ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT IN THE REGULATED WATERCOURSES
 
More details
Hide details
1
Institute of Environmental Protection and Development, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Plac Grunwaldzki 24, 50-363 Wrocław, Poland
Publication date: 2015-11-03
 
J. Ecol. Eng. 2015; 16(5):183–189
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Ecological risk has not been identified well enough for the designers and contractors to take any actions for its limitation. It results from the lack of the basis formed to assess its level objectively. The aim of this study was to determine the standards useful in the evaluation of the ecological risk for aquatic plants in rivers, where it is planned to conduct regulatory works. The basis for the analysis were the results of the study performed in 2008–2014 in unmodified and transformed lowland watercourses in Lower Silesia. 41 study sections were analysed in 11 watercourses. 30 sections were located in regulated watercourses, while 11 were in unmodified streams. The research included vascular aquatic plants identification and the degree of the bottom coverage by these plants. As a result of regulatory works qualitative and quantitative changes in aquatic plants communities were observed. The analysis of these changes concerning the range and conditions of works conduction enabled assigning measures to the factors of the considered risk. It served as a basis for describing the risk register and the matrix of risk. The study demonstrated that the most important threats resulting from the river regulation from the point of view of environmental protection are complete shading of watercourse bed, and in some cases, bed widening and deepening, embankments slope of 1: 1, 1: 0, embankments protection with stone material or their concreting.
 
REFERENCES (20)
1.
Biggs B.J.F. 1996. Hydraulic habitat of plants in streams. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12: 131–144.
 
2.
Bondar-Nowakowska E. 2010. Reagowanie na ryzyko ekologiczne w konserwowanych ciekach. Zeszyty Problemowe Postępów Nauk Rolniczych 548, 33–44.
 
3.
Bondar-Nowakowska E., Hachoł J. 2010. Wpływ czynników technicznych na stan ekologiczny małych i średnich cieków nizinnych. Infrastruktura i Ekologia Terenów Wiejskich 13, 157–166.
 
4.
Chambers P.A. and Kaiff J. 1985. Depth distribution and biomass of submersed aquatic macrophyte communities in relation to Secchi depth. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42, 701–709.
 
5.
Collier K.J. 2002. Effects of flow regulation and sediment flushing on instream habitat and benthic invertebrates in a New Zeland River influenced by a volcanic eruption. River Research and Application 18, 213–226.
 
6.
Cortes R.M.V., Ferreira M.T., Oliveira S.V., Oliveira D. 2002. Macroinvertebrate community structure in a regulated river segment with different flow conditions. River Research and Applications 18, 367–382.
 
7.
Ferreira M.T., Moreira I. 1999. River plants from an Iberian basin and environmental factors influencing their distribution. Hydrobiologia 415, 101–107.
 
8.
Garbey C., Thiébaut G., Muller S. 2006. An experimental study of the plastic responses of Ranunculus peltatus Schrank to four environmental parameters. Hydrobiologia 570, 41–46.
 
9.
Herb W.R., Stefan H.G. 2003. Integral growth of submersed macrophytes in varying light regimes. Ecological Modelling 168, 77–110.
 
10.
Kõrs A., Vilbaste S., Käiro K., Pall P., Piirsoo K., Truu J., Viik M. 2012. Temporal changes in the composition of macrophyte communities and environmental factors governing the distribution of aquatic plants in an unregulated lowland river (Emajõgi, Estonia). Boreal Environment Research 17, 460–472.
 
11.
Lorenz A.W., Korte T., Sundermann A., Januschke K., Haase P. 2012. Macrophytes respond to reach-scale river restorations. Journal of Applied Ecology 49, 202–212.
 
12.
Milner V.S., Gilvear D.J. 2012. Characterization of hydraulic habitat and retention across different channel types; introducing a new field-based technique. Hydrobiologia 694, 219–233.
 
13.
O’Hare J. M., O’Hare M. T., Gurnell A. M., Dunbar M. J., Scarlettc P. M., Laizé C. 2011. Physical constraints on the distribution of macrophytes linked with flow and sediment dynamics in British rivers. River Research and Applications 27, 671–683.
 
14.
Petkovska V., Urbanič G. 2015. Links between morphological parameters and benthic invertebrate assemblages, and general implications for hydromorphological river management. Ecohydrology 8, 67–82.
 
15.
Pritchard C.L. 2011. Risk Management – Concepts and Guidance. ESI International. Virginia.
 
16.
Qian J., Zhang L.-P., Wang W.-Y., Liu Q. 2014. Effects of Vegetation Cover and Slope Length on Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loss from a Sloping Land under Simulated Rainfall. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 23 (3), 835–843.
 
17.
Sand-Jensen K. 1998. Influence of submerged macrophytes on sediment composition and near-bed flow in lowland streams. Freshwater Biology 39, 663–679.
 
18.
Schaumburg J., Schranz C., Stelzer D., Hofmann G., Gutowski A., Foerster J. 2006. Instruction Protocol for the ecological Assessment of Running Waters for Implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos. Bavarian Environment Agency, München.
 
19.
Vereecken H., Baetens J., Viaene P., Mostaert F., Meire P. 2006. Ecological management of aquatic plants: effects in lowland streams. Hydrobiologia 570, 205–210.
 
20.
Vermaat J.E., de Bruyne R.J. 1993. Factors limiting the distribution of submerged waterplants in the lowland River Vecht (The Netherlands). Freshwater Biology 30, 147–157.