Nauka Przyroda Technologie

Science Nature Technologies

Scientific journal presents original papers and articles relevant to all aspects of agricultural sciences.

Język polski English
Quick search:

2017 volume 11 issue 1, 5-22 http://dx.doi.org/10.17306/J.NPT.00186
Krzysztof Górecki, Piotr Lewandowski
Hydromorphological assessment of Great Loop of Wielkopolska – a comparison of methods and results
Summary.

Background. The adoption of the Water Framework Directive (Dyrektywa..., 2000) resulted in the need to assess watercourses using three components: biological, physicochemical and hydromorphological. The hydromorphological state has been under investigation in Poland since the early 1990s. However, none of the methods used for this purpose fully met the WFD requirements. In 2009 a method meeting the requirements of the WFD – River Hydromorphological Monitoring (RHM) was developed at the request of the Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection. The aim of this study was to compare the results obtained with the method developed before the introduction of the WFD and with the new RHM method.

Material and methods. The investigations were carried out on the 709-kilometre waterway known as the Great Loop of Wielkopolska (GLW), which includes the two largest rivers in the region – the Warta and the Noteć. The hydromorphological state of the water bodies was assessed according to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (Dyrektywa..., 2000). The study encompassed 17 Uniform Parts of Surface Waters (UPSW). Five of them are categorised as artificial, whereas the other twelve are classified as natural water bodies. The watercourses were hydromorphologically assessed by means of EcomorphEval – a field method and River Hydromorphological Monitoring (RHM) – a photo interpretation method.

Results. The RHM method resulted in most of the water bodies being included  in class II or III of the hydromorphological state (natural watercourses) or hydromorphological potential (all artificial watercourses). Only one water body (the mouth of the Noteć River) was included
in class I. The EcomorphEval method resulted in more varied classification of the water bodies. The results of both methods were compared.

Conclusions. Differences in the assessment of individual water bodies were chiefly caused by the fact that river continuity was not evaluated in the method developed before the WFD (Ecomorph­Eval) and because there were different numbers of indicators and attributes assessed in the categor­ies concerning the riparian zone and use of river valleys.

Key words: hydromorphology, waterway, comparison of methods, RHM, EcomorphEval, Great Loop of Wielkopolska
PDFFull text available in Polish in Adobe Acrobat format:
http://www.npt.up-poznan.net/tom11/zeszyt1/art_1.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.17306/J.NPT.00186

For citation:

MLA Górecki, Krzysztof, and Piotr Lewandowski. "Hydromorfologiczna ocena Wielkiej Pętli Wielkopolski – porównanie metod i wyników." Nauka Przyr. Technol. 11.1 (2017): 5-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.17306/J.NPT.00186
APA Krzysztof Górecki1, Piotr Lewandowski2 (2017). Hydromorfologiczna ocena Wielkiej Pętli Wielkopolski – porównanie metod i wyników. Nauka Przyr. Technol. 11 (1), 5-22 http://dx.doi.org/10.17306/J.NPT.00186
ISO 690 GóRECKI, Krzysztof, LEWANDOWSKI, Piotr. Hydromorfologiczna ocena Wielkiej Pętli Wielkopolski – porównanie metod i wyników. Nauka Przyr. Technol., 2017, 11.1: 5-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.17306/J.NPT.00186
Corresponding address:
Krzysztof Górecki
Katedra Entomologii i Ochrony Środowiska
Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy w Poznaniu
ul. Dąbrowskiego 159
60-594 Poznań
Poland
e-mail: goral@up.poznan.pl
Accepted for print: 31.03.2017