., 2021). Community understanding and support for environmental flows is an important part of social license and the ability to effectively implement environmental water management actions (), with community understanding and support inevitably linked to personal values (Gonzalez Lopez and Amerigo Cuervo-Arango, 2008). To reflect the diversity of values, functions also need to encompass a range of services from ecological, such as habitat and regulation, to economic production and other social and cultural functions such as information, aesthetics, education and wellbeing (; ).
Using the conceptual model in Figure 1 components of condition can be structured in a framework that explicitly incorporates i) ecological, socio-cultural and economic functions and values, ii) biodiversity at multiple levels of ecological organisation and across a range of attributes, and iii) resilience to changes in flow, climate and other non-flow drivers, and to assess the trends in these components across multiple temporal and spatial scales.
Table 1 provide an example of the information that could be collated to help characterise condition for two NWV communities, ephemeral herbfield vegetation, and submerged macrophyte communities. This applies the concepts from Figure 1. While these examples are both at the community level of ecological organization a similar process could be undertaken for species or landscape mosaics. Socio-cultural and economic functions and values are underrepresented in the current examples and require further research. By having a structured framework, that considers both ecological data and societal values, guidance can be given to water managers to help inform the development of benchmarks, watering objectives and monitoring metrics. There are, however, key pieces of information required to apply such a framework.
TABLE 1
| Component | Sub-component | Description |
|---|---|---|
| a) Ephemeral herbfields | ||
| Functions and values | Ecological, socio-cultural and economic functions and values | Biodiversity; habitat for amphibious insects; erosion prevention; nutrient/carbon cycling; other socio-cultural and economic functions and values determined by consultation with scientists, managers and communities |
| Biodiversity | Characteristics of community type | Species germinate and grow on recession of water; typically high species richness and high cover (in healthy examples) with rapid turnover of species composition; can form distinct bands of vegetation; often dominated by short-lived species that germinate from persistent seed banks (though later successional species can persist for longer); diversity and cover are important attributes; seed banks are crucial |
| Example species: (semi-arid inland south-eastern Australia) | Some Myriophyllum spp., Marsilea spp., Limosella spp., Glinus spp., Centipeda spp., some Callitriche spp., Glycyrrhiza acanthocarpa., some Persicaria spp., Glossostigma spp., plus others | |
| Attributes (e.g., composition, structure, process): (potential vegetation response metrics) | Species richness; % cover; turnover/temporal composition; seed bank composition and viability; productivity (e.g., patterns of greening and browning) | |
| Resilience | Ecological resilience | Composition, abundance and viability of seed banks at individual locations |
| Spatial resilience | Landscape distribution and configuration of community types with different levels of ecological resilience | |
| Trends | Temporal | Assemblages transition between naturally variable wet-dry phases; limits of acceptable variability would need to be defined |
| Spatial | See spatial resilience | |
| Drivers/ Pressures | Flow requirements/pressures: (potential explanatory variables) | Temporary inundation. Recession rates need to maintain adequate soil moisture to enable species to complete life-cycles and set seed; season of water recession will influence species composition; frequency/inter-flood dry period needs to maintain seed bank viability |
| Non-flow drivers/pressures: (potential explanatory variables) | Disturbance (e.g., pigs, horses); grazing (non-native and native); extent of litter cover; shading; climate (influence of evaporation/rainfall on soil moisture); salinity; temperatures | |
| b) Submerged macrophytes | ||
| Functions and values | Ecological, socio-cultural and economic functions and values | Habitat for particular fish species; habitat for macroinvertebrates; substrate for biofilms; water quality processes; contribution to productivity; aesthetic values; other socio-cultural and economic functions and values determined by consultation with scientists, managers and communities |
| Biodiversity | Characteristics of community type | Presence of water; low species richness and high cover may be characteristic; may be dominated by vegetative reproduction; structure and cover are important attributes |
| Example species: (semi-arid inland south-eastern Australia) | Ruppia spp., Potamogeton spp., Vallisneria spp., Charophytes | |
| Attributes (e.g., composition, structure, process): (potential vegetation response metrics) | % cover; structural complexity | |
| Resilience | Ecological resilience | Cover of submerged macrophytes and capacity for vegetative regeneration or germination from seedbanks at individual locations |
| Spatial resilience | Landscape distribution and configuration of community types with different levels of ecological resilience | |
| Trends | Temporal | Relative stability over time within the limits of natural flow variability |
| Spatial | See spatial resilience | |
| Drivers/Pressures | Flow requirements/pressures: (potential explanatory variables) | Permanent to semi-permanent water; following complete drying may require at least 6 months inundation for submerged vegetation to re-establish; water level typically needs to be maintained >50 cm and <2 m (can exceed these bounds for short periods; may need to be <1 m if water is very turbid); influenced by water quality (turbidity, salinity, pH, algal blooms, blackwater events) |
| Non-flow drivers/pressures: (potential explanatory variables) | Mechanical disturbance (carp, waterbirds, boats); temperature | |
Example application of the proposed framework for (a) ephemeral herbfield vegetation and (b) submerged macrophyte vegetation. Components used to characterise the condition of non-woody vegetation (see also Figure 1) would be defined by workshopping with stakeholders. Example specific characteristics are provided based on ephemeral herbfields and submerged macrophytes in arid inland south-eastern Australia.
First, condition needs to be described at different levels of ecological organisation and explicitly relate to wet-dry phases. In highly dynamic systems, such as wetlands that cycle through wet-dry phases (), different points in the wet-dry phase should inform condition. The relative importance or influence of various phases is likely to vary for different wetland types or communities, for example, the inundated phase for submerged vegetation compared with flow recession and the drawdown phase for some ephemeral herbfields. Thapa et al. (2020) examined the productivity response of four vegetation communities to four phases of the wet-dry cycle and acknowledge the need to expand response patterns to wet-dry cycles to other biological attributes such as flowering, seed set and germination. In relation to levels of ecological organisation, a high proportion of studies investigating vegetation responses to flow regimes focus on the level of community (CJC unpublished data). More work is required to define the characteristics of condition at other levels of ecological organisation, such as area, spatial configuration, as well as flow and vegetated connectivity at landscape scales.
Second, expected response trajectories for NWV outcomes need to be defined. These trajectories need to be explicit about the timescale across which responses are expected to occur (Ryo et al., 2019), for example, species may germinate only weeks after inundation, while target cover values or the full complement of species in the seedbank may only be expressed after multiple wet-dry inundation events across multiple years. The state of vegetation prior to management interventions will also impact expected response trajectories (). The flow and non-flow conditions conducive to meeting expected response trajectories also need to be explicitly stated (). For example, a series of drought years with below-average rainfall and above-average temperatures will interact with expected outcomes from environmental flow. Similarly, land use factors such as grazing pressure (Nicol et al., 2007; Souther et al., 2019), animal disturbance (Vilizzi et al., 2014) and nutrient runoff (Smith 2003) are also likely to impact outcomes from environmental flows. Expected responses also need to provide an indication of the shape of the trajectory, be that a return to some “pre-disturbance” condition state, slowing the rate of decline, or facilitating transition to novel but functional systems (Hobbs et al., 2014).
Third, there needs to be a better understanding of the ecological, socio-cultural and economic functions and values provided by different types of vegetation outcomes as well as appropriate metrics to address these (; ). An additional important consideration is the way in which values and appropriate participation are incorporated as highlighted by Moggridge et al. (2019) and in relation to the integration of cultural values into water planning.
Characterisation of NWV condition needs to move beyond single-state, ecologically derived definitions to capture ecological, socio-cultural and economic functions and values (; ), incorporate scale (Rolls et al., 2018) and dynamic temporal trajectories (Ryo et al., 2019), consider trade-offs or transitions to novel ecosystem types (Hobbs et al., 2014), while not losing sight of the inherent value of biodiversity (). Adequate characterisation of condition is required to successfully evaluate dynamic NWV outcomes to environmental flows. The ability to evaluate outcomes is critical in terms of learning by doing to inform future management activities (; Watts et al., 2020). Evaluation also improves the theoretical basis for predicting outcomes (; ; Török and Helm 2017), is an important component in achieving the aims of restoration projects (Prach et al., 2019), such as environmental flows, and for effective communication of and engagement with outcomes (). Improving the health of our rivers, wetlands and floodplains is important not only in terms of supporting ecosystems but in terms of the deep connection people have with these environments that affects their physical and mental wellbeing (Russell et al., 2013; Reeves et al., 2021). How we characterise and evaluate condition may have benefits to both ecosystem health and how people connect with environmental flows and the rivers, wetlands and floodplains to which they’re delivered.
Recommendations
We conclude by proposing recommendations for the future of NWV monitoring and evaluation, particularly at large spatial scales:
• Develop indicators of condition at different levels of ecological organisation that incorporate biodiversity, ecological, socio-cultural and economic functions and values, and resilience
• Undertake monitoring and evaluation across multiple levels of ecological organisation to address biodiversity, functions and values and resilience, for example:
o Population or species level: e.g., monitoring of individual species or populations of interest, such as rare and threatened species, species significantly contributing to the character of Ramsar sites, important food or habitat for fauna, or species identified for other values such as importance to aboriginal people.
o Community level: e.g., monitoring, at both the field level and via remote sensing, of community assemblages and dynamics at multiple spatiotemporal scales in terms of the contribution to biodiversity and functional processes.
o Vegscape level: e.g., monitoring of spatiotemporal configuration of ecosystem patches and evaluating the requirements for long-term resilience, for example, what and how much, where and when?
• Undertake research to establish the links between different levels of ecological organisation and the influence of flow and non-flow drivers, e.g., species or community assemblages associated with different ecosystem types, different flow regimes, and other non-flow drivers
• Establish trajectories of expected responses for defined outcomes that incorporate different flow scenarios and scenarios for key non-flow drivers such as climate
• Invest in better understanding the ecological, socio-cultural and economic functions and values of NWV, e.g., how these change in space and time, appropriate indicators for monitoring, and appropriate ways of integrating values.
• Establish processes to synthesize outcomes and knowledge across multiple levels of ecological organisation
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
Conceptualisation, CC, RT, SC, and FD; visualisation, CC, FD; writing—original draft preparation, CC; writing—review and editing, CC, RT, SC, and FD. All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Funding
CC has funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship and a top-up scholarship from the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office’s (CEWO) Basin-scale Monitoring Evaluation and Research project (Flow-MER). FD, RT, and SC are supervisors and their role in the paper had no specific funding.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the broader teams as part of the Long Term Intervention Monitoring (LTIM), Environmental Water Knowledge and Research (EWKR) and Flow-MER projects for discussions around condition and evaluation.
Conflict of interest
The authors have, over many years, received funding from various Australian government departments, such as the Murray Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office, to undertake river and wetland research, and to provide advice on technical issues and policy implications.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
ArsénioP.Rodríguez‐GonzálezP. M.BernezI.S. DiasF.BugalhoM. N.DufourS. (2020). Riparian Vegetation Restoration: Does Social Perception Reflect Ecological Value. River Res. Applic36 (6), 907–920. 10.1002/rra.3514
2
ArthingtonA. H.KennenJ. G.SteinE. D.WebbJ. A. (2018). Recent Advances in Environmental Flows Science and Water Management-Innovation in the Anthropocene. Freshw. Biol.63 (8), 1022–1034. 10.1111/fwb.13108
3
BaldwinD. S.ReesG. N.WilsonJ. S.ColloffM. J.WhitworthK. L.PitmanT. L.et al (2013). Provisioning of Bioavailable Carbon between the Wet and Dry Phases in a Semi-arid Floodplain. Oecologia172 (2), 539–550. 10.1007/s00442-012-2512-8
4
BalmfordA.BeresfordJ.GreenJ.NaidooR.WalpoleM.ManicaA. (2009). A Global Perspective on Trends in Nature-Based Tourism. Plos Biol.7 (6), e1000144. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144
5
BiceC. M.GehrigS. L.ZampattiB. P.NicolJ. M.WilsonP.LeighS. L.et al (2014). Flow-induced Alterations to Fish Assemblages, Habitat and Fish-Habitat Associations in a Regulated lowland River. Hydrobiologia722 (1), 205–222. 10.1007/s10750-013-1701-8
6
BinoG.SissonS. A.KingsfordR. T.ThomasR. F.BowenS. (2015). Developing State and Transition Models of Floodplain Vegetation Dynamics as a Tool for Conservation Decision-Making: a Case Study of the Macquarie Marshes Ramsar Wetland. J. Appl. Ecol.52 (3), 654–664. 10.1111/1365-2664.12410
7
BondN.CostelloeJ.KingA.WarfeD.ReichP.BalcombeS. (2014). Ecological Risks and Opportunities from Engineered Artificial Flooding as a Means of Achieving Environmental Flow Objectives. Front. Ecol. Environ.12 (7), 386–394. 10.1890/130259
8
BondN. R.GriggN.RobertsJ.McGinnessH.NielsenD.O'BrienM.et al (2018). Assessment of Environmental Flow Scenarios Using State-And-Transition Models. Freshw. Biol.63, 804–816. 10.1111/fwb.13060
9
BoultonA. J.BrockM. A.RobsonB. J.ChambersJ. M.DavisJ. A. (2014). Australian Freshwater Ecology: Processes and Management. Second Edition. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
10
BowenS. M. (2019). Quantifying the Water Needs of Flood-dependent Plant Communities in the Macquaries Marshes, South-Eastern AustraliaDoctor of Philosophy. Sydney: University of Technology.
11
BrockM. A. (2011). Persistence of Seed banks in Australian Temporary Wetlands. Freshw. Biol.56 (7), 1312–1327. 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02570.x
12
BrooksS. (2020). 2019-19 Murray-Darling Basin Long Term Intervention Monitoring Project - 2018-19 Basin-scale Evaluation of Commonwealth Environmental Water - Ecosystem Diversity, 248. Final Report prepared for the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Commonwealth Environmental Water Office by La Trobe University, Centre for Freshwater Ecosystems, CFE Publication, 54. May 2020.
13
BrooksS. (2021). Basin-scale Evaluation of 2019-20 Commonwealth Water: Ecosystem Diversity Flow-MER Program. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO): Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Program, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, 81pp.
14
BrudvigL. A.BarakR. S.BauerJ. T.CaughlinT. T.LaughlinD. C.LariosL.et al (2017). Interpreting Variation to advance Predictive Restoration Science. J. Appl. Ecol.54 (4), 1018–1027. 10.1111/1365-2664.12938
15
BullockJ. M.AronsonJ.NewtonA. C.PywellR. F.Rey-BenayasJ. M. (2011). Restoration of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity: Conflicts and Opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol.26 (10), 541–549. 10.1016/j.tree.2011.06.011
16
Cambridge-English-Dictionary. (2020). Meaning of Evaluate in English. (Accessed , December 2020), Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evaluate?q=evaluation%29
17
CampbellC. J.FreestoneF. L.DuncanR. P.HiggissonW.HealyS. J. (2021). The More the Merrier: Using Environmental Flows to Improve Floodplain Vegetation Condition. Mar. Freshw. Res.72 (8), 1185. 10.1071/mf20303
18
CampbellC. J.JamesC. S.MorrisK.NicolJ. M.ThomasR. F.NielsenD. L.et al (2021). Blue, green and In-Between: Objectives and Approaches for Evaluating Wetland Flow Regimes Based on Vegetation Outcomes. Mar. Freshw. Res. 10.1071/mf20338
19
CaponS. J.ChambersL. E.Mac NallyR.NaimanR. J.DaviesP.MarshallN.et al (2013). Riparian Ecosystems in the 21st Century: Hotspots for Climate Change Adaptation. Ecosystems16 (3), 359–381. 10.1007/s10021-013-9656-1
20
CaponS. J.JamesC. (2020). Murray-darling Basin Long Term Intervention Monitoring Project - Vegetation Diversity Report, 249. Final Report prepared for the Department of the Agriculture, Environment and Water, Commonwealth Environmental Water Office by La Trobe University, Centre for Freshwater Ecosystems, CFE Publication, 129pp. May 2020.
21
CaponS. J.JamesC. S.MackayS. J.BunnS. E. (2009). Environmental Watering for Understorey and Aquatic Vegetation in the Living Murray Icon Sites: A Literature Review and Identification of Research Priorities Relevant to the Environmental Watering Actions of Flow Enhancement and Retaining Floodwater on Floodplains, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.
22
CaponS. J.ReidM. A. (2016). Vegetation Resilience to Mega-Drought along a Typical Floodplain Gradient of the Southern Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. J. Veg Sci.27 (5), 926–937. 10.1111/jvs.12426
23
CarpenterS. R.LodgeD. M. (1986). Efects of Submersed Macrophytes on Ecosystem Processes. Aquat. Bot.26 (3-4), 341–370. 10.1016/0304-3770(86)90031-8
24
CasanovaM. (2015). Review of Water Requirements for Key Floodplain Vegetation for the Northern Basin: Literature Review and Expert Knowledge Assessment. Lake Bolac, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Charophyte Services.
25
ChambersJ. C.AllenC. R.CushmanS. A. (2019). Operationalizing Ecological Resilience Concepts for Managing Species and Ecosystems at Risk. Front. Ecol. Evol.7. 10.3389/fevo.2019.00241
26
ChoiJ.-Y.JeongK.-S.KimS.-K.LaG.-H.ChangK.-H.JooG.-J. (2014). Role of Macrophytes as Microhabitats for Zooplankton Community in Lentic Freshwater Ecosystems of South Korea. Ecol. Inform.24, 177–185. 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.09.002
27
ClarkeP. J.BellD. M.LawesM. J. (2015). Testing the Shifting Persistence Niche Concept: Plant Resprouting along Gradients of Disturbance. The Am. Naturalist185 (6), 747–755. 10.1086/681160
28
CombrouxI.BornetteG.WillbyN. J.AmorosC. (2001). Regenerative Strategies of Aquatic Plants in Disturbed Habitats: the Role of the Propagule Bank. Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie152 (2), 215–235.
29
ConallinJ.McLoughlinC. A.CampbellJ.KnightR.BrightT.FisherI. (2018). Stakeholder Participation in Freshwater Monitoring and Evaluation Programs: Applying Thresholds of Potential Concern within Environmental Flows. Environ. Manage.61 (3), 408–420. 10.1007/s00267-017-0940-2
30
ConroyC.KnightA. R.WassensS.AllanC. (2019). Consequences of Changed Water Management for Aboriginal Australians in the Murrumbidgee Catchment, NSW. Aust. Geographer50 (2), 169–184. 10.1080/00049182.2018.1545275
31
CookC. N.CarterR. W.FullerR. A.HockingsM. (2012). Managers Consider Multiple Lines of Evidence Important for Biodiversity Management Decisions. J. Environ. Manage.113, 341–346. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.002
32
CottetM.PiégayH.BornetteG. (2013). Does Human Perception of Wetland Aesthetics and Healthiness Relate to Ecological Functioning. J. Environ. Manage.128, 1012–1022. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.056
33
CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (2015). Climate Change in Australia Information for Australia's Natural Resource Management Regions: Technical Report. Australia: CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology.
34
DareM.SchirmerJ.VanclayF. (2014). Community Engagement and Social Licence to Operate. Impact Assess. Project Appraisal32 (3), 188–197. 10.1080/14615517.2014.927108
35
de GrootR. S.WilsonM. A.BoumansR. M. J. (2002). A Typology for the Classification, Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services. Ecol. Econ.41 (3), 393–408. 10.1016/s0921-8009(02)00089-7
36
DELWP (2016). Quality Assessment Metric for 'Seasonal Herbaceous Wetlands', Melbourne Strategic Assessment, the State of Victoria. Land, Water and Planning: Department of Environment.
37
DockerB. B.HubbleT. C. T. (2008). Quantifying Root-Reinforcement of River Bank Soils by Four Australian Tree Species. Geomorphology100 (3-4), 401–418. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.01.009
38
DouglasM. M.JacksonS.CanhamC. A.LabordeS.BeesleyL.KennardM. J.et al (2019). Conceptualizing Hydro-Socio-Ecological Relationships to Enable More Integrated and Inclusive Water Allocation Planning. One Earth1 (3), 361–373. 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.021
39
DudgeonD. (2014). Accept No Substitute: Biodiversity Matters. Aquat. Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.24 (4), 435–440. 10.1002/aqc.2485
40
DudgeonD. (2019). Multiple Threats Imperil Freshwater Biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Curr. Biol.29 (19), R960–R967. 10.1016/j.cub.2019.08.002
41
DyerF.CampbellC.HiggissonW.TschierschkeA.DoodyT. M. (2021). Basin-scale Evaluatio of 2019-20 Commonwealth Environmental Water: Vegetation Flow-MER Program. Canberra, AustraliaAustralia: Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO): Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Program, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, 152pp.
42
FlitcroftR. L.BottomD. L.HabermanK. L.BierlyK. F.JonesK. K.SimenstadC. A.et al (2016). Expect the Unexpected: Place-Based Protections Can lead to Unforeseen Benefits. Aquat. Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.26, 39–59. 10.1002/aqc.2660
43
GalbraithM.TownsD. R.BollardB.MacDonaldE. A. (2021). Ecological Restoration success from Community and agency Perspectives: Exploring the Differences. Restoration Ecol.29 (5). 10.1111/rec.13405
44
GariS. R.NewtonA.IcelyJ. D. (2015). A Review of the Application and Evolution of the DPSIR Framework with an Emphasis on Coastal Social-Ecological Systems. Ocean Coastal Manage.103, 63–77. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.11.013
45
GawneB.HaleJ.StewardsonM. J.WebbJ. A.RyderD. S.BrooksS. S.et al (2019). Monitoring of Environmental Flow Outcomes in a Large River basin: The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's Long-Term Intervention in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australia: River Research and Applications.
46
GibbonsP.FreudenbergerD. (2006). An Overview of Methods Used to Assess Vegetation Condition at the Scale of the Site. Ecol. Manage. Restor7 (s1), S10–S17. 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2006.00286.x
47
GibbonsP.ZergerA.JonesS.RyanP. (2006). Mapping Vegetation Condition in the Context of Biodiversity Conservation. Ecol. Manage. Restor7 (s1), S1–S2. 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2006.00282.x
48
GitauP. N.NdirituG. G.GichukiN. N. (2019). Ecological, Recreational and Educational Potential of a Small Artificial Wetland in an Urban Environment. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 10.2989/16085914.2019.1663721
49
González LópezA.Amérigo Cuervo-ArangoM. (2008). Relationship Among Values, Beliefs, Norms and Ecological Behaviour. Psicothema20 (4), 623–629.
50
GreetJ.Angus WebbJ.CousensR. D. (2011). The Importance of Seasonal Flow Timing for Riparian Vegetation Dynamics: a Systematic Review Using Causal Criteria Analysis. Freshw. Biol.56 (7), 1231–1247. 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02564.x
51
Haines-YoungR.PotschinM.KienastF. (2012). Indicators of Ecosystem Service Potential at European Scales: Mapping Marginal Changes and Trade-Offs. Ecol. Indicators21, 39–53. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.004
52
HarrisonP. A.VandewalleM.SykesM. T.BerryP. M.BugterR.de BelloF.et al (2010). Identifying and Prioritising Services in European Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv19 (10), 2791–2821. 10.1007/s10531-010-9789-x
53
HausmannA.ToivonenT.FinkC.HeikinheimoV.KulkarniR.TenkanenH.et al (2020). Understanding Sentiment of national park Visitors from Social media Data. People Nat.2 (3), 750–760. 10.1002/pan3.10130
54
HiggissonW.DoodyT. M.CampbellC.DyerF. J. (2021). The Response to Environmental Flows of a Culturally Significant Flood-dependent Species: Centipeda Cunninghamii (Asteraceae). Mar. Freshw. Res.72 (7), 1086–1091. 10.1071/mf20314
55
HobbsR. J.HiggsE.HallC. M.BridgewaterP.ChapinF. S.IIIEllisE. C.et al (2014). Managing the Whole Landscape: Historical, Hybrid, and Novel Ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ.12 (10), 557–564. 10.1890/130300
56
HorneA. C.WebbJ. A.O'DonnellE.ArthingtonA. H.McClainM.BondN.et al (2017). Research Priorities to Improve Future Environmental Water Outcomes. Front. Environ. Sci.5, 89. 10.3389/fenvs.2017.00089
57
HorneA.WebbA.StewardsonM.RichterB.AcremanM. (2017). Water for the Environment : From Policy and Science through to Implementation. Saint Louis, UNITED STATES: Elsevier Science & Technology.
58
HunterJ. T. (2021). Vegetation Change in Semi-permanent or Ephemeral Montane Marshes (Lagoons) of the New England Tablelands Bioregion. Aust. J. Bot. 10.1071/bt20028
59
JacksonS.PollinoC.MacleanK.BarkR.MoggridgeB. (2015). Meeting Indigenous Peoples' Objectives in Environmental Flow Assessments: Case Studies from an Australian Multi-Jurisdictional Water Sharing Initiative. J. Hydrol.522, 141–151. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.12.047
60
JacksonW. J. (2017). Australia State of the Environment 2016: Approach. Canberra, Independent Report to the Australian Government Minister for Environment and Energy. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy.
61
JähnigS. C.LorenzA. W.HeringD.AntonsC.SundermannA.JedickeE.et al (2011). River Restoration success: a Question of Perception. Ecol. Appl.21 (6), 2007–2015. 10.1890/10-0618.1
62
JamesC. S.CaponS. J.QuinnG. P. (2015). Nurse Plant Effects of a Dominant Shrub (Duma Florulenta ) on Understorey Vegetation in a Large, Semi-arid Wetland in Relation to Flood Frequency and Drying. J. Veg Sci.26 (5), 985–994. 10.1111/jvs.12297
63
JaxK.HeinkU. (2015). Searching for the Place of Biodiversity in the Ecosystem Services Discourse. Biol. Conservation191, 198–205. 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.032
64
KeddyP. A. (2010). Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
65
KingsfordR. T.ThomasR. F. (2004). Destruction of Wetlands and Waterbird Populations by Dams and Irrigation on the Murrumbidgee River in Arid Australia. Environ. Manage.34 (3), 383–396. 10.1007/s00267-004-0250-3
66
KonradC. P.OldenJ. D.LytleD. A.MelisT. S.SchmidtJ. C.BrayE. N.et al (2011). Large-scale Flow Experiments for Managing River Systems. Bioscience61 (12), 948–959. 10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.5
67
LeblancM.TweedS.Van DijkA.TimbalB. (2012). A Review of Historic and Future Hydrological Changes in the Murray-Darling Basin. Glob. Planet. Change80-81, 226–246. 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.10.012
68
LiguoriA.McEwenL.BlakeJ.WilsonM. (2021). Towards 'Creative Participatory Science': Exploring Future Scenarios through Specialist Drought Science and Community Storytelling. Front. Environ. Sci.8. 10.3389/fenvs.2020.589856
69
LindenmayerD.HobbsR. J.Montague-DrakeR.AlexandraJ.BennettA.BurgmanM.et al (2008). A Checklist for Ecological Management of Landscapes for Conservation. Ecol. Lett.11 (1), 78–91. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01114.x
70
LiuH.ZhengL.WuJ.LiaoY. (2020). Past and Future Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in Poyang Lake Basin under Different Land Use Policy Scenarios. Arabian J. Geosciences13 (2). 10.1007/s12517-019-5004-x
71
MaZ.CaiY.LiB.ChenJ. (2010). Managing Wetland Habitats for Waterbirds: An International Perspective. Wetlands30 (1), 15–27. 10.1007/s13157-009-0001-6
72
MaheshwariB. L.WalkerK. F.McMahonT. A. (1995). Effects of Regulation on the Flow Regime of the River Murray, Australia. Regul. Rivers: Res. Mgmt.10 (1), 15–38. 10.1002/rrr.3450100103
73
MarchandL.CastagneyrolB.JimenezJ. J.BenayasJ. M. R.BenotM.-L.Martinez-RuizC.et al (2021). Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Estimating the success of Ecological Restoration. Ecol. Indicators123. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107362
74
MardenM.RowanD.PhillipsC. (2005). Stabilising Characteristics of New Zealand Indigenous Riparian Colonising Plants. Plant and Soil278 (1-2), 95–105. 10.1007/s11104-004-7598-2
75
McGinnessH. M.ArthurA. D.DaviesM. (2018). Flood Regimes Driving Vegetation and Bird Community Transitions in Semiarid Floodplain Woodlands. Ecohydrology11 (5). 10.1002/eco.1954
76
McGinnessH. M.ArthurA. D.WardK. A.WardP. A. (2014). Floodplain Amphibian Abundance: Responses to Flooding and Habitat Type in Barmah Forest, Murray River, Australia. Wildl. Res.41 (2), 149–162. 10.1071/wr13224
77
McLoughlinC. A.ThomsM. C.ParsonsM. (2020). Reflexive Learning in Adaptive Management: A Case Study of Environmental Water Management in the Murray Darling Basin, Australia. River Res. Applic36 (4), 681–694. 10.1002/rra.3607
78
MoggridgeB. J.BetterridgeL.ThompsonR. M. (2019). Integrating Aboriginal Cultural Values into Water Planning: a Case Study from New South Wales, Australia. Australasian J. Environ. Manage.26 (3), 273–286. 10.1080/14486563.2019.1650837
79
MoggridgeB. J.ThompsonR. M. (2021). Cultural Value of Water and Western Water Management: an Australian Indigenous Perspective. Australasian Journal of Water Resources. 10.1080/13241583.2021.1897926
80
NearyV. S.ConstantinescuS. G.BennettS. J.DiplasP. (2012). Effects of Vegetation on Turbulence, Sediment Transport, and Stream Morphology. J. Hydraul. Eng.138 (9), 765–776. 10.1061/(asce)hy.1943-7900.0000168
81
NicolJ.MustonS.D'SantosP.McCarthyB.ZukowskiS. (2007). Impact of Sheep Grazing on the Soil Seed Bank of a Managed Ephemeral Wetland: Implications for Management. Aust. J. Bot.55 (2), 103–109. 10.1071/bt04137
82
NossR. F. (1990). Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach. Conservation Biol.4 (4), 355–364. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x
83
OkumahM.YeboahA. S.AmponsahO. (2020). Stakeholders' Willingness and Motivations to Support Sustainable Water Resources Management: Insights from a Ghanaian Study. Conservation Sci. Pract.2 (3). 10.1111/csp2.170
84
OvertonI.PollinoC.RobertsJ.ReidJ.BondN.McGinnessH.et al (2014). Development of the MurrayDarling Basin Plan SDL Adjustment Ecological Elements Method. Report prepared by. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO for the Murray–Darling Basin Authority, 190.
85
PalmerM. A.BernhardtE. S.AllanJ. D.LakeP. S.AlexanderG.BrooksS.et al (2005). Standards for Ecologically Successful River Restoration. J. Appl. Ecol.42 (2), 208–217. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x
86
ParkesD.LyonP. (2006). Towards a National Approach to Vegetation Condition Assessment that Meets Government Investors' Needs: A Policy Perspective. Ecol. Manage. Restor7 (s1), S3–S5. 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2006.00283.x
87
PoffN. L. (2018). Beyond the Natural Flow Regime? Broadening the Hydro-Ecological Foundation to Meet Environmental Flows Challenges in a Non-stationary World. Freshw. Biol.63 (8), 1011–1021. 10.1111/fwb.13038
88
PollardS.du ToitD.BiggsH. (2011). River Management under Transformation: The Emergence of Strategic Adaptive Management of River Systems in the Kruger National Park. Koedoe53 (2). 10.4102/koedoe.v53i2.1011
89
PrachK.DuriganG.FennessyS.OverbeckG. E.TorezanJ. M.MurphyS. D. (2019). A Primer on Choosing Goals and Indicators to Evaluate Ecological Restoration success. Restor Ecol.27 (5), 917–923. 10.1111/rec.13011
90
ReederB. C. (2011). Assessing Constructed Wetland Functional success Using Diel Changes in Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Temperature in Submerged, Emergent, and Open-Water Habitats in the Beaver Creek Wetlands Complex, Kentucky (USA). Ecol. Eng.37 (11), 1772–1778. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.06.018
91
ReevesJ. P.JohnC. H. D.WoodK. A.MaundP. R. (2021). A Qualitative Analysis of UK Wetland Visitor Centres as a Health Resource. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health18 (16). 10.3390/ijerph18168629
92
ReidA. J.CarlsonA. K.CreedI. F.EliasonE. J.GellP. A.JohnsonP. T. J.et al (2019). Emerging Threats and Persistent Conservation Challenges for Freshwater Biodiversity. Biol. Rev.94 (3), 849–873. 10.1111/brv.12480
93
ReisV.HermosoV.HamiltonS. K.WardD.Fluet-ChouinardE.LehnerB.et al (2017). A Global Assessment of Inland Wetland Conservation Status. Bioscience67 (6), 523–533. 10.1093/biosci/bix045
94
RollsR. J.HeinoJ.RyderD. S.ChessmanB. C.GrownsI. O.ThompsonR. M.et al (2018). Scaling Biodiversity Responses to Hydrological Regimes. Biol. Rev.93 (2), 971–995. 10.1111/brv.12381
95
RussellR.GuerryA. D.BalvaneraP.GouldR. K.BasurtoX.ChanK. M. A.et al (2013). Humans and Nature: How Knowing and Experiencing Nature Affect Well-Being. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.3838, 473–502. 10.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838
96
RyoM.Aguilar-TriguerosC. A.PinekL.MullerL. A. H.RilligM. C. (2019). Basic Principles of Temporal Dynamics. Trends Ecol. Evol.34 (8), 723–733. 10.1016/j.tree.2019.03.007
97
SahaD.DasD.DasguptaR.PatelP. P. (2020). Application of Ecological and Aesthetic Parameters for Riparian Quality Assessment of a Small Tropical River in Eastern India. Ecol. Indicators117. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106627
98
SantamaríaL. (2002). Why Are Most Aquatic Plants Widely Distributed? Dispersal, Clonal Growth and Small-Scale Heterogeneity in a Stressful Environment. Acta Oecologica23 (3), 137–154. 10.1016/s1146-609x(02)01146-3
99
SiikamäkiP.KangasK.PaasivaaraA.SchroderusS. (2015). Biodiversity Attracts Visitors to National parks. Biodivers Conserv24 (10), 2521–2534. 10.1007/s10531-015-0941-5
100
SinclairS. J.BruceM. J.GriffioenP.DoddA.WhiteM. D. (2018). A Condition Metric for Eucalyptus woodland Derived from Expert Evaluations. Conservation Biol.32 (1), 195–204. 10.1111/cobi.12941
101
SinclairS. J.GriffioenP.DuncanD. H.Millett-RileyJ. E.WhiteM. D. (2015). Quantifying Ecosystem Quality by Modeling Multi-Attribute Expert Opinion. Ecol. Appl.25 (6), 1463–1477. 10.1890/14-1485.1
102
SmithV. H. (2003). Eutrophication of Freshwater and Coastal marine Ecosystems a Global Problem. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.10 (2), 126–139. 10.1065/espr2002.12.142
103
SoutherS.LoeserM.CrewsT. E.SiskT. (2019). Complex Response of Vegetation to Grazing Suggests Need for Coordinated, Landscape-Level Approaches to Grazing Management. Glob. Ecol. Conservation20. 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00770
104
SterlingE. J.ZellnerM.JenniK. E.LeongK.GlynnP. D.BenDorT. K.et al (2019). Try, Try Again: Lessons Learned from success and Failure in Participatory Modeling. Elementa-Science of the Anthropocene7. 10.1525/elementa.347
105
TearT. H.KareivaP.AngermeierP. L.ComerP.CzechB.KautzR.et al (2005). How Much Is Enough? the Recurrent Problem of Setting Measurable Objectives in Conservation. BioScience55 (10), 835–849. 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0835:hmietr]2.0.co;2
106
ThapaR.ThomsM. C.ReidM.ParsonsM. (2020). Do adaptive Cycles of Floodplain Vegetation Response to Inundation Differ Among Vegetation Communities. River Res. Applic36 (4), 553–566. 10.1002/rra.3538
107
ThomsM. C.BeyerP. J.RogersK. H.KingsfordR. (2006). “Variability, Complexity and Diversity: the Geomorphology of River Ecosystems in Dryland Regions,” in Ecology of Desert Rivers (New York: Cambridge University Press).
108
TörökP.HelmA. (2017). Ecological Theory Provides strong Support for Habitat Restoration. Biol. Conservation206, 85–91. 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.024
109
TscherningK.HelmingK.KrippnerB.SieberS.PalomaS. G. y. (2012). Does Research Applying the DPSIR Framework Support Decision Making. Land Use Policy29 (1), 102–110. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.009
110
TulbureM. G.BroichM. (2019). Spatiotemporal Patterns and Effects of Climate and Land Use on Surface Water Extent Dynamics in a Dryland Region with Three Decades of Landsat Satellite Data. Sci. Total Environ.658, 1574–1585. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.390
111
ValinotiC. E.HoC.-K.ArmitageA. R. (2011). Native and Exotic Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Provide Different Nutritional and Refuge Values for Macroinvertebrates. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.409 (1-2), 42–47. 10.1016/j.jembe.2011.08.001
112
VietzG. J.LinternA.WebbJ. A.StraccioneD. (2018). River Bank Erosion and the Influence of Environmental Flow Management. Environ. Manage.61 (3), 454–468. 10.1007/s00267-017-0857-9
113
VilizziL.ThwaitesL. A.SmithB. B.NicolJ. M.MaddenC. P. (2014). Ecological Effects of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) in a Semi-arid Floodplain Wetland. Mar. Freshw. Res.65 (9), 802–817. 10.1071/mf13163
114
WarfeD. M.BarmutaL. A. (2006). Habitat Structural Complexity Mediates Food Web Dynamics in a Freshwater Macrophyte Community. Oecologia150 (1), 141–154. 10.1007/s00442-006-0505-1
115
WassensS.SaintilanN.OvertonI. (2010). Flooding Regimes for Frogs in lowland Rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin.
116
WattsR. J.DyerF.FrazierP.GawneB.MarshP.RyderD. S.et al (2020). Learning from Concurrent Adaptive Management in Multiple Catchments within a Large Environmental Flows Program in Australia. River Res. Applic36 (4), 668–680. 10.1002/rra.3620
117
WebbJ. A.LittleS. C.MillerK. A.StewardsonM. J.RutherfurdI. D.SharpeA. K.et al (2015). A General Approach to Predicting Ecological Responses to Environmental Flows: Making Best Use of the Literature, Expert Knowledge, and Monitoring Data. River Res. Applic.31 (4), 505–514. 10.1002/rra.2832
118
WebbJ. A.WallisE. M.StewardsonM. J. (2012). A Systematic Review of Published Evidence Linking Wetland Plants to Water Regime Components. Aquat. Bot.103, 1–14. 10.1016/j.aquabot.2012.06.003
119
WinelandS. M.FovargueR.YorkB.LynchA. J.PaukertC. P.NeesonT. M. (2021). Is There Enough Water? How Bearish and Bullish Outlooks Are Linked to Decision Maker Perspectives on Environmental Flows. J. Environ. Manage.280, 111694. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111694
120
WithersP. J.JarvieH. P. (2008). Delivery and Cycling of Phosphorus in Rivers: A Review. Sci. Total Environ.400 (1-3), 379–395. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.08.002
121
WortleyL.HeroJ.-M.HowesM. (2013). Evaluating Ecological Restoration Success: A Review of the Literature. Restor Ecol.21 (5), 537–543. 10.1111/rec.12028
122
ZhuL.ChenY.GongH.JiangW.ZhaoW.XiaoY. (2011). Economic Value Evaluation of Wetland Service in Yeyahu Wetland Nature Reserve, Beijing. Chin. Geogr. Sci.21 (6), 744–752. 10.1007/s11769-011-0503-z
Summary
Keywords
vegetation condition assessment, environmental flow, environmental water management, flooding, floodplain, restoration, wetland plants
Citation
Campbell CJ, Thompson RM, Capon SJ and Dyer FJ (2022) Rethinking Condition: Measuring and Evaluating Wetland Vegetation Responses to Water Management. Front. Environ. Sci. 9:801250. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.801250
Received
25 October 2021
Accepted
31 December 2021
Published
21 January 2022
Volume
9 - 2021
Edited by
Avril C. Horne, the University of Melbourne, Australia
Reviewed by
Catherine M. Febria, University of Windsor, Canada
Andrea Funk, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Campbell, Thompson, Capon and Dyer.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Cherie J. Campbell, Cherie.Campbell@canberra.edu.au
This article was submitted to Freshwater Science, a section of the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.