Advertisement

Floodplain Connectivity

  • József DezsőEmail author
  • Dénes Lóczy
  • Ali Mohamed Salem
  • Gábor Nagy
Chapter
Part of the Springer Geography book series (SPRINGERGEOGR)

Abstract

Floodplains fulfil vital ecosystem services (supporting water management, biodiversity, agricultural production, ecotourism and others). Since a satisfactory water supply is indispensable for the provision of such services, in addition to longitudinal channel connectivity, lateral channel/floodplain hydrological connectivity is of primary importance. As a consequence of river regulation, however, floodplains shrunk considerably in area, ‘protected’ floodplains connection with the river channel which had produced them and became severely threatened ecosystems. In the Drava Plain, too, disconnected (or ‘geographically isolated’) oxbows became typical. With reduced surface connectivity, groundwater flow becomes the main driver of connecting processes (profundal type of oxbow). Effective porosity and hydraulic conductivity of alluvial deposits and seepage from an oxbow lake (the degree of clogging of floor deposits) were calculated to estimate groundwater movements and to reveal water exchange between oxbow lakes and the active river channel. Subsurface connectivity under drought conditions was simulated by hydrological modelling with the help of HYDRUS-1D and MODFLOW 6 packages. Planning rehabilitation efforts subsurface connectivity too should be considered.

Keywords

Channel/floodplain connectivity Land drainage Groundwater flow Hydraulic conductivity Seepage Hydraulic modelling Rehabilitation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for financial support from the Hungarian National Scientific Fund (OTKA, contract no. 104552) and for cooperation with the South-Transdanubian Water Management Directorate.

References

  1. Ambroise B (2004) Variable ‘active’ versus ‘contributing’ areas or periods: a necessary distinction. Hydrol Process 18:1149–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ameli AA, Craig JR (2014) Semianalytical series solutions for three-dimensional groundwater-surface water interaction. Water Resour Res 50:3893–3906.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ameli AA, Creed IF (2017) Quantifying hydrologic connectivity of wetlands to surface water systems. Hydrol Earth Syst Scient Discuss 21(3):1791–1808.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2016-404, 2016
  4. Amoros C, Bornette G (2002) Connectivity and biocomplexity in water bodies of riverine floodplains. Freshw Biol 47:761–776.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00905.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. APFM-WMO (2017) Selecting measures and designing strategies for integrated flood management. Associated Programme on Flood Management. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva. 35 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Bracken LJ, Croke J (2007) The concept of hydrological connectivity and its contribution to understanding runoff-dominated geomorphic systems. Hydrol Process 21:1749–1763.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6313
  7. Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA (2005) Geomorphology and river management. Applications of the river styles framework. Blackwell Publishing, Carlton, Victoria, p 398Google Scholar
  8. Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA, Jain V (2006) Landscape connectivity: the geographic basis of geomorphic applications. Area 38(2):165–174.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00671.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA (2008) River futures. an integrative scientific approach to river repair. Island Press, Washington, DC. 328 pp (The Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration Series)Google Scholar
  10. Brinson MM, Rheinhardt RD, Hauser FR, Lee LC, Nutter WL, Smith D, Whigham D (1995) A Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands. Wetlands Research Program, Technical Report WRP-DE-11: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. http://www.water-research.net/Waterlibrary/geologicdata/riverinehydrodynamics.pdf
  11. Brunner P, Simmons CT, Cook PG, Therrien R (2010) Modeling surface water-groundwater interaction with MODFLOW: some considerations. Groundwater 48(2):174–180.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00644.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Croke J, Fryirs K, Thompson C (2013) Channel–floodplain connectivity during an extreme flood event: implications for sediment erosion, deposition, and delivery. Earth Surf Proc Land 38:1444–1456.  https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawidek J, Ferencz B (2014) Water balance of selected floodplain lake basins in the Middle Bug River valley. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:1457–1465.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1457-2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawidek J, Turczyński M (2006) Recharge of lakes with river waters in the Middle Bug valley. Limnol Rev 7:65–72Google Scholar
  15. DDKÖVÍZIG (2012) Revitalization of the Cún-Szaporca oxbow system. Final Master Plan. South-Transdanubian Environment and Water Directorate, Pécs. 100 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Dezső J, Halász A, Czigány Sz, Tóth G, Lóczy D (2017) Estimating seepage loss during water replenishment to a floodplain oxbow: a case study from the Drava Plain. Geografia física e dinamica quaternaria 40(1):61–75.  https://doi.org/10.4461/GFDQ2017.40.6
  17. Downs PW, Thorne CR (2000) Rehabilitation of a lowland river: reconciling flood defence with habitat diversity and geomorphological sustainability. J Environ Manage 58:249–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Commission European (2000) Directive 2000/60/EEC. Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off J Europ Commun, Luxemburg L327:1–71Google Scholar
  19. Fryirs K (2013) (Dis)connectivity in catchment sediment cascades: a fresh look at the sediment delivery problem. Earth Surface Proc Landforms 38:30–46.  https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ (2000) A geomorphic approach for the identification of river recovery potential. Phys Geogr 21:244–277Google Scholar
  21. Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ (2016) Assessing the geomorphic recovery potential of rivers: forecasting future trajectories of adjustment for use in management. Water 3(5):727–748.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ, Preston NJ, Spencer J (2007) Catchment-scale (dis)connectivity in sediment flux in the upper Hunter catchment, New South Wales, Australia. Geomorphology 84:297–316.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.01.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallant J, Dowling T (2003) A multi-resolution index of valley bottom flatness for mapping depositional areas. Water Resour Res 39:1347–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Golden HE, Lane CR, Amatya DM, Bandilla KW, Kiperwas HR, Knightes CD, Ssegane H (2014) Hydrologic connectivity between geographically isolated wetlands and surface water systems: a review of select modeling methods. Environ Model Softw 53:190–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW (1991) An ecosystem perspective ofriparian zones. Bioscience 41:540–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hohensinner S, Jungwirth M, Muhar S, Schmutz S (2011) Spatio-temporal habitat dynamics in a changing Danube River landscape, 1812–2006. River Res Appl 27:939–955.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1407
  27. Hooke J (2003) Coarse sediment connectivity in river channel systems: a conceptual framework and methodology. Geomorphology 56:79–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(03)00047-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hudson PF (2010) Floodplain lake formation and dynamics in the lower reaches of the large texas coastal plain rivers: Brazos, Guadalupe, and San Antonio Rivers. Austin: Texas Water Development Board, Report no. 0600010583. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/RWPG/rpgm_rpts/IndividualReportPages/0600010583.asp
  29. Jacobson RB, Chojnacki KA, Reuter JM (2007) Land capability potential index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River valley. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA19 pp (Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5256)Google Scholar
  30. Jacobson RB, Janke TP, Skold JJ (2011) Hydrologic and geomorphic considerations in restoration of river-floodplain connectivity in a highly altered river system, Lower Missouri River, USA. Wetlands Ecol Manag 19:295–316.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-011-9217-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE (1989) The flood pulse concept in river floodplain systems. In: Dodge DP (ed) Proceedings of the international large river symposium fisheries and oceans. Ottawa. 110–127Google Scholar
  32. Kelly BP (2001) Relations among river stage, rainfall, ground-water levels, and stage at two missouri river flood-plain wetlands. USGS water-resources investigations report 01–4123, 18 pp. https://mo.water.usgs.gov/Reports/01-4123-kelly/index.htm
  33. Kondolf GM, Anderson S, Lave R, Pagano L, Merenlender A, Bernhardt ES (2007) Two decades of river restoration in california: what can we learn? Restor Ecol 15(3):516–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kupfer JA, Meitzen KM, Pipkin AR (2010) Hydrogeomorphic controls of early post-logging successional pathways in a southern floodplain forest. For Ecol Manage 259:1880–1889.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lane SN, Brookes CJ, Kirkby MJ, Holden J (2004) A network-index-based version of TOPMODEL for use with high resolution digital topographic data. Hydrol Process 18:191–201.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Langevin CD, Hughes JD, Banta ER, Niswonger RG, Panday S, Provost AM (2017) Documentation for the MODFLOW 6 Groundwater Flow Model. US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6. Chapter A55. 197 pp.  https://doi.org/10.3133/tm6a55
  37. McLaughlin DL, Kaplan DA, Cohen MJ (2014) A significant nexus: geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape hydrology. Water Resour Res 50:7153–7166.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR015002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mertes LAK (1997) Documentation and significance of the perirheic zone on inundated floodplains. Water Resour Res 33:1749–1762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Michaelides K, Wainwright J (2002) Modelling the effects of hill slope channel coupling on catchment hydrological response. Earth Surf Proc Land 27:1441–1457.  https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.440
  40. Nagy G, Dezső J, Czigány Sz, Pirkhoffer E, Lóczy D (2017) Modeling of soil moisture dynamics in multilayered Entisols under drought: a case study in the Drava valley. In: Conference paper. “Degradation and Revitalisation of Soil and Landscape”, Olomouc, 10–13 September 2017Google Scholar
  41. Opperman JJ, Laster R, McKenney BA, Roberts M, Meadows AW (2010) Ecologically functional floodplains: connectivity, flow regime and scale. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46:211–226.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00426.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Phillips JD (2009) Avulsion regimes in southeast Texas rivers. Earth Surf Proc Land 34:75–87.  https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips JD (2013) Hydrological connectivity of abandoned channel water bodies on a coastal plain river. River Res Appl 29:149–160.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rraCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Piégay H (1997) Interactions between floodplain forests and overbank flows: data from three piedmont rivers of southeastern France. Glocal Ecol Biogeogr Lett 6:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Piégay H, Bornette G, Citterio A, Herouin E, Moulin B (2000) Channel instability as a control on silting dynamics and vegetation patterns within the perifluvial aquatic zones. Hydrol Process 14(16–17):3011–3029.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1085(200011/12)14:16/17<3011:AID-HYP132>3.0.CO;2-BCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reynolds WD, Elrick DE (1985) In-situ measurement of field-saturated hydraulic conductivity, sorptivity and α parameter using the Guelph permeameter. Soil Sci 140(4):292–302Google Scholar
  47. Salem A, Dezső J, Lóczy D, Słowik M (2017) Modeling surface water-groundwater interaction in an oxbow of the Drava floodplain. Extended abstract. In: HIC 2018 International Conference on Hydroinformatics, Palermo, 1–6 July 2018. 4 ppGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwarz WL, Malanson GP, Weirich FH (1996) Effect of landscape position on the sediment chemistry of abandoned-channel wetlands. Landscape Ecol 11:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shankman D (1993) Channel migration and vegetation patterns in the southeastern coastal plain. Conserv Biol 7:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shore M, Murphy PNC, Jordan P, Mellander P-E, Kelly-Quinn M, Cushen M, Mechan S, Shine O, Melland AR (2013) Evaluation of a surface hydrological connectivity index in agricultural catchments. Environ Model Softw 47:7–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Singhal BBS, Gupta RP (2010) Applied hydrogeology of fractured rocks. Springer, Dordrecht, 408 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sparks RE, Bayley PB, Kohler SL, Osborne LL (1990) Disturbance and recovery of large floodplain rivers. Environ Manage 14(5):699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stanford JA, Ward JV (1993) An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: connectivity and the hyporheic corridor. J North American Bentholog Soc 12:48–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Šulc-Michalková M, Šulc V (2011) Floodplain lakes, river regulation and restoration strategies—what do we know? J Landscape Manag 2(2):31–40Google Scholar
  55. Tockner K, Malard F, Ward JV (2000) An extension of the flood pulse concept. Hydrol Process 14:2861–2883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tockner K, Pennetzdorfer D, Reiner R, Schiemer F, Ward JV (1999) Hydrological connectivity and the exchange of organic matter and nutrients in a dynamic river-floodplain system (Danube, Austria). Freshw Biol 41:521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tockner K, Schiemer F, Ward JV (1998) Conservation by restoration: the management concept for river floodplain system on the Danube River in Austria. Aquatic Conserv: Marine Freshw Ecosyst 8:71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tockner K, Stanford JA (2002) Riverine floodplains: present state and future trends. Environ Conserv 29:308–330.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689290200022XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Valentová J, Valenta P, Weyskrabová L (2010) Assessing the retention capacity of a floodplain using a 2D numerical model. J Hydrol Hydromech 58(4):221–232.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10098-010-0021-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang YL, Yeh TCJ, Wen JC, Huang SY, Zha Y, Tsai JP, Hao YH, Liang Y (2017) Characterizing subsurface hydraulic heterogeneity of alluvial fan using riverstage fluctuations. J Hydrol 547:650–663.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.02.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Winter TC, Harvey JW, Franke OL, Alley WM (1999) Ground water and surface water, a single resource. US Geol Survey, Circular 1139. Denver, CO. 79 ppGoogle Scholar
  62. Zwoliński Z (1992) Sedimentology and geomorphology of overbank flows on meandering river floodplains. Geomorphology 4:367–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • József Dezső
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dénes Lóczy
    • 1
  • Ali Mohamed Salem
    • 2
  • Gábor Nagy
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Physical and Environmental GeographyInstitute of Geography and Earth Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, University of PécsPécsHungary
  2. 2.Earth Sciences Doctoral SchoolUniversity of PécsPécsHungary

Personalised recommendations