An evaluation of small river restoration using transient river habitat modelling for macrozoobenthos

References

• AQUAVEO. 2021. SMS – the complete surface-water solution [software]. [cited 2021 April 26]. http://www.aquaveo.com/software/sms-surface-water-modeling-system-introduction.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett C. 2007. A seven year study of the life cycle of the mayfly Ephemera danica. Freshwater Forum. 27:3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Beracko P, Sýkorová A, Štangler A. 2012. Life history, secondary production and population dynamics of Gammarus fossarum (Koch, 1836) in a constant temperature stream. Biologia. 67(1):164–171. doi: 10.2478/s11756-011-0148-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA. 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecol Appl. 21(6):1926–1931. doi: 10.1890/10-1574.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogardi JJ, Leentvaar J, Sebesvári Z. 2020. Biologia Futura: integrating freshwater ecosystem health in water resources management. Biol Futur. 71(4):337–358. doi: 10.1007/s42977-020-00031-7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Booker DJ, Dunbar MJ. 2004. Application of physical habitat simulation (PHABSIM) modelling to modified urban river channels. River Res App. 20(2):167–183. doi: 10.1002/rra.742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovee KD. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USA.
   Google Scholar
• Cabaltica AD, Kopecki I, Schneider MC, Wieprecht S. 2013. Assessment of hydropeaking impact on macrozoobenthos using habitat modelling approach. Civil Environ Res. 3(11):8–16.
   Google Scholar
• Caissie D. 2006. The thermal regime of rivers: a review. Freshwater Biol. 51(8):1389–1406. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01597.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calow P. 1973. The food of Ancylus fluviatilis (Müll.), a littoral stone-dwelling, herbivore. Oecologia. 13(2):113–133. doi: 10.1007/BF00345644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conallin J, Boegh E, Jensen JK. 2010. Instream physical habitat modelling types: an analysis as stream hydromorphological modelling tools for EU water resource managers. Intl J River Basin Manage. 8(1):93–107.
   Google Scholar
• Deutsche Vereinigung für Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall [DWA]. 2018. StröHmunG–Innovative Systemlösungen für ein transdisziplinäres und regionales ökologisches Hochwasserrisikomanagement und naturnahe Gewässerentwicklung: Abschlussbericht des BMBF-ReWaM-Projektes In_StröHmunG. Deutschland.
   Google Scholar
• Dolédec S, Lamouroux N, Fuchs U, Mérigoux S. 2007. Modelling the hydraulic preferences of benthic macroinvertebrates in small European streams. Freshwater Biol. 52(1):145–164. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01663.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• dos Reis Oliveira PC, van der Geest HG, Kraak MH, Westveer JJ, Verdonschot RC, Verdonschot PF. 2020. Over forty years of lowland stream restoration: lessons learned? J Environ Manage. 264:110417. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunbar MJ, Alfredsen K, Harby A. 2012. Hydraulic‐habitat modelling for setting environmental river flow needs for salmonids. Fisher Manage Eco. 19(6):500–517. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2400.2011.00825.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Equihua M. 1990. Fuzzy clustering of ecological data. J Ecol. 78(2):519–534. doi: 10.2307/2261127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 – Establishing framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Commun. L327:1–71.
   Google Scholar
• European Environmental Agency. 2018. Environmental indicator report 2018 in support to the monitoring of the Seventh Environment Action Programme (Report No. 19.). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Fjeldstad HP, Barlaup BT, Stickler M, Gabrielsen SE, Alfredsen K. 2012. Removal of weirs and the influence on physical habitat for salmonids in a Norwegian river. River Research Apps. 28(6):753–763. doi: 10.1002/rra.1529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gopal B. 2013. Methodologies for the assessment of environmental. In Environmental flows: an introduction for water. New Delhi: National Institute of Ecology.
   Google Scholar
• Gore JA, Layzer JB, Mead JI. 2001. Macroinvertebrate instream flow studies after 20 years: a role in stream management and restoration. Regul Rivers: Res Mgmt. 17(4–5):527–542. doi: 10.1002/rrr.650.
   Google Scholar
• Grizzetti B, Pistocchi A, Liquete C, Udias A, Bouraoui F, Van De Bund W. 2017. Human pressures and ecological status of European rivers. Sci Rep. 7(1):6941. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00324-3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grzybkowska M, Szczerkowska-Majchrzak E, Dukowska M, Leszczyńska J, Przybylski M. 2016. Ephemera danica (Ephemeroptera: ephemeridae) as a resource for two commensals: ciliated protozoans (Sessilida) and chironomids (Diptera). J Insect Sci. 16(1): 1–6. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/iew050.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guzelj M, Hauer C, Egger G. 2020. The third dimension in river restoration: how anthropogenic disturbance changes boundary conditions for ecological mitigation. Sci Rep. 10(1):13106. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69796-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halle M, Müller A, Sundermann A. 2016. Ableitung von Temperaturpräferenzen des Makrozoobenthos für die Entwicklung eines Verfahrens zur Indikation biozönotischer Wirkungen des Klimawandels in Fließgewässern. KLIWA-Berichte, Heft 20. Arbeitskreis Klimaveränderung und Wasserwirtschaft, LUBW Landesanstalt für Umwelt, Messungen und Naturschutz Baden-Württemberg, Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landesamt für UmweltRheinland-Pfalz, Deutscher Wetterdienst. In KLIWA Heft 20 Karlsruhe.
   Google Scholar
• Jähnig S, Hering D, Sommerhäuser M. 2011. Fließgewässer-Renaturierung heute und morgen - EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie, Maßnahmen und Effizienzkontrolle. Deutschland.
   Google Scholar
• Jowett IG. 2003. Hydraulic constraints on habitat suitability for benthic invertebrates in gravel‐bed rivers. River Res Apps. 19(5–6):495–507. doi: 10.1002/rra.734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kail J, Brabec K, Poppe M, Januschke K. 2015. The effect of river restoration on fish, macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes: a meta-analysis. Ecol Indic. 58:311–321. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai YG. 2008. SRH-2D version 2: theory and user’s manual. Denver, USA: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation.
   Google Scholar
• Lange C, Schneider M, Mutz M, Haustein M, Halle M, Seidel M, Sieker H, Wolter C, Hinkelmann R. 2015. Model-based design for restoration of a small urban river. J Hydro-Environ Res. 9(2):226–236. doi: 10.1016/j.jher.2015.04.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LfULG: Wasserhaushaltsportal Sachsen - Durchflusskennwerte und Querbauwerke. 2015. Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie; [cited 2022 May 19]. Available from: https://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/umwelt/infosysteme/mnqhq-regio/website/.
   Google Scholar
• Lobb MD, III, Orth DJ. 1991. Habitat use by an assemblage of fish in a large warmwater stream. Trans Am Fish Soc. 120(1):65–78. doi: 10.1577/1548-8659(1991)120<0065:HUBAAO>2.3.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luštrik R, Turjak M, Kralj-Fišer S, Fišer C. 2011. Coexistence of surface and cave amphipods in an ecotone environment. CTOZ. 80(2):133–141. doi: 10.1163/18759866-08002003.
   Google Scholar
• Macura V, Štefunková ZŠ, Majorošová M, Halaj P, Škrinár A. 2018. Influence of discharge on fish habitat suitability curves in mountain watercourses in IFIM methodology. J Hydrol Hydromech. 66(1):12–22. doi: 10.1515/johh-2017-0044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manfrin A, Teurlincx S, Lorenz AW, Haase P, Marttila M, Syrjänen JT, Thomas G, Stoll S. 2019. Effect of river restoration on life-history strategies in fish communities. Sci Total Environ. 663:486–495. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.330.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mérigoux S, Lamouroux N, Olivier JM, Dolédec S. 2009. Invertebrate hydraulic preferences and predicted impacts of changes in discharge in a large river. Freshwater Biol. 54(6):1343–1356. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2008.02160.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milhous RT, Waddle TJ. 2001. Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) Software for Windows User's Manual and exercises. U.S. Geological Survey.
   Google Scholar
• Milhous RT. 2007. Application of physical habitat simulation in the evaluation of physical habitat suitability. In: Church SE, Guerard P, Finger SE, editors. Chapter 21, Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Animas River Watershed, San Juan County, Colorado. US Geol Surv Prof Pap. 1651: 877–887.
   Google Scholar
• Miller SW, Budy P, Schmidt JC. 2010. Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to in‐stream habitat restoration: applications of meta‐analysis to river restoration. Restoration Ecol. 18(1):8–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00605.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moog O, Chovanec A, Hinteregger H, Römer A. 1999. Richtlinie für die saprobiologische Gewässergütebeurteilung von Fließgewässern. Wien, Austria: Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Mouton AM, De Baets B, Goethals PL. 2009. Knowledge-based versus data-driven fuzzy habitat suitability models for river management. Environ Model Softw. 24(8):982–993. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.02.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nujic M. 2003. Hydro_AS-2D A Two-Dimensional Flow Model For Water Management Applications User’s Manual. Rosenheim, Deutschland: Hydrotec Water and Environment Engineers GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• ÓHare MT. 1999. Flow preferences of benthic macroinvertebrates in three Scottish Rivers. United Kingdom: University of Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Follstad Shah J, et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol. 42(2):208–217. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadaki C, Bellos V, Ntoanidis L, Dimitriou E. 2017. Comparison of West Balkan adult trout habitat predictions using a pseudo-2D and a 2D hydrodynamic model. Hydrol Res. 48(6):1697–1709. doi: 10.2166/nh.2016.352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poff NL, Ward JV. 1990. Physical habitat template of lotic systems: recovery in the context of historical pattern of spatiotemporal heterogeneity. Environ Manage. 14(5):629–645. doi: 10.1007/BF02394714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raleigh RF, Miller WJ, Nelson PC. 1986. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: chinook salmon. USA: National Ecology Center, Division of Wildlife and Contaminant Research, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior.
   Google Scholar
• Roni P. 2019. Does river restoration increase fish abundance and survival or concentrate fish? The effects of project scale, location, and fish life history. Fisheries. 44(1):7–19. doi: 10.1002/fsh.10180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salski A, Holsten B, Trepel M. 2009. Fuzzy approach to ecological modelling and data analysis. Scope, Techniques and Applications. 4:125–140.
   Google Scholar
• Schmedtje U, Colling M. 1996. Ökologische Typisierung der aquatischen Makrofauna. Informationsberichte des Bayerischen Landesamtes für Wasserwirtschaft. München, Deutschland.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt-Kloiber A, Hering D. 2015. Online tool that unifies, standardises and codifies more than 20,000 European freshwater organisms and their ecological preferences. Ecol Indic. 53:271–282. www.freshwaterecology.info-an. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.02.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider M. 2001. Habitat- und Abflussmodellierung für Fließgewässer mit unscharfen Berechnungsansätzen - Weiterentwicklung des Simulationsmodells CASiMiR [dissertation]. [Stuttgart]: Universität Stuttgart.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz C. 2015. Hydraulische Analyse von Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Gewässerstrukturgüte mittels zweidimensionaler, hydrodynamisch-numerischer Modelle am Beispiel des Mortelbachs im Stadtgebiet Waldheim. [master’s thesis]. [Dresden]: Technische Universität Dresden.
   Google Scholar
• Schuwirth N, Reichert P. 2013. Bridging the gap between theoretical ecology and real ecosystems: modeling invertebrate community composition in streams. Ecology. 94(2):368–379. doi: 10.1890/12-0591.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundermann A, Müller A, Halle M. 2022. A new index of a water temperature equivalent for summer respiration conditions of benthic invertebrates in rivers as a bio-indicator of global climate change. Limnologica. 95:125980. doi: 10.1016/j.limno.2022.125980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundermann A, Stoll S, Haase P. 2011. River restoration success depends on the species pool of the immediate surroundings. Ecol Appl. 21(6):1962–1971. doi: 10.1890/10-0607.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tachet H, Richoux P, Bournaud M, Usseglio-Polatera P. 2010. Invertébrés d‘eau douce: systématique, biologie, écologie. Paris: CNRS éditions.
   Google Scholar
• Tatis‐Muvdi R, Stamm J. 2019. Transient modelling of physical habitat for stream macrozoobenthos at intermediate spatial and temporal scales—moving towards more dynamic descriptions of hydromorphology. Ecohydrology. 12(2):e2066. doi: 10.1002/eco.2066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theodoropoulos C, Skoulikidis N, Rutschmann P, Stamou A. 2018. Ecosystem‐based environmental flow assessment in a Greek regulated river with the use of 2D hydrodynamic habitat modelling. River Res Apps. 34(6):538–547. doi: 10.1002/rra.3284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theodoropoulos C, Stamou A, Vardakas L, Papadaki C, Dimitriou E, Skoulikidis N, Kalogianni E. 2020. River restoration is prone to failure unless pre-optimized within a mechanistic ecological framework| Insights from a model-based case study. Water Res. 173:115550. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.115550.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thepphachanh S, Stamm J. 2023. Development of transient habitat modeling for stream Macrozoobenthos. River Res Apps. 39(4):745–757. doi: 10.1002/rra.4090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umwelt Bundesamt: River Restoration [UBA]. 2017. The German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt); [cited 2022 May 17]. Available from: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/water/rivers/river-restoration-start
   Google Scholar
• Van Broekhoven E, Adriaenssens V, De Baets B, Verdonschot PF. 2006. Fuzzy rule-based macroinvertebrate habitat suitability models for running waters. Ecol Modell. 198(1-2):71–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.04.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilenica M, Brigić A, Sartori M, Mihaljević Z. 2018. Microhabitat selection and distribution of functional feeding groups of mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera) in lotic karst habitats. Know Manag Aquat Ecosyst. 419(419):17. doi: 10.1051/kmae/2018011.
   Google Scholar
• Vilenica M, Stanković VM, Sartori M, Kučinić M, Mihaljević Z. 2017. Environmental factors affecting mayfly assemblages in tufa-depositing habitats of the Dinaric Karst. Know Manag Aquat Ecosyst. 418(418):14. doi: 10.1051/kmae/2017005.
   Google Scholar
• Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Liermann CR, et al. 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature. 467(7315):555–561. doi: 10.1038/nature09440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolter C, Lorenz S, Scheunig S, Lehmann N, Schomaker C, Nastase A, García de Jalón D, Marzin A, Lorenz A, Kraková M. 2013. REFORM D 1.3 review on ecological response to hydromorphological degradation and restoration. Project Report REFORM D 1. Berlin, Germany: Ecologic Institute gemeinnützige GmbH. Available from: https://www.reformrivers.eu/deliverables/d31-impacts-hydromorphological-degradation-and-disturbed-sediment-dynamics-ecological.
   Google Scholar
• Yao WW, Chen Y, Zhong Y, Zhang W, Fan H. 2017. Habitat models for assessing river ecosystems and their application to the development of river restoration strategies. J Freshw Ecol. 32(1):601–617. doi: 10.1080/02705060.2017.1371088.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zingraff-Hamed A, Greulich S, Wantzen KM, Pauleit S. 2017. Societal drivers of European water governance: a comparison of urban river restoration practices in France and Germany. Water. 9(3):206. doi: 10.3390/w9030206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zingraff-Hamed A, Noack M, Greulich S, Schwarzwälder K, Wantzen KM, Pauleit S. 2018. Model-based evaluation of urban river restoration: Conflicts between sensitive fish species and recreational users. Sustainability. 10(6):1747. doi: 10.3390/su10061747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar