Assessment of the Hydromorphological Quality of Streams in the Venta River Basin District, Latvia

Jolanta Jekabsone, L. Uzule
{"title":"Assessment of the Hydromorphological Quality of Streams in the Venta River Basin District, Latvia","authors":"Jolanta Jekabsone, L. Uzule","doi":"10.3176/ECO.2014.4.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION According to the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), surface waters in Europe must achieve good ecological quality by 2015 (European Commission, 2000). The WFD requires ecological quality assessment of running waters based on various biotic (phytoplankton, macrophytes, phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates, and fish fauna), chemical, and hydromorphological elements (European Commission, 2000). When evaluating the quality status of water bodies, the predominant role used to be given to the assessment of biotic elements (Logan and Furse, 2002), with the support of hydromorphology and physico-chemical assessment (European Commission, 2000). Previous monitoring focused on chemical parameters and assessment of benthic invertebrates in running waters (O'Hare et al., 2006), but the new legislation of the WFD states that it is necessary to include hydromorphology in the assessment of ecological status. Assessment of river hydromorphology is needed not only for the implementation of the WFD but also for nature conservation purposes, such as the monitoring of the condition of Special Areas of Conservation under the EC Habitats Directive and helping the management and restoration of rivers (Boon et al., 2010). Rivers have important functions in ecosystems, such as natural flood control, ecological refuge development, production, and species conservation. However, aquatic ecosystems are among the most severely affected habitats (Sala et al., 2000). Streams and their floodplains have been modified as a result of land drainage, floodplain urbanization, and flood defence (Sparks, 1995; Kronvang et al., 2007). More recently, physical disturbances such as damming, channelization, separation of channel and floodplain, and destruction of riparian vegetation have become more relevant in Europe and have therefore been included into the assessment methods (Feld, 2004; Lorenz et al., 2004; Timm et al., 2011). The morphology, longitudinal and lateral connectivity, as well as the discharge regime of running waters are severely disturbed in Central Europe. Only 10% of the river reaches in the alpine region can be classified as near natural (Muhar et al., 2000). In Latvia there are still streams with sites corresponding to 'conditions that are representative of a group of minimally disturbed sites, i.e. reference site, described by selected physical, chemical and biological characteristics' (Springe et al., 2010). There is a long history of biological assessments in Europe but systems for the assessment of hydromorphological quality are far less developed (Erba et al., 2006). Various methods and indices (Muhar et al., 2000; Friberg et al., 2005; Kamp et al., 2007) are used in different countries to characterize hydromorphological quality. Characterization of the physical structure and assessment of the habitat quality of rivers are gaining importance in the context of environmental planning, appraisal, and impact assessment. Hydromorphological quality assessment plays a crucial role in the WFD because it is used to determine 'undisturbed' and 'heavily modified' conditions of rivers (Raven et al., 2002). In order to fulfil the demands of the WFD, stream and river assessment must be changed fundamentally from a single index system to a more holistic approach (Feld, 2004). Numerous researchers emphasize that the stream quality assessment requires knowledge about the hydrological regime, geological formation, and geomorphological processes of the stream, as well as about impacts of natural and anthropogenic origin both in the past and present (Riis and Biggs, 2003; Tremp, 2007). Several European countries have developed methodologies to identify the morphological character of rivers (Muhar and Jungwirth, 1998; Raven et al., 2000; Buffagni and Kemp, 2002; Rinaldi et al., 2013). The reason for the wide application of these methods is that they rely on well-established monitoring activities and simple classification criteria (Bizzi and Lerner, 2012). …","PeriodicalId":262667,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Ecology","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Estonian Journal of Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ECO.2014.4.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

INTRODUCTION According to the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), surface waters in Europe must achieve good ecological quality by 2015 (European Commission, 2000). The WFD requires ecological quality assessment of running waters based on various biotic (phytoplankton, macrophytes, phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates, and fish fauna), chemical, and hydromorphological elements (European Commission, 2000). When evaluating the quality status of water bodies, the predominant role used to be given to the assessment of biotic elements (Logan and Furse, 2002), with the support of hydromorphology and physico-chemical assessment (European Commission, 2000). Previous monitoring focused on chemical parameters and assessment of benthic invertebrates in running waters (O'Hare et al., 2006), but the new legislation of the WFD states that it is necessary to include hydromorphology in the assessment of ecological status. Assessment of river hydromorphology is needed not only for the implementation of the WFD but also for nature conservation purposes, such as the monitoring of the condition of Special Areas of Conservation under the EC Habitats Directive and helping the management and restoration of rivers (Boon et al., 2010). Rivers have important functions in ecosystems, such as natural flood control, ecological refuge development, production, and species conservation. However, aquatic ecosystems are among the most severely affected habitats (Sala et al., 2000). Streams and their floodplains have been modified as a result of land drainage, floodplain urbanization, and flood defence (Sparks, 1995; Kronvang et al., 2007). More recently, physical disturbances such as damming, channelization, separation of channel and floodplain, and destruction of riparian vegetation have become more relevant in Europe and have therefore been included into the assessment methods (Feld, 2004; Lorenz et al., 2004; Timm et al., 2011). The morphology, longitudinal and lateral connectivity, as well as the discharge regime of running waters are severely disturbed in Central Europe. Only 10% of the river reaches in the alpine region can be classified as near natural (Muhar et al., 2000). In Latvia there are still streams with sites corresponding to 'conditions that are representative of a group of minimally disturbed sites, i.e. reference site, described by selected physical, chemical and biological characteristics' (Springe et al., 2010). There is a long history of biological assessments in Europe but systems for the assessment of hydromorphological quality are far less developed (Erba et al., 2006). Various methods and indices (Muhar et al., 2000; Friberg et al., 2005; Kamp et al., 2007) are used in different countries to characterize hydromorphological quality. Characterization of the physical structure and assessment of the habitat quality of rivers are gaining importance in the context of environmental planning, appraisal, and impact assessment. Hydromorphological quality assessment plays a crucial role in the WFD because it is used to determine 'undisturbed' and 'heavily modified' conditions of rivers (Raven et al., 2002). In order to fulfil the demands of the WFD, stream and river assessment must be changed fundamentally from a single index system to a more holistic approach (Feld, 2004). Numerous researchers emphasize that the stream quality assessment requires knowledge about the hydrological regime, geological formation, and geomorphological processes of the stream, as well as about impacts of natural and anthropogenic origin both in the past and present (Riis and Biggs, 2003; Tremp, 2007). Several European countries have developed methodologies to identify the morphological character of rivers (Muhar and Jungwirth, 1998; Raven et al., 2000; Buffagni and Kemp, 2002; Rinaldi et al., 2013). The reason for the wide application of these methods is that they rely on well-established monitoring activities and simple classification criteria (Bizzi and Lerner, 2012). …
拉脱维亚文塔河流域河流水文形态质量评价
根据欧盟水框架指令(WFD),到2015年,欧洲的地表水必须达到良好的生态质量(European Commission, 2000)。WFD要求基于各种生物(浮游植物、大型植物、底栖植物、底栖无脊椎动物和鱼类动物群)、化学和水文形态元素对流动水域进行生态质量评估(欧洲委员会,2000年)。在评估水体质量状况时,生物元素的评估曾经占据主导地位(Logan and Furse, 2002),并得到了水文形态学和物理化学评估的支持(European Commission, 2000)。以前的监测主要集中在流动水域的底栖无脊椎动物的化学参数和评估上(O'Hare等,2006),但世界自然保护区的新立法规定,有必要将水文形态纳入生态状况评估。对河流水文形态的评估不仅是为了实施《世界生态环境法》,也是为了自然保护的目的,例如根据《欧盟生境指令》监测特殊保护区的状况,并帮助河流的管理和恢复(Boon等,2010)。河流在自然防洪、生态避难开发、生产和物种保护等生态系统中具有重要的功能。然而,水生生态系统是受影响最严重的栖息地之一(Sala et al., 2000)。由于土地排水、河漫滩城市化和防洪,溪流及其河漫滩已被改变(Sparks, 1995;Kronvang et al., 2007)。最近,诸如筑坝、河道化、河道与洪泛区分离以及河岸植被破坏等物理干扰在欧洲变得更加相关,因此已被纳入评估方法(Feld, 2004;Lorenz et al., 2004;tim et al., 2011)。在中欧,河流的形态、纵向和横向连通性以及水流的排放状况都受到了严重的干扰。在高寒地区,只有10%的河流可以被归类为接近自然的(Muhar et al., 2000)。在拉脱维亚,仍然有一些河流的遗址符合“一组受干扰最小的遗址的代表性条件,即参考遗址,由选定的物理、化学和生物特征描述”(Springe等人,2010)。欧洲的生物评估历史悠久,但水文形态质量评估系统远不发达(Erba et al., 2006)。各种方法和指标(Muhar et al., 2000;Friberg et al., 2005;Kamp等人,2007)在不同的国家用于表征水文形态质量。在环境规划、评价和影响评价的背景下,河流的物理结构特征和生境质量评价变得越来越重要。水文形态质量评估在WFD中起着至关重要的作用,因为它被用来确定河流的“未受干扰”和“严重改变”的状况(Raven等人,2002)。为了满足WFD的要求,必须从根本上改变对河流和河流的评估,从单一的指标体系转变为更全面的方法(Feld, 2004年)。许多研究人员强调,河流质量评估需要了解河流的水文状况、地质构造和地貌过程,以及过去和现在的自然和人为因素的影响(Riis和Biggs, 2003;Tremp, 2007)。几个欧洲国家已经发展出确定河流形态特征的方法(Muhar和Jungwirth, 1998年;Raven et al., 2000;Buffagni and Kemp, 2002;Rinaldi et al., 2013)。这些方法广泛应用的原因是它们依赖于完善的监测活动和简单的分类标准(Bizzi和Lerner, 2012)。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信