Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:30:55.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing riparian zone impacts on water and sediment movement: a new approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2014

S.D. Keesstra ,
E. Kondrlova ,
A. Czajka ,
M. Seeger  and
J. Maroulis
S.D. Keesstra*
Affiliation:
Land Degradation and Development Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands
E. Kondrlova
Affiliation:
Department of Landscape Engineering and Ground Design, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture, Hospodárska 7, 94976 Nitra, Slovakia
A. Czajka
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Silesia, Bedzinska 60, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland
M. Seeger
Affiliation:
Land Degradation and Development Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands Department of Physical Geography/Geosciences, University of Trier, D-54286, Trier, Germany
J. Maroulis
Affiliation:
Land Degradation and Development Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands Australian Centre for Sustainable Catchments, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Queensland, Australia
*
Email: [email protected].
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The state of river channels and their riparian zones in terms of geomorphology and vegetation has a significant effect on water and sediment transport in headwater catchments. High roughness in natural rivers due to vegetation and geomorphological attributes generate drag on flowing water. This drag will slow water discharge, which in turn influences the sediment dynamics of the flow. The impacts of changes in the management of rivers and their riparian zone (either by catchment managers or river restoration plans) impacts both up- as well as downstream reaches, and should be assessed holistically prior to the implementation of these plans.

To assess the river's current state as well as any possible changes in geomorphology and vegetation in and around the river, effective approaches to characterise the river are needed. In this paper, we present a practical approach for making detailed surveys of relevant river attributes. This methodology has the benefit of being both detailed – describing river depth, width, channel morphology, erosive features and vegetation types – but also being practical in terms of time management. This is accomplished by identifying and describing characteristic benchmark reaches (typical sites) in detail against which the remainder of the river course can be rated. Using this method, a large river stretch can be assessed in a relatively short period while still retrieving high quality data for the total river course. In this way, models with high data requirements for assessing the condition of a river course, can be parameterised without major investments on field surveys.

In a small headwater catchment (23 km2) in southwestern Poland, this field methodology was used to retrieve data to run an existing model (HEC-GeoRAS) which can assess the impact of changes in the riparian and channel vegetation and channel management on sedimentation processes and stream flow velocity. This model determines the impact of channel morphology and in-channel and riparian vegetation on stream flow and sediment transport. Using four return periods of flooding (2, 10, 20 and 100 years), two opposing channel management / morphology scenarios were run; a natural channel and a fully regulated channel. The modelling results show an increase in the effect of riparian vegetation / geomorphology with an increase in return period of the modeled peak discharge. More natural channel form and increased roughness reduces the stream flow velocity due to increasing drag from flow obstructions (vegetation and channel morphological features). The higher the flood water stage, the greater the drag due to vegetation on the floodplains of natural river reaches compared to channelised sections. Slower flow rates have an impact on sediment mobilisation and transport in the river.

Keywords

riparian vegetationwater and sediment transportchannel managementmodelling flood retention
Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences , Volume 91 , Issue 1-2 , September 2012 , pp. 245 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Stichting Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 2012

References

Abernethy, B. & Rutherford, I.D., 1997. Where along a river's length will vegetation most effectively stabilise stream banks? Geomorphology 23: 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas of Lower and Opole Silesia, 1997. Printed by Atlas Research Centre of Wroclaw University http://openlibrary.org/books/OL18202674M/Atlas_%C5%9Al%C4%85ska_Dolnego_i_OpolskiegoGoogle Scholar
Arcement, G.J. & Schneider, V.R., 1990. Guide for selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Flood Plains. US Geol. Surv. Water Supply Pap. 2339, 67 pp.Google Scholar
Brooks, A., 1985. Downstream Morphological Consequences of Rover Channelization in England and Wales. The Geographical Journal 151: 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, M., 1992. Channel morphology and typology. In: Callow, C. & Petts, G. (eds): The rivers handbook: Hydrological and ecological principles. Oxford: Basil Blackwell: 126–143.Google Scholar
Ducros, C.M.J. & Joyce, C.B., 2003. Environmental assessment – Field based evaluation tool for riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environmental Management 2: 252–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, S.A., Klump, J.V., Swarzenski, P.W., Mackenzie, R.A. & Richards, K.D., 2001. Beryllium-7 as a tracer of short-term sediment deposition and resuspension in the Fox River, Wisconsin. Environmental Science & Technology 35: 300–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Florsheim, J.L., Mount, J.F. & Chin, A., 2008. Bank erosion as a desirable attribute of rivers. BioScience 58: 519–529. (www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1641/B580608)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FISRWG, 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. By the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) (15 Federal agencies of the US govt). GPO Item No. 0120-A.Google Scholar
Gao, P., 2008. Understanding watershed suspended sediment transport. Progress in Physical Geography 32: 243–263.Google Scholar
Ghadiri, H., Hogarth, B. & Rose, C., 2000. The effectiveness of grass strips for the control of sediment and associated pollutant transport in runoff. In: Stone, M. (ed.): Role of Erosion and Sediment Transport in Nutrient and Contaminant Transfer, Proceedings. IAHS Publication: 83–91.Google Scholar
Ghafari, G., Ghodousi, J., Ahmadi, H. & Keesstra, S.D., 2010. Investigation of the hydrological impact of land-use change in the Zanjanrood Basin, North-West Iran. Hydrological Processes 24: 892–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, D.L. & Bird, S.A., 1995. Channel assessment procedure. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and British Columbia. Ministry of Forests, Watershed Restoration Program, Technical Circular No. 7, Victoria.Google Scholar
Horritt, M.S. & Bates, P.D., 2002. Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river flood inundation. Journal of Hydrology 268: 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, K.B., Williams, L.R., Pitchford, A.M., Slonecker, E.T., Wickham, J.D., O'Neill, R.V., Garofalo, D. & Kepner, W.G., 2000. A national assessment of landscape change and impacts to aquatic resources: A 10-year strategic plan for the Landscape Sciences Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (EPA/600/R-00/001).Google Scholar
Keesstra, S.D., Van Huissteden, J., Vandenberghe, J., Van Dam, O., De Gier, J. & Pleizier, I.D., 2005. Evolution of the morphology of the river Dragonja (SW Slovenia) due to land-use changes. Geomorphology 69: 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keesstra, S.D., 2007. Impact of natural reforestation on floodplain sedimentation in the Dragonja Basin, SW Slovenia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32: 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keesstra, S.D., Van Dam, O., Verstraeten, G. & Van Huissteden, J., 2009. Changing sediment generation due to natural reforestation in the Dragonja catchment, SW Slovenia. Catena 78: 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondolf, G.M., Anderson, S., Lave, R., Pagano, L., Merenlender, A. & Bernhardt, E.S., 2007. Two decades of river restoration in California: What can we learn? Restoration Ecology 15: 516–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreiter, T., 2007. Dezentrale und naturnahe Retentionsmaßnahmen als Beitrag zum Hochwasserschutz in mesoskaligen Einzugsgebieten der Mittelgebirge. (Distributed and natural retention measures as a contribution of flood protection in meso-scaled catchment areas of low mountains). PhD-Thesis from the University of Trier (Trier) Germany.Google Scholar
Kuhnle, R.A. & Wren, D.G., 2005. Breakout Session I, Suspended Sediment Measurement: Data Needs, Uncertainty, and New Technologies. In: Gray, J.R. (ed.): Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop, 09 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, AZ, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1276: 8–15.Google Scholar
Lane, S.N., Tayefi, V., Reid, S.C., Yu, D. & Hardy, R.J., 2007. between sediment delivery, channel change, climate change and flood risk in a temperate upland environment. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32: 429–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D.J., Singer, M.J., Dahlgren, R.A. & Tate, K.W., 2006. Nitrate and sediment fluxes from a California rangeland watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 35: 2202–2211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liangang, C., Xin, Q. & Yong, S., 2011. Critical Area Identification of Potential Soil Loss in a Typical Watershed of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region. Water Resources Management 25: 3445–3463.Google Scholar
Maddock, I., Petts, G. & Bickerton, M., 1995. River channel assessment – a method for defining channel sectors on the River Glen, Lincolnshire, UK. In: Petts, G.E. (ed.): Man's Influence on Freshwater Ecosystems and Water Use. Proceedings of the IAHS Conference, Boulder, CO, 07 1995. IAHS Publ. 230, 1995: 219–226.Google Scholar
Maingi, J.K. & Marsh, S.E., 2002. Quantifying hydrologic impacts following dam construction along the Tana River, Kenya. Journal of Arid Environments 50: 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizumura, K., 1989: Hydrological approach to prediction of sediment yield. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 115: 529–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagle, G.N., Fahey, T.J., Ritchie, J.C. & Woodbury, P.B., 2007. Variations in sediment sources and yields in the Finger Lakes and Catskills regions of New York. Hydrological Processes 21: 828–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newson, M.D. & Large, A.R.G., 2006. ‘Natural’ rivers, ‘hydromorphological quality and river restoration: A challenging new agenda for applied fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31: 1606–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcombe, C.P. & Macdonald, D.D., 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11: 72–82.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, A.P. & Mitchell, C.A., 2003. Numerical simulation of overbank processes in topographically complex floodplain environments. Hydrological Processes 17: 727–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niezgoda, S.L. & Johnson, P.A., 2005. Improving the urban stream restoration effort: Identifying critical form and processes relationships. Environmental Management 35(5): 579–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkyn, S.M., Davies-Colley, R.J., Cooper, A.B., & Stroud, M.J., 2005. Predictions of stream nutrient and sediment yield changes following restoration of forested riparian buffers. Ecological Engineering 24: 551–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosgen, D.L., 2006. The natural channel design method for river restoration. In: World Environmental and Water Resource Congress 2006: Examining the Confluence of Environmental and Water Concerns, 2006.Google Scholar
Saavedra, C., 2005. Reservoir sedimentation assessment using acoustic geo-referenced sonar sounding and GIS. Estimating spatial patterns of soil erosion and deposition of the Andean region using geo-information techniques: a case study in Cochabamba, Bolivia (PhD thesis). ITC and Wageningen University (Wageningen), the Netherlands: 244.Google Scholar
Sear, D.A., 1994. River restoration and geomorphology. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater 4:169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sear, D., Newson, M., Hill, C., Old, J. & Branson, J., 2009. A method for applying fluvial geomorphology in support of catchment-scale river restoration planning. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19: 506–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeger, M., Errea, M.P., Beguería, S., Arnáez, J., Martí, C. & García-Ruiz, J.M., 2004. Catchment soil moisture and rainfall characteristics as determinant factors for discharge/suspended sediment hysteretic loops in a small headwater catchment in the Spanish pyrenees. Journal of Hydrology 288: 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, A., Doyle, M., Kondolf, M., Shields, F.D., Rhoads, B. & McPhillips, M., 2007. Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen classification and associated ‘natural channel design’ methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel response. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43: 1117–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiger, J., Gurnell, A.M. & Petts, G.E., 2001. Sediment deposition along the channel margins of a reach of the middle River Severn, UK. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 17: 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudduth, E.B., Meyer, J.L. & Bernhardt, E.S., 2007. Stream restoration practices in the southeastern United States. Restoration Ecology 3: 573–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temme, A., Peeters, I., Buis, E., Veldkamp, A. & Govers, G., 2011. Comparing landscape evolution models with quantitative field data at the millennial time scale in the Belgian loess belt. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 36: 1300–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USACE, 2006. HEC-RAS River Analysis System User's Manual. Version 4.0 Beta, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, 420 pp.Google Scholar
Vanacker, V., Von Blanckenburg, F., Govers, G., Molina, A., Poesen, J., Deckers, J. & Kubik, P., 2007. Restoring dense vegetation can slow mountain erosion to near natural benchmark levels. Geology 35: 303–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WDFW, 2012. Stream habitat restoration guidelines. Sediment transport appendix. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01374/.Google Scholar
Wohl, E., Angermeier, P.L., Bledsoe, B., Kondolf, G.M., MacDonnell, L., Merritt, D.M., Palmer, M.A., Poff, N.L. & Tarboton, D., 2005. River restoration. Water Resources Research 41: W10301, doi: 10.1029/2005WR003985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainwright, J., Parsons, A.J., Michaelides, K., Powell, D.M. & Brazier, R. (eds), 2003. Linking short and long term soil erosion modelling. In: Long Term Hillslope and Fluvial System Modelling. Concepts and Case Studies from the Rhine River Catchment. Springer-Verlag (Bonn), Germany.Google Scholar
Wiles, J.J. & Levine, N.S., 2002. A combined GIS and HEC model for the analysis of the effect of urbanization on flooding; the Swan Creek watershed, Ohio Environmental & Engineering Geoscience 8: 47–61.Google Scholar
Zaimes, G.N., Schultz, R.C. & Isenhart, T.M., 2006. Riparian land uses and precipitation influences on stream bank erosion in central Iowa. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42: 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar