Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 17, Supplement 1, pp 5–18 | Cite as

Setting targets in strategies for river restoration

  • Bas Pedroli
  • Geert de Blust
  • Kris van Looy
  • Sabine van Rooij
Article

Abstract

Since about 90% of the natural floodplain area of rivers in Europe has been reclaimed and now lacks river dynamics, nature rehabilitation along rivers is of crucial importance for the restoration of their natural function. Flood protection, self-purification of surface water, groundwater recharge, species protection and migration are all involved in this process. It is now generally recognised that rivers form natural arteries in Europe but are also of economic importance and are recognisable cultural landscape. Many examples are already available of successful small river restoration projects. Several species thought to be extinct have now reappeared and characteristic species have also expanded in recent years. This paper concentrates on the concept of setting targets for river restoration as exemplified by the Meuse River. A modelling exercise shows the restraints of current habitat configuration and the potential for habitat restoration along the river. A policy analysis, using a strategic approach, illustrates the influence of the decision making process on the targets for natural river development. River dynamics play a key factor in determining the potential for persistent populations of target animal species along the river, with the help of an expert system (LARCH, Landscape ecological Analysis and Rules for the Configuration of Habitat). The potentials for the increase of dispersion and biodiversity and the maximisation of ecological benefits at different scales, are also considered.

Habitat network Meuse Population persistence River restoration Setting targets 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amoros C. and Petts G.E. (eds) 1993. Hydrosystèmes Fluviaux. Macon, Paris.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous 1994. Natur 2000 in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Leitlinien und Leitbilder für Natur und Landschaft. Ministerium für Umwelt, Raumordnung und Landwirtschaft des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Dortmund, Germany.Google Scholar
  3. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Renaturierung Hochrhein 1996. Hochrhein Fachtagung 'Lebendiger Hochrhein'. Beiträge zur Umsetzung des Aktionsprogramms 'Rhein 2000'. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Renaturierung des Hochrheins, Basel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  4. Bayley P.B. 1991. The flood pulse advantage and the restoration of river-floodplain systems. Regul. Rivers Res. Man. 6: 75-86.Google Scholar
  5. Billen G., Décamps H., Garnier J., Boët P., Meybeck M., and Servais P. 1995. Atlantic river systems of Europe. In: C.E. Cushing, K.W. Cummins and G.W. Minshall (eds), River and Stream Ecosystems. Ecosystems of the world 22, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 389-418.Google Scholar
  6. Boon P.J. 1992. Essential Elements in the Case for River Conservation. In: P.J. Boon, P. Calow and G.E. Petts (eds), River Conservation and Management, Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 11-33.Google Scholar
  7. Cals M.J.R., Postma R., Buijse A.D., and Marteijn E.C.L. 1998. Habitat restoration along the River Rhine in The Netherlands: Putting ideas into practice. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 8: 61-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chardon J.P., Foppen R.P.B., and Geilen N. 2000. LARCH-RIVER, a method to assess the functioning of rivers as ecological networks. Europ. Water Manag. 3(6): 35-43.Google Scholar
  9. Dahm C.N., Cummins K.W., Valett H.M., and Coleman R.L. 1995. An ecosystem View of the Restoration of the Kissimmee River. Restor. Ecol. 3: 225-238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Blust G., Froment A., Kuijken E., Nef L., and Verheyen R. 1985. Biologische waarderingskaart van België. Algemene verklarende tekst. IHE, Brussel, Belgium.Google Scholar
  11. Foppen R.P.B. and Reijnen R. 1998. Ecological networks in riparian systems. Examples for Dutch floodplain rivers. In: P.H.Nienhuis, R.S.E.W. Leuven and A.M.J. Rages (eds), New Concepts for Sustainable Management of River Basins. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 85-94.Google Scholar
  12. Forman R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics. The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  13. Galloway G.E. 2000. Three centuries of river management along the Mississippi river: engineering and hydrological aspects. In: A.J.M. Smits, P.H. Nienhuis and R.S.E.W. Leuven (eds), New Approaches to River Management, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 51-64.Google Scholar
  14. Gore J.A. (ed.) 1985. The Restoration of Rivers and Streams: Theories and Experience. Butterworths/Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Havinga H. and Smits A.J.M. 2000. River management along the Rhine: A retrospective view. In: A.J.M. Smits, P.H. Nienhuis and R.S.E.W. Leuven (eds), New Approaches to River Management, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 15-32.Google Scholar
  16. Junk W.J., Bayley P.B. and Sparks, R.E. 1989. The flood-pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Spec. Publ. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106: 110-127.Google Scholar
  17. Kern K. 1992. Rehabilitation of Streams in South-west Germany. In: P.J. Boon, P. Calow and G.E. Petts (eds), River Conservation and Management, Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 321-335.Google Scholar
  18. Lenders H.J.R., Aarts B.G.W., Strijbosch H., and Van der Velde G. 1998. The role of reference and target images in ecological recovery of river systems: Lines of thought in The Netherlands. In: P.H. Nienhuis, R.S.E.W. Leuven and A.M.J. Ragas (eds), New Concepts for Sustainable Management of River Basins, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 35-52.Google Scholar
  19. Lorenz C.M., Van Dijk G.M., Van Hattum A.G.M., and W.P. Cofino 1997. Concepts in river ecology: Implications for indicator development. Regul. Rivers Res. Man. 13: 501-516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pedroli B. 1999. The Nature of Lowland Rivers: A Search for River Identity. In: J.A. Wiens and M.R. Moss (eds), Issues in Landscape Ecology, International Association for Landscape Ecology/University Guelph. Guelph, Canada, pp. 103-111.Google Scholar
  21. Pedroli G.B.M. and Postma R. 1998: Nature rehabilitation in European river ecosystems. Three cases. In: P.H. Nienhuis, R.S.E.W. Leuven and A.M.J. Rages (eds), New Concepts for Sustainable Management of River Basins, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 67-84.Google Scholar
  22. Pedroli B., Postma R., Rademakers J., and Kerkhofs S. 1996. Welke natuur hoort er bij de rivier? Naar een natuurstreefbeeld afgeleid van karakteristieke fenomenen van het rivierlandschap. Landschap 13: 97-113.Google Scholar
  23. Petts G. 1990. Water, engineering and landscape: development, protection and restoration. In: D. Cosgrove and G. Petts (eds), Water, Engineering and Landscape. Water Control and Landscape Transformation in the Modern Period, Belhaven Press, London/New York, NY, USA, pp. 188-208.Google Scholar
  24. Petts G.E. and Amoros C. 1996. The Fluvial Hydrosystem. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Petts G.E. and Bradley C. 1997. Hydrological and Ecological Interactions within River Corridors. In: R.L. Wilby (ed), Contemporary Hydrology, Towards Holistic Environmental Science. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 241-271.Google Scholar
  26. Reijnen R., Harms W.B., Foppen R.P.B., de Visser R., and Wolfert H.P. (1995). Rhine-Econet. Ecological Networks in River Rehabilitation Scenarios: A Case Study for the Lower Rhine. Publications and reports of the project 'Ecological Rehabilitation of the Rivers Rhine and Meuse' No. 58-1995. RIZA, Institute for InlandWaterManagement andWasteWater Treatment, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. Schama S. 1995. Landscape and Memory. HarperCollins, London, UK.Google Scholar
  28. Statzner B. and Higler B. 1986. Stream hydraulics as a major determinant of benthic invertebrate zonation patterns. Freshwater Biol. 16: 127-139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vanacker S., Van Looy K., and De Blust G. 1998. Typologie en habitatmodellering van de oevers van de Grensmaas. Rapport Instituut voor Natuurbehoud 98.4, Brussel, Belgium.Google Scholar
  30. Van der Kraats J.A. (ed.) 1994. Rehabilitation of the River Rhine. Water Science & Technology, Special Issue: Proceedings of the International Conference on Rehabilitation of the River Rhine 15-19 March 1993, Arnhem, The Netherlands. ]Google Scholar
  31. Van de Ven G.P. (ed.) 1993. Man-made Lowlands. History of water management and land reclamation in the Netherlands. Matrijs, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  32. Van Looy K. and De Blust G. 1995. De Maas natuurlijk?! Aanzet tot een grootschalig natuurontwikkelingsproject in de Grensmaasvallei. Wetenschappelijke Mededelingen van het Instituut voor Natuurbehoud 1995 (2), Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  33. Van Looy K. and Kurstjens G. 1997. Kerkeweerd: doorkijk naar de natuurontwikkeling langs de Grensmaas. Natuurhistorisch Maandblad 86: 155-159.Google Scholar
  34. Vannote R.L., Minshall G.W., Cummins K.W., Sedell J.R., and Cushing C.E. 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130-137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Verboom J., Foppen R., Chardon P., Opdam P., and Luttikhuizen P. 2001. Introducing the key patch approach for habitat networks with persistent populations: An example for marshland birds. Biol. Conserv. 100: 89-101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vos C.C., Verboom J., Opdam P.F.M., and Ter Braak C.J.F. 2001. Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am. Naturalist 157: 24-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ward J.V. 1989. The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 8: 2-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bas Pedroli
    • 1
  • Geert de Blust
    • 2
  • Kris van Looy
    • 2
  • Sabine van Rooij
    • 1
  1. 1.Landscape Ecology DeptartmentAlterra Green World ResearchWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Nature Conservation of the Flemish CommunityBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations