Journal of Ecology and Environment

The Ecological Society of Korea (한국생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of the effects of the river restoration in Hwangji Stream, the upstream reach of the Nakdong River

  • Bong Soon Lim (Department of Bio & Environmental Technology, Seoul Women's University) ;
  • Jaewon Seol (Department of Bio & Environmental Technology, Seoul Women's University) ;
  • Chang Seok Lee (Department of Bio & Environmental Technology, Seoul Women's University)
  • Received : 2023.11.13
  • Accepted : 2024.01.25
  • Published : 2024.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: In Korea, riparian zones and some floodplains have been converted into agricultural fields and urban areas. However, there are essential for maintaining biodiversity, as they are important ecological spaces. There are also very important spaces for humanity, as they perform various ecosystem services in a changing environment including climate change. Due to the importance of rivers, river restoration projects have been promoted for a long time, but their achievement has been insignificant. Development should be pursued by thoroughly evaluating the success of the restoration project. Ecological restoration is to accelerate succession, a process that a disturbed ecosystem recovers itself, with human assistance. Ecological restoration can be a test bed for testing ecological theories in the field. In this respect, ecological restoration should go beyond a 'simple landscaping exercise' and apply ecological models and theories in restoration practice. Results: The cross-section of the restored stream is far from natural rivers due to its steep slope and artificial material. The vegetation profiles of the restored streams did not reflect the flooding regime of the river. The species composition of the vegetation in the restored stream showed a significant difference from that of the reference stream, and was also different from that of an unrestored urban stream. Although species richness was high and the proportion of exotic species was low in the restored stream, the effect was offset by the high proportion of gardening and landscaping plants or obligate terrestrial plants. Conclusions: Based on both the morphological and ecological characteristics of the river, the restoration effect in the restored stream was evaluated to be very low. In order to solve the problems, a systematic adaptive management plan is urgently required. Furthermore, it is necessary to institutionalize the evaluation of restoration effects for the development of river restoration projects in the future.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a research grant from Seoul Women's University (2023).

References

  1. An JH, Lim BS, Seol J, Kim AR, Lim CH, Moon JS, et al. Evaluation on the restoration effects in the river restoration projects practiced in South Korea. Water. 2022; 14(17):2739. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14172739.
  2. An JH, Lim CH, Lim YK, Nam KB, Lee CS. A review of restoration project evaluation and post management for ecological restoration of the river. J Restor Ecol. 2014;4(1):15-34.
  3. Aronson J, Floret C, LeFloc'h E, Ovalle C, Pontanier R. Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems in arid and semi-arid lands. I. A view from the south. Restor Ecol. 1993;1(1):8-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1993.tb00004.x.
  4. Beechie TJ, Sear DA, Olden JD, Pess GR, Buffington JM, Moir H, et al. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience. 2010;60(3):209-22. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.7.
  5. Berger JJ. Ecological restoration and nonindigenous plant species: a review. Restor Ecol. 1993;1(2):74-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1993.tb00012.x.
  6. Bradshaw AD. Ecological principles and land reclamation practice. Landsc Plan. 1984;11(1):35-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(84)90016-9.
  7. Bradshaw AD. The reclamation of derelict land and the ecology of ecosystems. In: Jordan WR, Gilpin ME, Aber AD, editors. Restoration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987. p. 53-74.
  8. Braun-Blanquet J. Pflanzensoziologie: grundzuge der vegetationskunde. 3rd ed. Wien: Springer-Verlag; 1964.
  9. Clarke KR. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austral Ecol. 1993;18(1):117-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x.
  10. Curtis JT, McIntosh RP. An upland forest continuum in the prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology. 1951;32(3):476-96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1931725.
  11. Doll BA, Grabow GL, Hall KR, Halley J, Harman WA, Jennings GD, et al. Stream restoration: a natural channel design handbook. Raleigh: North Carolina State University; 2003.
  12. Easterling DR, Evans JL, Groisman PY, Karl TR, Kunkel KE, Ambenje P. Observed variability and trends in extreme climate events: a brief review. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2000;81(3):417-26. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(2000)081<0417:OVATIE>2.3.CO;2.
  13. Ewel JJ. Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. In: Jordan WR, Gilpin ME, Aber JD, editors. Restoration ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987. p. 31-3.
  14. Frissell CA, Ralph SC. Stream and watershed restoration. In: Naiman RJ, Bilby RE, editors. River ecology and management. New York: Springer; 1998. p. 599-624.
  15. Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, et al. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition. Restor Ecol. 2019;27(S1):S1-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035.
  16. Gary MS, Kunc M, Morecroft JDW, Rockart SF. System dynamics and strategy. Syst Dyn Rev. 2008;24(4):407-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.402.
  17. Gilvear D, Bryant R. Analysis of remotely sensed data for fluvial geomorphology and river science. In: Kondolf GM, Piegay H, editors. Tools in fluvial geomorphology. Chichester. John Wiley & Sons; 2016. p. 103-132.
  18. Goodwin CN, Hawkins CP, Kershner JL. Riparian restoration in the western united states: oveview and perspecive. Restor Ecol. 1997;5(45):4-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1997.00004.x.
  19. Greipsson S. Phytoremediation. Nature Education Knowledge. 2011; 3(10):7.
  20. Halme P, Allen KA, Aunins A, Bradshaw RHW, Brumelis G, Cada V, et al. Challenges of ecological restoration: lessons from forests in northern Europe. Biol Conserv. 2013;167:248-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.029.
  21. Hill M. Decorana - a Fortran program for detrended correspondence analysis and reciprocal averaging. New York: Cornell University; 1979.
  22. Hobbs RJ, Cramer VA. Restoration ecology: interventionist approaches for restoring and maintaining ecosystem function in the face of rapid environmental change. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2008;33:39-61. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.33.020107.113631.
  23. Jeong SH, Oh HM, Ko SR, Ahn CY. Correlations between environmental factors and toxic and non-toxic Microcystis dynamics during bloom in Daechung reservoir, Korea. Harmful Algae. 2011;10(2):188-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2010.09.005.
  24. Karr JR. Ecological integrity and ecological health are not the same. In: Schulze P, editor. Engineering within ecological constraints. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Engineering; 1996. p.97-110.
  25. Kent M. Vegetation description and data analysis: a practical approach. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
  26. Kim YH, Ryoo SB, Baik JJ, Park IS, Koo HJ, Nam JC. Does the restoration of an inner-city stream in Seoul affect local thermal environment? Theor Appl Climatol. 2008;92(3-4):239-48.
  27. Kondolf GM, Anderson S, Lave R, Pagano L, Merenlender A, Bernhardt ES. Two decades of river restoration in california: what can we learn? Restor Ecol. 2007;15(3):516-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00247.x.
  28. Korea National Arboretum. 2018. http://www.nature.go.kr/kbi/plant/pilbk/selectPlantPilbkGnrlList.do. Accessed 21 Dec 2023.
  29. Lake PS, Bond N, Reich P. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshw Biol. 2007;52(4):597-615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01709.x.
  30. Lee CS. Role and task of restoration ecology in changing environment. Natl Acad Sci. 2016;5:481-527.
  31. Lee CS, Bae GS, Bae YJ, Byun HG, Shim JH, Lee WS, et al. Ecology of Cheonggye stream. Seoul: Cheongmok Publication; 2008a.
  32. Lee CS, Cho YC, Lee AN. Restoration planning for the Seoul metropolitan area, Korea. In: Carreiro MM, Song YC, Wu J, editors. Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests. New York: Springer; 2008b. p. 393-419.
  33. Lee CS, Jeong YM, Kang HS. Concept, direction, and task of ecological restoration. J Restor Ecol. 2011;2(1):59-71.
  34. Lee CS, Lee H, Kim AR, Pi JH, Bae YJ, Choi JK, et al. Ecological effects of daylighting and plant reintroduction to the Cheonggye stream in Seoul, Korea. Ecol Eng. 2020;152(1):105879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105879.
  35. Lee CS, Woo HS. Futuristic direction of river restoration in Asian countries under changing climate regime. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Joint Seminar between Korean and Japan on Ecology a Korea and Civil Engineering held in Honam University; Gwangju: Korea; 2006. p. 16-18.
  36. Lee CS, You YH. Creation of an environmental forest as an ecological restoration. Korean J Ecol. 2001:24(2):101-9.
  37. Lee TB. Illustrated flora of Korea. Seoul: HyangMoonSa; 1985.
  38. Lim CH, Pi JH, Kim AR, Cho HJ, Lee KS, You YH, et al. Diagnostic evaluation and preparation of the reference information for river restoration in South Korea. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):1724. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041724.
  39. Luderitz V, Jupner R, Muller S, Feld CK. Renaturalization of streams and rivers - the special importance of integrated ecological methods in measurement of success. An example from Saxony-Anhalt (Germany). Limnologica. 2004;34(3):249-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0075-9511(04)80049-5.
  40. Magurran AE. Measuring biological diversity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2003.
  41. McDonald T, Gann GD, Jonson J, Dixon KW. International standards for the practice of ecological restoration-including principles and key concepts. Washington, D.C.: Society for Ecological Restoration; 2016.
  42. Ministry of Environment. River restoration model and criteria to recover health of the aquatic ecosystem. Gwacheon: Ministry of Environment; 2007.
  43. Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. New York: Wiley; 1974.
  44. National Research Council, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council; 1991.
  45. Oksanen J. Vegan: an introduction to ordination. 2022. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/vignettes/intro-vegan.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2024.
  46. Palmer M, Allan JD, Meyer J, Bernhardt ES. River restoration in the twenty-first century: data and experiential knowledge to inform future efforts. Restor Ecol. 2007;15(3):472-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00243.x.
  47. Park SA, Kim GS, Pee JGH, Oh WS, Kim HS, Lee CS. Reference information for realizing ecological restoration of river: a case study in the Bongseonsa stream. J Ecol Environ. 2013;36(4):235-43. https://doi.org/10.5141/ecoenv.2013.235.
  48. Park SH. Colored illustrations of naturalized plants of Korea. Seoul: Ilchokak; 1995.
  49. Rood SB, Gourley CR, Ammon EM, Heki LG, Klotz JR, Morrison ML, et al. Flows for floodplain forests: a successful riparian restoration. BioScience. 2003;53(7):647-56. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0647:FFFFAS]2.0.CO;2.
  50. Seavy NE, Gardali T, Golet GH, Griggs FT, Howell CA, Kelsey R, et al. Why climate change makes riparian restoration more important than ever: recommendations for practice and research. Ecol Restor. 2009;27(3):330-8.
  51. Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J. 1948;27(3):379-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x.
  52. Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. The SER international primer on ecological restoration. 2004. https://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/littonc/PDFs/682_SERPrimer.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2023.
  53. Tischew S, Baasch A, Conrad MK, Kirmer A. Evaluating restoration success of frequently implemented compensation measures: results and demands for control procedures. Restor Ecol. 2010;18(4):467-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00462.x.
  54. White PS, Walker JL. Approximating nature's variation: selecting and using reference information in restoration ecology. Restor Ecol. 1997;5(4):338-49. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.1997.00547.x.
  55. Whittier TR, Stoddard JL, Larsen DP, Herlihy AT. Selecting reference sites for stream biological assessments: best professional judgment or objective criteria. J North Am Benthol Soc. 2007;26(2):349-60. https://doi.org/10.1899/0887-3593(2007)26[349:SRSFSB]2.0.CO;2.
  56. Wilson KA, Lulow M, Burger J, Fang YC, Andersen C, Olson D, et al. Optimal restoration: accounting for space, time and uncertainty. J Appl Ecol. 2011;48(3):715-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01975.x.