Advertisement

The importance of hydrodynamics for protected and endangered biodiversity of lowland rivers

  • R. J. W. de Nooij
  • H. J. R. Lenders
  • R. S. E. W. Leuven
  • P.H. Nienhuis
  • W. C. E. P. Verberk
Chapter
  • 845 Downloads
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 187)

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between protected and endangered riverine species (target species) and hydrodynamics in river-floodplain ecosystems, combining ecological and policy-legal aspects of biodiversity conservation in river management. The importance of different hydrodynamic conditions along a lateral gradient was quantified for various taxonomic groups. Our results show that (i) target species require ecotopes along the entire hydrodynamic gradient; (ii) different parts of the hydrodynamic gradient are important to different species, belonging to different taxonomic groups; (iii) in particular low-dynamic parts are important for many species and (iv) species differ in their specificity for hydrodynamic conditions. Many species of higher plants, fish and butterflies have a narrow range for hydrodynamics and many species of birds and mammals use ecotopes along the entire gradient. Even when focussing only on target species, the entire natural hydrodynamic gradient is important. This means that the riverine species assemblage as a whole can benefit from measures focussing on target species only. River reconstruction and management should aim at re-establishing the entire hydrodynamic gradient, increasing the spatial heterogeneity of hydrodynamic conditions.

Key words

animal and plant species ecological rehabilitation flood defence hydrodynamics legally protected and endangered species river management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarts, B. G. W., F. W. B. van den Brink & P. H. Nienhuis, 2004. Habitat loss as the main cause of the slow recovery of fish faunas of regulated large rivers in Europe: the transversal floodplain gradient. River Research and Applications 20: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayley, P. B., 1995. Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. BioScience 145: 153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chovanec, A., J. Waringer, M. Straif, W. Graf, W. Reckendorfer, A. Waringer-Löschenkohl, H. Waidbacher & H. Schultz, 2005. The Floodplain Index-a new approach for assessing the ecological status of river/floodplainsystems according to the EU Water Framework Directive. Archiv fü r Hydrobiologie Supplement 155, Large Rivers 15: 169–185.Google Scholar
  4. De Nooij, R. J. W., D. Alard, G. de Blust, N. Geilen, B. Goldschmidt, V. Huesing, H. J. R. Lenders, R. S. E. W. Leuven, K. M. Lotterman, S. Muller, P. H. Nienhuis & I. Poudevigne, 2001. Development and application of BIOSAFE, a policy and legislation based model for assessment of impacts of flood prevention measures on biodiversity in river basins. Final report IRMA-SPONGE project 11. NCR publication 11-2001. Netherlands Centre for River Studies, Delft (http://www.ncr-web.org/downloads/pub11.pdf).Google Scholar
  5. De Nooij, R. J. W., R. S. E. W. Leuven, H. J. R. Lenders, G. de Blust, N. Geilen, B. Goldschmidt, S. Muller, P. H. Nienhuis & I. Poudevigne, 2004. BIO-SAFE: assessing the impact of physical reconstruction on protected and endangered species. River Research and Applications 20: 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Nooij, R. J. W., H. W. H. Hendriks, R. S. E. W. Leuven, H. J. R. Lenders & P. H. Nienhuis, 2005. Evaluation of floodplain rehabilitation: a comparison of ecological and policy based biodiversity assessment. Archiv fü r Hydrobiologie Supplement 155, Large Rivers 15: 413–424.Google Scholar
  7. Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley & R. E. Sparks, 1989. The flood-pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106: 110–127.Google Scholar
  8. Klijn, F. & H. A. de Udo Haes, 1994. A hierarchical approach to ecosystems and its implications for ecological land classification. Landscape Ecology 9: 89–104.Google Scholar
  9. Lenders, H. J. R., R. S. E. W. Leuven, P. H. Nienhuis, K. D. Oostinga & P. J. M. van den Heuvel, 1998. Ecological rehabilitation of floodplains along the middle reach of the river Waal: a prosperous future for fauna target species? In Nienhuis, P. H., R. S. E. W. Leuven, & A. M. J. Ragas (eds), New Concepts for Sustainable Management of River Basins. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden: 35–52.Google Scholar
  10. Lenders, H. J. R., R. S. E. W. Leuven, P. H. Nienhuis, R. J. W. de Nooij & S. A. M. van Rooij, 2001. BIO-SAFE: A method for evaluation of biodiversity values on the basis of political and legal criteria. Landscape and Urban Planning 55: 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leuven, R. S. E. W., S. Wijnhoven, L. Kooistra, R. J. W. de Nooij & M. A. J. Huijbregts, 2005. Toxicological constraints for rehabilitation of riverine habitats: a case study for metal contamination of floodplain soils along the Rhine. Archiv fü r Hydrobiologie Supplement 155, Large Rivers 15: 657–676.Google Scholar
  12. Nienhuis, P. H., R. S. E. W. Leuven & A. M. J. Ragas, 1998. New concepts for sustainable management of river basins. Backhuys publishers, Leiden.Google Scholar
  13. Nienhuis, P. H. & R. S. E. W. Leuven, 1998. Ecological concepts for the sustainable management of lowland river basins: a review. In Nienhuis, P. H. R. S. E. W. Leuven & A. M. J. Ragas (eds), New Concepts for Sustainable Management of River Basins. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden: 7–33.Google Scholar
  14. Nienhuis, P. H. & R. S. E. W. Leuven, 2001. River restoration and flood protection: controversy or synergism? Hydrobiologia 444: 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nienhuis, P. H., A. D. Buijse, R. S. E. W. Leuven, A. J. M. Smits, R. J. W. de Nooij & E. M. Samborska, 2002. Ecological rehabilitation of the lowland basin of the river Rhine (NW Europe). Hydrobiologia 478: 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rademakers, J. G. M. & H. P. Wolfert, 1994. Het Rivier-Ecotopen-Stelsel;een indeling van ecologisch relevante ruimtelijke eenheden ten behoeve van ontwerpen beleidsstudies in het buitendijkse rivierengebied. Publicaties en rapporten van het project ‹Ecologisch Herstel Rijn en Maas›. RIZA, Lelystad (in Dutch, with English summary).Google Scholar
  17. Van den Brink, F. W. B., 1994. Impact of hydrology on floodplain lake ecosystems along the lower Rhine and Meuse. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  18. Van den Brink, F. W. B., G. van der Velde, A. D. Buijse & A. G. Klink, 1996. Biodiversity in the lower Rhine and Meuse river-floodplains: its significance for ecological river management. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology 30: 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van der Molen, D. T., N. Geilen, J. J. G. M. Backx, B. J. M. Jansen & H. P. Wolfert, 2003. Water Ecotope Classification for integrated water management in the Netherlands. European Water Management Online (http://www.ewaonline. de/journal/2003_03.pdf).
  20. Van Stokkom, H. T. C., A. J. M. Smits & R. S. E. W. Leuven, 2005. Flood defense in the Netherlands: a new era, a new approach. Water International 30: 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Verberk, W. C. E. P. & H. Esselink, 2003. Restoring fauna diversity requires an integration of animal ecology and landscape ecology. Landschap 20: 3–7 (in Dutch, with English summary).Google Scholar
  22. Ward, J.V., K. Tockner & F. Schiemer, 1999. Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems: ecotones and connectivity. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15: 125 139.Google Scholar
  23. Ward, J. V. & K. Tockner, 2001. Biodiversity: towards a unifying theme for river ecology. Freshwater Biology 46: 807–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ward, J. V., K. Tockner, D. B. Arscott & C. Claret, 2002. Riverine landscape diversity. Freshwater Biology 47: 517–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wiens, J. A., 2002. Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshwater Biology 47: 501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer2006 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. J. W. de Nooij
    • 1
    • 3
  • H. J. R. Lenders
    • 1
    • 3
  • R. S. E. W. Leuven
    • 1
    • 3
  • P.H. Nienhuis
    • 1
    • 4
  • W. C. E. P. Verberk
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Institute for Wetland and Water ResearchFaculty of Science, Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Animal Ecology and Ecophysiology, Institute for Wetland and Water ResearchFaculty of Science, Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Netherlands Centre for Nature Studies (NCN)NijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Bargerveen FoundationNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations