Spatio-Temporal Heterogeneity of Riparian Soil Morphology in a Restored ﬂoodplain B

Home , Soil morphology

Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open1 Access ect of these ﬀ Open Access Discussions Discussions Discussions Discussions Discussions Discussions Discussions Discussions Discussions Discussions Discussions Discussions

Climate Sciences Sciences Dynamics Chemistry of the Past Solid Earth Techniques Geoscientific Methods and Methods and Physics Atmospheric Atmospheric Data Systems Data Geoscientific Earth System Earth Earth System Earth System Measurement Instrumentation Instrumentation Hydrology and and Hydrology Ocean Science Annales Biogeosciences The Cryosphere Natural Hazards and Earth System Model Development Model Geophysicae , and E. A. D. Mitchell 4 cient ecological indicator that could ﬃ ˆ atel, Rue Emile-Argand 11, Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access Open Access

4338 4337 Climate , G. Bullinger-Weber Sciences Sciences Dynamics Chemistry of the Past Solid Earth Techniques Geoscientific Methods and Methods 2,3,* and Physics Advances in Atmospheric Atmospheric Data Systems Data Geoscientific Geosciences Earth System Earth System Earth System Earth Measurement Instrumentation Instrumentation Hydrology and and Hydrology Ocean Science Biogeosciences The Cryosphere Natural Hazards ´ erale de Lausanne (EPFL), School of Architecture, Civil and EGU Journal Logos (RGB) and Earth System and Earth ´ ed Model Model Development , C. Guenat 1,2,3,* ˆ atel, Switzerland Soil morphology provides structural and functional information on floodplain ecosys- We studied the spatio-temporal heterogeneity of soil morphology in a restored Soil diversity and dynamism increased five years after the restoration, but typical This discussion paper is/has been under review for the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS). Please refer to the corresponding final paper in HESS if available. Biogeosciences Laboratory, Institute of Geology and Paleontology, University of Lausanne, Laboratory of Soil Biology, University of Neuch WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Research Unit Ecole Polytechnique F These two authors contributed equally to this paper. voirs, supply of natural resources,and and are flood increasingly regulation (Malmqvist appreciated and for Rundle, their 2002) aesthetic value and for recreational uses tems and allows predictingerogeneity broad of changes soil in morphology plant representseasily a diversity. be The cost-e integrated spatio-temporal into het- rapidprojects. assessment protocols of floodplain and river restoration 1 Introduction Floodplains fulfil ecological, economic and social functions such as biodiversity reser- soils of braided rivers were stilletation missing. changes. Soil These typicality and results dynamismwith suggest correlated a evaluations to veg- limited carried success outmethods of at (e.g. the soil the project fauna, same in fish, site agreement ecosystem functioning). using other, more resource demanding in floodplain restoration assessment. (riverbed widening) river reach alongdiversity, River dynamism Thur and (Switzerland) using typicality)that three and criteria these their (soil criteria associatedmorphology indicators. would within We correctly the hypothesized discriminate studyvascular plant site, the diversity. and post-restoration that changes these in changes soil correspond to patterns of Floodplains have been intensivelycreasingly altered being in restored industrialized andrestoration countries, projects it but on the are is aquatic now therefore anda terrestrial in- functionally important components crucial of to component ecosystems. of assess Soils terrestrial are ecosystems the but e are generally overlooked Abstract Environmental Engineering (ENAC), Laboratory of1015 Ecological Lausanne, Systems Switzerland 4 (ECOS), station 2, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland * Received: 28 January 2013 – Accepted: 18Correspondence March to: 2013 B. – Fournier Published: ([email protected]) 5 AprilPublished 2013 by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 1 2000 Neuch 2 Community Ecology, Site Lausanne, station1015 2, Lausanne, Switzerland 3 Spatio-temporal heterogeneity of riparian soil morphology in a restored floodplain B. Fournier Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.,www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/10/4337/2013/ 10, 4337–4367, 2013 doi:10.5194/hessd-10-4337-2013 © Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License. 5 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ciency ffi ects of excep- ff ciency, optimization of future pro- ffi erent factors that are related to important ff 4340 4339 ective monitoring tools are extremely precious; existing ff Here we explore the possible use of riparian soil morphology as indicators of flood- Soils are simpler to monitor than vegetation and hydrology. In contrast to biological Soils play a central role in critical ecosystem processes (e.g. decomposition, wa- In the last decades, the primary goal of floodplain management has shifted from pects of soil morphology(and along associated the river indicators) lateral designed(2) gradient. to soil We cover considered dynamism, three thesewould and criteria main reflect (3) changes aspects: in soil (1) vascular plant typicality. soil diversity We diversity, and hypothesised vegetation type. that these three criteria and assessment of river restoration projects. plain dynamics by studyinga restored the river reach spatio-temporal along heterogeneitypost-restoration River changes Thur of (Switzerland). in soil Our soil main morphology morphology aim in was as to well assess as the the variations of the main as- field campaign. However, in orderto understand to how use they soils changesearch in over on monitoring time the programs (Cole impact and it ofsuch Kentula, is river as 2011). necessary restoration To organic on date, matter floodplain mostet soil re- accumulation al., have and focused 2009; decomposition ondenitrification processes Bush, (Sifneos (Orr et 2008), et al., litter al., 2010;tegrate decomposition 2007; soil Stein Sutton-Grier (Ballantine physical, et chemical and and al.,2008) Schneider, biological 2010). and 2009), factors There soil and or is temporal processes dynamics thus (Heneghan (Ballantine a et and need al., Schneider, to 2009) in- into the planning namics, soil biota activity or pedogenesis. surveys that are dependent onadult species’ stages) developmental or stages population (e.g. fluctuationstional vernal (e.g. climatic species, seasonal event), or migration, soil and morphology e can be assessed in any season and in a single processes occurring in floodplain ecosystems such as erosion/sedimentation, flood dy- ter filtering), and areWardle, among 2002). the For main example,(Caylor soil drivers et of conditions al., 2005) community strongly andthe assembly determine vegetation plant (Gobat, influences vegetation productivity soil 2010; and dynamics properties such diversity2001). as (Naiman organic Through et matter their al., content (Quideau 2005). morphology, etture, In soils al., turn, and also provide record informationBullinger-Weber past on and and ecosystem Gobat, struc- present 2006).a fluvial This site information dynamics has may (Gerrard,2011). been be Soil 1992; ditched, especially morphology drained, Daniels, is useful and 2003; influenced when stripped by di of its vegetation (Cole and Kentula, monitoring is mainlyRapid due yet to informative, lack cost-e ofmethods consider funding hydrology, physical and beyond biological structures, thetext and (Rohde practical the et landscape restoration con- al., 2004), project. but only include general elements with respect to soils. services such as protection againstcreasing flood, worldwide biodiversity (Nakamura and et drinking al., water 2006,et is 2009; Palmer al., strongly and in- 2005; Bernhardt, 2006; Wohl Palmer for et adaptive al., management, 2005). evaluation Assessinggrams, of the and project outcome gaining of e projects these public often projects acceptance lack is post-restoration (Woolsey essential monitoring(with et using well-defined al., standardized criteria evaluation 2007). methods (Palmer and However, et restoration indicators), al., which 2007; would Sudduth et increase al., their 2007; cost-e Bernhardt et al., 2005, 2007). This lack of ecosystems worldwide (Malmqvist and Rundle, 2002; Tockner and Stanford, 2002). controlling rivers to restoring theirand biodiversity, services ecological (Malmqvist quality and andthe Rundle, related 2002; number functions Tockner and of Stanford, river 2002). As restoration a projects result, aiming at increasing ecosystem goods and (Nassauer et al., 2001). However, floodplains are also one of the most threatened 5 5 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ¨ auli”. ff ¨ a open habi- ). The project and the aver- 1 − growing on deeper soils. Salix viminalis alluvial forest that was not, or only marginally, impacted by 4342 4341 erentiated situations within the study site based control erent variables were used to describe soil profiles ff ff C. Restoration of the site was conducted in two steps. ◦ erences among these three areas, revealing how the restoration ff with poorly developed soils closest to the river. Restoration had the highest impact ected the functioning of this riparian zone. Soils were surveyed by describing the morphology of profiles and horizons from We distinguished three well-di ff a distance-based method1987). that Positive assesses values the indicate quality correct of classifications each and cluster negative – un-correct (Rousseeuw, ones remains; biological activity features. 2.3 Soil characteristics and typology In order to describetypologies changes (Table 1). in Two typologies soil (profile profiles andplete topsoil) and were linkage topsoils, generated algorithm using we the constructed which com- 2001) site-specific preserves and small thus clusters preventsincluded of groups observations in composed (Everitt larger by et groups. al., few points Clusters (i.e. validity rare was soil evaluated types) using to be silhouette width – of coarse elements (%); presence,morphic type (reduction features; or depth oxidation), and ofdescriptions intensity the of were hydro- first based horizon on:ture with horizon type; hydromorphic volumetric thickness proportion features (cm); of (cm).type texture; coarse (reduction Topsoil elements root or and oxidation) density; and organic soil intensity matter of (%); struc- hydromorphic presence, features; macroscopic plant (up to a distance of73 about sampling 15 points. m Two transects from were the selectedpoint river) within and the every control then 3 area every m with 3distance a m resulting sampling to resulting in the in river a 22 of total sampling each of sampling points. point The were recorded. auger precise borings location, (1.2 elevation mand and length). topsoils. Di Profilesandy, characterization loamy, clay, or was humic horizons; based total on: number of profile horizons, volumetric depth percentage (cm); number of Soil surveys were carriedtopographical out surveys over in time, summer each65 2007 starting m along at further the five where main transects noselected river in corresponding more bed the floodplain to and restored area ending soils with about were a sampling encountered. point Three every 1.5 transects m were in the most variable part 2.2 Data acquisition tats on this zone. FurtherThis forest from was present the beforethis river restoration area. and lays Finally, restoration we an had used onlystream an a from un-restored limited the impact section restored on one ofthe as the a restoration. same We site expected locatedbelow directly the to up- criteria show clear and di indicatorsa of soil morphology presented on field observationsrestoration, (topography river and maps vegetation), andSwiss available illustrations lowland from information braided the rivers on (Moor, early 1958; the1976; 19th Imboden, 1976; Roulier, century, site Gallandat historical 1998), et data al., andet 1993; on al., Baer, the 2003; literature IUSS Working on Group, braided 2006). The river first soils situation corresponds (AFES, to 2008; Guenat (Schneider, 2011). We selectedThe a site study lies at siteage 365 along annual m temperature the a.s.l. is Annual Thur 7.9 Following precipitation River a is major near flood about “Sch in 1000the mmyr 1995, riverbed the was bed protection widenedremoval structures along and were a the removed. 1.5 new In km 2002, bankaimed stretch stabilized to from by improve 50 planting flood to willowshance protection, the ( 110 m ecological to quality by maintain of embankments the drinkable river. water resources and to en- 2.1 Study site The Thur River restoration isto among date the and biggest river includes widening post-restoration projects monitoring in and Switzerland evaluations of several stretches 2 Methods 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ˜ nez et al., ´ a ˜ nez, 2004, 2007; Ib ´ a ˜ na and Ib cient restoration should allow the complete ffi 4344 4343 cient river restoration should lead to recreating or ffi ´ anez et al., 1995). Information on richness, diversity and evenness of soil types floodplain forest) and control areas. + Elevation deltas (i.e. the surface elevation variation of a given point measured Practically, we plotted the total number of horizons per meter (Hm) against distance phic features and clay-rich soils generally increase in frequency in lower river reaches. erosion/sedimentation patterns for each distance class. 2.4.3 Soil typicality criterion Typical floodplain soils are mainlypact of characterised water by saturation on their theirquency limited morphology and evolution and duration functioning. and of They waterlogging. the all Anrange im- show e varying of fre- typical floodplainpends soils on the to fluvial develop dynamic at and is a therefore site. context-specific. This For example, potential hydromor- range of soils de- the restoration and theirdistance associated standard class. deviations Finally, were twoand first five-year calculated floods after for (HQ5) the each showingauthorities restoration similar (Canton were discharges Thurgau) selected before andvalues based on just on the before available and hydrological cross-section after surveys data. each of The of the elevation these local two floods were used to characterize the tats through time) were calculated using cross-sectionpositive topographical deltas surveys. Negative are and duesections respectively data to covering net afrom erosion 2002 period to and ranging 2007 deposition from (aftertime restoration) processes. 1996 and were Cross to used flood to 2002used assess events. (before elevation Seven to variations restoration) classes through characterize and of the distance lateral to gradient. the Average elevation river deltas (10 m before sections) and were after maintaining such a mosaic of soils. to river toeral get gradient. a The 2-D soilpatterns dynamism picture (1) criterion along of was the the assessed river erosion/sedimentation lateral by gradient processes comparing and the along (2) resulting the between the lat- restored (open habi- of soil morphologies. Therefore, e namic creates through floods and in situ pedogenesis between flood events a mosaic characterize the distributions ofalpha profile diversity and according topsoil to Hill groups.(N1 (1973): We richness and used (N0), N2) five Shannon measures and andsurrogate of Simpson evenness of diversity (N1/N0 species for and the N2/N0, calculations respectively). of these We metrics. 2.4.2 used soil types Soil as dynamism Soil dynamism is defined here aserosion the successions processes through time related of to sedimentation and/or the fluvial regime. In natural floodplains, the fluvial dy- 1998; Ib may be useful forthat evaluating restoration can projects, be especiallywas observed given the first in mosaic estimated floodplains. of byarea Soil soils closed comparing morphology to pedodiversity spatio-temporal the indices, river heterogeneity (restored), among and the the forest, control managed the pasture open (non-restored) to For each criterion and indicator derivedpossible from values, the an soil application typologies domain we (soilfor defined profiles its the and/or use range horizons), of (Table 2). and the rationale 2.4.1 Soil diversity Tools for measuring pedodiversity(Toomanian and increasingly Esfandiarpoor, attract 2010; Salda the attention of soil scientists To facilitate comparisons amongour studies, classification we of indicated soil2008; the IUSS profiles correspondence Working and Group between WRB, two 2006). standard soil2.4 taxonomy references (AFES, Soil criteria and indicators respectively. The calculations of the indicators were based on the resulting soil groups. 5 5 25 15 20 10 20 15 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 0.42) and = erentiation, in situ ff erent areas of the site both ff ered between soil profiles and ff 0.44). Most soils could be clas- 0.001, for Hm values and standard = p < 4346 4345 erent sectors could be distinguished along the ff 0.003 and = p ered significantly between the restored and control areas ff erent sampling sessions were pooled together in order to have a site X ff floodplain forest) using the same set of metrics as for pedodiversity. We then + The average sedimentation and erosion rates were higher between 1996 and 2002 We calculated vascular plant species biodiversity for the three areas (open habi- than for the period after restoration (Fig. 2). Indeed, the average negative elevation river-upland gradient. Between 0 andnant 5 m, and Hm soil was development null. could Erosionslightly. not processes occur. Sedimentation were Between domi- could 5 and occurtween 20 m, with 20 Hm and some values 35 increased m, accumulationssoil Hm of development values (i.e. organic showed accumulation matter. apedogenesis) of high Be- alternated. organic Between variation. matter, 35 Erosion, soil and sedimentation,decreased 50 layer and m, and di soil Hm development values increased. werehorizons Further, more Hm per stable. values meter. Erosion stabilized at about two deviation respectively) and betweention. the The open pattern and was forest flatrarely habitats in influenced in the control the by area restored fluvialhomogenous (Fig. sec- dynamics 1). all Indeed, and along the as the controlthe area a lateral pattern was result, gradient. was only highly By soils variable. contrast, were Five in di well the developed restored and area (Fig. 1), topsoils. Evenness of profile groups wasriver, maximal while in the the forest evenness and of(control) minimal and horizon close minimal groups to in the was the maximal forest. in the3.3 non-restored pasture Soil dynamism Soil dynamism as assessedter by (Hm) the along variation transects of(Kruskal–Wallis di Rank the Sum total Tests, number of horizons per me- Profile and topsoil diversitystored and area richness and were lowest in highestdiate the in values. floodplain More the forest soil (Table open groups 3). (bothwas habitats The topsoil higher control of and close area profile) the to were had the represent interme- river. and Evenness soil of variability soil groups di 3.2 Soil diversity 3.1 Soil typology The cluster analysisseven revealed groups eight of groups topsoilssified (average as of Fluvisols silhouette profiles and width to (silhouette aclassification, lesser or width extent FLUVIOSOL, Stagnosols or REDOXISOL Gleysols,classification. or according The REDUCTISOL to average the according of WRB to each the variable within AFES each group are given in Table 1. vegetation types and, thus, whethersional patterns soil of morphology vegetation. was a good predictor of succes- 3 Results the Braun-Blanquet method (1964) inout 41 the plots restored (4 m andspatial radius reference correspondence circles) areas. with distributed Among through- thetrol. soil these survey, The plots, 22 di 26 in were thespecies selected matrix restored representing area for an and their entire 4 year. in the con- tats assessed whether the changes in soil morphology observed in Fig. 1 corresponded to for the entire profiles and for the topsoil horizons. 2.5 Vegetation survey Vegetation surveys were conducted seven times between April 2008 and 2009 using We compared the frequency of soil groups among the di 5 5 25 15 20 10 20 15 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Fraxinus erences in , (4) willow ff 0.02). Along the river 0.16 m). = = p Phalaris arundinacea 0.21 m after. The same trend was erent before and after the restora- ff − 0.002), and between the control and re- 0.22 m and after = = p ered significantly before and after the restora- 4348 4347 ff thickets vs. willow bushes where di , (5) a deciduous forest dominated by . It was thus not meaningful to include it in the 0.54 m and only − Phalaris forest) areas after the restoration ( erentiated vegetation successional stages along the lateral + ff Salix viminalis Arrhenatherum elatius far from the river. The control (un-restored) area was a managed pasture ect of a similar five-year flood di ff Vegetation was expected to respond to the composition of profile groups. As ex- Plant species diversity and evenness were higher in the forest whereas the open The transition between (1) the open and forest areas (profile groups 2 and 3) and Observed patterns in topsoil groups confirmed those of profile groups (Table 4): Hu- The e 4) was associated to organicas matter organic accumulation matter (topsoil 4). content Data and from origin, topsoils, are such therefore complementary to those provided vegetation did not match thosethe observed willow in bushes soil. were Thissuccession. planted is most during likely the due restoration to and the are fact that notpected, part the of typicality the criterion natural within was the successful site in (Fig. 5). predicting Pioneer thement vegetation (profile broad appeared 5) with vegetation whereas the types when first soils stageswas were of present. too soil Vegetation develop- poorly colonization developed (profile in 4) the no vegetation most dynamic part of the gradient (profile sion of plant communities along the river lateral gradient. habitats and forest had similar valuesevenness of paralleled species diversity. The the increase one inand plant in diversity. species Vegetation soil successional stages evenness, corresponded butThe to notable this those exception in was was soil the not dynamism. the case for richness In total, 100 speciesganized into were identified five well-di atgradient: (1) the the Thur closest Riverof to pioneer the site. vegetation river, These and, no species (3) vegetationbushes a or were dominated thicket only or- by dominated isolated by plants,excelsior (2) patches dominated by succession and compare it with the other habitats. We rather focused on the succes- Topsoils showing hydromorphic featurescounted (group for 7) 3 % remained of marginal the since investigated topsoils. they ac- 3.5 Vegetation material lacking organic matter occurred close to the river (topsoil types 2 and 3). and pasture areas (topsoilcoarse type residues 1), in whereas the open organic restored matter area was (topsoil mainly types composed 4 and by 7). Topsoils with coarse sedimentation processes, and moderately influencedsoils by water are table not fluctuations. Such typicalan of indication of active human floodplainssediments). activity along A (i.e. natural single embanking braided profile(profile and was rivers, type associated characterized but 8), reworking by indicating are of the quasi-permanenttered rather soil presence waterlogging, along the a and of lateral situation a branches typically reduced of encoun- braided horizon rivers where watermified discharge organic is matter low. deeply incorporated to the soil was characteristic of the forest the control for therestoration entire led profiles to and the topsoilthat creation horizons correspond of to (Table thin the 4). and initial In coarse stages the of soils open soil (profile development habitats, types under(2) 4 high the more fluvial and stable dynamism. 5, forest and Tableence 1) control of pasture soil (profile group with 1) low was marked coarse by material the content pres- which are little impacted by erosion and tion. Before the restoration, erosionthe forces river. concentrated Further on away, the erosioncur. first forces After thirty were restoration, meters weaker from thedominant, and but sedimentation pattern erosion started occurred was marginally. to more oc- regular. Sedimentation3.4 processes were Soil typicality Soil group abundances were compared among the open habitats, the alluvial forest and found for the average positive delta (before tion (Fig. 3; Kruskal–Wallis Rank Sumstored Test (i.e. open habitats lateral gradient, the patterns were conspicuously di delta before the restoration was 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | , ¨ oss and Inula Helvetica and ¨ oss, 2004; Fl erent methods, criteria and ff erently impacted by the fluvial ff mainly occurred on stable, moist erent, the results we obtained us- Typha minima ff Fraxinion) 4350 4349 In the context of river restoration, indicators should be easily measured, be sensi- Previous evaluations of the same site, but based on di Given the known importance of soil type in determining vascular plant communi- integrative (Palmer et al., 2005). Our results show that soil morphology criterion and Although the methods useding were soil fundamentally morphology di were inused agreement with also these allowed other investigating evaluations.diversity The complementary indicators criterion aspects we proved of tocriterion floodplain be discriminated restoration: complementary precisely the the todynamic zones vegetation that and surveys, were the di the typicalityzones. dynamism criterion allowed characterizing the changes among these tive to stresses on the system, demonstrate predictable responses to stresses and be habitat diversity had been improved byical the widening complexity but was that still the considerably current impairedhistorical geomorpholog- in near-natural the shoreline. Rohde restored et reach al. inscape (2004) comparison indexes used and with GIS vegetation methods and based concludedvegetation on that land- naturalness the but widening in improved the a degree limited of way as compared to other restoration projects. phology in early project planning.soil Thus, morphology five years suggest after that river thissoil widening, restoration the habitat project indicators and was of vegetation. a partial success in restoring indicators, reached similar conclusions.blage Woolsey structure et and al. composition (2007)concluded were found that similar that in the fish embanked restorationral assem- and of abundance restored River and reaches Thur diversity and of failed fauna. to Weber meet et the al. objectives (2009) ‘near showed natu- that hydro-physical described here can thusother allow predicting organisms major responding changes eitherin in directly vegetation potential to – vegetation resulting changes –and from in and restoration the soil project. dramatic type The changes orthe increased of lack to diversity of dynamism of the typical hydromorphic suggest soil changes soils a types could have positive been impact improved by of integrating soil restoration, mor- but not yet able to colonize the site. The dynamism and typicality of soil morphology as ber of vegetation successional stages.strongly Soils under-represented typical of and floodplain the lateral channels vegetation were associated with such conditions was ties (Gobat, 2010), wewould hypothesized provide that an a indirect relativelydiversity source simple of study of a of information site. soil onthe This morphology the influence was of potential not factors vegetation theconnectivity, such and case biotic as plant for interactions soil diversity and chemistry, andness water species richness of and reservoir. most soil nutrient However groups, availability, likely changes surface, vegetation, and due in in in to agreement the soil with our even- dynamism hypotheses. and Indeed, the typicality Hm paralleled index those reflected the observed num- for diverse and dynamic patternsfrom of soils the close river toby were the the river. less Habitats restored frequently located fluvial furthering exposed dynamic. away significant However, to restoration surfaces floods had of not(AFES, and hydromorphic 2008; yet therefore soils Guenat succeeded typical et less in al., of influenced creat- 2003; braided IUSS river Working lateral Group, 2006). branches 4 Discussion The restoration of River Thurand globally increased typicality. soil It diversity, changed and(e.g. improved the intensity dynamism fluvial of erosion/sedimentation dynamics processes; leadingcontent) coarse to material and changes and soil organic in functioning matter occurred soil within (e.g. morphology the loss first of 30 m hydromorphy). from The the most river. striking Post-restoration fluvial changes dynamics created soils (profiles 2 and 7).vegetation Potential of surfaces braided of river suitable lateral hydromorphicfor branches soils such which as for reintroduction the typical plansKeel, 2004), exist were in only Switzerland limitedtype in (Keel 8). our and study Fl area (i.e. only one sampling point for profile from profile morphology. Alluvial forests ( 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | orts, ff erent ff , 2009. , 2008. ers many advantages (ease of ff , 2005. doi:10.1890/07-0588.1 ¨ uge der Vegetationskunde, Springer, Vienna, ects of floodplain restoration. According to ff 4352 4351 ´ edologique 2008, Collection Savoir-Faire, Editions , 2006. ´ doi:10.2136/sssaj2007.0120 erentiel p ´ ef doi:10.1126/science.1109769 ective) that make it a promising approach for the river restoration ff The authors kindly acknowledge: the ETH-Domain Competence Center ´ edologique 2008, Collection Savoir-Faire, Editions Quae, Versailles, Paris, ´ eographie de la Suisse, Editions Delta, Vevey, 1976. ´ erentiel p ´ ef erent soil successional phases in determining long-term trajectories of ecosystem ton, S., Dahm, C., Follstad-Shah,Jenkinson, J., R., Galat, Katz, D., S., Gloss,Pagano, Kondolf, S., L., G. Goodwin, M., Powell, P., Hart, B., Lake, D., and P.Science, S., Hassett, 308, Sudduth, Lave, B., 636–637, E.: R., Meyer, Ecology: J. synthesizing L., US O’Donnell, river T. K., restoration e 1964. formation: thedoi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.07.016 case of aSci. Soc. Am. Swiss J., 72, 815–822, alpine floodplain, Geomorphology, 74, 181–195, Follastad-Shah, J., Hassett, B., Jenkinson,ing R., rivers Lave, R., one Rumps, reachRestor. J., Ecol., and at 15, Pagano, L.: a 482–493, Restor- 2007. time: results from a survey of US river restoration practitioners, Quae, Versailles, Paris, 2008. depressional wetlands, Ecol. Appl., 19, 1467–1480, 2008. Despite the known importance of soils in terrestrial ecology, soil morphology has We studied the relatively short-term e ff Bush, J. K.: Soil Nitrogen and Carbon after Twenty Years of Riparian Forest Development, Soil Bernhardt, E. S., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clay- Bullinger-Weber, G. and Gobat, J. M.: Identification of facies models in alluvial soil Braun-Blanquet, J.: Pflanzensoziologie, Grundz Bernhardt, E. S., Sudduth, E. B., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., Meyer, J. L., Alexander, G., Baize, D. and Girard, M.-C.: R Ballantine, K. and Schneider, R.: Fifty-five years of soil development in restored freshwater Baer, O.: G AFES: R References Acknowledgements. Environment and Sustainability (CCES)and project Ralph RECORD Thielen for for funding, helping Karin in the Grin data for collection. fieldwork evaluator’s tool kit. use, quick and cost-e evaluation methods. The analysis of soil morphology o Our results show thatand soil that morphology typicality responded fastmorphology and has and dynamism the clearly correlated potential to toprotocols to improve river (Sifneos the vegetation restoration et quality changes. al., and 2010; accuracy Analysis Stein of of et rapid al., assessment soil 2009). been under-used for the assessmentriver of restoration floodplain projects restoration is success. increasing The rapidly but number there of is still no general agreement on development should be consideredwould in therefore restoration be design, useful research, tostudy and site assess monitoring. and the It other longer-term comparable trends restored of floodplains. soil development at the 5 Conclusions have to occur to potentially modifycesses the should soil be morphology. frequent, Erosional ideally andfloodplains” corresponding depositional river to pro- the category “medium-energy of non Nansonanastomosing cohesive and channels. Croke (1992) with braided, meandering and Ballantine and Schneider (2009) as soilonly development is appears a relatively to slow process, acceleratedi which later in the successional recovery sequence, the role of riverbed widening but in ourserved case, five clear years changes after inand soil restoration. complementary morphology levels Furthermore, were of soil alreadythe information time ob- indicators (i.e. between provide soil the units/profile, two restorationogy topsoil). di depends and Nevertheless, on the the integration fluvial of regime. the Successive floods changes (including into HQ5, soil HQ10, morphol- or HQ20) indicators fit these requirements. Soils may respond slowly to perturbations such as 5 5 15 25 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ´ eral de ´ ed , 2008. ˆ ale, 1976. , 2009. ce f Hoppe), Arten- ffi ¨ urich, Fachstelle , 2006. ´ erieur, B doi:10.1016/S0016- , 1995. ˆ ets riveraines des cours Weber), Artenschutzmass- ¨ urich, Fachstelle Naturschutz ´ eral de l’Int , 2003. Typha minima ects of Restoration and Reflood- ´ ed , 2002. ff ´ e et fonctionnement des sols sous la ´ Alvarez, A.: Pedodiversity: concepts and Inula helvetica a- ı ¨ ´ utenpflanzen im Kanton Z , 1992. ´ epartement f doi:10.1029/2005WR004354 ` ese, diversit doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00477.x 4354 4353 , 2001. , 2005. ¨ utenpflanzen im Kanton Z doi:10.1016/0341-8162(95)00028-Q , 1973. ´ ecologie, fonctions et gestion, in: For ¨ urich, 2004. ´ udez, F. F., and Garc ¨ ahrdete Farn- und Bl doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0419:rawrlf]2.0.co;2 ˆ doi:10.1017/S0376892902000097 ets et du paysage (OFEFP), Berne, 1993. doi:10.1016/S0169-555X(03)00153-3 , 2007. ¨ urich, Z ¨ ur gef , 1998. ¨ urich, 2004. ¨ ahrdete Farn- und Bl ¨ oss, I.: Aktionsplan Schweizer Alant ( doi:10.1016/0169-555X(92)90039-Q doi:10.2307/1934352 ¨ ur gef ¨ urich, Z 10.1016/j.advwatres.2004.08.013 ´ ependance d’un cours d’eau: ˜ nez, J. J., De-Alba, S., Lobo, A., and Zucarello, V.: Pedodiversity and global soil pat- and Sudduth, E.: Standards208–217, for 2005. ecologically successful river restoration, J. Appl. Ecol., 42, synthesis, Water Resour. Res., 42, W03S07, Clayton, S., Dahm, C.Hassett, B., N., Jenkinson, R., Shah, Kondolf, G. J. M., F., Lave, R., Galat, Meyer, J. D. L., L., O’Donnell, T. K., Loss, Pagano, L., S. G., Goodwin, P., Hart, D. D., ing on Soil Denitrificationdoi:10.1890/06-2113.1 in a Leveed Midwestern Floodplain, Ecol. Appl., 17, 2365–2376, measures, Catena, 24, 215–232, terns at coarse7061(97)00147-X scales (with discussion), Geoderma, 83, 171–192, port 103, FAO, Rome, 128 pp., 2006. lessons for Japan, Ecol. Civ. Eng., 8, 201–214, 2006. Bioscience, 56, 419–429, 459–486, logical inovation indoi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb03650.x riparian landscapes, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 37, 1439–1443, 427–432, and importance ofneous heterogeneity landscapes, in Springer-Verlag, New riparian York, 279–309, systems, 2005. in: Ecosystem function in heteroge- d d’eau, IDF, Paris, 2003. Rhoades, C. C., andmanagement, Richardson, Restor. Ecol., S.: 16, Integrating 608–617, soil ecological knowledge into restoration Conserv., 29, 134–153, suchsw., 34, 221–360, 1958. nationale: rapport etl’environnement, des annexes, for Cahiers de l’environnement, No. 199,ers, O Enfield, 2010. nahmen f Kanton Z schutzmassnahmen f Naturschutz Kanton Z International Classification, Correlation andzation of Communication, the Food United and Nations, Agriculture Rome, 2006. Organi- phology, 56, 225–242, lands, edited by: LePage, B. A., Springer Netherlands, 137–152, 2011. cal and ecohydrologicaldoi: organization of river basins, Adv. Water Resour., 28, 69–86, ´ ´ ¨ a anez, J. J., De-Albs, S., Berm oss, I. and Keel, A.: Aktionsplan Kleiner Rohrkolben ( Palmer, M.A., Bernhardt, E. S., Allan, J. D., Lake, P. S., Alexander, G., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Palmer, M.A. and Bernhardt, E. S.: Hydroecology and river restoration: Ripe for research and Orr, C. H., Stanley, E. H., Wilson, K. A., and Finlay, J. C.: E Ib IUSS Working Group: World reference base for soil resources, in: World Soil Resources Re- Imboden, C.: Eaux vivantes, edited by: LSPN, D Nakamura, K., Tockner, K., and Amano, K.: River and wetland restoration:Nanson, lessons G. from Japan, C. and Croke, J.Nassauer, C.: A J. genetic I., classification Kosek, of floodplains, S. Geomorphology, E., 4, and Corry, R. C.: Meeting public expectations with eco- Ib Nakamura, K., Amano, K., and Tockner, K.: River restoration: European perspectives and Hill, M. O.: Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences, Ecology, 54, Naiman, R., Bechtold, J., Drake, D., Latterell, J., O’Keefe, T., and Balian, E.: Origins, patterns, Heneghan, L., Miller, S. P., Baer, S., Callaham, M. A., Montgomery, J., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Moor, M.: Pflanzengesellschaften schweizerischer Flussauen, Mit. Sch. Anst. Forstl. Ver- Guenat, C., Bureau, F., and Charnet, F.: Gen Malmqvist, B. and Rundle, S.: Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world, Environ. Gallandat, J. D., Gobat, J.-M., and Roulier, C.: Cartographie des zones alluviales d’importance Gerrard, A. J.: Soil Geomorphology,Gobat, Springer, J. 1992. M.: The Living Soil: Fundamentals of Soil Science and Soil Biology, Science Publish- Keel, A. and Fl Fl Everitt, B., Landau, S., and Leese, M.: Cluster analysis, Hodder Arnold, London, 237 pp., 2001. IUSS Working Group WRB: World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006: a Framework for Daniels, J. M.: Floodplain aggradation and pedogenesis in a semiarid environment, Geomor- Cole, C. and Kentula, M.: Monitoring and assessment – what to measure . . . and why, in: Wet- Caylor, K. K., Manfreda, S., and Rodriguez-Iturbe, I.: On the coupled geomorphologi- 5 5 30 25 30 15 20 25 10 20 15 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | , doi:10.5194/hess-15- doi:10.1672/07-239.1 orts, Restor. Ecol., 15, ff ects of Restoration and Reflooding ff , 2010. ´ etation des zones alluviales de Suisse, Geob- ´ eg 4356 4355 , 2010. , 2007. , 2001. , 2010. , 2007. ¨ urgi, M.: Assessing the restoration success of river widenings: ˜ nez, J. J.: Pedodiversity, connectance and spatial variabil- doi:10.1134/s1064229310130089 ´ a , 2009. ˜ nez, J. J.: Pedodiversity analysis at large scales: an example of , N. L., and Tarboton, D.: River restoration, Water Resour. Res., 41, 1– ´ a ff , 2011. doi:10.1890/06-2113.1 ˜ ˜ na, A. and Ib na, A. and Ib oi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.02.007, 2004. Roulier, C., Schweizer, S.,to Tiegs, assess river S. restoration D., success, Tockner, Freshwater K., Biol., 52, Weber, 752–769, C., 2007. and Peter, A.: A strategy Palmer, M. A., Po 12, 2005. doi:10.1002/rra.1176 Sci., 43, 1486–1502, ponents, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2002. local river widenings: a case study on a swiss river, River Res. Appl., 25, 687–701, doi:10.1007/s13157-010-0093-z tween ecosystem structure andexamining function denitrification using potential structuraldoi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.11.015 in equation modelling: restored a wetland case soils, study Ecol. Model.,Conserv., 29, 221, 308–330, 2002. 761–768, Cirpka, O. A.: Towards improved instrumentation forin assessing river-groundwater a interactions restored river corridor, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15,ment 2531–2549, Protocol to a comprehensive measure of wetland condition, Wetlands, 30, 1011–1022, eastern United States, Restor. Ecol., 15, 573–583, 2007. three fluvial terraces ofd the Henares River (central Spain), Geomorphology,ity 62, 123–138, ofdoi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.06.006 soil properties,soil-water characteristics what from texture, Soil is Sci. Soc. Am. J., the 50, 1031–1036, 1986. relationship?, Ecol.2531-2011 Model., 208, 342–352, and Grosso, C.: Validation offramework for a method wetland testing and rapid refinement,2009. assessment Wetlands, 29, method: 648–665, use of Epa’s level 1-2-3 a landscape approach, Environ. Manage., 34, 574–589, 2004. otanica Helvetica, 72, 138 pp., 1998. ysis, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 20, 53–65, 1987. between forest vegetation type anddoi:10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00055-6 soil organic matter composition, Geoderma, 104, 41–60, Assessment & Planning, PhD thesis,133 pp., Swiss 2004. Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich, on Soil Denitrification in a2376, Leveed Midwestern Floodplain, Ecological Applications, 17, 2365– First Century: Data and472–481, Experiential 2007. Knowledge to Inform Future E Woolsey, S., Capelli, F., Gonser, T., Hoehn, E., Hostmann, M., Junker, B., Paetzold, A., Wohl, E., Angermeier, P. L., Bledsoe, B., Kondolf, G. M., MacDonnell, L., Merritt, D. M., Weber, C., Schager, E., and Peter, A.: Habitat diversity and fish assemblage structure in Toomanian, N. and Esfandiarpoor, I.: Challenges of pedodiversity in soilWardle, science, D. Eurasian A.: Communities Soil and Ecosystems: Linking the Aboveground and Belowground Com- Tockner, K. and Stanford, J. A.: Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends, Environ. Sutton-Grier, A. E., Kenney, M. A., and Richardson, C. J.: Examining the relationship be- Schneider, P., Vogt, T., Schirmer, M., Doetsch, J., Linde, N., Pasquale, N., Perona,Sifneos, P., J., and Herlihy, A., Jacobs, A., and Kentula, M.: Calibration of the Delaware Rapid Assess- Sudduth, E. B., Meyer, J. L., and Bernhardt, E. S.: Stream restoration practices in the south- Saxton, K. E., Rawls, W. J., Romberger, J. S., and Papendick, R. I.: Estimating generalized Salda Salda Stein, E. D., Fetscher, A. E., Clark, R. P., Wiskind, A., Grenier, J. L., Sutula, M., Collins, J. N., Rousseeuw, P.: Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster anal- Rohde, S., Kienast, F., and B Roulier, C.: Typologie et dynamique de la v Rohde, S.: River Restoration: Potential and Limitations to Re-Establish Riparian Landscapes, Quideau, S. A., Chadwick, O. A., Benesi, A., Graham, R. C., and Anderson, M. A.: A direct link Orr, C. H., Stanley, E. H., Wilson, K. A., and Finlay, J. C.: E Palmer, M.A., Allan, J. D., Meyer, J., and Bernhardt, E. S.: River Restoration in the Twenty- 5 5 25 20 15 10 30 25 20 15 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | iron distribution roots, spots ) resulting from a clus- n profile [%] 4358 4357 + residuals residuals humified Taxonomy Number of Horizons Hydromorphy ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ eseses Calcaric es Calcaric es features es Calcaric Calcaric eses features features Calcaric Description of eight soil groups and number of “individuals” ( redoxiquescarbonat redoximorphic redoxiquescarbonat redoxiquescarbonat redoximorphic redoximorphic Soilprofile AFES, 2008Group 1(11) REDOXISOLS fluviquesGroup Gleyic2 Fluvisols (25) carbonat FLUVIOSOLS typiquesGroup 1113 carbonat (2) WRB, 2006 FLUVIOSOLS Fluvisols 7 typiquesGroup Depth4 Loam (32) 47 FLUVIOSOLS bruts 95Group Sandy Fluvisols5 Sand carbonat (22) FLUVIOSOLS 0 brutsGroup Average 06 Regosols carbonat Coarse (9) FLUVIOSOLS Hydromorphic 2–4 120 Calcaric 91 Regosols with Intensity of typiquesGroup [cm] 0.87 1 0.3 (8) 2 FLUVIOSOLS Fluvisols 20 0 typiques 10 1–4Group8 15 (1) 0 loam REDUCTISOLS fulviques 1 0 1.2 Calcaric Fluvisols Gleysols 69 with carbonat 42 Moderate 31 3 0 5 per No 104 Calcaric with 30 0 36 6.5 material 1–2 0 0 No 2 87 features 33 45 50 2 hydromorphy 3 0 No 0 Weak to moderate No 5.6 2 No 1 No 1.1 25 7 weak 50 15 Weak to moderate High Topsoillayer Thickness Organic matter Organic matter [cm] Texture (US content Blocks Pebbles Gravel Hydromorphic type triangle) [%] [%] [%] features Group 1 (27)Group 2 (21)Group 3 (10)Group 8 4 (36) 0 0 low-medium 9 null null humified medium-low coarse Sandy loam no no 0 Sandy loam 0 0 Sand Sand 0 0 0.6 absent 0.9 5 68 33 absent 29 55 absent absent Group 5 (13) 9.5 medium-low coarse Sandy loam 0 0 1 absent Group 6 (1) 5 medium humified Sandy loam 0 0 0 heterogenous Group 7 (2) 15 medium coarse residuals Loamy sand 0 0 1 related to Table 1b. Table 1a. ter analysis based onhorizons a (1b). Soil simplified taxonomy set isreference based of on base variables AFES for for (2008) soil and profilesdepth correspondences resources (1a), of to (IUSS a and the particular Working FAO five World group Group,et groups of 2006) al., of profiles 1986). are (cm). topsoil For Texture given. isand the Depth based sandy profiles, on is horizons texture the the is within US mean describedfile. each texture triangle group using The (Saxton of the volumetric profile, total percentage andest number of the horizon of coarse average within loam, material number the sandy (blocks, ofand loam profile pebbles horizons gravels is and per are indicated gravels) pro- given under ofgiven coarse for the in material. each coars- cm. Proportion group Hydromorphic of inphic features blocks, percentage features pebbles represent were of the first totalsemi-quantitative average observed. volume. scale depth The Topsoil (absence, (in thickness intensity weak, cm) (1b) of moderate,(null, at is the and low, medium, high). which hydromorphic and The features hydromor- high) organic is and matter given type OM using (no, content humified, a and coarse residuals) are given. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 4360 4359 N0 N1 N2 E1 E2 J domain Soil profile Hill (1973)Topsoil Indicator of soil/topsoil Soil profile habitat Bullinger-Weber diversity Indicator of morphological Topography Indicator of rate of max Soil profile Indicator of soil/topsoil > n – > n > n > n n − ForestPastureForest 2Pasture 4 1.97 2.95 1.95 2.60 0.97 4 0.74 3 0.97 2.59 0.65 2.61 0.98 2.03 0.78 2.33 0.65 0.87 0.51 0.78 0.69 0.87 ) ∆ Profile Open habitats 7Topsoil 4.28 Open habitats 3.47 6 0.61 0.50 4.50 0.75 3.78 0.75 0.63 0.84 ShannonindexRichness 0 – Frequency oftypical soil 0 – profile groups ExpressedFrequency of Soil profiletypical topsoil in %groups AFES (2008) IdemTotal number Topsoilof Indicator horizons of per soil typical meter (Hm) Topsoil 0 – Elevation AFES (2008) Indicator of recent habitat diversity et al. (2007) of natural floodplains changes due to fluvial changes characteristic of natural floodplains dynamics variation throughtime ( erosion/sedimentation

Soil diversity and richness calculated at the Thur site. Criteria and indicators of the soil morphology method for ﬂoodplain restoration success

Diversity Typicality Dynamism Criterion Indicators Range Application Reference Rationale Table 3. assessment. Table 2. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 4362 4361 Soil proﬁle Topsoil layer N0 N1 N2 E1 E2 J group 1 group 2 group 3 group 4 group 5group group 1 6 group group 2 7 group group 3 8 group 4 group 5 group 6 group 7 Open habitatsForest 17.88 4.39 2.87 0.25 16.71 0.17 6.75 0.48 4.88 0.41 0.30 0.67 Relative abundance (%) of proﬁle and topsoil groups for the restored and reference Averages of plant species biodiversity metrics for the open and forest habitats of the Open habitatsForestPasture 1.3 11.8Open habitats 45.5Forest –Pasture – 40.9 7.9 58.3 42.1 27.6 9.1 58.3 63.6 – 28.9 13.2 – 10.5 – 39.5 – – 3.9 – 9.2 – – – 1.3 4.5 8.3 22.7 – – 25.0 13.6 – 2.6 41.7 8.3 – – – – – Table 5. River Thur site. Table 4. areas. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 0 n 7 o 0 d 6 ti > re d a o t r re s : period o 0 t to a s -re 6 0 e n 6 es R U r

) e ) correspond m 0 ( th

0 + 5

r 5 a r ) e v e m i ( r

r fte

r a e e 0

v 0 h i 4 4 r t

on e o i h t

t s

e o o t c 0

0 3 n 3 Er a ce t / n

s a i t b) Control a Control b) s D i on 0 0 D 2 ti 2 ta n e 0 1 0 m i 1 d : period ranging from 2002 to 2007) in b 2 1 0 1 2 0

- - b) Se

0 5 0 ) m ( a t l e d n o i t a ev l

5 0 E 2 1 1

m H ) to erosion process. − n 0 o 4364 4363 7 ti 0 d a 6 r > re d o t to . re s 0 s o t 6 e s -re r 0 e n (b)

6 R U e ) th a m 0

(

5 e e r 0 r r e 5 ) v a i fo

m ( r

e d r e 0 e e b h v 4 i 0 r t r

o o e on t i t

h t

s s e o c 0 o t

n 0 3 e 3 a c Er t

n s /

i a a) Re t D s i 0 on D 0 2 2 ti ta n e 0 and the reference areas 0 1 1 m di (a) Number of horizons per meter (Hm) versus lateral distance to the river (m) for the Average elevation deltas (m) and their associated standard deviations before ( 0 2 1 0 1 2 a) Se - - 0 5 0

5 0

2 1 1

) m ( a t l e d n o i t a ev l E m H Fig. 2. the restored and in thedata reference (un-restored) for areas. seven Calculations classes are based of on distance cross sections to the river (10 m sections). Positive deltas ( ranging from 1996 to 2002) and after the restoration ( to sedimentation process and negative deltas ( Fig. 1. restored Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 0 6 > d re d o t n re 0 s o 6 t s -re tio e n a R U r ) to erosion − 0 to . Calculations ) 5 m ( es

r r (b)

e r v i 0 r

4 fte e Forest h a t

t o t

0 e 3 c ffec n e a

t s d i 0 D bushes 2 floo

5 0 1 b) Q b) and after restoration Thicket Willow

(a)

1 2 1 0

- -

) m ( a t l e d on i t eva l E 4366 4365 0 6 > d re n and thicket d o t o 0 re s 6 o ti

s -re a

n vegetation e Distance to the river (m) the Distancetoriver r

U R to Sparse 0 ) 5 es m ( r

r e e r v i r 0

4 fo e e h t

b o t t

0 c e 3 c n ffe a t e No vegetation vegetation Sparse s

i ) correspond to sedimentation process and negative deltas ( d D 0 + 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 floo 5 0

20 15 10 5

sĞŐĞƚĂƟŽŶƐƵĐĐĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůƐƚĂŐĞƐǀĞƌƐƵƐƐŽŝůĚǇŶĂŵŝƐŵ 1 ects of a single flood with a similar discharge (Q5, five-year flood) on elevation deltas Hm a) Q a) ff E Vegetation successional stages versus soil dynamism (Hm) in the restored area (0–65 m

1 2 1 0

- -

) m ( a t l e d on i t a v e l E Fig. 4. from the river). Fig. 3. (m) in the restored and in the reference area before are based on crossPositive sections deltas data ( forprocess. seven classes of distance to the river (10 m sections). Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Group4 Group5 Group6 Group2 Group7 Group8 Group1 Forest Willow Willow bushes 4367 Thicket Sparse + Thicket + vegetation vegetation No 0-15 15-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 vegetation 0 80 60 40 20 100 Vegetation successional stages versus frequency of soil proﬁle groups in the restored Fig. 5. area. Soil groups areproﬁle given group according 3 to was only their observed succession in along the the control river area. lateral gradient. Soil