Explore the vast range of titles available.

Aims :Vegetation-plot records provide information on the presence and cover or abundance of plants co-occurring in the same community. Vegetation-plot data are spread across research groups, environmental agencies and biodiversity research centers and, thus, are rarely accessible at continental or global scales. Here we present the sPlot database, which collates vegetation plots worldwide to allow for the exploration of global patterns in taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity at the plant community level. Results: sPlot version 2.1 contains records from 1,121,244 vegetation plots, which comprise 23,586,216 records of plant species and their relative cover or abundance in plots collected worldwide between 1885 and 2015. We complemented the information for each plot by retrieving climate and soil conditions and the biogeographic context (e.g., biomes) from external sources, and by calculating community-weighted means and variances of traits using gap-filled data from the global plant trait database TRY. Moreover, we created a phylogenetic tree for 50,167 out of the 54,519 species identified in the plots. We present the first maps of global patterns of community richness and community-weighted means of key traits. Conclusions: The availability of vegetation plot data in sPlot offers new avenues for vegetation analysis at the global scale.

This paper introduces this special issue of Aquatic Sciences. It outlines a multi-scale, hierarchical framework for developing process-based understanding of catchment to reach hydromorphology that can aid design and delivery of sustainable river management solutions. The framework was developed within the REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management) project, funded by the European Union’s FP7 Programme. Specific aspects of this ‘REFORM framework’ and some applications are presented in other papers in this special issue. The REFORM framework is founded on previous hierarchical frameworks, sixteen examples of which are reviewed. However, the REFORM framework has some particular properties that reflect the European context for which it was developed. The framework delineates regional landscapes into nested spatial units at catchment, landscape unit, segment, reach, geomorphic unit and finer scales. Reaches, regardless of their ‘naturalness’, are assigned to a river type based on valley confinement, planform and bed material. Indicators are quantified at each spatial scale to feed three groups of assessments. First, contemporary indicators at reach and geomorphic unit scales investigate present processes, forms and human pressures within each reach. These feed assessments of present reach hydromorphological function/alteration, including whether the reach is functioning appropriately for its type; riparian corridor function and alteration; and hydromorphological adjustment. Second, indicators at catchment to segment scales investigate water and sediment production and delivery to reaches and how these are affected by human pressures now and in the past. These are used to construct an inventory of changes over space and time. Third, historical reach and geomorphic unit scale indicators are used to construct the trajectory of reach-scale changes. Contemporary reach-scale assessments, space–time inventory, and trajectory of changes are then combined to establish how river reaches of different type, subject to different human pressures, and located in different environmental contexts behave in response to changes at all considered spatial scales. These support forecasts of the likely responses of reaches to future scenarios (e.g., changes in climate, land cover, channel interventions).

The Morphological Quality Index (MQI) and the Morphological Quality Index for monitoring (MQIm) have been applied to eight case studies across Europe with the objective of analyzing the hydromorphological response to various restoration measures and of comparing the results of the MQI and MQIm as a morphological assessment applied at the reach scale, with a conventional site scale physical-habitat assessment method. For each restored reach, the two indices were applied to the pre-restoration and post-restoration conditions. The restored reach was also compared to an adjacent, degraded reach. Results show that in all cases the restoration measures improved the morphological quality of the reach, but that the degree of improvement depends on many factors, including the initial morphological conditions, the length of the restored portion in relation to the reach length, and on the type of intervention. The comparison with a conventional site scale physical-habitat assessment method shows that the MQI and MQIm are best suited for the evaluation of restoration effects on river hydromorphology at the geomorphologically-relevant scale of the river reach.