Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 28, Issue 14, pp 4065–4097 | Cite as

Principal threats to the conservation of freshwater habitats in the continental biogeographical region of Central Europe

  • Mirosław GrzybowskiEmail author
  • Katarzyna Glińska-Lewczuk
Open Access
Original Paper
  • 298 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the threats to freshwater habitats that are highly important to the European Community in the Continental Biogeographical Region of Europe, specifically in Poland. The study covers nine freshwater habitat types distinguished in Natura 2000, Annex I of the Habitats Directive, which is a network of nature protection areas in the territory: standing water bodies (3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, and 3160) and running water (3260, 3220, 3240, and 3270), occurring in 806 Special Areas of Conservation in Poland. Of the 72,673 km2 total area of freshwater habitat covered by Natura 2000 in Poland, only 25.70% was classified, from the period 2006‒2018, as favourable status, whereas 68.72% was classified as unfavourable inadequate or unfavourable bad status. Based on a multivariate analysis, we found that significant differences in the conservation status of freshwater habitats resulted from a variety of threats, pressures, and activities, among which the most significant are urbanization and residential and commercial development; transportation and service corridors; decreased and unstable water resources; fishing and harvesting of aquatic resources; agricultural pollution; improper management and use of the agricultural catchment and forest catchment; changes in biocenotic evolution, invasive species succession, and more intense touristic exploration. The changes in conservation status of habitats 3110, 3130, 3140, 3160, and 3260 are also associated with climate change. Taking into account the threats identified, a list of recommended practices for the freshwater habitat types is presented, to be considered in habitat conservation programmes.

Keywords

Freshwater habitats Threats Biodiversity conservation Natura 2000 

Introduction

At a global scale, freshwater is relatively insignificant in terms of area (< 1% global surface), but such habitats support a disproportionate number of species (~ 10% of all known species) (Strayer and Dudgeon 2010). Inland waters and freshwater biodiversity constitute a valuable natural resource, in economic, cultural, aesthetic, scientific and educational terms (Schröter et al. 2005; Dudgeon et al. 2005). Their conservation and management are critical to the interests of all humans, nations and governments, yet inland waters are the most threatened ecosystems worldwide (MEA 2005; Diaz et al. 2019). A review of threats to and conservation challenges faced by global freshwater biodiversity has been the subject of numerous works (MEA 2005; Dudgeon et al. 2005, Strayer and Dudgeon 2010; Collen et al. 2014; UNEP-WCMC, IUCN 2016; Janssen et al. 2016). There is a common consensus, supported by the recent Red List of European Habitats (Janssen et al. 2016) that aquatic and wetland habitats are mainly threatened by hydrological system alterations; climate change, pollution, and invasive species; and, to a lesser extent, by succession, agricultural intensification, forestry, mining, urbanization, transport, and overexploitation of biological resources (Ortmann-Ajkai et al. 2018).

The development of large, continental-scale networks of protected areas has become a key protection activity used around the world (Rodrigues et al. 2004). An example of such a network that stretches across national borders is the European Ecological Network, Natura 2000, which is the world’s largest multinationally coordinated conservation infrastructure (Blicharska et al. 2016). According to the European Natura 2000 Barometer (EEA 2018), the network presently includes 27,758 terrestrial and marine Natura 2000 sites covering 1322,630 km2 in total (18.18% of the land area of the European territory). This network provides ecosystem services worth ca. €200–300 billion/year (EC 2013). The highest number of habitat types of all nine geographical regions in Europe are in the Continental Biogeographical Region (CBR) of Europe. In the CBR, there are 159 habitat types and 184 animal and 102 plant species from over 2000 habitat types, and species are protected on a scale of the European Community listed in the Birds (EC, 2009) and Habitats Directives (EC 1992)—the cornerstones of EU nature conservation. Altogether, within the Continental Region, there are 7.475 Sites of Community Importance (Special Areas of Conservation, SCIs) under the Habitats Directive and a further 1478 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive (EC 2016; EEA 2018). According to the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (EEA 2008), these locations are estimated to cover more than 10.8% of the total land area in this region.

In the “umbrella effect” of the EU Natura 2000 protected area network, a relatively large portion is focused on freshwater habitats: the network comprises 26 habitat types (Eionet 2018a) including flowing and standing water bodies with submerged, emergent and marginal vegetation that are adapted to occasional flooding and able to develop during dry periods, also including saline and brackish habitats, some temporary waters and a few abiotic types in association with glaciers and ice sheets. Freshwater habitats are widely distributed across Europe but vary in character and distribution according to climatic and geomorphological conditions. Permanent water bodies are mainly located in the northern and Atlantic regions, while temporary waters are typical in Mediterranean areas. Some of these habitats can be included in highly developed hydrographic systems or exist individually or in patches (such as springs or ponds). These habitats are also grouped according to their trophic level, whether they are oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic or dystrophic, or exhibit a range of such conditions in relation to geomorphic conditions and natural or anthropogenic supplies of nutrients and minerals from their catchments. Their characteristics are shown in Online Appendix 1.

Freshwater systems are consistently at higher risk of degradation than their terrestrial or marine counterparts (Dudgeon et al. 2005), and the quantity and quality of habitats and abundance of many species is declining. In spite of the “umbrella effect” of the EU Natura 2000 protected area network over freshwater habitats, a number of listed habitat types and species are far from having a favourable conservation status due to their vulnerability to widespread threats. According to the European Red List for terrestrial and freshwater habitats (Janssen et al. 2016), 46% of all freshwater habitats are threatened (critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable). Three habitats are classified as endangered, whereas nine habitats are vulnerable. The endangered freshwater habitats include 3270 rivers with muddy banks with Chenopodion rubri p.p. and Bidention p.p. vegetation. The vulnerable freshwater habitats include all other habitats covered by the study in this work. None of the freshwater habitats are critically endangered.

The freshwater habitats within the CBR of Europe are represented by degraded river and lake basins, the ability of which to sustain biodiversity is typically reduced (Abell et al. 2019), and their resilience has been reduced as a consequence of human actions (Folke et al. 2004). Loss of resilience through the combined and often synergistic effects of a variety pressures can make ecosystems more vulnerable to changes that previously could be absorbed. In freshwater habitats, anthropogenic threats may cause loss of resilience, through such actions as removing response diversity, removing whole functional groups of species, or removing whole trophic levels; impacting ecosystems via waste and pollutant emissions and climate change; and altering the magnitude, frequency, and duration of disturbance regimes.

Although the Natura 2000 network spans across the European continent, the majority of studies have been conducted within regions at the sub-national level (Popescu et al. 2014). The scarcity of studies pertaining to larger spatial scales may have negative consequences for the conservation of species and habitats that are dependent on large-scale patterns and processes (Rattisab et al. 2018). There is a need for biodiversity conservation actions to be tailored to biogeographic conditions (Gustafsson et al. 2015) to maintain consistency with the conservation biogeography framework (Kreft and Jetz 2010), which has become increasingly prominent but is still underused in Natura 2000 research (Orlikowska et al. 2016). The examination of entire biogeographical regions in ecological studies would foster more cross-scale cooperation in the practical management of the network, a process that is necessary for attaining conservation goals in large-scale initiatives (Gustafsson et al. 2015). Effective conservation requires the involvement of scientists to implement research results into practice (e.g., Cvitanovica et al. 2016), and the inadequate distribution of research focus across the Natura 2000 network could limit the achievements of the expected conservation outcomes (Hermoso et al. 2017). It is also important to increase the conversion rate from science to practice, implementing solutions related to habitat protection into Member State legislation (Blicharska et al. 2016).

The challenge is to actively strengthen the capacity of ecosystems to sustain desirable pathways and ecosystem statuses (Folke et al. 2004). The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 calls for, among other targets, full implementation of the Natura 2000 Directives (Target 1) and for restoration of at least 15% of the degraded ecosystems (Target 2) by 2020 (EC 2016). To achieve good functionality of the network, knowledge of the ecological conservation and management issues relevant to Natura 2000 is needed, e.g., status of species and habitats and methods of site management (Popescu et al. 2014). To improve evidence-based management and conservation of aquatic habitats covered by Natura 2000, future research should focus on examining the network’s adaptive capacity, its coherence, and the links between different Natura 2000 sites, as well as relations to conservation activities outside the network (Davis et al. 2014).

To support management and conservation activities for Natura 2000 sites, the survey presented in this paper focused on examining the status of freshwater ecosystems and water-dependent ecosystems across the CBR of Europe, with particular reference to the area of Poland. The aim of this work was an in-depth analysis of the present threats, pressures, and activities that influence the present condition of inland aquatic ecosystems and to indicate directions for correct actions to achieve favourable conservation status for habitats.

Materials and methods

Study area

The continental region covers more than one-quarter of the European Union and runs in a wide band from west to east, from central France through the eastern border of Poland in the north and Romania in the south. Outside the EU, the continental region stretches to the Ural Mountains, on the border with Asia (Fig. 1). In the south, this region is divided into two almost equal parts with high mountain ranges in the Alpine region and the steppe plains of the Pannonian region, also including part of the Adriatic and Baltic coastline.
Fig. 1

Study area in the context of the entire Continental Biogeographical Region of Europe

The CBR, at a crossroads between many different biogeographical zones, shares many species with other regions. In terms of human use, population levels are generally high, especially in the northern urban areas of Germany, Poland, and Denmark. Central Europe was, for many years, the industrial heartland of Europe, providing much of its supply of coal, iron ore, copper, and steel. Whole areas are dominated by large industrial zones. Europe’s most important rivers flow through the CBR, such as the Danube, Rhine, Loire, Elbe, Po, Vistula, and Oder rivers, which have been canalized and regulated, leading to the extensive loss of floodplain habitats and species. Despite these transformations, the CBR is still relatively rich in terms of the biodiversity of its freshwater habitats. The central part of the CBR is occupied by Polish territory, abundant in a diversity of natural freshwater ecosystems. The presence of lakes is related mainly to postglacial origin, however riverine as well as mountain lakes also exist. Currently, the Natura 2000 network in Poland occupies almost 1/5 of the land area of the country, consisting of 849 habitat areas (SCIs) and 145 bird areas (SPAs). This study covered freshwater habitats occurring in all 806 Special Areas of Conservation in Poland in the continental biogeographic region. Their characteristics is presented in Online Appendix 1.

Data collection and methods

The overall conservation evaluation of each Natura 2000 site as a habitat includes an assessment of the degree of conservation of the structure and functions, as well as the possibilities for restoration (Mróz 2017). We considered different data were in the analysis of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for the Natura 2000 network: standard data forms (GDEP 2018; Eionet 2018a), management plans (GDEP 2017; RDEP 2018), and reporting monitoring by EU Poland SACs (GIEP 2018; Eionet 2018b) from three reporting periods from 2009 to 2018 (2009 to 2011, 2013 to 2014, and 2015 to 2018).

The survey of the habitat types in Annex I of the Habitats Directive includes standing water bodies (habitat codes starting with “31”) and watercourses (habitat codes starting with “32”): 3110 oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals in sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae), 3130 oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of Littorelletea uniflorae and/or Isoëto-Nanojuncetea, 3140 hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp., 3150 natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type vegetation (in Poland: oxbows and natural eutrophic waterbodies with Nympheion and Potamion community), 3160 natural dystrophic lakes and ponds, 3220 alpine rivers and the herbaceous vegetation along their banks, 3240 alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Salix elaeagnos, 3260 water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation, and 3270 rivers with muddy banks with Chenopodion rubri p.p. and Bidention p.p. vegetation. Our research covered habitats in 7 of the 11 European biogeographic regions (Table 1). In Poland, almost all studied habitats represent Continental Biogeographic Region (Table 2).
Table 1

Overall assessment survey habitats in biogeographical regions in Europe

(data source: Eionet 2018a, b)

Habitat

Special areas of conservation in EU

Biogeographical region

Total habitat area (km2)

Share of the habitat (%)

ABR

ATL

BOR

CBR

MAC

MED

PAN

3110

14,431.17

2.39

FV

U2

U1

U1

 

XX

 

3130

9599.53

1.59

FV

U2

U1

U2

U1

U1

U1

3140

3074.68

0.51

U1

U2

U1

U2

 

U1

XX

3150

10,894.93

1.80

XX

U2

U1

U2

XX

XX

U1

3160

21,222.97

3.51

U1

U2

U1

U2

U1

XX

U2

3220

10,595.65

1.75

U1

XX

FV

U2

FV

XX

 

3240

355.21

0.06

U1

XX

 

U2

 

XX

 

3260

2110.07

0.35

U1

U2

U2

U1

 

XX

U2

3270

327.9

0.05

U2

U2

XX

U2

 

U2

U1

Biogeographical regions: ABR Alpine (reported also as ALP), ATL Atlantic, BOR Boreal, CBR Continental (reported also as CON), MAC Macaronesia, MED Mediterranean, PAN Pannonian. Overall assessment: FV favourable, U1 unfavourable inadequate; U2 unfavourable bad

Habitats: 3110 Oligotrophic waters (Littorelletalia uniflorae), 3130 Oligo to mesotrophic waters (Littorelletea Isoëto-Nanojuncetea), 3140 Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp, 3150 Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition—type vegetation, 3160 Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds; 3220 Alpine rivers and the herbaceous vegetation along their banks, 3240 Alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Salix elaeagnos, 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation, 3270 Rivers with muddy banks with Chenopodion rubri p.p. and Bidention p.p. vegetation

Table 2

Occurrence of freshwater habitats and freshwater dependent habitats under special areas of conservation in the Continental Biogeographic Region in Poland

(data source: Eionet 2018a, b)

Habitat

Number of habitats under SACs in CBR in Poland

Area covered by the habitat type in the CBR

Share of the habitat area in Poland*

 

km2

%

3110

33

18.8

38.2

3130

45

6

3.3

3140

82

nd

nd

3150

273

4400

70.1

3160

125

1

0.9

3220

17

0.5

0.4

3240

8

nd

nd

3260

104

nd

nd

3270

67

nd

nd

* 28 EU Member States = 100%

Explanation of a habitat code, please see Table 1

nd No data

Table 3 lists the model taxa that were used to assess the biodiversity of water habitats as well as the key taxa of aquatic species that are primarily threatened.
Table 3

The list of freshwater habitats and freshwater dependent habitats in SACs with typical vegetation species

Habitats codes and names (Annex I of the Habitats Directive)

Synonym names of habitats

Typical vegetation species

3110

Oligotrophic waters (Littorelletalia uniflorae)

Lobelia lakes—Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae)

Isoëtes echinospora, Isoëtes lacustris, Littorella uniflora, Lobelia Dortmanna, Luronium natans, Myriophyllum alterniflorum

3130

Oligo-to-mesotrophic waters (Littorelletea Isoëto-Nanojuncetea)

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea

Carex bohemica, Coleanthus subtilis, Crassula aquatic, Cyperus fuscus, Dichostylis micheliana, Elatine alsinastrum, Elatine hexandra, Elatine hydropiper, Elatine triandra, Eleocharis acicularis, Eleocharis multicaulis, Eleocharis ovata, Gnaphalium uliginosum, Juncus bufonius, Juncus bulbosus, Juncus capitatus, Juncus tenageia, Limosella aquatic, Lindernia procumbens, Litorella uniflora, Lythrum hyssopifolia, Myriophyllum alternifolium, Peplis portula, Pilularia globulifera, Plantago intermedia

3140

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.

Chara aspera, Chara contraria, Chara filiformis, Chara globularis, Chara hispida, Chara intermedia, Chara polyacantha, Chara rudis, Chara strigosa, Chara tomentosa, Chara virgate, Lychnothamnus barbatus, Nitella flexilis, Nitella mucronata, Nitella opaca, Nitella syncarpa, Nitellopsis obtuse, Tolypella glomerata

3150

Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type vegetation

Oxbow lakes and natural eutrophic water bodies with communities of Nympheion, Potamion

Batrachium circinatum, Elodea canadensis, Lemna minor, Lemna trisulca, Myriophyllum spicatum, Myriophyllum verticillatum, Polygonum amphibium fo. natans, Potamogeton crispus, Potamogeton lucens, Potamogeton natans, Spirodela polyrhiza, Zannichellia palustris

3160

Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds

Natural dystrophic lakes

Nuphar lutea, Nuphar pumila, Nymphaea alba, Nymphaea candida, Nymphaea x borealis, Potamogeton gramineus, Potamogeton natans, Scorpidium scorpioides, Sparganium minimum, Sphagnum contortum, Sphagnum cuspidatum, Sphagnum denticulatum, Sphagnum fallax, Sphagnum inundatum, Sphagnum spp., Utricularia australis, Utricularia intermedia, Utricularia minor, Utricularia ochroleuca, Utricularia spp. Warnstorfia exannulata, Warnstorfia fluitans

3220

Alpine rivers and the herbaceous vegetation along their banks

Alpine rivers and the herbaceous vegetation along their banks

Calamagrostis pseudophragmites, Chaenorhinum minor, Chamaenerion palustre, Equisetum variegatum, Festuca rubra subsp. Vulgaris, Galeopsis angustifolia, Galeopsis ladanum, Leontodon hispidus, Linaria vulgaris, Myricaria germanica, Poa granitica, Reseda lutea, Rumex scutatus, Salix eleagnos, Silene vulgaris subsp. Prostrata, Tussilago farfara

3240

Alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Salix elaeagnos

Alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Salix elaeagnos

Calamagrostis pseudophragmites, Calystegia sepium, Humulus lupulus, Myricaria germanica, Phalaris arundinacea, Salix daphnoides, Salix eleagnos, Salix fragilis, Salix purpurea, Salix triandra, Stachys palustris, Symphytum officinale

3260

Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

Batrachium aquatile, Batrachium baudotii, Batrachium fluitans, Batrachium peltatum, Batrachium penicillatum, Batrachium trichophyllum, Callitriche cophacarpa, Callitriche hamulata, Fontinalis antipyretica, Groenlandia densa, Potamogeton nodosus, Scapania undulata

3270

Rivers with muddy banks with Chenopodion rubri p.p. and Bidention p.p. vegetation

Rivers with muddy banks with Chenopodion rubri p.p. and Bidention p.p. vegetation

Alopecurus aequalis, Bidens cernua, Bidens radiate, Bidens tripartite, Chenopodium acerifolium, Chenopodium ficifolium, Chenopodium polyspermum, Chenopodium rubrum, Cyperus fuscus, Echinochloa crus-gali, Gnaphalium uliginosum, Juncus bufonius, Limosella aquatic, Polygonum hydropiper, Polygonum lapathifoliuam s.l, Polygonum minus, Ranunculus sceleratus, Rorippa palustris

The assessment criteria for each habitat type are presented in Online Appendix 2. The overall assessment of the surveyed types of freshwater habitats was based on three main parameters: structure and function, future perspective, and range and surface area (Mróz 2017). The structure includes the physical components of a given habitat type, whereas the habitat functional assessment refers to the ecological processes occurring at a number of temporal and spatial scales and varies greatly between habitat types. The future perspective indicates the direction of expected changes in conservation status in the near future based on the current status, with identified pressures, threats, and measures being considered for each of the other three parameters (structure and functions, range, and area). The assessment of range and surface area must be sufficiently large in relation to favourable reference values. Based on Mróz (2017), the values of the indices for natural habitat status, expressed numerically or descriptively, are evaluated on a three-level scale: FV, favourable status; U1 unfavourable inadequate; and U2 unfavourable bad (or could be XX, unknown).

The classification threats, pressures, and activities of the studied habitats were acquired for the reference list of threats, pressures and activities (Eionet 2018a). We analysed positive and negative impacts on the following scale: A—high impact, B—low impact, C—slight impact, and X—not determined (Eionet 2018a). The following values were assigned impact intensity: A = 5, B = 3, C = 2, and X = 1. The total measure of impact was determined by multiplying the percentage of the positions of a given impact reference list of threats to habitat by the intensity of interaction.

Statistical analyses

The statistical analyses were performed on a database consisting of 153 identified threats, pressures, and activities for the nine habitats studied. The total number of occurrences was 383. To determine the presence of any relationship between habitat types and threats, pressures, and activities, and to identify the main patterns in the dataset, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed using CANOCO 5.0 software (Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New York, USA) (ter Braak and Šmilauer 1998; Lepš and Šmilauer 2014). Prior to PCA ordination, the data were log-transformed to improve normality. To further understand the dissimilarities between the freshwater habitats based on the threats identified for an individual habitat, we performed hierarchical clustering analysis (HCA) and heat map analysis. HCA is often introduced as a family of techniques to describe and represent the structure of the pairwise dissimilarities amongst objects. We chose a non-specific filtering option with a threshold of the interquartile range < 0.5 to eliminate all threats with low variability. This method enhanced the readability of the heat map. We clustered the points representing rows and columns in the reduced factor space with Euclidean distance by Ward’s hierarchical clustering algorithm (Lepš and Šmilauer 2014). The advantage of Ward’s clustering is that it minimizes the error sum of squares or error variance at each step of clustering. Clustering algorithms and ordination techniques, such as PCA, are complementary. HCA and the heat map were created using PC-ORD 6.08 (MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA).

Results

Only 25.70% of the surveyed freshwater habitats in Poland were classified as having a favourable status (FV), whereas 68.72% were classified as being in an unsatisfactory state (U1 unfavourable inadequate or U2 unfavourable bad, Table 4). The best-preserved habitat types, with a score > 25% in the FV category in the overall assessment, were in the following decreasing order: 3160 > 3260 > 3150 > 3130. The most threatened habitats with a score > 30% in U2 in the overall assessment were 3220 > 3130 > 3140. The structure and function parameter, which is the most susceptible to threat effects, had the highest values in habitats 3260 > 3160 > 3110 > 3150 (> 25% FV), whereas the following habitats had the lowest scores: 3220 > 3130 > 3140 (> 30% U2). The future perspective parameter had the highest values in habitats 3160 > 3130, 3220 > 3150 > 3110 > 3270 (> 25% FV), and habitat 3220 had the lowest value (> 30% U2). The range and surface area parameter had the highest values in habitats 3160 > 3220 > 3110 > 3140 > 3150 > 3260 > 3270 (> 25% FV), and habitat 3130 had the lowest value (> 30% U2).
Table 4

The share of conservation statuses of freshwater habitats in SACs in the CBR in Poland

Habitat

Structure and function

Future perspective

Range and surface area

Overall assessment

FV

U1

U2

XX

FV

U1

U2

XX

FV

U1

U2

XX

FV

U1

U2

XX

3110

33.33

40.0

26.67

 

46.67

40.0

13.3

 

80.0

13.33

6.67

 

20.0

53.33

26.67

 

3130

18.75

18.75

37.50

25.0

50.0

12.5

12.5

12.5

25.0

18.75

43.75

12.5

25.0

18.75

43.75

12.5

3140

20.83

20.83

33.33

25.0

25.0

54.17

 

20.83

66.67

8.33

 

25.0

16.67

25.0

33.33

25.0

3150

29.63

44.44

25.93

 

48.15

29.63

11.11

11.11

59.26

22.22

7.41

11.11

29.63

40.74

29.63

 

3160

71.43

7.14

14.29

7.14

85.71

7.14

7.14

 

100.0

   

64.29

14.29

14.29

7.14

3220

 

50.0

50.0

 

50.0

16.67

33.33

 

83.33

 

16.67

  

50.0

50.0

 

3260

83.33

8.33

8.33

 

100.0

   

58.33

33.33

8.33

 

50.00

33.33

16.67

 

3270

 

90.91

9.09

 

36.36

63.64

  

36.36

63.64

   

90.91

9.09

 

Mean

32.16

35.05

25.64

7.14

55.24

27.97

9.67

5.56

63.62

19.95

11.83

6.08

25.70

40.79

27.93

5.58

Data are given in %

Denotations: please see Table 1

The main groups of threats, pressures, and activities identified for freshwater habitats in Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in the CBR in Poland are presented in Fig. 2. Agriculture (A) has a number of negative impacts on freshwater habitats, which are most evident for the following habitats: 3110, 3150, 3260 > 3130, 3140, 3160, and 3270. However, proper management of agricultural land in the vicinity of lakes could be an effective tool for their protection (e.g., 3150). Similarly, forest management may have both negative (e.g., 3110 > 3130, 3150, 3160, and 3260) and positive effects on habitats (e.g., 3160 > 3140, 3150, and 3270). Among the negative anthropogenic influences are pollution (H; 3140 > 3150, 3260 > 3110, 3130, and 3160); human intrusions and disturbances (G; 3110, 3140 > 3130, 3150, 3160, 3260, and 3270) and tourism (reported most often); transportation and service corridors (D; 3140, 3160 > 3110, 3150, 3260, and 3270 > 3130); urbanization and residential and commercial development (E; 3140, 3150, and 3260 > 3110 > 3130); biological resource use other than for agriculture and forestry (F; 3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, 3160, and 3270 > 3260); and mining, material extraction, and energy production (C; 3140 > 3130, 3150, 3160, and 3270). Geological events (L) and natural catastrophes—most often inundation—were identified as important hazards for habitat 3240. The development of alien and invasive species strongly affects habitats 3240 > 3130, 3260, and 3270, and natural biotic and abiotic processes (K) affect habitats 3110, 3140, 3150, and 3160 > 3130, 3220 > 3260). Negative impacts associated with climate change (M) were detected mostly for habitat types 3110, 3130, 3140, 3160, and 3260.
Fig. 2

Main groups of threats, pressures and activities identified for freshwater habitats at SACs in the CBR in Poland. A bubble size is proportional to the number of impacted sites. Numbers of impacted sites are shown on a log-scale (x-axis); Denotations: habitat type codes—please see Table 1. Main groups of threats, pressures and activities (Eionet 2018a): A—Agriculture; B—Silviculture, forestry; C—Mining, material extraction and energy production; D—Transportation and service corridors; E—Urbanisation and residential and commercial development; F—Biological resource use other than agriculture and forestry; G—Human intrusion and disturbance; H—Pollution; I—Invasive, other problematic species and genes; J—Natural system modifications; K—Natural biotic and abiotic processes (without catastrophes); L—Geological events, natural catastrophes; M—Climate change

PCA verified the relationship between a given habitat type and its threats, pressures, and activities (Fig. 3). PCA showed that the surveyed habitat types are determined by the first two components against the vectors associated with the various threats. The first (PC1) and second (PC2) PCA components explained 32.53% and 16.45% of the total variance, respectively. PC1 is mainly associated with standing water habitats (the codes starting with “31”), representing a wide range of different trophic levels: from oligotrophic to eutrophic and dystrophic. PC1 showed the highest positive correlation with habitats 3140, 3160, 3150, and 3110 (PC1, r = 0.8272, 0.7442, 0.7082, and 0.6527, respectively). The most important threats identified for 3160 are recreational fishing (F02), fertilization (A08) and urbanization (E01). Human intrusion and transportation (G01) threaten 3140, whereas urbanized areas and human habitation (E01) are threats for 3150. PC2 is more associated with flowing water ecosystems with codes starting with “32”; however, the correlations are not as significant as habitats representing water reservoirs. PC2 showed the highest association with habitats 3260 (r = 0.3701), 3220 (r = 0.3437), and 3240 (r = 0.1701). An analysis of PC2 showed that the most important threats identified for 3260 appear to be silviculture and forestry (B), urbanized areas and human habitation (E01), and surface water pollution (H01). Various impacts from human intrusions, urbanization, and transportation (G, D, and E, respectively) pose a threat for 3220, whereas the impact of agriculture is the greatest threat to 3240.
Fig. 3

Biplot of PCA ordination axes for freshwater habitat types and their threats, pressures and activities. For explanation of the habitat codes, please see Table 1. Main groups of threats, pressures and activities (Eionet 2018a): A—Agriculture; B—Silviculture, forestry; C—Mining, material extraction and energy production; D—Transportation and service corridors; E—Urbanisation and residential and commercial development; F—Biological resource use other than agriculture and forestry; G—Human intrusion and disturbance; H—Pollution; I—Invasive, other problematic species and genes; J—Natural system modifications; K—Natural biotic and abiotic processes (without catastrophes); L—Geological events, natural catastrophes; M—Climate change. The detailed list of threats is presented in Online Appendix 3

The results obtained from the PCA are consistent with the results of a two-way hierarchical cluster analysis (TW-HCA). The heatmap (Fig. 4) visualizes a data matrix with rows and columns ordered according to clustering in the form of hierarchical classification trees of both columns and rows, with ‘cuts’ yielding six clusters of threats and three clusters of habitat types. Among the surveyed freshwater habitats, a group of four habitat types (3110, 3160, 3140, and 3150) focused on water body habitats (lake habitats). The other habitats included three (3220, 3240, and 3270) water-course-focused habitats (fluvial habitats) and two (3130 and 3260) clusters of habitats with different water flows but with low or moderate trophic values.
Fig. 4

Two-way hierarchical cluster analysis (TW-HCA) exposing the relationship between clusters of freshwater habitats and the threats, pressures and activities. Heat map colours indicate the minimum (light pink) to maximum (red) relationship gradient between freshwater habitats and threats, pressures and activities. For codes of habitats and threats, please see Fig. 3 and Online Appendix 3

The main threats affecting the cluster of lake habitats (3110, 3160, 3140, and 3150) are anthropogenic (A08, H01.05, H01.08, H02.06, H02.07, and E03.01) eutrophication, caused by the nutrient transfer from catchments significantly influenced by agricultural activities, urbanized areas (E01.03), transportation (D01.01) and service corridors (D01.02), and, to a lesser extent, natural interactions (K02.03 and K01.05) (Fig. 4). The threats attributed to the cluster of fluvial habitats (3220, 3240, and 3270) are mainly related to human-induced natural system modifications (J) through changes in hydraulic conditions (J02), mainly the improper modification of hydrographic functioning including canalization and water deviation (J02.03). The disappearance of natural processes results from the lack of flood impacts (L08), such as abiotic (slow) natural processes (K01 and K01.04) and interspecific floral relations (K04.01). The negative pressure on these habitats is also caused by the incursion of invasive non-native species (I01).

The threats attributed to clusters, including habitats 3130 (oligo-to-mesotrophic waters, Littorelletea Isoëto-Nanojuncetea) and 3260 (water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation), are mainly related to human-induced natural system modifications (J) through changes in hydraulic conditions (J02), mainly through the improper modification of hydrographic functioning, including flooding modifications (J02.04 and J02.05, Fig. 4). Also important for both habitats are threats caused by urbanized areas, human habitation (E01, E01.02, E01.03, and E01.04), household discharge (E03, E03.04, and H05.01), and agricultural activities (A), particularly those involving fertilizer (A08), crop changes (A02.02), the disposal of household or recreational facility waste (E03), and/or unsewered populations, as well as roads (D01) and railway lines (D01.04), which contribute to of surface waters pollution (H01.05). To a lesser extent, the threats to these habitats are associated with invasive non-native species (I01).

Discussion

Freshwater habitat types show significant differences in resilience to threats, pressures and activities as they can occur at a variety of scales and differ greatly in their inherent variability. Both groups of standing and running water bodies within the CBR area in Europe are mainly in danger of habitat loss, which is also the greatest threat to freshwater biodiversity (Čížková et al. 2013; Zorilla-Miras et al. 2014; Hein et al. 2016). A key driver of habitat loss is land-use change (Janssen et al. 2016). Landscapes have changed dramatically in the last 50 years resulting from a combination of factors, including human population growth and rapid technological advancement (Freudenberger et al. 2013). Many studies have highlighted high rates of land-use change since the period after World War II, which has been associated with human population growth and processes such as urban sprawl, mass migration, and agricultural intensification (Van Eetvelde and Antrop 2004; Amici et al. 2015). Similar phenomena, such as urbanization and residential and commercial development, have directly and indirectly affected the catchment areas of the studied freshwater habitats, such as 3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, 3160, and 3260, as well as their structure and functions (Foley et al. 2005, Amici et al. 2015). Biodiversity losses induced by changes in land use are driven not only by urban sprawl and agricultural intensification but also by the abandonment of traditional rural landscapes, which leads to the initiation of natural succession (Agnoletti 2014; Beilin et al. 2014). This trend was observed even in regions with decreasing populations outside of Poland, notably in Italy and eastern Germany (Ustaoglu and Williams 2017). In the case of numerous standing water habitats, another problem is highlighted: whether the ecosystem change is a result of natural succession or human activity (Abell et al. 2019).

Intensive grazing and cultivation in the catchment area was indicated as a cause of the poor condition of the studied habitats (3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, 3160, and 3260). The growing farm and parcel sizes and increasing mechanization have resulted in homogenization of the mosaic-like cultural landscapes and, to a large extent, the synchronized management of activities, resulting in a decrease in land-use diversity (Grzybowski 2014). This result has also led to a reduction in the richness of semi-natural components associated with management practices. In this study, the poor management of forms of nature conservation and absent or improperly directed conservation measures were indicated for habitats 3140 and 3260 (Fig. 4).

We stated that negative impacts on the conservation status of examined habitats 3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, 3160, 3260, and 3270 are caused by transportation and service corridors including parking areas (threats to habitats 3110, 3140, and 3260) and railway lines (threats to habitats 3150, 3130, and 3260). Transportation is associated with an increasingly dense road network, which contributes to the barrier effect leading to biodiversity and ecosystem fragmentation and finally their loss (Hawbaker and Radeloff 2004; Freudenberger et al. 2013). Moreover, an escalation in traffic volume affects biodiversity through noise, artificial lighting, pollution, and other direct variables (Parris and Schneider 2009; Selva et al. 2011). Increased traffic density has been reported (Alkemade et al. 2009; Eigenbrod et al. 2009) as having a negative impact on biodiversity on larger landscape scales within the “road-effect zone”.

Significant threats to freshwater habitats in the CBR have resulted from human-induced changes in hydraulic conditions that have modified entire natural systems. A negative impact on the habitat conservation status has occurred in habitats 3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, 3160, 3260, and 3270 (Figs. 2, 3, 4). Related regulatory issues, such as riverbed incision, lowering of the groundwater level, and changes in catchment land use, are commonly reported as the main causes of biodiversity loss in flood-prone areas (e.g., Hein et al. 2016; Janssen et al. 2016).

A particularly vulnerable group of aquatic habitats to external threats are floodplain water bodies, which are commonly known as biodiversity hotspots. Their high biological diversity is maintained due to mosaics of numerous aquatic habitats (Ward and Stanford 1995; Wilk-Woźniak et al. 2019), and succession is a key natural process in floodplains (Ortmann-Ajkai et al. 2018). The biodiversity of floodplain habitats (mainly 3150) is threatened by numerous factors, such as water regulation, drainage (Tockner and Stanford 2002; Čížková et al. 2013), land-use change (Zorilla-Miras et al. 2014; Hein et al. 2016), overexploitation (Harrison et al. 2010), point source and diffuse chemical pollution from neighbouring agricultural land (Glińska-Lewczuk 2005; Hein et al. 2016), the spread of invasive species (Mölder and Schneider 2011; Hein et al. 2016), and climate change (Tockner and Stanford 2002; Čížková et al. 2013).

A major cause of freshwater species and habitat losses has been channelization of rivers and their associated floodplain habitats (Clarke 2015). Such interactions were indicated mainly for habitats 3260 and 3270 (Fig. 4). Large, lowland river systems are naturally highly connected across their flood plains with small waterbodies, wetlands, and multiple channels that are all connected during periods of flooding and high water (Amoros and Bornette 2002; Grzybowski 2014). A loss of river system continuity in lake habitats (3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, and 3160) and water abstractions from surface waters (3140, 3150, and 3160) were demonstrated in our study, affecting the status of conservation habitats (Fig. 4). This connectivity can provide potential refuge from high flow and pollution events, which is important for maintaining conditions for a range of species (e.g., Amoros and Bornette 2002).

Flooding modifications often affect a mosaic of habitats differing in sediment properties, humidity, abundance, composition, and succession states of fauna and flora, as well as productivity and diversity (Hefting et al. 2013). Flooding modifications were indicated as a threat to habitats 3130 and 3140 and were shown to be an indirect threat to all habitats except 3220 and 3240 (Fig. 4). Due to reduced hydromorphological dynamics, most floodplains in Europe have been degraded. This result has led to, among other things, a decrease in the habitat types that are an essential part of floodplains (Percic et al. 2009).

Habitat conditions in active floodplain areas have often been substantially altered by human impacts, not only by hydrotechnical structures but also by pollution from fertilizers and chemical contaminants, the introduction of invasive species, or by intensive forestry (e.g., Schnitzler et al. 2005; Mitsch et al. 2012). Surface water pollution, reported as a cause of poor habitat conservation status, was indicated for all lake habitats (3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, and 3160). In habitats 3110 and 3260, an important role of discharge from the agricultural or forest catchment was indicated. In habitats 3140 and 3260, the poor management of watercourse maintenance was indicated (Fig. 4). A negative example of the effect of nutrient input by fertilization of adjacent meadows to ditches on phytodiversity was given, e.g., by Müller et al. (2016). Depending on the heterogeneity of humidity, the succession stage of a ditch, and the intensity and frequency of maintenance, ditches are not only characterized by a distinct species composition but they also provide important habitats for rare species and species relevant for conservation (Garniel 2000; Herzon and Helenius 2008). One should remember, however, that the pivotal role of a reclamation ditch is to drain an area towards a recipient (river or lake). Thus, ditches can also accelerate nutrient transfer from meadows and pastures and increase the pollutant load discharged directly to water bodies. As a result, overfertilisation has become a key factor decreasing the conservation status of floodplain lakes (3150) in rural areas (Glińska-Lewczuk 2005).

In view of the above, irregular ditch cleaning with differences in timing, partial cleaning, or half-site cleaning (Garniel 2000) and a cleaning frequency of 2–3 years (Van Strien et al. 1991) have been shown to maximize phytodiversity on the local scale. As nitrogen accumulates especially in irrigation ditches, the removal of biomass after mowing may be favourable for species that are sensitive to nutrient-rich conditions. The strong impact of mowing time and frequency on species composition has been well studied (Manhoudt et al. 2007; Meier et al. 2017), and the temporal diversity of disturbances has been highlighted as especially relevant for regional species diversity in agricultural landscapes (Meier et al. 2017). Therefore, the scope, frequency, and type of maintenance work on the drainage network affect the condition of the examined aquatic habitats that are important for the EU.

Biological invasions, together with habitat disturbance, are among the main causes of biodiversity decline in inland aquatic habitats (Rodríguez-Merinoa et al. 2018). The number of non-native aquatic plant species in Europe has increased since the early 1990s (Keller et al. 2011) as humans are vectors for these species in a highly globalized world. The lack of barriers allows their numbers to continually increase (Havel et al. 2015; Strayer 2010). Additionally, habitat alterations can create invasion opportunities, which can transform natural habitats and thus create new niches, a process that facilitates the establishment of various non-native aquatic species (Zedler and Kercher 2004).

Threats of invasive and other problematic species were not frequently reported in the studied habitats except for habitats 3130, 3240, and 3260 (Fig. 4). The data collected for the needs of our survey do not confirm the occurrence of the following species that have been indicated as threatening the local diversity of freshwater habitats in the CBR in Poland: Cabomba caroliniana, Eichhornia crassipes, Elodea nuttallii, Hydrocotyle ranunculoides, and Myriophyllum heterophyllum (Rodríguez-Merinoa et al. 2018). However, the following species were identified in the littoral zone of the habitats studied, which, in Poland, the Czech Republic (Vardarman et al. 2018), and in central European protected areas (Braun et al. 2016) pose a significant threat to the conservation of biological diversity: Fallopia spp., Heracleum mantegazzianum, Impatiens glandulifera, and Solidago spp. Interestingly, some researchers (Rodríguez-Merinoa et al. 2018) have reported that non-native species are more common in anthropogenic environments than native species. Such environments can be suitable for the formation of unoccupied niches that can be filled by non-native species (Catford and Downes 2010). Therefore, in the case of interference in water habitats, these ecosystems must be protected against the expansion of alien species.

Although the present invasion level is relatively low, the early detection of their localities is essential to eliminate non-native species as sources of reproduction. The rate of spread of indigenous species and the invasion of non-indigenous species are affected by many factors that differ along spatial and temporal scales. Such factors include climate and local weather patterns, vegetation structure, resource availability, the number of species present in secondary regions, propagule pressure, and associated ecosystem processes such as competition, disease, and adaptation (Foxcroft et al. 2007). A positive relationship between Invasive Alien Species (IAS) occurrence and proximity to streams has also been confirmed (Foxcroft et al. 2007; Catford et al. 2011), especially for I. glandulifera (Čuda et al. 2017) and Fallopia spp. (Mandák et al. 2004). These species show a strong preference for such habitats, and streams and rivers subsequently act as spread vectors.

To address the problem of the increasing number of alien neophytes that occur in and around human-made habitats (Lososová et al. 2006; Lambdon et al. 2008), the efforts in terms of prevention, early detection and rapid response, and eradication and management of invasions in Special Areas of Conservation need to be strengthened. A solution can be found in habitat suitability models that have been applied to define the locations most threatened by invasive alien species and to select those areas for regular monitoring (Vardarman et al. 2018).

There is a consensus among many scientists that the earth’s climate is changing and will continue to change at an increasingly rapid pace (Wuebbles et al. 2017). Although the consequences of climate change for freshwater ecosystems are difficult to assess, some of the damaging effects are already clear and likely to increase in both direct and indirect ways (Janssen et al. 2016; Molina-Navarro et al. 2018). Among the indirect effects of climate variability are extreme hydrological phenomena as floods and droughts, which are depicted in Fig. 4.

We only found a direct relationship between poor habitat conservation status and climate change for habitats 3110, 3130, 3140, 3160, and 3260 (Figs. 2, 3, 4). Climate change leads to modifications in the composition, intensity, and frequency of particular environmental elements, which, in turn, lead to increasing threats to extremely rare or even non-existent phenomena in specific areas (Morelli et al. 2016).

The effects of climate change can be also predicted to further impact ecosystems by causing changes in species, phenology, range, and community composition (Chen et al. 2011). According to Pallemearts et al. (2005), assuming even the most optimistic projections of the level of mitigation that can be achieved, freshwater aquatic ecosystems will still be significantly exposed to the impacts of climate change. The European Union published a white paper on climate change adaptation (EC 2009a, b), in which a framework was set out to enhance the EU’s resilience to the impacts of climate change. Although ecosystems are threatened by climate change, they are also part of the adaptation solutions as they perform important services for society such as climate regulation, carbon sequestration, flood protection, and soil erosion prevention. To safeguard these services for society, resilient ecosystems are needed that are able to cope with the impacts of climate change, such as the increased hydrological dynamics caused by weather extremes and the shifting of suitable climate zones.

An increasing problem of water-dependent habitats in the CBR in Europe is the reduction in groundwater levels resulting from natural- and human-induced hydrological modifications and climate change. These same factors are also responsible for the degradation of floodplain systems, particularly riverbed incision and floodplain aggradation (Pataki et al. 2013). Despite the diversity of solutions that can be implemented to replenish water resources or slow down or even reset the degradation of aquatic ecosystems, other co-existing factors may still post threats.

Our results show that even well-protected conservation areas can become focal points for tourism and recreational activities that may reduce habitat quality and biodiversity (Dudgeon et al. 2005). Thus, for most of the global land surface, trade-offs between conservation of freshwater biodiversity and human use of ecosystem goods and services are necessary.

Conservation opportunities and challenges

Our research confirms Dougeon’s conclusions (Dudgeon et al. 2005), that the threats to global freshwater biodiversity can be grouped under interacting categories: flow modification, water pollution, overexploitation, destruction or degradation of habitat, and invasion by alien species. Maintaining the natural variability in flows and water levels is therefore essential to underpin conservation strategies for freshwater biodiversity and habitats (Folke et al. 2004; Kingsford 2011; Goode et al. 2012; House et al. 2017; Creed et al. 2018). Environmental changes occurring at the global scale, such as nitrogen deposition, shifts in precipitation and runoff patterns and climate change (e.g., Creed et al. 2018; Abell et al. 2019), are superimposed upon all of these threat categories. Consideration of these processes results in more effective conservation of freshwater biodiversity (Hermoso et al. 2018; Abell et al. 2019).

