, Volume 834, Issue 1, pp 183–197 | Cite as

Hydrologically connected and isolated floodplains in channelized streams: impacts on plant communities under a temperate monsoonal climate

  • Yunsoo Chu
  • Seung-Nam Jin
  • Josu G. Alday
  • Rob H. Marrs
  • Kang-Hyun ChoEmail author
Primary Research Paper


The aim of this study was to understand the changes of floodplain vegetation following the disruption of lateral connectivity from streams by levee construction under the temperate monsoonal conditions of South Korea. We compared the plant community structure and selected environmental variables in paired floodplains, one connected to the stream inside a levee and the other isolated by a levee. Cluster analysis of the vegetation identified ten plant communities and their associated indicator species. There were clear differences in communities between the connected floodplains and isolated floodplains. Pioneer and early-successional communities, which are resistant to flood disturbance, were found only in the connected floodplains. In contrast, diverse aquatic-macrophytic communities, adapted to long flood duration, and late-successional communities sensitive to flooding disturbance were found mainly in the isolated floodplains. β-turnover was the main driver in species compositions in both types of floodplain. The isolated floodplains had a longer flood duration, and their soils had a finer texture, higher moisture content, and were more acidic compared to the connected floodplains. Flood duration and topological elevation were identified as the most important environmental variables with respect to plant community composition. Our results suggest that reinstatement of lateral connectivity is necessary to restore the fluvial native vegetation in the isolated floodplains of a region with a monsoonal climate.


Floodplain restoration Indicator species Lateral connectivity Levee Stream Vegetation 



The authors thank Hyunsuk Cho and Jongseo Won of the Inha University for their help in the field survey. The authors thank also the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful comments and inputs toward improving our manuscript. This research was supported by a grant from the River Restoration Program for Developing Coexistence between Nature and Human (Green River) (12 technological innovation C02) of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Republic of Korea. JGA was supported by a Ramón y Cajal fellowship of the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (RYC-2016-20528).

Supplementary material

10750_2019_3921_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1979 kb)


  1. Amoros, C. & G. Bornette, 2002. Connectivity and biocomplexity in waterbodies of riverine floodplains. Freshwater Biology 47: 761–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. J., T. O. Crist, J. M. Chase, M. Vellend, B. D. Inouye, A. L. Freestone, N. J. Sanders, H. V. Cornell, L. S. Comita, K. F. Davies & S. P. Harrison, 2011. Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecology Letters 14: 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin, D. S. & A. M. Mitchell, 2000. The effects of drying and re-flooding on the sediment and soil nutrient dynamics of lowland river–floodplain systems: a synthesis. River Research and Applications 16: 457–467.Google Scholar
  4. Baselga, A. & C. D. L. Orme, 2012. betapart: an R package for the study of beta diversity. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3: 808–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornette, G., C. Amoros & N. Lamouroux, 1998. Aquatic plant diversity in riverine wetlands: the role of connectivity. Freshwater Biology 39: 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunel, S., G. Schrader, G. Brundu & G. Fried, 2010. Emerging invasive alien plants for the Mediterranean Basin. EPPO Bulletin 40: 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carli, C. M. & S. E. Bayley, 2015. River connectivity and road crossing effects on floodplain vegetation of the upper Columbia River, Canada. Ecoscience 22: 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casanova, M. T. & M. A. Brock, 2000. How do depth, duration and frequency of flooding influence the establishment of wetland plant communities? Plant Ecology 147: 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho, H. J. & K. H. Cho, 2005. Responses of riparian vegetation to flooding disturbance in a sand stream. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 9: 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choung, Y. S., W. T. Lee, K. H. Cho, K. Y. Joo, B. M. Min, J. O. Hyun & K. S. Lee, 2012. Categorizing Vascular Plant Species Occurring in Wetland Ecosystems of the Korean Peninsula. Center for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Chuncheon. (In Korean).Google Scholar
  11. Covino, T., 2017. Hydrologic connectivity as a framework for understanding biogeochemical flux through watersheds and along fluvial networks. Geomorphology 277: 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Caceres, M., F. Jansen & M. M. De Caceres, 2016. Package ‘indicspecies’., Accessed 12 Dec 2016.
  13. Gergel, S. E., 2002. Assessing cumulative impacts of levees and dams on floodplain ponds: a neutral-terrain model approach. Ecological Applications 12: 1740–1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hassett, B. A., M. A. Palmer & E. S. Bernhardt, 2007. Evaluating stream restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed through practitioner interviews. Restoration Ecology 15: 563–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hine, C. S., H. M. Hagy, M. M. Horath, A. P. Yetter, R. V. Smith & J. D. Stafford, 2017. Response of aquatic vegetation communities and other wetland cover types to floodplain restoration at Emiquon Preserve. Hydrobiologia 804: 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. HRFC, 2017. Water Resources Management Information Systems. Han River Flood Control Office, Seoul, Korea., Accessed 30 Aug 2017.
  17. Hupp, C. R. & W. R. Osterkamp, 1996. Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphic processes. Geomorphology 14: 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ITIS, 2017. The Integrated Taxonomic Information System. Accessed 30 Aug 2017
  19. Jansson, R., C. Nilsson & B. Malmqvist, 2007. Restoring freshwater ecosystems in riverine landscapes: the roles of connectivity and recovery processes. Freshwater Biology 52: 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Junk, W., P. B. Bayley & R. E. Sparks, 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. In Dodge, D. P. (ed), Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium (LARS). Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106: 110–127.Google Scholar
  21. KFS, 2017. Korean Plant Names Index. Korea Forest Service, Daejeon, Korea. Accessed 30 Aug 2017.
  22. Kim, D. H., H. Choi & J. G. Kim, 2012. Occupational strategy of Persicaria thunbergii in riparian area: rapid recovery after harsh flooding disturbance. Journal of Plant Biology 55: 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, C. S. & Y. H. Yu, 2001. Development and outlook of restoration ecology as an ecology for the future. Korean Journal of Ecology 24: 191–202. (in Korean).Google Scholar
  24. Lee, C. S., Y. C. Cho, H. C. Shin & S. Park, 2009. Differences between sand and gravel bars of streams in patterns of vegetation succession. Journal of Ecology and Environment 32: 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leyer, I., 2006. Dispersal, diversity and distribution patterns in pioneer vegetation: the role of river-floodplain connectivity. Journal of Vegetation Science 17: 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MOLIT, 2001. The Maintenance Master Plan of the Seomgang River. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Sejong. (in Korean).Google Scholar
  27. MOLIT, 2007. The Maintenance Master Plan of the Hwanggujicheon River (Supplement). Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Sejong. (in Korean).Google Scholar
  28. MOLIT, 2011. The Master Plan of the Cheongmicheon River (The Revised Version). Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Sejong. (in Korean).Google Scholar
  29. Moss, T. & J. Monstadt, 2008. Restoring Floodplains in Europe: Policy Contexts and Project Experiences. IWA Publishing, London.Google Scholar
  30. Moss, T., 2007. Institutional drivers and constraints of floodplain restoration in Europe. International Journal of River Basin Management 5: 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nilsson, C., E. Andersson, D. M. Merritt & M. E. Johansson, 2002. Differences in riparian flora between riverbanks and river lakeshores explained by dispersal traits. Ecology 83: 2878–2887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oksanen, J., F. G. Blanchet, R. Kindt, P. Legendre, P. R. Minchin, R. B. O’Hara, G. L. Simpson, P. Solymos, M. H. H. Stevens & H. Wagner, 2016. Package ‘vegan’, community ecology package., Accessed on 12 Dec 2016.
  33. Opperman, J. J., R. Luster, B. A. McKenny, M. Roberts & A. W. Meadows, 2010. Ecologically functional floodplains: connectivity, flow Regime, and scale. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46: 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinheiro, J., D. Bates, S. DebRoy & D. Sarkar, 2016. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-117. Accessed 12 Dec 2016.
  35. R Core Team, 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna. Accessed 10 Sep 2017.
  36. Reckendorfer, W., A. Funk, C. Gschöpf, T. Hein & F. Schiemer, 2013. Aquatic ecosystem functions of an isolated floodplain and their implications for flood retention and management. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rood, S. B., C. R. Gourley, E. M. Ammon, L. G. Heki, J. R. Klotz, M. L. Morrison, D. Mosley, G. G. Scoppetone, S. Swanson & P. L. Wagner, 2003. Flows for floodplain forests: a successful riparian restoration. BioScience 53: 647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sakurai, Y., K. Yabe & K. Katagiri, 2017. Factors controlling changes in the aquatic macrophyte communities from 1984 to 2009 in a pond in the cool-temperate zone of Japan. Limnology 18: 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sheldrick, B. H. & C. Wang, 1993. Particle size distribution. In Carter, M. R. (ed.), Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis., Canadian Society of Soil Science Lewis Publishers, London: 499–511.Google Scholar
  40. Thoms, M. C., 2003. Floodplain–river ecosystems: lateral connections and the implications of human interference. Geomorphology 56: 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tockner, K., D. Pennetzdorfer, N. Reiner, F. Schiemer & J. V. Ward, 1999. Hydrological connectivity and the exchange of organic matter and nutrients in a dynamic river–floodplain system (Danube, Austria). Freshwater Biology 41: 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ward, J. V., 1989. The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8: 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ward, J. V., 1998. Riverine landscapes: biodiversity patterns, disturbance regimes, and aquatic conservation. Biological Conservation 83: 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ward, J. V., K. Tockner & F. Schiemer, 1999. Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems: ecotones and connectivity. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15: 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ward, J. V., K. Tockner, D. B. Arscott & C. Claret, 2002. Riverine landscape diversity. Freshwater Biology 47: 517–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wohl, E., 2017. Connectivity in rivers. Progress in Physical Geography 41: 345–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woo, H., 2010. Trends in ecological river engineering in Korea. Journal of Hydro-environment Research 4: 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EcologySeocheonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesInha UniversityIncheonRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Crop and Forest Sciences—AGROTECNIO CenterUniversitat de LleidaLleidaSpain
  4. 4.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations