The term “environmental flows” describes the quantities, quality, and patterns of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide. Environmental flows may be achieved in a number of different ways, most of which are based on either (1) limiting alterations from the natural flow baseline to maintain biodiversity and ecological integrity or (2) designing flow regimes to achieve specific ecological and ecosystem service outcomes. We argue that the former practice is more applicable to natural and semi‐natural rivers where the primary objective and opportunity is ecological conservation. The latter “designer” approach is better suited to modified and managed rivers where return to natural conditions is no longer feasible and the objective is to maximize natural capital as well as support economic growth, recreation, or cultural history. This permits elements of ecosystem design and adaptation to environmental change. In a future characterized by altered climates and intensive regulation, where hybrid and novel aquatic ecosystems predominate, the designer approach may be the only feasible option. This conclusion stems from a lack of natural ecosystems from which to draw analogs and the need to support broader socioeconomic benefits and valuable configurations of natural and social capital.

The biological assessment of rivers i.e., their assessment through use of aquatic assemblages, integrates the effects of multiple-stressors on these systems over time and is essential to evaluate ecosystem condition and establish recovery measures. It has been undertaken in many countries since the 1990s, but not globally. And where national or multi-national monitoring networks have gathered large amounts of data, the poor water body classifications have not necessarily resulted in the rehabilitation of rivers. Thus, here we aimed to identify major gaps in the biological assessment and rehabilitation of rivers worldwide by focusing on the best examples in Asia, Europe, Oceania, and North, Central, and South America. Our study showed that it is not possible so far to draw a world map of the ecological quality of rivers. Biological assessment of rivers and streams is only implemented officially nation-wide and regularly in the European Union, Japan, Republic of Korea, South Africa, and the USA. In Australia, Canada, China, New Zealand, and Singapore it has been implemented officially at the state/province level (in some cases using common protocols) or in major catchments or even only once at the national level to define reference conditions (Australia). In other cases, biological monitoring is driven by a specific problem, impact assessments, water licenses, or the need to rehabilitate a river or a river section (as in Brazil, South Korea, China, Canada, Japan, Australia). In some countries monitoring programs have only been explored by research teams mostly at the catchment or local level (e.g., Brazil, Mexico, Chile, China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam) or implemented by citizen science groups (e.g., Southern Africa, Gambia, East Africa, Australia, Brazil, Canada). The existing large-extent assessments show a striking loss of biodiversity in the last 2–3 decades in Japanese and New Zealand rivers (e.g., 42% and 70% of fish species threatened or endangered, respectively). A poor condition (below Good condition) exists in 25% of South Korean rivers, half of the European water bodies, and 44% of USA rivers, while in Australia 30% of the reaches sampled were significantly impaired in 2006. Regarding river rehabilitation, the greatest implementation has occurred in North America, Australia, Northern Europe, Japan, Singapore, and the Republic of Korea. Most rehabilitation measures have been related to improving water quality and river connectivity for fish or the improvement of riparian vegetation. The limited extent of most rehabilitation measures (i.e., not considering the entire catchment) often constrains the improvement of biological condition. Yet, many rehabilitation projects also lack pre-and/or post-monitoring of ecological condition, which prevents assessing the success and shortcomings of the recovery measures. Economic constraints are the most cited limitation for implementing monitoring programs and rehabilitation actions, followed by technical limitations, limited knowledge of the fauna and flora and their life-history traits (especially in Africa, South America and Mexico), and poor awareness by decision-makers. On the other hand, citizen involvement is recognized as key to the success and sustainability of rehabilitation projects. Thus, establishing rehabilitation needs, defining clear goals, tracking progress towards achieving them, and involving local populations and stakeholders are key recommendations for rehabilitation projects (Table 1). Large-extent and long-term monitoring programs are also essential to provide a realistic overview of the condition of rivers worldwide. Soon, the use of DNA biological samples and eDNA to investigate aquatic diversity could contribute to reducing costs and thus increase monitoring efforts and a more complete assessment of biodiversity. Finally, we propose developing transcontinental teams to elaborate and improve technical guidelines for implementing biological monitoring programs and river rehabilitation and establishing common financial and technical frameworks for managing international catchments. We also recommend providing such expert teams through the United Nations Environment Program to aid the extension of biomonitoring, bioassessment, and river rehabilitation knowledge globally.

Climate change and human pressures are changing the global distribution and the extent of intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams (IRES), which comprise half of the global river network area. IRES are characterized by periods of flow cessation, during which channel substrates accumulate and undergo physico‐chemical changes (preconditioning), and periods of flow resumption, when these substrates are rewetted and release pulses of dissolved nutrients and organic matter (OM). However, there are no estimates of the amounts and quality of leached substances, nor is there information on the underlying environmental constraints operating at the global scale. We experimentally simulated, under standard laboratory conditions, rewetting of leaves, riverbed sediments, and epilithic biofilms collected during the dry phase across 205 IRES from five major climate zones. We determined the amounts and qualitative characteristics of the leached nutrients and OM, and estimated their areal fluxes from riverbeds. In addition, we evaluated the variance in leachate characteristics in relation to selected environmental variables and substrate characteristics. We found that sediments, due to their large quantities within riverbeds, contribute most to the overall flux of dissolved substances during rewetting events (56%–98%), and that flux rates distinctly differ among climate zones. Dissolved organic carbon, phenolics, and nitrate contributed most to the areal fluxes. The largest amounts of leached substances were found in the continental climate zone, coinciding with the lowest potential bioavailability of the leached OM. The opposite pattern was found in the arid zone. Environmental variables expected to be modified under climate change (i.e. potential evapotranspiration, aridity, dry period duration, land use) were correlated with the amount of leached substances, with the strongest relationship found for sediments. These results show that the role of IRES should be accounted for in global biogeochemical cycles, especially because prevalence of IRES will increase due to increasing severity of drying events.

There is a global need for management of river flows to be informed by science to protect and restore biodiversity and ecological function while maintaining water supply for human needs. However, a lack of data at large scales presents a substantial challenge to developing a scientifically robust approach to flow management that can be applied at a basin and valley scale. In most large systems, only a small number of aquatic ecosystems have been well enough studied to reliably describe their environmental water requirements. The umbrella environmental asset (UEA) approach uses environmental water requirements developed for information-rich areas to represent the water requirements of a broader river reach or valley. We illustrate this approach in the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) in eastern Australia, which was recently subject to a substantial revision of water management arrangements. The MDB is more than 1 million km² with 18 main river valleys and many thousands of aquatic ecosystems. Detailed eco-hydrologic assessments of environmental water requirements that focused on the overbank, bankfull and fresh components of the flow regime were undertaken at a total of 24 UEA sites across the MDB. Flow needs (e.g. flow magnitude, duration, frequency and timing) were established for each UEA to meet the needs of key ecosystem components (e.g. vegetation, birds and fish). Those flow needs were then combined with other analyses to determine sustainable diversion limits across the basin. The UEA approach to identifying environmental water requirements is a robust, science-based and fit-for-purpose approach to determining water requirements for large river basins in the absence of complete ecological knowledge. © 2015 The Authors. River Research and Applications published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams (IRES) may represent over half the global stream network, but their contribution to respiration and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions is largely undetermined. In particular, little is known about the variability and drivers of respiration in IRES sediments upon rewetting, which could result in large pulses of CO₂. We present a global study examining sediments from 200 dry IRES reaches spanning multiple biomes. Results from standardized assays show that mean respiration increased 32‐fold to 66‐fold upon sediment rewetting. Structural equation modeling indicates that this response was driven by sediment texture and organic matter quantity and quality, which, in turn, were influenced by climate, land use, and riparian plant cover. Our estimates suggest that respiration pulses resulting from rewetting of IRES sediments could contribute significantly to annual CO₂ emissions from the global stream network, with a single respiration pulse potentially increasing emission by 0.2–0.7%. As the spatial and temporal extent of IRES increases globally, our results highlight the importance of recognizing the influence of wetting‐drying cycles on respiration and CO₂ emissions in stream networks.