, Volume 712, Issue 1, pp 89–104 | Cite as

A comparison of habitat diversity and interannual habitat dynamics in actively and passively restored mountain rivers of Germany

  • Sonja C. Jähnig
  • Armin W. Lorenz
  • Rainer R. C. Lorenz
  • Jochem Kail


We compared habitat diversity and morphodynamics of ‘actively’ restored reaches (including removal of bank fixation, widening and large wood placement) with ‘passively’ restored reaches (abandonment of channel maintenance) and adjacent non-restored control reaches in medium-sized Central European mountain rivers. Habitat diversity and river morphology were mapped in two consecutive years and changes in habitat composition (channel features, substrates) and morphological changes (active depth and width) were quantified. In both years, habitat diversity was generally higher in the restored reaches compared to their non-restored counterparts, and significantly differed between restoration approaches, with average values in actively restored reaches being about 60% larger than in passively restored reaches. Channel feature composition differed significantly, both between restored and unrestored reaches, and between restoration approaches, whereas substrate composition was similar in all investigated reaches, indicating that restoration had a higher effect on mesohabitat than on microhabitat conditions. Interannual habitat dynamics in respect to channel feature composition were larger in the actively restored compared to the passively restored reaches, while substrate composition remained fairly constant in all reaches. Regarding morphodynamics, changes in depth and width of actively restored reaches differed significantly from changes in passively restored ones in three of the four elements compared. Our findings imply increased habitat richness, diversity and habitat dynamics in the restored reaches, especially in actively restored ones. Analysis of discharge data suggests that flood events exceeding critical shear stress of the bed material, and the time span since restoration determine the potential for morphological changes.


Active restoration Passive restoration Habitat diversity Morphodynamics Annual changes Hydromorphology Critical shear stress Floods 



This study was funded by the EU Integrated Project Euro-Limpacs (GOCE-CT-2003-505540). The first author received financial support by a PhD Scholarship of the German Business Foundation (Stiftung der Deutschen Wirtschaft) and the research funding programme ‘LOEWE—Landes-Offensive zur Entwicklung Wissenschaftlich-ökonomischer Exzellenz’ of Hesse’s Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and the Arts. We are grateful to several authorities for providing information and data, particularly to Herbert Diehl and Wolfgang Klump from the Hesse State Environmental Agency in Giessen and Wiesbaden for various types of information on the Lahn sites, and the State Environmental Agencies in Cologne, Siegen and Trier for providing discharge data.


  1. Arscott, D. B., K. Tockner, D. van den Nat & J. V. Ward, 2002. Aquatic habitat dynamics along a braided alpine river ecosystem (Tagliamento River, Northeast Italy). Ecosystems 5: 802–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aufleger, M., T. Hafner, A. Niedermayr, M. Schindler & M. Schmautz, 2005. Uferrückbau und eigendynamische Entwicklung von geschiebeführenden Flüssen – Ergebnisse von physikalischen und numerischen Modelluntersuchungen. Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft 57: 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Böhmer, J., C. Rawer-Jost, A. Zenker, C. Meier, C. K. Feld, R. Biss & D. Hering, 2004. Assessing streams in Germany with benthic invertebrates: development of a multimetric invertebrate based assessment system. Limnologica 34: 416–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boscaini, A., A. Franceschini & B. Maiolini, 2000. River ecotones: carabid beetles as a tool for quality assessment. Hydrobiologia 422(423): 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Church M., & K. Rood, 1983. Catalogue of alluvial river channel regime data. Technical Report, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  6. CLC, 2000. Corine landcover cover. Umweltbundesamt, DLR-DFD 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Dufour, S., N. Barsoum, E. Muller & H. Piégay, 2007. Effects of channel confinement on pioneer woody vegetation structure, composition and diversity along the River Drôme (SE France). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32: 1244–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eaton, B. C., R. G. Millar & S. Davidson, 2010. Channel patterns: braided, anabranching, and single-thread. Geomorphology 120: 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Gurnell, A., 1997. The hydrological and geomorphological significance of forested floodplains. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 6: 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Habitat Directive, 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [available on internet at]. Accessed 28 Dec 2011.
  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. HMULV (Environmental Ministry of Hesse), 2008. Informationssystem zur Auswahl effizienter Renaturierungsmaßnahmen (Information system to select efficient stream restoration measures) (in German) [available on internet at]. Accessed 11 July 2008.
  14. Hohensinner, S., M. Jungwirth, A. Drescher, G. Egger, G. Haidvogl, S. Muhar, S. Preis & S. Schmutz, 2005. Reconstruction of spatio-temporal habitat dynamics of the Danube river-floodplain system in the Austrian Machland 1812–1991. Geophysical Research Abstracts 7: 08127.Google Scholar
  15. Jähnig, S. C., A. W. Lorenz & D. Hering, 2008. Hydromorphological parameters indicating differences between single- and restored mountain rivers in Germany, in relation to their modification and recovery. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 1200–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jähnig, S. C., A. W. Lorenz & D. Hering, 2009a. Restoration effort, habitat mosaics, and macroinvertebrates—does channel form determine community composition? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19: 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jähnig, S. C., S. Brunzel, S. Gacek, A. W. Lorenz & D. Hering, 2009b. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Kail, J., D. Hering, S. Muhar, S. Preis & M. Gerhard, 2007. The use of large wood in stream restoration: experiences from 50 projects in Germany and Austria. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 1145–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kauffman, J. B., R. L. Beschta, N. Otting & D. Lytjen, 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 22: 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kleinhans, M. & J. H. van den Berg, 2011. River channel and bar patterns explained and predicted by an empirical and a physics-based method. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 36: 721–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knighton, D., 1998. Fluvial forms and processes: a new perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, NY.Google Scholar
  23. Kondolf, G. M., 1998. Lessons learned from river restoration projects in California. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kondolf, G. M., 2000. Some suggested guidelines for geomorphic aspects of anadromous salmonid habitat restoration proposals. Restoration Ecology 8: 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. LUA NRW, 2001a. Merkblätter Nr. 29: Referenzgewässer der Fließgewässertypen Nordrhein-Westfalens, Teil 2: Mittelgroße bis große Fließgewässer—Gewässerabschnitte und Referenzstrukturen, Landesumweltamt Nordrhein–Westfalen, Essen: 249 pp.Google Scholar
  27. LUA NRW, 2001b. Merkblätter Nr. 34: Leitbilder für die mittelgroßen bis großen Fließgewässer in Nordrhein-Westfalen–Flusstypen—Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen, Essen: 131 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Marston, R. A., J. Girel, G. Pautou, H. Piégay, J.-P. Bravard & C. Arnseon, 1995. Channel metamorphosis, floodplain disturbance, and vegetation development: Ain River, France. Geomorphology 13: 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Millar, R. G., 2005. Theoretical regime equations for mobile gravel-bed rivers with stable banks. Geomorphology 64: 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Naiman, R. J. & H. Decamps, 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 621–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neill C., 1973. Hydraulic and morphologic characteristics of Athabasca River near Forth Assiniboine: the anatomy of a wandering gravel bed river. Technical Report REH/73/8. Alberta Research Council, Highways and River Engineering Division, Edmonton.Google Scholar
  32. Parker, G., P. R. Wilcock, C. Paola, W. E. Dietrich & J. Pitlick, 2007. Physical basis for quasi-universal relationships describing bankfull hydraulic geometry of single-thread gravel bed rivers. Journal of Geophysical Research 112: F04005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pätzold, A., C. Schubert & K. Tockner, 2005. Aquatic-terrestrial linkages along a braided river: riparian arthropods feeding on aquatic insects. Ecosystems 8: 748–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piégay, H., 2003. Dynamics of wood in large rivers. In Gregory, S. V., K. L. Boyer & A. M. Gurnell (eds), The ecology and management of wood in world rivers—American Fisheries Society Symposium 2000, Vol. 37. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD: 109–133.Google Scholar
  35. Piégay, H., G. Grant, F. Nakamura & N. Trustrum, 2006. Braided river management: from assessment of river behaviour to improved sustainable development. In Sambrook-Smith, G. H., J. L. Best, C. S. Bristow & G. E. Petts (eds), Braided rivers: process, deposits, ecology and management; special publication 36 of the international association of sedimentologist. Blackwell, Oxford: 257–275.Google Scholar
  36. Reich, M., 1991. Grasshoppers (Orthoptera, Saltatoria) on Alpine and prealpine riverbanks and their use as indicators for natural floodplain dynamics. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 47: 333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Rohde, S., F. Kienast & M. Bürgi, 2004. Assessing the restoration success of river Widenings: a landscape approach. Environmental Management 34: 574–589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rohde, S., M. Hostmann, A. Peter & K. C. Ewald, 2006. Room for rivers: an integrative search strategy for floodplain restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 78: 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollock & G. R. Pess, 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shannon, C. E. & W. Weaver, 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL: 187.Google Scholar
  42. Sommerhäuser, M. & T. Pottgiesser, 2005. Die Fließgewässertypen Deutschlands als Beitrag zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. In Feld, C., S. Rödiger, M. Sommerhäuser & G. Friedrich (eds), Typologie, Bewertung, Management von Oberflächengewässern. E. Scheizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart: 13–27.Google Scholar
  43. Steiger, J., E. Tabacchi, S. Dufour, D. Corenblit & J. L. Peiry, 2005. Hydrogeomorphic processes affecting riparian habitat within alluvial channel-floodplain river systems: a review for the temperate zone. River Research and Applications 21: 719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tabacchi, E., L. Lambs, H. Guilloy, A.-M. Planty-Tabacchi, E. Muller & H. Décamps, 2000. Impacts of riparian vegetation on hydrological processes. Hydrological Processes 14: 2959–2976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tockner, K., U. Karaus, A. Paetzold, C. Claret & J. Zettel, 2006. Ecology of braided rivers. In Sambrook Smith, G., J. L. Best, C. Bristow & G. E. Petts (eds), Braided rivers. IAS special publication. Blackwell Publisher, Oxford: 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van den Berg, J. H., 1995. Prediction of alluvial channel pattern of perennial rivers. Geomorphology 12: 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ward, J. V., F. Malard & K. Tockner, 2002a. Landscape ecology: a framework for integrating pattern and process in river corridors. Landscape Ecology 17(Suppl 1): 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ward, J. V., K. Tockner, D. B. Arscott & C. Claret, 2002b. Riverine landscape diversity. Freshwater Biology 47: 517–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wohl, E., P. L. Angermeier, B. Bledsoe, G. M. Kondolf, L. MacDonnell, D. M. Merritt, M. A. Palmer, N. L. Poff & D. Tarboton, 2005. River restoration. Water Resources Research 41: W10301.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonja C. Jähnig
    • 1
  • Armin W. Lorenz
    • 2
  • Rainer R. C. Lorenz
    • 3
  • Jochem Kail
    • 4
  1. 1.Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F) & Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum, Department of River Ecology and ConservationGelnhausenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Aquatic Ecology, Faculty of BiologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  3. 3.Lorenz TexResearch GmbHNettetalGermany
  4. 4.Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations