The stream evolution triangle: Integrating geology, hydrology, and biology

• Published in: River research and applications Vol. 35; no. 4; pp. 315 - 326
• Main Authors: Castro, Janine M., Thorne, Colin R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bognor Regis Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.05.2019
• Subjects: Anthropogenic factors; Biological evolution; Biology; channel evolution model (CEM); Classification systems; conceptual model; Creeks & streams; Dynamic response; Evolution; fluvial geomorphology; Geology; Human influences; Hydrologic models; Hydrology; Morphology; Restoration; River restoration; Rivers; Stream classification; Stream discharge; stream evolution model (SEM); Stream flow
• ISSN: 1535-1459; 1535-1467
• DOI: 10.1002/rra.3421

The foundations of river restoration science rest comfortably in the fields of geology, hydrology, and engineering, and yet, the impetus for many, if not most, stream restoration projects is biological recovery. Although Lane's stream balance equation from the mid‐1950s captured the dynamic equilibrium between the amount of stream flow, the slope of the channel, and the amount and calibre of sediment, it completely ignored biology. Similarly, most of the stream classification systems used in river restoration design today do not explicitly include biology as a primary driver of stream form and process. To address this omission, we cast biology as an equal partner with geology and hydrology, forming a triumvirate that governs stream morphology and evolution. To represent this, we have created the stream evolution triangle, a conceptual model that explicitly accounts for the influences of geology, hydrology, and biology. Recognition of biology as a driver leads to improved understanding of reach‐scale morphology and the dynamic response mechanisms responsible for stream evolution and adjustment following natural or anthropogenic disturbance, including stream restoration. Our aim in creating the stream evolution triangle is not to exclude or supersede existing stream classifications and evolutionary models but to provide a broader “thinking space” within which they can be framed and reconsidered, thus facilitating thought outside of the alluvial box.