Environmental Management

, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 745–754 | Cite as

Re-Meandering German Lowland Streams: Qualitative and Quantitative Effects of Restoration Measures on Hydromorphology and Macroinvertebrates

  • Armin W. Lorenz
  • Sonja C. Jähnig
  • Daniel Hering
Article

Abstract

We investigated the effects of two river restoration projects on hydromorphology and macroinvertebrate fauna in two German lowland rivers, the Schwalm and the Gartroper Mühlenbach. The stream channels were re-meandered and the floodplain levels were lowered to better connect the streams to their floodplains. The restoration was performed 10 years ago in the Schwalm and 2 years ago in the Gartroper Mühlenbach. We compared the restored reaches to nearby anthropogenically straightened reaches. Twenty-five hydromorphological parameters were recorded on twenty transects; between nine and 23 substrate-specific macroinvertebrate samples were taken per reach. Several hydromorphological parameters, such as the number and width of channel features and the number of substrate types, were significantly higher in the restored reaches compared to nearby anthropogenically straightened reaches. Total numbers of invertebrate families, genera, and taxa were also higher in the restored reaches than in the anthropogenically straightened reaches. Biotic substrates like dead wood or macrophytes were more abundant in the restored reaches, and these substrates hosted 28 taxa not found in the straightened reaches. While diversity was high in both restored reaches, overall abundance increased only in the river that was restored 10 years ago. Using NMS-analysis, substrate-specific faunistic samples of the restored reaches were compared to those of the straightened reaches. Our results revealed different invertebrate communities on the same substrates in the recently restored river. In the 10-year-old restoration, however, the same substrates were similarly inhabited. This comparable colonization of substrates may reflect succession in the macroinvertebrate community. The results are discussed according to the re-colonization potentials of the upstream and downstream reaches and the dispersal capacity of taxa.

Keywords

Restoration Sand-bottom streams Habitat quality Macroinvertebrates Richness Diversity Biotic substrates 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the EU-funded Integrated Project Euro-Limpacs (GOCE-CT-2003-505540). We thank three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

267_2009_9350_MOESM1_ESM.doc (289 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 289 kb)

References

  1. Aarts BGW, Van den Brink FWB, Nienhuis PH (2004) Habitat loss as the main cause of the slow recovery of fish faunas of regulated large rivers in Europe: the transversal floodplain gradient. River Research and Applications 20:3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beisel J-N, Usseglio-Polatera P, Thomas S, Moreteau J-C (1998) Stream community structure in relation to spatial variation: the influence of mesohabitat characteristics. Hydrobiologia 389:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beisel J-N, Usseglio-Polatera P, Moreteau J-C (2000) The spatial heterogeneity of a river bottom: a key factor determining macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia 422(423):163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond NR, Sabater S, Glaister A, Roberts S, Vanderkruk K (2006) Colonisation of introduced timber by algae and invertebrates, and its potential role in aquatic ecosystem restoration. Hydrobiologia 556:303–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyero L (2003) The quantification of local substrate heterogeneity in streams and its significance for macroinvertebrate assemblages. Hydrobiologia 499:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of South Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27:325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brookes A, Shields FD Jr (eds) (1996) River channel restoration. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks SS, Palmer MA, Cardinale BJ, Swan CM, Ribblett S (2002) Assessing ecosystem rehabilitation: limitations of community structure data. Restoration Ecology 10:156–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30:492–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cederholm CJ, Bilby RE, Bisson PA, Bumstead TW, Fransen BR, Scarlett WJ, Ward JW (1997) Response of juvenile coho salmon and steelhead to placement of large woody debris in a coastal Washington stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:947–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper CM, Testa S III, Shields FD Jr (2000) Stream restoration: response of Benthos to engineered stable riffle/pool habitat. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 27:1520–1527Google Scholar
  12. Earman DC, Earman NA (1984) The response of stream macroinvertebrates to substrate size and heterogeneity. Hydrobiologia 108:75–82Google Scholar
  13. Fortin M-J, Payette S, Marineau K (1999) Spatial vegetation diversity index along a postfire successional gradient in the northern boreal forest. Ecosience 6:204–213Google Scholar
  14. Friberg N, Kronvang B, Hansen HO, Svendsen LM (1998) Long-term, habitat-specific response of a macroinvertebrate community to river restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graf W, Murphy J, Dahl J, Zamora-Munoz C, Lopez-Rodriguez MJ (2008) Volume 1—Trichoptera. In: Schmidt-Kloiber A, Hering D (eds) Distribution and ecological preferences of European freshwater organisms. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, BulgariaGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamilton JB (1989) Response of juvenile steelhead to in-stream deflectors in a high gradient stream. In: Gresswell RE, Barton BA, Kershner JL (eds) Practical approaches to riparian resource management. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Billings, pp 149–158Google Scholar
  17. Harper D, Ebrahimnezhad M, Cot FCI (1998) Artificial riffles in river rehabilitation: setting the goals and measuring the successes. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison SSC, Pretty JL, Shepherd D, Hildrew AG, Smith C, Hey RD (2004) The effect of in-stream rehabilitation structures on macroinvertebrates in lowland rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:1140–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hering D, Moog O, Sandin L, Verdonschot PFM (2004) Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffmann A, Hering D (2000) Wood-associated macroinvertebrate fauna in central European streams. International Review of Hydrobiology 85:25–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iversen TM, Kronvang B, Madsen BL, Markmann P, Nielsen MB (1993) Reestablishment of Danish streams—restoration and maintenance measures. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 3:73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jähnig SC, Lorenz AW, Hering D (2008) Hydromorphological parameters indicating differences between single- and multiple-channel mountain rivers in Germany, in relation to their modification and recovery. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18:1200–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson LB, Breneman DH, Richards C (2003) Macroinvertebrate community structure and function associated with large wood in low gradient streams. River Research and Applications 19:199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kail J, Hering D, Gerhard M, Muhar S, Preis S (2007) The use of large wood in stream restoration: experiences from 50 projects in Germany and Austria. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:1145–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kondolf GM, Micheli ER (1995) Evaluating stream restoration projects. Environmental Management 19:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lepori F, Palm D, Brännäs E, Malmqvist B (2005) Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological Applications 15:2060–2071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lorenz A, Hering D, Feld CK, Rolauffs P (2004) A new method for assessing the impact of morphological degradation on the benthic invertebrate fauna for streams in Germany. Hydrobiologia 516:107–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. LUA NRW (Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen) (1999) Leitbilder für die kleinen bis mittelgroßen Fließgewässer in Nordrhein-Westfalen—Flusstypen. LUA Merkbl. 17. Essen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  29. LUA NRW (Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen) (2001) Leitbilder für die mittelgroßen bis großen Fließgewässer in Nordrhein-Westfalen—Flusstypen. LUA Merkbl. 34. Essen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  30. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) Multivariate analysis of ecological data. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, ORGoogle Scholar
  31. Muotka T, Paavola R, Haapala A, Novikmec M, Laasonen P (2002) Long-term recovery of stream habitat structure and benthic invertebrate communities from in-stream restoration. Biological Conservation 105:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nakano D, Nakamura F (2006) Responses of macroinvertebrate communities to river restoration in a channelized segment of the Shibetsu River, Northern Japan. River Research and Applications 22:681–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nickelson TE, Solazzi MF, Johnson SL, Rodgers JD (1992) Effectiveness of selected stream improvement techniques to create suitable summer and winter rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:790–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nienhuis PH, Bakker JP, Grootjans AP, Gulati RD, de Jonge VN (2002) The state of the art of aquatic and semi-aquatic ecological restoration projects in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 478:219–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palmer MA, Swan CM, Nelson K, Silver P, Alvestad R (2000) Streambed landscapes: evidence that stream invertebrates respond to the type and spatial arrangement of patches. Landscape Ecology 15:563–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Alan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Follstad-Shah J, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parkyn SM, Davies-Colley RJ, Halliday NJ, Costley KJ, Croker GF (2003) Planted riparian buffer zones in New Zealand: do they live up to expectations? Restoration Ecology 11:436–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parsons H, Gilvear D (2002) Valley floor landscape change following almost 100 years of flood embankment abandonment on a wandering gravel-bed river. River Research and Applications 18:461–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pretty JL, Harrison SSC, Shepherd DJ, Smith C, Hildrew AG, Hey RD (2003) River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of in-stream structures. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:251–265Google Scholar
  40. Rabeni CF, Jacobson RB (1993) The importance of fluvial hydraulics to fish-habitat restoration in low-gradient alluvial streams. Freshwater Biology 29:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rohde S, Kienast F, Bürgi M (2004) Assessing the restoration success of river widenings: a landscape approach. Environmental Management 34:574–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roni P (2003) Response of benthic fishes and giant salamanders to placement of large woody debris in small Pacific Northwest streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:1087–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roni P, Bennett T, Morley S, Pess GR, Hanson K, van Dyke D, Olmstead P (2006) Rehabilitation of bedrock stream channels: the effects of boulder weir placement on aquatic habitat and biota. River Research and Applications 22:967–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shields FD Jr, Knight SS, Cooper CM (2007) Can warmwater streams be rehabilitated using watershed-scale standard erosion control measures alone? Environmental Management 40:62–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spänhoff B, Arle J (2007) Setting attainable goals of stream habitat restoration from a macroinvertebrate view. Restoration Ecology 15:317–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verdonschot PFM, Nijboer RC (2002) A decision support system for stream restoration in the Netherlands. An overview of restoration projects and future needs. Hydrobiologia 478:131–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vinson MR, Hawkins CP (1998) Biodiversity of stream insects: variation at Local, Basin, and Regional Scales. Annual Review of Entomology 43:271–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Armin W. Lorenz
    • 1
  • Sonja C. Jähnig
    • 2
  • Daniel Hering
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Zoology/HydrobiologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  2. 2.Limnology and ConservationSenckenberg, Research Institute and Natural History MuseumGelnhausenGermany

Personalised recommendations