Monitoring, river restoration and the Water Framework Directive

England, Judy; Skinner, Kevin S.; Carter, Matthew G.

doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2007.00090.x

Cited by 39 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is generally recognised that river hyporheic restoration requires a set of objectives against which the outcomes can be measured (England, Skinner & Carter, ) but this is often overlooked. This may in part be because there are very few guidelines to help support decision‐making processes in terms of the physical aspects of river restoration or the links between physical and chemical, hydrological or biological benefits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of increased flow and fine sediment on hyporheic invertebrates and nutrients in stream mesocosms

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This version available http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/509600/ NERC has developed NORA to enable users to access research outputs wholly or partially funded by NERC. Copyright and other rights for material on this site are retained by the rights owners. Users should read the terms and conditions of use of this material at http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/policies.html#access This document is the author's final manuscript version of the journal article, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer review process. Some differences between this and the publisher's version remain. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from this article. 3. The addition of fine sediment to the mesocosm bed generally increased ammonium and decreased nitrate and soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations, decreased oxygen penetration and altered invertebrate assemblage structure. Increased flow rates generally lowered ammonium concentrations, increased soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations, increased oxygen penetration and altered invertebrate assemblage structure. Our hypothesis that higher flows would ameliorate any effects of added fine sediment was generally supported for oxygen penetration and nitrate concentration. However, we observed no differences in the interaction effects between flow regime and sediment types either on nutrient concentrations or invertebrate assemblage structure.4. The rates of flow used in our mesocosms did not appear to reach the threshold required to remove fine sediment. It is generally recognised that river hyporheic restoration requires a set of objectives against which the outcomes can be measured yet this is often overlooked. Our research provides preliminary guidelines that small amounts of fine sediment can have deleterious ecological effects. However, further research is required to evaluate if lower percentages of bed fine sediment result in ecological impairment and to determine what flow rates are required to ameliorate colmation impacts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of increased flow and fine sediment on hyporheic invertebrates and nutrients in stream mesocosms

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, 2007), poor controls (reference systems; Boulton, 1999) and inadequate monitoring and assessment before and after restoration measures (Bernhardt et al. , 2005; England, Skinner & Carter, 2007). The importance of long‐term monitoring records has been demonstrated in the case of nitrate in rivers, where trends can be obscured by short‐term variability (Burt et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biogeochemical time lags may delay responses of streams to ecological restoration

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1. Mounting interest in ecological restoration of streams and rivers, including that motivated by the Water Framework Directive, has stimulated examination of whether management and restoration measures in streams and their catchments have yielded measurable improvements in ecological status (‘health’). Evidence for the efficacy of diffuse‐source pollution reduction (including best management practices on land) has proven elusive. 2. Several hydrological and biogeochemical processes delay the responses of streams and rivers to a decrease in nutrient and sediment inputs, potentially for decades. The implications of such time lags in response to restoration may not be well appreciated by restoration ecologists, regulators, sponsors of restoration work or the broader community. 3. The groundwater time lag results from the long residence time of ground water. This is particularly important with respect to nitrate, but is increasingly important for phosphorus (P) as well. Isotopic tracers and groundwater age dating suggest that stream water often is more than a decade old, and that several decades are required to flush most soluble contaminants from groundwater reservoirs. 4. Sediment movement through river networks can be protracted because of storage and remobilisation processes involving stream beds, impounded reaches and fringing bars and floodplains. In lowland streams and rivers, sediment accretion can be rapid, but its removal is often far slower and can take decades to centuries. 5. Phosphorus availability is subject to time lags because P tends to associate with minerals, resulting in a potentially large yet exchangeable P reserve in upland soils and alluvial and stream‐bed sediments. Thus, soils and sediments can remain rich in P for decades after new inputs are reduced, potentially acting as a source of P to surface waters. Phosphorus saturation of soils along groundwater percolation pathways can lead to even longer time lags. Restoration measures that inundate previously dry soils or desiccate previously inundated sediments can induce high rates of P release. 6. These hydrological and biogeochemical time lags can obscure the short‐term responses of streams and rivers to restoration measures. In many eutrophic waters, large decreases in nutrient availability would be required to return the ecosystem to a natural nutrient‐limited state, and this could take decades.

show abstract

“…Moreover, it is of paramount importance that resources should be targeted where they will produce the most beneficial impact on river restoration projects [30]. When discussing the frequently employed approaches to develop ecological restoration strategies, King and Hobbs concluded that "the structural approach tends to focus upon mechanical manipulations of components of ecosystem structure, whereas the functional approach instead attempts to manipulate the interactions and dynamics-the ecological processes-which have been degraded" [36].…”

Section: Necessity Of Moving Towards a Pressure-oriented Water Qualitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the WFD, three types of monitoring (Annex V) are suggested: (i) surveillance monitoring-routine monitoring to aid in evaluating water status, designing future programmes, and assessing long-term changes due to natural and human activities; (ii) operational monitoring-target waters probably falling below their designed status usually in the short term, which may influence the direction of the programme of measures; and (iii) investigative monitoring-for waters at risk in problems areas with pollution incidence, which would lead to response measures [31]. In the domain of river restoration, most monitoring schemes are likely to be of use only for investigative monitoring [30].…”

Section: Dilemmas Of the Current Water Quality Monitoring Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The DPSIR Framework and a Pressure-Oriented Water Quality Monitoring Approach to Ecological River Restoration

Song

Frostell

2012

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Without monitoring anthropogenic pressures on the water environment, it is difficult to set realistic river restoration targets in relation to water quality. Therefore a more holistic approach is needed to systematically explore the links between socio-economic drivers and observed water quality-related impacts on river ecosystems. Using the DPSIR (Drivers-Pressures-State of the Environment-Impacts-Responses) framework, this study linked ecological river restoration with the socio-economic sector, with the focus on promoting a pressure-oriented water quality monitoring system. Based on the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) and relevant literature, it was found that most water quality-related indicators employed today are state/impacts-oriented, while very few are pressure-oriented. As a response, we call for more attention to a DPR (Drivers-Pressures-Responses) framework in developing an industrial ecology-based pressure-oriented water quality monitoring system for aiding ecological river restoration planning. This approach is characterized in general by accounting for material-related flows throughout the socio-economic sector in relation to river ecosystem degradation. Then the obtained information would help decision makers take appropriate measures to alleviate various significant human-induced wastes and emissions at their sources. We believe that such a pressure-oriented monitoring system will substantially complement traditional state/impacts-oriented environmental and ecological monitoring and help develop more proactive planning and decision-making processes for specific river restoration projects and general water quality management.

show abstract

Monitoring, river restoration and the Water Framework Directive

Cited by 39 publications

References 25 publications

The effects of increased flow and fine sediment on hyporheic invertebrates and nutrients in stream mesocosms

The effects of increased flow and fine sediment on hyporheic invertebrates and nutrients in stream mesocosms

Biogeochemical time lags may delay responses of streams to ecological restoration

The DPSIR Framework and a Pressure-Oriented Water Quality Monitoring Approach to Ecological River Restoration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About