+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Relative bias of several fisheries instream flow methods



Relative bias of several fisheries instream flow methods



North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4(4B): 531-539



Four generated categories of instream flow methods were evaluated to determine their biases relative to each other. The categories included the Tennant method, wetted perimeter curves, habitat retention models and physical habitat simulation (PHABSIM) models. The Tennant method (30% of average flow) was one of the least biased methods, but it does not include biological data and is incapable of identifying trade-offs. No wetted perimeter methods were significantly unbiased, and methods relying on subjective identification of inflection points were biased upwards. Two habitat retention methods were significantly unbiased. These methods included the mean recommendation of all riffles in a study reach where all 3 criteria are met, and the recommendation for the single most critical riffle in a study reach where 2 of the 3 criteria are met. No PHABSIM models were unbiased. The IFG-4 model was biased upwards for small streams and low for large streams.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 006303564

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

DOI: 10.1577/1548-8659(1984)4<531:rbosfi>2.0.co;2


Related references

A summary of instream flow methods for fisheries and related research needs. 1980

Instream flow requirements for fish and fisheries in Maryland. 1983

Development and evaluation of weighted criteria, probability-of-use curves for instream flow assessments: fisheries. Instream Flow Information Paper, US Fish and Wildlife Service (3): 53, 1977

A method for treatment of data from the instream flow incremental methodology for instream flow determination. Unknown, 1987

Basinwide instream flow assessment model to evaluate instream flow needs. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Water Resources Center Research Report (197): I-VI, 1-97, 1985

Flow regime and ecosystem interactions in spring-dominated streams: implications for selecting instream flow methods. Hydroecologie Appliquee 141: 93-104, 2004

Instream flow methods: A comparison of approaches. Regulated Rivers Research and Management 13(2): 115-127, 1997

Comparison of instream flow methods for western Virginia. U S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 905: 29-30, 1990

Comparison of instream flow methods for western virginia usa. U S Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Report 90(5): 29-30, 1990

Use of multiple methods for instream flow recommendations - a state agency approach. U S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 905: 40-42, 1990

A survey of methods for setting minimum instream flow standards in the Caribbean Basin. River Research and Applications 20(2): 127-135, 2004

A review of statistical methods for the evaluation of aquatic habitat suitability for instream flow assessment. River Research and Applications 22(5): 503-523, 2006

A comparison of methods for evaluating instream flow needs for recreation along rivers in southern Alberta, Canada. River Research & Applications 19(2): 123-135, March-April, 2003

Economic value of instream flow for non-commercial whitewater boating using recreation demand and contingent valuation methods. Environmental Management 53(3): 510-519, 2014

Conservation and management of the rivers of the Kruger National Park: suggested methods for calculating instream flow needs. Aquatic Conservation 11: 55-71, 1991