Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 769, Issue 1, pp 21–40 | Cite as

Assessing restoration effects on hydromorphology in European mid-sized rivers by key hydromorphological parameters

  • Michaela PoppeEmail author
  • Jochem Kail
  • Jukka Aroviita
  • Mateusz Stelmaszczyk
  • Marek Giełczewski
  • Susanne Muhar
RIVER RESTORATION EFFECTS

Abstract

The effects of river restoration on hydromorphological conditions and variability are often documented immediately following the restoration, but rarely properly monitored in the long term. This study assesses outcomes of 20 restoration projects undertaken across central and northern Europe for a comprehensive set of hydromorphological parameters, quantified at both larger and smaller spatial scales. For each project, we compared a restored river section to an upstream degraded section. Ten pairs of large projects were contrasted to ten similar but less extensive projects, to address the importance of restoration extent for the success of each project. Overall, river restoration increased habitat diversity through changes in channel morphology. Our results indicated that restoration particularly improved macro- and mesohabitat diversity, but had a limited effect on microhabitat conditions, including the diversity of substrates. We found no significant difference in effects between large and small restoration projects. Our results reveal the need to assess hydromorphological parameters which reflect processes occurring at different spatial scales, including indicators of larger-scale hydromorphological processes such as bank erosion, to monitor restoration effects effectively and accurately. Additionally, our results demonstrate the importance of developing terrestrial parameters, to assess the lateral dimension of river restoration.

Keywords

Restoration effect Hydromorphology Key parameter Scales Restoration monitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was provided by the EU-project REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management), contract no. 282656 under the 7th Framework Programme. We are grateful to all field work teams at the 20 REFORM WP4 case study sites for generating the hydromorphological data of this study. We would particularly like to thank Michael Stachowitsch for English proofreading and Renate Polt for technical assistance. We appreciated the comments of guest editor Brendan McKie and two anonymous reviewers, who greatly contributed to improving the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10750_2015_2468_MOESM1_ESM.docx (34 kb)
Annex 1 Descriptive attributes and evaluation parameters for the hydromorphological survey parameters. Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 33 kb)
10750_2015_2468_MOESM2_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Annex 2 Channel features (modified after Jähnig et al., 2008 and Januschke et al., 2009). Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 31 kb)
10750_2015_2468_MOESM3_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Annex 3 Substrates for instream microhabitat mapping according to the multi-habitat sampling protocol (Hering et al., 2003). Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 17 kb)
10750_2015_2468_MOESM4_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Annex 4 Flow velocity classes. Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 16 kb)
10750_2015_2468_MOESM5_ESM.docx (41 kb)
Annex 5 Habitat characteristics of the restored (R1, R2) and their corresponding degraded (D1, D2) sections. Parameters are listed and described in Table 2. Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 40 kb)
10750_2015_2468_MOESM6_ESM.docx (35 kb)
Annex 6 Spearman`s correlation coefficient ρ of the effect sizes (response ratio) of all 14 hydromorphological survey parameters as well as from PCA generated Component 1 (PCA extracted “Aquatic habitat parameter”) and Component 2 (PCA extracted “Terrestrial habitat parameter”) with ** p<0.01 and * p<0.05. Supplementary material 6 (DOCX 35 kb)

References

  1. Beechie, T. J., D. A. Sear, J. D. Olden, G. R. Pess, J. M. Buffington, H. Moir, P. Roni & M. M. Pollock, 2010. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience 60: 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belletti, B., M. Rinaldi, A. D. Buijse, A. M. Gurnell & E. Messelman, 2014. A review of assessment methods for river hydromorphology. Environmental Earth Sciences. doi: 10.1007/s12665-014-3558-1.Google Scholar
  3. Bernhardt, E. S. & M. A. Palmer, 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications 21: 1923–1931.Google Scholar
  4. Brierley, G., H. Reid, K. Fryirs & N. Trahan, 2010. What are we monitoring and why? Using geomorphic principles to frame eco-hydrological assessments of river condition. Science of the Total Environment 408: 2025–2033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commitee for Standardization (CEN), 2002. A Guidance standard for assessing the hydromorphological features in rivers. CEN TC 230/WG2/TG5: N32, Water analysis. Brussels.Google Scholar
  6. Fausch, F. D. & T. G. Northcote, 1992. Large woody debris and salmonid habitat in a small coastal British Columbia stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 49: 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feld, C. K., F. de Bello & S. Dolédec, 2014. Biodiversity of traits and species both show weak responses to hydromorphological alteration in lowland river macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biology 59: 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fortin, M. J., S. Payette & K. Marineau, 1999. Spatial vegetation diversity index along a postfire successional gradient in the northern boreal forest. Ecoscience 6: 204–213.Google Scholar
  9. Freiland Umweltconsulting, unpublished. NÖMORPH. Strukturkartierung ausgewählter Fließgewässer in Niederösterreich. Endbericht - Teil I: Methodik.Google Scholar
  10. Göthe, E., A. Timmermann, K. Januschke & A. Baattrup-Pedersen, 2015. Structural and functional responses of floodplain vegetation to stream ecosystem restoration. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-015-2401-3.Google Scholar
  11. Gurnell, A., M. Bussettini, B. Camenen, M. Gonzalez Del Tanago, R. Grabowski, D. Hendriks, A. Henshaw, A. Latapie, M. Rinaldi & N. Surian, 2014. A hierarchical multi-scale framework and indicators of hydromorphological processes and forms. Report D2.1. Part 1 of the FP7 project REFORM. http://www.reformrivers.eu/multi-scale-framework-and-indicators-hydromorphological-processes-and-forms-i-main-report
  12. Hering, D., A. Buffagni, O. Moog, L. Sandin, M. Sommerhäuser, I. Stubauer, C. Feld, R. K. Johnson, P. Pinto, N. Skoulikidis, P. F. M. Verdonschot & S. Zahradkova, 2003. The development of a system to assess the ecological quality of streams based on macroinvertebrates - design of the sampling programme within the AQEM Project. International Review of Hydrobiology 88: 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hering, D., R. K. Johnson, S. Kramm, S. Schmutz, K. Szoszkiewicz & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2006. Assessment of European streams with diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress. Freshwater Biology 51: 1757–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hering, D., J. Aroviita, A. Baattrup-Pedersen, K. Brabec, T. Buijse, F. Ecke, N. Friberg, M. Gielczewski, K. Januschke, J. Köhler, B. Kupilas, A. Lorenz, S. Muhar, A. Paillex, M. Poppe, T. Schmidt, S. Schmutz, P. J. Vermaat, P. F. M. Verdonschot & R. Verdonschot, 2015. Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study on 20 European restoration projects. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 97–106.Google Scholar
  15. Ibisate, A., A. Ollero & E. Díaz, 2011. Influence of catchment processes on fluvial morphology and river habitats. Limnetica 30: 169–182.Google Scholar
  16. Jähnig, S. C., A. W. Lorenz & D. Hering, 2008. Hydromorphological parameters indicating differences between single- and multiple-channel mountain rivers in Germany, in relation to their modification and recovery. Aquatic conservation 18: 1200–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jähnig, S. C., S. Brunzel, S. Gacek, A. W. Lorenz & D. Hering, 2009. Effects of re-braiding measures on hydromorphology, floodplain vegetation, ground beetles and benthic invertebrates in mountain rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 406–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Januschke, K. & R. C. M. Verdonschot, 2015. Effects of river restoration on riparian ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Europe. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-015-2532-6.Google Scholar
  19. Januschke, K., A. Sundermann, C. Antons, P. Haase, A. Lorenz, D. Hering & D. Aue, 2009. 3 Untersuchung und Auswertung von ausgewählten Renaturierungsbeispielen repräsentativer Fließgewässertypen der Flusseinzugsgebiete Deutschlands, In: Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Rates für Landespflege 82: Verbesserung der biologischen Vielfalt in Fließgewässern und ihren Auen, 23–39.Google Scholar
  20. Jungwirth M., G. Haidvogl, O. Moog, S. Muhar & S. Schmutz, 2003. Angewandte Fischökologie an Fließgewässern, Facultas UTB Wien.Google Scholar
  21. Kail, J., J. Arle & S. C. Jähnig, 2012. Limiting factors and thresholds for macroinvertebrate assemblages in European rivers: empirical evidence from three datasets on water quality, catchment urbanization, and river restoration. Ecological Indicators 18: 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kondolf, G. M., 1998. Lessons learned from river restoration projects in California. Aquatic Conservation 8: 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kondolf, G. M., S. Anderson, R. Lave, L. Pagano, A. Merenlender & E. S. Bernhardt, 2007. Two decades of river restoration in California: what can we learn? Restoration Ecology 15: 516–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kristensen, E. A., A. Baattrup-Pedersen & H. Thodsen, 2011. An evaluation of restoration practices in lowland streams: has the physical integrity been re-created? Ecological Engineering 37: 1654–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LänderarbeitsgemeinschaftWasser (LAWA), 2000. Gewässerstrukturgütebewertung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Verfahren für kleine und mittelgroße Fließgewässer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  26. Lepori, F., D. Palm, E. Brannas & B. Malmqvist, 2005. Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological Applications 15: 2060–2071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lorenz, A. W., T. Korte, A. Sundermann, K. Januschke & P. Haase, 2012. Macrophytes respond to reach-scale river restorations. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 202–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, S. W., P. Budy & J. C. Schmidt, 2010. Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to in-stream habitat restoration: applications of meta-analysis to river restoration. Restoration Ecology 18: 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mueller, M., J. Pander & J. Geist, 2014. The ecological value of stream restoration measures: an evaluation on ecosystem and target species scales. Ecological Engineering 62: 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muhar, S., K. Januschke, J. Kail, M. Poppe, D. Hering & A. D. Buijse, this issue. Evaluating good-practice cases for river restoration across Europe: context, methodological framework, selected results and recommendations. Hydrobiologia.Google Scholar
  31. Muhar, S., M. Schwarz, S. Schmutz & M. Jungwirth, 2000. Identification of rivers with high and good habitat integrity: methodological approach and applications in Austria. Hydrobiologia 422(423): 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nilsson, C., L. E. Polvi, J. Gardeström, E. M. Hasselquist, L. Lind & J. M. Sarneel, 2014. Riparian and in-stream restoration of boreal streams and rivers: success or failure? Ecohydrology. doi: 10.1002/eco.1480.Google Scholar
  33. Osenberg, C. W., O. Sarnelle & S. D. Cooper, 1997. Effect size in ecological experiments: the application of biological models in meta-analysis. The American Naturalist 150: 798–812.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, J. D. Allan, P. S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, D. L. Galat, S. G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D. D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G. M. Kondolf, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano & E. Sudduth, 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 208–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palmer, M. A., H. L. Menninger & E. Bernhardt, 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology 55: 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pander, J. & J. Geist, 2013. Ecological indicators for stream restoration success. Ecological Indicators 30: 106–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Poppe, M., M. Stelzhammer, M. Seebacher, S. Muhar, K. Januschke, A. Lorenz, B. Kupilas, & D. Hering, 2012. Field protocols and associated database. Report D4.1. of the FP7 project REFORM. http://www.reformrivers.eu/field-protocols-and-associated-database-paired-river-restoration-comparison
  38. RESTORE, 2011. B3: Review of EU Policy Drivers for River Restoration. Report for EU LIFE project LIFE 09 INF/UK/000032. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Utility/European_policy_drivers_for_river_restoration_full_report.pdf. Accessed 09 Sept 2014.
  39. Raven, P. J., P. Fox, M. Everard, N. T. H. Holmes & F. H. Dawson, 1997. River Habitat Survey: a new system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality. In Boon, P. J. & D. L. Howell (eds), Freshwater quality: defining the indefinable?. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh: 215–234.Google Scholar
  40. Richards, K., J. Brasington & F. Hughes, 2002. Geomorphic dynamics of floodplains: ecological implications and a potential modelling strategy. Freshwater Biology 47: 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rinaldi, M., N. Surian, F. Comiti & M. Bussettini, 2013a. A method for the assessment and analysis of the hydromorphological condition of Italian streams: the morphological quality index (MQI). Geomorphology 180–181: 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rinaldi, M., B. Belletti, W. Ban de Bund, W. Bertoldi, A. Gurnell, T. Buijse & E. Mosselman, 2013b. Review on eco-hydromorpholoigcal methods. Report D1.1. of the FP7 project REFORM, 202p. http://www.reformrivers.eu/d-11-review-eco-hydromorphological-methods
  43. Roni, P., K. Hanson & T. Beechie, 2008. Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 856–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shannon, C. E. & W. Weaver, 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  45. Schinegger, R., C. Trautwein & S. Schmutz, 2013. Pressure-specific and multiple pressure response of fish assemblages in European running waters. Limnologica 43: 348–361.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmutz, S., H. Kremser, A. Melcher, M. Jungwirth, S. Muhar, H. Waidbacher & G. Zauner, 2013. Ecological effects of rehabilitation measures at the Austrian Danube: a meta-analysis of fish assemblages. Hydrobiologia 729: 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, B., N. J. Clifford & J. Mant, 2013. Analysis of UK river restoration using broad-scale data sets. Water and Environment Journal 28: 490–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sundermann, A., C. Antons, N. Cron, A. W. Lorenz, D. Hering & P. Haase, 2011. Hydromorphological restoration of running waters: effects on benthic invertebrate assemblages. Freshwater Biology 56: 1689–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trautwein, C., R. Schinegger & S. Schmutz, 2013. Divergent reaction of fish parameters to human pressures in fish assemblage types in Europe. Hydrobiologia 718: 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Verdonschot, R., J. Kail, B. G. McKie & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2015. The role of benthic microhabitats in determining the effects of hydromorphological river restoration on macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-015-2561-1.
  51. Verdonschot, P. F. M., B. M. Spears, C. K. Feld, S. Brucet, H. Keizer-Vlek, A. Borja, M. Elliott, M. Kernan & R. K. Johnson, 2013. A comparative review of recovery processes in rivers, lakes, estuarine and coastal waters. Hydrobiologia 704: 453–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Water Framework Directive (WFD), 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities (22.12.2000) L327,1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michaela Poppe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jochem Kail
    • 2
  • Jukka Aroviita
    • 3
  • Mateusz Stelmaszczyk
    • 4
  • Marek Giełczewski
    • 4
  • Susanne Muhar
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem ManagementUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)ViennaAustria
  2. 2.Faculty of Biology, Aquatic EcologyUniversity of Duisburg-Essen (UDE)EssenGermany
  3. 3.Freshwater Centre, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)University of OuluOuluFinland
  4. 4.Division of Hydrology and Water Resources, Faculty of Civil and Environmental EngineeringWarsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS)WarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations