4.5 Article

Assessment of the structural quality of streams in Germany-basic description and current status

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Volume 186, Issue 6, Pages 3365-3378

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-014-3623-y

Keywords

River hydromorphology; Physical habitat quality; Water management; Structural quality; Stream habitat

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fifteen years ago, the first mapping guidelines for the recording and evaluation of river physical habitat quality in Germany, closely following the Lander Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA) field survey, have been published. In light of this experience, a revised version has now been developed for North Rhine-Westphalia (West Germany). For the assessment, the streams are divided into segments serving as survey units. The survey is performed primarily in the field from the mouth to the source by an on-site recording of data. Defined reference conditions of the relevant morphological stream types serve as basis of the evaluation. Two evaluation procedures are carried out independently to validate the quality of the data. The proven basic concept operates as follows: the local scale habitat variables are grouped into 31 single parameters, which are then aggregated into six main parameters. These can further be aggregated into three zones: streambed, banks and adjacent land. The main modifications of the presented version are the following: (1) a larger differentiation of morphological stream types and (2) a higher level of detail concerning the mapping of relevant habitat characteristics. The last point allows additional evaluation options related to the morphological needs of the instream biota and a differentiated survey of anthropogenic degradation. Despite all modifications, the comparability with previous surveys has been largely maintained. By qualitative comparison of this method with other European mapping guidelines, different concepts of hydromorphological mapping are finally discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available