Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers

An Author Correction to this article was published on 24 July 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

Free-flowing rivers (FFRs) support diverse, complex and dynamic ecosystems globally, providing important societal and economic services. Infrastructure development threatens the ecosystem processes, biodiversity and services that these rivers support. Here we assess the connectivity status of 12 million kilometres of rivers globally and identify those that remain free-flowing in their entire length. Only 37 per cent of rivers longer than 1,000 kilometres remain free-flowing over their entire length and 23 per cent flow uninterrupted to the ocean. Very long FFRs are largely restricted to remote regions of the Arctic and of the Amazon and Congo basins. In densely populated areas only few very long rivers remain free-flowing, such as the Irrawaddy and Salween. Dams and reservoirs and their up- and downstream propagation of fragmentation and flow regulation are the leading contributors to the loss of river connectivity. By applying a new method to quantify riverine connectivity and map FFRs, we provide a foundation for concerted global and national strategies to maintain or restore them.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Connectivity status index of the world’s river reaches.
Fig. 2: Dominant pressure indicator for global river reaches below the CSI threshold of 95%.
Fig. 3: Map of the world’s free-flowing rivers.

Data availability

The geometric dataset of the global river network and the associated attribute information for every river reach—that is, the values of all pressure indicators (DOF, DOR, SED, USE, RDD and URB)—as well as the main results of the study—that is, values for the CSI, the dominant pressure factor and the FFR status— are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7688801 under a CC-BY-4.0 license. The dataset can be used together with the published source code (see ‘Code availability’) to recalculate the main study results and to run existing and new scenarios. The databases of dams required to calculate the DOF, DOR and SED indicators are not in the data repository owing to licensing issues, but are freely available at http://www.globaldamwatch.org. Original data that supported the study—that is, raw datasets of roads, urban areas, water use, waterfalls, erosion data and floodplain information—and their sources are summarized in Extended Data Table 1. Additional higher-resolution maps of Figs. 13 are available at http://www.hydrolab.io/ffr.

Code availability

The source code of the main tools, scripts and algorithms used in this research is available under the GNU General Public License v3.0 at https://github.com/ggrill/Free-Flowing-Rivers. Other procedures and GIS steps (as described in Methods) were conducted manually and are therefore not part of the code repository.

Change history

  • 24 July 2019

    An Amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

References

  1. 1.

    Ripl, W. Water: the bloodstream of the biosphere. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 358, 1921–1934 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lehner, B. et al. High-resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and dams for sustainable river-flow management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 494–502 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Nilsson, C. et al. Forecasting environmental responses to restoration of rivers used as log floatways: an interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 8, 779–800 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Revenga, C., Brunner, J., Henninger, N., Kassem, K. & Payne, R. Freshwater Systems. Report No. 1569734607 (World Resources Institute, 2000).

  5. 5.

    Dudgeon, D. et al. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 81, 163–182 (2006).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012); corrigendum 489, 326 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ward, J. V. & Stanford, J. A. The serial discontinuity concept: extending the model to floodplain rivers. Regul. Rivers Res. Manage. 10, 159–168 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ward, J. V. The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 8, 2 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Poff, N. L. et al. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47, 769–784 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Pringle, C. M. What is hydrologic connectivity and why is it ecologically important? Hydrol. Processes 17, 2685–2689 (2003).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Nilsson, C. & Berggren, K. Alterations of riparian ecosystems caused by river regulation. Bioscience 50, 783–792 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Olden, J. D. in Conservation of Freshwater Fishes: Challenges and Opportunities for Fish Conservation in Dam-impacted Waters (eds Closs, G. P. et al.) 107–148 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2016).

  13. 13.

    Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Opperman, J. J., Moyle, P. B., Larsen, E. W., Florsheim, J. L. & Manfree, A. D. Floodplains: Processes and Management for Ecosystem Services (Univ. California Press, Oakland, 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Benchimol, M. & Peres, C. A. Widespread forest vertebrate extinctions induced by a mega hydroelectric dam in lowland Amazonia. PLoS One 10, e0129818 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Lees, A. C., Peres, C. A., Fearnside, P. M., Schneider, M. & Zuanon, J. A. S. Hydropower and the future of Amazonian biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 451–466 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Vörösmarty, C. J. et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555–561 (2010).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Syvitski, J. P. M. et al. Sinking deltas due to human activities. Nat. Geosci. 2, 681–686 (2009).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    McIntyre, P. B., Reidy Liermann, C. A. & Revenga, C. Linking freshwater fishery management to global food security and biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12880–12885 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Auerbach, D. A., Deisenroth, D. B., McShane, R. R., McCluney, K. E. & Poff, N. L. Beyond the concrete: accounting for ecosystem services from free-flowing rivers. Ecosyst. Serv. 10, 1–5 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Arthington, A. H. et al. The Brisbane declaration and global action agenda on environmental flows (2018). Front. Environ. Sci. 6 45 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A. E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L. & Tockner, K. A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquat. Sci. 77, 161–170 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Adams, K. et al. 2017 Hydropower Status Report (International Hydropower Association, 2017); https://www.hydropower.org/sites/default/files/publications-docs/2017HydropowerStatusReport.pdf.

  24. 24.

    Winemiller, K. O. et al. Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science 351, 128–129 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Shumilova, O., Tockner, K., Thieme, M., Koska, A. & Zarfl, C. Global water transfer megaprojects: a potential solution for the water-food-energy nexus? Front. Environ. Sci. 6, 150 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Grill, G. et al. An index-based framework for assessing patterns and trends in river fragmentation and flow regulation by global dams at multiple scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 015001 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Nilsson, C., Reidy, C. A., Dynesius, M. & Revenga, C. Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308, 405–408 (2005).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Reidy Liermann, C., Nilsson, C., Robertson, J. & Ng, R. Y. Implications of dam obstruction for global freshwater fish diversity. Bioscience 62, 539–548 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Lehner, B. & Grill, G. Global river hydrography and network routing: baseline data and new approaches to study the world’s large river systems. Hydrol. Processes 27, 2171–2186 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Palmer, M. A. et al. Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 81–89 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Lehner, B., Verdin, K. & Jarvis, A. New global hydrography derived from spaceborne elevation data. Eos 89, 93 (2008).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Mulligan, M., Saenz-Cruz, L., van Soesbergen, A., Smith, V. T. & Zurita, L. Global dam database and Geowiki, version 1 http://globaldamwatch.org/ (2009).

  33. 33.

    Couto, T. B. A. & Olden, J. D. Global proliferation of small hydropower plants: science and policy. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 91–100 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Karr, J. Biological integrity: a long neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol. Appl. 1, 66–84 (1991).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Poff, N. L. Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 16, 391–409 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kuehne, L. M., Olden, J. D., Strecker, A. L., Lawler, J. J. & Theobald, D. M. Past, present, and future of ecological integrity assessment for fresh waters. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 197–205 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Zhuang, W. Eco-environmental impact of inter-basin water transfer projects: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 23, 12867–12879 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Gallardo, B. & Aldridge, D. C. Inter-basin water transfers and the expansion of aquatic invasive species. Water Res. 143, 282–291 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Bartley, D. M., De Graaf, G. J., Valbo-Jorgensen, J. & Marmulla, G. Inland capture fisheries: status and data issues. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 22, 71–77 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Ziv, G., Baran, E., Nam, S., Rodríguez-Iturbe, I. & Levin, S. A. Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 5609–5614 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Schmitt, R. J., Bizzi, S., Castelletti, A. & Kondolf, G. Improved trade-offs of hydropower and sand connectivity by strategic dam planning in the Mekong. Nat. Sustainability 1, 96–104 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    US Energy Information Administration. International Energy Outlook. Report No. DOE/EIA-0484 (US Energy Information Administration, 2016).

  43. 43.

    Opperman, J., Grill, G. & Hartmann, J. The Power of Rivers: Finding Balance Between Energy and Conservation in Hydropower Development (The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Jägermeyr, J., Pastor, A., Biemans, H. & Gerten, D. Reconciling irrigated food production with environmental flows for Sustainable Development Goals implementation. Nat. Commun. 8, 15900 (2017).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Palmer, M. A., Hondula, K. L. & Koch, B. J. Ecological restoration of streams and rivers: shifting strategies and shifting goals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45, 247–269 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Magilligan, F. J. et al. River restoration by dam removal: enhancing connectivity at watershed scales. Elem. Sci. Anth. 4, 000108 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Kemp, P. S. & O’Hanley, J. R. Procedures for evaluating and prioritising the removal of fish passage barriers: a synthesis. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 17, 297–322 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Sheer, M. B. & Steel, E. A. Lost watersheds: barriers, aquatic habitat connectivity, and salmon persistence in the Willamette and Lower Columbia River basins. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 135, 1654–1669 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Groves, C. R. et al. Incorporating climate change into systematic conservation planning. Biodivers. Conserv. 21, 1651–1671 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    UN Water Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6 (UN Water, 2017); http://www.unwater.org/publications/integrated-monitoring-guide-sdg-6.

  51. 51.

    WWF. Free-Flowing Rivers: Economic Luxury or Ecological Necessity? (WWF, Gland, 2006).

  52. 52.

    Döll, P., Kaspar, F. & Lehner, B. A global hydrological model for deriving water availability indicators: model tuning and validation. J. Hydrol. 270, 105–134 (2003).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Alcamo, J. et al. Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrol. Sci. J. 48, 317–337 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    River discharge data. Global Runoff Data Centre, Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, Germany https://www.bafg.de/GRDC (2014).

  55. 55.

    Armstrong, J. S. in Long-range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to Computer 2nd edn, 346–354 (Wiley, New York, 1985).

  56. 56.

    Kruk, A. & Penczak, T. Impoundment impact on populations of facultative riverine fish. Ann. Limnol. Int. J. Lim. 39, 197–210 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Herbert, M. E. & Gelwick, F. P. Spatial variation of headwater fish assemblages explained by hydrologic variability and upstream effects of impoundment. Copeia 2003, 273–284 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Ponton, D. & Copp, G. H. Early dry-season community structure and habitat use of young fish in tributaries of the River Sinnamary (French Guiana, South America) before and after hydrodam operation. Environ. Biol. Fishes 50, 235–256 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Reyes-Gavilán, F., Garrido, R., Nicieza, A., Toledo, M. & Brana, F. Fish community variation along physical gradients in short streams of northern Spain and the disruptive effect of dams. Hydrobiologia 321, 155–163 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Pracheil, B. M., McIntyre, P. B. & Lyons, J. D. Enhancing conservation of large-river biodiversity by accounting for tributaries. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 124–128 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Messager, M. L., Lehner, B., Grill, G., Nedeva, I. & Schmitt, O. Estimating the volume and age of water stored in global lakes using a geo-statistical approach. Nat. Commun. 7, 13603 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Lehner, B., Ariwi, J. & Grill, G. HydroFALLS: a global waterfall database. http://wp.geog.mcgill.ca/hydrolab/ (2016).

  63. 63.

    Dynesius, M. & Nilsson, C. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science 266, 753–762 (1994).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Constantine, J. A., Dunne, T., Ahmed, J., Legleiter, C. & Lazarus, E. D. Sediment supply as a driver of river meandering and floodplain evolution in the Amazon Basin. Nat. Geosci. 7, 899–903 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Harvey, A. M. The influence of sediment supply on the channel morphology of upland streams: Howgill Fells, Northwest England. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 16, 675–684 (1991).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Vörösmarty, C. J. et al. Anthropogenic sediment retention: major global impact from registered river impoundments. Global Planet. Change 39, 169–190 (2003).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Petts, G. E. & Gurnell, A. Dams and geomorphology: research progress and future directions. Geomorphology 71, 27–47 (2005).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Schmitt, R. J. P., Rubin, Z. & Kondolf, G. M. Losing ground – scenarios of land loss as consequence of shifting sediment budgets in the Mekong Delta. Geomorphology 294, 58–69 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Rubin, Z. K., Kondolf, G. M. & Carling, P. A. Anticipated geomorphic impacts from Mekong basin dam construction. Int. J. River Basin Manage. 13, 105–121 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Latrubesse, E. M. et al. Damming the rivers of the Amazon basin. Nature 546, 363–369 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Kondolf, G. M. et al. Changing sediment budget of the Mekong: cumulative threats and management strategies for a large river basin. Sci. Total Environ. 625, 114–134 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Turowski, J. M., Rickenmann, D. & Dadson, S. J. The partitioning of the total sediment load of a river into suspended load and bedload: a review of empirical data. Sedimentology 57, 1126–1146 (2010).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Borrelli, P. et al. An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun. 8, 2013 (2017).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Brune, G. M. Trap efficiency of reservoirs. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 34, 407 (1953).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Morris, G. L. & Fan, J. Reservoir Sedimentation Handbook: Design and Management of Dams, Reservoirs, and Watersheds for Sustainable Use (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Kummu, M., Lu, X. X., Wang, J. J. & Varis, O. Basin-wide sediment trapping efficiency of emerging reservoirs along the Mekong. Geomorphology 119, 181–197 (2010).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Meybeck, M., Laroche, L., Dürr, H. H. & Syvitski, J. P. M. Global variability of daily total suspended solids and their fluxes in rivers. Global Planet. Change 39, 65–93 (2003).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Milliman, J. D. & Farnsworth, K. L. River Discharge to the Coastal Ocean: A Global Synthesis (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Vanmaercke, M., Poesen, J., Broeckx, J. & Nyssen, J. Sediment yield in Africa. Earth Sci. Rev. 136, 350–368 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Guo, L. C., Su, N., Zhu, C. Y. & He, Q. How have the river discharges and sediment loads changed in the Changjiang River basin downstream of the Three Gorges Dam? J. Hydrol. 560, 259–274 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Yang, H. F. et al. Human impacts on sediment in the Yangtze River: a review and new perspectives. Global Planet. Change 162, 8–17 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Wang, Y., Rhoads, B. L., Wang, D., Wu, J. & Zhang, X. Impacts of large dams on the complexity of suspended sediment dynamics in the Yangtze River. J. Hydrol. 558, 184–195 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Dang, T. H. et al. Long-term monitoring (1960–2008) of the river-sediment transport in the Red River Watershed (Vietnam): temporal variability and dam-reservoir impact. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 4654–4664 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Fan, H., He, D. & Wang, H. Environmental consequences of damming the mainstream Lancang–Mekong River: a review. Earth Sci. Rev. 146, 77–91 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Fu, K. D., He, D. M. & Lu, X. X. Sedimentation in the Manwan reservoir in the Upper Mekong and its downstream impacts. Quat. Int. 186, 91–99 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Meijer, J. R., Huijbregts, M. A. J., Schotten, K. C. G. J. & Schipper, A. M. Global patterns of current and future road infrastructure. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064006 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Tessler, Z. D., Vorosmarty, C., Grossberg, M., Gladkova, I. & Aizenman, H. A global empirical typology of anthropogenic drivers of environmental change in deltas. Sustain. Sci. 11, 525–537 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P. & Bannerman, R. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environ. Manage. 28, 255–266 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Booth, D. B. & Jackson, C. R. Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 33, 1077–1090 (1997).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Grimm, N. B. et al. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319, 756–760 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Doll, C. N. CIESIN thematic guide to night-time light remote sensing and its applications http://ngdc.noaa.gov/eog/dmsp/downloadV4composites.html#AXP (2008).

  92. 92.

    Henderson, J. V., Storeygard, A. & Weil, D. N. Measuring economic growth from outer space. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 994–1028 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Small, C., Pozzi, F. & Elvidge, C. D. Spatial analysis of global urban extent from DMSP-OLS night lights. Remote Sens. Environ. 96, 277–291 (2005).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Schneider, A., Friedl, M. A. & Potere, D. A new map of global urban extent from MODIS satellite data. Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 044003 (2009).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Fluet-Chouinard, E., Lehner, B., Rebelo, L. M., Papa, F. & Hamilton, S. K. Development of a global inundation map at high spatial resolution from topographic downscaling of coarse-scale remote sensing data. Remote Sens. Environ. 158, 348–361 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Richter, B. D. et al. Lost in development’s shadow: the downstream human consequences of dams. Water Altern. 3, 14–42 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Nilsson, C. & Jansson, R. Floristic differences between riparian corridors of regulated and free-flowing boreal rivers. Regul. Riv. Res. Manage. 11, 55–66 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Gupta, H., Kao, S.-J. & Dai, M. The role of mega dams in reducing sediment fluxes: a case study of large Asian rivers. J. Hydrol. 464–465, 447–458 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Vörösmarty, C. J., Douglas, E. M., Green, P. A. & Revenga, C. Geospatial indicators of emerging water stress: an application to Africa. Ambio 34, 230–236 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Smakhtin, V., Revenga, C. & Döll, P. A pilot global assessment of environmental water requirements and scarcity. Water Int. 29, 307–317 (2004).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Pastor, A. V., Ludwig, F., Biemans, H., Hoff, H. & Kabat, P. Accounting for environmental flow requirements in global water assessments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 5041–5059 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Brauman, K. A., Richter, B. D., Postel, S., Malsy, M. & Flörke, M. Water depletion: an improved metric for incorporating seasonal and dry-year water scarcity into water risk assessments. Elem. Sci. Anth. 4, 000083 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Blanton, P. & Marcus, W. A. Railroads, roads and lateral disconnection in the river landscapes of the continental United States. Geomorphology 112, 212–227 (2009).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Shuster, W. D., Bonta, J., Thurston, H., Warnemuende, E. & Smith, D. R. Impacts of impervious surface on watershed hydrology: a review. Urban Water J. 2, 263–275 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Schueler, T. R., Fraley-McNeal, L. & Cappiella, K. Is impervious cover still important? Review of recent research. J. Hydrol. Eng. 14, 309–315 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided in part by World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN/341992-2013) and McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada.

Reviewer information

Nature thanks Edward Park, N. LeRoy Poff and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

G.G., B. Lehner, M.T., B.G. and D.T. led and designed the study. G.G. and B. Lehner performed the analysis. G.G., B. Lehner, M.T., C.N., K.T. and C.Z. wrote the initial draft of the manuscript with input from all other authors. M.T., B.G., D.T., C.R.L., J.S. and K.T. revised and edited the manuscript. Z.H., J.M., C.N., J.D.O., P.P. and L.S. advised on fragmentation indicator design and implementation. P.B., H.E.M., M.G., R.J.P.S. and F.T. advised on sediment indicator design and implementation. M.T., B.G., J.H., M.E.M., J.J.O. and P.S. wrote policy recommendations and conclusions. F.A., S.B., H.C., R.F., S.S.-R. and P.H.V. contributed to case study design, implementation and validation. P.B., L.C., B. Lip, M.M., A.v.S. and C.Z. contributed essential data layers for the analysis.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to G. Grill or B. Lehner.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Workflow for mapping FFRs.

Methodological steps to define and assess the CSI of individual river reaches (steps 1–5) and decision tree used to assess the free-flowing status of entire rivers (step 6 and following).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Schematic overview of river-related concepts used in this study.

ac, The baseline river network consists of individual ‘river reaches’ (1–32 in a), defined as line segments separated by confluences (black dots). River reaches can be aggregated into ‘rivers’ according to a ‘backbone’ ordering system, which classifies river reaches as the mainstem or a tributary of various higher orders (b). Following this system, the river network can be distinguished into distinct rivers (1–16 in c), defined as contiguous stretches of river reaches from source to outlet on the mainstem or from source to confluence with the next-order river. d, CSI values for individual river reaches, as calculated with our model. If a value is at or above the CSI threshold (95%), the river reach is declared to have good connectivity status; if it is below the threshold, it is declared to be impacted. e, If an entire river (as defined in c) has good connectivity status, it is defined to be an FFR (blue). A river can be partly above the CSI threshold, and thus contiguous stretches can have good connectivity status (green).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Conceptual approach of DOF calculation, and visualization for a river example.

a, b, The DOF index ranges from 0% (no fragmentation impact) to 100% (completely fragmented) and is shown for the conceptual approach (a) and the river example (b) in the colour coding shown in b. It is calculated for all river reaches connected to the barrier location in both the up- and downstream directions (but tributaries to the mainstem downstream of the barrier are not considered affected). The impact is largest in connected river reaches that are similar in discharge to the barrier site and diminishes as rivers become increasingly dissimilar in size, that is, larger in the downstream or smaller in the upstream direction. c, DOF decay functions, as considered and evaluated by the expert group.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Schematic representation of the approach used to calculate the SED.

The SED ranges from 0% to 100%, assessing the degree to which sediment connectivity in any river reach is altered by upstream dams. a, River network with individual river reaches and PSL ranges. b, The SED, which accounts for the relative contribution of tributaries to the total sediment budget of the river network, and its changes in response to changes in longitudinal sediment connectivity.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Spatial distribution and magnitude of pressure indicators.

af, Individual indicators within their range of occurrence, between 0% and 100%. The colour schemes are nonlinear and vary between indicators. The blue shades represent the magnitude of river discharge for river reaches with pressure values of 0% (that is, darker shades for larger rivers).

Extended Data Fig. 6 Sensitivity analysis for CSI values and thresholds.

a, Averaged CSI standard deviations for CSI ranges. b, Number of benchmark FFRs correctly classified at different CSI thresholds.

Extended Data Table 1 Pressure factors and indicators used in this study
Extended Data Table 2 River stretches with good connectivity status
Extended Data Table 3 Characteristics and results of selected scenarios
Extended Data Table 4 Scenario weighting and corroboration

Supplementary information

Supplementary Table

Supplementary Table 1: List of free-flowing rivers longer than 500 km by continent.

Supplementary Table

Supplementary Table 2: List of reference rivers evaluated for benchmarking. Sources: ‘Expert nominated’ (BENCH_SCR = ‘EXP’) and Nilsson et al.27 (BENCH_SCR = ‘NLS’).

Supplementary Table

Supplementary Table 3: Results of benchmarking and key statistics of 100 scenarios.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grill, G., Lehner, B., Thieme, M. et al. Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 569, 215–221 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing