Benchmarking habitat quality: observations using River Habitat Survey on near‐natural streams and rivers in northern and western Europe

Abstract

ABSTRACT1. Some ecological effects of physically modifying rivers are still unclear, partly due to scale factors, but also because the character of high quality habitat is poorly understood.2. Surveys at 278 sites on 141 near-natural streams and rivers in northern and western Europe were carried out between 1994 and 2009 to benchmark the habitat quality assessment system used for River Habitat Survey (RHS).3. The objectives were to establish if RHS was suitable outside the UK, investigate if 500 m was still valid as the survey length, suggest a benchmarking strategy and recommend improvements to habitat quality assessment protocols.4. Some modifications to RHS are needed to take account of differences in hydrological conditions, land-use and, most importantly, riparian habitat structure found in mainland Europe.5. On average, 82-87% of channel attributes and 87-98% of channel and bank features were recorded within the first of consecutive RHS sites, confirming that 500 m is an effective sample length for characterizing small rivers.6. Stream-flow character appeared to influence the distribution of several in-channel features, with greater diversity and between-site variation associated with rivers of mixed flow-types. To account for local variation and for effective use of survey time, it is recommended that two or more consecutive RHS sites are used for benchmarking purposes.7. A suite of assessment protocols with agreed criteria and analytical rules, linked to specific objectives (e.g. nature conservation, geomorphic condition), is needed to establish the character and habitat quality of rivers in a consistent fashion.8. A multi-discipline benchmarking programme using hydro-ecological regions in Europe would build on existing knowledge and help to improve both the inter-calibration and local application of quality assessment protocols. Data-sharing by hydrologists, river ecologists and fluvial geomorphologists would improve the basis for managing rivers in support of the European Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive.

Influence of selected environmental factors on macroinvertebrates in mountain streams

“…Our results found low values of the HMS index, that are characteristic of untransformed mountain streams or those that had been transformed to only a small degree [27]. Channel modification, which is reflected by the values of the HMS index, is generally greater in lowland rivers compared to higher altitudes and the values of HQA index increase with the altitude and gradient up to the tree lines because the HQA system is strongly influenced by the extent of trees and associated features [4]. In comparison [29] showed wider ranges of the HQA values, i.e., 20-73 in high-altitude siliceous streams in a national park.…”

“…been used to investigate the relationships between habitat features and associated biota, including benthic macroinvertebrates [4]. For example, the RHS was a useful tool in assessing the influence of the hydromorphology on caddisfly assemblages in high mountain streams [5].…”

Impact of river channelization and riverfront development on fluvial habitat: evidence from Gomti River, a tributary of Ganges, India

“…Restoration of riverine habitats has been carried out in United Kingdom, United States and Europe by a number of researchers (Friberg et al 1994;Trexler 1995;Muotka et al 2002;Helfield et al 2007;Newson 2010;Raven et al 2010). The important lessons are: these programs are long term, technically robust, use river stretches with special conservation designations for wildlife as a 'springboard for a strategic approach to river restoration' and rely on separate funding for habitat modifications (Philip and Paul 2012).…”

How to assess hydromorphology? A comparison of Ukrainian and German approaches

“…Positive examples are the manuals from the UK (Environment Agency 2003) or Australia (Parsons et al 2001). At the present, the intercalibration process in the assessment of river hydromorphology is still active among the EU member states (Boon et al 2010;BSI 2004BSI , 2010DIN EN 15843 2010;DIN EN 14614 2005;EN 14614 2004;Raven et al 2010).…”