riparian quality index - limneticaissn: 0213-8409 235 riparian quality index (rqi): a methodology...

Limnetica, 29 (2): x-xx (2011)Limnetica, 30 (2): 235-254 (2011)c© Asociacion Iberica de Limnologıa, Madrid. Spain. ISSN: 0213-8409 235

Riparian Quality Index (RQI): A methodology for characterising andassessing the environmental conditions of riparian zones

Marta Gonzalez del Tanago∗ and Diego Garcıa de Jalon

E.T.S. Ingenieros de Montes, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid.

∗ Corresponding author: [email protected]

Received: 22/3/2010 Accepted: 4/12/2010

ABSTRACT

Riparian Quality Index (RQI): A methodology for characterising and assessing the environmental conditions ofriparian zones

This paper presents a new version of the Riparian Quality Index (RQI). This index serves to assess the ecological status ofriparian systems. The paper provides recommended field forms for the collection of the data used to characterise ripariansystems prior to their assessment. The RQI considers the main sources of riparian ecological functions and environmentalservices. It represents a useful tool for monitoring and evaluating the structure of riparian zones, an element of the rivermorphological conditions considered by the Water Framework Directive. The Index was applied to the Guadiana Basin andother Spanish rivers providing helpful criteria for not only evaluating the present status of riparian systems but also formulatingdiagnosis and rehabilitation options. It represents a checklist of riparian natural characteristics and possible human-impactedriparian features, and it has valuable potential applications for post-project appraisals.

Key words: Riparian systems, environmental assessment, RQI, physical habitat evaluation, Water Framework Directive, riverrestoration.

RESUMEN

Indice de Calidad Riparia (RQI): Una mateodologıa para caracterizar y valorar las condiciones ambientales de las zonasriparias

En este trabajo se presenta una nueva version del ındice RQI, conjuntamente con una propuesta de estadillos de campo para latoma de datos y la caracterizacion de las riberas, que debe ser previa a la interpretacion y valoracion de su estado. Esta nuevaversion del RQI considera los principales componentes de las riberas de los rıos que desarrollan las funciones ecologicasy los servicios ambientales de los corredores fluviales, y representa una herramienta util para el control y seguimiento dela estructura riparia, la cual forma parte de las condiciones morfologicas de los rıos consideradas por la Directiva Marcodel Agua. El ındice ha sido aplicado en la Cuenca del Guadiana y en otras regiones espanolas, suministrando criteriosutiles no solo para la evaluacion del estado ecologico de las riberas, sino tambien para la formulacion de diagnosis yopciones de rehabilitacion o restauracion, representando una lista de caracterısticas naturales y posibles impactos derivadosde actividades humanas de las zonas riparias, con un uso potencial para la evaluacion post-proyecto.

Palabras clave: Riberas fluviales, valoracion ambiental, RQI, evaluacion del habitat fısico, Directiva Marco del Agua,restauracion de rıos.

INTRODUCTION

The study of riparian systems is of great scientificinterest. The riparian habitat supports the sur-

rounding fluvial ecosystem throughout its entirelength and integrates many interactions betweenthe aquatic and terrestrial components of thelandscape. It is therefore crucial to the preserva-

236 Gonzalez del Tanago & Garcıa de Jalon

tion of river biodiversity (Ward, 1989; Ward et al.,2002; Naiman et al., 2005; Corenblit et al., 2007).

Riparian systems also represent a vital com-ponent of river management because their stateaffects many river-related environmental ser-vices. Because of their spatial position and con-nectivity with flowing water channels, ripariansystems are flooded periodically and play animportant role in water infiltration and aquiferrecharge. Moreover, they provide flood attenu-ation and serve to decrease hydrological risks(Horn & Richards, 2006). As an important land-form agent and flow resistance factor, riparianvegetation is responsible for the majority of en-ergy losses in fluvial systems. Roots increasesubstrate cohesion, and stems and leaves mod-ify bed roughness, thereby controlling sedimenterosion, transport and deposition, both in thechannel and in the floodplain (Gurnell & Petts,2002; 2006; Corenblit et al. 2008; 2009). Sev-eral processes for the exchange of matter and en-ergy with the river channel occur in the riparianzone. This habitat serves to protect in-stream wa-ter quality by acting as a sink and filter of sedi-ment and nutrients (Tabachi et al. 2000; Naimanet al., 2005; Burt et al., 2006). Moreover, ri-parian forests represent important natural corri-dors in the landscape (Schnitzler-Lenoble, 2007)and constitute areas of high biodiversity. Theseforested corridors have great value as the site ofrecreation and cultural events.

The importance of riparian zones in the eco-logical functioning of river systems has beenwidely recognised in recent European policies.Thus, the Water Frame Work Directive (OJEC,2000) includes the structure of the riparian zonein the morphological conditions that, togetherwith the hydrological regime and river continuity,represent the main hydromorphological elementssupporting the biological communities. The Di-rective recommends that the structure of riparianzones should be analysed systematically and thattheir restoration and conservation should be in-cluded within the programmes of measures thatform part of the Integrated Basin ManagementPlans. Moreover, two additional recent EuropeanDirectives highlight the existing interest in mon-itoring and restoring riparian and flood-prone ar-

eas. The Floods Directive (OJEU, 2007) seeksto prevent damage and hydrological risk, and thePesticides Directive (OJEU, 2009) aims to min-imise the risk of off-site pollution.

Mainly as a consequence of the requirementsof the European Directives cited above, there isgreat interest in practical environmental assess-ment methods that address the structure and func-tionality of riparian zones. With the aid of thesemethods, the needed assessment and monitoringtasks may be easily performed. These methodsshould support the periodic surveillance and di-agnosis of riparian status, and they should helpto formulate restoration activities that include flu-vial processes serving to mitigate alterations re-sulting from human activities. These methodsshould also be useful for post-project appraisalsintended to detect ecological trajectories of re-covery or degradation following interventions ormanagement changes.

Several methods have been proposed to eval-uate the riparian conditions of rivers. Some ofthese methods give special emphasis to vegeta-tion structure (Munne et al., 1998; Munne et al.,2003; Winward, 2000), whereas others are basedmore on riparian dimensions, habitat quality andland use (Petersen, 1992; Bjorkland et al., 2001;Ward et al., 2003; Jansen et al., 2004; Gonzalezdel Tanago et al., 2006). Other river assessmentmethods also use some riparian characteristicsto assess the status of the physical habitat ac-cording to different objectives. Several of thesemethods deserve particular mention: the proto-cols of Raven et al. (1997) and Pardo et al. (2002)to characterise and classify rivers; the methodsproposed by Barbour et al. (2002), Ladson &White (1999), and Simpson & Norris (2000) tolink physical features with biota and to determinethe ability of the aquatic habitat to support opti-mal biological conditions; the approach of Brier-ley et al. (2002) to describe river behaviour andto predict river character and responses to dis-turbance; the proposal of Davies et al. (2000) toestimate the ecological condition of the instreamhabitat and predict the probability of occurrenceof each habitat feature at certain sites; and themethodology of Ollero et al. (2008) to assess thehydromorphological status of rivers. A revised

RQI methodology to characterise and assess riparian conditions 237

version of the Ollero et al. (2008) methodologyis included in this volume (Ollero et al. 2011).

In this paper, a more up-to-date version ofthe RQI methodology proposed by Gonzalez delTanago et al. (2006) is presented, together withadditional new data-collection forms.

The RQI represents a quick and standardisedsurvey method that is relatively easy to apply inthe field to gather quantitative information on thestructure of riparian zones for assessing their eco-logical status. The method has potential applica-tions to monitoring and diagnosis, to rehabilita-tion or restoration design, to setting conservationpriorities and to post-project evaluation.

The initial version of RQI methodology onlydescribed the scoring system used to assess ri-parian conditions but did not include protocolsfor previous riparian characterisation. This newversion of RQI recognises that it is of great in-terest to store the quantitative information thathas been collected in the field and that will sub-sequently be encapsulated by scoring systems.

Accordingly, the new version of RQI includesfield forms that serve to standardise the collec-tion and storage of riparian data and therebyto facilitate the creation of databases for fu-ture analysis. The variables proposed for ripar-ian characterisation can be used for riparianmonitoring and riparian recovery or degradationevaluation. They can therefore be used as neededto achieve different purposes. With this new ap-proach, riparian systems are first characterisedaccording to their hydromorphological and eco-logical conditions. They are then assessed andscored by comparing their actual status with anappropriate potential or reference status basedon valley and river types.

The previous application of the first versionof RQI to several different rivers produced somemisleading statements and interpretations. Lon-gitudinal continuity and the assessment of bankconditions proved to be of particular concern.In this new version of RQI, important refine-ments have been added to address these two ri-

Table 1. RQI Scores for assessing width dimension status of riparian zones. Puntuaciones del RQI para evaluar el estado de laanchura de la zona riparia.

1. DIMENSIONS OF LAND WITH RIPARIAN VEGETATION (AVERAGE WIDTH OF RIPARIAN CORRIDOR)

Assess each margin separately. Identify the band containing riparian species (any species which presence is related to the river) andestimate its average width along the study reach. Look for restrictions to riparian corridor width due to human influence. If they donot exist, any width would be considered very good status. Take into account that riparian dimensions can be naturally reduced inconfined valleys due soil constraints or the adjacent slopes.

Very good Good Moderate Poor Bad

No restrictions toriparian vegetationdevelopment andextension across thevalley due to humaninfluence.Riparian vegetation isconnecting with uplandspecies, and covers allland between channeland adjacent slopes.

Average width ofRiparian corridorslightly restricted byhuman action. Inunconfined valleys,average width morethan 3 active channelwidths, or exceeding60 m. Inmorphologicallyconfined valleys,reductions in riparianwidth affect less than30 % of riparian length.

Average width ofRiparian corridormoderately restrictedby human action.In unconfined valleys,average width between3 and 1 active channelwidths, or exceeding30 m. In confinedvalleys, reduction inriparian width affectbetween 30 and 60 %of riparian length.

Average width ofRiparian corridorsignificantly reduced byhuman action.In unconfined valleys,average width less than1 active channel width.In confined valleys,reduction in riparianwidth affects more than60 % or riparian length.

Average width ofRiparian corridorseverely reduced, ornon-existent due tohuman actions.Channel banksconnected toagricultural fields,urbanized areas orroads.Consider 0 score whenthe channel is laterallylimited and connectswith paved areas whereriparian vegetationcannot grow.

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


parian attributes. Moreover, some simplificationsin the assessment of vegetation structure havebeen made to facilitate field analysis, and the as-

sessment of the presence of large woody debris onbanks and floodplains has been added as an indi-cator of river naturalness and lateral connectivity.

Table 2. RQI Scores for assessing longitudinal continuity, coverage and distribution pattern of riparian corridors. Puntuaciones delRQI para evaluar la continuidad longitudinal, la cobertura y el patron de distribucion del corredor ripario.

2. LONGITUDINAL CONTINUITY, COVERAGE AND DISTRIBUTION PATTERN OF

RIPARIAN CORRIDOR (WOODY VEGETATION)

Assess each margin separately, referred to the riparian vegetated area. Estimate longitudinal continuity and coverage based ondistribution pattern of woody vegetation associations. Estimate intensity of fragmentation based on size and frequency of openareas created by human action, and land-use within these areas compromising corridor functions.HolaIn natural conditions, different succession stages of riparian vegetation linked to floods variability and fluvial forms can beobserved, resulting in a high heterogeneity of vegetation forms and floodplain geomorphic units, with open gravel and sand areascorresponding to “very good” status (Corenblit et al. 2009). Score the intensity of human intervention determining: a gradually lostof this heterogeneity linked to the continuous interaction between floods, sediments and vegetation; a decrease of natural continuityand coverage promoting fragmentation; or, by the contrary, an increase of mature forest continuity and coverage with homogeneousdistribution pattern due to flow regulation and flood control.


Continuity andCoverage of ripariancorridor in naturalcondition.Usually, differentvegetation strata coverthe full length of thesegment, showing aheterogeneous patternlinked to natural fluvialforms and flooddynamics, withoutalterations related tohuman actions.

Riparian corridorslightly cleared orfragmented by humanintervention, or slightlyinduced by flowregulation.Riparian vegetationcovers the full length ofthe segment but withslightly reducedcoverage, being higherthan 60 % of naturalcoverage, and includesseveral strata; or itforms a dense but partlyfragmented corridor,with open spaces lessthan 50 m long, free ofland uses which maycompromise corridor orfiltering functions. //Or continuity andcoverage of ripariancorridor slightlypromoted by flowregulation, with anincreasing of treedominance.

Riparian corridormoderately fragmentedor cleared by humanintervention, ormoderately induced byflow regulation.Riparian vegetationcovers the full length ofthe segment but withmoderately reducedcoverage (between30 % and 60 % of thenatural coverage),including several strata,or with a highercoverage but only oftree canopy layer. Or itappears in patches,leaving open spacesmore than 50 m long,with agro-forest landuses that moderatelycompromise corridorand filtering functions.Or continuity andcoverage of ripariancorridor moderatelypromoted by flowregulation, showing acontinuous and densetree canopy layercontaining shrubs.

Riparian corridorsignificantlyfragmented or clearedby human intervention,or significantly inducedby flow regulation.Riparian vegetationappears in smallpatches covering lessthan 30 % of the lengthof the segment, orrefers to isolated tree orshrub individuals, withscattered rushes orbushes.Or more than 60 % ofthe riparian area has novegetation and containsurban or agriculturaloccupations. //Or riparian corridorstrongly promoted byflow regulation,containing only treespecies.

Riparian corridorintensively altered byhuman intervention.Riparian vegetation isreduced to isolatedtrees or shrubs, leavinglarge open areas withbuildings or land-usesthat severelycompromise corridorand filtering functions.Or there is no riparianwoody species and onlyherbaceouscommunities exist dueto human actions.Use the score 0 in areaswhere no woodyriparian species exist(i.e. paved reaches)where natural ripariancorridor functions arecompletely prevented.

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


DESCRIPTION OF THERQI METHODOLOGY

Rationale and spatial scale

According to current scientific literature (e.g.,Malanson, 1993; Hughes et al., 2003; Ward etal., 2002; Brierley & Fryirs, 2005; Naimanet al., 2005; Hupp & Rinaldi, 2007; Corenblitet al., 2009), the “natural conditions” of ripariansystems should be defined in general terms by us-ing the following characteristics:

• Extensive and continuous riparian corridors,occupying the banks and the total activefloodplain area and including a more or lesscontinuous vegetation corridor, of variabledimensions and coverage depending on val-ley type and natural constraints. The vegeta-tion corridor connects with adjacent uplandor terrestrial vegetation.

• Species composition typical of the biogeo-graphical area and hydrogeomorphologicalconditions, with only native species and in-cluding natural regeneration.

• Dynamic banks with natural mobility re-sulting from erosion and deposition and thepresence of geomorphological units charac-teristic of the flow regime and the calibre oftransported materials.

• Lateral and vertical connectivity maintainingan exchange of organisms, matter and energyat different spatial and temporal scales.

To a great extent, these characteristics deter-mine how riparian systems function and providethe environmental services.

The main ecological functions of the ripar-ian zone are to provide a habitat and refuge foraquatic and terrestrial species, to facilitate bio-logical connections in the landscape, to main-tain plant diversity, to supply organic matter toaquatic food chains and to control stream wa-ter temperature. These functions are all relatedto the dimensions, the longitudinal continuityand the vegetation structure of riparian corridors(Malanson, 1993; Forman, 1999). Other hydro-

logical and geomorphological riparian functionsthat are also essential for fluvial ecosystems,such as the retention of plant propagules, the re-duction of bank erosion, the filtering of nutri-ents, sediment trapping, natural water purifica-tion, flood timing and energy dissipation, andinfiltration and groundwater recharge are alsovery closely related to the structure of riparianvegetation, the dimensions of riparian corridorsand lateral and vertical connectivity (FISRWG,1998; Poole, 2002; Jansen et al., 2004; Naimanet al., 2005). Finally, apart from the functions al-ready mentioned, riparian systems offer other en-vironmental services of vital interest for humanwell-being, such as the provision of beauty, cul-tural inspiration and emotional values (Balmfordet al., 2002). These characteristics also depend onthe dimensions, continuity, sinuosity and natural-ness of the riparian corridor.

The human impacts resulting from flow regu-lation, channelisation and floodplain occupancygradually alter riparian conditions by reducingthe width and continuity of riparian corridors,by promoting non-native species, by reducingnatural regeneration, and by constraining lateraland vertical connectivity (Bendix & Hupp, 2000;Nilsson & Berggren. 2000; Tockner & Stanford,2002, Hughes & Rood, 2003).

Based on the ecological principles of riverbehaviour, it is possible to assess the deviationof current riparian conditions from those corre-sponding to the “natural” or reference status andto establish a scoring system to evaluate the exist-ing differences. In this sense, the RQI methodo-logy attempts to take into account the main ripar-ian components that perform the abovementionedfunctions and environmental services (Gonzalezdel Tanago & Garcıa de Jalon, 2006) and to as-sess their gradual degradation or deviation fromthe theoretical reference conditions.

Consequently, riparian systems are assessedwithin the RQI using three physical attributesof their structure (land dimensions, longitudi-nal continuity and vegetation structure) and fourother attributes related to their functioning (nat-ural regeneration, bank condition, lateral con-nectivity and riparian substratum). The presentconditions are compared with theoretical “natu-


ral or reference” conditions, defined as the ab-sence of human impacts and based on rivertypology. Tables 1 to 7 show the scoring sys-tems proposed for these seven attributes. Thisapproach aims not only to estimate the presentstatus of riparian zones but also to identify themain features and causes of the existing con-straints, thereby facilitating prioritisation andplanning of restoration measures.

The RQI method is designed to be appliedat the reach scale, where a relatively homoge-neous riparian structure can be observed in termsof landscape (geology, vegetation and land use),

valley and river type, flow conditions and flood-plain characteristics. In general, these homoge-neous conditions can be expected in the river seg-ments between tributary confluences (Benda etal. 2004). However, other natural factors or man-made impacts, such as reservoirs, channelisationworks, urbanisation, etc., can create riparian dis-continuities and force consideration of separatereaches within the same river segment. For de-tailed surveys, a length of 500-1000 m for eachstudy reach is recommended, with a predicted ap-proximate time of at least thirty minutes for field-data collection at each site.

Table 3. RQI Scores for assessing composition and structure of riparian vegetation status. Puntuaciones del RQI para evaluar elestado de la composicion y estructura de la vegetacion riparia.

3. COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION

Assess each margin separately. Identify natural composition and strata structure of riparian vegetation and natural succession stagesfor the study reach.HolaLook for differences between this potential vegetation and actual vegetation forms, number and coverage of exotic species andabundance of mats, reeds, nitrophilous or ruderal species.


Riparian vegetation innatural condition.Riparian corridorincluding a mix ofspecies correspondingto the native vegetationassociations of the riversegment, with differentstrata (canopy,understory, ground)often including shadeand climbing plants. Noexotic species.

Riparian vegetationslightly altered byhuman action.Riparian corridorcontaining most of thespecies belonging tonative vegetationassociations of the riversegment. 1 or 2 exoticspecies with less than10 % coverage. //Scattered presence ofRubus, mats or reedsdue to low-significantriparian land-use.

Riparian vegetationmoderately altered byhuman action.Riparian corridorcontaining only certainspecies of potentialvegetation associations,with scarcity ofunderstorey strata; orincluding exotic specieswith 10-30 % coverage//Moderate presence ofRubus, mats, reeds,thorny, ruderal orinvasive herbaceousspecies (coverage lessthan 30 %) due tomoderate intensity ofriparian land-use.

Riparian vegetationsignificantly altered byhuman action.Riparian corridorcontaining only a smallrepresentation ofpotential vegetationforms, or includingexotic species with30-60 % coverage. //Abundance of Rubusmats, reeds, thornyruderal or invasiveherbaceous species(30-60 % cover) due tointensive riparianland-use.

Riparian vegetationbadly altered by humaninfluence.Riparian corridor withmore than 60 %coverage of exoticspecies. Or dominanceof Arundo donaxformations, Rubusmats, ruderal orinvasive species(coverage larger than60 %), or overgrowthof dense herbaceouscommunities along thebank indicatingartificial maintenanceof water level, ornitrogenousenrichment. //Riparian vegetationonly with grass due tohuman influence. //Consider score 0 whensoil bank is sealed orpaved and riparianvegetation isnon-existent.

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


The lateral dimensions of riparian areas, thelongitudinal continuity and vegetation structureof these areas, and the vegetation associationsto be identified may be analysed using aerialand satellite photographs in the office or lab-oratory by using landscape metrics and toolsfor digital image analysis. The results foundfor these characteristics may define a generalriparian condition at a broad or reach scale.Information about species composition, naturalregeneration, bank conditions, lateral connectiv-ity and the riparian substratum must be col-lected through more detailed and field-based re-connaissance work. This information providesstatements about more finely defined riparianconditions at a smaller scale.

General information and assessment procedure

Theoretically, the RQI methodology could beused in many different river types. Initially, it wasbased on typologies of Iberian rivers, which havecatchment areas up to 100 000 km2.

An analysis of recent aerial and satellite pho-tographs of the river is recommended before theactual field work begins. This analysis is use-ful for gaining an improved visualisation of thehomogeneity of the riparian conditions and thecontinuity of the river corridor. It also permitsa proper selection of representative field studysites. These sites will then better reflect the sta-tus of the entire study area. Prior knowledge ofthe following characteristics is also necessary:

Table 4. RQI Scores for assessing age diversity and natural regeneration status of woody riparian vegetation. Puntuaciones del RQIpara evaluar la diversidad de edades y el estado de regeneracion natural de la vegetacion riparia.

4. AGE DIVERSITY AND NATURAL REGENERATION OF WOODY SPECIES

Assess both margins jointly. Look for age diversity of main woody species. Try to locate where regeneration takes place and searchfor the main causes limiting regeneration when they exist.


Age diversity andregeneration of woodyspecies in naturalconditions.All age classes(seedlings, young, adultand mature individuals)of all woody speciesare observed in theriparian zone. //Or without humanactivities affectingnatural riparian speciesregeneration.

Age diversity andregeneration of woodyspecies slightly alteredby human action.All age classes(seedlings, young, adultand mature individuals)of main woody speciesare observed at least insome locations withinthe entire riparian zone,but missing theyoungest age classes ofthe most sensitivespecies.Human interventionswith little effect onnatural regeneration.

Age diversity andregeneration of woodyspecies moderatelyaltered by humanaction.Regeneration isconfined to the pioneerspecies and only takesplace in the proximalriparian zone. In thedistal zone only adultsand mature individualsare observed, withscarce representation ofthe youngest ageclasses.Human interventionswith moderate effect onnatural regenerationdue to low-intenseregulation of flows, soilploughing, periodicalfire, cattle grazing, etc.

Age diversity andregeneration of woodyspecies significantlyaltered by humanaction.Regeneration restrictedto 1-2 species, and tothe banks. In the rest ofthe riparian area onlyadults or matureindividuals areobserved.Human interventionswith significant effecton natural regenerationdue to herbicides,channelization, watercontamination, intenseflow regulation, etc.

Age diversity andregeneration of woodyspecies badly altered byhuman action.No or very littleregeneration isobserved, with veryscarce youngest ageclasses and only in thesand or gravelbank-attached formsemerging in the activechannel. In the rest ofthe riparian area onlymature specimens exist,together with frequentdead individuals.Severe restrictions dueto human action,preventing vegetationestablishment. Usescore 0 when riparianzone is completelysealed or paved, withno regenerationpotential.

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


• Flow regime data, presence of dams alongthe surveyed river and dam management in-formation

• Human activities that may not be visible dur-ing field visits or that were conducted inthe past (gravel mining, landfill, agriculturalpractices, controlled fire, grazing, periodicclearcuts, selective vegetation removal, etc.)

• Potential up-slope or terrestrial vegetationalong adjacent margins

• Natural riparian vegetation associations forthe study area. Morphological characteristicsand habitat requirements of native and non-

native species used for their identificationand for determining their ecological indicatorvalue (i.e., nemoral, ruderal, nitrophilous, etc.)

In the field, before data collection, the follow-ing characteristics must be analysed:

• Valley and channel type, in order to esti-mate the potential extension of riparian andfloodplain areas (Gonzalez del Tanago etal., 2006). Basically, the following typolo-gies should be taken into account (Brierley& Fryirs, 2005): (1) confined valleys, sym-metrical, with the slopes connected directlywith the channel. In this case, riparian zones

Table 5. RQI Scores for assessing active channel bank conditions. Puntuaciones del RQI para evaluar el estado de las orillas delcauce activo.

5. BANK CONDITIONSAssess both margins jointly, referred to river banks at bank-full discharge. Look for indicators of naturalness (mobility, bank-attached land forms, presence of woody debris and vegetation detritus, heterogeneity of water shore, etc.). Search for humaninfluence determining bank instability, homogeneity of water shore, vegetation overgrowth in banks, incision or fine sedimentdeposition, revetments or direct alterations of bank-form, bank-height and bank-slope.


Banks in naturalcondition.Banks normally withheterogeneous watershoreline associated tonatural bank-attachedforms. Abundance ofdead wood andvegetation detritus atlateral sides of channel.Fully developedriparian plantcommunity firmlybinding bank sedimentsalong the total reach.Local erosion andsedimentationprocesses associatedwith channel bendscould be observed, forexample cliffs in theouter banks of meander,not related to humanactions. //Channel morphologywithout humanalterations.

Banks slightly modifiedby human action.Banks forms andprocesses are altered inless than 10 % of totallength. Presence ofdead wood andvegetation detritus atlateral sides of channel.Natural fully developedriparian plantcommunity binding thebank sediments in morethan 60 % of totallength and local erosionand sedimentationprocesses associatedwith low impact ofhuman interventionsaffect less than 10 % oftotal length. //Channel cross-sectionslightly altered byhuman action, butwithout stabilizationmeasures.

Banks moderatelymodified by humanaction.Banks shape andprocesses moderatelyaltered, devoid ofvegetation and showingundercutting or massfailure due to humaninfluence in 10-30 % oftotal length; or partiallyfixed with rip-rap orbioengineeringtechniques in less than30 % of total length //Emerging incision orbank accretion due tofine sedimentsdeposition In less than30 % of reach length. //Channel cross-sectionmoderately altered byhuman action, withincreased banktopheight at both marginsforming side-slopeswith average slopesmaller than 1V:4 H.

Banks significantlymodified by humanaction.Banks shape andprocesses significantlyaltered, devoid ofvegetation and showingundercutting or massfailure due to humaninfluence in 30-60 % oftotal length; or fixedwith rip-rap orbioengineeringtechniques along30-60 % of total length.//Moderate incisionprocesses or significantaccumulation of finesediments in 30-60 %of total length. //Channel cross-sectionsignificantly altered byhuman intervention,over-deepened or withincreased banktopheight, forming meanside-slopes between1V:4 H and 1V:2 H.

Banks badly altered byhuman action.Banks fixed withbio-engineering orrip-rap revetmentscovering more than60 % of the totallength. / /Significant incision orbank accretion due tomassive fine sedimentdeposition along morethan 60 % of thesegment length. //Channel cross-sectionsignificantly altered byhuman intervention,over-deepened or withlateral embankments atboth margins, forminguniform side-slopessteeper than 1V:2H.Consider score 0 whenthe banks are all pavedand covered byconcrete and anygrowth of vegetation isprevented.

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


are expected to be narrow, containing mixedforest with upland and riparian species, with-out a floodplain; (2) partly-confined valleys,asymmetrical, characteristics on one marginsimilar to those of confined valleys, charac-teristics on the other margin similar to widerriparian areas connected with discontinuousfloodplain, and with riparian forest that mayextend through the unconfined area; and(3) unconfined valleys, both margins havingthe channel and hill-slopes disconnected andbuffered by a continuous floodplain, andwith ariparian forest thatmaybewider.• Transversal zonation according to channel

morphology, with identification of the lower

areas of banks and bank-attached geomor-phic units. Under natural conditions, woodyvegetation restricting natural channel mobil-ity should not be dominant; in the bank-top and riparian proximal areas that aremore exposed to shear stress during highflows, species that are better adapted to dragforces (more flexible stems and easy re-generation and short-lived species) shouldbe found. The natural dynamic processesof erosion and sedimentation should be ob-served, at least on one margin. In the ri-parian distal areas in the active floodplain,less exposed to the force of the current,mature forests should remain.

Table 6. RQI Scores for assessing lateral connectivity status of riparian and floodplain areas. Puntuaciones del RQI para evaluarel estado de la conectividad lateral de las riberas y llanuras de inundacion

6. FLOODS AND LATERAL CONNECTIVITYAssess both margins jointly. Look for intensity of flow regulation altering frequency and magnitude of floods and periodicity andarea of flooding; and identify morphological changes or channelization works for preventing overflowing. In absence of flow data,look for inundation footprints on riparian and floodplain areas, such as woody debris and wastes hanging on vegetation after floods,open gravel and sand areas associated to secondary flood channels, vegetation detritus location, etc. Or assess lateral connectivitybased on proximity of physical visible restrictions of flow accessibility to riparian zone.


Natural flow regimeand flood free access toriparian zones.Channel and floodplaintopography in naturalconditions, without anyrestrictions to overbank flooding.Abundance of deadwood and woodybranches along thefloodplain transportedby large floods.

Floods and lateralconnectivity slightlycontrolled by humanaction.Flow regulation withsmall reduction ofbank-full discharge ornatural ordinary floodsfrequency (returnperiod between 2-10years**); overflowingoccurs at least twotimes every 10 yearsand inundates morethan 50 % of riparianwidth. Presence of deadwood and woodybranches along thebanks transported byfloods. //Or slight restrictions toflooding by smallembankments locatedat a distance from thebank larger than 3active channel widths.

Floods and lateralconnectivity moderatelycontrolled by humanaction.Flow regulation withmoderate reduction ofmagnitude andfrequency of naturalordinary floods.Overflowing occurs atleast once every 10years and inundatesmore than 30 % ofriparian width.// Or moderaterestrictions to flooding,due to embankmentslocated at a distancefrom the bank between1 and 3 active channelwidths, or due to amoderate deepening ofchannel.

Floods and lateralconnectivitysignificantly controlledby human action.Flow regulation withsignificant reduction ofmagnitude andfrequency of naturalfloods; overflowingoccurs only with largeand low- frequentfloods, around onceevery 25 years.// Or significantrestrictions to flooding,due to river training andhydraulic engineeringwith embankmentslocated at a distancefrom the bank less thanone active channelwidth, or due tosignificant incision ofchannel.

