ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Donwload one of the 50 free eprints here: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/C4B3NQVBGVH7HSGSRXTP/full?target=10.1080/24705357.2020.1813057 Interdisciplinary approaches are required to tackle complex environmental issues as freshwater ecosystems face unprecedented pressures globally. The emerging Ecohydraulics field of research should, therefore, take steps towards developing true interdisciplinarity to adapt to a continuing changing world. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion on inter-disciplinarity in Ecohydraulics and shapes its growth by identifying key actions, actors and implementation strategies that can strengthen it. Based on an online questionnaire and a workshop involving over 150 early and established careers, we present a list of 20 prioritised actions that will help engage the research community towards specific goals and will result in increased interdisciplinary outcomes. While early career researchers (ECRs) have taken the lead on creating this roadmap, its implementation should be a joint responsibility of both ECRs, established career scientists, groups, and institutions within Ecohydraulics. The list of identified actions and assigned responsibility should, therefore, be considered a conversation starter. Continued revision of the here-stated approaches will be required in the future as the field of research and its community progresses. With this contribution, we resume a critical reflection on where the Ecohydraulics field of research and community stand today and suggest where resources should be invested in the long-term to consolidate the inherent interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
How to strengthen Interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics?
1
Outcomes from ISE 2018
2
3
Casas-Mulet R1,2,§, Vanzo D3, Adeva-Bustos A4, Macnaughton C J5, Stewardson M J2,
4
Pasternack G B6 ,Enders E C7, Dyer F8
5
1Aquatic Systems Biology Unit, School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of
6
Munich, 85354 Freising, Germany
7
8
2Department of Infrastructure Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Melbourne,
9
3010 Parkville, Victoria, Australia
10
11
3Surface Waters - Research and Management, Eawag - Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and
12
Technology, Kastanienbaum, Switzerland
13
14
4Department of Energy Systems, SINTEF Energy Research, 7034 Trondheim, Norway
15
16
5Independent Researcher (Aquatic biology), Montreal, Canada
17
18
6Departmetn of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, United States
19
20
7Freshwater Institute, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
21
22
8Centre for Applied Water Science, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia
23
24
25
§corresponding author: roser.casas-mulet@tum.de
26
27
28
29
Keywords
30
interdisciplinarity, research community, scientific development, transdisciplinarity, research
31
education and training, early career researchers
32
2
Abstract
33
Interdisciplinary approaches are needed to tackle complex environmental issues as freshwater
34
ecosystems face unprecedented pressures globally. The emerging Ecohydraulics field of research
35
should take steps towards developing true interdisciplinarity and embrace the transformation
36
required as the world keeps changing in front of our eyes. This paper aims to contribute to the
37
discussion on interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics and to shape its growth. This contribution builds upon
38
previous research that identified the challenges and opportunities for early career researchers (ECRs)
39
in Ecohydraulics and takes a step further on identifying key actions, actors, and implementation
40
strategies that can strengthen interdisciplinarity. Based on an online questionnaire and a workshop
41
involving over 150 early and established careers, we present a list of 20 prioritised actions that will
42
help engage the research community towards specific goals and will result in increased
43
interdisciplinary outcomes. While ECRs have taken the lead on creating this roadmap, its
44
implementation should be a joint responsibility of both ECRs, established career scientists, groups,
45
and institutions within Ecohydraulics. The list of identified actions and assigned responsibility should,
46
therefore, be considered a conversation starter among the Ecohydraulics community on how to
47
strengthen interdisciplinarity. This means that a continued revision of the here stated approaches will
48
be required to in the future, as the field of research and its community progresses. With this
49
contribution, we resume a critical reflection on where the Ecohydraulics field of research and
50
community stands today and where efforts need to be invested in the long-term to consolidate its
51
inherent interdisciplinarity.
52
53
54
55
56
57
3
1 Introduction
58
Interdisciplinary approaches in science are essential to understanding the complex challenges brought
59
by current global environmental changes. This is why interdisciplinary research has been well
60
recognised by funding and government agencies for decades (e.g. Engineering Committee on Science,
61
2004; European Research Advisory Board, 2008). However, fostering effective interdisciplinarity faces
62
many barriers, starting with a lack of common understanding of the factors that make
63
interdisciplinarity work (Huutoniemi et al., 2010; Kumar et al., 2019; Schummer, 2004) which hinders
64
its implementation. Despite having a central role in science policy debates and funding schemes,
65
interdisciplinary research still appears to be poorly rewarded in terms of recognition and career-
66
building (Bina, 2017). For individuals from different disciplines to work together and maximise the
67
benefits for the scientific community, these barriers first have to be resolved (Freeth and Caniglia,
68
2020; Hicks et al., 2010). In this context, research teams in the scientific community need to
69
continuously improve their interdisciplinary toolkit, drawing on hands-on experiences (e.g. learn to
70
collaborate while collaborating, Freeth and Caniglia, 2020), and investing in identifying inclusive,
71
bottom-up or peer-driven strategies for effective interdisciplinarity.
72
As an interdisciplinary field of research, Ecohydraulics faces the same pressures and challenges of
73
interdisciplinarity. Indeed, anthropogenic pressures threatening freshwater ecosystems worldwide
74
(Döll and Zhang, 2010; Vörösmarty et al., 2010), and the increasing awareness of their importance for
75
global conservation efforts (Geist, 2011; Reid et al., 2019; Strayer and Dudgeon, 2010) have led to an
76
emergence of integrative fields of research such as Ecohydraulics. Ecohydraulics combines core
77
disciplines of hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, engineering, and ecology (Maddock et al., 2013a) to
78
understand physical and ecological processes in rivers at a range of scales (Gosselin et al., 2019;
79
Pasternack, 2019). While disciplines within Ecohydraulics interact at different multi-, inter- and
80
transdisciplinary levels (see Casas-Mulet et al., 2016), here we adopt the more inclusive definition of
81
interdisciplinarity by Hicks et al. (2010): ‘the production of research which crosses disciplinary
82
boundaries’, and is considered to cover all three levels of disciplinary interaction. As such,
83
interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics is what gives it the potential to play a crucial role in the future
84
management of freshwater ecosystems (Maddock et al., 2013c, 2013b; Nestler et al., 2016; Rice et al.,
85
2010).
