See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311003881

Re-Connection of Oxbow Lakes as an Effective Measure of River Restoration

Article  in  CLEAN - Soil Air Water · November 2016

DOI: 10.1002/clen.201600211

CITATIONS READS
0 185

7 authors, including:

Michael Seidel Uta Langheinrich

Hochschule Magdeburg Hochschule Magdeburg
17 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   107 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Richard M Gersberg José Ramón Arévalo

San Diego State University Universidad de La Laguna
83 PUBLICATIONS   3,262 CITATIONS    169 PUBLICATIONS   2,882 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Salton Sea Restoration View project

Temporal Changes in Morphological Traits in a Population of Echinacea pallida in the Tall Grass Prairie Preserve, Oklahoma View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Volker Lüderitz on 06 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Online Proofing System
1. Corrections should be marked with the Adobe Annotation & Comment Tools below:

2. To save your proof corrections, click the ‘Publish Comments’ button.

Publishing your comments saves the marked up version of your proof
to a centralized location in Wiley’s Online Proofing System. Corrections
don’t have to be marked in one sitting – you can publish corrections
and log back in at a later time to add more.

3. When your proof review is complete we recommend

you download a copy of your annotated proof for
reference in any future correspondence concerning
the article before publication. You can do this by
clicking on the icon to the right of the ‘Publish
Comments’ button and selecting ‘Save as Archive
Copy…’.

4. When your proof review is complete and you are ready to

send corrections to the publisher click the ‘Complete
Proof Review’ button that appears above the proof in
your web browser window. Do not click the ‘Complete
Proof Review’ button without replying to any author
queries found on the last page of your proof. Incomplete
proof reviews will cause a delay in publication. Note:
Once you click ‘Complete Proof Review’ you will not be
able to mark any further comments or corrections.

Firefox, Chrome, Safari Users

If your PDF article proof opens in any PDF viewer other than Adobe Reader or Adobe Acrobat, you will not be able to
mark corrections and query responses, nor save them. To mark and save corrections, please follow these instructions
to disable the built-in browser PDF viewers in Firefox, Chrome, and Safari so the PDF article proof opens in Adobe within
a Firefox or Chrome browser window.
 How to disable the built-in PDF viewer and use Adobe PDF viewer
If you use Firefox, Chrome, or Safari they have a built-in PDF viewer that hides essential OPS features needed
for viewing/editing the PDF proofs. In order to override the built-in or native PDF viewer, please follow the
instructions below.

FIREFOX
To switch from the built-in PDF viewer to
Adobe PDF viewer Firefox:

1. At the top of the Firefox window, click

on the Firefox button and
then select Options (if you have an
older version of Firefox, Options may
be found by clicking the Tools button at
the top of the window).
2. Select the Applications panel.
3. Find Portable Document Format (PDF)
in the Content Type list and click on it
to select it.
4. Click on the drop-down arrow in the
Action column for the above entry
and select Use Adobe Acrobat (in
Firefox).

CHROME

To switch from the built-in PDF viewer to Adobe PDF viewer Chrome:

1. Open Chrome and type “chrome:plugins” in

the URL bar in the browser.

2. Scroll down and find ‘Chrome PDF viewer’.

3. Click the ‘Disable’ link to prevent PDFs from opening in Chrome’s built-in PDF viewer.
4. Close and restart the web browser.
5. Now you can choose to download or open PDFs with Adobe on your PC. And if you ever change your mind, the
option will be in the same place with an "Enable" link to bring it back.
 Safari

To switch from the built-in PDF viewer to Adobe PDF viewer Chrome:

1. In the Finder, select a PDF, and choose File > 4. Click the Change All button.
Get Info.

2. Click the arrow next to Open With to expose

the product menu.

3. Choose either Adobe Acrobat or Adobe

Reader from the application menu.
5. When asked if you want to change all similar
documents, click Continue.

For more information About Enabling Adobe

Acrobat or Reader in Safari please visit:
http://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/using/display-pdf-
browser-acrobat-xi.html
USING e-ANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION

Required software to e-Annotate PDFs: Adobe Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader (version 8.0 or
above). (Note that this document uses screenshots from Adobe Reader X)
The latest version of Acrobat Reader can be downloaded for free at: http://get.adobe.com/reader/

Once you have Acrobat Reader open on your computer, click on the Comment tab at the right of the toolbar:

This will open up a panel down the right side of the document. The majority of
tools you will use for annotating your proof will be in the Annotations section,
pictured opposite. We’ve picked out some of these tools below:

1. Replace (Ins) Tool – for replacing text. 2. Strikethrough (Del) Tool – for deleting text.

Strikes a line through text and opens up a text Strikes a red line through text that is to be
box where replacement text can be entered. deleted.

How to use it How to use it

 Highlight a word or sentence.  Highlight a word or sentence.
 Click on the Replace (Ins) icon in the Annotations  Click on the Strikethrough (Del) icon in the
section. Annotations section.
 Type the replacement text into the blue box that
appears.

3. Add note to text Tool – for highlighting a section 4. Add sticky note Tool – for making notes at
to be changed to bold or italic. specific points in the text.

Highlights text in yellow and opens up a text Marks a point in the proof where a comment
box where comments can be entered. needs to be highlighted.

How to use it How to use it

 Highlight the relevant section of text.  Click on the Add sticky note icon in the
 Click on the Add note to text icon in the Annotations section.
Annotations section.  Click at the point in the proof where the comment
 Type instruction on what should be changed should be inserted.
regarding the text into the yellow box that  Type the comment into the yellow box that
appears. appears.
USING e-ANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION

5. Attach File Tool – for inserting large amounts of 6. Add stamp Tool – for approving a proof if no
text or replacement figures. corrections are required.

Inserts an icon linking to the attached file in the Inserts a selected stamp onto an appropriate
appropriate pace in the text. place in the proof.

How to use it How to use it

 Click on the Attach File icon in the Annotations
section.
 Click on the proof to where you’d like the attached
file to be linked.
 Select the file to be attached from your computer
or network.
 Select the colour and type of icon that will appear
in the proof. Click OK.
 Click on the Add stamp icon in the Annotations
section.
 Select the stamp you want to use. (The Approved
stamp is usually available directly in the menu that
appears).
 Click on the proof where you’d like the stamp to
appear. (Where a proof is to be approved as it is,
this would normally be on the first page).

7. Drawing Markups Tools – for drawing shapes, lines and freeform

annotations on proofs and commenting on these marks.
Allows shapes, lines and freeform annotations to be drawn on proofs and for
comment to be made on these marks..

How to use it
 Click on one of the shapes in the Drawing
Markups section.
 Click on the proof at the relevant point and
draw the selected shape with the cursor.
 To add a comment to the drawn shape,
move the cursor over the shape until an
arrowhead appears.
 Double click on the shape and type any
text in the red box that appears.

For further information on how to annotate proofs, click on the Help menu to reveal a list of further options:
 1

DOI:10.1002/clen.201600211

Research Article: Communities of macro- Re-Connection of Oxbow Lakes as an

invertebrates, fish and macrophytes are Effective Measure of River Restoration
compared between the main channel, one
periodically and one permanently connected M. Seidel*, M. Voigt, U. Langheinrich,
oxbow lake of the Elbe River. Predominantly, A. Hoge-Becker, R. M. Gersberg,
the permanently connected oxbow lake is
valo, and V. Lu
J. R. Are € deritz
settled by rheophilic species, the others by
indifferent species and Neozoa. Hence, re- Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2016, 44 (00), 000–000
connection of oxbow lakes can be an
effective measure to promote native and
riverine species in degraded river-systems.

FS
O
O
PR
D
TE
EC
R
R
O
C
N
U

© 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2016, 44 (00), 1
 1

Q1
1 Michael Seidel1
2
Michael Voigt2
Research Article
Uta Langheinrich1
Anne Hoge-Becker1 Re-Connection of Oxbow Lakes as an Effective
3
Richard M. Gersberg3

Ramo
Jose
valo4

n Are
Measure of River Restoration
1
€
Volker Luderitz
4 Six years after re-connection of an oxbow lake from periodically to permanently
5 1
Department of Water and Waste connected to the main channel, the restoration success was assessed. This permanently
6 Management, University of Applied connected oxbow lake was compared with the main channel of the Elbe River and with
7 Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal, a periodically connected oxbow lake by means of comparisons of the aquatic
Magdeburg, Germany
8 2
macroinvertebrates, fish and aquatic macrophyte communities. The permanently
Lower Oder Valley Nationalpark,
9
River Restoration and Water
connected oxbow was suited as important replacement habitat for riverine
10 Management, Schwedt, Germany invertebrates, especially for clubtails (Odonata) and unionid mussels (Bivalvia). The
11 3
Graduate School of Public Health, periodically connected oxbow lake was colonized by typical species for shallow lakes. As

FS
12 San Diego State University, San expected, riverine species did not occur. Meanwhile, the invertebrate community in the
13 Diego, CA, USA main channel was poor and dominated by invasive species (Dikerogammarus villosus,
4
Universidad de La Laguna,
14 Dreissena polymorpha). The results concerning fish showed a clear dominance of the
Departamento de Bota
nica, Ecolog
ıa

O
15 y Fisiolog
ıa Vegetal, Facultad de rheophilic species spined loach (Cobitis taenia) in the permanently connected oxbow
16 Ciencias, La Laguna, Spain lake and of the indifferent species roach (Rutilus rutilus) and European perch (Perca

O
17 fluviatilis) in the periodically connected oxbow lake. However, species number was
18 highest in the main channel. For macrophytes, quantity, number of taxa and growth

PR
19 forms and diversity were lower in the permanently compared to the periodically
20 connected oxbow lake. In conclusion, the re-connection of oxbow lakes to main
21 channels can be an important measure for native species conservation, especially
22 macroinvertebrates, and hence for the implementation of the Water Framework
D
23 Directive.
TE

24 Keywords: Aquatic communities; Conservation; Diversity; Ecological assessment; Neozoa

25 Received: March 18, 2016; revised: August 26, 2016; accepted: November 24, 2016
26 DOI: 10.1002/clen.201600211
EC

27 1 Introduction the high degree of abiotic variability [1]. Alternating discharge and 1
R

flood events create a shifting mosaic of aquatic, semiaquatic, and 2

28 From the 19th century, the Elbe River was channelized and partially
R

terrestrial habitats that are spatially and temporarily connected [4]. 3

29 dammed up for flood control and constructed as a waterway. Hence,
The objective of the study was to assess the restoration of a re- 4
30 it now contains about 6900 groynes, and the floodplain has been
O

connected oxbow lake and its potential to improve the ecological 5

31 reduced to 15% with less than 5% of the oxbow lakes still connected status of the main channel. It was hypothesized that permanently 6
32 to the main channel. More than 80% of the oxbow lakes are in a
C

connected oxbow lakes harbor river-specific communities to a high 7

33 terminal state, near to silting up [1]. Nevertheless, according to the degree and hence, can improve the biodiversity of riverine species in 8
34 EU Water Framework Directive, the Elbe River is classified as a
N

the floodplain of the Elbe River. Two questions were focused: (i) does 9
35 natural water body and so a good ecological status must be achieved the re-connection of the oxbow lake lead to a re-establishment of 10
U

36 by 2027. Presently, the status is not better than moderate [2]. Hence, riverine species? and (ii) are re-connected oxbow lakes less colonized 11
37 effective restoration measures of rivers and floodplains are by neobiota than the main channel and therefore may serve as 12
38 needed [3]. Within restoration projects, re-establishing flood refuge habitat for native riverine species? 13
39 channels and re-connection of oxbow lakes are an essential part.
40 Oxbow lakes typically harbor a more abundant and diverse
41 assemblage of organisms than streams, rivers, and lakes due to 2 Materials and methods 14

2.1 Study area 15

Correspondence: Michael Seidel, Department of Water and Waste The focus of this research was the re-connected, mostly flowing 16
Management, University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal,
oxbow lake Sandauerholz. To assess the effects of re-connection it 17
Breitscheidstraße 2, 39114 Magdeburg, Germany
E-mail: michael.seidel@hs-magdeburg.de was compared with two other water bodies of different flow regimes. 18
One was the permanently flowing main channel of the Elbe River, 19
Abbreviations: CI, conservation index; EPTCBO, Ephemeroptera, the other one the periodically connected (and hence mostly 20
Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Coleoptera, Bivalvia, and Odonata; OLI,
oxbow lake index; PCA, principal components analysis; PTI, Potamon- stagnant) oxbow lake Hoheng€ ohren (Tab. 1 and Fig. 1). By 21
Typie-index. approaching this space-for-time-substitution, the lack of data on 22

© 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2016, 44 (9999), 1–9
 2 M. Seidel et al.

Table 1. SampledQ2 river types (according to Ref. [43])

Type Sampling location Coordinates (°) MI Fish MP

Main channel 20 Elbe River 52.812312, 12.019958 a)

External data –
a) a) a)
Permanently connected 20.A1 Sandauerholz 52.812312, 12.019958
a) a) a)
Periodically connected 20.A2 Hoheng€ ohren 52.635469, 12.014365

MI, macroinvertebrates; MP, macrophytes. For external data an explanation exists in the text.
a)
Sampling locations with coordinates in the reference system WGS84 and investigated parameters.

1 the state of the oxbow lake Sandauerholz before it was re-connected Due to river engineering in the past decades, the 2 km long oxbow 1
2 was compensated. For each water body, sampling and mapping was lake is only connected at one side for 199 days per year. It is regularly 2
3 conducted at representative sections with equal lengths of 300 m. completely flooded at a recurrence interval of 10 years. Hence, the 3
4 In the oxbow lakes, all three ecological components, macro- water-body mostly stagnates [6]. The surroundings are characterized 4
5 invertebrates, fish, and macrophytes were sampled. In the main by military water exercises. 5

FS
6 channel only macroinvertebrates were sampled. Information on the
7 fish-population were provided by the public institution (LHW) and
2.2 Biology 6
8 macrophytes did not occur.
A sensitive and robust approach for monitoring, using several 7

O
taxonomic groups and functional guilds of organisms for 8
9 2.1.1 Re-connected owbow lake Sandauerholz
multimetric assessment, was conducted to include macroinver- 9

O
10 (permanently connected)
tebrates, fish, and macrophytes. To assess restoration success, key 10
11 In 2006, after almost 70 years, the disconnected backwater and target species for permanently connected oxbow lakes wereQ3 11

PR
12 Sandauerholz (left bank side) was re-connected by soil excavations used. 12
13 in the southern upstream inlet area and the construction of a rock
14 ramp [5]. The re-connection was planned for complete flooding of the (1) Macroinvertebrates: riverine mussels (Unio spp., Sphaerium 15
14
15 length of 1.9 km at mean flow water levels of the Elbe River at spp.) and dragonflies from the family Gomphidae (clubtails), 16
D
16 193 days per year, especially in winter. During March and April, preferably breeding in natural or near-natural rivers. 17
17 permanent flow can be observed on almost all days [6]. In summer, (2) Fish: stagnophilic and rheophilic species such as the species 18
19
TE

18 the oxbow lake lacks an inflow but has a small discharge driven by protected by the Habitat Directive including the weather loach 20
19 groundwater inflow. (Misgurnus fossilis), bitterling (Rhodeus amarus), spined loach 21
20 A steep bank behind the rock ramp is stabilized with fascines (Cobitis taenia), and asp (Aspius aspius). 22
EC

21 and Salix cuttings. During summertime, the riparian zones are (3) Macrophytes: typical species of permanently connected oxbow 23
24
22 influenced by grazing cattle. lakes, that are adapted to stagnant water or temporary 25
flooding with requirements for mesotrophic to eutrophic 26
€ hren (periodically nutrient conditions, such as Magnopotamids (Potamogeton 27
2.1.2 Oxbow lake Hohengo
R

23
perfoliatus, P. lucens, P. gramineus, P. alpinus), Batrachids 28
24 connected)
(Ranunculus aquatilis, R. peltatus), Nymphaeids (Nuphar lutea, 29
R

25 The periodically connected oxbow lake Hoheng€

ohren is a part of the Persicaria amphibia), Myriophyllids (R. circinatus, Myriophyllum 30
26 former Elbe river system. verticillatum). 31
O

32
C
N
U

Figure 1. Map of the study area in the north of Saxony-

Anhalt (SA), Germany. The map shows the reconnected
oxbow lake Sandauerholz (top right, in orange) and the
periodically connected oxbow lake Hohengo € hren (below
right, in orange) and their location in relation the main
channel of the River Elbe (middle part of the figure). For
coordinates see Tab. 1.

© 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2016, 44 (9999), 1–9
 Water 3

1 2.2.1 Sampling and assessment of macroinvertebrates 2.2.3 Macrophyte survey and assessment 1

2 In April and July 2012, macroinvertebrates were sampled in 300 m In August 2011, macrophyte mapping was conducted in sections 2
3 sections at each sampling site. The sites were sampled using the (each 100 m) at both oxbow lakes according to the German standard 3
4 multihabitat sampling technique according to Hering et al. [7]. Also, method [15]. The surveys included all submerged, free-floating, 4
5 to find rare species, this sampling procedure was extended from 1.25 amphibious, and emergent plants. Species were identified according 5
6 to 10 m2 [8]. Sampled surfaces included all microhabitats. The to Rothmaler [16] and the identification key for macrophytes 6
7 organisms (except easily identifiable species) were fixed in ethyl [17]. The quantity of species was estimated based on a five- 7
8 alcohol (70%) and identified with keys documented by L€ uderitz degree-scale [18] as well as sociability and vitality [19]. Supplemen- 8
9 et al. [8]. To assess biological quality of flowing water bodies by tary microhabitat characteristics such as substrate, turbidity, 9
10 means of macroinvertebrates according to the EU Water Framework current velocity, and channel parameters (mean width, water level, 10
11 Directive, the PERLODES standard method with the ASTERICS and shade) were documented as well. 11
12 tool was used (version 4.04 from October 2014; www.
13 fliessgewaesserbewertung.de/en/download/berechnung/). In ASTER- 2.2.4 Community analyses 12
14 ICS, the two following modules are calculated:
Principal components analysis (PCA) was performed using CAN- 13
17
16 (1) The module “general degradation” as represented by the OCO [20] to analyze how species composition changed along the 14

FS
18 Potamon-Typie-index (PTI) [9]. It describes the degree of three sites (main channel, periodically and permanently connected). 15
19 naturalness of macroinvertebrate communities in large rivers. The analysis was based on the abundance of all macroinvertebrate 16
20
21 (2) The module ”saprobity” represented by the Saprobic index [10]. and fish species in each site. PCA was used because a more linear 17

O
22 It indicates the organic load of the water body. than unimodal response of the species to the short gradient with 18
23
three sites was expected. 19

O
24 The ecological status results from the worst rated module.
25 Additionally, the overall species number of Ephemeroptera,
3 Results

PR
26 Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Coleoptera, Bivalvia, and Odonata (EPTCBO) 20
27 was calculated as an indicator of ecosystem quality because of the
28 sensitive behavior of these organisms to organic loading and 3.1 Macroinvertebrates 21
29 morphological degradation. The number of species was lowest in the main channel of the Elbe 22
30 The succession state of the water body was assessed by the oxbow
D
River with only 24 species and highest in the periodically connected 23
31 lake index (OLI) [1]. The basis of OLI is the preference of oxbow lake Hoheng€ ohren, with 71 species. In the permanently 24
TE

32 macroinvertebrate species in oxbow lakes for initial, optimum or connected oxbow lake, 67 species were found (Tab. 2, Supporting 25
33 terminal state of oxbow lakes and the index is calculated as a Information Tab. S1). 26
34 weighted average. Accordingly, the Shannon–Wiener index was much higher in the 27
35 Refuge function and conservation value was assessed by the
EC

oxbow lakes with a value of approximately 3.9 as compared to the 28

36 conservation index (CI) [11]. The conservation index usually ranges main channel with a value of 2.8 (Tab. 2). The EPTCBO percentage 29
37 between 5, with only few and regionally important species, and 9, generally exceeded 60% in the oxbow lakes, whereas it reached only 30
38 with at least one species that is nationally threatened by extinction. 37.5% in the Elbe River. According to the German standard 31
R

39 The similarity of the communities in the different water bodies assessment method PERLODES, the permanently connected oxbow 32
40 was calculated by the common Sùrensen–Dice index [12], therein lake was in a good ecological status whereas the status of the main 33
R

41 called coincidence index. channel was evaluated only as moderate (Tab. 2). This was due to the 34
results of the “general degradation” module. The saprobic grade was 35
O

42 2.2.2 Sampling and assessment of fish

good in both water bodies. 36
43 In the oxbow lakes, fish were sampled in October 2012 by electro- Riverine organisms, and target species to assess restoration 37
C

44 fishing from a boat over a length of 300 m (one anode, adapted DC success of the re-connection, such as the Gomphidae and 38
45 stator with 1.5–7.5 kW, 300–600 V). Additionally, the permanently
N

Unionidae, only occurred in the permanently connected oxbow 39

46 connected oxbow lake Sandauerholz was electro-fished in May 2012 lake. Some examples were Gomphus flavipes, Gomphus vulgatissimus, 40
U

47 by wading for a length of 800 m (one anode, 1.5–5 kW, 115–290 V). Sphaerium rivicola, S. corneum, Unio pictorum, and Anodonta anatina. 41
48 The fish were identified and their length was determined (
1 cm). In the same way, endangered and protected species seemed to 42
49 For the main channel, fishing was conducted in September 2012 at prefer the permanently connected oxbow lake. All Red-list-1- 43
50 the monitoring site Klietznik, which is representative of the reach of species of this study (for explanation see Tab. 2) (Caenis rivulorum, 44
51 the main channel close to the oxbow lakes. Data were provided by Coenagrion mercuriale, Orthetrum brunneum, S. solidum) and species 45
52 LHW [13]. protected by the European Habitat Directive (C. mercuriale, G. 46
53 Quality of the fish community of the main channel was assessed flavipes, Ophiogomphus cecilia) were found there. Hence, the 47
54 by the present German standard assessment tool fiBS 8.0.5 [14]. It conservation value of the permanently connected oxbow lake 48
55 compares the detected actual fish coenosis with the former was of national importance (CI 9). Meanwhile, the periodically 49
56 historical reference fish coenosis of the main channel, which was connected oxbow lake harbored a moderate number of Red-list- 50
57 developed and provided by LHW [13]. The tool assesses composition species (CI 6), but the main channel stayed poor in this regard (CI 51
58 and abundance of species and guilds, and reproduction or fish 4) (Tab. 2). 52
59 region index on a scale ranging from poor to excellent. All calculated The OLI [1] confirmed that the permanently connected oxbow lake 53
60 metrics account for the final assessment of the ecological status was between initial and optimum state of development, whereas the 54
61 according to the EU Water Framework Directive. periodically connected oxbow lake was in the optimum state. 55

© 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2016, 44 (9999), 1–9
 4 M. Seidel et al.

Table 2. Macroinvertebrate assessment of sampling sites

Parameter Main channel Permanently connected OL Periodically connected OL

Ecological status Moderate Good –

Saprobic index Good Good –
2.4 2.2
General degradation Moderate Good –
(Potamon Typie index) (2.8) (2.4)
SWI 2.7 3.9 3.8
Diversity grade Moderate Good Good
Rheoindex 0.3 0.4 0.1
Percentage neozoa (%) 42 10 5
OLI – 1.8 2.0
RL ST 1/2/3 0/0/2 4/3/2 0/3/2
Conservation index 4 9 6
Species/taxa number 24 67 71
Species group
Bivalvia (n) 2 6 1

FS
Ephemeroptera (n) 2 8 5
Odonata (n) 2 12 13
Trichoptera (n) 3 6 11
Coleoptera (n) 0 10 18

O
EPTCBO (n) 9 41 48

OL, oxbow lake; SWI, Shannon–Wiener index; RL ST, red lists Saxony-Anhalt. For the periodically connected oxbow lake, the ecological status

O
could not be assessed because the evaluation system PERLODES is only applicable for flowing water bodies. RL ST: 1: endangered by extinction,
2: hardly endangered, 3: endangered.

1 Obviously, the main channel was a preferred habitat of neozoa 3.2 Fish
PR 1
D
2 species. The groynes especially were predominantly settled by
3 invasive species like Dikerogammarus villosus and Dreissena polymorpha. In the permanently and periodically connected oxbow lakes 18 and 2
11 fish species were found, respectively. In the main channel 20 fish
TE

4 The percentage of neozoa species exceeded 40% in the main channel, 3

5 whereas it remained <10% in the oxbow lakes. species were found. Altogether, 26 different species were found. 4
6 As expected, the similarity of the communities was related to According to the German standard assessment method fiBS, the 5
the flow regime. The similarity was highest between the both ecological quality ratio of the main channel was 0.56, which means a 6
EC

7
8 oxbow lakes with a Sùrensen–Dice index of 42.6%. The similarity good ecological status. For the oxbow lakes, the ecological status 7
9 between the main channel and the oxbow lakes was lower with a could not be calculated due to a lack of an evaluation system. The 8
10 Sùrensen–Dice index of 32.3% and lowest for the permanently assessment tool fiBS is only valuable for flowing water bodies. 9
R

11 connected oxbow lake and 22.9% for the periodically connected The dominant species in the oxbow lakes were spined loach 10
12 oxbow lake. (Cobitis taenia), European perch (Perca fluviatilis), and roach (Rutilus 11
R

13 The PCA indicated strong differences in the species composition rutilus) with abundances of 43, 14, and 13%, respectively, in the 12
14 among the three sites. Also, there was no possibility to establish a permanently connected oxbow lake and 21, 35, and 23%, 13
O

15 gradient between the sites, so each one was independent of the respectively, in the periodically connected oxbow lake. These aside, 14
16 other. More species being representative of the permanently and species with abundances between 10 and 5% were orfe (Leuciscus idus), 15
C

17 periodically connected oxbow lakes were found compared to the bream (Abramis brama), and bleak (Alburnus alburnus) in the 16
permanently connected oxbow lake and only bream in the 17
N

18 main channel, as indicated in Tab. 2.

19 Many species representative of the main channel community periodically connected oxbow lake. In the main channel, white 18
bream (Blicca bjoerkna) and perch dominated with abundances of 34 19
U

20 were non-native species such as Corbicula fluminea, D. villosus,

21 D. polymorpha, and Physella acuta. Native species were Cyrnus and 15%, respectively. Species with abundances between 10 and 5% 20
22 trimaculatus and C. luctuosa. In the case of the periodically connected were roach, orfe, gudgeon (Gobio gobio), and bleak (A. alburnus) (Fig. 3). 21
23 oxbow lake, representative species were Erythromma viridulum, The remaining species occurred at abundances <5% and mostly <1% 22
24 Planaria torva, Hygrotus versicolor, Rhantus excoletus, Physa fontinalis or (Supporting Information Tab. S2). 23
25 Grammotaulius nigropunctatus, and for the permanently connected With regard to habitat guilds, rheophilic species dominated in the 24
26 oxbow lake, Centroptilum luteolum, Pisidium casertanum, Simulium permanently connected oxbow lake (55%) and indifferent species in 25
27 ornatum, O. cecilia, O. brunneum, Laccophilus minutus or Hydrobius the main channel (71%) and in the periodically connected oxbow 26
28 fuscipes. lake (77%). The high share of rheophilic species at the permanently 27
29 Some species showed no clear preference and could be found in connected oxbow lake was due to the dominance of spined loach. 28
30 any of the three sites such as Stagnicola palustris, Potamopyrgus The total share of young-of-the-year fish was equal in both the 29
31 antipodarum or Kageronia fuscogrisea, with more preference for the permanently connected oxbow lake and the main channel, with 30
32 oxbow lakes; while G. vulgatissimus or Hydropsyche bulgaromanorum abundance values of approximately 28%. In the periodically 31
33 showed more preferences for the main channel and the perma- connected oxbow lake, the share was 14%. In the permanently 32
34 nently connected oxbow lake (Fig. 2). connected oxbow lake and the main channel, young-of-the-year fish 33

© 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2016, 44 (9999), 1–9
 Water 5

FS
O
O
Figure 3. Relative abundance of adult and young-of-the-year (0þ) fish-
species in the main channel (“MC”), permanently (“perm”), and periodically

PR
(“perio”) connected oxbow lakes. In “others,” fish-species with abundan-
ces below 1% were summarized, including asp, burbot, chub, eel,
gudgeon, pike, rudd, ruffe, sunbleak, tench, and weather loach.
D
representative species occurred with a very high abundance. For 1
the periodically connected oxbow lake, common species like 2
TE

European perch, roach, and bream were among the most 3

Figure 2. Macroinvertebrate species and site scores in the space defined representative species (Fig. 4). 4
by axes 1 and 2 of PCA based on the abundance of the species.
Eigenvalues of axes 1 and 2 were 0.54 and 0.46, respectively, and the
EC

cumulative percentage of variance expressed by both axes was 100%. 3.3 Macrophytes 5
The names of the species used the first three letters of the genus name
and the first three letters of the species name. Species full names are listed The macrophyte quantity, number of taxa, number of growth forms, 6
in Annex 1 (Channel: main channel of the River Elbe; Permanent: and sum of the Kohler scale and Shannon–Wiener diversity index 7
R

permanently connected oxbow lake; Periodic: periodically connected

were lower in the permanently connected oxbow lake than in the 8
oxbow lake).
periodically connected oxbow lake (Tab. 3). 9
R

At the permanently connected oxbow lake, 15 species belonging 10

1 were found for almost all species (see Supporting Information Tab. to six different growth forms were identified. Helodids were the 11
O

2 S2, share of 0þ). In the periodically connected oxbow lake, young-of- dominant growth form. The average number of taxa was three. The 12
3 the-year fish were only found for perch and asp (A. aspius). most common species were P. amphibia and Phalaris arundinacea. 13
C

4 Aside from spined loach that occurred in high abundances, target The amphibious zone was colonized by reeds of Butomus umbellatus, 14
5 species like European weather loach (M. fossilis), bitterling (R. amarus)
N

Alisma plantago-aquatica, and Alopecurus geniculatus. At grazed 15

6 and asp were rare or even lacking in both oxbow lakes and in the riverbanks, Elodeids like Eleocharis acicularis and E. palustris were 16
U

7 main channel. present. Ranunculus sceleratus and R. circinatus occurred with less 17
8 Comparable with the analysis for macroinvertebrates, similarity numbers. The very rare Lemnid Spirodela polyrhiza was found in calm 18
9 was highest between the both oxbow lakes. However, the Sùrensen– and shallow parts of the backwater channel. The banks at the 19
10 Dice index was higher in all cases between both oxbow lakes, with a northern connection to the river Elbe were colonized by Phragmites 20
11 value of 75.9%, and values of 68.4% between the permanently australis. For the complete taxa list see Supporting Information 21
12 connected oxbow lake and the main channel, and 58.1% between the Tab. S3. 22
13 periodically connected oxbow lake and the main channel. At the periodically connected oxbow lake, 29 species belonging to 23
14 The PCA revealed important differences among the three sites, 12 different growth forms were identified. Helodids were the 24
15 with nearly a completely different species composition. As expected dominant growth form. The average number of taxa was six. From 25
16 in the main channel, typical riverine species appeared as the downstream connection of the oxbow lake to the main channel, 26
17 representative such as European chub (L. cephalus), eel (Anguilla an increasing number of species was detected. The nature of the 27
18 anguilla), burbot (Lota lota), or barbel (Barbus barbus). For the species found showed evidence of eutrophication. The most 28
19 permanently connected site, representative species dominantly common species was the amphibious and submerged-growing 29
20 occurred in low abundances like asp, European weather loach or P. amphibia followed by reeds of B. umbellatus and Sagittaria sagittifolia. 30
21 rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus). Only the spined loach as a Narrow and calm flood-channels were colonized by N. lutea and 31

© 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2016, 44 (9999), 1–9
 6 M. Seidel et al.

4 Discussion 1

The Elbe River has been subject to many structural changes and 2
anthropogenic influences due to its development into an important 3
waterway. In general, its hydromorphology is markedly disturbed. 4
Hydromorphological alteration is considered a major threat to lotic 5
assemblages and biodiversity [21]. Its morphological uniformity has 6
led to substantial changes in the aquatic fauna of the Elbe River [22] 7
with low overall diversity, loss of habitat-sensitive taxa and steady 8
encroachment of invasive neozoa. However, current understanding 9
of the links between river ecology and hydromorphology is still 10
incomplete and ambiguous [23]. In some long-term studies on 11
biological effects of stream and river restoration, Lu € deritz et al. 12
[8, 24] were able to show that physical habitat restoration (e.g., 13
upgrade of hydromorphology) led to higher biodiversity and higher 14
ecological integrity. 15

FS
For the Elbe River, the results confirm the significant role of 16
hydromorphological rehabilitation by reconnection of an oxbow 17
lake for increasing the diversity of macroinvertebrate communities. 18

O
However, such rehabilitation was only partially successful for 19
restoration of the diversity of the fish and macrophyte communities. 20

O
For macroinvertebrates the species number and ecological indices 21
Figure 4. Fish species and site scores in the space defined by axes 1 and
did confirm a higher diversity and ecological integrity of the oxbow 22

PR
2 of PCA based on the abundance of the species. Eigenvalues of axes 1 lakes in comparison to the main channel. The number of macro- 23
and 2 were 0.72 and 0.28, respectively, and the cumulative percentage of invertebrates in the oxbow lakes were in the same range as in the 24
variance expressed by both axes was 100%. The names of the species samples of M€ uller [25], taken from 90 oxbow lakes along the Elbe. 25
used the first three letters of the genus and the first three letters of the
specific epithet. Species full names are listed in Annex 2 (Channel: main Many of the target species for assessing restoration success only 26
channel of the River Elbe; Permanent: permanently connected oxbow occurred in the permanently connected oxbow lake. All the Gomphus/ 27
D
lake; Periodic: periodically connected oxbow lake). Ophiogomphus species that have ever been found in the Middle Elbe, 28
were found in this short water body [26]. Additionally, the ecological 29
TE

1 Salvinia natans at abundant quantities. Occasionally, Lemnids of status in the permanently connected oxbow lake was one grade 30
2 Lemna minor, S. polyrhiza, and L. trisulca were found. The species better than in the main channel. This shows the potential for nearly 31
3 R. peltatus and Stratiotes aloides occurred very rarely. Periodically dry natural, permanently connected oxbow lakes to improve the 32
EC

4 and silted parts of the backwater were colonized with Glyceria
5 maxima and Iris pseudacorus. The shallow free water zones were
6 dominated with P. crispus, M. spicatum, and Ceratophyllum demersum.
7 Phragmites australis was a typical colonizer of the northerly
R
ecological status of the main channel. At the same time, the 33
ecological status of the main channel was surprisingly high. With 34
only 24 species overall and almost 42% of invasive neobiota, the 35
ecological status tended more to be “poor” or “bad,” but it was

36
8 downstream area to the river Elbe. calculated as “moderate.” PERLODES does not consider neobiota and 37
R

9 The similarity between the two oxbow lakes, calculated by the this should be refined because the species and individual number of 38
10 Sùrensen–Dice index, was 59.1%. neobiota are increasing in most waterbodies. Additionally, the 39
O
C

Table 3. Comparison of macrophyte species and assessment for the permanently and periodically connected oxbow lakes
N

Water body Permanently connected oxbow lake Periodically connected oxbow lake
n ¼ 38 (each 100 m) n ¼ 30 (each 100 m)
U

Species/taxa number 15 29
Number of growth forms 6 12
Growth form [17] Helodid, Nymphaeid, Myriophyllid, Helodid, Nymphaeid, Parvopotamid, Batrachid,
Lemnid, Peplid, Elodid Elodid, Myriophyllid, Lemnid, Peplid, Hydrocharid,
Stratiotid, Ceratophyllid, Vallisnerid
Average species number in section 3 6
(100 m)
Average macrophyte quantity 2.4 2.7
(Kohler scale [18])
Max. submerged abundance (x3) in 128 243
section (100 m)
Evenness (E) Min./Max. 0.5/1.0 0.69/1.0
Diversity index Min./Max. 0.35/0.69 0.54/1.64
RL ST 1/2/3/V 0/0/2/0 0/0/3/0

Kohler scale [18]: 1 ¼ very rare; 2 ¼ infrequent; 3 ¼ common; 4 ¼ frequent; 5 ¼ abundant. RL ST, red list category Saxony-Anhalt; 1: endangered
by extinction; 2: seriously endangered, 3: endangered, V: preliminary warning.

© 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2016, 44 (9999), 1–9
 Water 7

1 calibration of the PTI for the big, sand dominated rivers seems to be past, such that macrophytes do not have their original possibilities 1
2 too optimistic and leads to an overestimation of the real status. to colonize. Hence, macrophyte growth is limited to the edges of 2
3 As different taxonomic groups normally do not react similarly to riverbanks [15]. Oxbow lakes and established side-channels can serve 3
4 habitat rehabilitation [27], the influence of the oxbow lakes on the as refugium and a source for recolonization. Key species were mostly 4
5 fish community was supposed to be low. There were only few species missing, presumably due to the low re-colonization rate. 5
6 that occurred in the oxbow lakes, which did not occur in the main Species composition also revealed strong differences among the 6
7 channel. This was most probably due to the rareness of the missing three sites, with a species community more related among periodic 7
8 species. and permanently connected water bodies and strong differences as 8
9 Key species like asp, weather loach, and bitterling were rare or compared to the main channel with lower species in common. This 9
10 even lacking in both oxbow lakes. Only for spined loach a positive pattern is similar for the macroinvertebrates and for the fish species 10
11 influence on the main channel could be expected. Historically, 41 community. The connection will increase and restore species 11
12 fish species were found in the considered stretch of the Elbe communities in the main channel, even if only periodically. Main 12
13 River [28]. Between 2009 and 2013, 27 species were recorded (and driving forces for the different communities most probably is the 13
14 altogether 38 species are known to occur) in the main channel close flow and embankments for the colonization of non-native species in 14
15 to the investigated oxbow lakes [13]. the main channel. 15
16 However, the permanently connected oxbow lake Sandauerholz The paradigm that biodiversity declines under environmental 16

FS
17 contained 18 species, and thus only two species less than the main degradation but enhances with physical rehabilitation is controver- 17
18 channel in one sampling session. All key species of the main sial. Both, biodiversity of traits and macroinvertebrate species, show 18
19 channel-reference coenosis were present, with a good stock of spined weak responses to hydromorphological alteration in lowland 19

O
20 loach and a good age structure. Out of the five stagnophilic species of rivers [23]. The paradigm “If you build it, they will come” [35] is 20
21 the main channel of Middle Elbe, four species occurred. Hence, the not universal, but Feld’s paradigm is also not supported by the 21

O
22 permanently connected oxbow lake seemed to be well suited as a results of this study. For macroinvertebrates, Feld et al. [23] sampled 22
23 habitat for fish, even for reproduction. This is supported by similar 1.25 m2 for their PERLODES assessment. The results show that a 23

PR
24 findings by Scholten [29], who found siltation areas in groyne fields larger sampling area leads to an increased species number by 24
25 to be important spawning, nursery and feeding habitats for many finding rarer species. Of course, 1.25 m2 are sufficient for a rapid 25
26 fish species. assessment, but for an evaluation of the success of restoration a 26
27 The species inventory in the periodically connected oxbow lake larger sampling area, e.g., 10 m2, is suggested. For example, a 27
D
28 was considerably lower than in the permanently connected oxbow stepwise sampling of bottom surfaces led to an increasing yield of 28
29 lake and in the main channel. Additionally, for the periodically species in the permanently connected oxbow lake, but not in the 29
TE

30 connected oxbow lake, degradation was indicated by the high main channel (Fig. 5). An additional aspect is the timing of the start 30
31 abundance of perch and roach [30, 31] and the low number of young- and the duration of the measure-accompanying monitoring 31
32 of-the-year fish. The only stagnophilic species tench (Tinca tinca), was program. Usually, monitoring starts too early after restoration 32
found in very low abundance. As young-of-the-year fish were only
EC

33 and is too short for a realistic assessment. The study presented here 33
34 found for perch and asp, the suitability of the permanently started 5 years after the re-connection measure. The majority of 34
35 connected oxbow lake as spawning and growth habitat seems experience summarized in J€ ahnig et al. [36], points to a long 35
36 much lower than in the periodically connected oxbow lake and the duration for settlement of restored reaches due to the limited re- 36
R

37 main channel. Therefore, besides the relatively high share of the settlement potential in the surroundings. This is in agreement with 37
38 endangered and according to the European Flora and Fauna Habitat
R

39 Directive protected species spined loach, a positive impact on the

40 fish community of the main channel was expected to be low for the
O

41 permanently connected oxbow lake and even negligible for the

42 periodically connected oxbow lake.
C

43 Similar findings were made for macrophytes. The macrophyte

N

44 community of the recently permanently re-connected oxbow lake

45 was characterized by a poor variety of species and growth forms,
U

46 whereas the established periodically connected oxbow lake was rich

47 in macrophyte species and growth forms. Obviously, there was a lack
48 of appropriate shallow and calm habitats in the permanently
49 connected oxbow lake. Additionally, the existing species showed a
50 low re-colonizing potential. Possibly, the sources of colonizers are
51 located too distantly. Sundermann et al. [32] described the positive
52 relation between success and presence of recolonizing sources
53 within a radius of 5 km. Furthermore, surveys [33] concluded that
54 only after 10–15 periods of growth a strong coverage of vegetation
55 can be expected after restoration. Hence, the presence of macro-
56 phytes shows a long-term continuous condition of a water body [34],
57 which was not yet developed in the permanently connected oxbow
58 lake.
59 Today, the potamal rivers of the German lowlands do have great Figure 5. Relation between sampled bottom surface and macroinverte-
60 water depths as a consequence of river engineering measures in the brate species number in four sampling campaigns.

© 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2016, 44 (9999), 1–9
 8 M. Seidel et al.

1 results at the upper Main River [8], and also with the results replacement habitats for sensitive and rare river species and the 1
2 presented here. Altogether, we can modify the above-mentioned development of new settlement sources. Nevertheless, it needs to be 2
3 paradigm to “If you build it, they will need time to come.” critically examined whether the re-connection of an oxbow lake is 3
4 Generally, the number of non-native species established in Europe ecologically worthwhile with respect to the occurrence of endan- 4
5 is increasing exponentially in freshwater [37]. Keller et al. [38] refer gered species in the oxbow lake or the sediment transport and 5
6 to a species as invasive if it spreads widely and causes measureable hydrology of the main channel. 6
7 environmental, economic, or human health impacts. According to 7
8 this definition, more than 300 aquatic species have become The authors have declared no conflicts of interest. 8
9 invasive in Europe [39]. In the River Elbe, preferably D. villosus and
10 D. polymorpha can be assessed as invasive. Dikerogammarus villosus is a
11 predator for most other invertebrates especially for caddisflies and References 9
12 mayflies. Dreissena polymorpha is able to outcompete other molluscs €
[1] V. L€ uderitz, C. Kunz, U. Langheinrich, Flussaltw€ asser: Okologie 10
13 because differences in life history and reproduction can differenti- und Sanierung, Vieweg þ Teubner Verlag/GWV Fachverlage GmbH, 11
14 ate between invaders and rare species. This is evident in freshwater Wiesbaden 2009. 12
15 unionid mussels, which are among the most critically imperiled [2] V. L€uderitz, U. Langheinrich, Beitr€ age zum Institutskolloquium “Die Elbe 13
16 freshwater taxa. These species produce glochidia larvae which need im Spannungsfeld von Hochwasserschutz, Naturschutz & Schifffahrt”: 14

FS
17 to attach to a suitable fish host to survive. The high degree of Magdeburg, 24. Oktober 2013 (Eds.: V. L€ uderitz, A. Dittrich, R. J€upner, 15
A. Schulte, F. Reinstorf, B. Ettmer), Shaker, Aachen 2013, p. 26. 16
18 specialization and the complex life cycle of unionids probably
[3] Bundesministerium fu € r Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicher- 17
19 contribute to the decline of this group [38]. Invasive mussels of the heit (BMU), The indicator report 2010 to the National Strategy on Biological 18

O
20 genus Dreissena are less specialized and produce free veliger larvae, Diversity, Federal Ministry for the Environment Nature Conservation 19
21 allowing for a higher rate of dispersal through passive transport. and Nuclear Safety Public Relations Division, Berlin 2010. 20

O
22 Without increased efforts to manage pathways of introduction [4] K. Tockner, F. Malard, J. V. Ward, An Extension of the Flood Pulse 21
23 and distribution, the number of invasive species and the abundance Concept, Hydrol. Process. 2000, 14(16–17), 2861–2883. 22

PR
24 of such organisms will continue to grow [38]. In this study, the [5] R. Diebel, Strukturvielfalt in der Elbaue  Erfahrungsbericht u € ber 23
die “Flutrinnenanbindung Sandauerholz” im Biosph€ arenreservat 24
25 reconnection of oxbow lakes lowered the pressure of invasion on
Mittelelbe, Naturschutz Land Sachsen-Anhalt 2012, 49, 50–54. 25
26 native species. Invasive species of macroinvertebrates documented
[6] B. Timmermann, R. Suthfeldt, B. Vogt, J. Hartwich, J. B€ olscher, 26
27 here, prefer groynes consisting of extraneous cobble material. They A. Schulte, Str€ omungs- und Morphodynamik in hydraulisch 27
D
28 were also present in the oxbow lakes, but due to their lower angebundenen Altgew€ assern an der Mittleren Elbe: Modellergeb- 28
29 abundances in these water bodies, they were only representative in nisse aus Hydro-AS_2D und SSIIM II, in Beitr€ age zum Institutskollo- 29
TE

30 the main channel. On the other hand, we cannot generalize that quium “Die Elbe im Spannungsfeld von Hochwasserschutz, Naturschutz & 30
Schifffahrt” (Eds.: V. L€ uderitz, A. Dittrich, R. J€ upner, A. Schulte, 31
31 restoration decreases the problem of invaders. At rivers in F. Reinstorf, B. Ettmer), Shaker, Aachen 2013, p. 82. 32
32 Switzerland, Haag et al. [40] showed that river restorations generally [7] D. Hering, A. Buffagni, O. Moog, L. Sandin, M. Sommerh€ auser, 33
EC

33 foster the establishment of invasive neophytes. In the large river I. Stubauer, C. K. Feld, et al., The Development of a System to Assess 34
34 floodplain at the French Rhone River, Paillex et al. [41] found a the Ecological Quality of Streams Based on Macroinvertebrates  35
35 higher richness of alien macroinvertebrate taxa than expected. Design of the Sampling Programme Within the AQEM Project, Int. 36
Rev. Hydrobiol. 2003, 88, 345–361. 37
36 However, they also found a restoration-driven promotion of native
R

[8] V. L€uderitz, T. Speierl, U. Langheinrich, W. V€ olkl, R. M. Gersberg, 38

37 species and no interaction between both groups.
Restoration of the Upper Main and Rodach Rivers  The Success and 39
38 Therefore, we also need careful assessments of the settlement
R

Its Measurement, Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37(12), 2044–2055. 40

39 potential of invasive species as a prerequisite for planning efficient [9] F. Sch€ oll, A. Haybach, B. K€ onig, Das erweiterte Potamontypiever- 41
40 restoration measures. To protect native biodiversity and limit the €kologischen Bewertung von Bundeswasserstraßen 42
O

fahren zur o
41 establishment of alien species, the results of the present study foster (Fließgew€ assertypen 10 und 20: Kies- und sandgepr€ agte Str€ ome, 43
42 the suggestion of Paillex et al. [41]. Restoration programs should Qualit€ atskomponente Makrozoobenthos) nach Maßgabe der EU- 44
C

Wasserrahmenrichtlinie, Hydrol. Wasserwirtsch. 2005, 49(5), 234–247. 45

43 create more connectivity in and between restored channels such
[10] P. Rolauffs, I. Stubauer, S. Zahr
adkov
a, K. Brabec, O. Moog, 46
N

44 that a diversity of habitat conditions, and not preferably habitats for Integration of the Saprobic System into the European Union Water 47
45 alien species, are created. Framework Directive  Case Studies in Austria, Germany and Czech 48
U

Republic, Hydrobiologia 2004, 516(1–3), 285–298. 49

[11] A. Geyer, G. Mu € hlhofer, Bewertung von Fl€ achen fu € r die Belange des 50
46 5 Concluding remarks Arten- und Biotopschutzes anhand der Tagfalterfauna, VUBD 51
Rundbrief 1997, 10, 7–11. 52
47 The results underscore the fact that the reconnection of oxbow lakes
[12] L. R. Dice, Measures of the Amount of Ecologic Association Between 53
48 is important for the diversity of riverine species. They confirm
Species, Ecology 1945, 26(3), 297–302. 54
49 results from other authors, e.g., Paillex et al. [41]. Endangered
[13] M. J€ ahrling, Monitoring program for the European Water Framework 55
50 riverine species and species with high demands for river habitat Directive  Fish population data to evaluate the ecological status in the River 56
51 quality like clubtails and other Odonata, river-typical mussels or the Elbe at Klietznick from 2009 to 2013, Landesbetrieb f€ ur Hochwasser- 57
52 fish species spined loach, nearly only settled at the permanently schutz und Wasserwirtschaft (LHW), Magdeburg, Germany 2016. 58
53 connected oxbow lake. Several of these species are protected by [14] U. Dussling, Handbuch zu fiBS: Hilfestellung und Hinweise zur 59
54 European and national law, so that the conservation value of the sachgerechten Anwendung des fischbasierten Bewertungsverfahrens fiBS, 60
VerbandDeutscher Sportfischer, Offenbach, Germany 2009. 61
55 permanently connected oxbow lake was remarkably high. In this
[15] J. Schaumburg, C. Schranz, D. Stelzer, A. Vogel, A. Gutowski, 62
56 sense, re-connection of cut-off side channels is less important for Verfahrensanleitung f€ ur die €okologische Bewertung von Fließgew€ assern zur 63
57 maintenance of oxbow lake-typical assemblages, as also shown by Umsetzung der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytoben- 64
58 Obolewski et al. [42]. It is more important for the creation of thos, Bayerisches Landesamt f€ ur Umwelt, Augsburg, Germany 2012. 65

© 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2016, 44 (9999), 1–9
 Water 9

1 [16] W. Rothmaler, E. J. J€ ager, K. Werner, Exkursionsflora von Deutschland: [31] C. Wolter, A. Vilcinskas, Characterization of the Typical Fish 1
2 Gef€aßpflanzen, G. Fischer, Jena/Stuttgart, Germany 1994. Community of Inland Waterways of the North-Eastern Lowlands in 2
3 [17] K. van de Weyer, C. Schmidt, Bestimmungsschl€ ussel f€
ur die aquatischen Germany, Regulated Rivers: Res. Manag. 1997, 13(4), 335–343. 3
4 Makrophyten (Gef€ aßpflanzen, Armleuchteralgen und Moose) in Deutschland, [32] A. Sundermann, S. Stoll, P. Haase, River Restoration Success Depends 4
5 1st ed., Ministerium f€ ur L€ andliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und on the Species Pool of the Immediate Surroundings, Ecol. Appl. 2011, 5
6 Landwirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg, Germany 2007. 21(6), 1962–1971. 6
7 [18] A. Kohler, Methoden der Kartierung von Flora und Vegetation von [33] L. R. Klein, S. R. Clayton, J. R. Alldredge, P. Goodwin, Long-Term 7
8 S€ußwasserbiotopen, Landschaft Stadt 1978, 10(2), 73–78. Monitoring and Evaluation of the Lower Red River Meadow 8
9 [19] J. Braun-Blanquet, Pflanzensoziologie: Grundz€ uge der Vegetationskunde, Restoration Project, Idaho, USA, Restor. Ecol. 2007, 15(2), 223–239. 9
10 Springer, Vienna 1964. [34] K. Follner, K. Henle, The Performance of Plants, Molluscs, and 10
11 [20] C. J. F. ter Braak, P. Smilauer, CANOCO Reference Manual and User’s Guide Carabid Beetles as Indicators of Hydrological Conditions in 11
12 to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination Floodplain Grasslands, Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 2006, 91(4), 364–379. 12
13 (version 4), Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY 1998. [35] M. A. Palmer, R. F. Ambrose, N. L. Poff, Ecological Theory and 13
14 [21] K. Tockner, U. Uehlinger, C. T. Robinson, Rivers of Europe, Academic Community Restoration Ecology, Restor. Ecol. 1997, 5(4), 291–300. 14
15 Press, London 2009. [36] S. J€ahnig, D. Hering, M. Sommerh€ auser (Eds.), Fließgew€asser- 15
16 [22] A. Petermeier, F. Sch€ €kologische und biologische
oll, T. Tittizer, Die o Renaturierung heute und morgen: EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie, Maßnahmen 16
17 Entwicklung der deutschen Elbe  Ein Literaturbericht, Lauterbornia und Effizienzkontrolle, Schweizerbart, Stuttgart 2011. 17
18 1996, 24, 1–95. [37] R. P. Keller, P. S. E. Zu Ergmassen, D. C. Aldridge, Vectors and Timing 18

FS
19 [23] C. K. Feld, F. de Bello, S. Dol
edec, Biodiversity of Traits and Species of Freshwater Invasions in Great Britain, Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23(6), 19
20 Both Show Weak Responses to Hydromorphological Alteration in 1526–1534. 20
21 Lowland River Macroinvertebrates, Freshwater Biol. 2014, 59(2), [38] R. P. Keller, J. Geist, J. M. Jeschke, I. K€ uhn, InvasiveQ4 Species in 21

O
22 233–248. Europe: Ecology, Status, and Policy, Environ. Sci. Eur. 2011, 23(1), 22
23 [24] V. L€ uderitz, R. J€ upner, S. M€ uller, C. K. Feld, Renaturalization of 23:23. 23
24 Streams and Rivers  the Special Importance of Integrated [39] M. Vila, C. Basnou, P. Pysek, M. Josefsson, P. Genovesi, S. Gollasch, 24

O
25 Ecological Methods in Measurement of Success. An Example from W. Nentwig, et al., How Well Do We Understand the Impacts of Alien 25
26 Saxony-Anhalt (Germany), Limnol. Ecol. Manage. Inland Waters 2004, Species on Ecosystem Services? A Pan-European, Cross-Taxa Assess- 26

PR
27 34(3), 249–263. ment, Front. Ecol. Environ. 2010, 8(3), 135–144. 27
28 [25] R. M€ uller, Charakterisierung litoraler Makrozoobenthosz€onosen von usi, ProfitierenQ5 invasive Neophyten
[40] S. Haag, M. P. Nobis, B. O. Kr€ 28
29 Randgew€ assern der Ober- und Mittelelbe, PhD Thesis, Ernst-Moritz- von Flussrevitalisierungen?  Untersuchungen an 16 Fl€ ussen in der 29
30 Arndt-University, Greifswald, Germany 2004. Schweiz, Natur Landschaft 2013, (45), 357–364. 30
31 [26] F. Sch€ oll, J. Fuksa, Das Makrozoobenthos der Elbe  vom Riesengebirge bis [41] A. Paillex, E. Castella, P. S. E. zu Ergmassen, D. C. Aldridge, Testing 31
D
32 Cuxhafen, Bundesanstalt f€ ur Gew€ asserkunde, Koblenz 2000. Predictions of Changes in Alien and Native Macroinvertebrate 32
33 [27] J. Pander, J. Geist, Ecological Indicators for Stream Restoration Communities and Their Interaction After the Restoration of a Large 33
TE

34 Success, Ecol. Indic. 2013, 30, 106–118. River Floodplain (French Rh^ one), Freshwater Biol. 2015, 60(6), 34
35 [28] G. Bauch, Untersuchungen u € ber die Gr€ unde f€
ur den Ertragsr€ uck- 1162–1175. 35
36 gang der Elbfischerei zwischen Elbsandsteingebirge und Boizen- [42] K. Obolewski, K. Gli
nska-Lewczuk, A. Strzelczak, P. Burandt, 36
37 burg, Z. Fischerei N.F. 1958, 7(3–6), 361–437. Effects of a Floodplain Lake Restoration on Macroinvertebrate 37
EC

38 [29] M. Scholten, Das Jungfischaufkommen in Uferstrukturen des Assemblages  A Case Study of the Lowland River (The Słupia River, 38
39 Hauptstromes der mittleren Elbe  zeitliche und r€ aumliche N Poland), Pol. J. Ecol. 2014, 62(3), 557–575. 39
40 Dynamik, Z. Fischkunde 2002, 1, 59–77. [43] T. Pottgiesser, T. Ehlert, S. Guttmann, K. H. J€ ahrling, Typisierung 40
41 [30] C. Wolter, A. Vilcinskas, Perch (Perca fluviatilis) as an Indicator Species potamaler Altgew€asser in Sachsen-Anhalt, Landesbetrieb f€
ur Hochwas- 41
R

42 for Structural Degradation in Regulated Rivers and Canals in the serschutz und Wasserwirtschaft Sachsen Anhalt, Magdeburg, 42
43 Lowlands of Germany, Ecol. Freshwater Fish 1997, 6(3), 174–181. Germany 2012. 43
R
O
C

Q1: Author: Please confirm that given names (red) and surnames/family names (green) have been identified correctly.
Q2: Author: Please check the presentation of all the tables.
N

Q3: Author: As per the style of the journal, bullet list is not allowed and so has been changed. Please check.
Q4: Author: Please check the page number of Ref. 38.
U

Q5: Author: Please provide the volume number of Ref. 40.

© 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2016, 44 (9999), 1–9
 Please complete this form and return it via E-Mail or Fax
to the Editorial Office at
Fax.: +49 (0) 6201 – 606 525
E-mail: clean@wiley.com

Reprint Order Form

Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA Manuscript No.: __________________________________
Clean Customer No.: (if available) _________________________
Boschstr. 12 Purchase Order No.: __________________________
69469 Weinheim Author: ___________________________________
Germany Date: _______________________________________

Charges for Reprints in Euro (excl. VAT), prices are subject to Information regarding VAT: Please note that from German sales tax point of
change. Minimum order 50 copies; single issues for authors at a view, the charge for Reprints, Issues or Posters is considered as “supply of
reduced price. goods” and therefore, in general, such delivery is a subject to German sales
tax. However, this regulation has no impact on customers located outside of
the European Union. Deliveries to customers outside the Community are
No. of pages 50 100 150 200 300 500
automatically tax-exempt. Deliveries within the Community to institutional
copies copies copies copies copies copies
customers outside of Germany are exempted from the German tax (VAT)
1– 4 345,— 395,— 425,— 445,— 548,— 752,— only if the customer provides the supplier with his/her VAT number. The
5– 8 490,— 573,— 608,— 636,— 784,— 1077,—

FS
VAT number (value added tax identification number) is a tax registration
9–12 640,— 739,— 786,— 824,— 1016,— 1396,— number used in the countries of the European Union to identify corporate
13–16 780,— 900,— 958,— 1004,— 1237,— 1701,— entities doing business there. Starting with a country code (e.g. FR for
17–20 930,— 1070,— 1138,— 1196,— 1489,— 2022,— France), followed by numbers.

O
every additional
147,— 169,— 175,— 188,— 231,— 315,—
4 pages

O
Please send me and bill me for PR
VAT number: ______________________________
no. of reprints airmail (+ 25 Euro) Mail reprints / copies of the issue to:
surface mail
D
_________________________________________
Fedex No.:
_________________________________________
TE

no. of issue airmail (+ 25 Euro) _________________________________________

(1 copy: 54 Euro) surface mail _________________________________________
EC

Fedex No.: _________________________________________

high-resolution PDF file (330 Euro)

Send bill to:
R

E-mail address:
Special Offer: _________________________________________
R

_________________________________________
If you order 200 or more reprints you will
O

get a PDF file for half price. _________________________________________

_________________________________________
Please note: It is not permitted to present the PDF file on
C

the internet or on company homepages.

I will pay by bank transfer
N

Cover Posters (prices excl. VAT)

U

Posters of published covers are available in two sizes:
DIN A2 42 x 60 cm / 17 x 24in (one copy: 39 Euro)
DIN A1 60 x 84 cm / 24 x 33in (one copy: 49 Euro)
Postage for shipping posters overseas by airmail:
+ 25 Euro
Postage for shipping posters within Europe by surface
mail: + 15 Euro
I will pay by credit card
VISA, Mastercard and AMERICAN EXPRESS
For your security please use this link (Credit Card
Token Generator) to create a secure code Credit
Card Token and include this number in the form
instead of the credit card data. Click here:
https://www.wiley-vch.de/editorial_production/index.php

V
_________________________________________
Date, Signature CREDIT CARD TOKEN NUMBER

Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA – A company of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. -
Location of the Company: Weinheim - Trade Register: Mannheim, HRB 432833.
Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Stephen Michael Smith.
General Partner: John Wiley & Sons GmbH, Location: Weinheim –
Trade Register Mannheim, HRB 432296 – Managing Director: Sabine Steinbach

View publication stats