Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Upstream river morphology and riparian land use overrule local restoration effects on ecological status assessment

  • WATER BODIES IN EUROPE
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

River restoration is a central issue of present-day River Basin Management. Unfortunately, many studies have shown limited ecological improvements, hypothesizing catchment influences and missing donor populations as main impeding factors. This study evaluates the ecological status after restoration at 46 river reaches in light of catchment influences upstream. Three groups of environmental parameters were investigated: (i) riparian land use and (ii) physical habitat quality in different lengths upstream of the restorations and (iii) land use in the whole catchment upstream. Ecological quality ratios of standardized fish, invertebrate and macrophyte samples were used as response variables. The results imply that sub-catchment variables influence the ecological status more than local habitat improvements. In particular, fish and invertebrate ecological status was positively linked to percent deciduous forest upstream of restored sites, while macrophytes revealed an opposite trend. Furthermore, we found a strong linkage of site-scale ecological status and physical habitat quality up to 5 km upstream of the restorations; the more natural were riparian land use and river habitat quality upstream, the higher was the chance of a good ecological quality in restored reaches. We conclude that site-scale restoration measures are likely to be unsuccessful, if the sub-catchment physical habitat upstream is degraded.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, G. G. & J. D. Allan, 2007. Ecological success in stream restoration: case studies from the Midwestern United States. Environmental Management 40: 245–255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allan, J. D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 35: 257–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt, 2006. Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos [available on internet at http://www.lfu.bayern.de/wasser/gewaesserqualitaet_seen/phylib_deutsch/index.htm]. Accessed 31 July 2011.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamini, Y. & Y. Hochberg, 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 57: 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, E. S. & M. A. Palmer, 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to repair catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications 21: 1926–1931.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, E. S., M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. 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 US river restoration efforts. Science 308: 636–637.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Castelle, A. J., A. W. Johnson & C. Conolly, 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements—a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 878–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahm, V., D. Hering, D. Nemitz, W. Graf, A. Schmidt-Kloiber, M. Seebacher, A. Melcher & C.K. Feld, 2012. Effects of physico-chemistry, land use and hydromorphology on three riverine organism groups: A comparative analysis with monitoring data from Germany and Austria. Hydrobiologia, this issue.

  • Dosskey, M. G., 2001. Toward quantifying water pollution abatement in response to installing buffers on crop land. Environmental Management 28: 577–598.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dußling, U., 2007. FiBS 8.0—Softwareanwendung zum Bewertungsverfahren aus dem Verbundprojekt zur Entwicklung eines Bewertungsschemas zur ökologischen Klassifizierung von Fließgewässern anhand der Fischfauna gemäß EG-WRRL; Website der Fischereiforschungsstelle Baden-Württemberg [available on internet at http://www.LVVG-BW.de]. Accessed Sept 2011.

  • Dußling, U., R. Berg, H. Klinger & C. Wolter, 2004. VIII-7.4 Assessing the ecological status of river systems using fish assemblages. In Steinberg, C., W. Calmano, H. Klapper & R. D. Wilken (eds), Handbuch Angewandte Limnologie. Ecomed, Landsberg am Lech: 1–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entrekin, S. A., J. L. Tank, E. J. Rosi-Marshall, T. J. Hoellein & G. A. Lamberti, 2008. Responses in organic matter accumulation and processing to an experimental wood addition in three headwater streams. Freshwater Biology 53: 1642–1657.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feld, C. K., S. Birk, D. C. Bradley, D. Hering, J. Kail, A. Marzin, A. Melcher, D. Nemitz, M. L. Petersen, F. Pletterbauer, D. Pont, P. F. M. Verdonschot & N. Friberg, 2011. From natural to degraded rivers and back again: a test of restoration ecology theory and practice. Advances in Ecological Research 44: 119–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haase, P., S. Lohse, S. Pauls, K. Schindehütte, A. Sundermann, P. Rolauffs & D. Hering, 2004. Assessing streams in Germany with benthic invertebrates: development of a practical standardised protocol for macroinvertebrate sampling and sorting. Limnologica 34: 349–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haase, P., D. Hering, S. C. Jähnig, A. W. Lorenz & A. Sundermann, 2012. The impact of hydromorphological restoration on river ecological status: a comparison of fish, benthic invertebrates, and macrophytes. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-012-1255-1.

  • Harding, J. S., E. F. Benfield, P. V. Bolstad, G. S. Helfman & E. B. D. Jones, 1998. Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 14843–14847.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, S. S. C., J. L. Pretty, D. Shepherd, A. G. Hildrew, C. Smith & R. D. Hey, 2004. The effect of instream rehabilitation structures on macroinvertebrates in lowland rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 1140–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hering, D., R. K. Johnson, S. Kramm, S. Schmutz, K. Szoszkiewicz & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2006. Assessment of European rivers with diatoms, macrophytes, invertebrates and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress. Freshwater Biology 51: 1757–1785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illies, J., 1978. Limnofauna Europaea. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jähnig, S. C., K. Brabec, A. Buffagni, S. Erba, A. W. Lorenz, T. Ofenböck, P. F. M. Verdonschot & D. Hering, 2010. A comparative analysis of restoration measures and their effects on hydromorphology and benthic invertebrates in 26 central and southern European rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 671–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, A., 1978. Methoden der Kartierung von Flora und Vegetation von Süßwasserbiotopen. Landschaft und Stadt 10: 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langler, G. J. & C. Smith, 2001. Effects of habitat enhancement on 0-group fishes in a lowland river. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 17: 677–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LAWA (Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser) (ed.), 2000. Gewässerstrukturgütekartierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland—Verfahren für kleine und mittelgroße Fließgewässer. Kulturbuchverlag, Schwerin.

