Ecological Engineering 158 (2020) 106040

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng

The impact of bioengineering techniques for riverbank protection on T

ecosystem services of riparian zones
Lars Symmanka, , Stephanie Nathob, Mathias Scholzc, Uwe Schrödera, Katharina Raupachd,
⁎

Christiane Schulz-Zunkelc
a
German Federal Institute of Hydrology (BFG), Am Mainzer Tor 1, 56068 Koblenz, Germany
b
University of Potsdam (UP), Institute of Environmental Science and Geography, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476 Potsdam-Golm, Germany
c
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Department of Conservation Biology, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
d
Georg-August University Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Rivers and floodplains are hotspots of biodiversity and provide an exceptional number of ecological functions.
Biotechnical streambank stabilization However, they are negatively affected by human impact worldwide. The need for restoration is high, but its
Riverbank restoration realization is often hampered by antagonistic human interests. Replacing artificial riverbank protection with
Self-purification bioengineering techniques can be a first and straightforward step to restore riparian ecosystems. However,
Carbon sequestration
bioengineering still plays a marginal role in river management. We aim to introduce new arguments for
Nature-based solution
bioengineering along riverbanks by applying the ecosystem service approach. We focus on major regulating
Buffer zone
services usually provided by floodplains. Denitrification and phosphorous retention were estimated by applying
proxy-based models. Carbon sequestration within vegetation was calculated using biomass equations. Our study
clearly indicates an increase of ecosystem services by bioengineering measures compared to conventionally fixed
riverbanks. The dismantling of riprap removes up to 30 times more nitrogen and 20 times more phosphorous
from the river load. Additional slope lowering increases both values up to 50-fold. The carbon storage capacity is
four times higher in reed beds and 30 times higher in willow-brush mattresses. Our results show that bioengi­
neering techniques for riverbank protection can be a feasible tool to support general efforts towards enhancing
the self-purification of rivers and contribute to mitigating climate change, especially if conducted on a larger
scale.

1. Introduction bodies including “riparian zones” to achieve an overall “good ecological

Rivers and floodplains have been negatively affected by humans for
centuries (e.g., Nilsson et al., 2005; Kingsford et al., 2016). Intensive
land use and the canalization of streams have altered them tre­
mendously (Sala et al., 2000; Tockner and Stanford, 2002). In their
natural state, floodplains are centers of biodiversity (Naiman et al.,
1993; Catterall et al., 2007), populated by more plant and animal
species than most of the other landscapes (Nilsson and Svedmark, 2002;
Tockner and Stanford, 2002). Apart from this, they serve as migration
corridors enabling the genetic exchange of species over long distances
(Robinson et al., 2002; Naiman et al., 2010). The ecological value of
floodplains is increasingly recognized and thus, riparian restoration has
gained importance during the past decades (e.g. Nakamura et al., 2006;
Feld et al., 2011). For instance, large policy guidelines like the EU-
Water Framework Directive encourage the improvement of water
status” of European rivers. In this context, the term “riparian” describes
semi-terrestrial areas, between the river water and the uplands which
are regularly influenced by flooding (Naiman et al., 2010). Despite
respectable political intentions, restoration sites are rare and ecological
projects are often in direct competition with antagonistic human in­
terests (e.g. Hein et al., 2016). With a continual increase in human
population, this contradiction will further intensify (Nilsson and
Svedmark, 2002; MEA, 2005). Compared to other floodplain areas,
riverbanks are of relatively minor economic interest as they constitute
only the narrow slopes between the river bed and the horizontal
floodplain areas (Florsheim et al., 2008). Nevertheless, riverbanks in
industrial countries are often modified and obstructed by artificial bank
protection measures to ensure safety of navigation and protect human
investments along the rivers (e.g. Wolter, 2001; Fischenich, 2003). In
the German waterway network, approximately 80% of riverbanks

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: symmank@posteo.de (L. Symmank).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.106040
Received 24 April 2019; Received in revised form 25 June 2020; Accepted 1 September 2020
Available online 17 September 2020
0925-8574/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
L. Symmank, et al.
recorded in management plans are obstructed by artificial bank pro­
tections (L. Symmank, unpublished data). These human induced mod­
ifications have led to a unification of bank structures (e.g. substrates
and bank inclination) and thus a loss of habitat diversity (Florsheim
et al., 2008). As a consequence, typical wetland species decline in favor
of terrestrial species (Harvolk et al., 2015; Wollny et al., 2019). From an
ecological point of view, dynamic and unspoiled riverbanks are essen­
tial for river sustainability (Florsheim et al., 2008). However, as long as
stability aspects have priority in river management, humans will try to
impede the natural dynamic of riverbanks.
Bioengineering techniques for riverbank protection (BRP) are pro­
mising tools to promote natural conditions on watercourses where
erosion control is needed (Janssen et al., 2019). Thereby, conventional
bank fixation (e.g. riprap) is replaced by biological components that
undertake bank stabilization (Li and Eddleman, 2002, Wells 2002).
Roots of native trees (Evette et al., 2012) or herbs (e.g. Pinto et al.,
2016) assume the role of hard engineering and stabilize riverbanks
sufficiently (Norris et al., 2008). Depending on site conditions, BRP can
also be associated with civil engineering (e.g. Wu and Feng, 2006;
Frothingham, 2008). In any case, BRP create habitats that provide more
niches and resources than conventional bank fixation. An increasing
number of studies illustrates the positive effects of BRP on biodiversity
(e.g. Li et al., 2006, Cavaillé et al., 2015; Schmitt et al., 2018, Tisserant
et al., 2020). Although the use of BRP has increased during the last few
decades (e.g. Wu and Feng, 2006; Evette et al., 2009; Anstead and Boar,
2010), they are still in limited quantities affecting only a small fraction
of human-impacted riverbanks. This may be because ecological aspects
are still overlooked in decision making in favor of alleged financial
perspectives (Fischenich and Allen, 2000; Evette et al., 2009) or prac­
titioners may simply not be aware of the long-term benefits of BRP (e.g.
Jabłońska et al., 2020).
We aim to introduce new arguments for the implementation of BRP
by applying the ecosystem service approach (MEA, 2005). Worldwide,
ecosystems deliver a wide range of functions that are directly or in­
directly used as ecosystem services for human well-being (Costanza
et al., 1997). Floodplains deliver an exceptional number of ecosystem
services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) lists 17
different provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services of
floodplains, with particularly high magnitudes for food production,
fiber and fuel, climate regulation, soil formation and nutrient cycling.
In general, the overall benefits of wetlands, including floodplains, are
higher than those of other terrestrial ecosystems (McClain et al., 2003,
Vidon, 2010, Acreman et al., 2011).
In our study, we focus on major regulating services usually provided
by natural floodplains. The removal or retention of nutrients such as
nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) from surface water has been re­
peatedly highlighted (e.g. Olde Venterink et al., 2006; Newcomer
Johnson et al., 2016). The river ecosystems are capable of self-pur­
ification and reduce nutrients through bacterial decomposition or fil­
tration (e.g. Brettar et al., 2002; Hoffmann et al., 2009). Furthermore,
they are considered to be sinks of greenhouse gasses (Sutfin et al.,
2016), sequestering organic carbon in particulate or dissolved condi­
tions in soils and in biomass (Kayranli et al., 2010).
We apply proxy-based models to estimate the N-removal and P-
Fig. 1. Transverse geometry of the examined riverbank types derived from a technical report (BfG and BAW, 2008). Type “riprap”: riprap (stained) with natural soil
substrate below (grey), bank inclination 20 degrees. Type “softwood”: riprap removed below mean water level, bank inclination 20 degrees. Type “reed”: riprap
removed, bank inclination 10 degrees. The aquatic (blue) and terrestrial (orange) study sections and respective dimensions are illustrated below the profile (A-E).
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
2
Ecological Engineering 158 (2020) 106040
retention in a test track of BRP in Germany. Additionally, carbon se­
questration in biomass of bank vegetation was calculated applying al­
lometric equations. To our knowledge our study is a first approach to
analyze ecological values of BRP beyond biodiversity. We hypothesize
that the implementation of BRP leads to a significant increase in se­
lected ecosystem services. On the example of the German waterways,
we aim to show that the application of BRP on a larger scale can con­
tribute to general efforts to increase water quality and mitigate climate
change. Our results illustrate additional ecological benefits of BRP and
its potential application to help decision makers facing the enormous
ecological challenges in future river management.
2. Methods
2.1. Bank types
Our study is based on data from a test track of BRP at the River
Weser in north-western Germany (52°30′N; 09°04′E). The moderately
navigated river belongs to the German waterway network. In our study
area, the Weser is a typical low-land watercourse with a comparatively
large catchment and a floodplain dominated by agriculture (Brunotte
et al., 2009). The width of the river at the study area is approximately
80 m with a mean discharge of 180 m3/s (BfG and BAW, 2008). Like
other German waterways, large parts of the watercourse are im­
pounded, leading to a decrease of water-level fluctuations (Scholz et al.,
2012). The riverbanks are characterized predominantly by riprap de­
posited to avoid bank erosion. The test track was installed in the winter
of 1989 and consists of different combinations of BRP (BfG and BAW,
2008). Two test fields within the test track proved to be particularly
successful regarding bank stability and thus were chosen for further
investigations. The selected BRP test fields are compared to a con­
ventionally fixed riverbank (hereafter named: bank type “riprap”). All
investigated bank types had a length of 30 m and a width of 5 m cor­
responding to a ground area of 150 m2. The bank type “riprap” has a
slope inclination of approximately 20 degrees with a prominent riprap
cover of 0.6 m thickness (Fig. 1).
In the first selected BRP test field (hereafter named: bank type
“softwood”), riprap was removed to 0.4 m below the mean water level
(Fig. 1). Willow brush mattresses consisting of Salix viminalis L. were
installed to prevent bank erosion. After 28 years of undisturbed
growing, the brush mattresses developed into a dense softwood coppice
(Fig. 2). In the second selected BRP test field (hereafter named: bank
type “reed”); the riprap was also removed and additionally the slope
inclination was reduced to less than 10 degrees (Fig. 1). Initial plantings
with common reed (Phragmites australis [Cav.] Steud.) were carried out
and developed into a densely growing reed bed (Fig. 2).
2.2. Nutrient retention
The removal of nitrogen from river water is mainly based on deni­
trification processes within floodplain areas during flood events (Pinay
et al., 2002; Verhoeven et al., 2006). Thereby, nitrate from surface
water is converted into atmospheric nitrogen (Trepel and Palmeri,
2002). The process is fostered by anaerobic soil conditions and elevated
L. Symmank, et al.
Fig. 2. Measure types investigated at the test track on the River Weser. Bank type “riprap” (conventional riverbank in vicinity of the test track, 2019, photo: E.
Kramer), bank type “softwood” (2015), bank type “reed” (2015).
C-content within floodplain soils (DeLaune et al., 1996; Waters et al.,
2014). Phosphorous in rivers is mainly bound to particles (Olde
Venterink et al., 2006). Thus, P-retention is mainly determined by se­
dimentation processes within floodplain areas during flood events
(Hoffmann et al., 2009). Surface roughness from vegetation and the
duration of floods are decisive factors for sedimentation (Gautier et al.,
2009). The nutrient loads of rivers in developed countries are usually
high due to exalted N and P input from urban and agricultural areas
(Allan, 2004; Dodds, 2006; Feld et al., 2011). Thus, the nutrient load of
the river is not expected to be a limiting factor here. For simplicity, we
use the term ‘nutrient retention’ in the following text when talking
about N and P in their entirety even though we are aware that deni­
trification removes nitrogen from the system.
We used two proxy-based models to estimate nutrient retention
rates for specific bank sections identified in Fig. 1. The approaches are
based on extensive literature review of various European field mea­
surements to infer universally applicable proxy values for nutrient re­
tention in floodplains (Schulz-Zunkel et al., 2012; Natho et al., 2013).
Two decision cascades are presented for N and P (Figs. 3 and 4). Factors
influencing the models are land-use type, soil type, floodplain condition
and surface roughness. As a result, different levels of nutrient retention
were estimated. All values were given in kilograms of reduced N or P
per hectare per year (kg ha−1 yr−1). Due to the direct contact of riv­
erbanks with the water body, all studied bank types can be classified as
active floodplain for which the decision cascades were initially devel­
oped. Retention levels were assigned to bank sections as follows:
2.2.1. Land-use classes
The assignment of land-use classes to the sections according to
Fig. 1 is essential for both retention models and was carried out ac­
cording to the vegetation found in the respective bank types. The ter­
restrial riprap of section A consists of rocks, artificial geotextile beneath
it and only a few plants growing in the gaps between the rocks. Thus,
this bank type can generally be considered as “non-vegetated” habitat.
In the case of denitrification, the aquatic sections B and D of the BRP
Fig. 3. Decision cascade for assessing denitrification rates in floodplains (simplified from Natho et al., 2013).
3
Ecological Engineering 158 (2020) 106040
measures were attributed to the land-use class “water”. With regard to
P-retention both sections were assigned to the “shore area”. The ter­
restrial section C consists of a willow brush mattress and was assigned
to the land-use class “forest”. Section E was assigned to the land-use
class “wetland”, since slope lowering increases inundation frequency
and reed development is high in this area (Schmitt et al., 2018).
2.2.2. Denitrification
The assignment of land-use classes to denitrification levels follows
the approach described in Natho et al. (2013) illustrated in Fig. 3.
According to the authors non-vegetated surfaces are not considered
relevant for denitrification. However, matter exchange between water
and floodplain soil cannot be excluded in riprap and few existing plants
do create a small amount of autochthonic organic soil in the gaps be­
tween the rocks. Thus, we choose the lowest denitrification level 1
(5 kg N ha−1 yr−1) for section A even if we have likely overestimated
the actual denitrification potential of bank type “riprap”. The aquatic
sections B and D of bank types “softwood” and “reed” provide an es­
timated denitrification rate of 300 kg N ha−1 yr−1 (level 6). The crucial
factor for the assignment of denitrification rates within forests is the soil
type. According to the soil map BUEK50 (NIBIS®, 2014), the soil type in
terrestrial section C of bank type “softwood” is vega (comparable to
fluvisol), leading to denitrification level 3. However, if the floodplain
condition is “moderately modified” or better according to the defini­
tions of Brunotte et al., 2009 (Follner et al., 2010) the final deni­
trification rate can be elevated by one level. Due to the close proximity
to the river, the associated high flooding potential and the low land-use
intensity, bank type “softwood” at least fulfills the definition of “mod­
erately modified”. Thus, we assigned an average denitrification rate of
100 kg N ha−1 yr−1 (level 4) to section C. The terrestrial section E of
the bank type “reed “has an estimated denitrification rate of
250 kg N ha−1 yr−1 (level 5).
2.2.3. P-retention
The assignment of P-retention levels follows the recommendations
L. Symmank, et al.
Fig. 4. Decision cascade for assessing phosphorous retention in floodplains and rivers (simplified from Schulz-Zunkel et al., 2012).
of Schulz-Zunkel et al. (2012) illustrated in Fig. 4. Due to the sparse
vegetation and the uneven structure of the riprap we assume a very low
surface roughness and thus apply the lowest P-retention level 5 (0.5 kg
P ha−1 yr−1) for bank type “riprap”. While no relevant sedimentation
usually occurs in the largest part of the river, a very high P-retention
was measured in aquatic shore areas (Kronvang et al., 1999). Thus,
sections B and D of bank type “softwood” and “reed” receive a high P-
retention value of 50 kg P ha−1 yr−1 (level 7). The terrestrial sections C
and E were assigned to retention level 1 for forest and wetland re­
spectively with a corresponding retention rate of 5 kg P ha−1 yr−1. An
overview of all nutrient retention rates assigned is given in Table 1.
2.3. Carbon sequestration in biomass
We estimate the additional C-storage of BRP by comparing the ve­
getation cover for the studied bank types. C-content is derived from
estimations of the dry weight of biomass (termed only “biomass” from
here on) multiplied by vegetation-specific conversion factors (see
below). Following Penman et al. (2003), the obtained carbon stocks are
multiplied by the factor of 3.67 to receive the CO2 equivalents detracted
from the atmosphere.
Vegetation cover in bank type “riprap” usually does not exist, except
for some sporadically growing herbaceous perennials in the gaps be­
tween the rocks. The overall biomass for this bank type was negligible.
However, we added a hypothetical value of 0.5 kg m−2 for further
calculation even if we likely overestimate the actual amount of biomass
within this bank type. According to Alexeyev and Birdsey (1998) the
proportion of carbon within dry biomass is around 50%. Thus, we
generally multiplied the biomass by a factor of 0.5 to derive the C-
content of the plants.
The brush mattresses of bank type “softwood” consist of densely
growing willows (mainly Salix viminalis L.) that are 7 m high on
average. The shrubs shade out herbaceous vegetation and constitute the
only relevant vegetation structure in this bank type. We used allometric
equations of several studies to estimate the woody biomass of the wil­
lows. This gentle method is widely applied (e.g. Cierjacks et al., 2010;
Tigges et al., 2017) and minimizes interventions into rare ecosystems.
The biomass is estimated by measuring the stem diameter at breast
height (DBH, 1.3 m above ground) of single stems along with the height
of plants. In our study, DBH values ranged from 2 to 18 cm. In total, 36
individuals (polycorms) containing 314 single stems were measured.
Despite an extensive literature review, specific equations for Salix
viminalis could not be found. However, we found a few equations for
closely related Salix species. Considering the poor data situation, we
applied all available equations and discuss the different results below.
This approach gives us a first estimation of possible carbon sequestra­
tion in willow brush mattresses. Frouz et al. (2015) developed an
equation for Salix caprea L. which usually grows in arborescent (tree-
like) form. However, the authors developed a particular equation for
shrub-like individuals on post-mining sites. Matzek et al. (2014) applied
4
Ecological Engineering 158 (2020) 106040
equations for aboveground biomass, including stems, branches and
bark for Salix exigua Nutt. This North American willow species grows
exclusively shrub-like and has a similar natural height as Salix viminalis
(Collet, 2004). For comparison, we additionally estimated the stem
biomass based on equations for arborescent species summarized in
Zianis et al. (2005). The authors present three different calculations of
stem volumes for willow species. To derive the stem biomass, we con­
verted the stem volume using the equation suggested by Jalkanen et al.
(2005). An age-dependent biomass expansion factor for broadleaved
stands was obtained from Lehtonen et al. (2004). All input data (stem
DBH), applied equations and intermediate results are summarized in
the supplementary material.Tree components missing in the approaches
of Matzek et al. (2014) and Zianis et al. (2005) were derived from the
proportions of components out of the total biomass as suggested in
Frouz et al. (2015) (see Table 2).
To estimate the C-stock in bank type “reed “we applied the biomass
values suggested by Zerbe et al. (2013) for Phragmites australis growing
in north-eastern Germany. The authors measured a mean aboveground
biomass in rewetted degraded peat land of 12.5–23.8 t ha−1. Below­
ground biomass ranged between 1 and 2 times the amounts of above­
ground biomass (Zerbe et al., 2013). We applied conservative values of
12.5 t ha−1 for aboveground and belowground biomass respectively.
These values closely match measurements published in Allirand and
Gosse (1995) from central France. The biomass was multiplied by 0.45
according to Zerbe et al. (2013) to obtain the total C-content of reed
plants.
3. Results
3.1. Nutrient retention
Both BRP bank types show higher nutrient retention values than
bank type “riprap”. This is mainly due to the removal of riprap enables
direct contact between the river and natural floodplain soil where de­
nitrification takes place. Furthermore, a natural river bank vegetation
develops which increases sedimentation processes. The river expands
inland, leading to additional aquatic areas with increased nutrient re­
tention. The additional slope lowering in the bank type “reed” leads to
the highest retention rates of all three analyzed bank types. The results
are summarized in Table 1.
3.1.1. Denitrification
Compared to the BRP bank types, the denitrification potential of
bank type “riprap” is low and comprises estimated 0.075 kg N yr−1. The
denitrification rate of bank type “softwood” is substantially higher. The
removal of riprap expands the area below the mean water level by more
than one meter (section B, Fig. 1). Compared to the previous terrestrial
riprap, the denitrification rate increases by a factor of 60. The terrestrial
section C is transformed from an artificial bank stabilization into a
natural floodplain habitat (softwood). The floodplain status of this
L. Symmank, et al. Ecological Engineering 158 (2020) 106040

Table 1
Overview of essential parameters, applied model rates and the resulting absolute values of denitrification and phosphorous retention for the riverbank types studied
(figures not drawn to scale).

bank type riprap softwood reed

section A B C D E

area in m2 150 36 114 84 66

land-use class non- wetland

river forest river
vegetated
soil typea none/
vega vega vega vega
geotextile
floodplain heavily moderately moderately
Denitrification

- -
statusb modified modified modified
denitrification 5 300 100 300 250
rate (level 1) (level 6) (level 4) (level 6) (level 5)
(kg ha-1 yr-1)c
1.08 1.14 2.52 1.65
denitrification
0.08
(kg yr-1) 2.22 4.17

surface high
very low - high -
roughnessd
P-retention 0.5 50 5 50 5
P-retention

rate (level 5) (level 7) (level 1) (level 7) (level 1)

(kg ha-1 yr-1)d
0.180 0.057 0.42 0.03
P-retention
0.01
(kg yr-1) 0.24 0.45

Bank type Riprap Softwood Reed

Section A B C D E

Area in m2 150 36 114 84 66

Denitrification Land-use class Non-vegetated River Forest River Wetland

Soil typea None/geotextile Vega Vega Vega Vega
Floodplain statusb Heavily modified – Moderately modified – Moderately modified
Denitrification rate (kg ha−1 yr−1)c 5 (level 1) 300 (level 6) 100 (level 4) 300 (level 6) 250 (level 5)
Denitrification (kg yr−1) 0.08 1.08 1.14 2.52 1.65
2.22 4.17
P-retention Surface roughnessd Very low – High – High
P-retention rate (kg ha−1 yr−1)d 0.5 (level 5) 50 (level 7) 5 (level 1) 50 (level 7) 5 (level 1)
P-retention (kg yr−1) 0.01 0.180 0.057 0.42 0.03
0.24 0.45

a
Soil types derive from the soil map BUEK50 (NIBIS®, 2014).
b
Based on Brunotte et al., 2009.
c
Described in Natho et al., 2013.
d
Based on Schulz-Zunkel et al. (2012).

section improves considerably, leading to an increase in the deni­
trification rate by a factor of 20. The overall gain in denitrification
compared to the conventional riverbank (“riprap“) in bank type “soft­
wood” is more than 2 kg yr−1. In bank type “reed”, the additional
lowering of the slope expands the aquatic section D to 2.8 m (Fig. 1).
The denitrification rate of the terrestrial section is 50 times higher than
for riprap. The overall gain of N-removal in bank type “reed “is almost
twice as high as in bank type “softwood “and accounts for more than
4 kg N yr−1.

5
L. Symmank, et al. Ecological Engineering 158 (2020) 106040

Table 2
Calculated and derived biomass values (BM) of surveyed willow plant parts.
Literature source Stem Vol. (m3) Stem BM (t) Branch BM (t) Dead wood BM (t) Leaf BM (t) Coarse root BM (t) Total BM (t) C stock (t)

Proportion on total biomass* 37.4% 9.8% 15.2% 12.2% 25.4% 100%

Frouz et al. (2015) 2.52 1.26
Matzek et al. (2014) 1.88 0.37 0.77 3.02 1.51
Zianis et al. (2005) -219 4.61 2.52 0.66 1.02 0.82 1.71 6.73 3.37
Zianis et al. (2005) -220 3.12 1.71 0.45 0.70 0.56 1.16 4.58 2.29
Zianis et al. (2005) -221 3.02 1.65 0.43 0.67 0.54 1.12 4.41 2.21

Values printed in bold directly derive from equations of the literature sources listed. 1-3 Stem volume calculations are based on three different equations for willow
species published in Zianis et al. (2005, Appendix A, number 219-221). Normal style values are derived from proportions of plant components according to Frouz
et al. (2015)⁎. The carbon content of woody plants is half of the biomass according to Alexeyev and Birdsey (1998).

3.1.2. P-retention
Analogous to denitrification, the P-retention in bank type “riprap” is
low. The comparatively smooth structure of rocks only allow a limited
sedimentation trapping efficiency and thus only a negligibly small
amount of annual P-retention (< 0.01 kg P yr−1). In the aquatic section
B of bank type “softwood”, the P-retention rate is a hundredfold higher
than in terrestrial riprap. The subsequent shrubby vegetation in section
C leads to higher surface roughness and thus multiplies the retention
rate in this area by a factor of 10. The overall gain in retained P in bank
type “softwood” is 0.23 kg yr−1. Bank type “reed “yields the highest P-
retention rates of all bank types studied, since the size of the aquatic
section D is larger than in the bank type „”softwood“. The net gain in
retained P accounts for more than 0.44 kg P yr−1.
3.2. Carbon sequestration in biomass
The hypothetical biomass value of 0.5 kg m−2 on riprap results in a
total biomass of 75 kg in bank type “riprap”, which corresponds to
37.5 kg of carbon and 138 kg of CO2. This amount is significantly lower
than the biomass of the BRP bank types studied. The woody vegetation
of the bank type “softwood” accumulates large amounts of above- and
belowground biomass. However, the results based on different allo­
metric equations vary considerably (Table 2). The equations of the
shrub-like willow species Salix caprea (Frouz et al., 2015) and Salix
exigua (Matzek et al., 2014) result in a significantly lower biomass than
those run for solitary trees (Zianis et al., 2005). Based on different
biomass calculations, the derived carbon content of willows in this bank
type ranges between 1.26 and 3.37 tons. The resulting retention of CO2
is 30 to 90 times higher than in the bank type “riprap” (Table 3). The
value of 12.5 t ha−1 for the aboveground biomass of reeds and the
assumption of a 1:1 ratio of stem and root biomass results in a total
biomass of 375 kg for bank type “reed“. This corresponds to 169 kg of
total carbon stored within above and belowground plant parts. This
means that more than 620 kg of CO2 can be stored, which is con­
siderably less than the bank type “softwood” but more than four times
the amount of the bank type “riprap”.
4. Discussion
Vegetated riverbanks are highly valuable, as they are able to remove
large amounts of N and P from the river catchment (Jabłońska et al.,
2020). They are also important buffer zones that actively hinder nu­
trients from entering the river system from agricultural areas (Lowrance
et al., 1997; Schultz et al., 2005). Furthermore, in their natural state,
they can also store large amounts of carbon within biomass (Fortier
et al., 2015). In this context, our results clearly illustrate the ecological
benefits of BRP compared to conventionally fixed riverbanks. Large
amounts of N and P are retained due to riprap removal and slope
lowering. The introduction of living plant material led to a considerable
increase in C-sequestration and thus additional capture of CO2. Al­
though the overall ecological advantages of BRP are significant the
quantities of the respective ecosystem services are unequal among the
different measure types.
4.1. Denitrification
The removal of riprap in BRP measures has a fundamental impact on
denitrification. On the one hand it enables direct contact between the
river water and the floodplain soil. On the other hand, the riverbanks
are lowered by the width of the previous riprap layer. This increases the
flooding frequency and thus anaerobic soil conditions, which positively
impacts denitrification (Burt et al., 1999; Natho et al., 2013). The latter
also benefits from increased organic carbon input from litter fall and
decaying root biomass of the willow-brush mattress in bank type
“softwood “(Burt et al., 1999; Brettar et al., 2002; Ghestem et al., 2011).
All this increases the overall denitrification in bank type “softwood” by
almost a factor of 30 (Table 1). The positive effect of vegetation on
denitrification was also shown by Sweeney et al. (2004) and Hefting
et al. (2005), who compared forested and deforested river reaches.
Kaushal et al. (2008) found similar patterns in restored and unrestored
reaches of urbanized watersheds.
A large input of organic carbon can also be assumed from the annual
decay of aboveground plant parts of Phragmites australis in the bank
type “reed”. The additional flattening of the slope considerably in­
creases flooding frequency. More than half of the area is permanently
inundated, because larger parts of the riverbanks are below the mean
water level. The remaining area is frequently inundated even during
smaller flood events which should result in higher terrestrial deni­
trification rates. Thus, the overall denitrification in bank type “reed”
increases by almost a factor of 50 (Table 1).
According to our findings, one kilometer of the bank type “reed
“yields a mean turnover of about 139 kg N yr−1. Large-scale floodplain
restoration projects provide much higher metabolic denitrification
rates. For example, a dike relocation along the German River Elbe
processes additional 96 t N yr−1 for a measured size of approx. 600 ha
(Lautenbach et al., 2012). To retain a comparable amount of N through

Table 3
Carbon (C) content and carbon dioxide equivalents of the bank types studied referred to the ground area of 150 m2.
Bank type C-content (t) C-content (t ha−1) CO2-equivalent (t) Additional CO2(t) CO2-storage (t ha−1)

Riprap 0.04 2.67 0.15 – 9,79

Softwood 1.26–3.37 84.00–244.67 4.62–12.37 4.48–12.23 308.28–824.53
Reed 0.17 11.33 0.62 0.47 41.59

CO2 derived from C content multiplied by the factor of 3.67 according to Penman et al. (2003).

6
L. Symmank, et al.
BRP, approximately 690 km of riverbanks have to be modified into the
bank type “reed”. Although this figure appears to be high, it only ac­
counts for 5% in riverbanks of the German waterway network (~
14.000 km) (BMVI, 2019). Furthermore, the denitrification rates ap­
plied in our study were rather conservatively chosen. A recent study in
a comparable and nearby river system demonstrated much higher de­
nitrification rates within the aquatic zone (Ritz et al., 2018). The ap­
plication of this result (approx. 1200 kg ha−1 yr−1) to the aquatic parts
of bank type “reed” (section D, Fig. 1) would increase the net deni­
trification rate per stream kilometer to 391 kg N yr−1. As a result, the
number of bank kilometers needed to gain the denitrification potential
of the dike relocation reduces to only 246. This length corresponds to
less than 1.7% of the German waterway network.
4.2. P-retention
Vegetation is a crucial factor in the provision of P-retention in
floodplains. Densely-growing plants decrease the flow velocity during
flood events and thus increase sedimentation processes (Schneider
et al., 2006; Hoffmann et al., 2009). Due to the rather smooth surface of
riprap, the P-retention potential of the bank type “riprap “is low com­
pared to naturally vegetated riverbanks. On the contrary, shrubby ve­
getation has high roughness values (Pasche et al., 2006), which results
in the highest terrestrial P-retention values in the willow-brush mat­
tresses of bank type “softwood”. Here, the overall P-retention is more
than twenty times higher than on conventionally fixed riverbanks
(Table 1).These findings are supported by several studies, such as Søvik
and Syversen (2008), who reported a higher P-retention in riverbanks
vegetated by trees than by grass. Rieger et al. (2014) showed that
especially willows show significantly high sedimentation rates com­
pared to other tree species. Bank type “reed” exhibits similarly high P-
retention values. The densely growing and comparatively high reed
plants induce an even higher surface roughness than willows (Pasche
et al., 2006). Thus, with regard to P-retention, Olde Venterink et al.
(2006) recommend focusing on reed beds when restoring floodplain
areas. However, our applied retention model does not distinguish be­
tween willows and reed. The actual P-retention in bank type “reed” may
thus be even higher. At any rate, the largest increase in P-retention was
obtained by the slope lowering and related enlargement of the aquatic
zone in bank type “reed“. As a consequence, the overall P-retention is
almost fifty times higher than that of conventionally fixed riverbanks.
In terms of P-retention, slope lowering in particular makes the bank
type “reed” the most productive measure type studied.
According to our results, one kilometer of the bank type “reed”
retains up to 15 kg P yr−1. However, maximum values of P-retention in
floodplains can be substantially higher (Hoffmann et al., 2009). Studies
from the Netherlands measured P-retention rates in riparian reed beds
of 95 kg P ha−1 yr−1 (Olde Venterink et al., 2006). Wolter (2001)
concluded that the restoration of only one-fifth of German riverbanks
would result in a substantial improvement in the strongly limited fish
diversity. If that number of riverbanks along German waterways (~
2800 km) would be restored according to the bank-type “reed”, be­
tween 42 t P yr−1 (values used in this study) and 98 t P yr−1 (values
examined by Olde Venterink et al., 2006) could be retained. The latter
value is close to the overall P-retention of the entire active floodplain of
the largest German River Rhine (~ 120 t yr-1; Schulz-Zunkel et al.,
2012).
4.3. Carbon sequestration in biomass
Conventional riverbank fixations such as riprap store only small
amounts of carbon within the biomass (Table 3). With increasing age,
riprap can become overgrown with herbaceous vegetation or even carry
patches of shrubs and small trees. However, compared to natural riv­
erbanks, the vegetation cover remains low and is often cut back during
maintenance work. The bank type “reed “exhibits a considerably higher
7
Ecological Engineering 158 (2020) 106040
and permanent C-stock. Common reed is a densely and tall-growing
perennial grass with bulky rhizomes and a large amount of necromass
(Zerbe et al., 2013). The gain in atmospheric CO2 retained in the bank
type “reed “is approximately 0.5 tons and thus at least four times higher
than in bank type “riprap” (Table 3). Significantly more CO2 is retained
in the woody biomass of the bank type” softwood”, even if results based
on different allometric equations vary considerably (Table 2). This is
mainly due to the different habits of the plant species for which equa­
tions were generated. The highest biomass values derive from equations
of solitary standing trees (Zianis et al., 2005). However, the growth
form and height of willows measured in our study are more similar to
the shrub-like willows described by Frouz et al. (2015). Thus, and to
avoid an overestimation of carbon-storage capacity in further discus­
sions we assume a low additional amount of 4.48 tons of CO2 stored in
the bank type” softwood” (Table 3). Nevertheless, the C-sequestration
in type “softwood” is at least more than seven times higher than in type
“reed” and more than 30 times higher than in bank type “riprap”. Our
assumptions are in line with Fortier et al. (2015), who found 9–31 times
more carbon-storage capacity in forested reaches compared to their
herbaceous counterparts. Further significant amounts of carbon storage
can be found in fine roots, which generally increase with forest age
(Giese et al., 2003; Matzek et al., 2014) but have not been estimated
here.
If we convert our results, approximately 168 tons of biomass per
hectare are accumulated over 28 years of undisturbed development of
the bank type” softwood”. The results correspond with the measure­
ments from short-rotation plantations, which are treated as potential
carbon sinks (Rytter, 2012). Measurements of willow plantations (Salix
viminalis) result in an aboveground biomass between 4.5 t ha−1
(Gruenewald et al., 2007) and 70 t ha−1 (Hofmann-Schielle et al.,
1999) after growing periods of 5–6 years. Riparian buffers with poplar
trees (Populus spec.) have been recorded to accumulate a total biomass
of 52 t ha−1 for 7-year old stands (Tufekcioglu et al., 2003) and 66 to
223 t ha−1 for 9-year old stands (Fortier et al., 2015). Converted into
carbon, approximately 84 tons per hectare are sequestered in bank type
“softwood”. Larger amounts of carbon are stored in mature riparian
forests. Rheinhardt et al. (2012) calculated an aboveground carbon
stock of 242 t ha−1 in forested riparian woodland in North Carolina.
Similar amounts were found in the study by Fierke and Kauffman
(2005), who measured an aboveground biomass of 437 t ha−1 (corre­
sponding to 219 t ha−1 of C) in riparian cottonwoods of Western
Oregon. Cierjacks et al. (2010) reported 163 t ha−1 of carbon in soft­
wood of the Danubian National Park in Austria. The latter is approxi­
mately twice the rate of carbon stored in willow-brush mattresses,
which makes riverbank type “softwood” an attractive method to absorb
carbon dioxide in otherwise treeless floodplain areas.
The absolute amount of carbon stored in softwoods inside the
Danubian National Park in Austria is about 30.000 tons (Cierjacks et al.,
2010). Generally, floodplain forests store huge amounts of carbon
compared to other terrestrial ecosystems (Cierjacks et al., 2010).
However, globally such forests have largely been cleared since the
emergence of human settlements (UNEP-WCMC, 2000; Angradi et al.,
2004; Nakamura et al., 2006). The afforestation of riverbanks is a first
and straightforward step to increase the biomass in human modified
floodplains. To store a similar amount of C in bank type” softwood”
(42 t of C per stream kilometer) as in the softwood of the Danubian
National Park, approximately 714 km of riverbanks would have to be
modified, corresponding to 5.1% of banks of German waterways. This
proportion appears to be manageable, considering that the Danubian
National Park presents the largest wetland environment subjected to
natural fluvial dynamics in Central Europe. The greening of riverbanks
by willow brush mattresses is thus an ideal example for the reforesta­
tion of degraded areas which is one of the major strategies suggested to
mitigate global climate change (Canadell and Raupach, 2008;
Rheinhardt et al., 2012).
L. Symmank, et al.
4.4. Uncertainties
Our study is a first estimation of the provision of regulating eco­
system services through BRP. However, we are aware that several un­
certainties remain. First of all, our assumptions regarding nutrient re­
tention are based on land-use classes on the landscape scale, with a
spatial resolution of 25 m (Schulz-Zunkel et al., 2012, Natho et al.,
2013,). At first glance, the rather coarse resolution seems unsuitable for
small-scale measures like BRP. To reach this point, we have used so-
called conservative values so as not to overestimate the nutrient re­
tention potential. So, it is likely that the actual values are in part con­
siderably higher. Furthermore, the chosen method does not take into
account particular chemical influencing factors on nutrient retention.
For instance, the river load (Walton et al., 2020) or pH level of the soil
(Šimek and Cooper, 2002) may have large impacts on nutrient retention
and vary from case to case. Otherwise, our approach enables us to make
general statements about nutrient retention within BRP measures in­
dependent of the study area. Regarding C-sequestration our results are
also based on estimations instead of measurements. The latter could
only be obtained by “destructive sampling”, which requires the removal
of all relevant plant parts (Nordh and Verwijst, 2004). This approach
would lead to severe interventions in our small study areas. Our results
give a first and considerable indication of the increased carbon se­
questration in the studied BRP types without destroying valuable and
rare habitats. As mentioned before we used the lowest results for dis­
cussion. Again, the actual values of C-sequestration might be higher. It
is desirable that future field measurements of ecosystem functions are
also conducted in BRP to confirm or disprove our results. Furthermore,
some aspects of ecosystem functions studied here could not be con­
sidered in our approach. These include, for example, the biomass of fine
roots or the re-mobilization of sediment. The latter can represent a
relevant re-entrance of P into watercourses (Hoffmann et al., 2009).
Furthermore, we only considered a small number of the ecosystem
services that are provided by floodplains. For example, nutrient uptake
by plant biomass (e.g. Tufekcioglu et al., 2003) or cultural benefits (e.g.
Symmank et al., 2020) are also significant services of restored riv­
erbanks. Last but not least, other processes such as methane flux from
wet floodplain soils (Brix et al., 2001) could counteract the ecosystem
services studied here (trade-offs).
5. Conclusion
In their natural state, riverbanks are characterized by dynamic
erosion and sedimentation. However, as long as humans prefer bank
stability rather than natural processes along riverbanks, BRP are an
ideal example for “nature-based solutions” (Cohen-Shacham et al.,
2016) and a promising tools to increase riverbank ecosystem func­
tionality on intensively used rivers. Compared to conventionally fixed
riverbanks, BRP clearly improve the provision of selected regulating
ecosystem services. Thereby, the intensity of particular ecosystem
functions differs between BRP types. The removal of riprap is equally
essential for N, P and C-retention. Slope lowering and the consequent
increase in inundation have major effects on nutrient retention. The
highest amount of C-sequestration is found in woody vegetation. To
meet the current ecological challenges, large-scale river and floodplain
restoration projects should certainly be a priority. However, the avail­
ability of restoration sites remains a serious challenge. As long as there
are no other human demands, the ecological enhancement of riv­
erbanks by BRP can be a straightforward step to reactivate floodplain
ecosystem services. The recurrent need to repair aging infrastructure
may be an ideal opportunity for ecological riverbank reconstruction
(Doyle et al., 2008). We exemplarily show that the potential restoration
of only a small portion of a national river network provides services
comparable to large scale restoration projects or natural ecosystems.
Future restoration attempts such as in the course of the EU- water
framework directive or the German “Blue Belt Programme” (BMUB,
8
Ecological Engineering 158 (2020) 106040
2015; von Haaren et al., 2016) could supportively apply BRP to connect
natural floodplain remnants. Here, BRP can contribute to current efforts
to support the self-purification of rivers and mitigate climate change.
This makes them an ideal case study to illustrate the benefits of man­
agement changes to ecosystem functionality and human well-being.
Glossary
Riprap A foundation of large chunks of stone thrown together irre­
gularly or loosely on a soft bottom to protect banks from
erosion
Willow-brush mattress Live cuttings of willows with branches installed
parallel to the slope direction and with soil contact to form a
mattress
Declaration of Competing Interest
None
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank Andreas Sundermeier, Peter Horchler, Helmut
Fischer and Kathrin Schmitt for their constructive comments, Anne
Popiel, Sarah Gwillym-Margianto and Paul Hudson for proofreading the
article as well as Sarah Wagner, Björn Hoppe, Jutta Buscher and Dieter
Nelle for technical support. We also thank Uwe Rode from the
Waterways and Shipping Administration for helpful information and
support during the field work. The study was financed by the German
Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.106040.
References
Acreman, M.C., Harding, R.J., Lloyd, C., McNamara, N.P., Mountford, J.O., Mould, D.J.,
Purse, B.V., Heard, M.S., Stratford, C.J., Dury, S.J., 2011. Trade-off in ecosystem
services of the Somerset Levels and Moors wetlands. Hydrol. Sci. J. 56 (8),
1543–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.629783.
Alexeyev, V.A., Birdsey, R.A., 1998. Carbon storage in forests and peatlands of Russia.
USDA For. In: Serv. Northeastern Res. Statn., Radnor, Penn. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-244.
[Initially published in Russian in 1994].
Allan, J.D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream eco­
systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 257–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
ecolsys.35.120202.110122.
Allirand, J.M., Gosse, G., 1995. An above-ground biomass production model for a
common reed (Phragmites communis Trin.) stand. Biomass Bioenergy 9 (6),
441–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(95)00042-9.
Angradi, T.R., Schweiger, E.W., Bolgrien, D.W., Ismert, P., Selle, T., 2004. Bank stabili­
zation, riparian land use and the distribution of large woody debris in a regulated
reach of the upper Missouri River, North Dakota, USA. River Res. Appl. 20 (7),
829–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.797.
Anstead, L., Boar, R.R., 2010. Willow spiling: review of streambank stabilisation projects
in the UK. Fr. Rev. 3 (1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1608/FRJ-3.1.2.
BfG & BAW - Federal Institute of Hydrology & Federal Waterways Engineering and
Research Institute, 2008. Untersuchungen zu alternativen technisch-biologischen
Ufersicherungen an Bundeswasserstraßen, Teil 2: Teststrecke Stolzenau/Weser
[Investigations to alternative technical-biological bank protection measures on
Federal Waterways, Part 2: Study reach Stolzenau/Weser]. Karlsruhe/Koblenz. (BfG-
Report Nr.: 1579).
BMUB - Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety,
2015. Naturschutz-Offensive 2020 – Für biologische Vielfalt!. https://www.bmu.de/
fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/naturschutz-offensive_2020_broschuere_
bf.pdf, Accessed date: 14 November 2018.
BMVI- Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, 2019. Federal Waterways
and Shipping Administration (WSV). https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/
Articles/WS/federal-waterways-and-shipping-administration.html, Accessed date: 17
February 2019.
Brettar, I., Sanchez-Perez, J.M., Trémolieres, M., 2002. Nitrate elimination by deni­
trification in hardwood forest soils of the Upper Rhine floodplain–correlation with
redox potential and organic matter. Hydrobiologia 469 (1–3), 11–21. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1015527611350.
L. Symmank, et al.
Brix, H., Sorrell, B.K., Lorenzen, B., 2001. Are Phragmites-dominated wetlands a net
source or net sink of greenhouse gases? Aquat. Bot. 69 (2–4), 313–324. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0304-3770(01)00145-0.
Brunotte, E., Dister, E., Günther-Diringer, D., Koenzen, U., Mehl, D., 2009. Flussauen in
Deutschland–Erfassung und Bewertung des Auenzustandes [Riparian wetlands in
Germany, inventory and evaluation of the conditions of floodplains]. Naturschutz
und Biologische Vielfalt 87.
Burt, T.P., Matchett, L.S., Goulding, K.W.T., Webster, C.P., Haycock, N.E., 1999.
Denitrification in riparian buffer zones: the role of floodplain hydrology. Hydrol.
Process. 13 (10), 1451–1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199907)
13:10<1451::AID-HYP822>3.0.CO;2-W.
Canadell, J.G., Raupach, M.R., 2008. Managing forests for climate change mitigation.
Science 320 (5882), 1456–1457. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155458.
Catterall, C.P., Lynch, R., Jansen, A., 2007. Riparian wildlife and habitats. In: Lovett, S.,
Price, P. (Eds.), Principles for Riparian Lands Management. Land and Water
Australia, Canberra, Australia, pp. 141–158.
Cavaillé, P., Ducasse, L., Breton, V., Dommanget, F., Tabacchi, E., Evette, A., 2015.
Functional and taxonomic plant diversity for riverbank protection works:
Bioengineering techniques close to natural banks and beyond hard engineering. J.
Environ. Manag. 151, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.09.028.
Cierjacks, A., Kleinschmit, B., Babinsky, M., Kleinschroth, F., Markert, A., Menzel, M., ...
Lang, F., 2010. Carbon stocks of soil and vegetation on Danubian floodplains. Journal
of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 173 (5), 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.
200900209.
Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., Maginnis, S., 2016. Nature-Based Solutions to
Address Global Societal Challenges. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 97.
Collet, D.M., 2004. Willows of interior Alaska. Order 70181 (12-M692).
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... Raskin, R. G,
1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387
(6630), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.
DeLaune, R.D., Boar, R.R., Lindau, C.W., Kleiss, B.A., 1996. Denitrification in bottomland
hardwood wetland soils of the Cache River. Wetlands 16 (3), 309–320. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF03161322.
Dodds, W.K., 2006. Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 51 (1part2), 671–680. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2006.51.1_part_2.0671.
Doyle, M.W., Stanley, E.H., Havlick, D.G., Kaiser, M.J., Steinbach, G., Graf, W.L., ...
Riggsbee, J.A., 2008. Aging infrastructure and ecosystem restoration. Science 319
(5861), 286–287. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149852.
Evette, A., Labonne, S., Rey, F., Liebault, F., Jancke, O., Girel, J., 2009. History of
bioengineering techniques for erosion control in rivers in Western Europe. Environ.
Manag. 43 (6), 972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9275-y.
Evette, A., Balique, C., Lavaine, C., Rey, F., Prunier, P., 2012. Using ecological and bio­
geographical features to produce a typology of the plant species used in bioengi­
neering for riverbank protection in Europe. River Res. Appl. 28 (10), 1830–1842.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1560.
Feld, C.K., Birk, S., Bradley, D.C., Hering, D., Kail, J., Marzin, A., ... Pont, D., 2011. From
natural to degraded rivers and back again: a test of restoration ecology theory and
practice. Advances in ecological research 44, 119–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-374794-5.00003-1.
Fierke, M.K., Kauffman, J.B., 2005. Structural dynamics of riparian forests along a black
cottonwood successional gradient. For. Ecol. Manag. 215 (1–3), 149–162.
Fischenich, J.C., 2003. Effects of Riprap on Riverine and Riparian Ecosystems (No. ERDC/
EL-TR-03-4). Engineer Research and Development Centre Vicksburg MS
Environmental Lab.
Fischenich, J.C., Allen, H., 2000. Stream Management (No. ERDC/EL-TR-SR-W-00-1).
Engineer Research and Development Centre Vicksburg MS Environmental Lab.
Florsheim, J.L., Mount, J.F., Chin, A., 2008. Bank erosion as a desirable attribute of rivers.
BioScience 58 (6), 519–529.
Follner, Klaus, Ehlert, Thomas, Neukirchen, Bernd, 2010. The status report on German
floodplains. 38th IAD Conference 1–5.
Fortier, J., Truax, B., Gagnon, D., Lambert, F., 2015. Biomass carbon, nitrogen and
phosphorus stocks in hybrid poplar buffers, herbaceous buffers and natural woodlots
in the riparian zone on agricultural land. J. Environ. Manag. 154, 333–345. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.02.039.
Frothingham, K.M., 2008. Evaluation of stability threshold analysis as a cursory method
of screening potential streambank stabilization techniques. Appl. Geogr. 28 (2),
124–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2007.07.006.
Frouz, J., Dvorščík, P., Vávrová, A., Doušová, O., Kadochová, Š., Matějíček, L., 2015.
Development of canopy cover and woody vegetation biomass on reclaimed and un­
reclaimed post-mining sites. Ecol. Eng. 84, 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoleng.2015.09.027.
Gautier, E., Corbonnois, J., Petit, F., Arnaud-Fassetta, G., Brunstein, D., Grivel, S., ... Beck,
T., 2009. Multi-disciplinary approach for sediment dynamics study of active flood­
plains. Géomorphologie 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.7506.
Ghestem, M., Sidle, R.C., Stokes, A., 2011. The influence of plant root systems on sub­
surface flow: implications for slope stability. Bioscience 61 (11), 869–879. https://
doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.6.
Giese, L.A., Aust, W.M., Kolka, R.K., Trettin, C.C., 2003. Biomass and carbon pools of
disturbed riparian forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 180 (1–3), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0378-1127(02)00644-8.
Gruenewald, H., Brandt, B.K., Schneider, B.U., Bens, O., Kendzia, G., Hüttl, R.F., 2007.
Agroforestry systems for the production of woody biomass for energy transformation
purposes. Ecol. Eng. 29 (4), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.09.
012.
Harvolk, S., Symmank, L., Sundermeier, A., Otte, A., Donath, T.W., 2015. Human impact
on plant biodiversity in functional floodplains of heavily modified rivers–a
9
Ecological Engineering 158 (2020) 106040
comparative study along German Federal Waterways. Ecol. Eng. 84, 463–475.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.09.019.
Hefting, M.M., Clement, J.C., Bienkowski, P., Dowrick, D., Guenat, C., Butturini, A., ...
Verhoeven, J.T., 2005. The role of vegetation and litter in the nitrogen dynamics of
riparian buffer zones in Europe. Ecological Engineering 24 (5), 465–482. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.01.003.
Hein, T., Schwarz, U., Habersack, H., Nichersu, I., Preiner, S., Willby, N., Weigelhofer, G.,
2016. Current status and restoration options for floodplains along the Danube River.
Sci. Total Environ. 543, 778–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.073.
Hoffmann, C.C., Kjaergaard, C., Uusi-Kämppä, J., Hansen, H.C.B., Kronvang, B., 2009.
Phosphorus retention in riparian buffers: review of their efficiency. J. Environ. Qual.
38 (5), 1942–1955. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0087.
Hofmann-Schielle, C., Jug, A., Makeschin, F., Rehfuess, K.E., 1999. Short-rotation plan­
tations of balsam poplars, aspen and willows on former arable land in the Federal
Republic of Germany. I. Site–growth relationships. For. Ecol. Manag. 121 (1–2),
41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00555-6.
Jabłońska, E., Wiśniewska, M., Marcinkowski, P., Grygoruk, M., Walton, C.R., Zak, D., ...
Kotowski, W., 2020. Catchment-scale analysis Reveals high cost-effectiveness of
Wetland buffer Zones as a remedy to non-point nutrient pollution in North-Eastern
Poland. Water 12 (3), 629. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030629.
Jalkanen, A., Mäkipää, R., Ståhl, G., Lehtonen, A., Petersson, H., 2005. Estimation of the
biomass stock of trees in Sweden: comparison of biomass equations and age-depen­
dent biomass expansion factors. Ann. For. Sci. 62 (8), 845–851. https://doi.org/10.
1051/forest:2005075.
Janssen, P., Cavaillé, P., Bray, F., Evette, A., 2019. Soil bioengineering techniques en­
hance riparian habitat quality and multi-taxonomic diversity in the foothills of the
Alps and Jura Mountains. Ecol. Eng. 133, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.
2019.04.017.
Kaushal, S.S., Groffman, P.M., Mayer, P.M., Striz, E., Gold, A.J., 2008. Effects of stream
restoration on denitrification in an urbanizing watershed. Ecol. Appl. 18 (3),
789–804. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1159.1.
Kayranli, B., Scholz, M., Mustafa, A., Hedmark, Å., 2010. Carbon storage and fluxes
within freshwater wetlands: a critical review. Wetlands 30 (1), 111–124. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13157-009-0003-4.
Kingsford, R.T., Basset, A., Jackson, L., 2016. Wetlands: Conservation’s poor cousins.
Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 26 (5), 892–916. https://doi.org/10.1002/
aqc.2709.
Kronvang, B., Hoffmann, C.C., Svendsen, L.M., Windolf, J., Jensen, J.P., Dørge, J., 1999.
Retention of nutrients in river basins. Aquat. Ecol. 33 (1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.
1023/A:1009947907811.
Lautenbach, S., Maes, J., Kattwinkel, M., Seppelt, R., Strauch, M., Scholz, M., Schulz-
Zunkel, C., Volk, M., Weinert, J., Dormann, C.F., 2012. Mapping water quality-re­
lated ecosystem services: concepts and applications for nitrogen retention and pes­
ticide risk reduction. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosys. Serv. Manag. 8 (1–2), 35–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.631940.
Lehtonen, A., Mäkipää, R., Heikkinen, J., Sievänen, R., Liski, J., 2004. Biomass expansion
factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for
boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 188 (1), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.
2003.07.008.
Li, M.H., Eddleman, K.E., 2002. Biotechnical engineering as an alternative to traditional
engineering methods: a biotechnical streambank stabilization design approach.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 60 (4), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)
00057-9.
Li, X., Zhang, L., Zhang, Z., 2006. Soil bioengineering and the ecological restoration of
riverbanks at the Airport Town, Shanghai, China. Ecol. Eng. 26 (3), 304–314. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.10.011.
Lowrance, R., Altier, L.S., Newbold, J.D., Schnabel, R.R., Groffman, P.M., Denver, J.M., ...
Staver, K.W., 1997. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake
Bay watersheds. Environmental Management 21 (5), 687–712. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s002679900060.
Matzek, V., Puleston, C., Gunn, J., 2014. Can carbon credits fund riparian forest re­
storation? Restor. Ecol. 23 (1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12153.
McClain, M.E., Boyer, E.W., Dent, C.L., Gergel, S.E., Grimm, N.B., Groffman, P.M., ...
McDowell, W.H., 2003. Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems 6 (4), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10021-003-0161-9.
MEA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystem and Human Well-Being:
Wetlands and Waters Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., Pollock, M., 1993. The role of riparian corridors in main­
taining regional biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 3 (2), 209–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1941822.
Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., McClain, M.E., 2010. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and
Management of Streamside Communities. Elsevier.
Nakamura, K., Tockner, K., Amano, K., 2006. River and wetland restoration: lessons from
Japan. AIBS Bull. 56 (5), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)
056[0419:RAWRLF]2.0.CO;2.
Natho, S., Venohr, M., Henle, K., Schulz-Zunkel, C., 2013. Modelling nitrogen retention in
floodplains with different degrees of degradation for three large rivers in Germany. J.
Environ. Manag. 122, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.049.
Newcomer Johnson, T.A., Kaushal, S.S., Mayer, P.M., Smith, R.M., Sivirichi, G.M., 2016.
Nutrient retention in restored streams and rivers: a global review and synthesis.
Water 8 (4), 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8040116.
NIBIS®, 2014. Kartenserver: Bodenübersichtskarte 1:50000 (BUEK50). - Landesamt für
Bergbau, Energie und Geologie (LBEG), Hannover.
Nilsson, C., Svedmark, M., 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of chan­
ging water regimes: riparian plant communities. Environ. Manag. 30 (4), 468–480.
L. Symmank, et al.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2735-2.
Nilsson, C., Reidy, C.A., Dynesius, M., Revenga, C., 2005. Fragmentation and flow reg­
ulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308 (5720), 405–408. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1107887.
Nordh, N.E., Verwijst, T., 2004. Above-ground biomass assessments and first cutting cycle
production in willow (Salix sp.) coppice—a comparison between destructive and non-
destructive methods. Biomass Bioenergy 27 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2003.10.007.
Norris, J.E., Di Iorio, A., Stokes, A., Nicoll, B.C., Achim, A., 2008. Species selection for soil
reinforcement and protection. In: Norris, J.E., Stokes, A., Mickovski, S.B.,
Cammeraat, E., van Beek, R., Nicoll, B.C., Achim, A. (Eds.), Slope Stability and
Erosion Control: Ecotechnological Solutions. Springer, Dordrecht.
Olde Venterink, H., Vermaat, J.E., Pronk, M., Wiegman, F., van der Lee, G.E., van den
Hoorn, M.W., ... Verhoeven, J.T., 2006. Importance of sediment deposition and de­
nitrification for nutrient retention in floodplain wetlands. Applied Vegetation Science
9 (2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2006.tb00665.x.
Pasche, E., Kräßig, S., Lippert, K., Nasermoaddeli, H., Plöger, W., Rath, S., 2006. Wie viel
Physik braucht die Strömungsberechnung in der Ingenieurpraxis? In:
Wasserbaukolloquium, Strömungssimulation im Wasserbau, Dresdner
Wasserbauliche Mitteilungen, . https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mhassan_
Nasermoaddeli/publication/267372681_Wie_viel_Physik_braucht_die_
Stromungsberechnung_in_der_Ingenieurpraxis/links/5627784408ae2b313c54e63f.
pdf.
Penman, J., Gytarsky, M., Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Kruger, D., Pipatti, R., ... Wagner, F.,
2003. Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan Available at: http://
www.80.24.165.149/webproduccion/PDFs/03CAP05.PDF.
Pinay, G., Clément, J.C., Naiman, R.J., 2002. Basic principles and ecological con­
sequences of changing water regimes on nitrogen cycling in fluvial systems. Environ.
Manag. 30 (4), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2736-1.
Pinto, A., Fernandes, L.S., Maia, R., 2016. Monitoring methodology of interventions for
riverbanks stabilization: Assessment of technical solutions performance. Water
Resour. Manag. 30 (14), 5281–5298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1486-4.
Rheinhardt, R.D., Brinson, M.M., Meyer, G.F., Miller, K.H., 2012. Carbon storage of
headwater riparian zones in an agricultural landscape. Carbon Balance Manag. 7 (1),
4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-7-4.
Rieger, I., Lang, F., Kowarik, I., Cierjacks, A., 2014. The interplay of sedimentation and
carbon accretion in riparian forests. Geomorphology 214, 157–167. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.01.023.
Ritz, S., Dähnke, K., Fischer, H., 2018. Open-channel measurement of denitrification in a
large lowland river. Aquat. Sci. 80 (1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-017-
0560-1.
Robinson, C.T., Tockner, K., Ward, J.V., 2002. The fauna of dynamic riverine landscapes.
Freshw. Biol. 47 (4), 661–677. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00921.x.
Rytter, R.M., 2012. The potential of willow and poplar plantations as carbon sinks in
Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 36, 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.
10.012.
Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., ... Leemans, R.,
2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287 (5459),
1770–1774. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770.
Schmitt, K., Schäffer, M., Koop, J., Symmank, L., 2018. Riverbank stabilisation by
bioengineering: potentials for ecological diversity. J. Appl. Water Eng. Res. 1–12
(1080/23249676.2018.1466735).
Schneider, S., Nestmann, F., Lehmann, B., 2006. Interaction of vegetation, current and
sedimantation. In: River Flow 2006, Portugal, pp. 647–656.
Scholz, M., Kasperidus, H.D., Ilg, C., Henle, K., Kasperidus, H.D., Born, W., Henle, K.,
2012. Habitatfunktion (Habitat function). In: Scholz, M., Mehl, D., Schulz-Zunkel, C.
(Eds.), Ökosystemfunktionen von Flussauen e Analyse und Bewertung von
Hochwasserretention, Nährstoffrückhalt, Kohlenstoffvorrat, Treibhausgasemissionen
und Habitatfunktion. [Ecosystem services of riparian Floodplains-Analysis and
Evaluation of Flood Retention, Nutrient Retention, Carbon Storage, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Habitat Functions]. Naturschutz und biologische Vielfalt, pp. 124.
Schultz, R.C., Isenhart, T.M., Colletti, J.P., 2005. Riparian buffer systems in crop and
rangelands. In: Natural Resource Ecology and Management Conference Papers,
Posters and Presentations. 23. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/nrem_conf/23.
Schulz-Zunkel, C., Scholz, M., Kasperidus, H.D., Krüger, F., Natho, S., Venohr, M., 2012.
Nährstoffrückhalt (Nutrient retention). In: Scholz, M., Mehl, D., Schulz-Zunkel, C.,
Kasperidus, H.D., Born, W., Henle, K. (Eds.), Ökosystemfunktionen von Flussauen e
Analyse und Bewertung von Hochwasserretention, Nährstoffrückhalt,
Kohlenstoffvorrat, Treibhausgasemissionen und Habitatfunktion. [Ecosystem
Services of Riparian Floodplains-Analysis and Evaluation of Flood Retention,
10
Ecological Engineering 158 (2020) 106040
Nutrient Retention, Carbon Storage, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Habitat
Functions]. Naturschutz und biologische Vielfalt, pp. 124.
Šimek, M., Cooper, J.E., 2002. The influence of soil pH on denitrification: progress to­
wards the understanding of this interaction over the last 50 years. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 53
(3), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2002.00461.x.
Søvik, A.K., Syversen, N., 2008. Retention of particles and nutrients in the root zone of a
vegetative buffer zone: effect of vegetation and season. Boreal Environ. Res. 13,
223–230.
Sutfin, N.A., Wohl, E.E., Dwire, K.A., 2016. Banking carbon: a review of organic carbon
storage and physical factors influencing retention in floodplains and riparian eco­
systems. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 41 (1), 38–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.
3857.
Sweeney, B.W., Bott, T.L., Jackson, J.K., Kaplan, L.A., Newbold, J.D., Standley, L.J., ...
Horwitz, R.J., 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream
ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (39),
14132–14137. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405895101.
Symmank, L., Profeta, A., Niens, C., 2020. Valuation of river restoration measures – Do
residential preferences depend on leisure behavior? Eur. Plan. Stud. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09654313.2020.1760792. (in press).
Tigges, J., Churkina, G., Lakes, T., 2017. Modeling above-ground carbon storage: a re­
mote sensing approach to derive individual tree species information in urban settings.
Urban Ecosyst. 20 (1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0585-6.
Tisserant, M., Janssen, P., Evette, A., González, E., Cavaillé, P., Poulin, M., 2020. Diversity
and succession of riparian plant communities along riverbanks bioengineered for
erosion control: a case study in the foothills of the Alps and the Jura Mountains. Ecol.
Eng. 152, 105880.
Tockner, K., Stanford, J.A., 2002. Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends.
Environ. Conserv. 29 (3), 308–330. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689290200022X.
Trepel, M., Palmeri, L., 2002. Quantifying nitrogen retention in surface flow wetlands for
environmental planning at the landscape-scale. Ecol. Eng. 19 (2), 127–140. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(02)00038-1.
Tufekcioglu, A., Raich, J.W., Isenhart, T.M., Schultz, R.C., 2003. Biomass, carbon and
nitrogen dynamics of multi-species riparian buffers within an agricultural watershed
in Iowa, USA. Agrofor. Syst. 57 (3), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1024898615284.
UNEP-WCMC - World Conservation Monitoring Center, 2000. European Forests and
Protected Areas: Gap Analysis. United Nations Environmental Program - World
Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Verhoeven, J.T., Arheimer, B., Yin, C., Hefting, M.M., 2006. Regional and global concerns
over wetlands and water quality. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21 (2), 96–103. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tree.2005.11.015.
Vidon, P., 2010. Riparian zone management and environmental quality: a multi‐­
contaminan challenge. Hydrological Processes. Int. J. 24 (11), 1532–1535.
von Haaren, C., SCHRÖTER-SCHLAACK, C., ALBERT, C., HANSJÜRGENS, B., & KRÄTZIG,
S. A. (2016). Ökosystemleistungen in ländlichen Räumen. Grundlage für mens­
chliches Wohlergehen und nachhaltige wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. Hannover,
Leipzig: Naturkapital Deutschland-TEEB DE.
Walton, C.R., Zak, D., Audet, J., Petersen, R.J., Lange, J., Oehmke, C., ... Kotowski, W.,
2020. Wetland buffer zones for nitrogen and phosphorus retention: Impacts of soil
type, hydrology and vegetation. Science of The Total Environment 138709. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138709.
Waters, E.R., Morse, J.L., Bettez, N.D., Groffman, P.M., 2014. Differential carbon and
nitrogen controls of denitrification in riparian zones and streams along an urban to
exurban gradient. J. Environ. Qual. 43 (3), 955–963. https://doi.org/10.2134/
jeq2013.12.0504.
Wells, Gary W., "Biotechnical Streambank Protection: The use of plants to stabilize
streambanks" (2002). Agroforestry Notes (USDANAC). 23.
Wollny, J.T., Otte, A., Harvolk-Schöning, S., 2019. Dominance of competitors in riparian
plant species composition along constructed banks of the German rivers Main and
Danube. Ecol. Eng. 127, 324–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.11.013.
Wolter, C., 2001. Conservation of fish species diversity in navigable waterways. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 53 (1–4), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00147-X.
Wu, H.L., Feng, Z.Y., 2006. Ecological engineering methods for soil and water con­
servation in Taiwan. Ecol. Eng. 28 (4), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.
2006.09.005.
Zerbe, S., Steffenhagen, P., Parakenings, K., Timmermann, T., Frick, A., Gelbrecht, J., Zak,
D., 2013. Ecosystem service restoration after 10 years of rewetting peatlands in NE
Germany. Environ. Manag. 51 (6), 1194–1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-
013-0048-2.
Zianis, D., Muukkonen, P., Mäkipää, R., Mencuccini, M., 2005. Biomass and stem volume
equations for tree species in Europe. Silva Fenn. Monogr. 4, 1–63.