See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230285365

Proposed fluvial island classification scheme and its use for river restoration

Article  in  River Research and Applications · January 2010

DOI: 10.1002/rra.1395

CITATIONS READS

27 1,250

2 authors, including:

Josh Wyrick
York College of Pennsylvania
38 PUBLICATIONS   369 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gravel Bed River Morphology View project

Bedrock Rivers and Waterfalls View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Josh Wyrick on 03 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RIVER RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
Published online 27 May 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/rra.1395

PROPOSED FLUVIAL ISLAND CLASSIFICATION SCHEME AND ITS USE FOR RIVER
RESTORATION

J. R. WYRICK a* and P. C. KLINGEMAN b

a
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Rowan University, NJ, USA
b
College of Civil & Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, OR, USA

ABSTRACT
Fluvial islands are present in nearly all natural and regulated rivers. They are important from hydrological, biological, geopolitical and
socio-economic points of view. As ubiquitous as islands are, consideration of islands is relatively absent in most river restoration
concepts. The natural river processes that allow for island formation can easily be integrated into typical river classifications. To begin,
an island classification scheme is proposed that can become a tool for improved river classifications and restoration projects. In
developing an island classification scheme, the objectives are similar to those of previous river classification methods. By observing
island characteristics, inductive generalizations may be made about the river’s hydrologic and ecologic potential. In river hierarchies,
the distinguishing variables used to describe streams were characteristics that could easily be discerned from their appearances, i.e.
field-determinable features. A similar approach is sought for island classification. The distinguishing characteristics of any island may
be sorted into three basic categories: those that can be measured from a topographic map or an aerial photograph; those that can be
measured in situ at the island and those that can be inferred from either a known history of the island or from the other characteristics of
the island. Once all the suitable characteristics were identified, a matrix for island classification was created which can be used to
classify island origin and type. The better that the inter-relationship between island formation, channel processes and watershed
processes are understood, the better the natural bio-physical regime of the river corridor can be identified and incorporated into
restoration plans. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: islands; fluvial islands; river processes; classification; river restoration

Received 24 August 2009; Revised 4 January 2010; Accepted 4 March 2010

INTRODUCTION conditions due to different widths, depths, slopes, etc. (e.g.

Thorp, 1992). The types of islands present in a riverine
Fluvial islands are present in nearly all major rivers,
system can help describe the river processes as well. Islands
regulated and unregulated. They must therefore have some
represent a more natural state of a river system. For example,
impact on the fluid mechanics of the system, and yet
Gurnell and Petts (2002) determined that most European
discussion of islands is conspicuously sparse in reviewed
rivers were once island-dominated (pre-1900), but have
geomorphology texts (e.g. Chorley, 1971; Schumm, 1972;
become devoid of islands following human interference.
Richards, 1987; Hickin, 1995; Rodriguez-Iturbe and
Away from areas of agricultural or urban development in
Rinaldo, 1997; Knighton, 1998; Bridge, 2003). Fluvial
Europe, however, islands remain a common feature of
islands are important in both hydrologic and biotic
riverine landscapes, such as in the Fiume Tagliamento in
capacities, and can therefore be indicators of the general
northeast Italy (e.g. Tockner et al., 2003).
health and energy of the system (Beechie et al., 2006).
For the purpose of this research, a fluvial island is
Although islands may be generally unstable in the long term,
defined as a land mass within a river channel that is
recent histories of magnitudes, frequencies and durations of
separated from the floodplain by water on all sides, exhibits
water and sediment fluxes can be recorded in the sediment
some stability (Osterkamp, 1998), and remains exposed
and biota. In some instances, histories of older, extreme
during bankfull flow (whereas a bar may be submerged).
events could be preserved as well. Landforms, including
Islands may not be permanent on the geologic time scale
islands, associated with a particular river can provide a
due to river meanders, climate changes, etc., but can remain
detailed account of that river’s past and present activity.
in place over decadal or century time scales and hence
Because islands separate the total river flow into at least
exhibit stability. Stability, however, is a term that is not
two individual channels, they create varying hydraulic
usually defined precisely in the literature. For the purpose
of this research, a stable island is one that exists not only in
*Correspondence to: J. R. Wyrick, Department of Civil & Environmental an inter-flood time period, but also remains after the next
Engineering, Rowan University, NJ, USA E-mail: wyrick@rowan.edu high flow occurs. Vegetation is generally a good indicator

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 FLUVIAL ISLAND CLASSIFICATION SCHEME 815

of stability (Kollmann et al., 1999). Vegetation may also ISLAND FORMATION PROCESSES
provide a distinction between an island and a bar, but is not
Research on the formation processes of fluvial islands has
necessarily a requirement for a fluvial island. Islands may
been minimally described in the literature. Most researchers
be composed of material too coarse to allow establishment
have described island formation as it relates to their
of vegetation, or they may be located in regions of naturally
particular study site. For example, Tooth and Nanson (2000)
sparse vegetation.
described the formation of islands in an ephemeral
Since islands are separated from the floodplain, they may
Australian river due to the deposition of sediment behind
offer wildlife a safe haven from many predators. Flow
teatrees. Gurnell et al. (2001) analysed the influence of
conditions near an island, such as river width, depth and
riparian vegetation, sediment type and hydrologic regime on
velocity, can minimize predation and increase species
island formation in the Fiume Tagliamento of northeast Italy.
productivity (e.g. Ham and Church, 2002). For this reason,
They developed a conceptual model for island formation
many large rivers have wildlife refuges that include islands.
in this region and determined that islands form by either
River management strategies that reduce total island area
channel avulsion or the vegetation of exposed gravel bars.
could have negative implications for migratory fowl. Plants
In-stream large woody debris has been shown to be
have been shown to thrive on islands near heavy grazing
important in nucleating and maintaining mid-channel
lands (Hilbig, 1995). The presence of a certain species of
islands (e.g. Fetherston et al., 1995; Ward et al., 2002b).
plant on an island can help determine the flow conditions in
The formation of islands in former floodplains following
the area. Some plant species require specific growth
an avulsive event has been documented in several river
conditions such as inundation duration, gradient and particle
systems, including the Fiume Tagliamento in Italy (Gurnell
size. Ward et al. (1999) suggest that the key elements of
et al., 2001), the Okavango Delta in Botswana (McCarthy
optimum ecosystem functioning are islands and secondary
et al., 2006) and the Saskatchewan and Chilliwack Rivers
channels. In fact, Arscott et al. (2000) found that on the
in Canada (Smith et al., 1998; Ham and Church, 2000).
Fiume Tagliamento, aquatic habitat complexity was greater
Slow avulsions create multiple pathways for the flow
in the island-braided section as compared to the island-
around a newly formed island (Gradzinski et al., 2003),
devoid section. In the same river, van der Nat et al. (2003)
even if these islands may be short-lived (Zanoni et al.,
showed that aquatic habitats were more stable in regions of
2008). Osterkamp (1998) considered all the processes that
vegetated islands than for bar-braided regions. Islands are
could be involved with islands in more detail. He proposed
most likely to occur in areas of dynamic fluvial processes
that islands could be separated into at least eight categories
that would provide for high species diversity within a wide
based on their formation process. These categories, which
range of riparian habitat (Stanford et al., 1996; Beechie
are summarized and elaborated on below, will be the
et al., 2006).
foundation for the island classification system proposed in
In addition to the eco-hydraulic complexities that are
later sections.
created by islands, geo-political disputes can also arise when
island-supporting rivers are used as political boundaries
(Beckinsale, 1971). Islands of political and/or economic Avulsion
interest are usually so because they can support a marketable During a high flow event, a river may excavate a shorter
commodity or a taxable activity (De Vorsey, 1980). Fluvial path, particularly across a bend, thereby leaving two flow
islands are commonly omitted in border delineations, channels after the river stage has receded. These avulsive
especially where the thalweg is unclear or variable, and types of islands may also form if an obstruction in the
conflicts about their ownership are therefore common (Kocs, channel diverts the flow into and through pre-worked
1995). floodplains. Avulsions can have significance in law and
Because islands and rivers are so fundamentally linked, property definitions, as well. Most laws maintain that
any river restoration strategies must incorporate islands riparian property lines do not change with an avulsion, only
as well. An understanding of the driving forces in with gradual stream migration (e.g. erosion and deposition).
island formation will improve the understanding of the Numerous court cases have arisen over the dispute of island
range of possible river responses. This inter-connection ownership after avulsive events (e.g. see Ryles, Larrison,
works both ways as well, i.e. an understanding of the river and Maris v. Riffle, Arkansas Appellate Court, 2003, about
mechanics will improve the understanding of the range the ownership of Fourche Island on the Arkansas River).
of possible island responses. The following sections
review the current research on island mechanics and
Gradual degradation of channel branches
then combine the process-response variables into a
classification matrix that will aid future river restoration The gradual-erosion type of island usually results from
management plans. the preferential evacuation of anabranches around a fluvial

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/rra
816 J. R. WYRICK AND P. C. KLINGEMAN
island. Inherent discontinuities in the flow path cause
converging and diverging turbulent flows (Yalin, 1992). In
areas of converging flow, erosion will occur. In areas of
diverging flow, deposition and island nucleation will occur.
Divided flow in the mainstem, around coarse material, may
result in the formation of islands through deposition on the
coarse material and/or incision of the flanking channels.
Lateral shifts in channel position
As a river channel preferentially migrates within its
meander belt, lateral-shift islands can result. A non-avulsive
meander cutoff will also create this type of island. The
variable flowpaths and sediment load competences at stream
confluences allow for island-forming mechanisms. Islands
in braided channels are common examples of this type.
Stabilization of a bar or riffle
This type of island is formed when a previously transient
bar or riffle stabilizes through either vegetation or sediment
coarsening. An extended period of low-flow allows for
riparian vegetation to encroach onto depositional surfaces
and stabilize the emergent island against future higher flows.
The necessary time required for bars to stabilize may vary
per river. An analysis of English rivers concluded that it
takes 1–3 years for vegetation to sufficiently stabilize
exposed bars (Hooke, 1986). A study in Italy estimated that
an emergent gravel bar needed 10–20 years to become a
stable, established island (Kollmann et al., 1999).
Structural features
The structural-feature type of islands forms almost
exclusively in high-gradient, bedrock channels. Structural-
islands may emerge as the river preferentially erodes
through bedrock fractures. A prominent example is Goat
Island, an isolated monocline that separates Niagara Falls
and American Falls on the Niagara River (Tessmer, 1981).
Rapid incision of deposited sediments during flood
recession
During a large, infrequent flood event, the increased bed
shear stress allows for coarser bedload material. As the flood
recedes, the pore-water pressure within the sediments can
increase and instigate a knickpoint. This incision through
the freshly deposited sediments can cause rapid upstream
migration of multiple headcuts, thus isolating higher central
topography. The main difference between these types of
islands and avulsion islands is that flood-deposit islands are
formed by erosion of newly-deposited sediments, whereas
avulsion islands are composed of older-deposited floodplain
material.
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Lee deposition
Lee-deposition islands are formed when a channel
obstruction creates a downstream zone of shallow depth
and reduced velocity. If the river exhibits sufficient sediment
load, this wake zone will have reduced transport capability,
thus accumulating sediment and nucleating a fluvial island.
This type of island formation has even been used to surmise
flood flows on the Martian plains, as sediments accumulated
in tear-drop shapes behind pre-existing craters (e.g. Baker,
1979; Mangold et al., 2008).
Mass movement
Mass-movement islands are the result of a mass of
allocthonous material being deposited within the channel.
Typical mechanisms include debris avalanches and bank
failures. This material is generally too coarse or cohesive for
the flow to erode and transport downstream, thus diverting
the flow around it.
Reservoir installation
When a dam, whether man-made or natural, is emplaced,
it ponds water upstream. If there is a sufficient water level
rise, high riparian topography may become isolated as the
valleys are flooded. These islands may or may not be
composed of bedrock. Because the erosive power of rivers
are reduced drastically within a reservoir, these types of
islands are highly stable and may only cease to be islands if
the dam is removed or the water surface elevation is
dropped.
ISLAND ELIMINATION PROCESSES
The loss of fluvial islands has been well documented in
complex river systems regulated by upstream flood control
dams (e.g. Thorp, 1992; Ligon et al., 1995). The attenuation
of peak flows creates lower stages and slower velocities that
promote sedimentation and/or vegetation in the smaller
channels, thus allowing the islands to accrete to the
mainland (Shull, 1944). Islands in single-thalweg rivers
typically exhibit one deep and one shallow side channel. A
flow reduction from dams will force the river into the single,
deeper anabranch, thus eliminating the island (Johnson
et al., 1995). Other anthropogenic activities, such as logging
or gravel mining, have also aggravated reductions of in-
stream island area (Dykaar and Wigington, 2000). Active,
meandering channels tend to sweep across their floodplains,
alternatively creating, developing, and destroying islands
(Zanoni et al., 2008). Floods can eliminate an island by two
methods. The first is by changing the main direction of the
flow during a flood, thereby altering the angle of attack from
the water and gradually wearing away the island by abrasion.
River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/rra
 FLUVIAL ISLAND CLASSIFICATION SCHEME 817

The second is by simply increasing the flows to levels high ratio and channel slope. To facilitate the use of this scheme,
enough that the entire island is eroded away (e.g. Kotoky the RCS incorporates a cross-referencing table and flow
et al., 2003). However, a lack of flood flows can therefore chart to describe the geomorphic characteristics of streams.
also stabilize an island (Cowell and Stoudt, 2002). Even though the RCS does not specifically include islands
Just as island formation is a response to some perturbed in its descriptions, it is detailed enough to allow for genetic
process variable, island elimination methods can provide assumptions as to which stream types may support certain
some insight to channel mechanics. The method of island types (Table I). Each main RCS category is capable of
elimination (or lack thereof) can also offer some guidance providing a setting for one or more Osterkamp island types.
as to the island’s formation process. For example, islands Furthermore, most Osterkamp island types appear to fit the
formed by either structural components, flood deposits or Rosgen C, E, F and G categories. These categories represent
reservoir installation are unlikely to disappear during the sinuous-to-meandering streams that may have wide flood-
next extreme event. plains or entrenched streams with sufficient channel width
for bars and islands to occur (Rosgen, 1994). For more
details on the Rosgen categories, read Rosgen (1994; 1996).
A fully detailed hierarchical classification system allows
INTEGRATION OF ISLANDS INTO RIVER
for other stream classification variables, such as aquatic
CLASSIFICATION METHODS
habitat or riparian ecology, to be incorporated and helps
The variable interactions of channel flow and erodible determine the potential of a given river. An important
boundaries can produce a wide spectrum of channel forms. advantage of the RCS is that it provides the necessary
Several researchers through the years have attempted to context for linking the driving forces and the response
impose some sort of order on this diversity by proposing variables at all scales. The RCS objectives in developing
channel classification schemes based on continuous or such as detailed hierarchy are (1) to predict a river’s
discrete fluvio-geomorphic characteristics (Kondolf et al., behaviour simply from observation, (2) to further develop
2003). Rarely, however, are islands specifically incorporated the hydraulic and sediment relationships for any type of
into these classifications. Nanson and Knighton (1996) stream, (3) to provide a system by which unknown streams
categorized anabranching river based on stream energy and can be described using characteristics from other similar
morphological features, and also included a ratio of island
length to channel width as a variable. A complete river
classification devised by Kellerhals et al. (1976) is the only
one in the literature that specifically incorporates islands into A. OCCASIONAL
its scheme (Figure 1). The authors codify islands for their
proximity to other islands as (1) occasional—no overlap-
ping of islands (i.e. not on the same cross-section) with an
average spacing greater than ten river widths, (2) frequent—
infrequent overlapping with average spacing less than ten B. FREQUENT
river widths, (3) split—frequent or continuous overlapping,
creating two or three flow paths and (4) braided—many
channels divided by islands and bars, which may be washed
out in high flows.
However, with some knowledge of the stream processes C. SPLIT
that are involved in each type of stream and the processes
involved with forming each type of fluvial island, a
relationship between island type and stream classification
can be inferred. The most detailed channel classification
scheme that has been proposed to date is by Rosgen (1994;
D. BRAIDED
1996). It has been widely used by geomorphologists and
hydrologists (e.g. Roper et al., 2008). Because of its
popularity, Rosgen Classification System (RCS) will be used
here as an example of how to incorporate island concepts E. NONE

into classification rubrics, and not as a preference of any

particular rubric. The RCS describes 41 separate channel
Figure 1. Codification of fluvial islands in relation to their proximity to
types based on combinations of bed material, entrenchment other fluvial islands. Modified from Kellerhals et al. (1976). (A):
ratio (valley width/channel width), sinuosity, width/depth Occasional; (B): Frequent; (C): Split; (D): Braided; (E) None

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/rra
818 J. R. WYRICK AND P. C. KLINGEMAN
Table I. Comparison matrix of types of fluvial islands that would occur in a given type of stream. Descriptions based on Osterkamp (1998)
and Rosgen (1994)
A/Aaþ B C
Osterkamp (1998) Island Type
Avulsion (Av)
Gradual Erosion (GE)
Lateral Shifts (LS)
Bar/Riffle Stabilization (BS)
Structural (St) X X
Flood Deposits (FD)
Lee Deposition (LD) X X
Mass Movement (MM) X X
Reservoir (Rs)
stream reaches and (4) to provide a consistent vocabulary for
all hydrologic disciplines to discuss stream morphology
(Rosgen, 1996). These classification characteristics will be
the foundation for a classification scheme specifically
designed for fluvial islands.
PROPOSED ISLAND CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
There are two fundamental concepts to keep in mind when
devising any type of geomorphic guide: (1) it should be
detailed enough so that it is easy to incorporate other stream
variables not specifically mentioned; and (2) it should
provide the necessary context for linking the driving forces
and the response variables at any scale. In developing an
island classification scheme, the objectives here are similar
to those of Rosgen (1996). By observing the islands’
characteristics, inductive generalizations may be made
about the river’s hydrologic and ecologic potential. In the
river hierarchy, the distinguishing variables used in the RCS
to describe the streams were characteristics that could easily
be discerned from their appearances, i.e. field determinable.
A similar approach is sought for island classification.
In order to establish a complete and non-objective
comparison system of islands, the relevant suite of
characteristics needs to be determined. Each characteristic
needs to offer some insight into the formation mechanism
and flow processes in the channel, and need to be field-
determinable for ease of cross-comparisons. The dis-
tinguishing characteristics used in this scheme can be
sorted into three basic categories (Figure 2): Geometric—
those that can be measured from a topographic map or an
aerial photograph, Biophysical—those that can be measured
in situ at the island and Inferred—those that can be inferred
from either a known history of the island or from the other
characteristics of the island.
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rosgen (1994) Stream Classification
D/DA E F G
X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X
X
X X X
X ? X X X
X
X X
The geometric characteristics of islands represent features
that can be objectively determined, including: (1) the
location of the island with respect to the thalweg, (2) the
hydrodynamic shape of the island, (3) the width of the island
relative to the flow width and (4) the abundance of islands in
the system. The location of the island in the river can be
separated into either (a) in or near the main thread of the flow
or (b) away from the main flow. The hydrodynamic shape of
the island refers to its subaerial planform shape (Table II).
Islands are known to have various shapes, and these shapes
can be categorized as either (a) irregular, (b) angular or
(c) streamlined. The shape of an island may be influenced by
its age, since islands that have experienced more eroding
flows may be more streamlined in shape. The type of island
could also be inferred from the shape; for example, bar-
stabilization or lee-deposition islands will tend to be
streamlined whereas lateral-shift or mass-movement islands
will tend to be irregularly shaped. The relative width of the
island is the ratio of the island’s maximum width to the
combined width of the flanking flow channels (Figure 3).
Islands can be distinguished as (a) wide, having a ratio
greater than 1.5, (b) equal, having a ratio between 0.5 and 1.5
and (c) narrow, having a ratio less than 0.5. The abundance
of islands is based on Kellerhals et al.’s (1976) classification
(Figure 1) and similar descriptive terms will be used here.
The biophysical characteristics of islands include: (1) the
evolutionary status of the vegetation on the island, (2) the
composition of the sediment and (3) the likely origin of
the sediment. The vegetation on an island can help determine
the age of the island, as well as how often it becomes
inundated. The vegetation can be categorized as (a) mature/
mixed, which means that the island surface has been exposed
long enough to accommodate older-growth vegetation,
(b) pioneer, which would indicate a young island or one that
has recently been scoured by a flood and (c) none, which
could indicate that the island is too young to have recruited
River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/rra
 FLUVIAL ISLAND CLASSIFICATION SCHEME 819

Figure 2. Flow chart of categories of distinguishing characteristics of islands. This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/rra

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/rra
820 J. R. WYRICK AND P. C. KLINGEMAN

Table II. Common shapes of fluvial islands and categorical classifications

Shape Category Shape name Planform Shape

Lemniscate
(upstream or downstream)

Elliptical
Streamlined

Lenticular

Semi-circular or Hemispherical

Triangular

Angular

Rhombic

Irregular

vegetation yet, or that it is too rocky to accommodate any

vegetation. The sediment composition is categorized as
predominately (a) bedrock, (b) boulder/cobble, (c) gravel,
(d) sand/silt or (e) cohesive material. The origin of the
Island Width Flow Width
sediment can help infer the formation process of the island,
and is categorized as (a) in-channel, (b) floodplain or
(c) non-alluvial. Non-alluvial sediment sources include
landslides off the valley slopes as well as intrusive bedrock
outcrops. An island composed of particles different than the
Figure 3. Ratio of island width to flow width to determine relative width of surrounding channel would tend to be created alloctho-
island for use in the classification of the island type nously (e.g. from a debris flow or a bank slump). If an

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/rra
 FLUVIAL ISLAND CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
island’s sediment type and size distribution are equivalent to
those in the channel, then one could extrapolate that the
island was formed in-channel.
Other distinguishing characteristics of an island which
cannot be directly measured without knowledge of the
island’s history can be inferred from what is known of the
river and from the measurable characteristics. The ‘Inferred’
characteristics give the most insight into the impact of flow
processes on the island and vice versa. Most of these
characteristics are derived from the readily identifiable
‘Geometric’ and ‘Biophysical’ indicators. These parameters
include: (1) the formation process, (2) the age of the island,
(3) the types of changes that are occurring to the island,
(4) the factors causing the changes, (5) how much the
island could be changed and (6) the likely persistence of the
island. The formation process is separated into two general
categories: islands that are formed fluvially or islands that
are isolated from the surrounding floodplain. The age of an
island is categorized as (a) ancient, older than 100 years,
(b) mature, between 15 and 100 years old or (c) recent,
younger than about 10 years. The types of changes occurring
at the island are (a) accretion, (b) erosion or (c) none (i.e.
stable). The factors that would cause a change in the island
area are categorized as (a) realignment in the flow of the
river, (b) incision within the channel, (c) aggradation within
the channel, (d) erosion by floods or (e) none, which would
refer to a stable island. How much the island could change in
area or shape depends on a combination of its sediment
composition and the river’s hydrograph. This characteristic
is categorized as either (a) stable, meaning it experiences no
significant changes, or (b) changeable. The persistence of
an island refers to the likelihood that the island will remain
as an island in the future, and is characterized as either
(a) long-term, (b) intermediate or (c) short-term. The likely
persistence of the island is also related to several other
categories, such as the type of vegetation, composition of the
sediment and the changes occurring in the system.
Because of the nature of an island’s sediment composition
and its formation, only five of the types of islands discussed
above would be able to be shaped or re-shaped by normal
streamflow processes into a streamlined shape: Avulsion,
Gradual Erosion, Lateral Shifts, Bar/Riffle Stabilization and
Lee Deposition. An island formed by a mass movement (e.g.
debris flow) can be significantly affected by peak discharges,
but is unlikely to stabilize and become fluvially shaped.
Islands that are flood related (Avulsion, Flood Deposits, Lee
Deposition and Mass Movement) are likely to change
rapidly, whereas the others could persist for an extended
period of time in their present condition.
The purpose in developing this Island Classification
System is to link the identifiable island characteristics
suggested above with the island formation processes
suggested by Osterkamp (1998) based on the fluvial
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
821
constraints associated with each process. Once all the
suitable characteristics are determined and compared to
the formation processes, a matrix of these linkages can be
created and used for island classification purposes
(Table III). The classification matrix provides the necessary
connection between the process mechanisms (island types)
and the channel responses (island characteristics). Each ‘X’
in the grid of Table III represents an expected process–
response connection. With some knowledge of the process
mechanisms, the appropriate range of channel responses can
be narrowed down, or vice versa.
Table IV provides a convenient method of tabulating the
characteristics of the island of interest to use in conjunction
with Table III to determine the island’s classification.
Table IV may be used to either (1) determine the expected
characteristics of a given island type or (2) determine the
island type from the noted characteristics. The first method
is to determine the island’s characteristics if the type of
island is already known. The directly measurable charac-
teristics (such as location in river, shape, abundance of other
islands, relative width, age of vegetation and composition
and origin of the sediment) are then highlighted. The
inferable characteristics (such as formation process, age of
island, changes, factors for changes, erodibility and
persistence) can then be determined by cross-referencing
with Table III. The second method is to determine the type of
island from the measured characteristics. After the known
characteristics are recorded, Table III can be used to
determine which type of island could have that set of
characteristics. Once the island type is known, the other
characteristics can be inferred and the classification may be
determined.
APPLICATION TO RIVER RESTORATION
A rationale for application to river restoration is proposed
here. Natural channels are typically much more complex
than managed channels. For example, they are likely to
contain many more bars and islands than managed rivers.
Human influences on rivers and their channels have been
severe. For many rivers, channel flows have been
regulated and water has been diverted out of channels
(Newson and Newson, 2000; Hauer and Lorang, 2004).
Commonly, channels have been straightened, narrowed,
and made more uniform, with fixed bend positions and
adjusted bend curvatures. Banks have been stabilized,
bars have been scalped or dredged, and channels have
been deepened. As part of such manipulations, islands
have been eliminated or connected to adjacent flood-
plains. Thus, fluvial islands have disappeared from many
river reaches.
River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/rra
822 J. R. WYRICK AND P. C. KLINGEMAN

Table III. Major components of proposed island classification matrix based on geometric, biophysical and inferred island characteristics

Island Type Avulsion Gradual Lateral Bar/Riffle Structural Flood Lee Mass Reservoir
Erosion Shifts Stabilization Deposits Deposits Movement

Island Characteristics
Location with respect Away from X X X X
to Thalweg main flow
In or near X X X X X X
main flow
Formation Process Floodplain X X X
isolation
Fluvial X X X X X
Hydrodynamic Shape Irregular X X X X X X
Angular X X X X
Streamlined X X X X
Abundance of Islands Occasional X X X X X X X X X
in System
Frequent ? X X X X X X
Split X X ?
Braided X X
Relative Width Wide X X X X
Equal X X X X ? X
Narrow X X X X X X X X
Age of Island Ancient X X X X
Mature X X X X X X X
Recent X X X X X X X
Evolutionary Status Mature-Mixed X X X ? ? X
of Vegetation
Pioneer X X X X ?
None X X X X X X
Sediment Composition Bedrock X X
Boulder/ Cobble X ? X ? X
Gravel X X X X X X X
Sand/ Silt X X X X X
Cohesive X X
Sediment Origin In-Channel X X X X X
Floodplain X X X X
Valley Slopes ? X
Changes Stable X X X X X
Accreting X X X X
Eroding X X X ? X X X
Factors for Changes None X X X X
River flow X X X X
Realignment
Channel X X X X X
Incision
Channel X X X X
Aggradation
Erodibility of Island Stable X X X X X X
Changeable X X X X X X X
Persistence Long-term X X X X X
Intermediate X X X X X X
Short-term X X X X

River restoration efforts have typically focused on
readjusting these channels and flows back toward more-
natural conditions. In almost every case, it has not been
possible to ‘turn back the clock’ to early times that predate
human interventions. Instead, much river restoration empha-
sizes an approach involving redevelopment of physical
conditions that ‘mimic’ natural systems based on assumed
‘reference’ conditions (Boon, 2004). This is difficult because
restorers no longer have natural channels that can be used for
comparison (Ward et al., 2001). A different and contrasting
restoration approach is to focus on restoring the natural
processes that once functioned in the river. Methods have

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/rra
 FLUVIAL ISLAND CLASSIFICATION SCHEME 823

Island
Type

MM
GE

LD
FD
BS
LS
Av
included the re-establishment of a flow disturbance regime

Rs
St
(more natural variability of river discharges than for regulated

Intermediate
Table IV. Proposed island classification scheme arranged for application to island analysis. Abbreviations used in the ‘Island Type’ column are explained in Table I

conditions) (Puckridge et al., 1998), the reconnection of river

Persistence

Short-term
Long-term
reaches and floodplains (for example, those where flows and
ecological functions had been disconnected by dams and bank
revetments) (Fischenich and Morrow, 2000; Sparks et al.,

Changeable
Erodibility

2005), and redevelopment of habitat complexity (for example,

of Island

Stable

channel re-meandering, addition of alcoves, side arms and

secondary channels) (Ebersole et al., 1997; Ward and
Tockner, 2001).
Aggradation
realignment
for Change

River flow

The island classification scheme may thus become

Channel

Channel
Incision
Factors

None

important at this point. That is, in either approach to river

restoration, it is typical to re-establish divided flows by
creation of secondary channels or split channels. These are
Flood-plain Accreting
Changes

Eroding

situations where the development of islands can be very

Stable

useful as a means for achieving part of the overall river

restoration scheme.
A typical river restoration project involves active use of a
Material

Channel

Slopes
Origin

Valley
Earth

large degree of physical ‘fixing’ of the channel features

(Roni et al., 2002; Bernhardt et al., 2005). Structural
methods may be a combination of hard fixes (involving
Vegetation Composition

placed rock and logs) and soft fixes (involving planting of

Sand/ Silt

Cohesive
Boulder/
Material

Bedrock

Cobble

Gravel
Earth

vegetation) (Gore et al., 1995). Rarely is a project

undertaken in a more passive manner, where the prior
constructed features are merely removed and the system is
Evolutionary

allowed to evolve over time toward its more natural

Status of

Mature/

Pioneer
Mixed

None

condition (typically the sponsors want quicker results and

the designers want quicker satisfaction that efforts were
effective in achieving restoration) (McIver and Starr, 2001).
Ancient

Mature
Age of

Recent

Hence, if a restoration project uses active methods, then

Island

knowledge of stable, sustainable island forms allows the

project to be more natural in appearance and function. If the
Hydrodynamic Abundance Relative

Narrow
Width

Equal
Wide

restoration project is instead passive, it is still important to

know where and how to remove the constructed features so
that island formation can occur more rapidly.
Occasional
of islands
in system

Frequent

Braided
Split

CONCLUSIONS
Stream-lined
Irregular

This research has sought to unite the ideas of island

Angular
Shape

formation and river processes. Fluvial islands are a natural

part of rivers and have at least nine separately identifiable
formation processes. These include flood-related processes
Flood-plain
Formation

such as avulsions through the floodplain, rapid erosion of

isolation
Process

Fluvial

flood deposits, depositions in the wake of an obstacle and

mass movements from the floodplain or valley slopes. Other
processes include those that are not flood related such as
Island Location with

Away from

preferential erosion of flanking channels, lateral shifts of a

main flow

main flow
respect to

In or near
thalweg

meandering river, stabilization of a bar or riffle, gradual

erosion through structural cracks and isolation of riparian
topography upstream of a dam. If the formation process can
be identified, then the resulting river processes can be
Type

