Skip to main content
Log in

Backwater habitats and their role in nature conservation on navigable waterways

  • Utilisation of Freshwater and Riparian Vegetation
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Britain, lightly trafficked canals frequently contain diverse, productive macrophyte communities. These represent important habitats for macroinvertebrates and fish while having a high intrinsic value in nature conservation terms. As recreational boat traffic increases, fragile macrophytes are progressively eliminated and the biomass of the remaining species is greatly reduced, thereby adversely affecting weed-associated animals and ultimately simplifying the structure of the whole ecosystem. From the viewpoint of aesthetics, nature conservation and fisheries management,ecological enhancement of these traffic impacted ecosystems is desirable but options are limited by channel size and the intensity and type of disturbance. Backwater areas connected to the main channel but apparently remote from traffic influences ought however, to provide a minimally-disturbed refuge for macrophytes and dependent organisms. An extensive field survey was undertaken to test this hypothesis and evaluate the potential for exploiting backwater sites as ‘off-line’ nature reserves. Principal determinants of vegetation structure and species diversity are identified and discussed and are used to prescribe a set of ideal characteristics for prospective backwater nature reserves and to forecast likely management problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al Mufti, M. M., C. L. Sydes, S. B. Furness, J. P. Grime & S. R. Band, 1977. A quantitative analysis of shoot phenology and dominance in herbaceous vegetation. J. Ecol. 65: 759–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhowmik, N. G. & J. R. Adams, 1989. Successional changes in habitat caused by sedimentation in navigation pools. Hydrobiol. 176/177: 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brierley, S. J., D. M. Harper & P. J. Barham, 1989. Factors affecting the distribution of aquatic plants in a navigable lowland river; the River Nene, England. Reg. Rivers: Res. & Mgmt 4: 263–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of the Environment & Welsh Office (1986) River Quality in England & Wales, 1985. London, HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanbury, R. G., 1986. Conservation on canals: a review of the present status and management of British navigable canals with particular reference to aquatic plants. Proc. EWRS/AAB 7th Symposium on Aquatic Weeds. Loughborough.

  • Haslam, S. 0M., 1978. River Plants. Cambridge University Press. 396 pp.

  • Hejny, S. & S. Husak, 1978. Higher plant communities. In D. Dykyjova & J. Kvet (eds), Pond Littoral Ecosystems: Structure & Functioning, Berlin: Springer-Verlag: 23–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, N. T. & C. Newbold, 1984. River Plant Communities-Reflectors of water and substrate chemistry. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, J. M., 1947. Biological flora of the British Isles. Glyceria maxima (Hartm.) Holmb. J. Ecol. 34: 310–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lousley, J. E., 1976. Flora of Surrey. David & Charles.

  • Murphy, K. J., R. G. Hanbury & J. W. Eaton, 1981. The ecological effects of 2-methylthio triazine herbicides used for aquatic weed control in navigable canals. I. Effects on aquatic flora and water chemistry. Arch. Hydrobiol. 91: 294–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. J. & J. W. Eaton, 1983. Effects of pleasure boat traffic on macrophyte growth in canals. J. Appl. Ecol. 20: 713–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. J., N. J. Willby & J. W. Eaton, 1995. Ecological impacts and management of boat traffic on navigable inland waterways. In D. M. Harper & A. J. D. Ferguson (eds), The Ecological Basis for River Management, John Wiley: 427–442.

  • Nature Conservancy Council, 1989. Guidelines for selection of Biological SSSIs. NCC. Peterborough, England. 288 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J. H. & M. M. Smart, 1986. An assessment of the aquatic and wetland vegetation of the Upper Mississippi River. Hydrobiol. 136: 57–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A., D. A. Pearman & C. D. Preston, 1994. Scarce Plants in Britain. JNCC, Peterborough, England, 515 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisner, S. E. B., 1991. Within-lake patterns in depth penetration of emergent vegetation. Freshwat. Biol. 26: 133–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, B. D. & S. C. Shaw, 1991. Above-ground crop mass and species richness of the principal types of herbaceous rich-fen vegetation of lowland England & Wales. J. Ecol. 79: 285–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willby, N. J. & J. W. Eaton, 1993. The Distribution, Ecology and Conservation of Luronium natans (L.) Raf. in Britain. J.Aquat. Plant Mgmt 31: 70–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. M. & V. E. Phillips, 1992. Changes in the aquatic vegetation of two gravel pit lakes after reducing the fish population density. Aquat. Bot. 43: 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Willby, N.J., Eaton, J.W. Backwater habitats and their role in nature conservation on navigable waterways. Hydrobiologia 340, 333–338 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00012777

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00012777

Key words

Navigation