86
A crucial achievement in promoting interdisciplinarity has undoubtedly been the foundation of the
87
Journal of Ecohydraulics (TJoE, Kemp and Katopodis, 2016), which highlights Ecohydraulics research,
88
as well as providing a platform for the integration of non-engineering disciplines (e.g. Hannah et al.,
89
4
2007; Lancaster, 2018). Despite the advances, Ecohydraulics has not yet reached the necessary level
90
of integration for true interdisciplinarity. A study on the last twenty years of Ecohydraulics conference
91
proceedings suggests a potential stagnation phase in interdisciplinary research (Casas-Mulet et al.,
92
2016). The study found only a small detectable increase in interdisciplinarity activity between
93
neighbouring research areas (e.g. physical habitat and flow responses), and no growth among more
94
distant topics (e.g. hydraulic modelling and biotic responses, or social aspects) during the investigated
95
period. In contrast, the need to solve water management problems has engaged Ecohydraulics
96
research with end-users from its inception and has a been a key driver promoting the development of
97
Ecohydraulics as a distinct field of applied research (Nestler et al., 2008).
98
There is a need for a wider acceptance of Ecohydraulics as a whole discipline with both a basic science
99
foundation (Nestler et al., 2016; Pasternack, 2019) and a critical impact on society that emerges when
100
addressing research questions beyond traditional subject boundaries and scales. Stronger
101
interdisciplinary collaboration and cooperation among researchers, end-users, and managers are
102
considered necessary to achieve this goal (Dollar et al., 2007; Rice et al., 2010). A bi-directional
103
stimulation is needed. On the one hand, a relevant challenge appears to be the implementation of
104
interdisciplinary research into actions on the ground (Casas-Mulet et al., 2016), both at the scientific
105
and societal levels. On the other hand, practitioners can play a central role in steering Ecohydraulics
106
fundamental research and should challenge scientists to improve and further basic science (Palmer et
107
al., 2010).
108
In order to contribute to society on local and global scales, Ecohydraulics needs to support the new
109
generations of freshwater scientists (Wilkes et al., 2016). Early career researchers (ECRs) face
110
additional challenges as they need to build their careers in a way that crosses traditional disciplinary
111
boundaries, integrating physical, ecological, and social values in Ecohydraulics. To date, the efforts of
112
the Early Career on Ecohydraulics Network (ECoENet) have been to promote inclusivity and open-
113
mindedness among emerging researchers and encourage their participation in the scientific
114
community. However, more work is needed to engage emerging researchers in the consolidation
115
process of interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics.
116
By taking both an ECR and established academic perspective, this paper aims to contribute to the
117
discussion on interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics and to shape its growth both among the community
118
and the field of research. This contribution builds upon previous research that collected the challenges
119
and opportunities for ECRs in Ecohydraulics (Wilkes et al., 2016). From this, we identified key actions,
120
actors, implementation strategies and approaches that can strengthen interdisciplinarity in
121
5
Ecohydraulics. Based on an online questionnaire, our investigation first re-examined and updated
122
Wilkes et al. (2016) findings. We then held a follow-up workshop involving ECRs and established
123
careers in Ecohydraulics at a pre-conference event for the 12th International Symposium on
124
Ecohydraulics (ISE) in Tokyo, 2018. This paper resumes a critical reflection on where the Ecohydraulics
125
community stands today and where efforts need to be invested in the long-term to consolidate its
126
inherent interdisciplinarity.
127
128
2 Pre-workshop questionnaire
129
2.1 Questions and targeted respondents
130
To assess the current status of the challenges, opportunities, and future directions in Ecohydraulics
131
identified during the first Early Career on Ecohydraulics Network (ECoENet) workshop in 2016 (Wilkes
132
et al., 2016), we created an anonymous online questionnaire that revisited them. The questionnaire
133
was composed of 14 questions divided into four sections: (i) respondents professional experience, (ii)
134
challenges and opportunities, (iii) future directions, and (iv) respondents’ personal background. Four
135
multiple-choice questions focused on the professional experience of the respondents, including
136
defining their career stage, background training, and identifying macro-topics of their core research.
137
Five questions addressed the set of challenges and opportunities in Ecohydraulics by evaluating the
138
respondent’s level of agreement or disagreement with specific questions. One question addressed the
139
future directions in Ecohydraulics by asking respondents to identify potential actions that could help
140
advance the discipline. The last four questions helped portray the personal background of the
141
respondents: current geographical location, gender, age, and whether the respondents had children
142
(see full questionnaire in Appendix 1).
143
The online questionnaire was distributed on 27th July 2018 through several Ecohydraulics community-
144
related email lists, soliciting participation from approximately 300 people. Respondents were given a
145
week to return questionnaires to ensure that results were analysed before the ISE 2018 workshop in
146
Tokyo, which was held in August 2018. A total of 103 participants responded to the questionnaire. The
147
highest response rate came from male participants (61%), between 25 and 45 years old (63%), with a
148
current research position in Europe (61%), either in a temporary research position or as a PhD
149
candidate (50%). Most respondents were in engineering (39%), followed by the biological sciences
150
6
(29%, including ecology). The current area of research was a split between physical habitat, flow, fish
151
responses, hydrology, and hydraulic modelling (67%; Figure 1).
152
153
2.2 Summary of challenges, opportunities, and future directions
154
Results from the questionnaire confirmed that the challenges, opportunities, and future directions in
155
Ecohydraulics identified by Wilkes et al. (2016) are still relevant for ECRs. Insights from respondents
156
went beyond the early career community and emphasised how interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics was
157
viewed as both a challenge, opportunity and a future direction. While challenges and opportunities
158
were well defined and further discussed by the respondents; future directions were more difficult to
159
characterise, particularly regarding specific actions needed to strengthen interdisciplinarity within
160
Ecohydraulics.
161
A preliminary analysis of the responses identified four main focus areas, which were later used to
162
structure the discussions at the subsequent workshop. They included: Community Building (CB),
163
Scientific Advancement (SA), Links to the Real World (LRW), and Education and Training (ET). Funding
164
was considered an intersecting topic across the four focus areas, given that several recurrent
165
challenges and opportunities centred around funding sources, and it was also deemed necessary to
166
achieving future endeavours (Figure 2).
167
Newly identified challenges for Community Building (CB) emphasised persistent disciplinary
168
separatism between ‘eco’ and ‘hydraulics’, the lack of a collective community vision for the future,
169
and the absence of a common platform for networking. Respondents identified conferences as places
170
for community growth and building a collective vision, ultimately creating an opportunity for
171
interdisciplinary research in Ecohydraulics internationally (Figure 2).
172
Challenges listed for Scientific Advancement (SA) included: the lack of basic Ecohydraulics concepts
173
and paradigms, the difficulty scaling-up integrative research for a complex global context, and the
174
difficulties of developing interdisciplinary concepts without compromising the quality of the research.
175
By promoting interdisciplinary collaborations, respondents agreed that knowledge in Ecohydraulics
176
might extend beyond current ‘eco’ and ‘hydraulics’ core topics.
177
Harnessing technological advances and promoting scientific applications to overcome technological
178
shortcomings were identified as both a new challenge and solution that relate to the focus area Links
179
7
to Real World (LRW). In terms of Education and Training (ET), the trade-off between single-focus
180
specialised training vs all-in-one interdisciplinary degrees was seen as a key challenge that, in turn, can
181
impact both professional and personal development. The participants perceived the Ecohydraulics
182
field of research as an excellent framework to allow specialised education in a core discipline while
183
maintaining broader connections among them (Figure 2).
184
185
3 ISE 2018 workshop
186
3.1 Organisation and participation
187
The workshop “Interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics: an early career perspective” was held on August
188
19-20, 2018, prior to the 12th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics in Tokyo in the form of a pre-
189
conference event for ECRs and involving established academics. The workshop set out to identify key
190
actions, actors, implementation strategies, and approaches that may help strengthen
191
interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics. The challenges and opportunities summarised in the online
192
questionnaire (Section 2.2) provided the framework for structuring the workshop.
193
The workshop registered 63 participants with affiliations in Asia (38%), Europe (37%), Oceania (13%),
194
and North America (13%). Just above half of those registered were male (52%), PhD candidates or
195
temporary researchers (51%), and with a background in engineering (58%, Figure 1).
196
3.2 Workshop sessions
197
The workshop was structured in four sessions: keynote introduction and discussion sessions during
198
the first day and a synthesis session and prioritisation exercise on the second day. The scope, the
199
methods, and the outcomes for each session are briefly summarised below.
200
Keynote introduction
201
Four keynote speakers were invited to offer a personal perspective of their career experiences as they
202
relate to interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics and engage ECRs to provide their own insights into the
203
field of research at the short Q&A discussion session. Different criteria were adopted in selecting the
204
speakers: (i) ensure equal gender representation, (ii) representative career stages, and (iii) different
205
8
disciplinary backgrounds, including engineering, ecology, and social sciences. Each presenter
206
contributed their story and experiences of interdisciplinary training and associated challenges. Overall,
207
presentations highlighted a variety of career paths and life experiences that made each
208
interdisciplinarity story unique. The diversity of pathways underscores the challenge and opportunity
209
of mindfully creating interdisciplinary educational programs and cross-national engagement activities
210
that give students practice in interdisciplinary engagement.
211
212
Discussion session
213
The discussion session aimed to identify and structure a series of actions, aligned with the four focus
214
areas that emerged from the questionnaire: Community Building (CB), Scientific Advancement (SA),
215
Links to the Real World (LRW), and Education and Training (ET) (Section 2.2). Participants were also
216
asked to assess whether the future directions identified in the questionnaire were appropriate.
217
Round-table discussions of seven groups were conducted in a manner consistent with the Open Space
218
Technology principles (Owen, 2008), with keynotes acting as discussion facilitators and reporters. In
219
particular, discussion groups were neither assigned a specific focus area nor held to a specific time
220
schedule by the facilitators. To help focus the discussion into a series of actions, we provided a
221
template, where groups were asked to allocate responsibility (Who are the actors?) and identify an
222
approach (What are the implementation strategies and approaches?) to realise identified actions.
223
Answers from each group were later discussed in a plenary session at the end of day one. A summary
224
list of 20 actions was defined, organised by focus areas, and linked to the identified key future
225
directions (Figure 2).
226
227
Synthesis session
228
The synthesis session opened day two of the workshop, and it was organised as a plenary session.
229
Three synthesis keynote speakers with long-standing roles in the Ecohydraulics community led the
230
opening of the meeting. The synthesis speakers had helped facilitate the previous discussion session
231
and had been asked to synthesise the outcomes for the final prioritisation exercise.
232
Their summary statement emphasised the need for all career stages to engage with the broader
233
scientific community and specific forums, as well as create opportunities to interact with fellow early
234
9
career and established scientists. The synthesis session also verified and consolidated the list of the
235
20 actions created the day prior and added additional viewpoints from workshop participants.
236
237
Prioritisation exercise
238
In the final session of the workshop, each participant was asked to vote for their top three key actions
239
from the final consolidated list. The outcomes of the exercise illustrated that although actions focused
240
on Community Building (CB) were prioritised, all other focus areas were deemed similarly important
241
to help increase interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics (Figure 3). In terms of specific key actions,
242
promoting one-on-one ECRs-mentor connections (CB), encouraging academic-industry internships
243
(LRW), and the creation of an Ecohydraulics glossary of terms (SA) were the three most voted actions.
244
They were closely followed by actions, such as workshops on disciplinary comparisons (SA), ECoENet’s
245
outreach (CB), optimal interdisciplinary training approaches (ET), and the addition of hands-on
246
summer courses in standard University degrees (sUDs), also under the ET focus area(Figure 3).
247
In regard to the actors, the responsibility for implementing these actions generally lied within ECRs
248
and, in some cases, ECoENet. However, established academics, University departments, and the
249
Ecohydraulics Leadership Team (ELT) were also held responsible for enacting some of the key actions
250
(Table 1). To achieve the listed actions, approaches like targeted workshops, interdisciplinary short
251
courses, and creating new materials (e.g. newsletters, mentorship platforms, and a consolidated
252
Ecohydraulics community mailing list etc.) were proposed.
253
Concerning the implementation approaches, the ECoENet platform and network were considered to
254
be the best Community Building approach for promoting one-on-one connections between ECRs and
255
mentors. By creating a database of both active mentors and ECRs members, mentors and mentees
256
can be matched based on research areas of interest. Academic-industry internships were thought to
257
be the purview of University departments and ELTs, linking fundamental research to Real World (LRW)
258
contexts by establishing an online registry of contacts. In order to support Scientific Advancement
259
(SA), ECoENet, ECRs, and the ELT were thought to be collectively responsible for creating an
260
Ecohydraulics glossary and linkages among core disciplines. With respect to Education and Training
261
(ET), developing optimal interdisciplinary training approaches and guidelines were deemed the most
262
important, despite appearing only in the 6th position from the prioritisation exercise. Specific
263
suggestions included: the development of interdisciplinary approaches to academic courses and
264
10
summer schools by established academics with a teaching focus, and the use and dissemination of
265
interdisciplinary textbooks that cover varied core disciplines within Ecohydraulics (Table 1).
266
4 Representativeness of the study
267
Both the pre-workshop questionnaire and the workshop had high participation relative to the total
268
number of attendants in the 2018 ISE symposium. This fact suggests that the issues raised in both
269
events were likely important to ECRs and the broader Ecohydraulics community. While the crossover
270
between questionnaire and workshop participants was low, the demographics in terms of career stage
271
and background were aligned, which validated the use of the workshop as a continuation of the
272
questionnaire. The low crossover was likely caused by the geographical location of ISE 2018,
273
promoting high participation from Asia. In contrast, the questionnaire sought participants from a
274
consolidated email list issued for ISE 2014 and ISE 2016 symposiums, with high involvement of Europe
275
and Oceania. Although we observed a close gender balance in both exercises, the low participation of
276
scientists with social sciences backgrounds and the lack of participation from Latin American and
277
African countries are still unresolved issues preventing a broader representation within Ecohydraulics
278
(Wilkes et al., 2016), and could be considered a potential limitation of this study.
279
5 Discussion
280
Following the reassessment of key challenges, opportunities, and future directions in Ecohydraulics
281
via the online questionnaire, we identified four key focus areas (Community Building, Scientific
282
Advancement, Links to the Real World, and Education and Training), where support is needed to
283
strengthen interdisciplinarity within Ecohydraulics. All four focus areas and associated actions
284
emerged in a prioritisation exercise during the ISE 2018 workshop, suggesting that efforts are required
285
across the board to reach interdisciplinarity within Ecohydraulics. The list of prioritised actions
286
considered various approaches to engage the community towards specific goals and should help
287
improve long-term interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics. Below, we discuss the top prioritised actions in
288
the context of each of the four focus areas (in ascending order of perceived priority).
289
290
11
Education and Training (ET)
291
Actions in Education and Training were not at the top of the priority list for the majority of participants
292
in the workshop, suggesting that despite ECRs may have felt it an important gap in Ecohydraulics (see
293
Wilkes et al., 2016), they are unempowered to drive the change. Interdisciplinary collaborations have
294
the greatest chance of success when ECRs are able to cultivate their own discipline based on academic
295
interests, but also to look beyond it. The so-called T-shaped researchers have ideally developed
296
breadth and depth during their disciplinary training (see Brown et al., 2016). However, ECRs and
297
students in Ecohydraulics are faced with a lack of interdisciplinary academic departments devoted to
298
the field of research, as well as specialised courses bridging diverse departments. Such institutional
299
barriers force students to choose among various courses offered across several disciplines and
300
departments vs mastering the fundamentals within a specific discipline. For ECRs, such barriers mean
301
that interdisciplinary career development and collaboration are not readily available. As a result,
302
students and ECRs are prevented from cultivating both breadth and depth in their chosen field of
303
research (e.g. jack of all trades, master of none).
304
Another major challenge centres around educators expected to design and deliver true
305
interdisciplinary academic courses (action ET1, priority #6). Without consolidated Ecohydraulics
306
textbooks (action ET3, priority #13), compounded by the logistical and institutional constraints of
307
having an interdisciplinary course, it is no wonder that Ecohydraulics has yet to reach the levels of a
308
recognised academic discipline. The development of truly interdisciplinary training approaches and
309
guidelines can only be achieved as a collaboration among several established academics from varied
310
backgrounds, representing the core disciplines in Ecohydraulics, and the full support of University
311
departments interested to contribute to the emerging field of research. Despite some efforts made to
312
integrate Ecohydraulics at the departmental and University level structures, academic departments
313
need to initiate interdisciplinarity through the support of specific actions.
314
315
Links to the Real World (LRW)
316
Ecohydraulics research must convert fundamental and applied research findings into practical tools
317
that can be easily used and applied by practitioners and governmental agencies. Engaging policy and
318
industry in the design of novel techniques and methods to further the Ecohydraulics toolbox should
319
meaningfully contribute to the future success of Ecohydraulics as an established interdisciplinary field
320
of research and positively impact society.
321
12
Increased engagement with industry from early ECRs via academic-industry internships (action LRW1,
322
priority #2) has the potential to bridge Ecohydraulics research with the real-world outcomes and
323
implementation of tools. Institutions affiliated with university departments must take the lead to
324
foster stronger relationships with industry and governmental agencies and support ECRs’ career
325
development. This investment should positively feedback to the field of research in Ecohydraulics and
326
society in general.
327
328
Scientific Advancement (SA)
329
Despite the many important advances in Ecohydraulics applications, there has not been a parallel
330
evolution in the research theory independent of the core disciplines. Such applications have produced
331
largely empirical research and models, often with limited applicability beyond the conditions in which
332
they were developed. A significant challenge is to find ways to advance Ecohydraulics theory and
333
develop research programs to test these theories without retreating to the traditional reductionist
334
approaches of the parent disciplines. This can be achieved by developing a collective future vision as
335
a research community and a set of shared concepts and paradigms (Nestler et al., 2016).
336
The creation of an Ecohydraulics glossary of terms (action SA1, priority #3) was seen as a good starting
337
point to ensure that all the disciplines related to Ecohydraulics have a common vocabulary and engage
338
the diverse disciplines within Ecohydraulics in a conversation on the use of terms. This would be a first
339
step towards consolidating shared concepts and paradigms, and undertaking integrative
340
interdisciplinary research without compromising the advancement of each individual discipline.
341
Another action suggested the organisation of workshops to brainstorm on Ecohydraulics
342
fundamentals (action SA5, priority #18). The low priority given to this action perhaps reflects that the
343
basic common language is not yet been developed, and ECRs are not ready to engage in such
344
conversations.
345
346
While a renewed focus on advancing Ecohydraulics theory is an opportunity, the Ecohydraulics
347
community will have to overcome significant funding challenges. Interdisciplinary research requires
348
collaborations among research groups and across traditional disciplines. Collaborative projects require
349
substantial resources to support long-term experimental programs that achieve significant advances
350
because of the complex interdisciplinary nature of Ecohydraulics. Establishing such programs requires
351
13
substantial funding from different stakeholders, which is often lacking in a sector where funding
352
agencies are looking for quick solutions to pressing local management concerns, reflecting a
353
disconnect between Ecohydraulics research goals set out by academics and funding agencies
354
expectations. The value of investing in long-term theoretical Ecohydraulics research in the grand
355
scheme of improving aquatic ecosystems management needs to be better articulated to national and
356
international funding agencies.
357
358
Community Building (CB)
359
The Ecohydraulics community is mostly united and engaged through the biennial ISE symposium
360
(Casas-Mulet et al., 2016). While it initially started as an informal support group of researchers, it has
361
now grown into a mindful, strategic organisation of substantial size, influence, and recognition. This
362
leads to the logical question: is Ecohydraulics at the point where it merits institutional recognition? An
363
institutionalisation of Ecohydraulics would mean the development of a shared mission for both the
364
field of research and the community. The establishment of formal organisational structures within
365
Ecohydraulics is critical to engaging people, allows the community to grow, and empowers community
366
volunteers to support more specific actions. While the Ecohydraulics community can learn from
367
written experiences of scientific institutionalisation (e.g. Gaëta et al., 2017), its implementation still
368
poses a challenge, and its success will depend on current and future ELTs.
369
Engaging researchers from all career stages is crucial to building community. Scientific leaders at the
370
peak of their careers should lead the establishment of such formal structures, as they are in the
371
position to reflect on the overall vision of Ecohydraulics and are most likely training a critical mass of
372
students and postdoctoral researchers on interdisciplinary research projects. The participation of ECRs
373
in such formal structures is key. Still, their involvement must reflect their need for building their
374
repertoire of skills with different basic and applied research challenges and establishing their careers
375
in centres of excellence. The development of a mentorship program (action CB1, priority #1) has the
376
potential to engage individuals at different career stages in Ecohydraulics by contributing to the field
377
of research through collaboration mentorship, advice, and networking among peers, linking disciplines
378
together and ultimately driving Ecohydraulics towards a more formalised field of research.
379
Another key action to help with CB is the creation of an inclusive Research Forum (action CB3, priority
380
#9), including individuals from diverse geographic locations, disciplinary backgrounds and career
381
stages. Current and developing online platforms (e.g. Ecohydraulics website, ECoENet social media
382
14
platforms) are a good start, however, the Ecohydraulics community and ELT at large should be
383
responsible for actively engaging researchers from diverse core disciplines and nurturing a
384
constructive dialogue among them. Inspiring students, ECRs, and established research leaders to
385
collectively build the Ecohydraulics community, should also foster growth through learning and
386
creative exchanges, facilitating the evolution of the discipline beyond the CB actions currently
387
identified.
388
389
According to Schummer (2004), there are two components to the establishment of a field of
390
interdisciplinary research: (i) the knowledge base (concepts and beliefs, methods, values), and (ii) the
391
social aspects (ways in which the body of knowledge is communicated, shared and taught). It appears
392
that the majority of actions identified in this paper are on the social aspects relevant to Ecohydraulics
393
(Community Building, Links to the Real World, and Education and Training) vs only one on the
394
knowledge base (Scientific Advancement). Despite a clear lack of shared concepts and paradigms in
395
Ecohydraulics, the dominant engineering perspective provides a well-established link with research
396
applications, providing the foundation for a consensus on the knowledge base. However, a community
397
vision designed to bring researchers rooted in different disciplines together (Schummer, 2004)
398
remains the key challenge. Ecohydraulics should, thus, invest most of their efforts and resources into
399
developing the above-mentioned social aspects. The question remains whether new institutional
400
structures within Ecohydraulics will enable more integration between the disparate disciplines,
401
particularly those with the social sciences (Porter and Rafols, 2009), where the gap is more apparent.
402
403
6 Conclusion
404
This study presents a collective effort amongst established and early career scientists with different
405
disciplinary backgrounds to identify, discuss, and prioritise specific actions to support the
406
development of true interdisciplinarity within Ecohydraulics. A total of 20 actions involving a range of
407
actors, implementation strategies and approaches within Ecohydraulics were identified depicting a
408
network of players, from individuals at different career stages, to institutions, working together across
409
all focus areas towards achieving true interdisciplinarity. Outcomes from the exercise helped evaluate
410
the current state of the Ecohydraulics community and provided a roadmap for long-term investment
411
of efforts and resources to consolidate interdisciplinarity. The list of prioritised actions in this paper
412
15
should, therefore, be considered as mechanisms to engage the community towards specific goals
413
leading to increased interdisciplinarity. While ECRs have taken the lead to create this roadmap, its
414
implementation is the joint responsibility of more established career scientists, ECRs, and institutions.
415
This paper is a conversation starter for all of those within the Ecohydraulics community. A continued
416
revision of the implementation strategies and approaches to strengthen interdisciplinarity will be
417
needed to tackle global issues in freshwater systems in the future.
418
419
Acknowledgements
420
The questionnaire and the workshop were designed and conducted by the Early Career on
421
Ecohydraulics Network (ECoENet). The workshop also received logistic support by the ISE Local
422
Organising Committee. ECoENet and the authors would like to especially thank Dr Shinji Fukuda for
423
his incredible help from beginning to end. We would also like to thank Kurita Water and
424
Environment Foundation (http://www.kwef.or.jp/index.html) for kindly providing financial support
425
to the event. The authors are grateful to key long-standing Ecohydraulics members Atle Harby,
426
Thomas Hardy, and Francisco Martinez-Capel, who supported the workshop and contributed to its
427
success with their insights. Last but not least, we thank all questionnaire respondents and workshop
428
participants for openly sharing their views on Ecohydraulics and early-stage research.
429
430
Disclosure statement
431
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
432
433
ORCID
434
Roser Casas-Mulet http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7139-8859
435
Davide Vanzo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2033-9197
436
16
Ana Adeva-Bustos https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7655-784X
437
Camille Macnaughton https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9523-4947
438
Michael Stewardson https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1356-0472
439
Gregory Pasternack https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1977-4175
440
Eva Enders http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2103-0359
441
Fiona Dyer https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4658-9247
442
443
References
444
445
Bina, O., 2017. 1st INTREPID Policy Brief: Recommendations on Integrating Interdisciplinarity, the
446
Social Sciences and the Humanities and Responsible Research and Innovation in EU Research.
447
Brown, R.R., Deletic, A., Wong, T.H.F., 2016. Interdisciplinarity: How to catalyse collaboration 525,
448
315317. https://doi.org/10.1038/525315a
449
Casas-Mulet, R., King, E., Hoogeveen, D., Duong, L., Lakhanpal, G., Baldwin, T., Stewardson, M.J.,
450
Webb, J.A., 2016. Two decades of ecohydraulics: trends of an emerging interdiscipline. J.
451
Ecohydraulics 1, 1630. https://doi.org/10.1080/24705357.2016.1251296
452
Döll, P., Zhang, J., 2010. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Impact of climate change on
453
freshwater ecosystems: a global-scale analysis of ecologically relevant river flow alterations.
454
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci 14, 783799. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-783-2010
455
Dollar, E.S.J., James, C.S., Rogers, K.H., Thoms, M.C., 2007. A framework for interdisciplinary
456
understanding of rivers as ecosystems. Geomorphology 89, 147162.
457
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.07.022
458
Engineering Committee on Science, 2004. Facilitating interdisciplinary research.
459
European Research Advisory Board, 2008. Report of Activities (2001-20017): European Research
460
Advisory Board.
461
Freeth, R., Caniglia, G., 2020. Learning to collaborate while collaborating: advancing interdisciplinary
462
sustainability research. Sustain. Sci. 15, 247261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00701-z
463
Gaëta, B.A., De Las Rivas, J., Horton, P., Meysman, P., Mulder, N., Romano, P., Welch, L., 2017. Ten
464
simple rules for forming a scientific professional society. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, 18.
465
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005226
466
Geist, J., 2011. Integrative freshwater ecology and biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Indic. 11, 1507
467
1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.002
468
Gosselin, M.-P., Ouellet, V., Harby, A., Nestler, J., 2019. Advancing ecohydraulics and ecohydrology
469
by clarifying the role of their component interdisciplines. J. Ecohydraulics 4, 172187.
470
https://doi.org/10.1080/24705357.2019.1658137
471
Hannah, D.M., Sadler, J.P., Wood, P.J., 2007. Hydroecology and ecohydrology: a potential route
472
forward? Hydrol. Process. 21, 33853390. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6888
473
17
Hicks, C.C., Fitzsimmons, C., Polunin, N.V.C., 2010. Interdisciplinarity in the environmental sciences:
474
Barriers and frontiers. Environ. Conserv. 37, 464477.
475
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000822
476
Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J.T., Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J., 2010. Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and
477
indicators. Res. Policy 39, 7988. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011
478
Kemp, P.S., Katopodis, C., 2016. Introducing the Journal of Ecohydraulics: fundamental and applied
479
research on the road to transdisciplinarity. J. Ecohydraulics 1, 14.
480
https://doi.org/10.1080/24705357.2016.1259139
481
Kumar, S., Zöphel, C., Martius, A., Cabadag, R., Plewnia, F., Pruditsch, N., Sakowski, B.A., Möst, D.,
482
2019. Stronger togetherA framework for measuring interdisciplinary understanding. WIREs
483
Energy Environ. 8, e348. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.348
484
Lancaster, J., 2018. What is the right scale? Encouraging fruitful engagement for ecology with
485
ecohydraulics. J. Ecohydraulics 3, 6376. https://doi.org/10.1080/24705357.2018.1535260
486
Maddock, I., Harby, A., Kemp, P., Wood, P., 2013a. Ecohydraulics: an introduction. Ecohydraulics An
487
Integr. Approach, Ed 1.
488
Maddock, I., Harby, A., Kemp, P., Wood, P., 2013b. 25 Research Needs, Challenges and the Future of
489
Ecohydraulics Research, in: Ecohydraulics. Wiley Online Library, p. 431.
490
Maddock, I., Harby, A., Kemp, P., Wood, P.J., 2013c. Ecohydraulics: an integrated approach. John
491
Wiley & Sons.
492
Nestler, J.M., Goodwin, R.A., Smith, D.L., Anderson, J.J., 2008. A Mathematical and Conceptual
493
Framework for Ecohydraulics. Hydroecology Ecohydrol., Wiley Online Books.
494
https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/9780470010198.ch12
495
Nestler, J.M., Stewardson, M.J., Gilvear, D.J., Webb, J.A., Smith, D.L., 2016. Ecohydraulics exemplifies
496
the emerging “paradigm of the interdisciplines.” J. Ecohydraulics 1, 5–15.
497
https://doi.org/10.1080/24705357.2016.1229142
498
Owen, H., 2008. Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide, Third Edit. ed. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
499
Palmer, M.A., Menninger, H.L., Bernhardt, E., 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and
500
biodiversity: A failure of theory or practice? Freshw. Biol. 55, 205222.
501
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x
502
Pasternack, G.B., 2019. Natural Fluvial Ecohydraulics, in: Wohl, E. (Ed.), Environmental Science.
503
Oxford University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199363445-0111
504
Porter, A.L., Rafols, I., 2009. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six
505
research fields over time. Scientometrics 81, 719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2
506
Reid, A.J., Carlson, A.K., Creed, I.F., Eliason, E.J., Gell, P.A., Johnson, P.T.J., Kidd, K.A., MacCormack,
507
T.J., Olden, J.D., Ormerod, S.J., Smol, J.P., Taylor, W.W., Tockner, K., Vermaire, J.C., Dudgeon,
508
D., Cooke, S.J., 2019. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater
509
biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94, 849873. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12480
510
Rice, S.P., Little, S., Wood, P.J., Moir, H.J., Vericat, D., 2010. The relative contributions of ecology and
511
hydraulics to ecohydraulics. River Res. Appl. 26, 363366. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1369
512
Schummer, J., 2004. Interdisciplinary Issues in Nanoscale Research. Discov. nanoscale 920.
513
Strayer, D.L., Dudgeon, D., 2010. Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future
514
challenges. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 29, 344358. https://doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1
515
rösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S.,
516
18
Bunn, S.E., Sullivan, C.A., Liermann, C.R., Davies, P.M., 2010. Global threats to human water
517
security and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555561. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09440
518
Wilkes, M.A., Neverman, A.J., Casas-Mulet, R., Adeva-Bustos, A., McCluskey, A.H., Ouellet, V., Vanzo,
519
D., Franklin, P.A., Silva, A.T., 2016. Early careers on ecohydraulics: challenges, opportunities and
520
future directions. J. Ecohydraulics 1, 102107.
521
https://doi.org/10.1080/24705357.2016.1249423
522
523
524
525
19
Table 1. Summary of workshop-identified actions to improve interdisciplinarity in Ecohydraulics, including the responsibility (Actor) of initiating the action and the
implementation strategy and approach to undertaking the action.
20
Figure 1. Key professional and personal aspects of the questionnaire’s respondents and workshop
participants including geographical distribution (top left), background by training (top right), career
stage (bottom left), and current research focus based on the macrotopics defined in Casas-Mulet et
al. 2016* (bottom right, note this information was only provided by the questionnaire’s
respondents). All values are in percentages.
21
Figure 2. Reviewed challenges and opportunities in Ecohydraulics, and future directions linked to
suggested actions. All organised by four identified priority areas “Community building”, “Scientific
advancement”, “Links to the real world” and “Education and training”. Note that * indicates items
identified in Wilkes et al. 2016.
22
Figure 3. Outcomes of the prioritisation exercise illustrating the percentage of votes received by
focus areas (left) and by specific actions (right).
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Interdisciplinary collaboration has become mainstream practice for sustainability researchers. However, interdisciplinary research teams encounter numerous challenges for which they may find themselves under-prepared. In this article, we challenge the often-held assumption that researchers already know how to collaborate when entering interdisciplinary research teams and argue that, if we want to enhance interdisciplinary sustainability research, we need to take collaboration and its challenges seriously. First, we suggest thinking about interdisciplinary research collaborations as spaces that comprise epistemic, social, symbolic, spatial, and temporal dimensions and that produce different degrees of comfort and discomfort for researchers. Thinking about collaborations in this way supports a more systematic understanding of collaborative challenges. Second, we make a proposal for learning to collaborate while collaborating, so as to tackle challenges of interdisciplinary research. Drawing on a literature review and on experiences in the project Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation, we argue for advancing collaborative interdisciplinary research for sustainability by creating and engaging in collaborations in ways that prioritize learning to collaborate. We outline a strategy for learning to collaborate while collaborating, which implies: (1) creating conditions for learning to take place, which includes paying attention to discomfort as a trigger for learning and (2) engaging in collaborations in ways that strengthen researchers’ collaborative capacities by cultivating particular orientations, knowledge and skills. The fundamental inquiry is whether and how learning to collaborate has a role in more fully realizing the inspiring potentials and ambitious goals of interdisciplinary research for sustainability.
Article
Full-text available
Our society currently faces complex ecological, social, and economic challenges that require collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches. Although interest in interdisciplinary research is growing, it is still confronted with significant obstacles stemming from difficulties in establishing a common understanding. While others have evaluated interdisciplinary in a top‐down funding‐oriented ex ante manner or a result‐oriented ex post manner, this focus paper intends to create a framework that enables the measurement of interdisciplinary understanding within a group. Therefore, using the case of the interdisciplinary Boysen‐TU Dresden Research Group, a framework for measuring interdisciplinary understanding (MIU) is presented. The basis of the framework is the development of dimensions based on the specific composition and requirements of the interdisciplinary group. With this framework, two main contributions are provided. First, interdisciplinary understanding within a research group can be measured with respect to the defined dimensions. Through discussions on the differences of the understanding of projects over the dimensions, it is possible to establish a common understanding of projects. Second, the interdisciplinarity within a group or interdisciplinary distance between two specific research projects can be evaluated in order to identify possible difficulties in understanding, as well as recognizing potentials for interdisciplinary research. The MIU framework and the dimensions established in this paper can be adapted and transferred to any interdisciplinary research group to improve joint understanding of researchers and enable them to tackle complex techno‐societal problems of the future. This article is categorized under: • Energy and Climate > Economics and Policy • Energy Research & Innovation > Economics and Policy Abstract Measuring interdisciplinary understanding (MIU) framework.
Article
Full-text available
In the 12 years since Dudgeon et al. (2006) reviewed major pressures on freshwater ecosystems, the biodiversity crisis in the world's lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams and wetlands has deepened. While lakes, reservoirs and rivers cover only 2.3% of the Earth's surface, these ecosystems host at least 9.5% of the Earth's described animal species. Furthermore, using the World Wide Fund for Nature's Living Planet Index, freshwater population declines (83% between 1970 and 2014) continue to outpace contemporaneous declines in marine or terrestrial systems. The Anthropocene has brought multiple new and varied threats that disproportionately impact freshwater systems. We document 12 emerging threats to freshwater biodiversity that are either entirely new since 2006 or have since intensified: (i) changing climates; (ii) e‐commerce and invasions; (iii) infectious diseases; (iv) harmful algal blooms; (v) expanding hydropower; (vi) emerging contaminants; (vii) engineered nanomaterials; (viii) microplastic pollution; (ix) light and noise; (x) freshwater salinisation; (xi) declining calcium; and (xii) cumulative stressors. Effects are evidenced for amphibians, fishes, invertebrates, microbes, plants, turtles and waterbirds, with potential for ecosystem‐level changes through bottom‐up and top‐down processes. In our highly uncertain future, the net effects of these threats raise serious concerns for freshwater ecosystems. However, we also highlight opportunities for conservation gains as a result of novel management tools (e.g. environmental flows, environmental DNA) and specific conservation‐oriented actions (e.g. dam removal, habitat protection policies, managed relocation of species) that have been met with varying levels of success. Moving forward, we advocate hybrid approaches that manage fresh waters as crucial ecosystems for human life support as well as essential hotspots of biodiversity and ecological function. Efforts to reverse global trends in freshwater degradation now depend on bridging an immense gap between the aspirations of conservation biologists and the accelerating rate of species endangerment.
Article
Full-text available
The basic premise underlying ecohydraulics is deceptively simple: create a new discipline focused on the effects of water movement in aquatic ecosystems by melding principles of aquatic ecology (including aspects of fluvial geomorphology) and engineering hydraulics. However, advancing ecohydraulics as a synthetic, organized field of study is challenging because hydraulic engineers and ecologists (1) study processes that differ substantially in spatial and/or temporal scale; (2) have very different approaches to modelling; (3) utilize different sets of mathematical formulations, concepts, and assumptions; and (4) address problems with vastly different patterns of complexity and uncertainty. The differences between engineering and ecology must be reconciled within a set of concepts and practices applicable to ecohydraulics. This reconciliation is essential if ecohydraulics is to achieve the scientific esteem of its parent disciplines. First, we review how the competing paradigms of determinism and empiricism structure engineering and ecology, respectively. We then derive two guiding principles that facilitate the integration of ecology and hydraulics, the single reference framework and the multiple reference framework guiding principles. Third, we provide illustrative examples of these principles using a simple hydraulic fish habitat analysis based on physical habitat simulation (PHABSIM) system of the instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) and a detailed fish movement model using Eulerian–Lagrangian–Agent methods (ELAMs). Based on these examples, we develop insights and conclusions to guide further advances in ecohydraulics and, perhaps even serve as a template to aid development of other interdisciplinary fields.
Article
Full-text available
We assessed how the emerging field of ecohydraulics research has changed over two decades by examining the proceedings of the biennial International Symposium on Ecohydraulics. By using Natural Language Processing (NLP) in word usage, this paper provides a deep analysis of a longitudinal dataset and enables us to test more detailed questions than previous snapshots of the ecohydraulics literature. We formulated three main hypotheses related to the degree of multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity within ecohydraulics. We investigated temporal changes in author affiliation patterns and identified dominant topics of research. The total number of proceeding papers has increased over time and the field is becoming increasingly global. This and the identification of 10 distinctive macro-topics suggest well-developed multidisciplinarity in ecohydraulics. There has been reasonable stability in individual topics across time, except for 11 (out of 51) significant trends within the macro-topics of Fish responses, Hydraulic modelling, Water quality, Physical habitat modelling and Social responses, suggesting some increase in interdisciplinarity. The proportion of practitioners collaborating with researchers has surprisingly not changed greatly over time, indicating ecohydraulics has been transdisciplinary to some extent from its inception. Our results arguably provide an opportunity to better integrate fundamental understanding into practical applications in water management.
Article
Increasing awareness of the complexity of river ecosystems has led to the emergence of integrative disciplines that combine topics in river physical and ecological processes, exemplified by the disciplines of ecohydrology, hydroecology and ecohydraulics. However, the names of these disciplines are often referred to interchangeably without attention paid to their meaning. This ambiguity impairs the efficient development and widespread promotion of these fields of study and their applications. To address this issue, we strive to clarify the definitions and contributions of the different disciplines. This is done by exploring their interrelationships and providing a reference for the integration of disciplines in these evolving fields. Finally, we advocate for ecohydrology and ecohydraulics to be considered complementary, and not duplicative, disciplines within river science. We further argue that awareness of their similarities and differences is important to address key issues in river science and to ensure ecohydraulics finds its positioning with respect to other disciplines, as well as current and emerging societal and scientific challenges, such as climate change.
Chapter
Ecohydraulics is the study of the mechanisms that explain hierarchically nested aquatic and riparian biotic phenomena. Mechanisms are sequential actions that can be physical, biological, or an interaction between the two. Biotic phenomena consist of individual, population, and community-level conditions, behaviors, and interactions. Hierarchical nesting means that phenomena are present across a wide range of spatial scales: from the smallest fluid continuum scale to the scale of the entire Earth. Many ecohydraulic studies prominently address scaling. Under this definitional framework and given the widespread occurrence of water on Earth, ecohydraulics is the “proximal” science mediating the influence of “distal” landscape drivers (e.g., climate, geology, and topography). Historically, scientists discovered empirical correlations relating biotic conditions to both proximal and distal abiotic variables. However, when such results are applied to practical societal problems (e.g., stream barrier passage, habitat rehabilitation, and flow regime specification), the accuracy and specificity is insufficient to solve them. That has led to widespread recognition of the need for a mechanistic understanding culminating in predictive numerical models. Driven by such necessity, physical and biological scientists and engineers have formed multidisciplinary teams to work out how water and biota interact. Through its marriage of conceptual understanding with quantitative analysis, ecohydraulics is playing a central role in methodological advancements to objectively, transparently, and repeatably explain biotic phenomena at multiple spatial scales. Students involved in ecohydraulics are part of an emerging interdisciplinary generation identifying more with problem-oriented applied science that responds to societal needs to solve specific ecological problems than disciplinarians driven by curiosity and traditional socio-scientific pathways. Nevertheless, it goes too far to conclude that ecohydraulics is nothing more than the application of other sciences, with no basic developments of its own. Necessity often motivates ecohydraulicists to undertake novel experiments revealing fundamental discoveries. As a result, a reasonable distinction can be made between basic ecohydraulics for studying natural phenomena and applied ecohydraulics for rehabilitating degraded phenomena. This annotated bibliography is the first of two spanning ecohydraulics, and it tackles the former, while the second addresses the latter. Due to space limitations, this article is narrowed to natural fluvial ecohydraulics. Within this domain, there are five essential topics: environmental fluid mechanics, flora ecohydraulics, fluvial habitat, faunal ecohydraulics, and fish migration. Finally, space limitations further limit the scope to an emphasis on observational studies over numerical modeling.
Article
In ecohydraulics research, both physical and biological variables must be sampled at scales that are appropriate to the questions being addressed. This essay focuses on ecological topics that may be addressed in the context of ecohydraulics and the scales appropriate for their investigation. The first sections discuss definitions of scale, how environmental heterogeneity influences experimental and sampling designs, and the importance of recognizing that physical and ecological heterogeneity are not necessarily related. Thus, the scales appropriate for a particular research problem should be determined primarily by the ecological phenomenon of interest, plus the generation time and life-space of the study organisms. Studies over the large scales relevant to population and community ecology are logistically difficult and numerical models, but not scaled physical models, may facilitate extrapolations between scales for ecological phenomena. Three examples illustrate how complementary sets of studies executed at different scales can collectively contribute to ecological research problems in an ecohydraulics context. Two examples have strong roots in ecology (population dynamics in disturbed environments; ecosystem engineers) and the third arises from a need to solve applied problems (fish passage). These are topical areas of research to which ecohydraulics could make significant contributions.