Advertisement

Floodplain Forests—Key Forest Ecosystems for Maintaining and Sustainable Management of Water Resources in Alluvial Landscape

  • I. MacharEmail author
  • H. Hager
  • V. Pechanec
  • J. Kulhavy
  • J. Mindas
Chapter
  • 74 Downloads
Part of the Springer Water book series (SPWA)

Abstract

Floodplain forests are considered as key forest ecosystems in lowland regions of the European temperate zone. Ecosystem services of floodplain forests are essential for maintaining and sustainable management of water resources. The ecological role of floodplain forest ecosystems in the landscape is emphasized in the context of global change because of flood risk management in landscapes along lowland European river. This chapter deals with these important functions of floodplain forests. Authors of the chapter contribute a large amount of their own professional experience and also utilize a large amount from published literature in the field of monitoring, research and management practice of the water regime and its consequences for floodplain forests from an European perspective. The aim of the case study from the Czech Republic is to fill the knowledge gaps related to the monetary evaluation of floodplain forest habitats endangered by the international water management project Danube–Oder–Elbe channel. The case study is based on published and unpublished research material both from the Czech Republic and also from sources of other European countries. The presented conclusions from this chapter can be of interest for the better understanding of the floodplain forests functions and sustainable management of floodplain forests and their protection in an European perspective.

Keywords

Environmental assessment Fluvial dynamics Groundwater Monetary value Natural habitats 

References

  1. 1.
    Flores BM, Holmgren M, Xu C, van Nes EH, Jakovac CC, Mesquita RCG, Scheffer M (2017) Floodplains as an Achilles’ heel of Amazonian forest resilience. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:4442–4446.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617988114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miranda ZP, Guedes MC, Batista APB, Silva da Silva DA (2018) Natural regeneration dynamics of Mora paraensis (Ducke) Ducke in Estuarine floodplain forests of the Amazon river. Forests 9:54.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f9020054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kopeć D, Ratajczyk N, Wolańska-Kamińska A, Walisch M, Kruk A (2014) Floodplain forest vegetation response to hydroengineering and climatic pressure – a five decade comparative analysis in the Bzura River valley (Central Poland). For Ecol Manag 314:120–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.11.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Madera P (2001) Effect of water regime changes on the diversity of plant communities in floodplain forests. Ekologia-Bratislava 20:116–129Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schnitzler A (1994) European alluvial hardwood forests of large floodplains. J Biogeogr 21:605–623.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2846035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klimo E, Hager H (2001) The floodplain forests in Europe. European Forest Institute, Leiden, p 267Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miko L (2012) Nature and landscape protection in the European context. In: Machar I, Drobilova L (eds) Ochrana Prirody a Krajiny v Ceske Republice, vols I and II. Palacky University, Olomouc, pp 43–49Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lockaby BG (2009) Floodplain ecosystems of the Southeast: linkages between forests and people. Wetlands 29:407–412.  https://doi.org/10.1672/08-44.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Douda J, Boublík K, Slezák M, Biurrun I, Nociar J, Havrdová A, Doudová J, Aćić S, Brisse H, Brunet J, Chytrý M, Claessens H, Csiky J, Didukh Y, Dimopoulos P, Dullinger S, FitzPatrick Ú, Guisan A, Horchler PJ, Hrivnák R, Jandt U, Kącki Z, Kevey B, Landucci F, Lecomte H, Lenoir J, Paal J, Paternoster D, Pauli H, Pielech R, Rodwell JS, Roelandt B, Svenning J-C, Šibík J, Šilc U, Škvorc Ž, Tsiripidis I, Tzonev RT, Wohlgemuth T, Zimmermann NE (2016) Vegetation classification and biogeography of European floodplain forests and alder carrs. Appl Veg Sci 19:147–163.  https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klimo E, Hager H (2008) Floodplain forests of the temperate zone of Europe. Lesnická práce, Kostelec nad Černými lesyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mamat Z, Halik Ü, Keyimu M, Keram A, Nurmamat K (2018) Variation of the floodplain forest ecosystem service value in the lower reaches of Tarim River, China. L Degrad Dev 29:47–57.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hubble TCT, Docker BB, Rutherfurd ID (2010) The role of riparian trees in maintaining riverbank stability: a review of Australian experience and practice. Ecol Eng 36:292–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krnacova Z, Hresko J, Vlachovicova M (2016) An evaluation of soil retention potential as an important factor of water balance in the landscape. Morav Geogr Rep 24:44–54.  https://doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2016-0016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jakubcova A, Grezo H, Hreskova A, Petrovic F (2014) Impacts of flooding on the quality of life in rural regions of Southers Slovakia. Appl Res Qual Life 11:221–237.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9363-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yuan Y, Binger RL, Locke MA (2009) A review of effectiveness of vegetative buffers on sediment trapping in agricultural areas. Ecohydrology 2:321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Machar I (2009) Conservation and management of floodplain forests in the protected landscape area Litovelske Pomoravi (Czech Republic). Palacky University, Olomouc, pp 7–108Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kiss M, Cseh V, Tanács E (2015) Carbon sequestration of different types of floodplain forests in the Maros River Valley (Hungary). In: Luc M, Somorowska U, Szmanda J (eds) Landscape analysis and planning: geographical perspectives. Springer Geography, Berlin, pp 159–171Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vrska T, Privetivy T, Janik D, Unar P, Samonil P, Kral K (2015) Deadwood residence time in alluvial hardwood temperate forests—a key aspects of biodiversity conservation. Foreco 357:33–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown AG, Harper D, Peterken GF (1997) European floodplain forests: structure, functioning and management. Glob Ecol Biogeogr Lett 6:169.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2997730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hager H, Sterba H, Margl H (1988) Vergleichende Grundlagenforschung; abgedämmte Au – geflutete Au. In: Fachzeitschrift Wettbewerbe: Wettbewerb Donauraum Wien, 12. pp 104–105Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turner MG, Gergel SE, Dixon MD, Miller JR (2004) Distribution and abundance of trees in floodplain forests of the Wisconsin River: environmental influences at different scales. J Veg Sci 15:729–738.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02315.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klimo E (1998) History, condition and management of floodplain forest ecosystems in Europe. In: Sassa K (ed) Environmental forest science. pp 173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Machar I (2012) Protection of nature and landscapes in the Czech Republic selected current issues and possibilities of their solution. In: Machar I, Drobilova L (eds) Ochrana Prirody a Krajiny v Ceske Republice, vols I and II. Palacky University, OlomoucGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodríguez-González PM, Albuquerque A, Martínez-Almarza M, Díaz-Delgado R (2017) Long-term monitoring for conservation management: lessons from a case study integrating remote sensing and field approaches in floodplain forests. J Environ Manag 202:392–402.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.01.067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simon J, Machar I, Brus J, Pechanec V (2015) Combining a growth-simulation model with acoustic-wood tomography as a decision-support tool for adaptive management and conservation of forest ecosystems. Ecol Inform. 30:309–312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simon J, Machar I, Bucek A (2014) Linking the historical research with growth-simulation model of hardwood floodplain forests. Pol J Ecol 62:375.  https://doi.org/10.3161/104.062.0208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chianucci F, Minari E, Fardusi M, Merlini P, Cutini A, Corona P, Mason F (2016) Relationships between overstory and understory structure and diversity in semi-natural mixed floodplain forests at Bosco Fontana (Italy). iForest—Biogeosci For 9:919–926.  https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1789-009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cunningham SC, Griffioen P, White MD, Nally RM (2018) Assessment of ecosystems: a system for rigorous and rapid mapping of floodplain forest condition for Australia’s most important river. L Degrad Dev 29:127–137.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glaeser J, Volk H (2009) The historical development of floodplain forests in Germany—a review. Allg Forst und Jagdzeitung 180:140–151Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Junior RFV, Varandas SGP, Pacheco FAL, Pereira VR, Santos CF, Cortes RMV, Fernandes LFS (2015) Impacts of land use on riverine ecosystems. Land Use policy 43:48–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cs Meek, Richardson DM, Mucina L (2010) A river runs through it: land-use and the composition of vegetation along a riparian corridor in the Cape Floristic region, South Africa. Biol Conserv 143:156–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bu H, Meng W, Zhang Y (2014) Spatial and seasonal characteristics of river water chemistry in the Taizi River in Northeast China. Envoron Monit Assess 186:3619–3632.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3644-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mori T, Murakami M, Saitoh T (2009) Latitudinal gradient in stream invertebrate assemblages at a regional scale on Hokkaido Island, Japan: latitudinal gradients in stream invertegrate assemblage. Freshw Biol 55:1520–1532.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02363.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hale BW, Alsum EM, Adams MS (2008) Changes in the floodplain forest vegetation of the lower Wisconsin river over the last fifty years. Am Midl Nat 160:454–476.  https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2008)160%5b454:citffv%5d2.0.co;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fernandes MR, Aguiar FC, Ferreira MT (2011) Assessing riparian vegetation structure and the influence of land use using landscape metrics and geostastical tools. Lansc Urban Plan 99:166–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kilianova H, Pechanec V, Brus J, Kirchner K, Machar I (2017) Analysis of the development of land use in the Morava River floodplain, with special emphasis on the landscape matrix. Moravian Geogr Rep 25(1):46–59.  https://doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2017-0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Machar I (2009) Changes to the fragmentation and ecological stability of the Morava River floodplain forest in the course of the 20th century. J For Sci 55(3):127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Petrasova-Sibíkova M, Bacigal T, Jarolimek I (2017) Fragmentation of hardwood floodplain forests—how does it affect species composition? Community Ecol 18:97–108.  https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2017.18.1.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Northcott K, Andersen DC, Cooper DJ (2007) The influence of river regulation and land use on floodplain forest regeneration in the semi-arid upper Colorado River Basin, USA. River Res Appl 23:565–577.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Repka R, Sebesta J, Madera P, Vahalík P (2015) Comparison of the floodplain forest floristic composition of two riparian corridors: species richness, alien species and the effect of water regime changes. Biologia (Bratisl) 70:208–217.  https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2015-0021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Horáckova J, Horsak M, Jurickova L (2014) Land snail diversity and composition in relation to ecological variations in Central European floodplain forests and their history. Community Ecol 15:44–53.  https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.15.2014.1.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Douda J (2010) The role of landscape configuration in plant composition of floodplain forests across different physiographic areas. J Veg Sci 21:1110–1124.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2010.01213.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Johnson SE, Mudrak EL, Waller DM (2014) Local increases in diversity accompany community homogenization in floodplain forest understories. J Veg Sci 25:885–896.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Haase D, Gläser J (2009) Determinants of floodplain forest development illustrated by the example of the floodplain forest in the District of Leipzig. For Ecol Manag 258:887–894.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Janik D, Adam D, Vrska T, Hort L, Unar P, Kral K, Samonil P, Horal D (2008) Tree layer dynamics of the Cahnov-Soutok near-natural floodplain forest after 33 years (1973–2006). Eur J For Res 127:337–345.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-008-0210-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schnitzler A, Hale BW, Alsum E (2005) Biodiversity of floodplain forests in Europe and eastern North America: a comparative study of the Rhine and Mississippi Valleys. Biodivers Conserv 14:97–117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-4056-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dufour S, Piégay H (2008) Geomorphological controls of Fraxinus excelsior growth and regeneration in floodplain forests. Ecology 89:205–215.  https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1768.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    De Jager NR, Swanson W, Strauss EA, Thomsen M, Yin Y (2015) Flood pulse effects on nitrification in a floodplain forest impacted by herbivory, invasion, and restoration. Wetl Ecol Manag 23:1067–1081.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-015-9445-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Collins BD, Montgomery DR, Fetherston KL, Abbe TB (2012) The floodplain large-wood cycle hypothesis: a mechanism for the physical and biotic structuring of temperate forested alluvial valleys in the North Pacific coastal ecoregion. Geomorphology 139–140:460–470.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jacobson R, Faust T (2014) Hydrologic connectivity of floodplains, Northern Missouri-implications for management and restoration of floodplain forest communities in disturbed landscapes. River Res Appl 30:269–286.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kosir P, Čarni A, Marinšek A, Šilc U (2013) Floodplain forest communities along the Mura River (NE Slovenia). Acta Bot Croat 72:71–95.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10184-012-0015-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Décamps H, Pinay G, Naiman RJ, Petts GE, McClain ME, Hillbricht-Ilkowska A, Hanley TA, Holmes RM, Quinn J, Gibert J, Planty Tabacchi AM, Schiemer F, Tabacchi E, Zalewski M (2004) Riparian zones: where biogeochemistry meets biodiversity in management practice. Pol J Ecol 52:3–18Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Swanson W, De Jager NR, Strauss E, Thomsen M (2017) Effects of flood inundation and invasion by Phalaris arundinacea on nitrogen cycling in an Upper Mississippi River floodplain forest. Ecohydrology 10(7):e1877.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Petrášová M, Jarolímek I, Medvecká J (2013) Neophytes in Pannonian hardwood floodplain forests—history, present situation and trends. For Ecol Manag 308:31–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Moelder A, Schneider E (2011) On the beautiful diverse Danube? Danubian floodplain forest vegetation and flora under influence of river eutrophication. River Res Appl 27:881–894.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Eberl W (1990) Vergleich des Wasser- unf Nährstoffhaushaltes von abgedämmten und offenen Auwaldstandorten östlich von Wien. Diploma Thesis Universität für Bodenkultur, Wien, 98pGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Slezak M, Hrivnak R, Machava J (2017) Environmental controls of plant species richness and species composition in black alder floodplain forests of central Slovakia. Tuexenia 37:79–94.  https://doi.org/10.14471/2017.37.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ricker MC, Lockaby BG (2015) Soil organic carbon stocks in a large eutrophic floodplain forest of the Southeastern Atlantic Coastal Plain, USA. Wetlands 35:291–301.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-014-0618-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Franklin SB, Kupfer JA, Pezeshki SR, Gentry R, Smith RD (2009) Complex effects of channelization and levee construction on western Tennessee floodplain forest function. Wetlands 29:451–464.  https://doi.org/10.1672/08-59.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Glaeser J, Wulf M (2009) Effects of water regime and habitat continuity on the plant species composition of floodplain forests. J Veg Sci 20:37–48.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.05282.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jurisić B, Vidicki B, Bojat NC, Puvaca N (2014) Floristic diversity of posavina’s floodplain forests in Serbia and their wider geographical context. Pak J Bot 46:447–456Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Van Looy K, Honnay O, Bossuyt B, Hermy M (2003) The effects of river embankment and forest fragmentation on the plant species richness and composition of floodplain forests in the Meuse Valley, Belgium. Belg J Bot 136:97–108Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kaminski B, Miler AT, Okoiiski B, Grajewski S, Schwartz K (2011) Floodplain forest technical and monitoring solutions for protection of the uroczysko Warta floodplain forest. Pol J Environ Stud 20:1193–1201Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lang P, Frei M, Ewald J (2011) Forest communities and site dependence of vegetation at the onset of restoration in the Danube floodplain between Neuburg and Ingolstadt. Tuexenia 31:39–57Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hager H, Haslinger R, Schume H (1999) Productivity and LAI of floodplain forest sites in relationship to water supply. Ekologia-Bratislava 18:5–14Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Schume H (2004) The influence of an altered groundwater regime on vessel properties of hybrid poplar. Trees 18:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Oszlanyi J (1995) Changes in ecological value of the Danube floodplain forest in last five decades. Ekologia-Bratislava 14:135–141Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Cejka T, Horsak M, Nemethova D (2007) The composition and richness of Danubian floodplain forest land snail faunas in relation to forest type and flood frequency. J Molluscan Stud 74:37–45.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eym041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Suchomel J, Heroldova M, Hadas P, Zejda J (2017) Effects of moisture conditions on the small mammal communities of floodplain forests in South Moravia (Czech Republic). Sumar List 141:557–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Pisut P, Uhercikova E (2000) A contribution to the knowledge of floodplain forest succession in Bratislava. Ekologia-Bratislava 19:157–180Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Terwei A, Zerbe S, Zeileis A, Annighöfer P, Kawaletz H, Mölder I, Ammer C (2013) Which are the factors controlling tree seedling establishment in North Italian floodplain forests invaded by non-native tree species? For Ecol Manag 304:192–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Deiller A-F, Walter J-MN, Trémolières M (2003) Regeneration strategies in a temperate hardwood floodplain forest of the Upper Rhine: sexual versus vegetative reproduction of woody species. For Ecol Manag 180:215–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00600-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kusner R (2003) Mortality patterns of Quercus, Tilia, and Fraxinus germinants in a floodplain forest on the river Elbe, Germany. For Ecol Manag 173:37–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00818-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sanchez-Pérez JM, Lucot E, Bariac T, Trémolières M (2008) Water uptake by trees in a riparian hardwood forest (Rhine floodplain, France). Hydrol Process 22:366–375.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Battaglia LL, Sharitz RR (2006) Responses of floodplain forest species to spatially condensed gradients: a test of the flood–shade tolerance tradeoff hypothesis. Oecologia 147:108–118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0245-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Stojanović DB, Levanič T, Matović B, Orlović S (2015) Growth decrease and mortality of oak floodplain forests as a response to change of water regime and climate. Eur J For Res 134:555–567.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0871-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Klimo E (2004) Fenomén lužních lesů v evropské krajině – jejich stav, ochrana a výzkum. Lužní les v Dyjsko-moravské nivě. Břeclav, Moraviapress, pp 173–182Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Penka M, Vyskot M, Klimo E, Vasicek F (1985) Floodplain forest ecosystem I. Before Water Management Measures. Academia, Praha, p 466Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Penka M, Vyskot M, Klimo E, Vasicek F (1991) Floodplain forest ecosystem II. After Water Management Measures. Academia, Praha, p 629Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hadas P, Prax A (2001) Sress factors of soil moisture regime in floodplain forests. Ekologia-Bratislava 20:143–162Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Madera P (2001) Response of the floodplain forest communities’ herb layer to changes in the water regime. Biologia (Bratisl) 56:63–72Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Madera P, Uradnicek L (2001) Growth response of oak (Quercus robur L.) and ash (Fraxinus angustifolia Vahl.) on changed conditions of the floodplain forest geobiocoene hydrological regime. Ekologia-Bratislava 20:130–142Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Cermak J, Prax A (2001) Water balance of a Southern Moravian floodplain forest under natural and modified soil water regimes and its ecological consequences. Ann For Sci 58:15–29.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:2001100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Oszlányi J (1999) Consequences of anthropic impact on Danube floodplain forests in Slovakia. Ekologia-Bratislava 18:103–110Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Somogyi Z, Szabados I, Veperdi G (1999) Growth and health of floodplain forests in the Szigetkoz (N-W Hungary) before and after diversion of the Danube: results of a ten-year monitoring. Ekologia-Bratislava 18:59–68Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Smelko S, Scheer L (2000) Dendrochronological analysis of diameter growth and increment of Pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) in Danube floodplain forests. Ekologia-Bratislava 19:125–140Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Schume H (1998) Wasserhaushaltsuntersuchungen an Hybridpappelbeständen in der weichen Au bei Altenwörth. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität für Bodenkultur, Wien, 129pGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Machar I, Vlckova V, Bucek A, Vozenilek V, Salek L, Jerabkova L (2017) Modelling of climate conditions in forest vegetation zones as a support tool for forest management strategy in European beech dominated forests. Forests 8:82.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f8030082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Machar I, Vozenilek V, Kirchner K, Vlckova V, Bucek A (2017) Biogeographic model of climate conditions for vegetation zones in Czechia. Geografie 122:64–82Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Machar I, Kirchner K, Pechanec V, Brus J, Kilianova H, Salek L, Bucek A (2015) Potential geo-ecological impact of the proposed danube-elbe-oder canal on alluvial landscapes in the Czech Republic. Moravian Geogr Rep 23(2):38–45.  https://doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2015-0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Pechanec V, Machar I, Pohanka T, Oprsal Z, Petrovic F, Svajda J, Salek L, Chobot K, Filippovova J, Cudlin P, Malkova J (2018) Effectiveness of Natura 2000 system for habitat types protection: a case study from the Czech Republic. Nat Conserv—Bul 24:21–41.  https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.24.21608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Chytry M, Kucera T, Koci M, Grulich V, Lustyk P (2010) Katalog biotopů České republiky. AOPK ČR, Praha, p 445Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Sejak J, Dejmal I (2003) Hodnocení a oceňování biotopů České republiky. Český ekologický ústav, Praha, p 422Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Pechanec V, Machar I, Sterbova L, Prokopova M, Kilianova H, Chobot K, Cudlin P (2017) Monetary valuation of forest natural habitats in protected areas. Forests 8:11.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ferraro PJ (2011) The future of payments for ecosystem services. Conserv Biol 25:1134–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01791.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Farley J, Costanza R (2010) Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol Econ 69:2060–2068.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Mac Nally R, Cunningham SC, Baker PJ, Horner GJ, Thomson JR (2011) Dynamics of Murray-Darling floodplain forests under multiple stressors: the past, present, and future of an Australian icon. Water Resour Res 47: W00G05.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2011wr010383
  98. 98.
    Leyer I, Mosner E, Lehmann B (2012) Managing floodplain-forest restoration in European river landscapes combining ecological and flood-protection issues. Ecol Appl 22:240–249.  https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0021.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Krzywicka AE, Pociask GE, Grimley DA, Matthews JW (2017) Hydrology and soil magnetic susceptibility as predictors of planted tree survival in a restored floodplain forest. Ecol Eng 103:275–287.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Lang P, Ewald J (2014) Predictive modelling and monitoring of Ellenberg moisture value validates restoration success in floodplain forests. Appl Veg Sci 17:543–555.  https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    De Steven D, Faulkner SP, Keeland BD, Baldwin MJ, McCoy JW, Hughes SC (2015) Understory vegetation as an indicator for floodplain forest restoration in the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley, USA. Restor Ecol 23:402–412.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Skowronek S, Terwei A, Zerbe S, Mölder I, Annighöfer P, Kawaletz H, Ammer C, Heilmeier H (2014) Regeneration potential of floodplain forests under the influence of nonnative tree species: soil seed bank analysis in Northern Italy. Restor Ecol 22:22–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Höfle R, Dullinger S, Essl F (2014) Different factors affect the local distribution, persistence and spread of alien tree species in floodplain forests. Basic Appl Ecol 15:426–434.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2014.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Stokes K, Ward K, Colloff M (2010) Alterations in flood frequency increase exotic and native species richness of understorey vegetation in a temperate floodplain eucalypt forest. Plant Ecol 211:219–233.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-010-9833-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Glaeser J, Schmidt PA (2007) The historical development of the composition of tree species in floodplain forests—demonstrated on the example floodplain forests in Leipzig. Allg Forst Und Jagdzeitung 178:90–97Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Anić I, Mestrović S, Matić S (2012) Important events in the history of forestry in Croatia. Sumarski List 136(3–4):169–177Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Cater M, Hladnik D (2004) Sustainable management of Slovenian floodplain forests at landscape level. In: Andersson F, Birot Y, Paivinen R (eds) Towards the sustainable use of Europe’s forests - forest ecosystem and landscape research: scientific challenges and opportunities. pp 41–49Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Kulhavy J (2004) A new concept in sustainable forest management—the need for forest ecosystem and landscape research. J For Sci (Prague) 50:520–525Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Spathelf P (2009) Sustainable forest management in a changing world: a European perspective, 19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3301-7-1
  110. 110.
    Della Rocca F, Stefanelli S, Pasquaretta C, Campanaro A, Bogliani G (2014) Effect of deadwood management on saproxylic beetle richness in the floodplain forests of northern Italy: some measures for deadwood sustainable use. J Insect Conserv 18:121–136.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9620-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Kappes H, Kopeć D, Sulikowska-Drozd A (2014) Influence of habitat structure and conditions in floodplain forests on Mollusc assemblages. Pol J Ecol 62:739–750.  https://doi.org/10.3161/104.062.0416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Machar I (2010) Attempt to summarize the problems: is a sustainable management of floodplain forest geobiocenoses possible? Biodiversity and target management of floodplain forests in the Morava River basin (Czech Republic). Palacky University, Olomouc. pp 189–226Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Bucek A, Machar I (2012) Application of landscape ecology in the assessment of anthropogenic impacts of the landscape. Palacky University, Olomouc, p 153Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Machar I, Simon J, Rejsek K, Pechanec V, Brus J, Kilianova H (2016) Assessment of forest management in protected areas based on multidisciplinary research. Forests 7:285.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f7110285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Pehlivanov L, Fikova R, Ivanova N, Kalchev R, Kazakov S, Pavlova M, Doncheva S (2014) Analysis of ecosystem services of wetlands along the Bulgarian section of the Danube River. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, suppl 7:103–107Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Dobrovolny L, Martinik A, Drvodelić D, Orsanić M (2017) Structure, yield and acorn production of oak (Quercus robur L.) dominated floodplain forests in the Czech Republic and Croatia. SEEFOR—South-East Eur For 8:127–136.  https://doi.org/10.15177/seefor.17-18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Machar I, Cermak P, Pechanec V (2018) Ungulate browsing limits bird diversity of the Central European hardwood floodplain forests. Forests 9:373.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f9070373CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Machar
    • 1
    Email author
  • H. Hager
    • 2
  • V. Pechanec
    • 3
  • J. Kulhavy
    • 4
  • J. Mindas
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Development and Environmental Studies, Faculty of SciencePalacky UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Forest EcologyUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of SciencePalacky UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of Forest Ecology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood ScienceMendel UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  5. 5.Department of Ecology and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Central EuropeSkalicaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations