Riparian vegetation
General
| Section |
|---|
| Column |
|---|
| Algemene kenmerken | |
|---|
Common name | Riparian vegetation | Region | The Netherlands, Europe | Water system | lakes, rivers | Nature parameter | macrophytes | Factsheet made by | K.E. van de Wolfshaar |
|
|
Description Habitat
Occurrence
The area riparian vegetation, which within the Water Framework Directive is applied to the rule "area riparian vegetation", is defined as that part of the riparian vegetation between high and low water level.
Riverbank vegetation that is not flooded by surface water has not been taken into consideration.
Plants belonging to this category are: reed (Phragmites australis), club rush (Schoenoplectur lacustris), softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectur tabernaemontani), sea clubrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), Bulrush (Typha latifolia) and Lesser Bulrush (Typha angustifolia).
Environmental boundary conditions
These plant species occur on fresh water banks. Factors affecting the occurrence of these species are salinity, fetch and water level dynamics.
Control and growth opportunities
Water level and fetch have to be taken into account for control and growth opportunities. Adaptation to the power of the waves might improve the chances of occurrence of riparian vegetation.
Dose-effect relations
The dose-effect relations are based on the group of plants that have been included in the riparian vegetation #1.
| Section |
|---|
| Column |
|---|
| | Chart |
|---|
| dataDisplay | true |
|---|
| legend | false |
|---|
| xlabel | diepte (m) |
|---|
| type | xyline |
|---|
| title | Waterdepth |
|---|
| dataOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| yLabel | HSI |
|---|
| Depth (m) | HSI |
|---|
0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.9 | 0 | 1.5 | 0 |
|
Reference: #1 |
| Column |
|---|
| | Chart |
|---|
| dataDisplay | true |
|---|
| legend | false |
|---|
| xlabel | Fetch (m) |
|---|
| type | xyline |
|---|
| title | Fetch |
|---|
| dataOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| yLabel | HSI |
|---|
| Fetch (m) | HSI |
|---|
0 | 1 | 100.0 | 1.0 | 200.0 | 0.95 | 300.0 | 0.9 | 400.0 | 0.8 | 500.0 | 0.65 | 600.0 | 0.5 | 700.0 | 0.35 | 800.0 | 0.17 | 900.0 | 0.07 | 1000.0 | 0.02 | 1100.0 | 0.0 | 1500.0 | 0.0 |
|
Reference: #1, Expert Judgement H. Coops |
|
| Section |
|---|
| Column |
|---|
| | Chart |
|---|
| xlabelOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| dataDisplay | true |
|---|
| legend | false |
|---|
| xlabel | Salinity (g Cl/L) |
|---|
| type | xyline |
|---|
| title | Average salinity for intolerant plants |
|---|
| dataOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| yLabel | HSI |
|---|
| Salinity (g Cl/L) | HSI |
|---|
0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
|
Reference: #2, #3 |
| Column |
|---|
| | Chart |
|---|
| xlabelOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| dataDisplay | true |
|---|
| legend | false |
|---|
| xlabel | Salinity (g Cl/L) |
|---|
| type | xyline |
|---|
| title | Maximum salinity during 1 day for intolerant plants |
|---|
| dataOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| yLabel | HSI |
|---|
| Salinity (g Cl/L) | HSI |
|---|
0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 0.8 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 0 |
|
Reference: #2, #3 |
|
| Section |
|---|
| Column |
|---|
| | Chart |
|---|
| xlabelOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| dataDisplay | true |
|---|
| legend | false |
|---|
| xlabel | Salinity (g Cl/L) |
|---|
| type | xyline |
|---|
| title | Average salinity for tolerant plantse |
|---|
| dataOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| yLabel | HSI |
|---|
| salinity (g Cl/L) | HSI |
|---|
0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 10 | 0.8 | 12 | 0 |
|
Reference: #2, #3 |
| Column |
|---|
| | Chart |
|---|
| xlabelOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| dataDisplay | true |
|---|
| legend | false |
|---|
| xlabel | Salinity (g Cl/L) |
|---|
| type | xyline |
|---|
| title | Maximum salinity during 1 day for tolerant plants |
|---|
| dataOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| yLabel | HSI |
|---|
| Salinity (g Cl/L) | HSI |
|---|
0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 12 | 0.5 | 15 | 0 |
|
Reference: #2, #3 |
Please note that the dose-effect relations for salinity are based on a generalization by Ter Heerdt (1995) and Hansson ecodata (2005). A distinction is made between salt intolerant and salt tolerant riparian vegetation #1. |
Dose-effect relation young vegetation
During winter inundations and moulting periods the habitat is not suitable for the growth of reed because of graze. It is suitable outside these periods. A dose-effect relation can be formulated for young vegetation influenced by graze based on knowledge from the Oostvaardersplassen.
| Section |
|---|
| Column |
|---|
| | Chart |
|---|
| xlabelOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| dataDisplay | true |
|---|
| legend | false |
|---|
| xlabel | periode |
|---|
| type | bar |
|---|
| title | Inundation period |
|---|
| dataOrientation | vertical |
|---|
| yLabel | HSI |
|---|
| period | HSI |
|---|
januari | 0 | februari | 0 | maart | 1 | april | 1 | mei | 0 | juni | 0 | juli | 1 | augustus | 1 | september | 1 | oktober | 1 | november | 1 | december | 0 |
|
Reference: #4 |
|
Uncertainty and validation
The dose-effect relations have been validated for the IJsselmeer district and the Friese boezemmeer De Leijnen, see reference #4. It does not include the relations for salt tolerant riparian vegetation.
Applicability
These dose-effect relations can be applied to all Dutch fresh water.
Exemplary project
Volkerak-Zoommeer Habitat analysis #1 and the IJsselmeer district and Friese boezemmeer De Leijen reference #2.
References
1
Haasnoot, M. en Van de Wolfshaar, K.E.. Habitat analyse in het kader van de Planstudie/MER voor Krammer, Volkerak en Zoommeer. WL report Q4015. 2006 2 Hansson Ecodata. Calibratie van het model EMOE voor de vegetatie van de voordelta van het Haringvliet. Freiburg, 2005 3 Ter Heerdt, G. N. J. Planten in de Peiling: Literatuuronderzoek naar de invloed van het zoutgehalte in de bodem op de ontwikkeling van helofyten. Notanummer 95.041 Rijkswaterstaat Directie IJsselmeergebied, RIZA, Directie Zeeland, Lelystad. 1995 4 Penning, W.E., Haasnoot, M., Kuijper, M. en Van Buren, R. Rekenregels voor macrofyten in meren ten behoeve van de KRW. WL | Delft Hydraulics rapport Q4058, Delft. 2006