Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183

www.elsevier.com/locate/catena

The application of palaeohydrology in river management

D.A. Sear *, N.W. Arnell
School of Geography, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom

Abstract

This paper reviews recent changes in river management. These changes are characterised by a move from the notion of rivers as stable
equilibrium forms to one of dynamic responsive ecosystems. Coupled to these changes are a series of scientific questions that provide the
context for reviewing the role that palaeohydrology might have in supporting contemporary and future river management. Palaeohydrology is
shown to be capable of providing important and relevant information to river managers. Furthermore a series of emerging frameworks for
incorporating geomorphology in river management exist wherein palaeohydrological data and analysis can be directly interfaced with the
river management process. The paper therefore concludes that within specific limits, palaeohydrology is in much stronger position to support
and communicate with the river management agencies than has previously been the case.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Palaeohydrology; River; Management

1. Introduction between flow regime and the channel perimeter) a central

The dynamics of channel change have led to conflict with
human resource development with the outcome that many
river and riparian environments have been significantly
modified and damaged (Brookes and Shields, 1996; Sear et
al., 2000). Responses to change in driving variables (runoff
regime and sediment loads) have become dampened or
prevented through river maintenance (Sear and Newson,
1995), while in other circumstances, landuse and land
management changes, coupled to more efficient drainage
networks may have increased system sensitivity to environ-
mental change (Robinson, 1990; Newson and Leeks, 1987).
Nevertheless, increasing focus on the importance of the
physical habitats created by geomorphological processes,
and concerns raised by recent flooding and droughts have
served to highlight the importance of hydromorphological
processes in creating and sustaining biodiversity and flood
conveyance. Thus, the recent EU Water Framework Direc-
tive (European Commission, 2000) makes Fhydromorphic
condition_ (the physical outcome of the inter-relationship
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 2380592215; fax: +44 2380593295.
E-mail addresses: d.sear@soton.ac.uk (D.A. Sear),
n.w.arnell@soton.ac.uk (N.W. Arnell).
0341-8162/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2005.11.009
parameter in spatial and temporal assessment of compliance
with regulations. In England and Wales, the introduction of
Catchment Flood Management Plans by the Environment
Agency (Evans et al., 2002) forces the attention of the most
powerful river management function (Flood Defence) to
evaluate channel properties and changes as a basis for
sustainable asset management. Monitoring change in the
geomorphology of the river environment is, therefore (and
belatedly), becoming an important measure both of river
management practice and system resilience to external
environmental change (Raven et al., 1998; Sear and Newson,
2003).
Within this context of changing river management,
applied fluvial geomorphology has made considerable
progress in attaining the same status afforded other natural
sciences such as ecology and hydrology (Sear et al., 2004;
Brierley and Fryirs, 2000; Kondolf et al., 2003). An
important part of this process has been to work alongside
river managers to understand the nature of the questions
posed and to educate as to the values and services
geomorphology can provide. This paper focuses on the role
of palaeohydrological analyses– using geomorphic, sedi-
mentological and ecological data from pre-historical peri-
ods –in river management. However, rather than review the
170 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183
details of the application of palaeohydrological information
to river management, which has been the structure of past
reviews (Gregory, 2003, 1998; Brown, 1996, 2002), we
consider the needs of river managers first, and seek to match
these with the type of information currently derived from
palaeohydrological research. In this way a critical consid-
eration of the role of palaeohydrology is made possible that
can highlight areas requiring additional research whilst
making explicit the value that palaeohydrological research is
to contemporary river management. Though generic, many
of these examples will be European in focus and example.
1.1. The changing nature of river management
The broad characteristics of river management have
changed appreciably over the period since the term palae-
ohydrology was first coined by Leopold and Miller (1954).
In the 1950s to 1970s river management was characterised
by flow regulation, channel modification and drainage
programmes with little regard for river environments and
instream biota (Newson, 1992, Downs and Gregory, 2004).
Projects were often large scale (technology permissive) with
multi-functional goals (e.g. water supply, flood control, land
development).
From the 1970s to the early 1990s river management in
developed societies progressively changed in response to
recognition of the scale of environmental impact and
increasingly strong legislative protection for the environ-
ment (e.g. the 1972 Clean Water Act ‘‘to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
the Nation’s Water’’ in the United States and the UK’s 1988
Wildlife and Countryside Act). However, in the relatively
pristine environments of less developed countries, technol-
ogy transfer and developed world funding for development,
resulted in rapid implementation of hydrological regulation
and channel management practices that would not have
passed the new environmental legislation (Downs and
Gregory, 2004; Petts, 1995).
A key characteristic of the engineering tradition in river
management has been the view of the river channel as a
separate, steady state system that is manageable over short
timescales and reach-focussed spatial scales (Lewin et al.,
1988). This has been continued through the period of river
conservation and into the period of channel restoration.
Thus although transition into the era of environmental
preservation and restoration initiated a change in manage-
ment thinking, as Newson (1988) has commented, this
change was only partial. Engineering approaches to river
restoration in the period to date, though utilising information
from different disciplines such as geomorphology (Hey and
Thorne, 1986; Thorne et al., 1996; Downs and Thorne,
1998), are characterised by the same static design concepts
often including protection of the river bed and banks in
order to maintain the design (RRC, 1999, Shields, 1996).
Similarly, both the Flood Studies Report from 1975 (NERC,
1975) and its 1999 revision in the Flood Estimation
Handbook (CEH, 1998) explicitly assumed that hydrolog-
ical regimes were stable.
The notion of a dynamic river system has a deep root in
the academic literature (Gregory, 1977). The conceptuali-
sation of river systems as controllable, steady state systems
in which dynamics can be controlled, however, is one of
the most pervasive of legacies from the early history of
river management. Thus stakeholders within the catchment
community have become used to the concept of precise
levelling of flood banks, precision cutting of channel
dimensions, and a riverscape which has become stabilised.
In contrast, Lewin et al. (1988) have argued that in an era
of environmental change, regime theory is irreconcilable
with the emerging picture of dynamic and often geo-
morphologically sensitive (sensu Brunsden, 2001) river
systems.
Another keystone of the philosophy of river channel
management throughout this period has been the notion of
setting and achieving targets. In flood control, river
regulation and water quality management such targets are
often quantified in spuriously ‘‘certain’’ terms (see Baker,
2003), implicitly assuming stability. Clark (2002) and
Downs and Gregory (2004) argue that ‘‘targets’’ are not
relevant in a multidisciplinary catchment view of river
hydrosystems where dynamism is the norm rather than the
steady state. Nevertheless, the notion of ‘‘targets’’ for river
attributes has continued into the 21st century, with restora-
tion management demanding targets for specific biota (Sear
et al., 2004) or physical habitat (Walker et al., 2002). The
target-focussed end state is even enshrined in recent
European water legislation (European Commission, 2000).
1.2. Drivers of change: the European Water Framework
Directive
In European river management the most significant
recent driver for change has been the publication of
European Commission Directive ‘‘Establishing a framework
for Community action in the field of water policy’’ in
December 2000. The Water Framework Directive sets out a
European wide set of objectives that ultimately aim to
prevent further deterioration and protect and enhance the
status of aquatic ecosystems achieving Good Ecological
Status for all surface waters by 2015 (Logan and Furze,
2002). Table 1a lists the specific objectives of the Directive.
Significantly, the Directive recognises explicitly that rivers
are ecosystems and that physical as well as chemical,
biological and hydrological ‘‘quality’’ are key integrated
elements that define Good Ecological Status (Logan, 2001).
Furthermore, it is the first time that ecological information
has been afforded legal value in European water law. The
specific tasks required of each Member state (recently
increased to 25) are detailed in Table 1b.
Fundamental to the implementation of the WFD is the
notion of the restoration of river ecosystems based on the
degree of variation from a ‘‘Reference State’’ Condition.
 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183 171

Table 1 river management—captured in the new term ‘‘flood risk

(a) Normative definition of high status for hydromorphological elements management’’. In the UK, The Foresight Report on Flood-
(EC, 2000) and (b) tasks or steps required by EC members states within the
WFD that demonstrate the use of reference conditions (after EC, 2000; ing 2004 concludes that current approaches to flood risk
Logan and Furze, 2002) management are unsustainable across all types of society
(a) from consumerist to participatory. It points towards the need
for integrated land and water management to reduce flood
Hydromorphological quality Normative definition of high status
elements for rivers (reference condition) risk. Included in this is the recognition that part of flood risk
Hydrological Regime The quantity and dynamics of flow, management involves estimating how rivers will respond
and the resultant connection to morphologically and ecologically to climate, land use
groundwaters, reflect totally or nearly change and river management.
totally, undisturbed conditions.
Concern about morphological changes also relate to
River Continuity The continuity of the river is not
disturbed by anthropogenic activities issues of flood conveyance and the mobilisation of con-
and allows taminants stored within river and floodplain sediments. In
undisturbed migration of aquatic addition it is recognised within the Foresight report that
organisms and sediment transport changes in rates of adjustment or pattern of river channel
Morphological Conditions Channel patterns, width and depth
form have profound implications for physical habitat
variations, flow velocities, substrate
conditions diversity and type and hence the niches available for existing
and both the structure and conditions or restored biological communities. The inference is that
of the riparian zones correspond totally these will decline under a system where conventional
or nearly totally to undisturbed engineering management is used to reduce flood risk, and
conditions.
will change in response to other forms of off-site manage-
ment of landuse. The report also highlights the river
(b)
management paradox that on the one hand biodiversity is
Create a typology of water bodies based on habitat characteristics that driven by the dynamics of river channel/floodplain process-
are largely unaffected by man.
Develop a set of reference conditions for each type of water body,
es, and that ecosystem function is dependant on flooding and
defined by their biological community, the physico-chemical parameters yet these same processes pose huge economic and social
and hydromorphological characteristics which support such disbenefits. The Foresight report makes the case for
communities. integrated approaches to manage flood risk that work
Compare the observed and reference data to define the ecological alongside natural processes to increase flood storage and
status of the water body.
reduce rates of runoff at the catchment scale. The value of
Emboldened text highlights elements that have relevance for
ecosystem processes in achieving these is recognised,
palaeohydrology.
alongside the reality of dynamic river channels and flood-
plains in delivering these measures.
This follows in the tradition of target-driven river manage-
ment, but differs in that the definition of a reference state
must vary according to river type and may contain dynamic 2. 2004+ Towards the management of rivers as
attributes within the definition (Table 1a). The biological catchment ecosystems
elements also require identification of type-specific refer-
ence conditions which relate to undisturbed or nearly River managers now recognise the need to plan for
undisturbed hydromorphological quality elements. Logan global climate change (OST, 2004), aquatic ecologists have
and Furze (2002) state that the type-specific conditions for recognised that geomorphological and hydrological vari-
all habitat and biological elements can be based on a ability is a key driver of river/floodplain habitat and
network of reference sites or on modelling or a combination biodiversity, flood risk management has moved towards a
of both or where this is not possible then based on expert catchment-based approach (Evans et al., 2002) and water
judgement. Within this process of setting reference states quality management has focussed on diffuse (catchment)
Logan and Furze (2002) refer to the use of palaeoecological sources (Mance et al., 2002). At each transition has come a
data ‘‘where available’’. re-conceptualisation of the spatial and temporal scales
required to describe, analyse and model the river system
1.3. Drivers for change: flood risk management to the extent today that government research funding is
being specifically focussed on integrated multidisciplinary
Recent high magnitude flooding in Europe, North programmes that seek to better understand catchment scale
America and Africa has focussed attention on inability of processes (NERC, 2002, EPSRC, 2003, National Research
current engineering approaches to provide adequate flood Council, 1999).
protection (Mance et al., 2002). Set against an uncertain The rapid change in river management philosophy over
future characterised by the probability of increased flooding the past decade, is converging on the over-arching ethos of
(OST, 2004) such events have led to fundamental changes in sustainable management of water and associated ecosystem
172 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183

functions within the river catchment (Downs and Gregory,
2004; Sear et al., 2004; Graf, 2001). The U.S. National
Research Council (1999) present the concept in terms of
‘‘Watershed Protection’’ whose features are integrated,
holistic problem solving strategies used to maintain and
restore the ecological integrity of the watershed whilst
protecting human health and providing sustainable econom-
ic growth. Table 2 encapsulates this changing view of river
management from ‘‘Nature in Equilibrium’’ to ‘‘Nature in
flux’’. Associated with the latter are concepts of physical
and ecological integrity.
Embedded within this ethos are the traditional river
management aims of protection against damaging floods
and the provision of adequate water supply to the human
populations within the catchment (ICE, 2001). However a
range of ‘‘new’’ concerns have also emerged that relate
explicitly to the functioning of the aquatic ecosystem—
preservation of physical integrity (Graf, 2001; Everard,
2004), restoration of ecosystem functions (Richards et al.,
2002, Krysonova and Kaganovich, 1994) and management
of water, nutrient and sediment fluxes at the catchment
scale. As a result, 21st century approaches to river
management are more systemic and holistic in their
conceptualisation (Everard and Powell, 2002; Newson,
2002), multidisciplinary in their requirement for skills
(ICE, 2001) and participationary in their implementation
(Clark, 2002). The latter aspect requires methods of
communicating increasingly sophisticated knowledge to a
broad range of stakeholders. Furthermore in recognition of
the changes occurring within the global environment, river
managers have extended the lifetime over which projects are
considered for management; have begun to explicitly
consider uncertainty within the project planning, design
and implementation (OST, 2004; Johnson and Brown,
2001); and have begun to adopt adaptation as a method of
coping with change (Clark, 2002; Leuvens et al., 2000).
2.1. Information for 21st century catchment ecosystem
management
The information demands of river management are best
viewed in terms of two themes; first the broad-scale
understanding of catchment ecosystems and their dynamics,
including the definition of ‘‘natural’’ and ‘‘reference’’
conditions. Secondly the specific needs of river managers
to reduce flood risk sustain water resources and enhance
biodiversity through ecosystem management along the lines
outlined in the Water Framework Directive and Clean Water
Act. These can be framed in terms of a set of applied science
questions, where information is required to understand the
current and future behaviour of river systems, rather than the
‘‘blue skies’’ motivation of understanding past river systems
that is common to palaeohydrological research (Gregory,
1998). Data and information is required
(1) to support the assessment of possible future environ-
mental changes in the drivers of the fluvial system—
river flows and sediment fluxes;
(2) to support the assessment of possible future responses
of the fluvial system to changes in these drivers;
(3) to support the development and validation of models
of natural and disturbed catchment ecosystem function
that recognise geographic variety (definitions of
naturalness, reference condition, functional impacts
of change).
A key point to emphasise is that it is not possible to
reliably predict future changes in drivers or subse-
quent responses. Some changes in drivers may be
forecast over the short term, but even this may not be
possible for some, including climate. Assessments of
possible futures must therefore be based on feasible
scenarios of change. Forecasts and scenarios are
inherently uncertain – for a variety of technical and
conceptual reasons– and an additional question to
address therefore is:
(4) what are the levels of uncertainty associated with
assessing future river catchment ecosystem processes
and change?
Table 3 presents some of the specific science questions
posed by river catchment ecosystem management. The list is
not comprehensive, rather it serves to emphasize the need to
(1) characterise river catchment ecosystem processes; (2)
quantify rates and styles of change; (3) identify linkages
between elements of the river catchment ecosystem; (4)
quantify temporal patterns; and (5) establish the historical
context for current river channel processes. The latter is
particularly important in highly developed catchments
where the history of human modification may be long,
extensive and unrecorded.

Table 2
Definitions of some terms used in contemporary river management (after Wheaton et al., in preparation)
Notion Example
Nature in equilibrium The equilibrium between sediment supply and available transport capacity (Soar and Thorne, 2001)
Nature in flux Restored ecosystems are those in which the rates and types of disturbance do not exceed the capacity
of the system to respond to them (Hruby, 2001)
Physical integrity Rivers possess physical integrity when their processes and forms maintain active connections with each
other in the present hydrologic regime (Graf, 2001)
Ecological integrity Maintenance of all internal and external processes and attributes interacting with the environment in such a
way that the biotic community corresponds to the natural state of the type-specific aquatic habitat, according
to the principles of self-regulation, resilience and resistance (Hruby, 2001)
 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183
Table 3
Questions posed by river management for the scientific community
Ecosystem protection and restoration
What is a natural reference state for hydromorphology and ecology?
What are the hydrological characteristics that drive ecosystem functioning?
How are the biological communities associated with the physical
processes?
How are the answers to the above conditioned by scale?
Flood Risk Management
What is the frequency distribution of flood magnitudes under current and
future conditions? (non-stationarity)
What are the magnitude and characteristics of extreme flood events? (PMF)
What is the historical context for recent events (non-stationarity, vertical
channel behaviour)?
What is the morphological response to flood events (vertical, lateral, habitat
dynamics)?
What are the flood conveyance properties of natural channels and
floodplains (roughness, dimensions, mechanisms)?
Water Resources Management
What are the frequency distributions of low flows under current and future
conditions?
What are the durations of low flows?
What is the historical context for recent events (non-stationarity)?
An additional requirement is to research at a resolution
appropriate to the application. Thus the characteristics of
flood hydrology may include long-term assessment of the
frequency of given magnitude events, but will also include
annual-hourly (or less) records to determine important
characteristics of the flood season, hydrograph or relation-
ship to rainfall.
The model of river management envisaged above
demands more sophisticated and integrated information
from the scientific community. Thus the focus on impact
studies (Petts, 1984; Sear and Newson, 1995) and single-
discipline contributions that characterised applied ‘‘river’’
science in the past are rapidly changing into multi-
disciplinary research ‘‘partnerships’’ that cut across disci-
plinary boundaries, with names like ‘‘ecohydrology’’
(Rodriguez-Iturbe, 2000), or ‘‘hydromorphology’’ (Europe-
an Commission, 2000). It is within this changing science
and river management arena that palaeohydrology now sits.
As such it is pertinent to review the status of palae-
ohydrology in terms of its ability to supply the kind of
multidisciplinary, multi-scale, systemic information, and to
ask the question whether it is truly relevant to the needs of
contemporary river management.
2.2. What information does palaeohydrological research
provide?
Over the period of 50 years since Leopold and Miller
(1954) first coined the term, palaeohydrology has changed in
spatial scale to become an earth system science (Gregory and
Benito, 2003), in temporal scale to become a quaternary
173
Example physical and policy drivers (UK)
Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, Climate change,
Agricultural Policy Reform, etc.
Environmental Change, Foresight Future Floodplain Report (OST, 2004),
Making Space for Water (DEFRA, 2004), Water Framework Directive,
Water Level Management Plans
Foresight Future Flooding Report (OST, 2004), Making Space for Water
(DEFRA, 2004), Water Framework Directive, Catchment Abstraction
Management Plans, Water Level Management Plans
science (50 – 200 ka BP) and in thematic composition to
become a multidisciplinary science, with particular synergies
between palaeoecology, palaeohydrology and palaeogeomor-
phology. Graf (1996) described the recent resurgence of
geomorphological application as the Freturn to its roots of a
close association with environmental resource management
and public policy_, arguing that geomorphology is now
mature enough after a period characterized by a focus on
basic research, to begin applying this collective wisdom to
issues of social concern; it is contended in this paper that same
might be said of palaeohydrology.
In the 1950s, historical and palaeohydrological data were
contextual and seldom utilised by river engineers except
perhaps to demonstrate the wilder behaviour of uncon-
strained and unregulated river systems (Gurnell et al.,
2003), or as special contributions to large scale projects
whose risk assessment demanded consideration of longer
timescales; for example the siting of nuclear power stations
(Baker, 1998). Palaeohydrological information on flood
magnitude and the timing of flood events has been available
for some locations since at least the 1960s (Lamb, 1977),
but has rarely used to inform river management decisions
(although the Flood Studies Report (NERC, 1975) did use
historical flood information) Insights into the dynamics of
river channel change from palaeohydrological investiga-
tions have also not been widely used by river managers,
despite a long history of scientific studies (e.g. Gregory,
1977).
The rest of this section explores in more detail the role of
palaeohydrology in addressing the first three questions
posed in the previous section.
174 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183
2.3. Possible changes in the characteristics of river flows
and sediment fluxes: the role of palaeohydrology
As emphasised in the previous section, perhaps the key
development in river and water management over the last
decade has been the recognition that the past is no longer
necessarily a good guide to the future. Land cover change
and climate change will lead to large-scale and widespread
changes in fluxes of water and sediment, but it is inherently
impossible to predict these changes precisely. This chal-
lenges established procedures for estimating the hydrolog-
ical and sedimentological characteristics of a river system.
In principle, there are four main ways of seeking to
assess possible future hydrological and sedimentological
characteristics, defined here to encompass descriptions of
hydrological regime characteristics, the relationship be-
tween event magnitude and event frequency, and the
variability in sediment fluxes over time. The first is simply
to extrapolate an existing trend in river flows or sediment
fluxes (this can in fact be seen as a generalisation of the
conventional approach of effectively extrapolating a zero
trend). This approach is based on the fundamental– but
usually flawed– assumption that the factors driving the
hydrological and sedimentological change will continue at
the same rate and in the same form.
The second approach extrapolates the drivers of change
(climate and land cover change), and uses these with a
hydrological or sedimentological model to estimate future
characteristics. This suffers from the same assumption as
above.
The third approach combines scenarios describing
possible changes in the drivers of streamflows and sediment
fluxes with hydrological and sediment models to simulate
possible future changes. Scenarios are not forecasts or
predictions, but are instead physically plausible descriptions
of some possible future change. The approach has been
applied extremely widely to estimate hydrological effects of
possible future climate change (see Arnell et al., 2001 for a
summary), but applied rarely to estimate future sediment
fluxes or the effects of possible future land cover change.
Central to the approach are (i) the ability to define credible
scenarios for changes in drivers, (ii) the ability to express
these at the spatial and temporal scales required by
hydrological and (particularly) sedimentological models,
and (iii) the credibility of the models used to translate
changes in drivers to change in flows and sediment fluxes.
The fourth approach is to seek evidence from periods in
the past which can be used as analogues for future
conditions, and this is where palaeohydrology has a
potential role. Many palaeohydrological studies have
reconstructed long time series of various indicators of
streamflow using a wide variety of methods (e.g. dendro-
chronology (Cleaveland, 2000; St George and Nielsen,
2003); correlations with other environmental variables such
as coral growth (Isdale et al., 1998) or sedimentological
evidence (O’Connor et al., 1994). Several studies have
attempted to use palaeohydrological information to refine
estimates of the magnitude-frequency relationship at a site
(e.g. Rico et al., 2001), although this does seem to miss the
point that it is no longer feasible to assume that the
relationship between magnitude and frequency is constant.
A few more sophisticated analyses have sought to examine
how changes in past drivers have affected hydrological and
sedimentological regimes (e.g. Knox and Kundzewicz,
1997; Knox, 1993; Redmond et al., 2002, and as described
by Benito et al., 2004) and attempted to draw inferences
about sensitivity to future driver changes. These studies are
most useful for river managers.
2.4. Responses of river systems to changes in river flows
and sediment fluxes: the role of palaeohydrology
There is a substantial scientific literature on the subject of
river system response to change in driving variables (climate/
land use/runoff and sediment production) much of which is
derived from palaeohydrological research (see recent vol-
umes by Gregory and Benito, 2003). However, there is much
less evidence of attempts to assess the response of river
systems to future environmental change.
In principle again four approaches can be used to assess
possible future river system responses to changes in flows
and sediment fluxes: extrapolation of current trends1,
simulation of river system changes following extrapolated
or scenario-based changes in flows and sediment fluxes, or
direct use of evidence from past river system responses to
changes in drivers.
The second and third approaches require simulation
models of river systems, which are difficult to define and
often run at space and time scales which may be difficult to
reconcile with those at which driver information is available
(Baker, 2003).
The fourth approach uses palaeohydrological evidence of
river system change in response to changed driver forcings,
and assumes that river systems in the future would change in
the same way with the same change in forcing. However,
the major limitations with this approach are (i) the difficulty
in obtaining quantitative indications of the impact of a given
change in driver (the disaggregation of climate vs. land use
signals being one example) and (ii) challenges in transfer-
ring results from one (possibly ill-defined) driver change to
other changes in driver.
2.5. Palaeoecology and the development of models of
natural and disturbed catchment ecosystem function
The previous two sections have shown how palae-
ohydrological data have the potential to provide insights
1
Mark Twain’s ironic observation in ‘‘Life on the Mississippi’’ that if the
Mississippi continued to shorten at the rate it had been 1700 and 1880 then
by the year 2622 it would only be 15 miles long has been widely quoted.
 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183
into possible future changes in river and sediment flows and
the response of river systems to change. However, this
information may only be qualitative, and it may be difficult
to transfer results from one driver of change to another
(Arnell, 1996). A potentially more valuable contribution of
palaeohydrology lies in the development and validation of
conceptual and simulation models of the river and catch-
ment system (Arnell, 1996).
The information from palaeohydrology that might be
used by river managers to guide forecasts of future river
channel response to environmental change are; (1) devel-
opment of generalised conceptual models of river response
to different changes and magnitudes of change; (2)
development of specific empirical models of long-term
change for a given catchment, and (3); calibration of
existing landscape evolution models; where calibration
may be defined not in absolute terms but in terms of model
‘‘coherence’’—the ability to represent general behaviour or
broad similarity (e.g. meander migration rather than specific
location and rate of migration of a particular bend).
Among the most important contributions of palae-
ohydrology to the evolving process of catchment ecosys-
tem management is the development of conceptual models
of catchment function that can be used to support river
restoration. Reid (1998) has argued that conceptual models
may in some cases be of more value to river managers
than poorly calibrated models of flow and sediment flux.
This echoes the comments by Rhoads and Thorn (1996)
that ‘‘It should be possible to persuade decision-makers
that incorporating historical or empirical (field based)
geomorphic information into river management strategies
is at least as valuable as basing decisions on precise, yet
fallible mechanistic models’’. Recent models of the
restoration process typically outline a sequence of steps,
commencing with the collection of baseline environmental
data (including historical datasets), from which a concep-
tual model of the channel-floodplain and increasingly
catchment, geomorphological system can be built (Downs
and Gregory, 2004; Sear et al., 2004; Sear, 1996; Wheaton
et al., 2004).
The fluvial hydrosystems approach developed from the
work of Amoros and Van Urk (1989) successfully articu-
lated a framework for applying palaeoecological and palae-
ohydrological data in support of river channel management.
Recently, Brown (2002) has made a convincing case for the
role of palaeohydrology and palaeoecology in the derivation
of reference conditions to guide temperate river restoration
concluding that Fpalaeoecological and geomorphological
investigations have the potential to provide in-depth models
of the natural range of channel conditions and sensitivity to
external change that can be used to provide a scientific
basis for floodplain restoration_ (Brown, 2002). The
problem facing river managers in catchments with a long
history of development is the lack of existing semi-natural
reference reaches on which to base definitions of Good
Ecological Status. This is recognised in the Water Frame-
175
work Directive (see Table 1 above) and member states can
use palaeoecological data to support the development of
models of reference conditions (European Commission,
2000). A particular example is that of groundwater
dominated chalk streams (Sear et al., 1999). Chalk rivers
are also highly modified river ecosystems, with long
histories of regulation and modification of the catchment
landsurface, floodplain and channel network. The high
productivity and relatively stable (and therefore ‘‘predict-
able’’) hydrology led to the development of complex
channel:floodplain management systems called water mead-
ows around the 16th Century that survived into the mid 20th
century. In addition, chalk rivers support populations of
salmonids and eels.
Attempts to restore chalk rivers started with the
management of the fishing in the 19th century, with the
removal of silt from spawning gravels. This practice has
continued, but is now joined by attempts to re-create the
natural channel dimensions and structure. A focus of current
restoration is increase biodiversity via manipulating (in-
creasing) physical habitat diversity. The problem is that
there are no documented natural chalk stream analogues for
Southern England, and relatively little information from
palaeohydrology on which to develop a reference condition.
What little exists suggest a very different riverscape to that
currently demanded by current fishing practice. Sear and
German (2003) reviewed the literature on groundwater
dominated rivers and developed a conceptual model for the
development of chalk stream physical habitat. This model
recognised that chalk streams are low energy streams that
are currently incapable of bed mobilisation except in local
patches, yet are coupled through agricultural drainage and
extensive road and track networks; to the catchment
sediment system (Acornley and Sear, 1999; Walling and
Amos, 1999). Thus options for re-creating physical habitat
diversity using assisted natural recovery appear limited;
whilst fine sediment accumulation remains unchecked.
A feature common to semi-natural groundwater domi-
nated rivers documented in the US, and observed in the UK
prior to removal for flood risk and fishing concerns; are
accumulations of large woody debris (Sear and German,
2003; Whiting and Stamm, 1995). Physical habitat diversity
associated with woody debris is created by the local scour
and transport of the bed material creating spawning habitat
and cover (important in the clear waters of chalk rivers) for
salmonids and other species. Furthermore, the presence of
riparian trees in the floodplain is documented in the pollen
records of chalk river valleys. The conceptual model
currently hypothesizes that large woody debris is the most
significant missing element of chalk river geomorphology
since centuries of removal of in-stream debris, coupled with
riparian tree clearance has effectively stopped recruitment
and accumulation. The problem is that whilst it can be
shown to increase physical habitat there is little evidence on
which to test this hypothesis. The role for palaeohydrology
in this instance is to provide evidence to test and improve
176 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183
this conceptual model; answering questions about the
ecology of chalk river and floodplain habitats and the
structure and form of the river. Equally important would be
to determine the catchment and regional variability of chalk
river environments since there are concerns that generic
models might be applied to provide ‘‘designer’’ river
ecosystems that fail to recognise the specific controls on
river form and function. Even were improved conceptual
models to be developed, it may be that the level of
inheritance and the change in chalk catchment ecosystems
is so large that reference conditions are in effect meaning-
less. This is a risk for river managers investing in
palaeohydrological and ecological data collection.
Key to determining the appropriateness and accuracy of
reference condition models is in understanding the drivers
of ecosystem function and structure. The ecological
characteristics of a river/floodplain ecosystem are strongly
related to the geomorphological and hydrological dynamics.
Within the river it is the distribution of hydraulic and
substrate patches and their dynamics that provide the
functional habitats for instream biota (Harper et al., 2000;
Newson and Newson, 2000). On the floodplain Hughes
(2003) among others has highlighted the importance of
floodplain turnover in determining the vegetation commu-
nities. Habitat quality is also linked to Quaternary processes;
for example the location of upwelling and downwelling
groundwater has been shown to influence the quality of
salmon spawning habitats in upland streams, whilst Ward et
al. report different water chemistry associated with hypo-
rheic flow paths; themselves determined by valley floor
sedimentology.
In developing models of catchment ecosystems, the
science of landscape ecology is highlighting the importance
of landscape pattern in determining the resulting ecology
(Wiens, 2002). Included in the models are concepts of
connectivity between landscape patches and the structure
and geography of patches; notions that are contained within
geomorphological and hydrological models of catchment
systems (Fig. 1). An important element of landscape scale
structure is the legacy of past processes, which determine
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of landscape ecology after Wiens (2002).
the spatial distribution of sediments, topographic bound-
aries, natural barriers and in pristine habitats, the distribu-
tion of surface ages (Fig. 2). These in turn contribute to the
ecological functioning of the catchment.
Models of long-term valley floor development provide
description and causality of the composition and structure of
aquatic landscape features and floodplain habitats over
timescales that enable qualitative connectivity with wider
catchment processes and climate change. Such understand-
ing provides the context on which more recent studies of
channel geomorphology, associated habitats and biological
communities can be built (Macklin et al., 1998). At these
timescales the connectivity between landscape units on the
catchment surface, and those within the river channel
become most apparent.
The dynamics of the valley floor have become an
important focus in attempts to manage bank erosion and
associated channel morphodynamics. One example is the
use of Channel Migration zoning. The Channel Migration
Zone method is used in the US, to guide planners and river
managers (Rapp and Abbe, 2003). It is based on the fact that
common methods of flood hazard assessment such as Flood
Insurance Rate Maps or Indicative Floodplain Maps do not
characterize areas susceptible to channel erosion either
within or outside of the areas prone to flooding. As a
consequence, the costs of property lost to bank erosion are
commonly transferred to the landowner.
Rapp and Abbe (2003) define the channel migration zone
(CMZ) as Fthe geographic area where a stream or river has
been and will be susceptible to channel erosion and/or
channel occupation_ (Fig. 3). The CMZ is similar in concept
to the Channel occupancy maps of Graf (2000). Identifica-
tion of a CMZ helps reduce risks to property and
infrastructure by guiding development away from areas at
risk of channel erosion. Channel Migration Zoning can also
provide guidance in Freducing degradation and loss of
critical aquatic and riparian habitats, helping assure that
the river landscape is not permanently degraded or
disconnected from the river by development_ (Rapp and
Abbe, 2003).
 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183 177

The method uses a timescale of assessment that is locally

determined by the legal context at each site although in the
absence of any guidance the time period should account for
long-term alteration of the landscape given that property
claimed by erosion represents a permanent loss and
development within a CMZ represents a permanent loss of
habitat (Rapp and Abbe, 2003). Palaeohydrological data and
analysis used in defining the CMZ include; the use of
historical maps, aerial photography and contemporary
LiDAR survey data to define the location of palaeochannels
and the investigation of exposed sedimentary sequences to
determine vertical trends in channel adjustment. In theory,
dating techniques could be used to improve the resolution of
temporal changes and extend these beyond historic periods
(Rapp and Abbe, 2003).
An important caveat with establishing conceptual models
for river catchments is the importance of specificity. Models
of long-term valley floor evolution though exhibiting
synchronicity in terms of climate drivers or even land use
change (Knox, 2003) have quite different distributions and
timing of activity and landscape history in detail. For
example, in the UK there are significant differences between Fig. 3. A conceptual diagram illustrating the Channel Migration Zoning
the expression in the landscape structure between upland process that explicitly utilises Palaeohydrological analysis for determing
and lowland river systems despite synchronicity of flooding channel occupancy of the valley floor and floodplain (after Rapp and Abbe,
episodes (Brown, 2003; Macklin and Lewin, 1989). 2003).

Sensitivity of the riverscape to external stimuli is again a

key contribution to the broader applied science questions
raised by the new form of river management.

3. Methodological frameworks for integrating

palaeohydrology within river catchment management

While it is clear from the preceding discussion that

palaeohydrology provides information, data and understand-
ing about river systems that is relevant to the emerging
needs of river catchment managers, it is less clear how these
are to be integrated within policy and practice. Furthermore,
as common implementation strategies create regional and
international frameworks for river management policy and
practice (Logan and Furze, 2002), it becomes increasingly
important that palaeohydrologists consider how their infor-
mation and knowledge interfaces within these.

3.1. Frameworks for integrating historical data

Alongside the policy developments have emerged a

Fig. 2. Geomorphological map of the lower Meuse illustrating the different
landscape units and ages that underpin those of interest to landscape
ecology (after Wolfert, 2001).
series of frameworks that offer the potential for integrating
palaeohydrological and contemporary information for use
by river managers. The standardised structure of these
approaches are demanded by river management agencies on
the grounds of transparency of process, best practice, and
the requirement to be accountable to funding bodies (Sear et
al., 2004) as well as the aforementioned move towards
common implementation.
178 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183
The information content of these Geomorphological
Assessment Procedures (GAPs) is both quantitative and
qualitative; the latter sometimes used to de-value the
contribution of geomorphology. Thorne et al. (1996) remind
us that the qualitative element of geomorphology is essential
as it
Frests on the interpretation of process from form using
careful observation across the whole system, together with
the application of well established geomorphological
principles_
In the UK, a decade of investment in geomorphological
Research and Development has culminated in a suite of
‘‘standard’’ methods for incorporating geomorphological
information into existing river management practice that
provides a useful template for deploying the range of tools
discussed within this volume (Environment Agency, 1998;
Sear and Newson, 2003; Kondolf et al., 2003). At their core
lies the basic notion that geomorphology has contributions
to make across the broad sector of river management,
including strategic and operational management, the latter
involving actions that modify watercourses.
An axiom of this approach is that it is essential to
understand the cause of the management problem. The
methods are designed to nest in a quasi-hierarchical
fashion, collapsing from the catchment (strategic) over-
view of physical habitat resource, down to the project level
design and assessment. This framework involves deploy-
ment of a range of geomorphological tools to provide
increasing levels of certainty in the interpretation of system
functioning, in support of specific management goals. The
approach is based on the view of the river network as a
continuum, whereby reaches are classified according to the
information recovered from the catchment under study.
This prevents the imposition of rigid, generalist classifica-
tions, and recognizes the inherent value in the uniqueness
of a river, whilst seeking to encourage standard approaches
to the analysis of channel processes and the resulting forms
and habitats. Whilst these generic methodologies may be
applied across a range of river management projects, there
will of course be more specific studies required by
individual projects. In this case, application should be
considered within the context of the specific project brief—
for example the setting of channel migration zones may
require detailed analysis of the alluvial history over at least
the mid-late Holocene.
These frameworks for integrating palaeohydrological
information differ from the more simple classification
approaches (Rosgen, 1994, Walker et al., 2002) used to
guide restoration in three fundamental ways. First they
explicitly demand historical analysis to determine long-term
changes in water and sediment fluxes, land-use history and
channel management history. Secondly, they attempt to
characterise and quantify the type and rate of channel
dynamics and associated physical habitat. Thirdly, they
adopt a hierarchical structure that relates long-term catch-
ment scale processes to the assemblages of existing
geomorphic units (sensu Brierley and Fryirs, 2000).
3.2. Broadscale modelling of catchment processes
River managers in the UK have embarked on an
ambitious research programme aimed at improving the
national capability in flood risk management (DEFRA,
2001). Included within this research programme is the
development of Broad-scale modelling of catchment pro-
cesses for decision support at the catchment scale. The BSM
modelling framework is integrative and spatial. Some of the
more pertinent aims for applied palaeohydrology include
modelling the impacts of land use change and global climate
change on the flux of sediment and water within a
catchment, and the social and ecological impacts of these
at catchment and national scale (Evans et al., 2002). These
are in fact among the themes supported by palaeohydro-
logical research programmes (PAGES/GLOCOPH). Such
broad-scale modelling aspirations are shared by those of
landscape evolution (Coulthard and Macklin, 2001, Tucker
et al., 2001).
Recent advances in landscape scale modelling are
providing opportunities to integrate hydrological, land use
history and geomorphology with models of vegetation
succession (Richards et al., 2002). Coulthard and Macklin
(2001) report such an exercise for a medium sized basin in
the UK. Such models offer the opportunity for river
managers and stakeholders to engage with concepts in
palaeohydrology particularly notions of complex response
and the need to consider relatively long timescales.
Furthermore, spatially distributed models of hydrology
and sediment flux share commonalities with landscape
ecology models of patch dynamics. Confidence in these
models is difficult to build in the absence of long-term data;
thus another integrating framework for palaeohydrology is
to provide datasets that can at least be used to demonstrate
model ‘‘coherence’’ (sensu Lane et al., 1999) with accepted
understanding and observations of catchment-scale behav-
iour as a pre-condition to forecasting. Convergence in model
scales and approaches between scientific disciplines and
with river managers is thus another area of potential
application for palaeohydrological science.
4. Constraints to the application of palaeohydrology
Information for river management can be classified into
two types: (1) Safe Usable Knowledge available to project
design (basic principles with low probability of error) and;
(2) Unsafe, Useless knowledge (specific unnecessary/
irrelevant information with a high probability of error;
Statzner and Sperling, 1993). In the past, river managers
have typically viewed the contribution from palaeohydrol-
ogy largely as Type 2 information. It is interesting to reflect
on why this was (and still is in practical application) the
 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183 179

case. The reasons fall into three main and interrelated areas;
perceptions of the value of the information provided by
palaeohydrology; uncertainty of the information relative to
the apparent ‘‘certainty’’ of the instrumented record; and
financial concerns within a benefit/cost economic model
framework.
ment of the River Endrick in Scotland to a long-term
reduction in sediment supply after de-glaciation. The
channel response is both natural and typical; the decision
to intervene is not straightforward but now involves a
judgement based on the potential longer-term commitment
to erosion control in this reach.

4.1. Value 4.2. Uncertainty

The value of palaeohydrological information has not
always been apparent to river managers. This may, in part,
reflect the nature of the overlap in spatial and temporal
scales of concern. Much palaeohydrological research has
been focussed on establishing the chronology and processes
associated with the development of the valley floor
including the floodplain. In contrast the river manager has
been largely interested in the river channel and floodplain.
The valley floor is a term that river management literature
seldom uses or recognises. This ignorance is also reflected
in the relative lack of understanding of vertical river channel
instability in some regions (e.g. UK) compared with lateral
instability. The former is associated with an apparently
inconsequential glacial legacy, the latter with contemporary
processes and management issues.
However, as the new form of river management evolves
into the 21st century, the requirement to understand long-
term controls on catchment processes are likely to increase.
As one begins to view a river system from increasingly
longer timescales, there is a shift in emphasis from local
events to catchment scale change. Here the significance of a
single event reduces as the timescale of investigation
extends as noted by Schumm and Lichty (1965). Leys
(1998) provide a useful example based on the cut-off of a
single meander bend (Table 4). In this example, what
appears to be a drastic change in river planform (and
subsequent usefulness of riparian land to the farmer) is
shown to be not only typical of the behaviour of the reach (it
is not an unusual event but symptomatic of system
behaviour), but broadly explicable in terms of the adjust-
Estimates of future river flows, sediment fluxes and
catchment and river systems are uncertain, for two main
reasons. First, it is frequently inherently impossible to
predict possible changes in some of the key drivers,
particularly over long time scales. Whilst it may be possible
to forecast changes in land cover in a catchment over the
next five years, for example, estimates over longer time
periods will depend on assumptions about changes in the
expansion of urban land cover or changes in agricultural
practices. Future climate change depends, to a certain
degree, on assumptions about future rates of population
growth and economic development.
Second, it is often very difficult to assess the implications
of a given change in driver, whether that be the effects of a
change in precipitation on river flows or effects of a change
in river flows on channel form. There is in fact a cascade of
uncertainty from driver to response, with uncertainty bands
increasing as attention shifts from river flows to sediment to
channel characteristics to river system and ecosystem
functioning. This uncertainty arises most obviously where
responses to driver changes are based on the use of models,
and in principle much of this uncertainty can be quantified
(by exploring, for example, the effect of parameter
uncertainty on simulated outcomes). Uncertainty also arises,
however, where estimated responses are based on empirical
palaeohydrological evidence. Maizels (1983) shows the
potential for very significant uncertainty in the estimated
magnitudes of palaeo-events, depending on the types of
evidence available, although Baker (2003) makes the point
that uncertainty in palaeostage/discharge is no greater than

Table 4
The significance of timescale in applying fluvial geomorphology to river channel management
Timescale Interpretation
Event/Year The process of cut-off development is an isolated problem
for one riparian owner
Decade The neck of the meander bend has been reducing in width
over past decade through active bank erosion processes
Century/Historical Time Historical analysis shows that the cut-off is part of the meander
migration process characterising this reach.
Rates of migration are variable over these timescales
Post-Glacial The site is set within an alluvial basin that has at first filled with
post-glacial sediments, and then incised following
a reduction in catchment sediment supply. The meander migration
processes are part of this long-term response to
de-glaciation in this alluvial basin.
Meander cut-off processes on the River Endrick (modified after Leys, 1998).
Management guidance
Fix Problem (channel re-profiling or bank erosion control)
or check if problem is really isolated
This is part of a general trend, but does it have a recent
artificial cause?
The cut-off is part of the long-term behaviour of this reach.
Other bends have behaved similarly, and there is evidence
for floodplain development through this process.
The whole reach behaviour and channel typology owes its
existence to glacial and post-glacial processes. It is part of
the natural processes of adjustment. Do not intervene.
To do so would be expensive and involve long-term
commitment. Manage land use in the floodplain and
valley floor
180 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183
that associated with the instrumental measurement of rare
floods. Furthermore the information content of well con-
strained palaeoflood data is equal to that recorded by
conventional measurement or rare floods. However, Carling
et al. (2003) highlight the need to address specific sources of
error and uncertainty in the estimation of palaeoflood
hydraulics.
4.3. Budgets and project timescales
One of the main constraints to wider application of
palaeohydrology as envisaged by Petts and Amoros (1996)
and Gregory (2003) is the perception that the financial
burden of undertaking palaeohydrological analysis on a
river management project does not compare favourably with
the perceived benefits. Similarly, the timescales required by
project planning (based on annual budgets) are often too
short (< 1 year) to attempt any robust assessment of
stratigraphic and palaeoecological information. Fundamen-
tally, the application of palaeohydrological information is
based on its value to the project. As this paper has argued,
this information is valuable for developing longer term
conceptual models of systemic links between channel and
habitat assemblages and the functioning of the wider
catchment. However these factors are currently difficult to
represent within the cost – benefit models used to plan
restoration (and other) types of river management project.
Everard (2004) echoing de Groot (1994), argues for a move
towards valuation of ecosystem function since by not doing
so, effectively prices their value as zero. The same concept
might be applied to the acquisition of the information
required to understand functionality. Applied geomorphol-
ogy has passed through the ‘‘business case’’ phase of
justification within river management and is now widely
recognised as an essential and valued part of project
management and design (Sear et al., 2004). In the current
ethos, a similar exercise could be undertaken for palae-
ohydrology.
5. Conclusion
The transition in river management from engineering
science to environmental science, from analytical/techno-
logical to holistic-ecological is evolving (Nienhuis et al.,
1998; Newson, 2002). With it has come a transition from
predictive certainty (specific flood elevation, channel
dimensions, landform units, etc.) to dynamic uncertainty
(the channel will change but not certain when or what
resulting dimensions/locations). In this case palaeohydrol-
ogy has an important role to play in advancing what Baker
(1998) calls ‘‘retroductive reasoning’’—development of an
understanding of river system functions or behaviour that
might be modelled. Whilst it may be difficult to use
palaeohydrological data and evidence directly in assessing
possible future changes in river and catchment systems—
for the reasons outlined above, palaeohydrological evi-
dence is extremely important in the development of
evidence-based conceptual models using palaeohydrolog-
ical information. The ability to communicate these through
numerical simulation and visualisation are likely to be
powerful tools in the new adaptive management frame-
work of 21st century river management. The sense at the
start of the 21st century is that palaeohydrology is moving
into a phase when its role could be perceived by the river
management community to be both relevant and required.
The challenge to be met remains one of education and
demonstration of this value.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ken Gregory for his
invitation to consider the issues surrounding applied palae-
ohydrology at the IGC, Glasgow, 2004.
References
Acornley, R.M., Sear, D.A., 1999. Sediment transport and the siltation of
salmonid spawning gravels in a groundwater dominated river. Hydro-
logical Processes 11 (14), 447 – 458.
Amoros, C., Van Urk, G., 1989. Palaeoecological analyses of large rivers:
some principles and methods. In: Petts, G.E., Moller, H., Roux, A.L.
(Eds.), Historical Change of Large Alluvial Rivers. J. Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, pp. 143 – 166.
Arnell, N.W., 1996. Palaeohydrology and future climate change. In:
Branson, J., Brown, A.G., Gregory, K.J. (Eds.), Global Continental
Changes: The Context of Palaeohydrology, Geological Society Special
Publication, vol. 115, pp. 19 – 25.
Arnell, N.W., Liu, C., Compagnucci, R., et al., 2001. Climate Change
2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Work-
ing Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 191 – 233.
Baker, V.R., 1998. Palaeohydrology and the hydrological sciences. Benito,
G., Baker, V.R., Gregory, K.J. (Eds.), Palaeohydrology and Environ-
mental Change. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 1 – 10.
Baker, V.R., 2003. Palaeofloods and extended discharge records. In:
Gregory, K.J., Benito, G. (Eds.), Palaeohydrology: Understanding
Global Change. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 307 – 323.
Benito, G., Lang, M., Barriendos, M., 2004. Use of systematic, palaeoflood
and historical data for the improvement of flood risk estimation. Review
of scientific methods. Natural Hazards 31, 623 – 643.
Brierley, G.J, Fryirs, K., 2000. River Styles, a geomorphic approach to
catchment characterisation: implications for river rehabilitation in Bega
catchment New South Wales, Australia. Environmental Management
25, 661 – 679.
Brookes, A., Shields Jr., F.D., 1996. River Channel Restoration. J. Wiley
and Sons, Chichester.
Brown, A.G., 1996. Human dimensions of palaeohydrological change. In:
Branson, J., Brown, A.G., Gregory, K.J. (Eds.), Global Continental
Changes: The Context of Palaeohydrology, Geological Society Special
Publication, vol. 115, pp. 57 – 72.
Brown, A.G., 2002. Learning from the past. Freshwater Biology 47,
817 – 829.
Brown, A.G., 2003. Global environmental change and the palaeohydrology
of Western Europe: a review. In: Gregory, K.J., Benito, G. (Eds.),
 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183
Palaeohydrology: Understanding Global Change. J. Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, pp. 105 – 123.
Brunsden, D., 2001. A critical assessment of the sensitivity concept in
Geomorphology. Catena 42, 99 – 123.
Carling, P.A., Kidson, R., Cao, Z., Herget, J., 2003. Palaeohydraulics of
extreme flood events: reality and myth. In: Gregory, K.J., Benito, G.
(Eds.), Palaeohydrology: Understanding Global Change. J. Wiley and
Sons, Chichester, pp. 325 – 336.
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 1998. Flood Estimation Handbook.
NERC, Wallingford, U.K.
Clark, M.J., 2002. Dealing with uncertainty: adaptive approaches to
sustainable river management. Aquatic Conservation 12, 347 – 363.
Cleaveland, M.K., 2000. A 963-year reconstruction of summer (JJA)
streamflow in the White River, Arkansas, USA, from tree rings. The
Holocene 10, 33 – 41.
Coulthard, T.J., Macklin, M.G., 2001. How sensitive are river systems to
climate and land-use changes? A model-based evaluation. Journal of
Quaternary Science 16 (4), 247 – 351.
DEFRA, 2001. National Appraisal of Assets and Risks of Flooding and
Coastal Erosion in England and Wales. Department for Environment
Food and Rural Affairs, London, U.K. 44 pp.
DEFRA, 2004. Making Space for Water: Developing a New
Government Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Man-
agement in England and Wales. DEFRA Publications, London, U.K.
154 pp.
de Groot, R.S., 1994. Environmental functions and the economic value of
natural ecosystems. In: Jansson, A.M., Hammer, M., Folke, C.,
Costanza, R. (Eds.), Investing in Natural Capital: An Ecological
Economics Approach to Sustainability. Island Press, Washington,
pp. 113 – 127.
Downs, P.W, Gregory, K.J., 2004. River Channel Management. Arnold,
London.
Downs, P.W., Thorne, C.R., 1998. Design principles and suitability testing
for rehabilitation in a flood defence channel: the River Idle, Notting-
hamshire, UK. Aquatic Conservation 8, 17 – 38.
Environment Agency, 1998. River Geomorphology: A Practical Guide,
Guidance Note 18, National Centre for Risk Analysis and Options
Appraisal, London, U.K.
EPSRC, 2003. Strategic plan 2003 – 2007. Engineering and Physical
Science Research Council.
European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council of 23rd October 2000: establishing a
framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official
Journal of the European Communities L327, 1 – 72.
Evans, E.P., Ramsbottom, D.M., Wicks, J.M., Packman, J.C., Penning-
Rowsell, E.C., 2002. Catchment flood management plans and the
modelling and decision support framework. Civil Engineering 150 (1),
43 – 48.
Everard, M., 2004. Investing in sustainable catchments. Science of the Total
Environment 324, 1 – 24.
Everard, M., Powell, A., 2002. Rivers as living systems. Aquatic
Conservation 12, 329 – 337.
Graf, W.L., 1996. Geomorphology and policy for restoration of impounded
rivers, in Rhoads. In: Rhoads, B.L, Throne, C.E. (Eds.), The Scientific
Nature of Geomorphology. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Graf, W.L., 2000. Locational Probability of a dammed, urbanising
stream: Salt River, central Arizona. Environmental Management 25,
321 – 325.
Graf, W.L., 2001. Damage control: restoring the physical integrity of
America’s rivers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
91, 1 – 27.
Gregory, K.J., 1977. River Channel Changes. J. Wiley, Chichester.
Gregory, K.J., 1998. Applications of palaeohydrology. In: Benito, G.,
Baker, V.R., Gregory, K.J. (Eds.), Palaeohydrology and Environmental
Change. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 13 – 26.
Gregory, K.J., 2003. Palaeohydrology, environmental change and river-
channel management. In: Gregory, K.J., Benito, G. (Eds.), Palae-
181
ohydrology: Understanding Global Change. J. Wiley and Sons, Chi-
chester, pp. 357 – 378.
Gregory, K.J., Benito, G., 2003. Palaeohydrology: Understanding Global
Change. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.
Gurnell, A.M., Peiry, J.-.L., Petts, G.E., 2003. Using historical data in fluvial
geomorphology. In: Kondolf, G.M., Piegay, H. (Eds.), Tools in Fluvial
Geomorphology. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 205 – 230.
Harper, D.M., Kemp, J.L., Vogel, B., Newson, M.D., 2000. Towards the
assessment of Fecological integrity_ in running waters of the United
Kingdom. Hydrobiologia 422/423, 133 – 142.