  • Lepori, F., D. Palm, E. Brännäs & B. Malmquist, 2005. Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological Applications 15: 2060–2071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LUA (Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen) (ed.), 2001. Gewässerstrukturgüte in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Anleitung für die Kartierung mittelgroßer bis großer Fließgewässer—Merkblätter 26. Selbstverlag, Essen.

  • Marzin, A., V. Archaimbault, J. Belliard, C. Chauvin, F. Delmas & D. Pont, 2012a. Ecological assessment of running waters: do macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, diatoms and fish show similar responses to human pressures? Ecological Indicators 23: 56–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marzin, A., P.F.M. Verdonschot & D. Pont, 2012b. The relative influence of catchment, riparian corridor, and reach-scale anthropogenic pressures on fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages in French rivers. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-012-1254-2.

  • Meier, C., D. Hering, P. Haase, A. Sundermann & J. Böhmer, 2005. Die Bewertung von Fließgewässern mit dem Makrozoobenthos. In Feld, C. K., S. Rödiger, M. Sommerhäuser & G. Friedrich (eds), Typologie, Bewertung, Management von Oberflächengewässern. Stand der Forschung zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart. Limnologie aktuell 11: 76–90.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, L. L. & D. A. Kovacic, 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 29: 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M. A., H. L. Menninger & E. S. Bernhardt, 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology 55: 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkyn, S. M., R. J. Davies-Colley, N. J. Halliday, K. J. Costley & G. F. Croker, 2003. Planted riparian buffer zones in New Zealand: do they live up to expectations? Restoration Ecology 11: 436–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, M. J. & J. L. Meyer, 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 32: 333–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. W. & T. J. Kwak, 2000. Use of rehabilitated habitat by brown trout and rainbow trout in an Ozark tailwater river. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: 737–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roni, P., T. Bennett, S. Morley, G. R. Pess, K. Hanson, D. Van Slyke & P. Olmstead, 2006. Rehabilitation of bedrock stream channels: the effects of boulder placement on aquatic habitat and biota. River Research and Applications 22: 967–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaumburg, J., C. Schranz, P. Meilinger, D. Stelzer, G. Hofmann, J. Foerster, A. Gutowski, S. Schneider, B. Köpf & U. Schmedtje, 2005. Makrophyten und Phytobenthos in Fließgewässern und Seen—Das deutsche Bewertungsverfahren: Entwicklung, Praxistest und Ausblick. Limnologie aktuell 11: 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields, F. D., S. S. Knight & J. M. Stofleth, 2006. Large wood addition for aquatic habitat rehabilitation in an incised, sand-bed stream, Little Topashaw Creek, Mississippi. River Research and Applications 22: 803–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, S., A. Sundermann, A. W. Lorenz, J. Kail & P. Haase, 2012. Small and impoverished regional species pools are a major challenge to the colonization of restored river reaches by fish. Freshwater Biology (personal communications).

  • Stranko, S. A., R. H. Hilderbrand & M. A. Palmer, 2011. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundermann, A., S. Stoll & P. Haase, 2011. River restoration success depends on the species pool of the immediate surroundings. Ecological Applications 21: 1962–1971.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tullos, D. D., D. L. Penrose, G. D. Jennings & W. G. Cope, 2009. Analysis of functional traits in reconfigured channels: implications for the bioassessment and disturbance of river restoration. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28: 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The collation of restoration data was funded by the Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, Bonn and the Hessisches Ministerium für Umwelt, ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz, Wiesbaden. We would like to thank Peter Haase and Andrea Sundermann, Senckenberg Research Institute, Frankfurt, Planungsbüro Koenzen, Hilden and staff members of the Department of Aquatic Ecology at the University of Duisburg-Essen for providing additional data. The study was part of the research project WISER (Water bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological status and Recovery) and has been funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, Theme 6 (Environment including Climate Change) (Contract No. 226273), www.wiser.eu.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Aquatic Ecology, Faculty of Biology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitaetsstr. 5, 45141, Essen, Germany

    Armin W. Lorenz & Christian K. Feld

  2. Centre for Water and Environmental Research (ZWU), University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitaetsstr. 2, 45141, Essen, Germany

    Christian K. Feld

Authors
  1. Armin W. Lorenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian K. Feld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armin W. Lorenz.

Additional information

Guest editors: C. K. Feld, A. Borja, L. Carvalho & D. Hering / Water bodies in Europe: integrative systems to assess ecological status and recovery

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 89 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lorenz, A.W., Feld, C.K. Upstream river morphology and riparian land use overrule local restoration effects on ecological status assessment. Hydrobiologia 704, 489–501 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1326-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1326-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation