Assessment of environmental flow using morphological characteristics of river (case study: Karoon River, Iran)

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/04/2015
Views (763)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Assessment of environmental flow using morphological characteristics of river (case study: Karoon River, Iran)

Mehdi Fuladipanah, Elham Sangi
J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 6(4), 303-310, April 2015.
Copyright Statement: Copyright 2015; The Author(s).
License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Abstract

The relationship between wetted perimeter and discharge is sometimes used as an expedient technique for determining the minimum flow allowable for environmental purposes. The critical minimum discharge is supposed to correspond to the point where there is a break in the shape of the curve (usually a logarithmic or power function). Below this discharge, wetted perimeter declines rapidly. The appearance of a break in the shape of the curve is strongly dependent on the relative scaling of the axes of the graph. This subjectivity can be overcome by defining the break in shape using mathematical techniques. The important break in the shape of the curve can be systematically defined by the point where the slope equals 1, or where the curvature is maximized. These two methods were applied to Karoon River, Iran. Seven cross section were selected. Their survey data were used to derivate relationship between wetted perimeter and discharge. After determining breakpoints on the curves, corresponding value of discharge was calculated from the curves. Analysis of results showed that the slope method has reasonable and accurate output. Finally, the amount of environmental flow for Karoon river was calculated as 209.4 cms.

Alves MH. 1994. Proceeding da A´ gua:VII Silubesa, 3, 501.

Annear TC, Conder AL. 1984. Journal of Fish Management 4, 531.

Cochnauer T. 1976. Symposium and Special Conference on Instream Flow Needs 2, 387.

Collings MR. 1974. Generalization of spawning and rearing discharges for several Pacific salmon species in western Washington, USGS Open File Report.

Filipek S, Keith WE, Giese J. 1987. Proc. Arkansas Acad. Sci. 41-43.

Gippel CJ, Stewardson MJ. 1998. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 14(1), 53.

Gordon ND, McMahon TA, Finlayson BL. 1992. Stream  Hydrology:  An  Introduction  for  Ecologists. Wiley, Chichester.

King JM, Tharme RE, Brown CA. 1999. World Commission on Dams Thematic Report: definition and implementation of instream flows,Cape Town.

Marchand MD. 2006. Environmental Flow Requirements for Rivers: An integrated approach for river and coastal zone management, WL|Delft Hydraulics.

Nelson FA. 1980. Evaluation of four instream flow methods applied to four trout rivers in southwest Montana, Draft Report to US Fisheries and Wildlife Ser6ice. Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks.

Nelson FA. 1980. Evaluation of four instream flow methods applied to four trout rivers in southwest Montana’, Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks.

Prewitt CG, Carlson CA. 1977. Evaluation of four instream flow methodologies used on the Yampa and White Rivers, Colorado’, eport to U Fisheries and Wildlife Ser6ice, Colorado State University.

Richardson BA. 1986. Evaluation of instream flow methodologies for freshwater fish in New South Wales’, in Campbell, I.C. Ed. , Water tudies Centre, Chisholm Institute of Technology, Caulfield.

Smankthin VU, Eriyagama N. 2008. Developing a software package for global desktop assessment of environmental flows”. Environmental Modeling and Software 23(12), 1396-1406.

Stalnaker CB, Arnette JL. 1976. Methodologies for determining instream flows for fish and other aquatic life, Utah State University, Logan.

Tennant DL. 1976. Symposium and Special Conference on Instream Flow Needs 2, 359.

Tharme RE. 1996. Review of international methodologies for the quantification of the instream flow requirements of rivers. Freshwater Research Unit, University of Cape Town. Yin XA, Yang ZF, 2012. Procedia Environmental Sciences 13, 2414.

Related Articles

Dietary Aloe vera improves growth and hematology in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)

Fatima Khan*, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(4), 89-99, April 2026.

Intercropping camphor basil shrubs with selected food crops for ecosystem services in the upper midland agroecological zone of Western Kenya

Reuben K. B. Chumba*, Alex Awiti, Francis Namasaka Muyekho, Vitalis Ogemah, Jacob Omollo, Yosef Kidane Gebrehawariat, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(4), 73-88, April 2026.

Surveillance and detection of African swine fever on abbatoir in different municipalities of third district of Cagayan, Philippines

Maricel F. Campanano, John Michael M. Melad, Mary Ann M. Santos*, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(4), 65-72, April 2026.

Mobile-based potato leaf disease identifier using ensemble modeling

Karen W. Cantilang*, Laarni M. Ladiao, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(4), 58-64, April 2026.

Diagnostic analysis of pig farms in the North of Côte d’Ivoire: Case of the commune of Korhogo

Seni Kouadio Sylvain*, Kadjo Vincent, Alla Konan Jean Bedel, Yao Koffi Sylvanus Aubert, N’glouan Wadjé Jérôme, Soro Ouation Souleymane, Kouassi Koffi Dongo, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(4), 48-57, April 2026.

Coral reef condition in Illana Bay, Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines: Basis for conservation management

Ruel S. Lasagas, Rosanilio M. Yagos*, Edgardo H. Rosales, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(4), 40-47, April 2026.

Preliminary floral and faunal species diversity in Maluyo River in Santol, La Union, Philippines

Judith M. Morales*, Analyn V. Sagun, Angelina T. Gonzales, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(4), 26-39, April 2026.

Challenges and impact of the farmer-scientists training program on community development in Bohol, Philippines

Jeffrey O. Awas*, Anabel J. Intong, Aida T. Salingay, Manolito C. Macalolot, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(4), 8-25, April 2026.