Floods and lateralconnectivity badlyreduced by humanaction.Flow regulation withsevere reduction ofmagnitude andfrequency of naturalfloods; overflowingoccurs rarely, only withvery large floods, lessthan once every 25years //Hard channelizationworks that severelyreduce the flood-pronearea.Consider score 0 incases of very intenseflow regulation or hard-engineered reacheswhere only veryextraordinary flows caninundate river margins.

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

** Ordinary floods include the annual maximum flows around bank-full discharge, in which the return period usually oscillates between 1,5-2 years in thepermanent and more regular flow regimes, and 5-8 years in the temporal and with more variability flow regimes of semi-arid regions (Dunne & Leopold, 1978;Estrela, 1994).


Table 7. RQI Scores for assessing riparian substratum and vertical connectivity status. Puntuaciones del RQI para evaluar lacalidad del substrato de las riberas y su conectividad vertical

7. SUBSTRATUM AND VERTICAL CONNECTIVITY

Assess both margins jointly. Look for alterations of soil surface reducing natural infiltration capacity; and for alterations ofsubstratum along soil profile that reduce original alluvial permeability, subsurface flows and groundwater connectivity. Alterationscan be due to fillings that modify original soil material and seed-bank and reduce composition and diversity of native herbaceouscommunities: or to gravel mining that induces particle size changes or replaces original materials; or due to the presence ofunderground infrastructures that prevent subsurface flows.


Riparian soil andsubsurface flows innatural condition.Soil surface covered byvegetation detritus andherbaceous plants, withoriginal seed-bank anddiversity of grasscommunities, and nonaltered infiltrationcapacity.Riparian substratum innatural condition,maintaining its originalpermeability.Preservation ofsubsurface flows andgroundwater naturalconnectivity.

Riparian soil slightlymodified by humanactions.Soil surface covered byvegetation detritus andgrass in more than twothirds of the area. Barezones, small trails ornon-paved compactedareas due to cattlegrazing, vehicles orrecreation activitiesrepresenting less thanone third of the area,with no significantreduction of infiltrationcapacity along thestudy reach.Substratum in naturalcondition, preservingnatural seed-bank,herbaceouscommunities andoriginal permeability.Gravel mining andalterations to soiltopography absent or oflow significance, andconnectivity ofsubsurface andgroundwater flows ismaintained.No fillings orexcavations.

Riparian soilmoderately modified byhuman actions.Soil surface covered byvegetation detritus andgrass in less than twothirds of the area. Soilsurface ploughed,sealed or paved in lessthan 30 %, moderatelyreducing infiltrationcapacity.Or soil profile has beenaltered in less than30 % of riparian area,because of gravelmining (topographyand substrate particlesize with moderatealterations), orsediment deposits(original seed-bankaltered showingabundance of pioneeropportunisticherbaceous plants ordominance of baresoil). //Addition of inertmaterials, solid wastesor building debris inless than 30 % of thearea moderately altersnatural permeabilityand connectivity withsubsurface andgroundwater flows. //Presence ofundergroundinfrastructures as roadsor pipes (water,electricity, oil) oraddition of solid wastesor building debrisaffects less than 30 %of the area.

Riparian soilsignificantly modifiedby human actions.Soil surface sealed,compacted or paved in30-60% of the area,significantly reduceinfiltration capacity.Or soil profile has beenaltered in 30-60 % ofriparian area, becauseof gravel mining(topography andsubstrate particle sizewith moderatealterations), orsediment deposits(original seed-bankaltered showingabundance of pioneeropportunisticherbaceous plants ordominance of baresoil). // Ripariansubstratum substitutedby inert materials, solidwastes or buildingdebris in 30-60 % ofthe riparian area. //Presence ofundergroundinfrastructures as roadsor pipes (water,electricity, oil) oraddition of solid wastesor building debrisaffects 30-60 % of thearea, significantlyaltering subsurfaceflows and groundwaterconnectivity.

Riparian soil badlymodified by humanactions.Riparian soils sealed orpaved in more than60 % of the area,severely compromiseinfiltration of water.Or soil profile has beendeeply altered by gravelextraction, or bytopography alterationsdegrading original soiland seed-bank in morethan 60 % of the area. //Riparian substratumsubstituted by inertmaterials, solid wastesor building debris inmore than 60 % of theriparian area. //Undergroundinfrastructures as roadsor pipes (water,electricity, oil) oraddition of solid wastesor building debrisaffecting more than60 % of the area, withstrong alteration ofsubsurface flows andgroundwaterconnectivity.Use score 0 whenriparian zones arecompletely paved orexcavated containingconcrete infrastructurespreventing anyhydrologicalconnectivity withchannel.

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


Table 8. Interpretation of total RQI score values and proposal of river management options. Interpretacion de los valores totales deRQI y propuestas de gestion.

RQI value Riparian status Management options

150-130 Very good Riparian attributes in natural conditions, without threats in their functioning.Great interest in Conservation and Protection, to maintain current status and prevent futurealterations of riparian systems

129-100 Good Most of the attributes are in good or very good conditions and one or two can be altered.Riparian systems need Protection measures to prevent potential new impacts and Restorationmeasures to achieve full integrity of riparian functions. Eliminate pressures and impacts as muchas possible.

99-70 Moderate Several attributes are moderately altered.Riparian systems require Restoration measures to assure proper hydrological and ecologicalfunctioning. Eliminate or Reduce pressures and impacts as much as possible.

69-40 Poor Most attributes are moderately altered.Riparian systems need Rehabilitation or Restoration measures, to improve and recover hydro-logical and ecological riparian functions. Reduce pressures and impacts as much as possible anddesign compensation measures to ameliorate environmental conditions.

39-10 Bad Several attributes are poorly altered.Riparian systems need Rehabilitation or Restoration measures to reintroduce or graduallyimprove hydrological and ecological riparian functions. Reduce pressures and impacts aspossible and ameliorate the social perception of river degradation.

< 10 Very bad Most of the attributes are badly altered.Riparian systems need new Rehabilitation or Remediation works, to recreate and reintroduceriparian functions. Improve environmental conditions for good potential status and amelioratethe social perception of river degradation.

In each study site, field data should be system-atically recorded using the data sheets of An-nex I. For riparian system assessment, Tables 1to 3 should be applied to each river bank sep-arately. Six scores will result. Tables 4 to 7should be applied to integrate the riparian sta-tus of both margins. Here, four additional scoreswill be obtained. The final result of the RQI ateach study site is then obtained by summing these10 score values. The summed values will rangefrom 130-150 (best status) to less than 10 (worstor very bad conditions). Depending on the studyobjectives and constraints, one or several studysites can be used to represent the overall statusof each river reach surveyed.

Appropriate maps can provide edited versionsof the results. Maps of each attribute scored maybe prepared to reflect the more frequent or ex-tensive limiting factors for riparian areas withinthe basin studied. Maps of the total RQI val-ues are useful to represent the global qualityof each riparian area and to show the locationsof the best-preserved river reaches.

Management options related to global-qualityclasses are suggested in Table 8. More detailedrestoration or rehabilitation strategies and mea-sures may be derived from the information shownon individual maps of the riparian attributes as-sessed. Overlaying the RQI value maps withother Geographical Information Systems (GIS)layers, such as land use, protected areas (such asthose protected under the European Habitat Di-rective), flow regulation structures, urbanisationdensity, water quality, etc., may help to relate thepresent riparian status to potential sources of degra-dation. This approach may also help to establishcriteria and to develop a rationale for planning reha-bilitation or restoration programmes and priorities.

RQI METHODOLOGY APPLICATIONS

The initial version of the RQI methodology wasapplied in several regions and basins of theIberian Peninsula to demonstrate the usefulnessand potential applications of the method. The


Figure 1. Map of Riparian Quality of the Guadiana Basin using the RQI methodology in 120 study-sites (Gonzalez del Tanago etal., 2004). Mapa de calidad de las riberas de la Cuenca del Guadiana utilizando la metodologıa RQI en 120 lugares de estudio(Gonzalez del Tanago et al., 2004).

index was initially used in the Guadiana basin.This analysis involved a study of 130 surveyedstations and allowed the diagnosis of the sta-tus of the fluvial riparian systems at basin scale

(Gonzalez del Tanago et al., 2004). Figures 1and 2 shows the results of this work, includingthe spatial relationships between riparian qualityand land use. The best-preserved sections corre-

Figure 2. Status of each riparian attribute assessed by the RQI in the 120 study-sites of the Guadiana Basin (Gonzalez del Tanagoet al., 2004). Estado de cada uno de los atributos de las riberas estudiados con el RQI en 120 estaciones de la Cuenca del Guadiana(Gonzalez del Tanago et al., 2004).


spond to the upper reaches of forest streams lo-cated in Montes de Toledo. The most-degradedreaches are located in La Mancha (Ciudad Real),where river channel dredging and alignment inflat valleys were carried out for agricultural pur-poses during the 1970s, causing further incisionprocesses, and in several reaches of the Guadianatributaries, where fragmentation or reduction inlateral connectivity owing to agriculture and flowregulation occurred with greater effect. Based onthese results, the creation of buffer strips alonglowland rivers to increase the continuity and ex-tension of the riparian corridor was consideredone of the most urgent measures for the rehabil-itation of riparian zones in the Guadiana Basin.The basin should be protected by controllinggrazing and agricultural practices to promote theregeneration of native woody species.

The RQI index was also applied for differentpurposes in other regions. Frances et al. (2009)have used the RQI to compare riparian condi-tions under natural and regulated flow regimes.In the region of La Rioja, Alonso et al. (2007)have applied this index to assess the riparian con-ditions as an important component of the physi-cal habitat of fish communities. Iturriaga (2007)has made a statistical comparison of RQI withtwo other Spanish indices, QBR (Munne et al.,1998) and IFH (Pardo et al. 2002). This work wascarried out in the rivers of Navarra. This analy-sis found that RQI was correlated to a certain ex-tent with QBR and IFH. The resulting R2 valueswere 0.79 and 0.67, respectively. Nevertheless,RQI was considered more useful, as it explicitlytakes into account longitudinal continuity, naturalregeneration and lateral and vertical connectivity.The other indices do not include these factors,which are considered crucial for assessing themaintenance and functionality of riparian corridors.

DISCUSSION

The proposed RQI methodology represents a use-ful tool for the characterisation and quick assess-ment of the environmental conditions present inriparian systems. This method helps in the diag-nosis and the design of restoration strategies by

furnishing a checklist of the main riparian com-ponents affected by human activities.

The RQI index takes into account the majorcomponents of the structure and functioning ofriparian zones, and it offers more complete cri-teria for riparian assessment than those includedin previously available methods. It accounts forthe main riparian components performing theecological and hydrological functions of the ri-parian zone, and it incorporates river dynam-ics and natural riparian vegetation regenerationas important attributes that reflect not only thepresent status but also possible future conditions,given the current circumstances of flow regime,land use or channel management.

The assessment of several riparian attributeshas been improved in the new version of RQI.In addition, different levels of fragmentation vs.longitudinal continuity are now considered. Thelength and the land-use intensity of open patchesare referenced as the main indicators of ripar-ian structural connectivity (Goodwin, 2003: Cal-abrese & Fagan, 2004). Local erosion and sedi-mentation processes under specific conditions areconsidered in the new version of RQI as indica-tors of river mobility and “naturalness.” Thesecharacteristics indicate good to very good sta-tus in several cases, according to Corenblit et al.(2007), whereas they could have been interpretedas river instability and scored as fair or bad con-ditions in the previous version of the Index.

Other improvements in this new version ofRQI are the simplification of the assessment of ve-getation structure. Different vegetation bands areno longer distinguished because their identifica-tion may be rather subjective. The presence oflarge woody debris on banks and floodplains hasbeen added to indicate lateral connectivity andgood to very good riparian status.

Finally, additional suggestions have been in-cluded. The new version recommends that someinformation be collected prior to performing thefield work, and that the survey sites be selectedaccording to the study objectives using aerial andsatellite photographs. The improvements of the newversion of RQI methodology can assist in its appli-cation, enlarging the awareness of the users whoperform riparian system diagnosis and evaluation.


The RQI index was designed to be suitable fora wide range of Iberian river types, includingpermanent and temporary streams, in both theMediterranean and the Atlantic climates and forbasin areas up to 100 000 km2. It has been ap-plied to many different rivers under very dis-tinct hydrological and morphological conditions.However, it is not used for ephemeral streams,whose riparian vegetation may respond to differ-ent factors. It is important to note that the “verygood” or reference conditions of the seven at-tributes measured are always referred to the rivertype and that the criteria to assess the gradualdegradation of riparian systems correspond tophysical processes occurring everywhere. Thesecharacteristics suggest that the RQI methodologycould be adapted easily to other conditions notyet tested, including very large rivers (basin area> 100 000 km2), tidal-influenced reaches, boreal-alpine rivers, and more. The specific conditionspresent in each case should be taken into ac-count by considering different natural featuresand degradation responses.

The systematic application of the RQI me-thodology allows riparian-quality maps to beconstructed at different spatial scales in re-sponse to an overall assessment of RQI scoreor an individualised assessment of the riparianattributes throughout the basin. It can be ap-plied at different times to compare quantitativedata on riparian characteristics in different years,thereby facilitating the evaluation of riparian re-covery or degradation after human interventionsand offering many valuable criteria for ecologi-cal post-project appraisals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to acknowledge the comments and sug-gestions made by Arturo Elosegi, Joserra Dıazy Moraia Grau regarding the addition of newelements of riparian assessment. We are alsovery grateful to Francisco Martınez-Capel, Car-los Alonso, Dolores Bejarano, Judit Maroto andthe rest of the Hydrobiology Research Group atthe Polytechnical University of Madrid for theirhelp in sharing their experience with RQI ap-

plications and for their comments. Two anony-mous reviewers have helped to improve themanuscript significantly.

REFERENCES

ALONSO, C., P.VIZCAINO, J.CORTAZAR,D.BAE-ZA, M. MARCHAMALO, M. VALLE & D. GAR-CIA DE JALON. 2007. Plan de ordenacion piscı-cola de La Rioja: Planes hidrobiologicos. InformeTecnico, Gobierno de La Rioja-Ecohidraulica.232 pp.

BALMFORD, A., A.BRUNER, P, COOPER, R. COS-TANZA, S. FARBER, R. E. GREEN, M. JENK-INS, P. JEFFERISS, V. JESSAMY, J. MAD-DEN, K. MUNRO, N. MYERS, S. NAEEM, J.PAAVOLA, M. RAYMENT, S. ROSENDO, J.ROUGHGARDEN, K. TRUMPER, R. K., TUR-NER, 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wildnature. Science, 297: 950–953.

BARBOUR, M. T., J. GERRITSEN, B. D. ZINDER& J. B. STRIBLING. 1999. Rapid bioassessmentprotocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers:Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.2nd edition, EPA 841-B-99-002. Washington, D.C.38 pp.

BENDA, L., N. L. POFF, D. MILLER, T. DUNNE,G. REEVES, G. PESS, & D M. POLLOCK. 2004.The network dynamics hypothesis: How channelnetworks structure riverine habitats. BioScience,54: 413–427.

BENDIX, J. & C. R. HUPP 2000. Hydrological andgeomorphological impact on riparian plant com-munities.Hydrological Processess, 14: 2977–2999.

BJORKLAND, R., C. M. PRINGLE & B. NEWTON2001. A stream visual assessment protocol (SVAP)for riparian landowners. Environmental Monitor-ing and Assessment, 68(2): 99-125.

BRIERLEY, G., K. FRYIRS, D. OUTHET & C.MASSEY. 2002. Application of the River Stylesframework as a basis for river management in NewSouth Wales, Australia. Applied Geography, 22:91–122.

BRIERLEY, G. J. & K. A. FRYIRS. 2005. Geomor-phology and River Management. Applications ofthe River Styles Framework. Blackwell Publishing,Victoria, Australia. 389 pp.

BURT, T., M. M. HEFTING, G. PINAY & S. SA-BATER. 2006. The role of floodplains in mitigat-ing diffuse nitrate pollution. In: Hydroecology and


Ecohydrology: Past, Present and Future P. Wood,D. M. Hannah & J. P. Sadler (eds.): 253–268. JohnWiley & sons, Chichester, UK.

CALABRESE, J. M. & W. F. FAGAN. 2004. A com-parison shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics.Front Ecol Environ, 2(10): 529–536.

CORENBLIT, D., E. TABACCHI, J. STEIGER & A.M. GURNELL 2007. Reciprocal interactions andadjustments between fluvial landforms and vegeta-tion dynamics in river corridors: A review of com-plementary approaches. Earth-Science Reviews,84: 56–86.

CORENBLIT, D., A. M. GURNELL, J. STEIGER &E. TABACCHI. 2008. Reciprocal adjustments bet-ween landforms and living organisms: Extendedgeomorphic evolutionary insights.Catena, 73: 261-273.

CORENBLIT, D., J. STEIGER, A. M. GURNELL &R. J.NAIMAN. 2009. Plants interwine fluvial land-form dynamics with ecological succession and nat-ural selection: A niche construction perspective forriparian systems. Global Ecology and Biogeogra-phy, 18: 507–520.

DAVIES, N. M., R. H. NORRIS & M. C. THOMS.2000. Prediction and assessment of local streamhabitat features using large-scale catchment char-acteristics. Freshwater Biology, 45: 343–369.

DUNNE, T. & L. B. LEOPOLD. 1978. Water in Envi-ronmental Planning. V. H. Freeman & Co., SanFrancisco, USA. 818 pp.

ESTRELA, T. 1994. Aspectos practicos de la defi-nicion de la maxima crecida ordinaria. InformeAsistencia Tecnica para la ordenacion de caucesy margenes inundables. CEDEX 42-493-6-001.Madrid. 49 pp.

FEDERAL INTERAGENCY STREAM CORRIDORRESTORATION WORKING GROUP (FISRWG).1998. Stream Corridor Restoration. Principles,processes, and practices. U.S. National Engi-neering Handbook, Part 653, Washington, D.C.:USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service.528 pp.

FORMAN, R. T. T. 1999. Land Mosaics. The ecologyof landscapes and regions. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK. 632 pp.

FRANCES, F., F. MARTINEZ-CAPEL, V. GARO-FANO-GOMEZ, A. GARCIA-ARIAS, M. MO-RALES DE LA CRUZ, J. REAL-LLANDERALR. COSTA, J. F. VILLANUEVA-GARCIA, J. L.GARCIA-GALLEN, & R. MUNOZ-MAS. 2009.Proyecto RIBERA: Modelacion matematica de

ecosistemas de ribera para la determinacion deregımenes ecologicos en el rıo. Technical Reportof the Universidad Politecnica de Valencia for theSpanish Government (MARM). 425 pp.

GONZALEZ DEL TANAGO, M., D. GARCIA DEJALON & R. MARTINEZ. 2004. Caracterizaciongeomorfologica de la red fluvial del Alto y MedioGuadiana. Technical Report, CEDEX, Madrid.115 pp.

GONZALEZ DEL TANAGO, M., D. GARCIA DEJALON, F. LARA & R. GARILLETI. 2006. IndiceRQI para la valoracion de las riberas fluviales enel contexto de la Directiva Marco del Agua. Inge-nierıa Civil, 143: 97-108.

GONZALEZ DEL TANAGO, M. & D. GARCIA DEJALON. 2006 Attributes for assessing the environ-mental quality of riparian zones. Limnetica, 25(1-2): 389–402.

GOODWIN, B. J. 2003. Is landscape connectivity adependent or independent variable? LandscapeEcology, 18: 687–699.

GURNELL, A. M. & G. E. PETTS. 2002. Island-dominated landscapes of large floodplain rivers.A European perspective. Freshwater Biology, 47:581–600.

GURNELL, A. M. & G. E. PETTS. 2006. Trees as ri-parian engineers: the Tagliamento River, Italy.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 31: 1558-1574.

HORN, R. P. & J. S. RICHARDS. 2006. Flow-ve-getation interactions in restored floodplain envi-ronments. In: Hydroecology and Ecohydrology:Past, Present and Future. P. Wood, D. M. Hannah& J. P. Sadler (eds.): 269–294. John Wiley & sons,Chichester, UK.

HUGHES, F. M. R. (ed.) 2003. The Flooded Forest:Guidance for policy makers and river managersin Europe on the restoration of floodplain forests.FLOBAR2, Department of Geography, Universityof Cambridge, UK. 96 pp.

HUGHES, F. M. R. & S. B. ROOD. (2003). The allo-cation of river flows for the restoration of woodyriparian and floodplain forest ecosystems: a reviewof approaches and their application in Europe. En-vironmental Management, 32: 12–33.

HUPP, C. R. & M. RINALDI. 2007. Riparian Vegeta-tion Patterns in Relation to Fluvial Landforms andChannel Evolution Along Selected Rivers of Tus-cany (Central Italy). Annales of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, 97(1): 12–30.


ITURRIAGA, C. 2007. Evaluacion del estado hidro-morlogico de los rıos de Navarra y caracterizacionde sus formaciones riparias. Trabajo Fin de Car-rera, E.T.S. I. Montes, UPM, Madrid. 153 pp.

JANSEN, A., A. ROBERTSON, L. THOMPSON &A. WILSON. 2004. Development and applicationof a method for the rapid appraisal of ripariancondition. River and Riparian Land ManagementTechnical Guideline, 4. Land & Water Australia,Camberra. 14 pp.

LADSON, A. R. & L. J. WHITE. 2000. Measuringstream condition. In: River Management. The Aus-tralasian Experience. S. Brizga & B. Finlayson(eds.): 265–285. John Wiley & sons, Chichester.UK.

MALANSON, G. P. 1993.RiparianLandscapes. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 296 pp.

MUNNE, A., C. SOLA & N. PRAT. 1998. QBR : Unındice rapido para la evaluacion de la calidad de losecosistemas de ribera. Tecnologıa del Agua, 175:20–37.

MUNNE, A., N. PRAT, C. SOLA, N. BONADA & M.RIERADEVALL. 2003. A simple field method forassessing the ecological quality of riparian habitatin rivers and streams: QBR index. Aquatic Con-servation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13:143–162.

NAIMAN, R. J., H. DECAMPS & M. E. McCLAIN.2005. Riparia. Ecology, Conservation and Man-ament of Streamside Communities. Elsevier Aca-demic Press, Amsterdam, 430 pp.

NILSSON, C. H. & K. BERGGREN. 2000. Alter-ations of Riparian Ecosystems caused by RiverRegulation. BioScience, 50(9): 783–792.

OJEC (Official Journal of the European Communi-ties). 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000establishing a framework for Community action inthe field of water policy.

OJEU (Official Journal of the European Union) 2007.Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliamentand of the Council of 26 November 2007 on theassessment and management of flood risks.

OJEU (Official Journal of the European Union) 2009.Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parlia-ment and of the Council of 21 October 2009 es-tablishing a framework for Community action toachieve the sustainable use of pesticides.

OLLERO, A., D. BALLARIN, E. DIAZ, D. MORA,M. SANCHEZ, V. ACIN, T. ECHEVARRIA, D.GRANADO, A. IBISATE, L. SANCHEZ & N.

SANCHEZ. 2008. IHG: An index for the hydro-geomorphological assessment of fluvial systems.Limnetica, 27: 171–187.

OLLERO, A., L. E. GONZALO, A. IBISATE, V.ACIN, D. BALLARIN, E. DIAZ, S. DOME-NECH, M. GIMENO, D. GRANADO, J. HORA-CIO, D. MORA & M. SANCHEZ. 2011. The IHGIndex for hydromorphological quality assessmentof rivers: Updated version, working methodologyand applications. Limnetica, 30(2): 255-262.

PARDO, I., M. ALVAREZ, J. CASAS, J. L. MO-RENO, S. VIVAS, N. BONADA, J. ALBA-TER-CEDOR, P. JAIMEZ-CUELLAR, G. MOYA, N.PRAT, S. ROBLES, M. L. SUAREZ, M. TORO &M. R. VIDAL-ABARCA. 2002. El habitat de losrıos mediterraneos. Diseno de un ındice de diversi-dad de habitat. Limnetica, 21: 115-133.

PETERSEN, R. 1992. The RCE: A riparian, channeland Environmental Inventory for small streams inthe agricultural landscape. Freshwater Biology, 27:295–306.

POOLE, G. C. 2002. Fluvial landscape ecology: ad-dressing uniqueness within the river discontinuu.Freshwater Biology, 47: 641–660.

RAVEN, P. J., P. FOX, M. EVERARD, N. T. H. HOL-MES & F. H. DAWSON. 1997. River Habitat Sur-vey: a new system for classifying rivers accord-ing to their habitat quality. In: Freshwater Quality:Defining the Indefinable? P. J. Boon & D. L. How-ell (eds.): 215–234. The Stationary Office, Edin-burg.

SCHNITZLER-LENOBLE, A. 2007.Forets alluvialesd’Europe. Ecologie, Biogeographie and Valeur in-trinseque. Lavoisier, Ed. Tec & Doc, Parıs. 387 pp.

SIMPSON, J. C. & R. H. NORRIS. 2000. BiologicalAssessment of river quality: development of AUS-RIVAS models and outputs. In: Assessing the bio-logical quality of freshwaters. RIVPACS and othertechniques J. F. Wright, D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T.Furse, M.T. (eds.): 115–142. Freshwater Biologi-cal Association, Ambleside.

TABACCHI, E., L. LAMBS, H. GUILLOY, A. M. H.PLANTY-TABACCHI, E. MULLER & H. DE-CAMPS. 2000. Impacts of riparian vegetation onhydrological processes. Hydrological Processes,14: 2959–2976.

TOCKNER, K. & J. A. STANFORD 2002. Riverineflood plains: present state and future trends. Envi-ronmental Conservation, 29(3): 308–330.


WARD, J. V. 1989. The four-dimensional nature oflotic ecosystems. Journal of the North AmericanBenthological Society, 8: 2–8.

WARD, J. V., K. TOCKNER D. B. ARSCOTT & C.Claret. 2002. Riverine landscape diversity. Fresh-water Biology, 47: 517–539.

WARD, T. A., K. W. TATE & E. R. ATWILL. 2003.Visual assessment of riparian health. Rangeland

Monitoring Series, ANR Publication 8089, Re-gents of the University of California, Divisionof Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland,California. 23 pp.

WINWARD, A. H. 2000. Monitoring the VegetationResources in Riparian Areas. USDA Forest Ser-vice, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-47,Ogden, Utah. 49 pp.


ANNEX I

FIELD DATA SHEET FOR CHARACTERIZING AND ASSESSING RIPARIAN CONDITIONS

River: Code station: Date:

Observer:

Limits of River segment:

GPS beginning GPS end:

Valley and channel cross-section:

1. Dimensions of Land with Riparian Vegetation Right margin Left margin

Confinement of margin (C: confined; U: unconfined)

Maximum/Minimum width with riparian vegetation (m) / /

Average width of riparian corridor (m)

Average width of active channel (m)

Distance between active channel bank and adjacent up-slope (m)

Adjacent land use (Forest, Agriculture, Urban area, Roads, Others)

SCORE:

2. Longitudinal Continuity and Coverage of Riparian Corridor Right margin Left margin

Continuous forest (CF) / Vegetation Patches (VP) / Isolated trees or shrubs (IT, IS)

Canopy (> 5 m height) cover (%)

Understory (1-5 m height) cover (%)

Ground (< 1 m height) cover (%)

If fragmented, average vegetation patches length (m)

If fragmented, average distance between consecutive patches (m)

If fragmented, land use in open areas

SCORE:

3. Composition and Structure of Riparian vegetation Right margin Left margin

Predominant vegetation associations

Tree species: Name and abundance class

Shrub species: Name and abundance class

Ground species: Name and abundance class

Shadow and climbing plants: Name and abundance class

Exotic woody species: Name and cover (%)

Coverage of Rubus or reeds (%)

Coverage of ruderal or invasive herbaceous species (%)

Coverage of Arundo donax (%)

Health status of main native woody species (Good, Fair, Bad)

SCORE:

Abundance classes: 4: Dominant; 3: Abundant; 2: Frequent; 1: Scarce; + Occasional


4. Age diversity and Natural Regeneration Both marginsSpecies with seedlings (<1year, <0.25 m height)Species with youngs (aprox. 0.25-1.0 m height, or < 1.5 cm diameter for trees)Species with adults (aprox. 1.0-5.0 m height, 1.5-3 cm diameter for trees)Species with mature (aprox. > 5.0 m height, >3 cm diameter for trees)Species with dead trees: Name and abundance classRegeneration sites: Channel banks, Proximal area, Distal area, Total areaRegeneration prevented by: Flow regulation / Cattle grazing / Ploughing / Herbicides / Soilcompaction / Pavement / Others

SCORE:

5. Bank conditions Both marginsBank material (Bedrock, Gravel, Sand, Fine sediments, Composite strata)Bank shape (Natural, Reprofiled, Reveted, Embanked, Concreted, Other)Draw a simplified profileBanktop height (m)Bankside slope (Uniform (V:H) / Composite (V:H)Bank vegetation cover (%)Dead wood and vegetation debris (Abundant, Present, Occasional, Absent)Bank stability (Stable, with local instability, Unstable)Channel processes description: Equilibrium, Narrowing, WideningBank length affected by vertical accretion/incision (%)Bank length affected by undecutting/mass failure (%)Bank length with revetments/bio-engineering (%)

SCORE:

6. Floods and Lateral Connectivity Both marginsFlow regime status (Natural, Regulated: Slightly, Moderately, Significantly)If regulated, main purposes (Irrigation, Hydroelectricity, Water supply)Annual floods timing (natural conditions, only in summer, at any time)Restrictions to riparian flood access (Bank elevation, channel deepening, levees )Embankments: Height (m)/Distance from active channel bank (m)Estimated frequency of banktop overflows (one each 1-2 y, 5 y, 10 y, 25 y, > 25 y)Estimated frequency of proximal riparian area flooding (one each 1-2 y, 5 y, 10 y, 25 y, > 25 y)Estimated frequency of distal riparian area flooding (one each 1-2 y, 5 y, 10 y, 25 y, > 25 y)Abundance of dead wood and woody branches transported by floods (None, Occasional, Abundant,Very abundant)Location of dead wood and woody branches transported by floods (Only at banks, In proximalriparian areas, In distal areas, everywhere)

SCORE:

7. Substratum and Vertical Connectivity Both marginsPredominant soil surface cover (rocks, wood, leaf litter, grass, bare soil, others)Coverage of vegetation detritus and grass (%)Coverage of bare soil compacted or paved (%)Intensity of cattle grazing (None, not significant, moderate, intense, very intense)Herbaceous communities (Natural, Abundant /Dominant opportunistic species)% of area affected by gravel mining or excavations% of area affected by sediment fillings% of area affected by solid wastes and building debrisPresent underground infrastructures (None, Pipes, roads, buildings, others) (% area affected)

SCORE:

riparian quality index - limneticaissn: 0213-8409 235 riparian quality index (rqi): a methodology...

Documents