material (e.g. sediment, nutrients and but DO was higher in Yallakool Ck. dissolved oxygen organic matter) through longitudinal CEW introduced only small amounts concentrations? and lateral hydrological connectivity of floodplain carbon from upstream in nutrient concentrations? the Barmah-Millewa forest. Flow modification of the type and management achieved C inputs To maintain/improve water quality amount of dissolved organic without a blackwater event. Dilution within the system, particularly matter through reconnection with flows from the canal were not dissolved oxygen, salinity and pH previously dry or disconnected required (Watts et al. 2016). channel habitat? reducing the impact of blackwater in the system? Stream To support mobilisation, transport What did CEW contribute to: Flows were considered too small to metabolism and dispersal of biotic and abiotic have any impact on these variables patterns and rates of – material (e.g. sediment, nutrients and responses observed were not decomposition? organic matter) through longitudinal attributed to changes in flow (Watts et patterns and rates of primary and lateral hydrological connectivity al. 2016). productivity (Water Use Minute 10038) This is affect rates of gross primary related to metabolism but not productivity and ecosystem specifically addressing it. respiration in the Wakool River system? No specific targeted outcomes for metabolism (Watering action acquittal report) Riverbank and To maintain health of riparian and What did CEW contribute to: CEW contributed to recovery in the aquatic aquatic native vegetation mid and Yallakoll Creek, but recovery (measured through vegetation communities (Water Use Minute not in the upper Wakool. Recruitment species richness, cover and 10038) and cover varied among zones, but recruitment) of riverbank and were generally higher in those that aquatic vegetation in Yallakool received environmental flows. To support the ongoing Creek and the mid and upper Submergent vegetation richness was of in stream aquatic Wakool River that have been also higher in those zones that had a vegetation (Watering action acquittal impacted by operational flows of eflows (Watts et al. 2017). report) and drought and how do those responses vary over time? How do vegetation responses to CEW delivery vary among hydrological zones?
material (e.g. sediment, nutrients and organic matter) through longitudinal and lateral hydrological connectivity To maintain/improve water quality within the system, particularly dissolved oxygen, salinity and pH dissolved oxygen concentrations? nutrient concentrations? modification of the type and amount of dissolved organic matter through reconnection with previously dry or disconnected channel habitat? reducing the impact of blackwater in the system? but DO was higher in Yallakool Ck. CEW introduced only small amounts of floodplain carbon from upstream in the Barmah-Millewa forest. Flow management achieved C inputs without a blackwater event. Dilution flows from the canal were not required (Watts et al. 2016). Stream metabolism To support mobilisation, transport and dispersal of biotic and abiotic material (e.g. sediment, nutrients and organic matter) through longitudinal and lateral hydrological connectivity (Water Use Minute 10038) This is related to metabolism but not specifically addressing it. No specific targeted outcomes for metabolism (Watering action acquittal report) What did CEW contribute to: patterns and rates of decomposition? patterns and rates of primary productivity affect rates of gross primary productivity and ecosystem respiration in the Wakool River system? Flows were considered too small to have any impact on these variables – responses observed were not attributed to changes in flow (Watts et al. 2016). Riverbank and aquatic vegetation To maintain health of riparian and aquatic native vegetation communities (Water Use Minute 10038) To support the ongoing of in stream aquatic vegetation (Watering action acquittal report) What did CEW contribute to: recovery (measured through species richness, cover and recruitment) of riverbank and aquatic vegetation in Yallakool Creek and the mid and upper Wakool River that have been impacted by operational flows and drought and how do those responses vary over time? How do vegetation responses to CEW delivery vary among hydrological zones? CEW contributed to recovery in the mid and Yallakoll Creek, but not in the upper Wakool. Recruitment and cover varied among zones, but were generally higher in those that received environmental flows. Submergent vegetation richness was also higher in those zones that had a of eflows (Watts et al. 2017).