MM
GE

LD
FD
BS
LS
Av

Rs

surmised. A classification scheme has been proposed here to

St

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/rra
824 J. R. WYRICK AND P. C. KLINGEMAN
help identify the type of island formation and to describe the
relationship between island formation and river processes.
The proposed classification method can be a useful tool
for river restoration. The better that the inter-relationship
between island formation, channel processes and watershed
processes are understood, the better the natural biophysical
regime of the river corridor can be identified and
incorporated into restoration plans. For management
purposes, this classification can be used to describe the
in-stream hydraulics, which can then be linked to the ‘ideal’
hydraulics for that stream. Watershed managers can also use
this to assess the island’s sustainability by understanding its
history and inferring its future from this guide. Note that
this is not meant to be a guide on how to ‘engineer’ natural
islands. Like other natural river characteristics, restoration
strategies should not necessarily involve the construction
of fluvial islands, but allow for optimum island formation
conditions (Ward et al., 2002a). Since islands are integral
parts of natural rivers, the more we understand about
the inter-relationship of islands and rivers, the better
we can attempt to restore natural conditions to a managed
system.
REFERENCES
Arscott DB, Tockner K, Ward JV. 2000. Aquatic habitat diversity along the
corridor of an Alpine floodplain river (Fiume Tagliamento, Italy). Archiv
fur Hydrobiologie 149: 679–704.
Baker VR. 1979. Erosional processes in channelized water flows on Mars.
Journal of Geophysical Research 84(B14): 7985–7993.
Beckinsale RP. 1971. Rivers as political boundaries. In Introduction to
Geographical Hydrology, Chorley RJ (ed.). Methuen & Co. Ltd.:
London, England; 96–107.
Beechie TJ, Liermann M, Pollock MM, Baker S, Davies J. 2006. Channel
pattern and river-floodplain dynamics in forested mountain river systems.
Geomorphology 78: 124–141.
Bernhardt E, Palmer M, Allan J, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J,
Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart
D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf G, Lake P, Lave R, Meyer J,
O’Donnell T, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E. 2005. Synthesizing U.S.
river restoration efforts. Science 308: 636–637.
Bridge JS. 2003. Rivers and Floodplains: Forms, Processes, and Sediment
Record. Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA, USA.
Boon PJ. 2004. The development of integrated methods for assessing river
conservation value. Hydrobiologia 422-423: 413–428.
Chorley RJ. 1971. Introduction to Fluvial Processes. Methuen & Co. Ltd.:
London, England.
Cowell CM, Stoudt RT. 2002. Dam-induced modifications to Upper Alle-
gheny River streamflow patterns and their biodiversity implications.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(1): 187–196.
De Vorsey L Jr. 1980. Dating the emergence of a Savannah River island: an
hypothesis in forensic historical geography. Environmental Review 4(2):
6–19.
Dykaar BB, Wigington PJ Jr. 2000. Floodplain formation and cottonwood
colonization patterns on the Willamette River, Oregon, USA. Environ-
mental Management 25(1): 87–104.
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ebersole JL, Liss WJ, Frisell CA. 1997. Restoration of stream habitats in the
western U.S.: restoration as reexpression of habitat capacity. Environ-
mental Management 21(1): 1–14.
Fetherston KL, Naiman RJ, Bilby RE. 1995. Large woody debris, physical
process, and riparian forest development in montane river networks of the
Pacific Northwest. Geomorphology 13: 133–144.
Fischenich C, Morrow JV Jr. 2000. Reconnection of floodplains with incised
channels. US Army Corps of Engineers. ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-09.
Gore JA, Bryant FL, Crawford DJ. 1995. River and stream restoration. In
Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems. Cairns J (ed.). CRC Press: Boca
Raton, FL, USA; 245–275.
Gradzinski R, Baryla J, Doktor M, Gmur D, Gradzinski M, Kedzior A,
Paszkowski M, Soja R, Zielinski T, Zurek S. 2003. Vegetation-controlled
modern anastomising system of the upper Narew River (NE Poland) and
its sediments. Sedimentary Geology 157: 253–276.
Gurnell AM, Petts GE, Hannah DM, Smith BPG, Edwards PJ, Kollman J,
Ward JV, Tockner K. 2001. Riparian vegetation and island formation
along the gravel-bed Fiume Tagliamento, Italy. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 26: 31–62.
Gurnell AM, Petts GE. 2002. Island-dominated landscapes of large flood-
plain rivers, a European perspective. Freshwater Biology 47: 581–
600.
Ham DG, Church M. 2000. Bed-material transport estimated from channel
morphodynamics: Chilliwack River, British Columbia. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 25: 1123–1142.
Ham DG, Church M. 2002. Channel island and active channel stability in
the lower Fraser River gravel reach. Report prepared for City of Chilli-
wack, March 2, 2002. 40 pp.
Hauer FR, Lorang MS. 2004. River regulation, decline of ecologic
resources, and potential for restoration in a semi-arid lands river in
western USA. Aquatic Sciences – Research Across Boundaries 66(4):
388–401.
Hickin EJ (ed.). 1995. River Geomorphology. Wiley: Chichester, England.
Hilbig W. 1995. The Vegetation of Mongolia. SPB Academic Publishing:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hooke JM. 1986. The significance of mid-channel bars in an active mean-
dering river. Sedimentology 33: 839–850.
Johnson WC, Dixon MD, Simons R, Jenson S, Larson K. 1995. Mapping the
response of riparian vegetation to possible flow reductions in the Snake
River, Idaho. Geomorphology 13: 159–173.
Kellerhals R, Church M, Bray DI. 1976. Classification and analysis
of river processes. Journal of the Hydraulics Division H Y7: 813–829.
Knighton D. 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes: A New Perspective.
Arnold: London, England.
Kocs SA. 1995. Territorial disputes and interstate war, 1945- 1987. The
Journal of Politics 57(1): 159–175.
Kollmann J, Vieli M, Edwards PJ, Tockner K, Ward JV. 1999. Interactions
between vegetation development and island formation in the Alpine River
Tagliamento. Applied Vegetation Science 2(1): 25–36.
Kondolf GM, Montgomery DR, Piegay H, Schmitt L. 2003. Geomorphic
classification of rivers and streams. In Tools in Fluvial Geomorphology,
Kondolf GM, Piegay H (eds). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: West Sussex,
England; 171–204.
Kotoky P, Bezbaruah D, Baruah J, Sarma JN. 2003. Erosion activity on
Majuli – the largest river island of the world. Current Science 84(7): 929–
933.
Ligon FK, Dietrich WE, Trush WJ. 1995. Downstream ecological effects of
dams. BioScience 45(3): 183–192.
Mangold N, Ansan V, Baratoux D, Costard F, Dupeyrat L, Heisinger H,
Masson P, Neukum G, Pinet P. 2008. Identification of new outflow
channel on Mars in Syrtis Major Planum using HRSC/MEx data.
Planetary and Space Science 56: 1030–1042.
River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/rra
 FLUVIAL ISLAND CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
McCarthy TS, Ellery WN, Stanistreet IG. 2006. Avulsion mechanisms on
Okavango fan, Botswana: the control of a fluvial system by vegetation.
Sedimentology 39(5): 779–795.
McIver J, Starr L. 2001. Restoration of degraded lands in the interior
Columbia River basin: passive vs. active approaches. Forest Ecology and
Management 153: 15–28.
Nanson GC, Knighton AD. 1996. Anabranching rivers: their cause, char-
acter, and classification. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 21:
217–239.
Newson MD, Newson CL. 2000. Geomorphology, ecology, and river
channel habitat: mesoscale approaches to basin-scale challenges. Pro-
gress in Physical Geography 24(2): 195–217.
Puckridge JT, Sheldon F, Walker KF, Boulton AJ. 1998. Flow variability
and the ecology of large rivers. Marine and Freshwater Research 49:
55–72.
Osterkamp WR. 1998. Processes of fluvial island formation, with examples
from Plum Creek, Colorado and Snake River, Idaho. Wetlands 18(4):
530–545.
Richards KS. 1987. River Channels: Environment and Process. Methuen &
Co. Ltd.: London, England.
Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Rinaldo A. 1997. Fractal River Basins: Chance and
Self-Organization. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.
Roni P, Beechie TJ, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR. 2002.
A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for
prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1–20.
Roper BB, Buffington JM, Archer E, Moyer C, Ward M. 2008. The role in
observer variation in determining Rosgen stream types in northeastern
Oregon mountain streams. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 44(2): 417–427.
Rosgen DL. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169–199.
Rosgen DL. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology: Pagosa
Springs, CO, USA.
Schumm SA (Ed.),. 1972. River Morphology. Dowden, Hutchinson, &
Ross, Inc.: Stroudsburg, PA, USA.
Shull CA. 1944. Observations of general vegetational changes on a river island
in the Mississippi River. American Midland Naturalist 32(3): 771–776.
Smith ND, Slingerland RL, Perez-Arlucea M, Morozova GS. 1998. The
1870s avulsion of Saskatchewan River. Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences 35(4): 453–466.
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
View publication stats
825
Sparks R, Ahn C, Demissie M, Isserman A, Johnston D, Lian Y, Nedovic-
Budic Z, White D. 2005. Linking hydrodynamics, conservation biology,
and economics in choosing naturalization alternatives for the Illinois
River, USA. Large Rivers 15(1–4): 521–538.
Stanford JA, Ward JV, Liss WJ, Frissell CA, Williams RN, Lichtatowich JA,
Coutant CC. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers.
Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 12: 391–413.
Tessmer IH (Ed.)., 1981. Colossal Cataract – The Geologic History of
Niagara Falls. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA.
Thorp JH. 1992. Linkage between islands and benthos in Ohio River, with
implications for riverine management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 49(9): 1873–1882.
Tockner K, Ward JV, Arscott DB, Edwards PJ, Kollmann J, Gurnell
AM, Petts GE, Maiolini B. 2003. The Tagliamento River: A
model ecosystem of European importance. Aquatic Sciences 65:
239–253.
Tooth S, Nanson GC. 2000. The role of vegetation in the formation of
anabranching channels in an ephemeral river, Northern plains, arid
central Australia. Hydrological Processes 14: 3099–3117.
van der Nat D, Tockner K, Edwards PJ, Ward JV, Gurnell AM. 2003. Habitat
change in braided flood plains (Tagliamento, NE-Italy). Freshwater
Biology 48: 1799–1812.
Ward JV, Tockner K, Edwards PJ, Kollman J, Bretschko G, Gurnell AM,
Petts GE, Rosarro B. 1999. A reference river system for the Alps: the
Fiume Tagliamento. Regulated Rivers 15: 63–75.
Ward JV, Tockner K. 2001. Biodiversity: towards a unifying theme for river
ecology. Freshwater Ecology 46: 807–819.
Ward JV, Tockner K, Uehlinger U, Malard F. 2001. Understanding
natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for
effective river restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research and Manage-
ment 17: 311–323.
Ward JV, Malard F, Tockner K. 2002a. Landscape ecology: a framework for
integrating pattern and process in river corridors. Landscape Ecology
17(Suppl 1): 35–45.
Ward JV, Tockner K, Arscott DB, Claret C. 2002b. Riverine landscape
diversity. Freshwater Biology 47: 517–539.
Yalin MS. 1992. River Mechanics. BPCC Wheatens Ltd: Exeter, England.
Zanoni L, Gurnell A, Drake N, Surian N. 2008. Island dynamics in a braided
river from analysis of historical maps and air photographs. River
Research and Applications 24(8): 1141–1159.
River Res. Applic. 27: 814–825 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/rra