Hydrobiologia

, Volume 704, Issue 1, pp 475–488 | Cite as

The impact of hydromorphological restoration on river ecological status: a comparison of fish, benthic invertebrates, and macrophytes

  • P. Haase
  • D. Hering
  • S. C. Jähnig
  • A. W. Lorenz
  • A. Sundermann
WATER BODIES IN EUROPE

Abstract

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) has led to an increase in hydromorphological restoration attempts in European rivers, but data on the ecological responses of rivers to these restoration attempts are scarce. We investigated the effects of 24 hydromorphological river restoration projects in Germany. We compared hydromorphological parameters and biological diversity of macroinvertebrates, fish, and macrophytes in restored reaches to nearby unrestored sections. We applied, for the first time, the WFD to assess the results of these restoration projects. While hydromorphology changed significantly in the restored sections, differences between restored and unrestored sections in terms of biological parameters were lower. Positive restoration effects were observed for fish (11 of 24 cases) only. Based on the synthesis of results from the different organism groups, only one of the 24 restored sections reached a “good” Ecological Quality Class as demanded by the WFD. Our results indicate that stressors other than hydromorphological degradation still affect the biota in restored sections. We emphasize the need for advanced restoration strategies based on catchment analyses considering water pollution, source populations, and dispersal capacities of sensitive species, and recommend the inclusion of additional parameters, including societal and stakeholder perspectives, in assessing the initial success of restoration projects.

Keywords

Macroinvertebrates Monitoring Stream Water Framework Directive Assessment 

References

  1. Bernhardt, E. S. & M. Palmer, 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications 21: 1926–1931.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernhardt, E., M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks Carr, S. Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D. Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G. M. Kondolf, P. S. Lake, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, B. Powell & E. Sudduth, 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308: 636–637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carstensen, J., 2007. Statistical principles for ecological status classification of Water Framework Directive monitoring data. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55: 3–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke, R. T. & D. Hering, 2006. Errors and uncertainty in bioassessment methods – major results and conclusions from the STAR project and their application using STARBUGS. Hydrobiologia 566: 433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, R. T., A. Lorenz, L. Sandin, A. Schmidt-Kloiber, J. Strackbein, N. T. Kneebone & P. Haase, 2006a. Effects of sampling and sub-sampling variation using the STAR-AQEM sampling protocol on the precision of macroinvertebrate metrics. Hydrobiologia 566: 441–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, R. T., J. Davy-Bowker, L. Sandin, N. Friberg, R. Johnson & B. Bis, 2006b. Estimates and comparisons of the effects of sampling variation using national macroinvertebrate sampling protocols on the precision of metrics used to assess ecological status. Hydrobiologia 566: 477–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clements, W. H., N. K. M. Vieira & D. L. Sonderegger, 2010. Use of ecological thresholds to assess recovery in lotic ecosystems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 1017–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collier, K. J. & B. J. Smith, 2000. Interactions of adult stoneflies (Plecoptera) with riparian zones I. Effects of air temperature and humidity on longevity. Aquatic Insects 22: 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diekmann, M., U. Dußling & R. Berg, 2005. Handbuch zum fischbasierten Bewertungssystem für Fließgewässer (FIBS). Fischereiforschungsstelle Baden-Württemberg, Langenargen.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, C., B. Griswold, R. Tubb, E. Weber & L. Woods, 1984. Mitigating effects of artificial riffles and pools on the fauna of a channelized warmwater stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4: 194–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engelhardt, C. H. M., S. U. Pauls & P. Haase, 2008. Population genetic structure of the caddisfly Rhyacophila pubescens, Pictet 1834, north of the Alps. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 173(2): 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Haase, P., S. Lohse, S. Pauls, K. Schindehütte, A. Sundermann, P. Rolauffs & D. Hering, 2004a. Assessing streams in Germany with benthic invertebrates: development of a practical standardised protocol for macroinvertebrate sampling and sorting. Limnologica 34: 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haase, P., S. Pauls, A. Sundermann & A. Zenker, 2004b. Testing different sorting techniques in macroinvertebrate samples from running waters. Limnologica 34: 366–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haase, P., J. Murrhy-Bligh, S. Lohse, S. Pauls, A. Sundermann, R. Gunn & R. Clarke, 2006. Assessing the impact of errors in sorting and identifying macroinvertebrate samples. Hydrobiologia 566: 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haase, P., S. U. Pauls, K. Schindehütte & A. Sundermann, 2010. First audit of macroinvertebrate samples from an EU-Water Framework Directive monitoring programme. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 1279–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Hey, R. D., G. L. Heritage & M. Patteson, 1994. Impact of flood alleviation schemes on aquatic macrophytes. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 9: 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson, J. K., 1988. Diel emergence, swarming and longevity of selected adult aquatic insects from a Sonoran Desert stream. The American Midland Naturalist 119: 344–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jackson, J. K. & V. H. Resh, 1989. Activities and ecological role of adult aquatic insects in the riparian zone of streams. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-110: 342–345.Google Scholar
  21. 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: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 1200–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Jähnig, S. C., A. W. Lorenz, D. Hering, C. Antons, A. Sundermann, E. Jedicke & P. Haase, 2011. River restoration success: a question of perception. Ecological Applications 21: 2007–2015.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Januschke, K., S. Brunzel, P. Haase & D. Hering, 2011. Effects of stream restorations on riparian mesohabitats, vegetation and carabid beetles: a synopsis of 24 cases from Germany. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 3147–3164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jongman, R. H. G., C. J. F. Ter Braak & O. F. R. Van Tongeren, 1995. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jungwirth, M., O. Moog & S. Muhar, 1993. Effects of river bed restructuring on fish and benthos of a 5th-order stream, Melk, Austria. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 8: 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kail, J. & D. Hering, 2009. The influence of adjacent stream reaches on the local ecological status of central European mountain streams. River Research and Applications 25: 537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kail, J. & C. Wolter, 2011. Analysis and evaluation of large scale river restoration planning in Germany to better link river research and management. River Research and Applications 27: 985–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kamp, U., W. Binder & K. Hölzl, 2007. River habitat monitoring and assessment in Germany. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 127: 209–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kappes, H. & P. Haase, 2012. Slow, but steady: dispersal velocity and strategies of freshwater mollusks. Aquatic Sciences 74: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kappes, H., A. Sundermann & P. Haase, 2011. Distant land use affects terrestrial and aquatic habitats of high naturalness. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 2297–2309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kohler, A., 1978. Methoden der Kartierung von Flora und Vegetation von Süßwasserbiotopen. Landschaft und Stadt 10: 73–85.Google Scholar
  33. Kohler, A. & G. Janauer, 1997. Zur Methodik der Untersuchung von aquatischen Makrophyten in Fließgewässern. In Steinberg, C., H. Bernhardt & H. Klapper (eds), Handbuch Angewandte Limnologie. Ecomed Verlagsgesellschaft, Landsberg: 1–22.Google Scholar
  34. Langford, T. E. L., P. J. Shaw, A. J. D. Ferguson & S. R. Howard, 2009. Long-term recovery of macroinvertebrate biota in grossly polluted streams: re-colonisation as a constraint to ecological quality. Ecological Indicators 9: 1064–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. LAWA, 2000. Gewässerstrukturgütekartierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Verfahrensbeschreibung für Vor-Ort-Kartierungen kleiner bis mittelgroßer Fließgewässer. Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser, Schwerin.Google Scholar
  36. Lehrian, S., M. Bálint, P. Haase & S. U. Pauls, 2010. Genetic population structure of an autumn emerging caddisfly with inherently low dispersal capacity and insights into its phylogeography. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 1100–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lepori, F., D. Palm, E. Brännäs & B. Malmqvist, 2005. Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological Applications 15: 2060–2071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lorenz, A. W. & C. K. Feld, 2012, this issue. Upstream river morphology and riparian land use overrule local restoration effects on ecological status assessment. Hydrobiologia.Google Scholar
  39. Lorenz, A. W., T. Korte, A. Sundermann, K. Januschke & P. Haase, 2012. Macrophytes respond to reach-scale river restorations. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 202–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mainstone, C. P. & W. Parr, 2002. Phosphorus in rivers – ecology and management. The Science of the Total Environment 282: 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Matthaei, C. D., J. J. Piggott & C. R. Townsend, 2010. Multiple stressors in agricultural streams: interactions among sediment addition, nutrient enrichment and water abstraction. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 639–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meals, D. W., 1996. Watershed-scale response to agricultural diffuse pollution control programs in Vermont, USA. Water Science and Technology 33: 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Michl, T., S. Huck, T. Schmitt, A. Liebrich, P. Haase & B. Büdel, 2010. The molecular population structure of the tallforb Cicerbita alpina (L.) Wallr. (Asteraceae) supports the idea of cryptic glacial refugia in Central Europe. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 164: 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller, J. R. & R. C. Kochel, 2010. Assessment of channel dynamics, in-stream structures and post-project channel adjustments in North Carolina and its implications to effective stream restoration. Environmental Earth Science 59: 1681–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Muotka, T. & J. Syrjänen, 2007. Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective. Freshwater Biology 52: 724–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Pauls, S. U., H. T. Lumbsch & P. Haase, 2006. Phylogeography of the montane caddisfly Drusus discolor (Rambur, 1842) (Trichoptera: Limnephilidae, Drusinae): evidence for multiple refugia and periglacial survival. Molecular Ecology 15: 2153–2169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pottgiesser, T. & M. Sommerhäuser, 2004. Fließgewässertypologie Deutschlands: Die Gewässertypen und ihre Steckbriefe als Beitrag zur Umsetzung der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. In Steinberg, C., W. Calmano, R.-D. Wilken & H. Klapper (eds), Handbuch der Limnologie, 19. Erg. Lfg. 7/04. VIII-2.1. Ecomed Verlagsgesellschaft Landsberg: 1–16 + Anhang.Google Scholar
  49. Ricciardi, A. & D. Simberloff, 2009. Assisted colonization is not a viable conservation strategy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 248–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Sandin, L. & A. G. Solimini, 2009. Freshwater ecosystem structure–function relationships: from theory to application. Freshwater Biology 54: 2017–2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schaumburg, J., C. Schranz, J. Foerster, A. Gutowski, G. Hofmann, P. Meilinger, S. Schneider & U. Schmedtje, 2004. Ecological classification of macrophytes and phytobenthos for rivers in Germany according to the Water Framework Directive. Limnologica 34: 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Staniszewski, R., K. Szoszkiewicz, J. Zbierska, J. Lesny, S. Jusik & R. T. Clarke, 2006. Assessment of sources of uncertainty in macrophyte surveys and the consequences for river classification. Hydrobiologia 566: 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stoll, S., A. Sundermann, A. W. Lorenz, J. Kail & P. Haase, 2012. Small and impoverished regional species pools are a main challenge to the colonization of restored river reaches by fish. Freshwater Biology (in review).Google Scholar
  55. Stranko, S. A., R. H. Hildebrand & M. A. Palmer, 2012. Comparing the fish and benthic macroinvertebrate diversity of restored urban streams to reference streams. Restoration Ecology. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00824.x.
  56. Sundermann, A., S. U. Paul, R. T. Clarke & P. Haase, 2008. Within-stream variability of benthic invertebrate samples and EU Water Framework Directive assessment results. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 173: 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sundermann, A., C. Antons, N. Cron, A. Lorenz, D. Hering & P. Haase, 2011a. Hydromorphological restoration of running waters: effects on benthic invertebrate assemblages. Freshwater Biology 56: 1689–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sundermann, A., S. Stoll & P. Haase, 2011b. River restoration success depends on the species pool of the immediate surroundings. Ecological Applications 21: 1962–1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sweeney, B. W., 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in eastern North America. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 144: 291–340.Google Scholar
  60. Taubmann, J., K. Theissinger, K. A. Feldheim, I. Laube, W. Graf, P. Haase, J. Johannesen & S. U. Pauls, 2011. Modelling range shifts and assessing genetic diversity distribution of the montane aquatic mayfly Ameletus inopinatus in Europe under climate change scenarios. Conservation Genetics 12: 503–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. ter Braak, C. J. F. & P. Smilauer, 2003. Canoco for Windows 4.51. Biometrics. Plant Research International, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  62. Verdonschot, P. F. M., B. Spears, C. K. Feld, S. Brucet, H. Keizer-Vlek, I. Gunn, L. May, S. Meis, A. Borja, M. Elliott, M. Kernan & R. Johnson, this issue. A comparative review of recovery processes in rivers, lakes, estuarine and coastal waters. Hydrobiologia.Google Scholar
  63. Violin, C. R., P. Cada, E. B. Sudduth, B. A. Hassett, D. L. Penrose & E. S. Bernhardt, 2011. Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems. Ecological Applications 21: 1932–1949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vitt, P., K. Havens & O. Hoegh-Guldberg, 2009. Assisted migration: part of an integrated conservation strategy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 473–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wagenhoff, A., C. R. Townsend, N. Phillips & C. D. Matthaei, 2011. Subsidy-stress and multiple-stressor effects along gradients of deposited fine sediment and dissolved nutrients in a regional set of streams and rivers. Freshwater Ecology 56: 1916–1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Woolsey, S., F. Capelli, T. O. M. Gonser, E. Hoehn, M. Hostmann, B. Junker, A. Paetzold, C. Roulier, S. Schweizer, S. D. Tiegs, K. Tockner, C. Weber & A. Peter, 2007. A strategy to assess river restoration success. Freshwater Biology 52: 752–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Haase
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. Hering
    • 3
  • S. C. Jähnig
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. W. Lorenz
    • 3
  • A. Sundermann
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of River Ecology and ConservationSenckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum FrankfurtGelnhausenGermany
  2. 2.Biodiversity and Climate Research CentreFrankfurtGermany
  3. 3.Department of Aquatic EcologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations