OPEN ACCESS
European rivers have been constantly affected by anthropogenic impairments throughout the course of human history. Since 2000 the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) accelerated the process of recognizing and reclaiming rivers as valuable ecosystems, and the restoration of river stretches has become an essential tool for the improvement of watercourses in Central Europe. These restoration measures need to be complemented by in-depth scientific evaluations to ensure the cost-effectiveness of the extensive rehabilitation programme. In this study, two restored river stretches in the middle reaches of the River Lahn (Germany) were analysed in great detail between 2006 and 2008, with a special focus on the macrozoobenthos (MZB) and the small-scale riverbed morphology. The MZB is one of four quality components used for the evaluation of rivers within the WFD and despite the more than a century-long history of limnological research focused on benthic invertebrates, the central question of which morphological processes and structures have to be improved in order to reach the ‘good ecological status’ is still largely unanswered as detailed research of the faunistic-morphological connections on the micro scale (choriotopes) is still few and far between. Both areas – the MZB and the hydromorphology – were covered in an extensive field work programme. The riverbed was mapped using the TRiSHa method (‘Typology of Riverbed Structures and Habitats’) and a detailed survey of the MZB (165 samples) was carried out in accordance with the PERLODES method. Both data sets were analysed for their spatial diversity and for their interrelations. Furthermore the ‘ecological status’ was assessed in accordance with the WFD. This evaluation revealed gaps in the German river typology and the assessment method that should ignite a broader scientific discussion about the benefits of nationwide unified evaluation methods versus regionalized approaches.
ecological quality assessment, European water framework directive, Germany, Lahn, macrozoobenthos, microhabitats, monitoring, river restoration
[1] Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D. & Stribling, J.B., Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadable Rivers – Periphyton, Benthic Macroinverte brates, and Fish, 2nd ed., United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA): Washington, DC, 344pp., 1999.
[2] Dickhaut, W., Fließgewässerrenaturierung Heute – Forschung zu Effizienz und Umset-zungspraxis – Abschlussbericht, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences: Hamburg, 120pp., 2005.
[3] BMU (ed.), Die Wasserrahmenrichtlinie – Ergebnisse der Bestandsaufnahme 2004 in Deutschland, Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU): Berlin, 67pp., 2005.
[4] HMULF (ed.), Gewässerstrukturgüte in Hessen 1999 – Erläuterungsbericht, Hessis-ches Ministerium für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (HMULF): Wiesbaden, 55pp., 2000.
[5] European Commission (ed.), Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy (Water Framework Directive). OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, 93pp., 2000.
[6] Rolauffs, P., Hering, D., Sommerhäuser, M., Rödiger, S. & Jähnig, S., Entwicklung eines Leitbildorientierten Saprobienindexes für die biologische Fließgewässerbewer-tung. UBATexte 11/2003, Umweltbundesamt: Berlin, 137pp., 2003.
[7] Sandin, L., Hering, D., Buffagni, A., Lorenz, A., Moog, O., Rolauffs, P. & Stubauer, I., Experiences with different stream assessment methods and outlines of an integrated method for assessing streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. AQEM 3rd Deliverable, 87pp., available at http://www.eugris.info/displayresource.aspx?r=118, 2001.
[8] Schmedtje, U. & Kohmann, F., Bewertung von Fließgewässern- Aussagekraft und Gren-zen biologischer und chemischer Indizes. Wasser und Boden, 11, Blackwell Verlag: Berlin, pp. 610–612, 1988.
[9] Interwies, E., et al., Grundlagen für die Auswahl der kosteneffizientesten Maßnahmen-kombinationen zur Aufnahme in das Maßnahmenprogramm nach Artikel 11 der Was-serrahmenrichtlinie – Handbuch. UBA-Texte 02/04, Umweltbundesamt: Berlin, 2004.
[10] Lepori, F., Palm, D., & Malmqvist, B., Effects of stream restoration on ecosystem functioning: Detritus retentiveness and decomposition. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, pp. 228–238, 2005. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2004.00965.x.
[11] Bernhardt, E.S., et al., Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science, 308, pp. 636–637, 2005. DOI: 10.1126/science.1109769.
[12] Koenzen, U., Erfolgskontrolle von Maßnahmen zur naturnahen Entwicklung von Fließgewässern – Hinweise für gezielte Maßnahmen zur Kompensation von Strukturdefiziten unter Berücksichtigung der Strahlwirkung. Schriftenreihe des DRL, 81, pp. 35–42, 2008.
[13] Moerke, A.H. & Lamberti, G.A., Restoring stream ecosystems: Lessons from a Midwestern State. Restoration Ecology, 12(3), pp. 327–334, 2004. DOI: 10.1577/1548-8675(2002)022<0001:AROSRT>2.0.CO;2.
[14] Purcell, A.H., Friedrich, C. & Resh, V.H., An assessment of a small urban stream restoration project in Northern California. Restoration Ecology, 10(4), pp. 685–694, 2002. DOI: 10.1577/1548-8446(1997)022<0012:AEPORA>2.0.CO;2
[15] Groll, M., Beziehungen zwischen der Gewässermorphologie und dem Makrozoobenthos an renaturierten Abschnitten der Lahn, Philipps-Universität Marburg: Marburg, 442pp., 2011.
[16] Döbbelt-Grüne, S., Hartmann, C., Zellmer, U., Reuvers, C., Zins, C. & Koenzen, U., Hydromorphologische Steckbriefe der deutschen Fließgewässer-typen – Anhang 1 von Strategien zur Optimierung von Fließgewässer-Renaturierungsmaßnahmen und ihrer Erfolgskontrolle. UBA-Texte 43/2014, Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau, 288pp., 2013.
[17] Groll, M., Thomas, A., Jungermann, L. & Schäfer. K., Typology of Riverbed Structures and Habitats (TRiSHa) – A new method for a high resolution characterization of the spatial and temporal dynamic of freshwater ecosystems. Ecological Indicators, 61, pp. 219–233, 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.019.
[18] Meier, C., et al., Methodisches Handbuch Fließgewässerbewertung – Handbuch zur Untersuchung und Bewertung von Fließgewässern auf der Basis des Makrozoobenthos vor dem Hintergrund der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie, Universität Duisburg-Essen: Essen, 79pp., 2006.
[19] Groll, M., The passive river restoration approach as an efficient tool to improve the hydromorphological diversity of rivers – Case study from two river restoration projects in the German lower mountain range. Geomorphology (accepted).
[20] Arscott, D.B., Tockner, K., van der Nat, D. & Ward, J.V., Aquatic habitat dynamics along a Braided Alpine River ecosystem (Tagliamento River, Northeast Italy). Ecosystems, 5(8), pp. 802–814, 2002. DOI: 10.1007/s10021-002-0192-7.
[21] Jähnig, S.C., Lorenz, A.W., Lorenz, R.R.C. & Kail, J., A comparison of habitat diversity and interannual habitat dynamics in actively and passively restored mountain rivers of Germany. Hydrobiologia, 712(1), pp. 89–104, 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s10750-012-1264-0.
[22] Dewson, Z.S., James, A.B.W. & Death, R.G., A review of the consequences of decreased flow for instream habitat and macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 26(3), pp. 401–415, 2007. DOI: 10.1899/06-110.1.
[23] Raven, P.J., Holmes, N.T.H., Vaughan, I.P., Dawson, F.H. & Scarlett, P., Benchmarking habitat quality: Observations using River Habitat Survey on near-natural streams and rivers in northern and western Europe. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 20, pp. 13–30, 2010. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1103.
[24] Lorenz, A.W., Jähnig, S.C. & Hering, D., Re-meandering German lowland streams: Qualitative and quantitative effects of restoration measures on hydromorphology and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management, 44(4), pp. 745–754, 2009. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-009-9350-4.
[25] Rohde, S., Kienast, F. & Bürgi, M., Assessing the restoration success of river widenings: A landscape approach. Environmental Management, 34(4), pp. 574–589, 2004. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-0158-y.
[26] Jähnig, S.C., Lorenz, A. & Hering, D., Hydromorphological parameters indicating differences between single- and multiple-channel mountain rivers in Germany, in relation to their modification and recovery. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 18, pp. 1200–1216, 2008. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.875.
[27] Brooks, S.S., Palmer, M.A., Cardinale, C.M. & Ribblett, S., Assessing stream ecosystem rehabilitation – Limitations of community structure data. Restoration Ecology, 10(1), pp. 156–168, 2002. DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5477.284.
[28] Jähnig, S.C., et al., 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, pp. 671–680, 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01807.x.
[29] Kokes, J., River channel habitat diversity (RCHD) and macroinvertebrate community. Biologia, 66(2), pp. 328–334, 2011. DOI: 10.2478/s11756-011-0010-9.
[30] Palmer, M.A., Menninger, H.L. & Bernhardt, E., River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity – A failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology, 55, pp. 205–222, 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x.
[31] Brunke, M., Hoffmann, A. & Pusch, M., Use of mesohabitat-specific relationships between flow velocity and river discharge to assess invertebrate minimum flow requirements. Regulated Rivers – Research & Management, 17, pp. 667–676, 2001. DOI: 10.1002/rrr.626.
[32] Downes, B.J., Lake, P.S., Glaister, A. & Bond, N.R., Effects of sand sedimentation on the macroinvertebrate fauna of lowland streams – Are the effects consistent? Freshwater Biology, 51, pp. 144–160, 2006. DOI: 10.1007/s002679900019.