{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017355982274741506, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00036927621861152144, 'mean_word_length': 5.7725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Can hydraulic measures of river conditions improve our ability to predict ecological responses to changing flows? Flow velocity and spawning of an iconic native Australian fish

Ecological responses to changing riverine flows are often evaluated by describing the relationship between river discharge and response. However, aquatic organisms experience the hydraulics (i.e. velocity, shear stress, depth) of a river, not its discharge. Hydraulic characterizations of riverine habitats may improve our ability to predict ecological responses. We used two-dimensional hydraulic models to translate river discharge into flow velocity. We used discharge and reach-averaged velocity, along with water temperature and 8 years of field observations of fish spawning, to develop predictive models of the spawning of golden perch (Macquaria ambigua) in the Goulburn River, south-east Australia. Probability of spawning was positively related to both discharge and reach-averaged velocity. Water temperature was critical for enabling the flow response, and antecedent flows prior to spawning had a weak positive effect. Against expectations, there was little difference in predictive uncertainty for the effect of flows when reach-averaged velocity was used as the main predictor rather than discharge. The lower Goulburn River has a relatively simple channel and so discharge and velocity are monotonically related over most flows. We expect that in a more geomorphically complex environment, improvement in predictive ability would be substantial. This research only explores one example of a hydraulic parameter being used as a predictor of ecological response; many others are possible. The extra effort and expense involved in hydraulic characterization of river flows is only justified if our understanding of flow-ecology relationships is substantially improved. Further research to understand which environmental responses might be best understood through different hydraulic parameters, and how to better characterize hydraulic characteristics relevant to riverine biota, would help inform decisions regarding investment in hydraulic models. Regardless, hydraulics offers a more process-based assessment of ecological responses to changing flows, has the potential to facilitate mechanistic understanding rather than just associations, and provides the opportunity to translate hydraulic metrics that drive ecological responses across river systems of differing sizes. However, while considering ecological responses in terms of river hydraulics is more physically realistic, our results suggest that average hydraulic conditions may not result in an improved ability to predict the effects of changing flows.