Case study:Grote Aa: Difference between revisions
Bas Wullems (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Bas Wullems (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
|Dominant substrate=Sand, | |Dominant substrate=Sand, | ||
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable), Moorland/heathland, Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural), Wetland, | |River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable), Moorland/heathland, Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural), Wetland, | ||
|Mean discharge category=0.1 - 1.0 m³/s | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Project background}} | {{Project background}} |
Latest revision as of 14:45, 15 April 2021
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Habitat and biodiversity, Monitoring, Water quality |
Country | Netherlands |
Main contact forename | Ineke |
Main contact surname | Barten |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Waterschap De Dommel |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.dommel.nl |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The Grote Aa was part of an experiment on the effect of vegetation removal on flow velocity variation and the abundance of fish and macroinvertebrates. For this experiment, different stretches of the stream were given a different treatment: the vegetation was either only mowed in blocks on one bank or only mowed in the middle of the stream. Both experiments were performed for a one year period in one stretch and a two year period in another stretch, so it could be determined how the vegetation, fish and macroinvertebrates would respond over various periods of time.
Monitoring surveys and results
Immediately after mowing, variation in flow velocity was observed and the fish population increased. However, the effect on water quality was very small. The water has remained eutrophic and the existing domination of floating vegetation was not broken. Instead, the species that were already abundantly present covered a larger area two years after mowing. The composition of the macroinvertebrate population differed between mowing regimes in the first year of the experiment, but showed a return to normal conditions in the second year.
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Beekherstel Beekloop BmN, Beekherstel Keersop, Beekherstel Reusel Baarschot-Diessen, Boven-Dommel, Buulder Aa, Herinrichting beekdal Tongelreep, Kleine Aa, traject Smalwater Noord, Kleine Beerze
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
|