Hey, R.D., Thorne, C.R., 1986. Stable channels with mobile gravel beds.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 112, 671 – 689.
Hruby, T., 2001. Environmental auditing: testing the basic assumption of
the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions. Envi-
ronmental Management 27, 749 – 761.
Hughes, F., 2003. The Flooded Forest, FLOBAR-2 Project. Department of
Geography, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
ICE, 2001. Learning to Live with Rivers. Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, U.K. 25 pp.
Isdale, P.J., Stewart, B.J., Tickle, K.S., Lough, J.M., 1998. Palaeohydro-
logical variation in a tropical river catchment: a reconstruction using
fluorescent bands in corals of the Great Barrier ReefM, Australia. The
Holocene 8, 1 – 8.
Johnson and Brown, 2001.
Knox, J.C., 1993. Large increases in flood magnitude in response to modest
changes in climate. Nature 361, 430 – 432.
Knox, J.C., 2003. North American palaeofloods and future floods:
Responses to climate change. In: Gregory, K.J., Benito, G. (Eds.),
Palaeohydrology: Understanding Global Change. J. Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, pp. 143 – 164.
Knox, J.C., Kundzewicz, J.W., 1997. Extreme hydrological events, palaeo-
information and climate change. Hydrological Sciences Journal 42,
765 – 779.
Kondolf, G.M., Piegay, H., Sear, D.A., 2003. Integrating geomorphological
tools in ecological and management studies. In: Kondolf, G.M., Piegay,
H. (Eds.), Tools in Geomorphology. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester,
pp. 633 – 660.
Krysonova, V., Kaganovich, I., 1994. Modelling of ecological and
economic systems at the watershed scale for sustainable development.
In: Jansson, A.M., Hammer, M., Folke, C., Costanza, R. (Eds.),
Investing in Natural Capital: An Ecological Economics approach to
sustainability. Island Press, Washington, pp. 215 – 232.
Lamb, H.H., 1977. Climate: Past, Present, Future, Volume 2. Climatic
History and the future. Methuen, London.
Lane, S.N., Bradbrook, K.F., Richards, K.S., Brion, P.A., Roy, A.G., 1999.
The application of computational fluid dynamics to natural river
channels: three-dimensional versus two-dimensional approaches. Geo-
morphology 29, 1 – 20.
Leopold, L.B., Miller, J.P., 1954. Post-glacial chronology for alluvial
valleys in Wyoming. USGS Water Supply Paper 1261, 61 – 85.
Leuvens, R.S.E.W., Smits, A.J.M., Nienhuis, P.H., 2000. Introduc-
tion in Smits. In: Smiths, A.J.M., Nienhuis, P.H., Leuvens, R.S.E.W.
(Eds.), New Approaches to River Management. Backhuys, Leiden,
pp. 329 – 347.
Lewin, J., Macklin, M.G., Newson, M.D., 1988. Regime theory and
environmental change—irreconcilable concepts? In: White, W.R.
(Ed.), International Conference on River Regime. J. Wiley and Sons,
Chihcester, UK, pp. 431 – 445.
Leys, K., 1998. Engineering Methods for Scottish Gravel-Bed Rivers.
Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh. Report 47.
Logan, P., 2001. Ecological quality assessment of rivers and integrated
catchment management in England and Wales. In: Ravera, O. (Ed.),
Scientific and Legal Aspects of Biological Monitoring of Freshwater,
Journal of Limnology, vol. 60, pp. 25 – 32.
Logan, P., Furze, M., 2002. Preparing for the European Water Framework
Directive—making the links between habitat and aquatic biota. Aquatic
Conservation 12, 425 – 437.
182 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183
Macklin, M.G., Lewin, J., 1989. Sediment transfer and transformation of an
alluvial valley floor: the River South Tyne, Northumbria, UK. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 14, 233 – 246.
Macklin, M.G., Passmore, D., Newson, M.D., 1998. Controls of
short and long-term river instability: processes and patterns in
gravel bed rivers, Tyne Basin, England. In: Klingeman, P.C.,
Beschta, R.L., Komar, P.D., Bradley, J.B. (Eds.), Gravel-Bed Rivers
in the Environment. Water Resources Publications, Colorado,
pp. 257 – 278.
Maizels, J.K., 1983. Palaeovelocity and palaeodischarge determination for
coarse gravel deposits. In: Gregory, K.J. (Ed.), Background to Palae-
ohydrology. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 101 – 139.
Mance, G., Raven, P.J., Bramley, M.E., 2002. Integrated river basin
management in England and Wales: a policy perspective. Aquatic
Conservation 12, 339 – 346.
National Research Council, 1999. New Strategies for America’s Water-
sheds. National Academy press, Washington D.C.
NERC, 1975. Flood Studies Report. HMSO, London.
NERC, 2002. Science for a Sustainable Future: 2002 – 2007. Natural
Environment Research Council, Swindon.
Newson, M.D., 1988. Upland land use and land management—policy and
research aspects of the effects on water. In: Hooke, J.M. (Ed.),
Geomorphology in Environmental Planning. J. Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, UK, pp. 19 – 32.
Newson, M.D., 1992. Land, Water and Development. Routledge, London.
Newson, M.D., 2002. Rivers as systems: contributions to sustainable river
management from fluvial geomorphology. Aquatic Conservation 12,
365 – 379.
Newson, M.D., Leeks, G.J.L., 1987. Transport processes at the catchment
scale—a regional study of increasing sediment yields and its effects in
Mid-Wales, UK. In: Thorne, C.R., Bathurst, J.C., Hey, R.D. (Eds.),
Sediment Transport in Gravel-Bed Rivers. J. Wiley and Sons, Chi-
chester, UK, pp. 187 – 223.
Newson, M.D., Newson, P.L., 2000. Geomorphology, ecology and river
channel habitat: mesoscale approaches to basin scale challenges.
Progress in Physical Geography 24, 195 – 217.
Nienhuis, P.H., Leuven, R.S.E.W, Ragas, A.M.J., 1998. New Concepts for
Sustainable Management of River Basins. Backhuys, Leiden.
O’Connor, J.E., Ely, L.L., Wohl, E.E., 1994. 4000-year record of large
floods on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. Journal of Geology
102, 1 – 9.
OST, 2004. Foresight: Future Flooding. Office of Science and Technology,
London. 59 pp.
Petts, G.E., 1984. Impounded Rivers. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester,
UK.
Petts, G.E., 1995. In: Gurnell, A.M., Petts, G.E (Eds.), Changing River
Channels. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 1 – 25.
Petts, G.E., Amoros, C., 1996. Fluvial Hydrosystems. Chapman and Hall,
London.
Rapp, C.F., Abbe, T.B., 2003. A Framework or Delineating Channel
Migration Zones, Washington State Department of Ecology Report 03-
06-027, WS.
Raven, P.J., Boon, P.J., Dawson, F.H., Ferguson, A.J.D., 1998. Towards an
integrated approach to classifying and evaluating rivers in the UK.
Aquatic Conservation 8, 383 – 393.
Redmond, K.T., Enzel, Y., House, P.K, Biondi, F., 2002. Climate impact
on flood frequency at decadal to millennial time scales. In: House,
P.K., Webb, R.H., Baker, V.R., Levish, D. (Eds.), Ancient Floods,
Modern Hazards: Principles and Applications of Palaeoflood Hydrol-
ogy, Water Science and Application, vol. 5. American Geophysical
Union, pp. 21 – 45.
Reid, L.M., 1998. Cumulative watershed effects and watershed analysis. In:
Naiman, R.J., Bilby, R.E. (Eds.), River Ecology and Management:
Lessons for the Pacific Coastal Ecosystem. Springer, New York,
pp. 476 – 501.
Rhoads, B.L., Thorn, C.E. (Eds.), 1996. The Scientific Nature of
Geomorphology. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Richards, K.S., Brasington, J., Hughes, F., 2002. Geomorphic dynamics of
floodplain: ecological implications and a potential modelling strategy.
Freshwater Biology 47, 559 – 579.
Rico, M., Benito, G., Barnolas, A., 2001. Combined palaeoflood and
rainfall – runoff assessment of mountain floods (Spanish Pyrenees).
Journal of Hydrology 245, 59 – 72.
River Restoration Centre, 1999. Manual of River Restoration Techniques.
RRC.
Robinson, M., 1990. Impact of Improved Land Drainage on River Flows,
Institute of Hydrology Report No. 1993. Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology, Wallingford.
Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 2000. Ecohydrology: a hydrological perspective
of climate-soil-vegetation dynamics. Water Resources Research 36,
3 – 9.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22, 169 – 199.
Schumm, S.A., Lichty, R.W., 1965. Time, space and causality in
geomorphology. Amercan Journal of Science 263, 110 – 119.
Sear, D.A., 1996. The sediment system and channel stability. In:
Brookes, A., Shields Jr, F.D. (Eds.), River Restoration: Guiding
Principles for Sustainable Projects. J. Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chi-
chester, UK, pp. 149 – 177.
Sear, D.A., German, S., 2003. Geomorphological audit of the River Wylye.
Conserving Natura 2002 Rivers Conservation Techniques Series No. 9.
English Nature, Peterborough. 99 pp. http://www.english-nature.org.uk/
lifeinukrivers/publications/Wylye%20audit.pdf.
Sear, M.D., Newson, M.D., 1995. Sediment and gravel transport in
rivers: a methodology for incorporating geomorphology in river
maintenance. NRA Report No. C5/384/1. National Rivers Authority,
Bristol.
Sear, D.A., Newson, M.D., 2003. Environmental change in river channels: a
neglected element. Towards geomorphological typologies, standards
and monitoring. Science of the Total Environment 310, 17 – 23.
Sear, D.A., Armitage, P.D., Dawson, F.D.H., 1999. Groundwater dominated
rivers. Hydrological Processes 11 (4), 255 – 276.
Sear, D.A., Wilcock, D., Robinson, M.R., Fisher, K.R., 2000. In: Acreman,
M. (Ed.), Channel Modifications and Impacts, The Changing Hydrol-
ogy of the UK. Routledge, pp. 55 – 81.
Sear, D.A., Thorne, C.R., Newson, M.D., 2004. Guidebook of Applied
Fluvial Geomorphology, WRc. Bristol. 242 pp.
Shields Jr., F.D., 1996. Hydraulic and hydrologic stability. In: Brookes, A.,
Shields Jr., F.D. (Eds.), River Channel Restoration. J. Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, pp. 24 – 74.
Soar, P.J., Thorne, C.R., 2001. Channel restoration design for meandering
rivers. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory ERDC/CHL CR-01-1. Us
Army Research and Development Centre, Vicksburg, MS.
St George, S., Nielsen, E., 2003. Palaeoflood records for the Red River,
Manitoba, Canada, derived from anatomical tree-ring signatures. The
Holocene 13, 547 – 555.
Statzner, B., Sperling, F., 1993. Potential contribution of system specific
knowledge (SSK) to stream management decisions: ecological and
economic aspects. Freshwater Biology 29, 313 – 342.
Thorne, C.R., Allen, R.G., Simon, A., 1996. Geomorphological river
reconnaissance for river analysis, engineering and management. Trans-
actions of the Institute of British Geographers NS21, 469 – 483.
Tucker, G.E., Lancaster, S.T., Gaspirini, N.M., Bras, R.L., 2001. The
Channel-Hillslope Integrated Landscape Development (CHILD) model.
In: Harmon, R.S., Doe, W.W. (Eds.), Landscape erosion and evolution
modelling. Kluwer, pp. 349 – 388.
Walker, J.G., Diamond, M., Naura, M., 2002. The development of physical
quality objectives for rivers in England and Wales. Aquatic Conserva-
tion 12, 381 – 390.
Walling, D.E., Amos, C.M., 1999. Source, storage and mobilisation of
fine sediment in a chalk stream system. Hydrological Processes 13 (3),
323 – 340.
Wheaton, J.M., Pasternack, G.B., Merz, J.E., 2004. Spawning habitat
rehabilitation: I. Conceptual approach and methods. International
Journal of River Basin Management 1 (4), 1 – 18.
 D.A. Sear, N.W. Arnell / Catena 66 (2006) 169 – 183 183

Wheaton, J.M., Darby, S.E., Sear, D.A., in preparation. Uncertainty in river
restoration, in Darby, S.E. and Sear, D.A. (Eds) Uncertainty in River
Restoration, J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, U.K.
Whiting, P.J., Stamm, J., 1995. The hydrology and form of spring-
dominated channels. Geomorphology 12, 233 – 240.
Wiens, J.A., 2002. Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the
water. Freshwater Biology 47, 501 – 515.
Wolfert, H.P., 2001. Geomorphological Change and River Rehabilitation.
Alterra Green World Research, Wageningen.