Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 69–84 | Cite as

Assessing Restoration Effects on River Hydromorphology Using the Process-based Morphological Quality Index in Eight European River Reaches

  • B. Belletti
  • L. Nardi
  • M. Rinaldi
  • M. Poppe
  • K. Brabec
  • M. Bussettini
  • F. Comiti
  • M. Gielczewski
  • B. Golfieri
  • S. Hellsten
  • J. Kail
  • E. Marchese
  • P. Marcinkowski
  • T. Okruszko
  • A. Paillex
  • M. Schirmer
  • M. Stelmaszczyk
  • N. Surian
Article

Abstract

The Morphological Quality Index (MQI) and the Morphological Quality Index for monitoring (MQIm) have been applied to eight case studies across Europe with the objective of analyzing the hydromorphological response to various restoration measures and of comparing the results of the MQI and MQIm as a morphological assessment applied at the reach scale, with a conventional site scale physical-habitat assessment method. For each restored reach, the two indices were applied to the pre-restoration and post-restoration conditions. The restored reach was also compared to an adjacent, degraded reach. Results show that in all cases the restoration measures improved the morphological quality of the reach, but that the degree of improvement depends on many factors, including the initial morphological conditions, the length of the restored portion in relation to the reach length, and on the type of intervention. The comparison with a conventional site scale physical-habitat assessment method shows that the MQI and MQIm are best suited for the evaluation of restoration effects on river hydromorphology at the geomorphologically-relevant scale of the river reach.

Keywords

Fluvial geomorphology River restoration Hydromorphological assessment Hydromorphological monitoring Human impact 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work incorporated in this paper was funded through the European Union’s FP7 programme under Grant Agreement No. 282656 (REFORM). The present study was developed within the context of Deliverable D6.2 of the REFORM programme. The authors sincerely thank the Associate Editor, Angus Webb, and two anonymous reviewers for their precious comments and feedback.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Arnaud F, Piégay H, Schmitt L, Rollet AJ, Ferrier V, Béal D (2015a) Geomorphology historical geomorphic analysis (1932–2011) of a by-passed river reach in process-based restoration perspectives: The Old Rhine downstream of the Kembs diversion dam (France, Germany). Geomorphology 236:163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnaud F, Staentzel C, Beisel JN, Piégay H, Grac C, Trémolières M, Combroux I, Schmitt L, Barillier A, Garnier A (2015b) Geomorphic and ecological monitoring of an experimental sediment reintroduction into the Rhine River downstream of the Kembs dam. Proceedings I.S. Rivers 2015Google Scholar
  3. Beechie TJ, Sear DA, Olden JD, Pess GR, Buffington JM, Moir H, Roni P, Pollock MM (2010) Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystem. BioScience 60(3):209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belletti B, Rinaldi M, Gurnell AM, Buijse AD, Mosselman E (2015a) A review of assessment methods for river hydromorphology. Environ Earth Sci 73:2079–2100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belletti B, Rinaldi M, Comiti F, Nardi L, Mao L, Bussettini M (2015b) Development of a system for the classification of geomorphic units aimed at characterizing physical habitats and stream morphology. In: Angelopoulos N, Buijse AD et al. (ed), Proceedings of the International Conference on River and Stream Restoration “Novel Approaches to Assess and Rehabilitate Modified Rivers”. FP7 REFORM deliverable 7.5, pp 86–91Google Scholar
  6. Belletti B, Rinaldi M, Bussettini M, Comiti F, Gurnell AM, Mao L, Nardi L, Vezza P (2017) Characterising physical habitats and fluvial hydromorphology: a new system for the survey and classification of river geomorphic units. Geomorphology 283:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brierley GJ, Fryirs KA (2005) Geomorphology and river management: applications of the river style framework. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Brierley GJ, Fryirs K (2009) Don’t fight the site: geomorphic considerations in catchment-scale river rehabilitation planning. Environ Manag 43(6):1201–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brierley GJ, Reid H, Fryirs K, Trahan N (2010) What are we monitoring and why? Using geomorphic principles to frame eco-hydrological assessments of river condition. Sci Total Environ 408:2025–2033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campana D, Marchese E, Theule JI, Comiti F (2014) Channel degradation and restoration of an Alpine river and related morphological changes. Geomorphology 221:230–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Church M (2006) Bed material transport and the morphology of alluvial river channels. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 34:325–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke SJ, Bruce-Burgess L, Wharton G (2003) Linking form and function: towards an eco-hydromorphic approach to sustainable river restoration. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 13:439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Comiti F (2012) How Natural Are Alpine Mountain Rivers? Evidence from the Italian Alps. Earth Surf Process Landf 37(7):693–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eeckout JPC, Hoitink AJF, De Brouwer JHF, Verdonschot PFM (2015) Morphological assessment of reconstructed lowland streams in the Netherlands. Adv Water Resour 81:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elosegi A, Flores L, Díez J (2011) The importance of local processes on river habitat characteristics: a Basque stream case study. Limnetica 30(2):183–196Google Scholar
  16. Fortin MJ, Payette S, Marineau K (1999) Spatial vegetation diversity index along a postfire successional gradient in the northern boreal forest. Ecoscience 6:204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friberg N (2014) Impacts and indicators of change in lotic ecosystems. WIREs Water 1:513–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friberg N, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Kristensen EA, Kronvang B, Larsen SE, Pedersen ML, Skriver J, Thodsen H, Wiberg-Larsen P (2014) The River Gelså restoration revisited: habitat specific assemblages and persistence of the macroinvertebrate community over an 11-year period. Ecol Eng 66:150–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fryirs KA (2015) Developing and using geomorphic condition assessments for river rehabilitation planning, implementation and monitoring. WIREs Water 2:649–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. González Del Tánago M, Gurnell AM, Belletti B, García de Jalón D (2016) Indicators of river system hydromorphological character and dynamics: understanding current conditions and guiding sustainable river management. Aquat Sci 78:35–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golfieri B, Surian N, Hardersen S (2018) Towards a more comprehensive assessment of river corridor conditions: a comparison between the Morphological Quality Index and three biotic indices. Ecol Indic 84:525–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Göthe E, Timmermann A, Januschke K, Baattrup-Pedersen A (2015) Structural and functional responses of floodplain vegetation to stream ecosystem restoration. Hydrobiologia 769(1):1–14Google Scholar
  23. Gurnell AM, Belletti B, Bizzi S, Blamauer B, Braca G, Buijse AD, Bussettini M, Camenen B, Comiti F, Demarchi L, García De Jalón D, González Del Tánago M, Grabowski RC, Gunn IDM, Habersack H, Hendriks D, Henshaw A, Klösch M, Lastoria B, Latapie A, Marcinkowski P, Martínez-Fernández V, Mosselman E, Mountford JO, Nardi L, Okruszko T, O’Hare MT, Palma M, Percopo C, Rinaldi M, Surian N, van de Bund W, Weissteiner C, Ziliani L (2016a) A multi-scale hierarchical framework for developing understanding of river behaviour. Aquat Sci 78:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gurnell AM, Rinaldi M, Buijse AD, Brierley G, Piégay H (2016b) Hydromorphological frameworks: emerging trajectories. Aquat Sci 78:135–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haase P, Hering D, Jähnig SC, Lorenz AW, Sundermann A (2013) The impact of hydromorphological restoration on river ecological status: a comparison of fish, benthic invertebrates, and macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 704:475–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Habersack H, Piégay H (2007) Challenges in river restoration in the Alps and their surrounding areas. In: Habersack H, Piégay H, Rinaldi M (ed) Gravel-bed River 6: From process understanding to river restoration. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 703–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hering D, Aroviita J, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Brabec K, Buijse T, Ecke F, Friberg N, Gielczewski M, Januschke K, Köhler J, Kupilas B, Lorenz AW, Muhar S, Paillex A, Poppe M, Schmidt T, Schmutz S, Vermaat J, Verdonschot PFM, Verdonschot RCM, Wolter C, Kail J (2015) Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects. J Appl Ecol 52(6):1518–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jähnig SC, Lorenz AW, Hering D (2008) Hydromorphological parameters indicating differences between single-and multiple-channel mountain rivers in Germany, in relation to their modification and recovery. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 18:1200–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jähnig SC, Brunzel S, Gacek S, Lorenz AW, Hering D (2009) Effects of re-braiding measures on hydromorphology, floodplain vegetation, ground beetles and benthic invertebrates in mountain rivers. J Appl Ecol 46:406–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jähnig SC, Brabec K, Buffagni A, Erba S, Lorenz AW, Ofenboeck T, Verdonschot PFM, Hering D (2010) A comparative analysis of restoration measures and their effects on hydromorphology and benthic invertebrates in 26 central and southern European rivers. J Appl Ecol 47:671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jähnig SC, Lorenz AW, Lorenz RRC, Kail J (2013) A comparison of habitat diversity and interannual habitat dynamics in actively and passively restored mountain rivers of Germany. Hydrobiologia 712:89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Januschke K, Brunzel S, Haase P, Hering D (2011) Effects of stream restorations on riparian mesohabitats, vegetation and carabid beetles. Biodivers Conserv 20:3147–3164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Januschke K, Jähnig SC, Lorenz AW, Hering D (2014) Mountain river restoration measures and their success(ion): effects on river morphology, local species pool, and functional composition of three organism groups. Ecol Indic 38:243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kail J, Hering D (2005) Using large wood to restore streams in Central Europe: potential use and likely effects. Landsc Ecol 20:755–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kail J, Brabec K, Januschke K, Poppe M (2015) The effect of river restoration on fish, macroinvertebrates and macrophytes: a meta-analysis. Ecol Indic 58:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knighton D (1998) Fluvial forms and processes: a new perspective. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Kristensen EA, Thodsen H, Dehli B, Quiroga Kolbe PE, Glismand L, Kronvang B (2013) Comparison of active and passive stream restoration: effects on the physical habitats. Geogr Tidsskr-Dan J Geogr 113(2):109–120Google Scholar
  38. Kristensen EA, Kronvang B, Wiberg-Larsen P, Thodsen H, Nielsen C, Amor E, Friberg N, Pedersen ML, Baattrup-Pedersen A (2014) 10 years after the largest river restoration project in Northern Europe: hydromorphological changes on multiple scales in River Skjern. Ecol Eng 66:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laub BG, Baker DW, Bledsoe BP, Palmer MA (2012) Range of variability of channel complexity in urban, restored and forested reference streams. Freshw Biol 57:1076–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marttila M, Kyllönen K, Karjalainen TP (2016) Social success of in-stream habitat improvement: from fisheries enhancement to the delivery of multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 21(1):4.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08118-210104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Massey W, Biron PM, Choné G (2017) Impacts of river bank stabilization using riprap on fish habitat in two contrasting environments. Earth Surf Process Landf 42(4):553–696.  https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morandi B, Piégay H (2011) River restoration experiences on the web: operational outcomes and perspectives. Nat Sci Sociétés 19:224–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morandi B, Piégay H, Lamouroux N, Vaudor L (2014) How is success or failure in river restoration projects evaluated? Feedback from French restoration projects. J Environ Manag 137:178–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mosselman E, Angelopoulos N, Belletti B, Brouwer R, Gurnell AM, Friberg N, Kail J, Reichert P, Geerling G (2015) Guidance and decision support for cost-effective river and floodplain restoration and its benefits. Deliverable 6.3 of REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management), a Collaborative project (large-scale integrating project) funded by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme under Grant Agreement 282656, p 26Google Scholar
  45. Muhar S, Jungwirth M, Unfer G, Wiesner C, Poppe M, Schmutz S, Hohensinner S, Habersack H (2007) Restoring riverine landscapes at the Drau River: successes and deficits in the context of ecological integrity. In: Habersack H, Piégay H, Rinaldi M (ed) Gravel-bed rivers VI: From process understanding to river restoration. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 779–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muhar S, Januscke K, Kail J, Poppe M, Schmutz S, Hering D, Buijse AD (2016) Evaluating good-practice cases for river restoration across Europe: context, methodological framework, selected results and recommendations. Hydrobiologia 769(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nardi L, Rinaldi M, Belletti B, Comiti F, Golfieri B, Marchese E, Surian N, Brabec K, Giełczewski M, Hellsten S, Kaufman S, Marcinkowski P, Muhar S, Okruszko T, Paillex A, Poppe M, Rääpysjärvi J, Schirmer M, Stelmaszczyk M (2015) Application of the Morphological Quality Index (MQI) to European case studies. In: Angelopoulos N, Buijse AD et al. (ed), Proceedings of the International Conference on River and Stream Restoration “Novel Approaches to Assess and Rehabilitate Modified Rivers”. FP7 REFORM deliverable 7.5, pp 143–149Google Scholar
  48. Newson MD, Large ARG (2006) ‘Natural’ rivers, ‘hydromorphological quality’ and river restoration: a challenging new agenda for applied fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surf Process Landf 31:1606–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ollero OA, Ballarín FD, Díaz BE, Mora MD, Sánchez FM, Acín NV, Echeverría AMT, Granado GD, Ibisate GA, Sánchez GL, Sánchez GN (2007) Un indice hydrogeomorfologico (IHG) para la evaluacion del estado ecologico de sistemas fluviales. Geographicalia 52:113–141Google Scholar
  50. Osenberg CW, Sarnelle O, Cooper SD (1997) Effect size in ecological experiments: the application of biological models in meta-analysis. Am Nat 150:798–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Palmer MA, Allan JD, Meyer JL, Bernhardt ES (2007) River restoration in the twenty-first century: data and experiential future efforts. Restor Ecol 15:472–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pasternack GB (2013) Geomorphologist’s guide to participating in river rehabilitation. In: Shroder J, Butler DR, Hupp CR (ed) Treatise on geomorphology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p 843–860.Google Scholar
  53. Poppe M, Kail J, Aroviita J, Stelmaszczyk M, Gielczewski M, Muhar S (2016) Assessing restoration effects on hydromorphology in European mid-sized rivers by key hydromorphological parameters. Hydrobiologia 769(1):21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Richards K, Brasington J, Hughes F (2002) Geomorphic dynamics of floodplains: ecological implications and a potential modelling strategy. Freshw Biol 47:559–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rinaldi M, Wyżga B, Gurnell AM, Dufour S, Bertoldi W (2013a) River processes and implications for fluvial ecogeomorphology: a European perspective. In: Shroder J, Butler DR, Hupp CR (ed) Treatise on geomorphology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p 37–52Google Scholar
  56. Rinaldi M, Surian N, Comiti F, Bussettini M (2013b) A method for the assessment and analysis of the hydromorphological condition of Italian streams: the Morphological Quality Index (MQI). Geomorphology 180-181:96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rinaldi M, Surian N, Comiti F, Bussettini M (2015a) A methodological framework for hydromorphological assessment, analysis and monitoring (IDRAIM) aimed at promoting integrated river management. Geomorphology 251:122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rinaldi M, Nardi L, Belletti B, Bizzi S, Brabec K, Comiti F, Demarchi L, Giełczewski M, Golfieri B, Habersack H, Hellsten S, Kaufman S, Klösch M, Marchese E, Marcinkowski P, Muhar S, Okruszko T, Paillex A, Poppe M, Rääpysjärvi J, Seppo H, Schirmer M, Stelmaszczyk M, Surian N, van de Bund W (2015b) Final report on methods, models, tools to assess the hydromorphology of rivers. Deliverable 6.2, Part 5, of REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management), a Collaborative project (large-scale integrating project) funded by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme under Grant Agreement 282656, p 93Google Scholar
  59. Rinaldi M, Surian N, Comiti F, Bussettini M, Belletti B, Nardi L, Lastoria B, Golfieri B (2015c) Guidebook for the evaluation of stream morphological conditions by the Morphological Quality Index (MQI). Deliverable 6.2, Part 3, of REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management), a Collaborative project (large-scale integrating project) funded by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme under Grant Agreement 282656, p 161Google Scholar
  60. Rinaldi M, Belletti B, Bussettini M, Comiti F, Golfieri B, Lastoria B. Marchese E, Nardi L, Surian N (2016a) New tools for the hydromorphological assessment and monitoring of European streams. J Environ Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.036
  61. Rinaldi M, Gurnell AM, González Del Tánago M, Bussettini M, Hendriks D (2016b) Classification of river morphology and hydrology to support management and restoration. Aquat Sci 78:17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmutz S, Kremser H, Melcher A, Jungwirth M, Muhar S, Waidbacher H, Zauner G (2014) Ecological effects of rehabilitation measures at the Austrian Danube: a meta-analysis of fish assemblages. Hydrobiologia. 729:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schmutz S, Jurajda P, Kaufmann S, Lorenz A, Muhar S, Paillex A, Poppe M, Wolter C (2015) Response of fish assemblages to hydromorphological restoration in central and northern European rivers. Hydrobiologia. https://doi.org/10.1007/730s10750-015-2354-6Google Scholar
  64. Sear DA, Wheaton JM, Darby SE (2008) Uncertain restoration and the role of geomorphology. In: Habersack H, Piégay H, Rindaldi M (eds), Gravel-bed rivers IV: From process understanding to river restoration, vol 11. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 739–760Google Scholar
  65. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. The University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  66. Viles HA, Naylor LA, Carter NEA, Chaput D (2008) Biogeomorphological disturbance regimes: progress in linking ecological and geomorphological systems. Earth Surf Process Landf 33:1419–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ward JV, Tockner K, Uehlinger U, Malard F (2001) Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration. Regul River Res Manag 17:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wohl E, Merritts DJ (2007) What is a natural river? Geogr Compass 1:871–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wohl E, Lane SN, Wilcox AC (2015) The science and practice of river restoration. Water Resour Res 51:5974–5997CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Belletti
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. Nardi
    • 1
  • M. Rinaldi
    • 1
  • M. Poppe
    • 3
  • K. Brabec
    • 4
  • M. Bussettini
    • 5
  • F. Comiti
    • 6
  • M. Gielczewski
    • 7
  • B. Golfieri
    • 8
  • S. Hellsten
    • 9
  • J. Kail
    • 10
  • E. Marchese
    • 6
  • P. Marcinkowski
    • 7
  • T. Okruszko
    • 7
  • A. Paillex
    • 11
  • M. Schirmer
    • 12
  • M. Stelmaszczyk
    • 7
  • N. Surian
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Department of Electronics, Information and BioengineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  3. 3.University of Natural Resources and Life Science (BOKU), Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem ManagementViennaAustria
  4. 4.Research Centre for Toxic Compounds in the Environment, Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  5. 5.National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA)ISPRAItaly
  6. 6.Faculty of Science and TechnologyFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  7. 7.Department of Hydraulic EngineeringWarsaw University of Life SciencesWarszawaPoland
  8. 8.Department of GeosciencesUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly
  9. 9.Finnish Environment InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  10. 10.University of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany
  11. 11.Aquatic Ecology DepartmentEAWAGDübendorfSwitzerland
  12. 12.Department of Water Resources and Drinking WaterEAWAGSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations