Advertisement

Analysis of naturalization alternatives for the recovery of moist-soil plants in the floodplain of the Illinois River

  • C. Ahn
  • D. M. Johnston
  • R. E. Sparks
  • D. C. White
Chapter
  • 832 Downloads
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 187)

Abstract

The hydrologic regime of the Illinois River has been substantially altered by floodplain levees, navigation dams, and water diversion. Unnaturally frequent and untimely water level fluctuations, large and small, have decreased the productivity of many floodplain vegetation communities that provide important ecological services, including the moist-soil plant community. We simulated three scenarios, including two that were expected to benefit moist-soil plants: (1) existing conditions, with levees and navigation dams closed during the summer growing season; (2) levees opened to reconnect the river and its floodplain during the growing season; and (3) both the downstream navigation dam and the levees opened during the growing season. A 1-dimensional hydraulic model generated daily hydrographs of the river at three positions in the 135 km study reach: (1) near the downstream dam, (2) in the middle of the reach, and (3) near the upstream dam. These hydrographs then were used to run a model that predicts the growth of moist-soil plants at a range of floodplain elevations. As expected, the model predicted that plants would grow over a larger area with levees open during the growing season than under the existing conditions, but the outcomes showed a strong location dependency. Moist-soil plant production would increase in the upper and mid-reach locations, but there would be no change near the downstream dam despite opening the levees. Modelling revealed that the existing operation of the navigation dam permanently floods most of the floodplain zone where moist soil plants might grow for at least 15 km upstream of the dam. Trees currently grow all the way to the low water line and are likely to exclude moist soil plants from any restored portion of the floodplain. Sites for reconnecting the river with its floodplain should be carefully chosen to maximize the chances of recovering the important moist-soil plant community in this regulated river.

Key words

floodplain restoration floodplain-river naturalization moist-soil plants levee removal navigation dam ecohydrology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahn, C., R. E. Sparks & D. C. White, 2004a. A dynamic model to predict responses of millets (Echinochloa sp.) to different hydrologic conditions for the Illinois floodplain-river. River Research and Applications 20: 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn, C., D. C. White & R. E. Sparks, 2004b. Moist-soil plants as ecohydrologic indicators to recover the flood pulse in the Illinois River. Restoration Ecology 12: 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellrose, F. C., S. P. Havera, F. L. Paveglio & D. W. Steffeck, 1983. The fate of lakes in the Illinois River Valley. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 119: 1–27.Google Scholar
  4. Bellrose, F. C., F. L. Paveglio & D. W. Steffeck, 1979. Waterfowl populations and the changing environment of the Illinois River Valley. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 32: 1–54.Google Scholar
  5. Chow, V. T., 1964. Statistical and Probability Analysis of Hydrologic Data, Section 8-I. In Chow, V. T. (ed.), Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York: 1–42.Google Scholar
  6. Clancy, P., 2001. Restoring the Illinois River. Nature Conservancy 51: 12–19.Google Scholar
  7. Demissie, M. & V. Knapp, 2000. Hydrology and hydraulics of the Illinois River. Proceedings of the 2000 Joint Conference on Water Resources Engineering and Water Resources Planning and Management. In Hotchkiss, R. H. & M. Glade (eds). Environmental and Water Resources Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  8. Fredrickson L. H. & T. S. Taylor, 1982. Management of Seasonally Flooded Impoundments for Wildlife. Publication 148, United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Galat, D. L., 1998. Flooding to restore connectivity of regulated, large-river wetlands. BioScience 48: 721–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Havera S. P., 1999. Waterfowl of Illinois. Special Publication No. 21, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
  11. HEC, 1993. One-dimensional Unsteady Flow through a Full Network of Open Channels. User’s Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydraulic Engineering Center, Davis CA.Google Scholar
  12. Illinois State Water Survey, 2004. Predicted sedimentation in Emiquon. Report to the Emiquon science advisory council of the nature conservancy, April 2004. http://ilrdss.sws.uiuc.edu/search/search_results.asp?pr=500&strSearch=emiquon.Google Scholar
  13. Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley & R. E. Sparks, 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. In Dodge D. P. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Vol. 106. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences: 110–127.Google Scholar
  14. Koel, T. M. & R. E. Sparks, 2002. Historical patterns of river stage and fish communities as criteria for operations of dams on the Illinois River. River Research and Applications 18: 2–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schneider, D. W., 2000. Backwater lakes: history shows their values to Illinois. Wetland Matters 5: 1–11.Google Scholar
  16. Sparks, R. E., J. C. Nelson & Y. Yin, 1998. Naturalization of the flood regime in regulated rivers. BioScience 48: 706–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sparks, R. E., P. B. Bayley, S. L. Kohler & L. L. Osborne, 1990. Disturbance and recovery of large floodplain rivers. Environmental Management 14: 699–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sparks R. E., J. B. Braden, M. Demissie, P. Mitra, D. W. Schneider, D. C. White & R. Xia, 2000. Technical Support of Public Decisions to Restore Floodplain Ecosystems: A Status Report on the Illinois River Project, USA. In Smits A. J. M., P. H. Nienhuis & R. S. E. W. Leuven, (eds), New Approaches to River Management. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden: 225–247.Google Scholar
  19. Thompson, J., 2002. Wetlands Drainage, River Modification, and Sectoral Conflict in the Lower Illinois Valley, 1890-1930. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.Google Scholar
  20. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1995. Floodplain Management Assessment of the Upper Mississippi River and Lower Missouri Rivers and Tributaries Main Report, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island, IL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer2006 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Ahn
    • 1
  • D. M. Johnston
    • 2
  • R. E. Sparks
    • 3
  • D. C. White
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyGeorge Mason UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUSA
  3. 3.National Great Rivers Research and Education CenterUSA
  4. 4.Illinois Water Resources CenterUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations