Assessment of the environmental condition of mountainous streams in macrohabitat scale (Case Study: Delichai Stream in Tehran, Iran)

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/01/2015
Views (235) Download (6)

Assessment of the environmental condition of mountainous streams in macrohabitat scale (Case Study: Delichai Stream in Tehran, Iran)

M,Sedighkia, S. A. Ayyoubzadeh, Mahboobeh Hajiesmaeili
J. Bio. Env. Sci.6( 1), 201-208, January 2015.
Certificate: JBES 2015 [Generate Certificate]


In the present research environmental condition of a mountainous stream in macro habitat scale is investigated, and Delichai mountainous stream is selected as the pattern stream for investigation. At first hydrological and hydraulic approaches in the study stream were investigated. In the next step, physical habitat in macro scale was evaluated. Based on the results in normal conditions 10% of mean annual flow (MAF) according to the Tennant criterion and also 25% of MAF determined in the region of Atlantic in Canada are not suitable for this type of stream. Theoretically, calculation of maximum curvature in wetted perimeter method will produce the best answer for environmental flow assessment considering the physical macro habitat. But scientifically this flow cannot be applicable in these streams. In the range of 80% to 100% of MAF, minimum habitat suitability condition will be created, if the restoration and rehabilitation habitat condition techniques in moderate level are used. If the stream has sensitive biologically condition (sensitive and endangered species), considering the 25% of MAF and extensive restoration projects with this flow is recommended.


Gippel CJ, Stewardson MJ. 1998. Use of Wetted Perimeter in Defining Minimum Environmental Flows. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 14, 53–67.

Espegren GD. 1996. Development of Instream Flow Recommendations in Colorado Using R2CROSS. Denver, Co: Water Conservation Board.

Henderson FM. 1966. Open channel flow. New York: Macmillan Publishing CO, INC.

Jowett, IG. 1993. A Method for Objectively Identifying Pool, Run, and Riffle Habitats from Physical Measurements. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 27, 241-248.

Leopold LB, Maddock TJR. 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some Physiographic Implications. Washington, DC: Geological Survey Professional Paper 252.

Leopold  LB,  Wolman  MG,  Miller  JP.  1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San Francisco: WH. Freeman.

Mann JL. 2006. Instream Flow Methodologies: An Evaluation of the Tennant Method for Higher Gradient Streams in the National Forest System lands in the Western U.S. MSc thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 143 p.

Mosley MP. 1982. A Procedure for Characterizing River Channels. Wellington: Water and Soil Miscellaneous Publication 32, Ministry of Works and Development.

Pridmore RD, Roper DS. 1985. Comparison of the Macroinvertebrate Faunas of Runs and Riffles in Three New Zealand Streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 19, 283-291.

Richards KS. 1976. The Morphology of Riffle-Pool Sequences. Earth surface Proceedings 1, 71-88.

Sedighkia M, Ayyoubzadeh SA, Hajiesmaeili M. 2014. Environmental Challenges and Uncertainties of Hydrological and Hydraulic Approaches for Environmental Flow Assessment in Streams of Iran. The 4th International Conference on Environmental Challenges and Dendrochronology, Iran.

Singh KP, Stall JB. 1974. Hydrology of 7-day 10-yr Low Flows. Journal of the Hydraulics Division HY 12, 1753-1771.

Smakhtin VU. 2001. Low Flow Hydrology: A Review. Journal of Hydrology 240, 147-186.

Tennant DL. 1976. Instream Flow Regimes for Fish, Wildlife, Recreation and Related Environmental Resources. Fisheries 1, 6-10.

Wolman MG. 1955. The Natural Channel of Brandywine Creek, Pennsylvania. Washington: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 271.

Yang  TC.  1971.  Formation  of  Riffles  and  Pools. Water  Resources Research 7, 1567-1574.