Conservation planning has experienced significant advances in the last decade, including the development of new methods and tools addressing the specific needs of freshwater ecosystems (Hermoso et al. 2016). To be effective, conservation planning for freshwater biodiversity must incorporate key aspects of freshwater ecology such as longitudinal connectivity (Ward and Stanford 1995; Amoros and Bornette 2002). This method is necessary to ensure the maintenance of ecosystem processes, such as migrations or the flux of nutrients and energy, and to minimize the negative effect of threats within protected areas that might undermine conservation efforts (Nel et al. 2007; Roux et al. 2008). Conservation action at the catchment scale, involving interconnected landscape units, is also needed for certain terrestrial taxa that undertake seasonal migrations, but the shortcomings inherent in fortress conservation are particularly acute for freshwater biodiversity (Dudgeon et al. 2005). Effective preservation of biodiversity associated with freshwater habitats must therefore take account the year-round habitat use and movements by terrestrial, riparian and amphibian fauna (e.g. frogs, water dragons and snakes, platypuses, otters, and many water birds), as well as the needs of the strictly aquatic biota. Maintenance of some semblance of the natural flow variability and the flood/drought cycle of rivers and their floodplains, vernal pools, and water-level fluctuations in wetlands and along lakeshores, will also be essential (Dudgeon et al. 2005).

The conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems are critical to the interests of all humans, nations and governments, providing a broad variety of valuable goods and services for human societies. Having multiple human uses and forms of management is beneficial for maintaining landscape heterogeneity and states of dynamic equilibrium between human activity and ecological processes, for example, the reintroduction of grazing in lake catchments (Pretty et al. 2009; Middleton 2012). By emphasizing the role of broad-scale heterogeneity on biodiversity patterns, previous studies (Amici et al. 2015; Babai et al. 2015) have confirmed that similar policy adjustments are key to conserving not only cultural and historical values but also the rich biological heritage of European landscapes.

Thus, complex management actions need to be performed to mitigate anthropogenic threats and act as amplification factors for processes and phenomena in complex water-based systems. Protection of freshwater biodiversity in the long term must include reserves that protect key, biodiversity-rich water bodies (especially those with important species radiations) and their catchments, as well as species- or habitat-centred plans that reconcile biodiversity protection and societal use of water resources in the context of human-modified ecosystems. We found it extremely important to mimick the natural flow regime because it influences aquatic biodiversity via several interrelated mechanisms that operate over different spatial and temporal scales (Bunn and Arthington 2002). Taking the above into account, as well as relevant literature, we compiled a list of practices (Table 5) supporting conservation of freshwater habitats in reference to the recognized threats.
Table 5

A list of recommended of conservation practices in the direct and indirect surroundings of freshwater habitats

Conservation practice

Habitat code

References

3110

3130

3140

3150

3160

3220

3240

3260

3270

 

The aim is to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff that reaches the water: reduce arable land; restore grassland; increase the presence of meadows

xxx

xx

xx

xxx

x

x

x

xx

x

Toporowska et al. (2018); Hermoso et al. (2018); Naiman and Decamps (1997); Beltran et al. (2011); Leyssen et al. (2014); House et al. (2015)

Reduce fertilizers used

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

x

x

xx

x

Toporowska et al. (2018); Ostrofsky (1978); Naiman and Decamps (1997); Beltran et al. (2011)

Maintain low concentrations of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and calcium, low electrolytic conductivity, keep high transparency and low colour that allow the existence and development of vegetation lobelia, Chara spp.; manage unpaved roads

xxx

xxx

xxx

xx

xx

x

x

xx

x

Wilk-Woźniak et al. (2019); Naiman and Decamps (1997); Roni et al. (2008); Goode et al. (2012); Beltran et al. (2011)

Establish buffer zones between arable lands and freshwater habitats by creating grass/bush/tree strips to stop nutrient and sediment runoff, reduce inflow of suspended material into water habitats.

Protecting riparian buffers is almost universally considered an effective conservation activity, although larger upstream catchment conditions may override riparian benefits

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

     

Abell et al. (2019); Wilk-Woźniak et al. (2019); Hermoso et al. (2018); Naiman and Decamps (1997); Franklin et al. (2019)

Implement agricultural best management practices and good agricultural practices recognised on the national or international level (FAO, EU Nitrates Directive, etc.); location—some sub-catchments or even stream reaches may support higher priority freshwater biodiversity elements and ecosystem processes than others, but most terrestrial PAs have not been sited with these elements in mind

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

x

x

x

x

Zedková et al. (2014); Abell et al. (2019); Thieme et al. (2016); Herbert et al. (2010); Juffe-Bignoli et al. (2016); Hermoso et al. (2018); Ellison et al. (2009)

Create buffer zones using groups of woody and shrub vegetation -explanation as above

  

xx

xx

   

xxx

 

Zedková et al. (2014)

Prohibit meadow fertilization

xxx

xxx

xxx

xx

xxx

x

x

x

 

Ostrofsky (1978)

Increase the presence of broadleaved forest to counteract erosion; coniferous forest in immediate surroundings is not recommended since it lowers water pH

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

     

Wilk-Woźniak et al. (2019)

Stabilize hydrological conditions; avoid extreme flows; the inflow and outflow of watercourses into oxbows and small reservoirs affects the quality of these habitats

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

x

 

xx

 

Wilk-Woźniak et al. (2019); Beltran et al. (2011); Doulgeris and Argyroudi (2018); Leyssen et al. (2014); House et al. (2015)

Exclude livestock from streams, reduce grazing intensity, and provide livestock with alternative water sources

xxx

x

xxx

xx

 

xx

xxx

xxx

xxx

Ellison et al. (2009); Sievers et al. (2017); Leyssen et al. (2014); House et al. (2015)

Maintain green zones in and around urbanized areas

xxx

x

xxx

xxx

   

xx

 

Wilk-Woźniak et al. (2019); Gold et al. (2019)

Maintain proper water and sewage management

xx

x

xxx

xx

x

x

x

xx

x

Ostrofsky (1978); Gold et al. (2019)

Keep water as a living part of urbanized areas

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xx

xx

xxx

x

Abell et al. (2019); Beltran et al. (2011); Doulgeris and Argyroudi (2018); Leyssen et al. (2014); House et al. (2015)

Properly manage mines and excavations so as to not to destroy hydrological conditions

    

xxx

xxx

xxx

  

Nielsen and Kelly (2016); Sheridan et al. (2018); Cravotta et al. (2013); Worku (2017)

Prohibit the creation of mines and excavations

xx

xx

  

xxx

xxx

xxx

  

Kunz (2016); Worku (2017); Kapustka et al. (2015)

Remove vegetation from the bottom and slopes of water reservoirs (mow rushes, remove plant biomass)

x

xxx

xxx

xx

 

xxx

xxx

xx

xx

Güsewell and Le Nédic (2004); Franklin et al. (2019); Stefanidis et al. (2019); Harvey et al. (2019); Strayer (2010), Francis et al. (2019); Leyssen et al. (2014); House et al. (2015)

Counteract water brownification

xxx

  

xxx

     

Górniak et al. (1999); Creed et al. (2018); Leonardos et al. (2008)

Implement rational fisheries management

 

xxx

 

xxx

   

xx

xx

Salmi et al. (2004)

Prohibit fisheries

xxx

 

xx

 

xxx

  

x

 

Wilk-Woźniak et al. (2019)

Mitigate climate change (manifesting itself largely through hydrological impacts)

xx

xx

xx

x

xx

x

x

xx

x

Kingsford (2011); Goode et al. (2012); Creed et al. (2018); Folke et al. (2004); House et al. (2017)

Mitigate the outcomes, threats outside the borders of a protection area (e.g., dams, water withdrawals, agriculture, mining, forestry, or urbanization) can impinge upon the ecosystems and species within them; spatial scale—small protected areas may have little impact, although if they drain to or comprise small headwater streams, the impact may be proportionately greater than if they are located further downstream in river networks

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

  

xxx

 

Folke et al. (2004); Death and Collier (2010); Thieme et al. (2016); Abell et al. (2019); Doulgeris and Argyroudi (2018); Díez et al. (2015); Biró et al. (2018); Hermoso et al. (2016); Genseberger et al. (2016), Leyssen et al. (2014); House et al. (2015)

Prohibit afforestation—many but not all studies of afforestation, i.e., planting tree stands where there were none previously, focus on plantation forestry, looking primarily at the impacts of afforestation with non-native (typically conifer) species on stream chemistry

xxx

xxx

xxx

    

x

 

Tierney et al. (1998); Friberg et al. (1998); Sievers et al. (2017)

Reforestation—it may be assumed that on balance the impacts of reforestation using native species should be positive for freshwater biodiversity in the long term

x

x

xx

xxx

   

xxx

 

Filoso et al. (2017); Yeung et al. (2017); Leyssen et al. (2014)

Limit tourist and recreational facilities

xxx

x

xxx

xx

xxx

 

xxx

 

xxx

Reeves (2002); Gerlak (2004)

Manage fire risk

xx

x

xxx

x

xxx

    

Bisson et al. (2003); Pilliod et al. (2003); Bixby et al. (2015)

Restore ecosystem services

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xx

  

xx

 

Kapustka et al. (2015); Folke et al. (2004); Díez et al. (2015); Biró et al. (2018); Hermoso et al. (2016); Genseberger et al. (2016)

Consider cumulative anthropogenic impacts

xxx

x

xxx

x

x

  

xx

 

Wang et al. (2019); Bloom et al. (2013); Abell et al. (2019); Beltran et al. (2011); Hein et al. (2018)

For explanation of habitat codes, please see Table 1; note: xxx—very important; xx—important; x—favourable

Conclusions

The most significant threats to freshwater habitats in the Continental Biogeographical Region result from human-induced changes in hydraulic conditions that have modified entire natural systems. Based on a multivariate analysis (Figs. 3 , 4), we found that significant differences in the conservation status of freshwater habitats have resulted from a variety of threats, pressures, and activities, among which the most significant are urbanization and residential and commercial development (3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, 3160, and 3260); transportation (3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, and 3160) and service corridors (3260 and 3270), including parking areas (3110, 3140, and 3260); railway lines (3150, 3130, and 3260); decreased (3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, and 3160) and unstable water resources (3260 and 3270); fishing and harvesting of aquatic resources (3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, and 3160); agricultural pollution (3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, 3160, and 3260); improper management and use of agricultural catchment (3130, 3140, 3150, 3160, and 3260) and forest catchment (3130, 3140, 3150, and 3160); changes in biocenotic evolution, succession, and plant species composition (3110, 3140, 3160, 3150 and 3260, 3220); succession of invasive species (3130, 3240, and 3260); and increasingly intense touristic exploration (3110, 3130, 3140, 3150, 3160 3260, and 3270). Only in the case of habitats 3110, 3130, 3140, 3160, and 3260 were the changes in conservation status associated with climate change. The most impacted habitats were 3140 (hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.) and 3110 (oligotrophic waters, Littorelletalia uniflorae) while the least impacted were habitats 3220 (alpine rivers and the herbaceous vegetation along their banks) and 3240 (alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Salix elaeagnos).

The threats and the scale of the problem presented in this work are mostly related to negative human-induced impacts on freshwater ecosystems, which is in line with the global decline in biodiversity, which occurs at a much faster rate in aquatic than in most terrestrial systems (Vaughn 2010). Freshwater habitats and freshwater-dependent habitats require the careful, sustainable management of their natural resources, considering all their functions: natural, landscape, social, and economic. Actions are needed to enhance catchment-level and cross-sectional cooperation among different administrative and operational actors and institutes, such as public administrations implementing the WFD, the administrative bodies involved in implementing the Habitats and Birds directives, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector.

Together with the current publication, the list of recommended practices, produced as part of this work, will help policy makers assess progress towards reaching the 2020 biodiversity objectives and targets and will support implementation of relevant EU legislation, such as the EU Habitats Directive. This list can also be used in a wide range of applications in policy, science and public awareness work.

The cause of the identified pressures and threats revealed in the study may be the weak and insufficient nature conservation laws in Poland. Although the Polish regulations recognize that aquatic ecosystems are beneficial for human beings, as visible in spatial management, nature conservation, forestry, and water management, these regulations are not harmonized with each other (Stępniewska et al. 2018). Regulations that allow for the adjustment of existing legal tools are urgently required. This change should limit the impact of the existing pressures on freshwater habitats.

The modern concept of the conservation of biological diversity assumes complex measures that are aimed not only at protecting exceptionally valuable and relatively large sites included in special protected natural areas, but also small sites including land for economic use. Under the conditions of exceptionally high anthropogenic impacts on aquatic ecosystems, enhancing control over catchment land use for agricultural land, forests, and recreation areas is a pressing conservation task in all areas of the CBR in Europe.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The project was financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education within the programme entitled “Regional Initiative of Excellence” for the years 2019–2022. Project No. 010/RID/2018/19, amount of funding 12.000.000 PLN.

Supplementary material

10531_2019_1865_MOESM1_ESM.docx (66 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 68 kb)

References

  1. Abell R, Vigerstol K, Higgins J, Kang S, Karres N, Lehner B, Sridhar A, Chapin E (2019) Freshwater biodiversity conservation through source water protection: quantifying the potential and addressing the challenges. Aquat Conserv.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnoletti M (2014) Rural landscape, nature conservation and culture: some notes on research trends and management approaches from a (southern) European perspective. Landsc Urban Plan 126:66–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alkemade R, Oorschot M, Miles L, Nellemann C, Bakkenes M, ten Brink B (2009) GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems 12(3):374–390.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-009-9229-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amici V, Landi S, Frascaroli F, Rocchini D, Santi E, Chiarucci A (2015) Anthropogenic drivers of plant diversity: perspective on land use change in a dynamic cultural landscape. Biodivers Conserv 24:3185–3199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0949-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amoros C, Bornette G (2002) Connectivity and biocomplexity in waterbodies of riverine floodplains. Freshw Biol 47:761–776.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00905.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Babai D, Toth A, Szentirmai I, Biro M, Mate A, Demeter L, Szepligeti M, Varga A, Molnar A, Kun R, Molnar Z (2015) Do conservation and agri-environmental regulations effectively support traditional small-scale farming in East-Central European cultural landscapes? Biodivers Conserv 24:3305–3327.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0971-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beilin R, Lindborg R, Stenseke M, Pereira HM, Llausa`s A, Slatmo E, Cerqueira Y, Navarro L, Rodrigues P, Reichelt N, Munro N, Queiroz C (2014) Analysing how drivers of agricultural land abandonment affect biodiversity and cultural landscapes using case studies from Scandinavia, Iberia and Oceania. Land Use Policy 36:60–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beltran M, Moral F, Rodríguez-Rodríguez M (2011) Changes in the hydrological functioning of a playa-lake complex under increasing agricultural pressures (Andalusia, Southern Spain). Water Environ J 26(2):212–223.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2011.00278.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biró M, Bölöni J, Molnár Z (2018) Use of long-term data to evaluate loss and endangerment status of Natura 2000 habitats and effects of protected areas. Conserv Biol 32(3):660–671.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bisson P, Rieman B, Luce C, Hessburg P, Lee D, Kershner J, Reeves GH, Gresswell R (2003) Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: current knowledge and key questions. For Ecol Manag 178:213–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00063-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bixby RJ, Cooper SD, Gresswell RE, Brown LE, Dahm CN, Dwire KA (2015) Fire effects on aquatic ecosystems: an assessment of the current state of the science. Freshw Sci 34:1340–1350.  https://doi.org/10.1086/684073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blicharska M, Orlikowska EH, Roberge JM, Grodzinska-Jurczak M (2016) Contribution of social science to large scale biodiversity conservation: a review of research about the Natura 2000 network. Biol Conserv 199:110–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bloom PM, Howerter DW, Emery RB, Armstrong LM (2013) Relationships between grazing and waterfowl production in the Canadian prairies. J Wildl Manag 77:534–544.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braun M, Schindler S, Essl F (2016) Distribution and management of invasive alien plant species in protected areas in Central Europe. J Nat Conserv 33:48–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2016.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag 30:492–507.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Catford JA, Downes BJ (2010) Using multi-scale species distribution data to infer drivers of biological invasion in riparian wetlands. Divers Distrib 16(1):20–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00631.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Catford JA, Vesk PA, White MD, Wintle BA (2011) Hotspots of plant invasion predicted by propagule pressure and ecosystem characteristics. Divers Distrib 17:1099–1110.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00794.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen IC, Hill JK, Ohlemuller R, Roy DB, Thomas CD (2011) Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333:1024–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Čížková H, Květ J, Comín FA, Laiho R, Pokorný J, Pitchart D (2013) Actual state of European wetlands and their possible future in the context of global climate change. Aquat Sci 75:3–26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-011-0233-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clarke SJ (2015) Conserving freshwater biodiversity: the value, status and management of high quality ditch systems. J Nat Conserv 24:93–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Collen B, Whitton F, Dyer EE, Baillie JEM, Cumberlidge N (2014) Global patterns of freshwater species diversity, threat and endemism. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:40–51.  https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12096 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Cravotta CA, Goode DJ, Bartles MD, Risser DW, Galeone DG (2013) Surface water and groundwater interactions in an extensively mined watershed, upper Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania, USA. Hydrol Process 28(10):3574–3601.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Creed IF, Bergström A-K, Trick CG, Grimm NB, Hessen DO, Karlsson J, Kidd KA, Kritzberg E, McKnight DM, Freeman EC, Senar OE, Andersson A, Ask J, Berggren M, Cherif M, Giesler R, Hotchkiss ER, Kortelainen P, Palta MM, Vrede T, Weyhenmeyer GA (2018) Global change-driven effects on dissolved organic matter composition: implications for food webs of northern lakes. Global Change Biol 24(8):3692–3714.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Čuda J, Rumlerová Z, Brůna J, Skálová H, Pyšek P (2017) Floods affect the abundance of invasive Impatiens glandulifera and its spread from river corridors. Divers Distrib 23:342–354.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12524 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cvitanovica C, McDonaldab J, Hobdayac AJ (2016) Geographic range-scale assessment of species conservation status: a framework linking species and landscape features. J Environ Manag 183(3):864–874.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Davis M, Naumann S, McFarland K, Graf A, Evans D (2014) Literature review: the ecological effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Network. ETC/BD report to the EEA, p. 30. https://bd.eionet.europa.eu/Reports/ETCBDTechnicalWorkingpapers/The_ecological_effectiveness_of_the_Natura_2000_Network. Accessed Jan 2019
  27. Death RG, Collier KJ (2010) Measuring stream macroinvertebrate responses to gradients of vegetation cover: when is enough enough? Freshwater Biol 55:1447–1464.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02233.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio E, Ngo H, Guèze M, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman K, Butchart S, Chan K, Garibaldi L, Ichii K, Liu J, Subrmanian S, Midgley G, Miloslavich P, Molnár Z, Obura D, Pfaff A, Polasky S, Purvis A, Razzaque J, Reyers B, Chowdhury R, Shin Y, Visseren-Hamakers I, Wilis K, Zayas C (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/1493508. Accessed Sept 2019
  29. Díez M-A, Etxano I, Garmendia E (2015) Evaluating participatory processes in conservation policy and governance: lessons from a Natura 2000 pilot case study. Environ Policy Gov 25(2):125–138.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1667 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Doulgeris C, Argyroudi A (2018) Contribution to decision-making on establishing the maximum water level for Lake Vegoritida. Lake Reserv Manage.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lre.12249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gressner MO, Kawabata Z-I, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny ML, Sullivan CA (2005) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. EC (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Consolidated Version of 13 May 2013. European Commission, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20130701qid=1483906296626from=EN. Accessed Dec 2018
  33. EC (2009a) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the Conservation of Wild Birds (codified version). Consolidated Version of 13 May 2013. European Commission, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02009L0147-20130701&qid=1484682657634from=EN. Accessed Dec 2018
  34. EC (2009b) White paper—adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=celex:52009DC0147. Accessed Dec 2018
  35. EC (2013) The economic benefits of the Natura 2000 network. Synthesis report. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, p 76. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf. Accessed Dec 2018
  36. EC (2016) Natura 2000. Nature and biodiversity newsletter no. 40–July 2016. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000newsl/nat40_en.pdf. Accessed Dec 2018
  37. EEA (2008) European environment agency, http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu October 2008. Accessed Dec 2018
  38. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2009) Quantifying the roadeffect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario. Can Ecol Soc 14(1):24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eionet (2018a) Reference Portal for Natura 2000. https://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Natura_2000/reference_portal. Accessed Dec 2018
  40. Eionet (2018b). Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. https://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17. Accessed Dec 2018
  41. Ellison CA, Skinner QD, Hicks LS (2009) Assessment of best management practice effects on rangeland stream water quality using multivariate statistical techniques. Rangeland Ecol Manag 62:371–386.  https://doi.org/10.2111/08-026.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Filoso S, Bezerra MO, Weiss KCB, Palmer MA (2017) Impacts of forest restoration on water yield: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 12:e0183210.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183210 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 22:570–574.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS (2004) Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:557–581.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Foxcroft LC, Rouget M, Richardson DM (2007) Risk assessment of riparian plant invasions into protected areas. Conserv Biol 21:412–421.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00673.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Francis RA, Chadwick MA, Turbelin AJ (2019) An overview of non-native species invasions in urban river corridors. River Res Appl, River Basin.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Franklin HM, Robinson BH, Dickinson NM (2019) Plants for nitrogen management in riparian zones: a proposed trait-based framework to select effective species. Ecol Manag Restor.  https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Freudenberger L, Hobson PR, Rupic S, Peer G, Schluck M, Sauermann J, Kreft S, Selva N, Ibisch PL (2013) Spatial road disturbance index (SPROADI) for conservation planning: a novel landscape index, demonstrated for the State of Brandenburg, Germany. Landsc Ecol 28:1353–1369.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9887-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Friberg N, Rebsdorf A, Larsen S (1998) Effects of afforestation on acidity and invertebrates in Danish streams and implications for freshwater communities in Denmark. Water Air Soil Poll 101:235–256.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004949203686 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Garniel A (2000) Schutzkonzept für gefährdete Wasserpflanzen der Fließgewässer und Gräben Schleswig-Holsteins. Teil C. Gräben. Landesamt für Natur und Umwelt Schleswig-Holstein, KielGoogle Scholar
  51. GDEP (2017) General directorate for environmental protection in Poland. Platforma informacyjno-komunikacyjna. http://pzo.gdos.gov.pl. Accessed Dec 2018
  52. GDEP (2018) General directorate for environmental protection in Poland. Standard data form. http://natura2000.gdos.gov.pl/wyszukiwarka-n2k. Accessed Dec 2018
  53. Genseberger M, Noordhuis R, Thiange C, Boderie P (2016) Practical measures for improving the ecological state of Lake Marken using in-depth system knowledge. Lake Reserv Manag 21(1):56–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lre.12122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Gerlak AK (2004) Strengthening river basin institutions: the global environment facility and the Danube River Basin. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2003wr002936 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. GIEP (2018) General inspection of environmental protection in Poland. Monitoring of species and natural habitats. http://siedliska.gios.gov.pl/pl/. Accessed Dec 2018
  56. Glińska-Lewczuk K (2005) Oxbow lakes as biogeochemical filters for nutrient outflow from agricultural areas. Dyn Biogeochem River Corridors Wetl IAHS 294:55–69Google Scholar
  57. Gold AC, Thompson SP, Piehler MF (2019) The effects of urbanization and retention-based stormwater management on coastal plain stream nutrient export. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Goode JR, Luce CH, Buffington JM (2012) Enhanced sediment delivery in a changing climate in semi-arid mountain basins: implications for water resource management and aquatic habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains. Geomorphology 139:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Górniak A, Jekatierynczuk-Rudczyk E, Dobrzyń P (1999) Hydrochemistry of Three Dystrophic Lakes in Northeastern Poland. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 27(1):12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Grzybowski M (2014) Determinants of the diversity of macrophytes in natural lakes affected by land use in the catchment, water chemistry and morphometry lakes. J Elem 19(2):401–422.  https://doi.org/10.5601/jelem.2014.19.1.447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Güsewell S, Le Nédic C (2004) Effects of winter mowing on vegetation succession in a lakeshore fen. Appl Veg Sci 7(1):41–48.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2004.tb00594.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gustafsson L, Felton A, Felton AM, Brunet J, Caruso A, Hjältén J, Lindbladh M, Ranius T, Roberge JM, Weslien J (2015) Natural versus national boundaries: the importance of considering biogeographical patterns in forest conservation policy. Conserv Lett 8:50–57.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Harrison PA, Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Berry PM, Bugter R, de Bello F, Feld CK, Grandin U, Harrington R, Haslett JR, Jongman RHG, Luck GW, da Silva PM, Moora M, Settele J, Sousa JP, Zobel M (2010) Identifying and prioritizing services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv 19:2791–2821.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9789-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Harvey GL, Henshaw AJ, Brasington J, England J (2019) Burrowing invasive species: an unquantified erosion risk at the aquatic-terrestrial interface. Rev Geophys.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RG000635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Havel JE, Kovalenko KE, Thomaz SM, Amalfitano S, Kats LB (2015) Aquatic invasive species: challenges for the future. Hydrobiologia 750(1):147–170.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2166-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hawbaker TJ, Radeloff VC (2004) Roads and landscape pattern in northern Wisconsin based on a comparison of four road data sources. Conserv Biol 18(5):1233–1244.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00231.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hefting MM, van den Heuvel RN, Verhoeven JTA (2013) Wetlands in agricultural landscapes for nitrogen attenuation and biodiversity enhancement: opportunities and limitations. Ecol Engin 56:5–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hein T, Schwarz U, Habersack H, Nichersu J, Preiner S, Willby N, Weigelhofer G (2016) Current status and restoration options for floodplains along the Danube River. Sci Total Environ 543:778–790.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.073 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Hein T, Funk A, Pletterbauer F, Graf W, Zsuffa I, Haidvogl G, Schinegger R, Weigelhofer G (2018) Management challenges related to long-term ecological impacts, complex stressor interactions, and different assessment approaches in the Danube River Basin. River Res Appl 35(5):500–509.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Herbert ME, Mcintyre PB, Doran PJ, Allan JD, Abell R (2010) Terrestrial reserve networks do not adequately represent aquatic ecosystems. Conserv Biol 24:1002–1011.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01460.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Hermoso V, Filipe AF, Segurado P, Beja P (2016) Catchment zoning to unlock freshwater conservation opportunities in the Iberian Peninsula. Divers Distrib 22(9):960–969.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12454 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hermoso V, Clavero M, Villero D, Brotons L (2017) EU’s conservation efforts need more strategic investment to meet continental commitments. Conserv Lett 10(2):231–237.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Hermoso V, Cattarino L, Linke S, Kennard MJ (2018) Catchment zoning to enhance co-benefits and minimize trade-offs between ecosystem services and freshwater biodiversity conservation. Aquat Conserv 28:1004–1014.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Herzon I, Helenius J (2008) Agricultural drainage ditches, their biological importance and functioning. Biol Conserv 141:1171–1183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. House AR, Thompson JR, Sorensen JPR, Roberts C, Acreman MC (2015) Modelling groundwater/surface water interaction in a managed riparian chalk valley wetland. Hydrol Process 30(3):447–462.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. House AR, Thompson JR, Roberts C, de Smeth K, Old G, Acreman MC (2017) Projecting impacts of climate change on habitat availability in a macrophyte dominated Chalk River. Ecohydrology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Janssen JAM, Rodwell JS, Garcia Criado M, Gubbay S, Haynes T, Nieto A, Sanders N, Landucci F, Loidi J, Ssymank A, Tahvanainen T, Valderrabano M, Acosta A, Aronsson M, Arts G, Attorre F, Bergmeier E, Bijlsma R-J, Bioret F, Bita-Nicole C, Biurrun I, Calix M, Capelo J, Carni M, Chytry M, Dengler J, Dimopoulos P, Essl F, Gardjfell H, Gigante D, Giusso del Galdo G, Hajek M, Jansen F, Kapfer J, Mickolajczak A, Molina JA, Molnár Z, Paternoster D, Piernik A, Poulin B, Renaux B, Schaminee JHJ, Sumberova K, Toivonen H, Tonteri T, Tsiripidis I, Tzonev R, Valachovic M (2016) European Red List of Habitats, part 2: terrestrial and freshwater habitats. EU.  https://doi.org/10.2779/091372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Juffe-Bignoli D, Harrison I, Butchart SH, Flitcroft R, Hermoso V, Jonas H et al (2016) Achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 to improve the performance of protected areas and conserve freshwater biodiversity: elements needed to meet a global target for protected areas. Aquat Conserv 26:133–151.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kapustka LA, Bowers K, Isanhart J, Martinez-Garza C, Finger S, Stahl RG, Stauber J (2015) Coordinating ecological restoration options analysis and risk assessment to improve environmental outcomes. Integr Environ Assess Manag 12(2):253–263.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1673 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Keller RP, Geist J, Jeschke JM, Kühn I (2011) Invasive species in Europe: ecology, status, and policy. Environ Sci Europe 23(1):23.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-23-23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kingsford RT (2011) Conservation management of rivers and wetlands under climate change—a synthesis. Mar Freshw Res 62:217–222.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF11029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kreft H, Jetz W (2010) A framework for delineating biogeographical regions based on species distributions. J Biogeogr 37(11):2029–2053.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02375.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Kunz W (2016) What does nature conservation want: clean air, untouched habitats, to make rare species more numerous? Species Conserv Manag Habitats.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527688845.ch3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Lambdon PW, Pyšek P, Basnou C, Hejda M, Arianoutsou M, Essl F, Jarošík V et al (2008) Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs. Preslia 80:101–149Google Scholar
  85. Leonardos ID, Kagalou I, Tsoumani M, Economidis PS (2008) Fish fauna in a Protected Greek lake: biodiversity, introduced fish species over a 80-year period and their impacts on the ecosystem. Ecol Freshw Fish 17(1):165–173.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2007.00268.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lepš J, Šmilauer P (2014) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139627061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Leyssen A, Denys L, Schneiders A, Mouton AM (2014) Distribution and environmental requirements of stream habitat with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation in lower Belgium (Flanders). Aquat Conserv 24(5):601–622.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lososová Z, Chytrý M, Kühn I, Hájek O, Horáková V, Pyšek P, Tichý L (2006) Patterns of plant traits in annual vegetation of man-made habitats in central Europe. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 8:69–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2006.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Mandák B, Pyšek P, Bímová K (2004) History of the invasion and distribution of Reynoutria taxa in the Czech Republic: a hybrid spreading faster than its parents. Preslia 76:15–64Google Scholar
  90. Manhoudt AGE, Visser AJ, De Snoo GR (2007) Management regimes and farming practices enhancing plant species richness on ditch banks. Agric Ecosyst Environ 119:353–358.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Meier M, Gerlach R, Schirmel J, Buhk C (2017) Plant diversity in a water-meadow landscape: the role of irrigation ditches. Plant Ecol 218:971–981.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-017-0744-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Middleton BA (2012) Rediscovering traditional vegetation management in preserves: trading experiences between cultures and continents. Biol Conserv 158:271–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA] (2005) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  94. Mitsch WJ, Zhang L, Stefanik KC, Nahlik AM, Anderson CJ, Bernal B, Hernandez M, Song K (2012) Creating wetlands: primary succession, water quality changes, and self-design over 15 years. Bioscience 62:237–250.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.3.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Mölder A, Schneider E (2011) On the beautiful diverse Danube? Danubian floodplain forest vegetation and flora under the influence of river eutrophication. River Res Appl 27:881–894.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Molina-Navarro E, Andersen HE, Nielsen A, Thodsen H, Trolle D (2018) Quantifying the combined effects of land use and climate changes onstream flow and nutrient loads: a modelling approach in the OdenseFjord catchment (Denmark). Sci Total Environ 621:253–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.251 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Morelli TL, Daly C, Dobrowski SZ, Dulen DM, Ebersole JL, Jackson ST, Lundquist JD, Millar CI, Maher SP, Monahan WB, Nydick KR, Redmond KT, Sawyer SC, Stock S, Beissinger SR (2016) Managing climate change refugia for climate adaptation. PLoS ONE 12(1):e0169725.36.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169725 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Mróz W (2010) Monitoring of natural habitats. Methodological guide. Library of Environmental Monitoring. Inspection of Environmental Protection. Part I. Warsaw http://siedliska.gios.gov.pl/images/pliki_pdf/publikacje/Monitoring-siedlisk-przyrodniczych.-Przewodnik-metodyczny.-Cz-I.pdf. Accessed Sept 2019
  99. Mróz W (2012a) Monitoring of natural habitats. Methodological guide. Library of environmental monitoring. Inspection of environmental protection. Part II. Warsaw http://siedliska.gios.gov.pl/images/pliki_pdf/publikacje/Monitoring-siedlisk-przyrodniczych.-Przewodnik-metodyczny.-Cz-II.pdf. Accessed Sept 2019
  100. Mróz W (2012b) Monitoring of natural habitats. Methodological guide. Library of Environmental Monitoring. Inspection of Environmental Protection. Part III. Warsaw http://siedliska.gios.gov.pl/images/pliki_pdf/publikacje/Monitoring-siedlisk-przyrodniczych.-Przewodnik-metodyczny.-Cz-III.pdf. Accessed Sept 2019
  101. Mróz W (2015) Monitoring of natural habitats. Methodological guide. Library of Environmental Monitoring. Inspection of Environmental Protection. Part IV. Warsaw http://siedliska.gios.gov.pl/images/pliki_pdf/publikacje/Monitoring-siedlisk-przyrodniczych.-Przewodnik-metodyczny.-Cz-IV.pdf. Accessed Sept 2019
  102. Mróz W (2017) Monitoring of natural habitats. Methodological guide. Introduction. Library of Environmental Monitoring. Inspection of Environmental Protection. Warsaw http://siedliska.gios.gov.pl/images/pliki_pdf/publikacje/methodological_guides/Introduction.pdf. Accessed Sept 2019
  103. Müller IB, Buhk C, Lange D, Entling MH, Schirmel J (2016) Contrasting effects of irrigation and fertilization on plant diversity in hay meadows. Basic Appl Ecol 17:576–585.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2016.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Naiman R, Decamps H (1997) The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 28:621–658.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Nel JL, Roux DJ, Maree G, Kleynhans CJ, Moolman J, Reyers B, Rouget M, Cowling RM (2007) Rivers in peril inside and outside protected areas: a systematic approach to conservation assessment of river ecosystems. Divers Distrib 13:341–352.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00308.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Nielsen CK, Kelly VL (2016) Wildlife habitat is similar at mined versus unmined sites 30 years following surface mining for coal in Southern Illinois. J Contemp Water Res Educ 157(1):23–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2016.03211.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Orlikowska EH, Roberge JM, Blicharska M, Mikusiński G (2016) Gaps in ecological research on the world’s largest internationally coordinated network of protected areas: a review of Natura 2000. Biol Conserv 200:216–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Ortmann-Ajkai A, Csicsek G, Hollós R, Magyaros V, Wágner L, Lóczy D (2018) Twenty-years’ changes of wetland vegetation: effects of floodplain-level threats. Wetlands 38:591–604.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1002-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Ostrofsky ML (1978) Trophic changes in reservoirs; an hypothesis using phosphorus budget models. Int Rev Hydrobiol 63(4):481–499.  https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19780630403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Pallemearts M, Parker CN, Shukla PR, Van Schaik LG (2005) The Greenland dialogue on climate change: a policy discussion paperGoogle Scholar
  111. Parris KM, Schneider A (2009) Impacts of traffic noise and traffic volume on birds of roadside habitats. Ecol Soc 14(1):29.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02761-140129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Pataki B, Zsuffa I, Hunyady A (2013) Vulnerability assessment for supporting the revitalization of river floodplains. Environ Sci Policy 34:69–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Percic V, Horvatic J, Has-Schön E, Bogut I (2009) Changes in N and P limitation induced by water level fluctuations in Nature Park Kopacki Rit (Croatia): nutrient enrichment bioassay. Aquat Ecol 43:27–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-007-9156-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Pilliod D, Bury R, Hyde E, Pearl C, Corn P (2003) Fire and amphibians in North America. Forest Ecol Manag 178:163–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00060-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Popescu VD, Rozylowicz L, Niculae IM, Cucu AL, Hartel T (2014) Species, habitats, society: an evaluation of research supporting EU’s Natura 2000 network. PLoS ONE 9:13–22.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Pretty J, Adams B, Berkes F, de Athayde S, Dudley N, Hunn E, Maffi L, Milton K, Rapport D, Robbins P, Sterling E, Stolton S, Tsing A, Vintinnerk E, Pilgrim S (2009) The intersections of biological diversity and cultural diversity: towards integration. Conserv Soc 7:100–112.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.58642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Rattisab L, Dobrovolskic R, Talebid M, Loyolae R (2018) Geographic range-scale assessment of species conservation status: a framework linking species and landscape features. PECON 16(2):97–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. RDEP (2018) Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection in Poland. bialystok.rdos.gov.pl; bydgoszcz.rdos.gov.pl; gdansk.rdos.gov.pl; gorzow.rdos.gov.pl; katowice.rdos.gov.pl; kielce.rdos.gov.pl; krakow.rdos.gov.pl; lublin.rdos.gov.pl; lodz.rdos.gov.pl; olsztyn.rdos.gov.pl; opole.rdos.gov.pl; poznan.rdos.gov.pl; rzeszow.rdos.gov.pl; szczecin.rdos.gov.pl; warszawa.rdos.gov.pl; wroclaw.rdos.gov.pl. Accessed Dec 2018Google Scholar
  119. Reeves N (2002) Managing the impact of tourism on the environment. Water Environ J 16(1):7–11.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2002.tb00360.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, Brooks TM, Cowling RM, Fishpool LDC, da Fonseca GAB, Gaston KJ, Hoffmann M, Long JS, Marquet PA, Pilgrim JD, Pressey RL, Schipper J, Sechrest W, Stuart SN, Underhill LG, Waller RW, Watts MEJ, Yan X (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428:640–643.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02422 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Rodríguez-Merinoa A, García-Murilloa P, Cirujanob S, Fernández-Zamudio R (2018) Predicting the risk of aquatic plant invasions in Europe: how climatic factors and anthropogenic activity influence potential species distributions. J Nat Conserv 45:58–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2018.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Roni P, Hanson K, Beechie T (2008) Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. N Am J Fish Manage 28:856–890.  https://doi.org/10.1577/M06-169.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Roux DJ, Nel JL, Ashton PJ, Deacon AR, de Moor FC, Hardwick D, Hill L, Kleynhans CJ, Maree GA, Moolman J, Scholes RJ (2008) Designing protected areas to conserve riverine biodiversity: lessons from a hypothetical redesign of the Kruger National Park. Biol Conserv 141:100–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Salmi P, Auvinen H, Jurvelius J, Sipponen M (2004) Finnish lake fisheries and conservation of biodiversity: coexistence or conflict? Fish Manag Ecol 7(1–2):127–138.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2000.00183.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Schnitzler AE, Hale BW, Alsum E (2005) Biodiversity of floodplain forests in Europe and eastern North America: a comparative study of the Rhine and Mississipi Valleys. Biodivers Conserv 14:97–117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-4056-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araújo MB, Arnell NW, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter TR, Gracia CA, de la Vega-Leinert AC, Erhard M, Ewert F, Glendining M, House JI, Kankaanpää S, Klein RJ, Lavorel S, Lindner M, Metzger MJ, Meyer J, Mitchell TD, Reginster I, Rounsevell M, Sabaté S, Sitch S, Smith B, Smith J, Smith P, Sykes MT, Thonicke K, Thuiller W, Tuck G, Zaehle S, Zierl B (2005) Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310(5752):1333–1337.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115233 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. Selva N, Kreft S, Kati V, Schluck M, Jonsson B, Mihok B, Okarma H, Ibisch PL (2011) Roadless and low-traffic areas as conservation targets in Europe. Environ Manag 48(5):865–877.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9751-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Sheridan C, Akcil A, Kappelmeyer U, Moodley I (2018) A review on the use of constructed wetlands for the treatment of acid mine drainage. Constr Wetl Ind Wastewater Treat.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119268376.ch12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Sievers M, Hale R, Morrongiello JR (2017) Do trout respond to riparian change? A meta-analysis with implications for restoration and management. Freshw Biol 62:445–457.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Stefanidis K, Sarika M, Papastegiadou E (2019) Exploring environmental predictors of aquatic macrophytes in water-dependent Natura 2000 sites of high conservation value: results from a long-term study of macrophytes in Greek lakes. Aquat Conserv.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Stępniewska M, Zwierzchowska I, Mizgajski A (2018) Capability of the Polish legal system to introduce the ecosystem services approach into environmental management. Ecosyst Serv 29:271–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Strayer DL (2010) Alien species in fresh waters: ecological effects, interactions with other stressors, and prospects for the future. Freshw Biol 55:152–174.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02380.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Strayer DL, Dudgeon D (2010) Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:344–358.  https://doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (1998) Canoco reference manual and user’s guide to canoco for windows: software for canonical community ordination, version 4. Microcomputer Power, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  135. Thieme ML, Sindorf N, Higgins J, Abell R, Takats JA, Naidoo R, Barnett A (2016) Freshwater conservation potential of protected areas in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins, USA. Aquat Conserv 26:60–77.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Tierney D, Kelly-Quinn M, Bracken J (1998) The faunal communities of upland streams in the eastern region of Ireland with reference to afforestation impacts. Hydrobiologia 389:115–130.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003510016292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Tockner K, Stanford JA (2002) Riverine floodplains: present state and future trends. Environ Conserv 29:308–330.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689290200022X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Toporowska M, Ferencz B, Dawidek J (2018) Impact of lake-catchment processes on phytoplankton community structure in temperate shallow lakes. Ecohydrology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN (2016) Protected planet report 2016. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  140. Ustaoglu E, Williams B (2017) Determinants of urban expansion and agricultural land conversion in 25 EU countries. Environ Manag 60:717–746.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0908-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Van Eetvelde V, Antrop M (2004) Analyzing structural and functional changes of traditional landscapes—two examples from southern France. Landsc Urban Plan 67:79–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00030-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Van Strien AJ, Van der Burg T, Rip WTM, Strucker RCW (1991) Effects of mechanical ditch management on the vegetation of ditch banks in Dutch peat areas. J Appl Ecol 28:501–513.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2404564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Vardarman J, Berchová-Bímová K, Pěknicová J (2018) The role of protected area zoning in invasive plant management. Biodivers Conserv 27:1811–1829.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1508-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Vaughn C (2010) Biodiversity losses and ecosystem function in freshwaters: emerging conclusions and research directions. Bioscience 60:25–35.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.1.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Wang R, Dearing JA, Doncaster CP, Yang X, Zhang E, Langdon PG, Yang H, Dong X, Hu XuM, Zhao Y, Shen J (2019) Network parameters quantify loss of assemblage structure in human-impacted lake ecosystems. Global Change Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14776 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Ward JV, Stanford JA (1995) Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. River Res Applic 11:105–119.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450110109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Wilk-Woźniak E, Walusiak E, Burchardt L, Cerbin S, Chmura D, Gąbka M et al (2019) Effects of the environs of waterbodies on aquatic plants in oxbow lakes (habitat 3150). Ecolog Indic 98:736–742.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Worku H (2017) Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of cobblestone quarries in Addis Ababa and implication for resource use efficiency, environmental quality, and sustainability of land after-use. Environ Qual Manag 27(2):41–61.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21524 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Wuebbles DJ, Easterling DR, Hayhoe K, Knutson T, Kopp RE, Kossin JP, Kunkel KE, LeGrande AN, Mears C, Sweet WV, Taylor PC, Vose RS, Wehner MF (2017) Our globally changing climate. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles DJ, Fahey DW, Hibbard KA, Dokken DJ, Stewart BC, Maycock TK (eds)] U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, pp 35–72Google Scholar
  150. Yeung ACY, Lecerf A, Richardson JS (2017) Assessing the longterm ecological effects of riparian management practices on headwater streams in a coastal temperate rainforest. For Ecol Manag 384:100–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.10.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Zedková B, Rádková V, Bojková J, Soldán T, Zahrádková S (2014) Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) as indicators of environmental changes in the past five decades: a case study from the Morava and Odra River Basins (Czech Republic). Aquat Conserv 25(5):622–638.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2004) Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23(5):431–452.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680490514673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Zorilla-Miras P, Palomo I, Gomes-Baggenthun E, Martin-Lopez B, Lomas PL, Montes P (2014) Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: a case study in the Donana marshes (SW Spain). Landsc Urban Plan 122:60–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Tourism, Recreation and EcologyUniversity of Warmia and Mazury in OlsztynOlsztynPoland
  2. 2.Department of Water Resources, Climatology and Environmental ManagementUniversity of Warmia and Mazury in OlsztynOlsztynPoland

Personalised recommendations