Project Number 5-1-3-F Work Package 7 Optimal Ecological
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Project Number 5-1-3-F Water Management Strategies against Water Scarcity in the Alps Work Package 7 Optimal Ecological Discharge Dissemination title Optimal ecological discharge Author(s) Michael Doering & Christopher T. Robinson Interreg IV B, Alpine Space Programme This project is co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund under Priority 3 - Environment and Risk Prevention > http://www.alpwaterscarce.eu 1 of 100 Contents CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. 2 1 OPTIMAL ECOLOGICAL DISCHARGE .................................................................. 4 1.1 MAIN OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 4 1.1.1 Definitions ............................................................................................. 4 2 OVERVIEW OF THE ALP-WATER-SCARCE PILOT SITES CORRESPONDING TO THEIR ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................. 5 2.1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Spöl ..................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Sandey ................................................................................................. 6 2.1.3 Julian Alps, Karavanke and Kamniško-Savinjske Alps ................................... 6 2.1.4 Jauntal ................................................................................................. 6 2.1.5 Noce River ............................................................................................ 7 2.1.6 Adige River ........................................................................................... 7 2.1.7 Fersina River and experimental flumes ...................................................... 8 2.1.8 High Arly basin ...................................................................................... 8 2.2 MAIN THEMATIC FOCUS OF THE DIFFERRENT PILOT SITES ............................................... 9 2.2.1 Spöl ..................................................................................................... 9 2.2.2 Sandey ............................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Julian Alps, Karavanke and Kamniško-Savinjske Alps ................................. 11 2.2.4 Jauntal ............................................................................................... 11 2.2.5 Noce River .......................................................................................... 12 2.2.6 Adige River ......................................................................................... 14 2.2.7 Fersina River and experimental flumes .................................................... 14 2.2.8 High Arly Basin .................................................................................... 14 3 INDICATORS AND INDICES CONSIDERED IN PILOT SITES ............................. 14 3.1 SPÖL ......................................................................................................... 15 3.1.1 Invertebrates ...................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Periphyton and benthic organic matter ................................................... 18 3.1.3 Coefficients of variation of biotic measures .............................................. 18 3.2 SANDEY ...................................................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Habitat change .................................................................................... 19 3.2.2 Microbial heterogeneity ......................................................................... 22 3.2.2.1 Respiration .......................................................................................... 22 3.2.2.2 Microbial composition............................................................................ 22 3.3 JULIAN ALPS, KARAVANKE AND KAMNIŠKO-SAVINJSKE ALPS ......................................... 29 3.3.1 Hydrogeochemistry and temperature ...................................................... 29 3.3.1 Invertebrates ...................................................................................... 33 3.4 JAUNTAL ..................................................................................................... 38 3.4.1 Invertebrates ...................................................................................... 39 3.4.2 Periphyton .......................................................................................... 50 3.5 NOCE RIVER ................................................................................................ 55 3.5.1 Macroinvertebrates ............................................................................... 56 3.5.2 Morphological characteristics.................................................................. 66 > http://www.alpwaterscarce.eu 2 of 100 3.5.3 Physical indicators: Temperature and water level ...................................... 74 3.6 ADIGE RIVER (ROTALINA PLAIN) ......................................................................... 82 3.6.1 Biological indicators: Benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes ........... 82 3.6.2 Physical indicators: Hydraulic and thermal characterization of the ditches network .............................................................................................. 85 3.7 FERSINA RIVER AND EXPERIMENTAL FLUMES ............................................................ 90 3.7.1 Invertebrates ...................................................................................... 90 3.8 HIGH ARLY BASIN .......................................................................................... 97 3.8.1 Biological index .................................................................................... 97 4 USING INDICATORS AND INDICES TO ASSESS ECOLOGICAL EFFECT ON ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES ...................................................................... 97 5 ECOLOGICAL AND MANAGEMENT APPLICATION ............................................. 98 6 MAIN CHALLENGES IN ECOLOGICAL QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTORS DEFINITION FOR FUTURE INTEGRATION IN WATER MANAGEMENT NEW STRATEGIES ................................................................................................... 98 Contributors Brancelj A, Bertoncelj I, Brun A, Bruno C, Doering M, Fresner R, Konar M., Maiolini B, Mezek T., Mori N, Pergher P, Robinson C, Rosso M, Schweizer S, Siligardi M, Zolezzi G, and Prof. Carmen de Jong (scientific project leader 1.10.2008 – 30.7.2010) Autonomous Province of Trento – Department for Territorial Planning and Environment > http://www.alpwaterscarce.eu 3 of 100 1. Optimal ecological discharge 1.1 Main objectives This WP contributes to the project objectives by defining and applying hydrological and ecological indicators related to optimal ecological discharge under changing regimes imposed by management issues (such as hydropower production) and climate change. It also assesses the resistance and resiliance of ecosystems to water scarcity. Ecological effects on the ecosystem goods and services, as well as mitigation and adaptation strategies such as water re-use are to be suggested. Partners involved in this work package are: PP1 France: Societé Economique Alpestre (SEA) PP3 Austria: Amt der Kärntner Landesregierung, Abteilunge 15 und Abteilung 18 (KTN) PP9 Italy: Provincia Autonoma di Trento – Dipartimento Urbanistica e Ambiente (ProvTn) PP13 Slovenia: National Institut of Biology (NIB) PPnonEU1 Switzerland: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG) 1.1.1 Definitions Optimal Ecological Discharge Optimal ecological discharge describes discharge pattern in terms of minimal base flow requirements and the timing, duration, magnitude and frequency of high flow and flood events most suitable for a creating sustainable habitat conditions for resident biota under different management strategies and climate change Drought For the definition of drought and its different types please refer to Hohenwallner et al. (2011). However, an additional type of drought needs to be introduced here: “Drought by hydropower production”. Drought by hydropower production can be described as man made low flow conditions induced by exploiting the benefits of hydropower for the production of electricity. Indicators An indicator is ‘a characteristic of the environment which, when measured, quantifies the magnitude of stress, habitat characteristics, degree of exposure to the stressor, or degree of ecological response to the exposure’ and ‘provides information on the system’s condition’. Indicators serve as tools to assess, in a quantitative way, the condition of a river. When defining indicators according to these objectives, various indicator characteristics need to be considered. They include ecological and social relevance, ease of measurement and interpretation, and cost-effectiveness (Woolsey et al., 2007). Indices A numerical scale used to compare variables with one another or with some reference number Literature cited Hohenwallner et al. (2011): Water management in a changing environment: Project outcomes and recommendations. Alp Water Scarce Report. > http://www.alpwaterscarce.eu 4 of 100 Woolsey, S., T. Gonser, M. Hostmann, B. Junker, A.Paetzold, C. Roulier, S. Schweizer, S.D. Tiegs, K. Tockner, C. Weber