Abstract
Riparian zones are among the most valuable ecosystems on the earth. They act as the ecological engineers that improve river health through delivering a range of ecosystem functions. Stream bank stabilization, pollutant and sediment buffering, temperature regulation, provision of energy to river food webs and communities, groundwater recharge and provision of ecological corridors and habitat for wildlife, are among major ecosystem functions of riparian zones that play a great role in river health. Besides these ecosystem functions, riparian zones also provide various ecosystem goods and services for human well-being. But in the current scenario, riparian zones are under severe threat due to agricultural activities, urbanization, river flow alteration, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and biological invasion. In the present and probable future scenarios of declining river health and global environmental changes, there is a pressing need of an integrated approach for managing riparian zones. This review article aims to advocate an integrated approach for riparian zone management based on various components such as riparian condition assessment, policy framework, stakeholder’s participation, management practices, legislation, and awareness. Authors also discussed riparian zones in context of their concepts, features, functions, and threats.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Riparian zones are the interfaces between river channel and upland terrestrial ecosystem and underpin key exchange of energy, inorganic and organic matter, and biota (Ballinger and Lake 2006; Hanser et al. 2010; Fu et al. 2016; de Mello et al. 2018; Lacko et al. 2018). These areas are among the most productive and biodiversity rich landscapes on the earth (Kardynal et al. 2009). Riparian zones are one of the fifteen globally recognized terrestrial biomes (Maraseni and Mitchel 2016). Although riparian zones comprise a relatively small area, but they support greater biodiversity than surrounding landscape (Naiman et al. 1993; Palmer and Bennett 2006; Glass and Floyd 2015). Riparian forests cover less than 2% of the total land surface in the American Southwest but are most biologically productive and ecologically important lands (Debano and Baker 1999; Lee and Rotenberry 2015). Hydrology is a major driver that regulates structural and functional aspects of riparian zones (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007; Ye et al. 2017).
Riparian zones differ from surrounding uplands in their soil and vegetative structure, topography, microclimate, moisture regimes, disturbance regimes, and productivity (Pettit and Naiman 2007). Thus, riparian zones are highly heterogeneous in time and space with complex biophysical structure (Naiman et al. 2005; Pettit and Naiman 2007). Riparian zones are affected by overbank flooding events and connect upland and aquatic ecosystem through surface and subsurface flow of water (Naiman et al. 2005; Vidon et al. 2010). Riparian zones are characterized by range of features like periodic flooding, sharp environmental gradients, topographic position, dendritic structure, high edge area, connectivity, and high biodiversity (Malanson 1993; Naiman et al. 1993; Forman 1995; Palmer and Bennett 2006; Fremier et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2018).
Riparian and floodplain forests are the vital components of the river ecosystem (Muller 1997). Riparian zones act as the ecological engineers that maintain and improve river health through providing multiple ecosystem functions (Singh and Singh 2019). They are recognized as the best management practices to maintain or improve stream condition by providing a buffer between waterways and agricultural fields (Dosskey et al. 2010; O’Toole et al. 2018). Riparian zones are recognized as the potential natural filters for sediments and nutrients between upland environments and streams (Vidon 2010; Ou et al. 2016; de Mello et al. 2017, 2018). Riparian ecosystems regulate river temperature through shading from solar insolation, stabilize streambanks, and provide habitat and food for a range of terrestrial and aquatic organisms (Naiman and Decamps 1997; Naiman et al. 2005; Vidon et al. 2010; Li et al. 2012; Guevara et al. 2015; Tonin et al. 2017; Garner et al. 2017). Riparian systems through infiltration of water enhance aquifer recharge and play an important great role in watershed (del Tanago et al. 2011).
Besides these important functions, riparian zones also deliver a range of ecosystem goods and services that support human well-being (Meli and Brancalion 2017; Wu et al. 2017; de Sosa et al. 2018a) such as forage to livestock (Fitch and Adams 1998), genetic resources and biota for ornamental uses (Capon et al. 2013), fuel wood (Shackleton et al. 2003), carbon sequestration (Hale et al. 2018), air quality regulation (Mander et al. 2005), flood regulation (Croke et al. 2017), pollination (Klein et al. 2007; Cole et al. 2015), recreation (Sharitz et al. 1992), and aesthetic value (Martin et al. 2012). Despite a multitude of ecosystem functions and services, riparian zones are among the most threatened ecosystems in the world due to human activities and natural disturbances (Casotti et al. 2015; Seena et al. 2017). Agricultural activities, urbanization, river flow alteration, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and biological invasion are some of the major threats that degrade and deteriorate riparian zones (Nilsson and Berggren 2000; Groffmann et al. 2003; Dudgeon et al. 2006; Richardson et al. 2007; Poff et al. 2011; Capon et al. 2013; Ruwanza et al. 2013; Kuglerová et al. 2014;; Fu et al. 2016; Alemu et al. 2017; Modiba et al. 2017; Rosot et al. 2018). Globally, along many rivers, a large riparian zone either has been eliminated or is on the verge of degradation. A well-maintained riparian zone is critical for health and sustainability of ecological functions and services of rivers and streams (Fernández et al. 2014; Wu et al. 2017; Yang et al. 2018) which underpin the human well-being (Yang and Chen 2014; Morton et al. 2017). Maintenance of river health is a pressing need for sustainable development of human society (Meyer 1997; Pan et al. 2015) and it largely depends on the health of riparian zones. Therefore, conservation and management of riparian zones that play a key role in river health improvement is the need of hour.
Worldwide, many efforts have been implemented to manage riparian zones but many of them either failed or achieved little success due to lack of an integrated approach (González et al. 2017). Many approaches, projects and plans related to riparian management have been focused on implementing practices while ignoring other aspects such as making robust policy, assessing the condition of riparian zones, increasing people’s participation, strengthening of legislation and spreading awareness. Achieving the goals of riparian zones management in the era of changing environment needs an integrated approach combining the multiple strategies (Welsch et al. 2000). In this article, authors advocated an integrated approach for riparian zone management including multiple strategies like riparian condition assessment, policy framework, stakeholder’s participation, management practices, legislation and awareness based on global studies, for examples, Gouvernement du Québec (1987); Schultz et al. (1995), USDA (1997), Ball (2008), Burger et al. (2010), Miller et al. (2010), Chiramba et al. (2011), Miller et al. (2011), Sovell et al. (2000), Bourgeois et al. (2016), Clary et al. (2016), Hunter Jr. et al. (2017) and Meli and Brancalion (2017). This article also described the concepts, features, functions and threats of riparian zones.
Riparian zones: concepts and features
The word “riparian” is derived from Latin word riparius which denotes the land adjacent to the water body (Naiman and Decamps 1997; Sunil et al. 2010). Riparian zones are the transitional areas between the aquatic and the terrestrial environment (Betz et al. 2018). They encompass the space between flowing water at low levels and the highest water mark where vegetation is influenced by floods, elevated water tables, and soil type (González et al. 2017). Riparian zones comprise riverbed, banks, vegetation, adjacent land, and the floodplain (Maraseni and Mitchel 2016). For a river valley with a width less than 100 m, the entire floodplain is riparian zone and for all other rivers, a standard distance of 50 m on both sides is recommended as riparian zone (CEN 2004; Kujanová et al. 2018).
Biological, chemical, and physical interactions between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems create a three dimensional riparian zone (Gregory et al. 1991; Kauffman et al. 1997). Riparian zones act as critical transition zones between river catchments and channels and mediate the flow of energy, biota, sediments and nutrients between these two environments (Naiman and Décamps 1997; Lake 2005; Naiman et al. 2005; Hale et al. 2014). Healthy riparian buffers are highly interactive with adjacent aquatic systems (Klemas, 2014). Riparian buffers are linear in nature (Qian et al. 2018). Topographic position, dendritic structure, high edge area, and connectivity through landscape make riparian habitats a distinctive landscape (Malanson 1993; Forman 1995; Palmer and Bennett 2006). A typical riparian zone with its distinguished features is represented in Fig. 1.
A riparian corridor encompasses sharp environmental gradients, ecological processes and communities (Naiman et al. 1993). Width and functional attributes of a riparian zone are affected by stream size, stream position in drainage system, hydrology and geomorphology (Gregory et al. 1991; Naiman and Décamps 1997; Maruani and Amit-Cohen 2009). Hydrology is the powerful factor that regulates structural and functional aspects of riparian zones (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007; Ye et al. 2017). It also controls the water flow paths in riparian zones. Five main water flow characteristics are recognized as the important factors in shaping riparian plant communities; timing (season), duration, frequency, rate of change and magnitude (Nilsson and Svedmark 2002; New and Xie 2008).
Dosskey et al. (2010) highlighted several water flow paths in riparian zones such as (i) vertical flow of precipitation into riparian soil via plant roots (ii) lateral flow of streamwater through hyporheic zone (iii) overland and subsurface runoff from uplands (iv) surface and subsurface flow of flood water. Hyporheic zone is volume of sediments where stream water mixes with groundwater (Peralta-Maraver et al. 2018). On moving away from riverbank, the influence of river water and soil moisture decreases while the depth of water table increases.
Riparian zones support rich biodiversity than their adjacent upland ecosystems. Various attributes such as proximity to water, structure and microclimate underpin the persistence of many wildlife species in riparian forests (National Research Council 2002; Viegas et al. 2014). Riparian vegetation is the integral component of the riparian zone. It is characterized by diversity of species of trees, woody shrubs, herbs/forbs, grasses, and sedges that differs structurally and floristically from other terrestrial vegetation due to influence of stream moisture, flood and soil attributes (Anderson 1993; Pert et al. 2010; Valero et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2018). River flow regime, groundwater, and morpho-dynamics significantly affect the life cycle of the riparian vegetation (Tabacchi et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2018).
Riparian zones as the ecological engineers: implications for river health improvement
It is an obvious question in the current scenario of global environmental changes that why should we manage riparian zones? The answer is simple that riparian zones play a significant role in river health improvement through a range of ecosystem functions. River health is a complex term encompassing various health indicators. River health indicators include the ecological status, water quality, hydrology, geomorphology, and availability of physical habitat (Maddock 1999). Ecological integrity, resilience and supporting of ecosystem structure, functions, and services are the characteristic features of the healthy rivers (Singh and Saxena 2018). River health protection is pivotal for the sustainable utilization of rivers to fulfill economic, social and domestic demands (Zhang et al. 2018). Maintaining the river health is a pressing need due to its giant role in ecosystem structure and functions, sustainable development and well-being of human society (Meyer 1997; Pan et al. 2015). Rivers are closely linked with human civilization (Gambino 2005; Braioni et al. 2017) culture and history (Pan et al. 2016). A healthy river ecosystem delivers a broad spectrum of ecosystem goods and services such as fish, freshwater, hydropower, soil and sand transportation, habitat for wildlife, nutrient cycling, opportunities for shipping and transportation, flood control, carbon dioxide fixation, water quality regulation, aesthetics and recreation (Limburg et al. 2002; Fisher and Turner 2008; Fisher et al. 2009; Yang and Chen 2014; Morton et al. 2017).
Riparian zones are recognized as the best management practices for river health improvement. Riparian zones act as the ecological engineers that improve river health through a stream of ecosystem functions (Fig. 2).
Healthy riparian zones preserve and sustain river health through delivering a stream of ecosystem functions (Naiman and Décamps 1997; Ryan et al. 2003; Fernandes et al. 2011). Riparian zones and associated vegetation provide ecological corridor, food and habitat to wildlife, moderate stream temperature, stabilize stream bank, buffer sediments and pollutants and enhances groundwater recharge (Hood and Naiman 2000; Pusey and Arthington 2003; del Tanago et al. 2011; Salemi et al. 2012; Asanok et al. 2017; Modiba et al. 2017).
Riparian zones stabilize streambank
Riverbanks are prone to water derived erosion. Riverbanks are the major sources of sediments and can supply over 50% of catchment sediment output (Lawler et al. 1999). The amount of sediment supplied by stream bank erosion is largely determined by numerous factors like topography, river morphology, riparian land-use, vegetation cover, bank material, weather cycles, and watershed area (Hagerty et al. 1981; Zaimes et al. 2004). Stream bank instability and resulting sediment load cause detrimental effects on water quality, aquatic organisms, human health, agricultural land, stream side infrastructure like bridges, and the overall ecological health of riparian and river ecosystems (ASCE 1998; Heartstill-Scalley and Aide 2003; Pollen and Simon 2005; Gomi et al. 2006; Botero-Acosta et al. 2017). Sediment load in stream paves the way for flooding (Zaimes et al. 2004).
Riparian vegetation helps in reducing the stream bank erosion (Vigiak et al. 2016). Root networks of riparian plants and trees enhance the apparent cohesion of soil and thereby bank stability through a blend of mechanical and hydrologic effects (Simon and Collison 2002; Pollen and Simon 2005). In mechanical effects, soil is reinforced by root system, while in hydrologic effects, riparian vegetation reduces soil moisture by canopy interception and evapotranspiration (Simon and Collison 2002). High speed of river flow in the channel causes streambank instability and thus increases sedimentation. Vegetation growing in the bank hinders the flow of the channel and reduces mean flow velocities and thereby affecting sediment erosion (Wilson et al. 2005; Pollen-Bankhead and Simon 2010). Herbaceous wet meadow riparian species including sedges (Carex spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp., Eleocharis spp.), are adapted to grow in riverbank environments with dense root networks that bind bank sediments (Nilsson et al. 1989; Micheli and Kirchner 2002). Some tree species like Willows (Salix species) and silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.), protect the stream bank due to their high density and deep rooting habits that increase soil resistance to fluid entrainment (Shields et al. 1995; Zaimes et al. 2004).
Riparian zones maintain river water quality
Riparian zones with dense vegetation sustain the stream water quality though filtering the sediments and nutrients such Nitrogen and Phosphorus (Goss et al. 2014; Connolly et al. 2015; de Sosa et al. 2018a). In a study at Georgia, Todd et al. (1983) found that forested buffer potentially removed 82% of waterborne nitrogen from agricultural runoff (Fennessy and Cronk 1997). Riparian zones particularly riparian soils are effective sink of heavy metals coming from river or upland areas through the process of sedimentation and adsorption and consequently maintain stream water quality (Pavlovic´ et al. 2016). Worldwide, much effort has been made through implementation of wastewater treatment plants, but these measures only reduce pollution from point sources (Hattermann et al. 2006). Pollution from diffuse sources like leaching from fertilized cropland and atmospheric deposition is not abated by these technological methods (Hattermann et al. 2006). Riparian zones play a significant role in reducing the diffuse pollution. Riparian zones reduce sediment load into streams through minimized erosion and floodplain deposition (Randhir and Ekness 2013; Nóbrega et al. 2020).
Riparian vegetation enhances water quality through physical, chemical and biological processes (Dosskey et al. 2010; O’Toole et al. 2018). In physical process, vegetation enhances hydraulic roughness, and thus decreasing surface flow and increasing infiltration rates which pave the way for increase in sediment and nutrient deposition in riparian zones (Naiman and Decamps 1997; O’Toole et al. 2018). Chemically, riparian vegetation alters redox potential and assists transformation of nutrients which in turn result in nutrient loss and nutrient release while through biological processes riparian zones diminish nutrient concentrations by assimilating them into plant biomass or by microbial immobilization (Naiman and Decamps 1997; Scalenghe et al. 2002; Tabacchi et al. 2000; Hoffmann et al. 2009; O’Toole et al. 2018).
Riparian zones regulate thermal regime of river
Thermal regime is crucial for ecological health of river (Kędra and Wiejaczka 2018). Most river organisms are ectothermic; therefore, water temperature influences their metabolic rates, growth, development, survival, and distribution (Allan and Castillo 2007; Kędra and Wiejaczka 2018). River temperature affects growth, survival and demographic features of the cold water adapted fish species such as salmonids (Jackson et al. 2018). Burton and Likens (1973) in their study found that stream temperatures reduced 4–5 °C about 50 m transitioning from non-forested to forested stream section (Goss et al. 2014). Riparian forest canopy regualtes river temperature dynamics through shading the river and reducing the incoming solar radiation (Nakamura and Yamada 2005; Garner et al. 2017). Geographical location, groundwater input, and composition, density and width determine the influence of riparian vegetation on stream temperature (Osborne and Kovacic 1993). Canopy shading through riparian vegetation also controls the intensive growth of aquatic macrophytes (Mander et al. 1997).
Riparian zones sustain food security of river organisms
Regulation of nutrient flux is one of the potential ecological values of the riparian forests (Gregory et al. 1991; Sterzynska et al. 2014). Riparian zones regulate dissolved organic carbon (DOC) input to rivers that affect the food web structure, control acid–base chemistry, and influence metal mobilization (Creed et al. 2008; Eglin et al. 2008; Kuglerová et al. 2014). Leaves of riparian trees undergo the decomposition in streams by fungi, bacteria and invertebrates (Cummins et al. 1989; Webster et al. 1999; Nisbet et al. 2015) and provide food for river organisms such as fish (Broadmeadow and Nisbet 2004). Organic carbon derived from leaf litter and decaying root biomass helps in denitrification in waterlogged soils and streams (Fortier et al. 2015). Terrestrial invertebrates falling into streams from the branches of riparian forests also provide food source for fish (Nakamura and Yamada 2005). During the period when streams become oligotrophic, terrestrial invertebrates can be used by fish as important and nutritious food source (Nakamura and Yamada 2005).
Riparian zones enhance groundwater recharge
Riparian zones play a vital role in maintaining hydrological conditions in watershed. Riparian vegetation facilitates the exchange between surface and groundwater (Tabacchi et al. 2000). Water via root hairs of vegetation enters into the soil and enriches the aquifer. Riparian vegetation enhances the infiltration capacity of soil and consequently water percolates to the aquifers. Riparian buffer enhances the evapotranspiration and rainfall interception while reduces runoff and overland flow (Alvarenga et al. 2017). The consequence of these effects enhances base flow/runoff relationship which suggests that riparian vegetation plays a key role in groundwater recharge (Alvarenga et al. 2017). Riparian ecosystems are flooded periodically due to their spatial position and connectivity with river channels and thus play a key role in water infiltration and aquifer recharge (del Tanago et al. 2011).
Leaf litter in riparian zones also plays an important role in groundwater recharge. Litter on the ground surface retains more water compared to bare soil and improves the infiltration into the soil (Le Maitre et al. 1999). Aquifer recharge in riparian zones sustains surface flow in rivers, maintains high water table and improves the width of productive riparian zone (Fitch and Ambrose 2003). Riparian trees not only have direct access to the stream water but also to the groundwater that flows either to or from the stream (Bren 1993). Soil water, groundwater, and river water are three major water sources for riparian vegetation (Si et al. 2014).
Riparian zones provide habitat to wildlife
Riparian biodiversity is an integral component of river health. Riparian zones harbor more species than their adjacent terrestrial upland areas. Natural riparian zones are among the most diverse, dynamic, and complex biophysical habitats on the terrestrial land of the planet (Naiman et al. 1993; Cabette et al. 2017). Landscape attributes of riparian forests such as proximity to water, nutrient availability, diverse vegetative structures, low light incidence and low temperature are important factors that support biodiversity (Brown 2000; National Research Council 2002; Sabo et al. 2005; Viegas et al. 2014; McClure et al. 2015; Cabette et al. 2017).
Riparian forests support rich biodiversity and act as corridors between forest habitats and populations (Fremier et al. 2015; de la Fuente et al. 2018). Riparian habitats provide home for a variety of organisms, ranging from plants to algae and insects to fish to migratory birds and resident animals (Webb and Leake 2006). They are recognized as the important sites for migratory and breeding birds (McClure et al. 2015). Species prefer riparian zones for migration, water, food, security, rest, cover, reproduction, nesting habitat, dispersal or movement between habitat patches (Gregory et al. 1991; O’Carroll 2004; Santos et al. 2011; Brost and Beier 2012; Fremier et al. 2015; Phoebus et al. 2017). Mosley et al. (2006) studied birds’ use of riparian zones in the boreal mixed wood forest of Ontario, Canada and found that birds used these areas extensively in breeding and fall migration periods. They also observed that during the breeding period, riparian zones had more insects than upland forests (Mosley et al. 2006). Riparian forests are also home of variety of invertebrates such as dung beetles and ground-foraging scavenging ants and butterfly (Gray et al. 2016; Cabette et al. 2017). Riparian vegetation is an important sanctuary for butterfly preservation in the Cerrado of Brazil especially during the dry periods characterized by water stress and limited resources (Cabette et al. 2017).
Major threats to riparian zones
In spite of the pivotal role in river health through a range of ecosystem functions, riparian zones are among the most threatened ecosystems in the world. Globally, riparian zones have extensively been degraded (Holmes et al. 2008). Riparian zones are affected by both human activities and natural disturbances (Fernandes et al. 2011; Casotti et al. 2015; Seena et al. 2017). In the current scenario, increasing degradation of riparian vegetation is a major risk to the quality and quantity of the drinkable water (Richit et al. 2017). Degradation of riparian vegetation severely affects not only water quality but also the biological diversity. Cabette et al. (2017) in their study found that the riparian forest removal severely affected the butterfly community. Worldwide, riparian ecosystems are under severe threats due to agricultural activities, urbanization, river flow alteration, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and biological invasion (Patten 1998; Dudgeon et al. 2006; Poff et al. 2011; Modiba et al. 2017; Shen et al. 2017; Rosot et al. 2018).
Agricultural activities
Agricultural systems are not only the largest ecosystems of the Anthropocene but also among the major contributors causing the breaking of multiple planetary boundaries (Rockstrom et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2015; DeClerck et al. 2016). Agricultural land expansion is responsible for more than 70% of the deforestation (Gibbs et al. 2010; Hosonuma et al. 2012; Wang and Qiu 2017). Agricultural development is clearing the riparian ecotones to make arable land and thereby reduction in riparian and river ecosystem services (Rheinhardt et al. 2012a; Truax et al. 2017). To prepare land for cultivation, riparian forests along farm streams have been cleared in many temperate agricultural landscapes (Fortier et al. 2015). Intensive agriculture is a major reason for vegetation degradation along the rivers and streams. During the past 200 years in North America about 90% of riparian habitats have been lost mainly due to intensified agricultural practices (Popotnik and Giuliano 2000; Deschenes et al. 2003). Intensive agricultural activities in riparian zones significantly alter the composition, diversity and richness of native species of riparian forests (Asanok et al. 2017). Intensive agriculture causes the excessive application of agrochemicals. Application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers on agricultural fields threatens the ecological functions in riparian zones (Gregory et al. 1991; Nóbrega et al. 2020).
Riparian zones are one of the most preferred areas for grazing. Long-term unrestricted grazing is one of the most destructive forces to the river and riparian ecosystems as it reduces stream water quality, damages soil, degrades vegetation, enhances soil erosion, alters channel morphology, increases biological invasion and paves the way for biodiversity loss (Davis 1982; Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Trimble and Mendel 1995; Vidon et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2010; Hughes et al. 2016). Unrestricted cattle entry in riparian zones can alter or eliminate the vegetation. Livestock cause physical damage to riparian vegetation by rubbing, trampling, and browsing (Kauffman and Krueger 1984). Vegetation decrease due to overgrazing can adversely affect the hydrologic conditions in watershed and diminish stream flow (Armour et al. 1994). Livestock grazing causes soil compaction which increases runoff and consequently decreasing the water availability to plants (Kauffman and Krueger 1984). Increase runoff results in reduced entry of water in aquifers. Livestock grazing can also affect the riparian bird breeding behavior as evidenced by Hansen et al. (2019) in a study at riparian zones of northern Victoria, Australia. Hansen et al. (2019) explored that woodland bird breeding activity was declined in heavily and lightly grazed and degraded riparian sites compared to non-grazed sites.
Urbanization
Currently, more than half of the global population lives in urban areas (Ahmed et al. 2020). In the current scenario, urbanization is among the major drivers that are transforming landscapes worldwide (Ives et al. 2013). Urbanization directly impacts ecosystems by replacing vegetation with urban structures like buildings, roads, and indirectly by modifying vegetation composition and structure through fragmentation and degradation of ecosystems such as altered hydrology (McKinney 2002; Pennington et al. 2010). Urbanization has dual impacts on one hand, it threatens ecosystem structure and functions and on the other hand increasing the ecological demands on sustainable provision of ecosystem services (Song and Deng 2017; Peng et al. 2017).
Expansion of cities coupled with extensive infrastructure causes reduction and fragmentation of primary riparian forests (Zipperer et al. 2012; dos Anjos Santos et al. 2016; Asanok et al. 2017). Urbanization in riparian zones results in habitat fragmentation, degradation, and loss and consequently decline in biodiversity. Habitat degradation as a result of urbanization reduces the populations of various riparian animal species, for example riparian birds as evidenced by Rottenborn (1999). Rottenborn (1999) through a bird survey in the Santa Clara Valley of California, USA found that bird species richness and density were negatively related to number and proximity of bridges. Changes in hydrology due to urbanization cause riparian hydrologic drought by lowering water tables which alters soil, vegetation and microbial processes (Groffman et al. 2003). Urbanization is among the major factors causing the decline of riparian habitats in the United States (Groffman et al. 2003; Jones et al. 2010; McClure et al. 2015).
River flow alteration
The flow regime is a key factor that determines the structure and function of aquatic and riparian ecosystems of rivers (Poff et al. 2010). Cycles of floods and droughts (natural flow regime) are important features of rivers, but the alteration of this natural flow regime mainly by dam building, flood-control projects and other human activities raises questions to the biological evolution, conservation of living organisms and management of biodiversity (Lytle and Poff 2004). Riparian ecosystems have evolved in context of seasonal variability in natural flow regimes (Lytle and Poff 2004; Tonkin et al. 2018). River regulation through channelization and damming threatens riparian forest and their ecosystem services because riparian structure and processes are closely linked to fluvial regime (Poff et al. 1997; Nilsson and Berggren 2000; Nilsson et al. 2005; Kuglerová et al. 2014; Dixon et al. 2015). Damming significantly changes the shoreline vegetation though affecting not only the diversity and composition of plant communities but also the structural patterns (Wintle and Kirkpatrick 2007; New and Xie 2008). Riparian vegetation particularly shrubs and herbs are highly sensitive to change in hydrological regime (Ye et al. 2010).
River flow alteration paves the way for the invasion of exotic species in the riparian zones (Chen et al. 2017). Alteration in natural flood peaks can prevent the growth of indigenous riparian vegetation and allow establishment and proliferation of non-native trees (Stromberg et al. 2007; Poff et al. 2010). Flow regulation is one of the major reasons that extensively established exotic Tamarix in western North American riparian ecosystems (Everitt 1998; Shafroth et al. 2002). Riparian woodlands of the Alberta's St Mary River in Canada collapsed due to insufficient summer flows and rapid reductions in spring flow (Rood et al. 1995,2005). Lowered groundwater levels following river regulation reduce the reproduction of pioneers followed by a successive dieback of mature individuals (Stromberg et al. 1996; Nilsson and Berggren 2000). Lack of regeneration moves the succession toward older, less productive states, and consequently reduced riparian biodiversity (Nilsson and Dynesius 1994; Nilsson and Berggren 2000).
Overexploitation
Ecological systems are under huge pressure of overgrowing population and their associated demands of ecosystem goods and services (Etter et al. 2006). It is estimated that 60% of the global ecosystems are being used in unsustainable way (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Pattison-Williams et al. 2017). Riparian zones are under severe threat of degradation due to huge pressure of overexploitation and utilization (Fu et al. 2016). Anthropogenic activities such as logging, surface water extraction, sand mining and groundwater pumping severely alter the riparian ecosystem structure, functioning and services (Poff et al. 1997; Nilsson and Berggren 2000; Allan and Castillo 2007; Kuglerová et al. 2014; Fu and Burgher 2015). Riparian forest along the Tarim River, China is among the most threatened riparian ecosystems of the world due to overexploitation of river basin natural resources such river water and riparian wood (Thevs et al. 2008; Lang et al. 2015). Groundwater abstraction can significantly affect growth of riparian plants as well as the species assemblage (Le Maitre et al. 1999). Phreatophytes (plants that use groundwater) are sensitive to alterations in the hydrogeological regime (Le Maitre et al. 1999). Logging activities in riparian forests is among the major threats to riparian ecosystem and their functions and services (Kuglerová et al. 2014). Deforestation of riparian buffers results deleterious effects on riverine ecosystems through facilitating invasion of exotic species and degrading allochthonous energy sources to aquatic organisms (Bunn and Arthington 2002; Ramírez et al. 2008). Timber harvesting increases sediment load, alters morphology, temperature, hydrology, and water quality of stream, and consequently affecting flora and fauna (Chizinski et al. 2010; Santiago et al. 2011).
Sand mining from river bed and floodplains is one of the deleterious threats to the riparian ecology. The quantity of sand mined from the alluvial reaches in the midlands and lowlands of the Muvattupuzha, Periyar and Chalakudy rivers (Kerala, India) amounts to 6.4 million ty−1, which is more than 58 times higher than the natural replenishments (0.11 million ty−1) (Sreebha and Padmalal 2011). Indiscriminate river sand and gravel mining deleteriously impacts the river ecosystem though erosion riverbank, lowering of ground water table, declining flora and faunal diversity and damaging riparian habitats (Poulin et al. 1994; Padmalal et al. 2008). Excessive sand mining from river ecosystem can pave the way for alteration in flow regime, groundwater, geomorphic units, channel dynamics, and sediment flow.
Climate change
According to a report of the IPCC, there is an estimate of about 1.4–6.4 °C increase in global temperature by 2100 (IPCC 2007; Mishra et al. 2013). Climate change is projected to cause an increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather events including more frequent and severe floods and more intense droughts (Easterling et al. 2000; Seavy et al. 2009). Although riparian restoration are recognized as effective strategy to enhance ecosystem resilience to climate change (Seavy et al. 2009) but at the same time, it is also true that riparian forests are highly vulnerable and responsive to climate-change induced flow regimes and land-use changes (Hoffman and Rohde 2011; Flanagan et al. 2015; Fernandes et al. 2016). Many climate change scenarios predict that rivers including riparian habitats will face extensive future pressures due to global warming and expansion of alien species (Hoffman and Rohde 2011). Rising temperature affects physiology, growth, phenology and geographical distribution of riparian flora and fauna (Perry et al. 2012). Under the scenarios of climate change, riparian ecosystems will be exposed to the rising air and surface water temperature, changes in the precipitation and altering river flows and consequently change in reproductive physiology, structure, functions and distribution of riparian biota (Arnell 2003; Palmer et al. 2008; Rosenzweig et al. 2008; Seavy et al. 2009; Perry et al. 2012; Capon et al. 2013).
Rivaes et al. (2013) predicted that extreme climatic change will fuel the vanishing of the pioneer and young succession stages of riparian forests of the Mediterranean rivers (Rivaes et al. 2013). Climate change can cause narrowing of riparian zones. According to Ström et al. (2011) climate-driven hydrologic changes are predicted to cause narrowing of riparian zones along the Vindel River in Northern Sweden by the end of the twenty-first century. Immigration of temperate species, loss of boreal species, expansion of existing population of exotic plants, drought stress during summer due to increased evaporation are examples of predicted changes in Boreal riverine ecosystems following increased temperature (Nilsson et al. 2013). It is predicted that drying and warming of riparian zone in temperate south-western Australia will cause removal of stenothermal animals and may facilitate establishment of invasive animal species characterized by a broader thermal range (Catford et al. 2013).
Pollution
Worldwide pollution is a major threat to sustainability of riparian zones (González et al. 2016). Riparian zones are highly sensitive to pesticide and heavy metal pollution. Pesticide accumulations potentially disturb microbial activity and nitrogen cycle in riparian sediments (Chen et al. 2019). Anthropogenic activities upstream or on adjacent uplands cause heavy metal pollution in riparian zones (Ye et al. 2019). Polluted sediments due to river flooding contribute to the heavy metal contamination in riparian soils (Bai et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2017). Industrial discharge, sewage, and agricultural run-off are the major anthropogenic sources of heavy metal pollution in riparian soils (Bai et al. 2016; Ye et al. 2019). Mining activities in riparian ecosystems can cause accumulation of heavy metals in floodplain (Graf et al. 1991).
When the content of metals in riparian sediments goes beyond environmental quality standards, they become eco-toxic risks for the riparian organisms (Wang et al. 2015; Pavlović et al. 2019). Heavy metal accumulation in riparian soils can cause deleterious effects on richness and diversity of plant species. Schipper et al. (2011) investigated relation between the plant communities and soil heavy metal contamination in a lowland Rhine River floodplain. They found a significant decrease in plant species richness and diversity with the level of contamination. Metal pollution in streams can alter riparian food webs. High level of metal pollution in rivers can reduce prey availability to riparian web-building spiders (Paetzold et al. 2011; Kraus et al. 2014).
Biological invasion
Biological invasion refers to the arrival, survival, successful reproduction and dispersal of species in an ecosystem where the species did not occur earlier (Carlton 1989; Whitfield et al. 2002). Riparian forests are among the most vulnerable ecosystems to the biological invasion (Richardson et al. 2007; Sosa et al. 2018a, b, c). Some authors consider riparian zones “as heaven for exotic plant species” (Stohlgren et al. 1998; Michez et al. 2016). Changing nutrient levels and hydrology, low lying areas in landscape, flooding, propagules dispersal by moving water and contribution of stream banks as a reservoir for propagules of indigenous and exotic species make riparian zones highly susceptible to invasion of alien plants (Galatowitsch and Richardson 2005; Richardson et al. 2007; Beater et al. 2008; Vosse et al. 2008).
Presence of invasive species in riparian zones is an environmental problem that affects biodiversity, and threatens the ecological integrity of river ecosystems (Jiménez-Ruiz et al. 2016). Riparian zones of South Africa are vulnerable to the widespread invasion of Eucalyptus camaldulensi (Forsyth et al. 2004; Tererai et al. 2013;). All riparian ecosystems in the Southwest USA, are at risk for decline (Tellman et al. 1997) and the invasion of non-native species, mainly tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), posed a great concerns for sustainability and ecological health of these ecosystems (Webb and Leake 2006).
Managing riparian zones through integrated approach
Current scenario of riparian zone management
Worldwide, many efforts have been executed to manage riparian zones. Many riparian zone management projects and plans have either failed or partially succeed due to numerous reasons. Riparian zone management is frequently executed without an accurate assessment of their condition and ecosystem services (Novoa et al. 2018). It has been found that recommendations and guidance about riparian zone management are generally started without assessing their status and ecosystem services and consequently diverged from target and provide little benefits (de Sosa et al. 2018a). Understanding of spatial extent of various processes such as flooding, erosion, sedimentation, geomorphic channel processes, fire, insects and wind disturbances, variation in light, soil and topography supports riparian management (Lee et al. 2004). Riparian management decisions should be based on the knowledge of geomorphic setting and the most valuable ecosystem functions of riparian zones (Allan 2004). Establishing buffer zones without considering local hydrological and soil conditions will not be efficient (Mander et al. 2017). Riparian health assessment following management works is essential for the success of riparian management plans (Burger et al. 2010). According to Burger et al. (2010) despite a voluminous investment in Australia and elsewhere, there have been little efforts to assess the changes in riparian condition following restoration works. It is essential to assess the riparian condition both prior and after the implementation of management plan.
Lack of nature-based sustainable practices hampers the path of integrated management of riparian zones in the changing environment. A suite of sustainable practices paves the way for successful riparian zone management. Practices should be adopted according to the problems of area. One practice cannot be executed at all places. “One size fits all” approach to riparian management is not effective because riparian zones functions vary with geography of the area (Quinn et al. 2001; Strayer et al. 2003; Allan 2004). For example, the management practice for a riparian zone dominated by intensive agriculture should be different than the riparian zone under the threat of urbanization. Many riparian forest management guidelines usually focused on the protection of stream water quality while ignoring the protection of other services such as diversity of native flora and fauna and organic matter flux into the aquatic systems and consequently degradation of ecological services of riparian forests (Broadmeadow and Nisbet 2004; Palik et al. 2012).
Poorly planned or poorly applied forest management practices threaten the ecological services of riparian forests (Palik et al. 2012). Poorly designed plans and policies cannot go longer on the path of riparian zone management. Generally, policy-makers ignore the views and opinions of local people while framing a policy. Frequently it was found that many management plans did not achieve their targets due to lack of coordination, collaboration and participation among different stakeholders. Moreover, a single policy is framed and executed to the whole river basin keeping the local problems aside. It has been found that management practices have been poorly implemented under the weak legislation and guidelines. Most of the time, people are not aware about the role of riparian zones in their local environment. Moreover, all people are not aware about different acts and guidelines of government for riparian zone management.
Integrated management of riparian zones
Management of riparian zones through integrative approach is the need of hour. Social, economic, and political interests along with biological considerations pose a complexity to riparian management, and thus needs an integrated approach (Welsch et al. 2000). Integrated management is characterized by several features like collaboration, quest of long-term goals, dissemination and use of information, and modification of actions based on monitoring of progress (Welsch et al. 2000). González et al. (2017) stressed on the management framework addressing technical–ecological, socio-economic, and legal issues. Integration of technical, environmental, economic, and social dimensions is necessary for effective management of riparian zones.
González et al. (2017) proposed a framework for an integrated conservation strategy including education, inventory, protection, sustainable management and restoration. In this framework, education included the outreach activities, citizen science, and engaging local communities. Inventory helps in assessing the health, status, condition and extent of riparian zones using different techniques like remote sensing by aerial photographs or LiDAR imagery, and photogrammetry, traditional photointerpretation. Riparian zones can be conserved through protection by implementing legislation or incentive schemes like payment for ecosystem services (PES). Sustainable management approach is important for riparian zone conservation through satisfying economic, societal, and environmental needs. In restoration approach defining clear goals, choosing among multiple techniques and evaluation are strategies for riparian zone conservation. González et al. (2017) advocated the inclusion of these activities in an integrative manner. Including social values can reduce legal, political and jurisdictional battles arising from exclusion of concerned citizens from the management process (Welsch et al. 2000). Inclusion of human dimension is increasingly important component for developing management, planning of riparian zones, minimizing conflicts, and facilitating a dialogue between people and decision makers (Welsch et al. 2000).
Integrated management of riparian zones can be linked with river ecosystems and human society as shown in Fig. 3.
Managing riparian zones through integrated approach can be helpful not only for improving structure and functions of riparian zones but also for river health improvement and supporting human well-being. For example, payment for ecosystem services approach to manage riparian zones ecosystem services can be beneficial for river health, riparian health and human well-being. In this approach, riparian farmers can be encouraged to adopt sustainable practices of food production on getting financial rewards in return (Singh and Singh 2019). Riparian farmers can be inspired to adopt agroforestry which is a sustainable agricultural practice. Adoption of agroforestry in riparian fields can improve riparian health though increasing forest cover and river health by buffering sediment and nutrients (Hain 2014). This practice can also enhance human well-being by diversifying livelihood and increasing farmers’ income.
Considering the above-mentioned recommendations and suggestions for integrated management of riparian zones, authors framed an integrated approach based on various dimensions including (i) riparian condition assessment (ii) policy framework (iii) stakeholder’s participation (iv) management practices (v) legislation, and (vi) awareness (Fig. 4).
The above-mentioned different dimensions for riparian management are interlinked. For example, riparian condition assessment is necessary for making a policy and plan. Riparian condition assessment provides foundations to frame policy based on current status of riparian condition including structure and composition of streamside vegetation (Fig. 5).
Policy framework guides the framing of different rules and regulations for riparian zone management. Legislation is required for effective implementation of management practices through providing restrictions to follow. Increasing awareness can help not only in implementation of management practices but also in assessing the riparian condition. Stakeholders’ participation is important for every aspect of management including riparian condition assessment, framing the policy, implementing legislation, increasing awareness and executing management practices. Stakeholders’ participation can support monitoring, policy and planning for ecosystem management including river basins (Gallego-Ayala and Juízo 2014; Villasenor et al. 2016; Verbrugge et al. 2017). Stakeholders’ participation is advocated in development of policy documents and decision making for natural resources management including water resources (Pahl-Wostl 2008; Blackstock et al. 2012; Gallego-Ayala and Juízo 2014). In the following sections, every dimension of integrated management of riparian zone is described.
Riparian condition assessment
The assessment of riparian condition is perquisite for making, implementing and tracking the riparian management projects. Quantification of riparian quality is basic step to identify river reaches for restoration or conservation purposes (Fernández et al. 2014). Riparian quality denotes to the several aspects of riparian plant communities in terms of extension, structure, composition and naturalness (Fernández et al. 2014). Riparian quality is high when riparian vegetation consists of forested areas. On the other hand, riparian quality is low when land is lacking woody vegetation along river corridors.
Riparian condition assessment is helpful not only prior to implementation of management plan but also after implementation to assess the changes under different management regimes. Burger et al. (2010) assessed the changes in soil and vegetation properties in riparian zones, following livestock removal and replanting, adjacent to tributary streams in one of south-eastern Australia’s main agricultural regions. Assessing riparian condition after execution of management practices paves the way not only for design and implementation of restoration and monitoring projects but also for future ecological studies (Burger et al. 2010). Hale et al. (2018) assessed changes in structural vegetation and soil properties following livestock exclusion and replanting in lowland streams in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB), south-eastern Australia. The US federal law mandates riparian monitoring for federal land management agencies to achieve sustainable resource management (Booth et al. 2007). Ferreira et al. (2005) assessed the changes in riparian woods over space and time in three river basins belonging to the Tagus fluvial system (Portugal).
Riparian vegetation is an important indicator for assessing the riparian condition (Macfarlane et al. 2017). Worldwide various indicators such as riparian zone width, streambed width, longitudinal continuity, vegetation overhang, and bank stability have been used to assess the condition of riparian zones (Ferreira et al. 2005; Akasheh et al. 2008; Johansen et al. 2010). Measurement of riparian buffer width and biomass is important to assess the success of buffer conservation and restoration (Klemas 2014; Yang et al. 2018). Rheinhardt et al. (2012b) used biomass and proximity of biomass to channel to develop an indicator of riparian condition.
Monitoring of stream flow is an important step in assessing effects of management practices in riparian zones (Welsch et al. 2000). Water depth in river is affected by alteration in river flow regimes. The river flow is the key driver that affects the survival of riparian vegetation (Vesipa et al. 2017). River flow fluctuations affect riparian vegetation at any stage of plant life, from the seed dispersal and germination stages to the seedling development and adult phase (Vesipa et al. 2017). Flooding and water level fluctuations result in landscape disturbances that paves the way for a variety of habitats for plants (New and Xie 2008). Thus assessment and monitoring of river flow is an important part of riparian zone management.
González et al. (2017) advocated various techniques to assess riparian condition such as remote sensing, LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) imagery, photogrammetry, and traditional photointerpretation. Image-based riparian assessment potentially assesses various aspects of riparian zones such as width, invasive species, reduction of spatial extent, and shifts in vegetation pattern in flooding (Apan et al. 2002; Arroyo et al. 2010; Džubáková et al. 2015; Michez et al. 2016; González et al. 2017). Geographic information systems (GIS) and remote sensing (RS) are potential techniques for characterization, analysis, and monitoring of riparian landscapes (Novoa et al. 2018). RS plays a significant role in riparian zone mapping and monitoring due its wide coverage and ability to map inaccessible areas (Johansen et al. 2010). Akasheh et al. (2008) mapped in detail the riparian vegetation in the Middle Rio Grande River Basin of New Mexico using high-resolution multi-spectral airborne remote sensing. High-resolution airborne RS is a powerful tool for mapping riparian vegetation and provides an extensive indication of riparian zone health and condition (Akasheh et al. 2008).
Tompalski et al. (2017) characterized the streams and riparian zones in northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada using airborne laser scanning (ALS) data. Wasser et al. (2015) used LiDAR data to quantify land use effects on forested riparian buffer vegetation structure in Spring Creek watershed of central Pennsylvania, USA. Yang et al. (2018) used unmanned aircraft vehicles (UAVs) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) to assess the changes in biomass and riparian buffer width in the terminal reservoir under the impact of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project in China. Rigge et al. (2013) used NDVI in the assessment of the effect of Off-Stream Watering Points (OWSPs) on riparian vegetation in rangelands of along the Bad River in Western South Dakota.
Worldwide, several indices and protocols have been developed for assessing health and condition of riparian zones. Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition (RARC), QBR index (“qualitat del bosc de ribera”), Tropical Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition (TRAC), and Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment are some of the prominent indices to assess the condition of riparian zones. Jansen et al. (2005) used Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition (RARC) index to assess the ecological condition of riparian habitats in three areas of Australia including on the Murrumbidgee River, in Gippsland, and in the Goulburn Broken catchment. RARC index comprises of five sub-indices each with a number of indicators: (1) habitat continuity and extent (HABITAT) (2) vegetation cover and structural complexity (COVER) (3) dominance of natives versus exotics (NATIVES) (4) standing dead trees, hollows, fallen logs and leaf litter (DEBRIS) and (5) Indicative features (FEATURES). Munné et al. (2003) assessed ecological quality of riparian habitat of river basins in Catalonia, Spain through using QBR index. The QBR index (“qualitat del bosc de ribera”) is a simple method that evaluates riparian habitat quality (Sirombra and Mesa 2012). QBR index consists of four components of riparian habitat; (1) total riparian vegetation cover (2) cover structure (3) cover quality, and (4) channel alterations (Munné et al. 2003).
The Tropical Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition (TRAC) is a visual assessment of riparian zone using various indicators of condition (Dixon et al. 2006). TRAC comprises four condition sub-indices: (1) plant cover (2) regeneration (3) weeds, (4) erosion. It also includes an index of pressure. TRAC was specially developed to assess riparian zone condition in wet–dry savanna environments of tropical Australia in a rapid and cost effective manner (Dixon et al. 2005; Johansen et al. 2007). Johansen et al. (2007) assessed the riparian zone condition along the Daly River of Australia using a modified version of the TRAC comprising twenty three indicators with five sub-indices; (1) vegetation cover and leaf litter (2) regeneration of native plants (3) weediness (4) bank stability, and (5) disturbance/pressures.
Proper functioning condition (PFC) assessment protocol provides a consistent approach for assessing the physical functioning of riparian zones based on hydrologic, vegetative, and geomorphic attributes relative to the potential of the stream being assessed (Dickard et al. 2015). According to Dickard et al. (2015), a lotic riparian zone is considered to be in PFC, or “functioning properly,” when adequate vegetation, landform, or woody material is present to: (a) dissipate stream energy associated with high water flow, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality (b) capture sediment and aid floodplain development (c) improve floodwater retention and ground-water recharge (d) develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against erosion, and (e) maintain channel characteristics. PFC assessment is helpful in assessing how well the physical processes of riparian systems are working (Booth et al. 2007).
Policy framework
Framing an appropriate policy paves the way for sustainable management of forest ecosystems including riparian zones. A good policy is the foundation on which the plan of riparian zone management builds. Decision making and policy design faces dual challenge of improving human well-being and ensuring sustainable use of natural resources (Guerry et al. 2015; Grizzetti et al. 2016). The policy for protection and management of riparian zones needs a multidimensional approach. Framing policies according to the socio-economic, cultural, institutional, and ecological context of country is an urgent need to foster the local solutions for riparian ecosystem restoration (Meli and Brancalion 2017). In the Oregon State of the United States, policy for protection of riparian zones is very diverse. It depends on the ownership (federal, state or private), land use (agriculture, rural or urban, forest) and stream attributes that help in formulating the standards for riparian land-management practices (Boisjolie et al. 2017). Ecosystem services are getting a rising traction as policy shaping framework (Scott et al. 2018). Policy to manage riparian zone also needs a high coverage of river length. For example, Chesapeake Bay Program on the east coast of the USA set an ambitious goal of greening 3216 km of streams with riparian forest buffers (Buckley et al. 2012).
Stakeholders’ participation
Stakeholders are those who are affected by, or can affect, a decision (Freeman 1984; Reed 2008). Stakeholders’ participation is pivotal in decision-making and addressing the environmental problems (Reed 2008). Stakeholders play a key role in the implementation, development, and assessment of BMPs (Tumpach et al. 2018). In riparian management, various stakeholders can be a part of like farmers cultivating fields near river, people living in riparian settlements, policy and decision makers, scientists and other local people obtaining livelihood from riparian ecosystems. For effective riparian management, it is needed to integrate the human dimensions information early in the planning process (Welsch et al. 2000). People’s values, attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and expectations are as important for riparian management which can be unearthed by in-depth interviews of individuals (Welsch et al. 2000).
Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) aims long-term sustainability through comprehensive stakeholder participation in decision-making (Mountjoy et al. 2016). It includes full participation of communities and resource users in decision-making process and incorporation of local institutions, customary practices, and knowledge systems in management, regulatory and enforcement processes (Barrett et al. 2001; Armitage 2005). The Rio Agenda 21 states that effective implementation of sustainable development will be function on the degree of commitment and genuine involvement of all social groups and the public at decision-making (Rafika et al. 2016). The European Union Water Framework Directive (EU WFD, 2000) advocates and encourages active involvement of the public and all interested parties in decision-making processes for river basin management plans in the European Union (Parés et al. 2015; Feichtinger and Pregernig 2016; Euler and Held 2018).
Active participation of various stakeholders is the need of hour for riparian zone management. Stakeholder’s participation enhances the success rate of riparian management plan. Diverse knowledge of various stakeholders strengthens the strategy of riparian zone management. There is an urgent need to make a common platform where various stakeholders can discuss issues related to riparian zone and river health. Worldwide there are several examples where active involvement of stakeholders played a key role in managing the riparian zones. The Parrett project in Somerset, England successfully managed and restored the floodplain of the Parrett catchment through stakeholder involvement and teamwork (Ball 2008). In this project, a partnership was formed between local authorities, stakeholder organizations, and landowner groups to create temporary flood storage areas, new wetland habitat, and woodland (Ball 2008).
Management practices
Worldwide, a range of practices have been advocated to manage the riparian zones. Authors introduced various sustainable practices to manage riparian zones such as riparian buffer strips, streambank fencing, rotational grazing, off-stream watering points, alternate shade structures, and payment for ecosystem services based on literature review (Table 1).
Riparian buffer strips (RBS)
Riparian buffer strips are vegetated strips of land extending alongside the watercourse and farmers are not allowed to cropping usually through agri-environment agreement (Stutter et al. 2012; McVittie et al. 2015). The retention of riparian buffer strips is important for protection, conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems including rivers and lakes. Riparian buffer strips is an agroforestry practice in Europe in which strips of perennial vegetation (trees/shrubs) natural or planted between croplands/pastures and water sources such as streams, lakes, wetlands, and ponds to protect water quality (Mosquera-Losada et al. 2018). Creating riparian reserve strips is among the best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the impacts of forest harvesting on watersheds (Yeung et al. 2017). Worldwide it is recognized that healthy riparian buffers deliver a range of services to their adjacent waterways (Correll 2005). It is recognized that the practice of leaving forested buffer strips along stream or river was first implemented in the United States in the late 1960s (Calhoun 1988; Brosofske et al. 1997; Lee et al. 2004).
Retention and maintenance of RBS is a sustainable and ecological strategy to control the entry of agricultural runoff into watercourses, conserve biodiversity and habitats, stabilize stream bank, regulate flood, regulate river temperature, mitigate climate, regulate water retention and infiltration, and provide recreation (Osborne and Kovacic 1993; Tabachi et al. 2000; Vowell 2001; Soman et al. 2007; Ramilan et al. 2010; Choi et al. 2012; Cardinali et al. 2014; McVittie et al. 2015; Mackay et al. 2016; Alemu et al. 2017; Richit et al. 2017; Chellaiah and Yule 2018; Jackson et al. 2018). In Indiana and North Carolina, USA it was observed that agricultural headwater streams with herbaceous riparian buffers were richer in fish diversity, macro-invertebrate abundance and macro-invertebrate diversity than streams without riparian buffers (Whitworth and Martin 1990; Smiley Jr et al. 2011).
Success of riparian afforestation or tree buffer establishment plans largely depends on the selection of trees adapted to local environment (Smaill et al. 2011; Truax et al. 2017). Fast growing woody trees are recommended for plantation in riparian zones. For example, fast-growing hybrid poplars (Populus. spp.) have ability to restore some forest attributes within a decade (Boothroyd-Roberts et al. 2013; Fortier et al. 2015). Multi-zones of riparian vegetation including a narrow grass strips and wider woody vegetation are more effective (Correll 2005). Multi-species riparian buffer strip (MSRBS) system is a potential tool that reduces soil erosion, filters pollutants, stabilizes stream banks, provides wildlife habitat, provides wood and enhances aesthetic value of agro-system (Schultz et al. 1995). Schultz et al. (1995) found that on creating MSRBS along the Central Iowa stream in USA riparian health was improved including soil stabilization and reduction in non-point source (NPS) pollutants. A general, multi-purpose, riparian buffer design comprises of a strip of grass, shrubs, and trees between the normal bank-full water level and crop field (Anbumozhi et al. 2005). Both grass and woodland have their important role in river health improvement. For example, woodland controls sediments by helping to slow water flows and grass has potential to trap and fix sediment deposits (Broadmeadow and Nisbet 2004).
Dimensions of buffer zone significantly affect the ability of riparian buffer zones to provide ecological services. (Mander et al. 1997; Syversen 2005; Bourgeois et al. 2016). Width of riparian buffer strip is important for its effectiveness. Generally, wider riparian buffer strips more effectively remove nutrients than narrow one (Mayer et al. 2006; Hénault-Ethier et al. 2017). Viegas et al. (2014) found that dung beetle richness was greater in fragments with the widest riparian zone than in those with a thinner riparian zone during spring and summer. Phillips (1989) suggested that a range of riparian width is more effective than a single value. Keller et al. (1993) recommend at least 100-m wide riparian buffer to provide some nesting habitat for area-sensitive species. Phillips (1989) suggests a range of 15–80 m for lower Tar River basin North Carolina.
Streambank fencing
Fencing is one of the recognized BMPs to prevent cattle entry in riparian zone and stream to enhance riparian health and water quality (Mostaghimi et al. 2001; Miller et al. 2010). Stream-bank fencing is a potential strategy to protect river ecosystems and their associated riparian zones from cattle grazing (Miller et al. 2014). Fencing helps to keep livestock away from streambanks and thus improves streambank stability and facilitates the establishment of vegetative buffer (Line et al. 2000; Feld et al. 2018). Fencing livestock from riparian zones improves water quality through reducing fecal matter deposition in water ways and riparian zones (Wilcock et al. 2009). Bragina et al. (2017) found that cattle exclusion using fencing reduced the level of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) such as Escherichia coli (E. coli) in stream sediment reservoirs of northeast Ireland. Miller et al. (2010) assessed the influence of streambank fencing on riparian health and water quality of the Lower Little Bow River in Southern Alberta, Canada. They found that riparian health including vegetation, soil, and hydrologic features was improved by streambank fencing.
Rotational grazing
Worldwide rotational grazing system is getting huge attention in context of conservation and management of agro-ecosystems and riparian zones. It is widely mentioned that continuous season-long grazing degrades riparian zones (Rigge et al. 2014). Rotational grazing system is based on the approach of setting grazing and non-grazing (rest) periods to achieve increasing production through enhanced growth of vegetation and increased forage-harvest efficiency of grazing livestock (Briske et al. 2008; Roche et al. 2015). Rotational grazing systems are often prompted to cut undesirable selective grazing by livestock across multiple scales (Bailey and Brown 2011).
Rotational grazing improves distribution, increases uniformity of defoliation across species and communities and allows regrowth (Bailey and Brown 2011). Riparian habitats have extensively degraded in Wisconsin, USA through the continuously grazing and thereby Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing (MIRG) has been recommended to protect and restore stream ecosystems in Wisconsin (Undersander et al. 1992; Chapman and Ribic 2002). Sovell et al. (2000) in their study at Minnesota, USA found that water quality parameters such as coliform and turbidity was higher at continuously grazed than rotationally grazed sites. They also found that streambank health was much better at the rotationally grazed site than at the continuously grazed site.
Off-stream watering points (OSWPs)
Cattle use riparian zones mainly for water and cooling and, therefore, providing alternative water away from streams reduces the time cattle spend near streams (Franklin et al. 2009). Impacts of cattle in riparian zones can be reduced by providing alternative off-stream watering points (OSWPs). Provision of OSWPs is an effective and alternative watering source for cattle which reduces cattle impacts on the riparian zone and increases stream water quality (Olson et al. 2011; Brueggen-Boman 2012; Rawluk 2013; Malan et al. 2018). Off-stream watering is recognized as the best management practice that reduces cattle activity at the river, increases streambank stability, prevents river pollution, enhances riparian health, and improves soil and vegetative properties (Fielding et al. 2005; Miller et al. 2011). In a study at Alberta, Canada, Miller et al. (2011) found that implementation of OSWPs resulted in a range of benefits including reduction in river pollution and improvement in soil and vegetative properties in riparian zones. In Alberta, off-stream watering without fencing is recommended to protect riparian zones (Fitch and Adams 1998; Miller et al. 2011).
Most important benefit of OSWPs is reduction in time the livestock spend in riparian zones (Franklin et al. 2009). Godwin and Miner (1996) in their study at Tualatin river basin outside of Portland, Oregon observed that four cows spent averaged 60 min in riparian zone without off-stream watering while on giving the option of off-stream water, the total time was reduced to an average of 15 min. Franklin et al. (2009) in a study at Piedmont of Georgia, USA found that providing cattle with water troughs reduced the amount of time cattle spent in riparian zones by 63% when the temperature and humidity index (THI) ranged between 62 and 72.
Alternate shade structures
Cattle spend time in riparian zones for forage, water and shade availability (Bailey 2005; Kamp et al. 2013). Riparian zones have cool environment than their adjacent upland landscapes. Trees in riparian zones provide natural shade to the cattle. Livestock enhance their movement in riparian zones for getting this natural shade. An alternate method of cooling can reduce the time spent by livestock in streamside areas (Agouridis et al. 2005). Providing alternative shade structures is a best management practice that reduces time spent by cattle in riparian zone, encourages cattle to graze underutilized pastures, thereby reducing soil erosion and improving water quality (Clary et al. 2016). Alternate shade sources improve the riparian environment (Rigge et al. 2014). Clary et al. (2016) reported in their study that on average, cattle spent 30% less time within the riparian zone on providing an alternative shade pavilion. Providing alternate shade structures can also be integrated with off-stream watering points.
Payments for ecosystem services (PES)
In PES scheme, ecosystem services beneficiary offers financial incentives to the ecosystem service provider (Sangha et al. 2018). Payments for ecosystem services are incentives given to farmers and landowners to provide an ecological service (Taffarello et al. 2017). It is based on the principle ‘you get what you pay for’ for positive effects from the flow of ecosystem services (Wunder 2007; Leimona et al. 2015). Worldwide, payments for ecosystem services have become a well-known method to combat environmental problems (Kemkes et al. 2010). PES is an effective policy instrument to minimize negative impacts of human activities, reduce deforestation, stop biodiversity loss, manage natural resources and protect environment (Garrastazú et al. 2015; Leimona et al. 2015; Alarcon et al. 2017; Da Ponte et al. 2017). PES programs not only assist land management agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for success in their conservation goals but also diversify the farmer’s income (Hansen et al. 2018).
Using PES scheme we can encourage farmers having their crop fields near rivers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices to enhance the river and riparian health. A pilot project was completed in the Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya where 974 farmers were encouraged to adopt various land management practices for enhancing downstream water quality and quantity with a financial incentive of USD 20,000 (Chiramba et al. 2011; Wanjala et al. 2018). Under this project, farmers managed riparian zones through various practices such as agroforestry, cover cropping, grass strips, and integrated pest management (Chiramba et al. 2011; Wanjala et al. 2018).
Legislation
Environmental legislation is pivotal for implementation of a plan and policy. In many countries, riparian forests are protected by legislation due to their significant ecological role (da Silva et al. 2017). Water Framework Directive of the European Union (WFD) stresses on the sustainable river management regarding hydro-morphology and biodiversity (Bączyk et al. 2018). The objective of WFD is to restore the riparian health in European Union (EU) through encouraging sustainable utilization of the ecosystem services delivered by waterways (Antunes et al. 2009; Collins et al. 2007; Gouldson et al. 2008; Euler and Heldt 2018). EU legislation encouraged stakeholders participation especially farmers for sustainable management of riparian zones (de Sosa et al. 2018b). In USA, riparian zones and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act through regulating use and modification of floodplains and wetlands (Dwire et al. 2017). The Clean Water Act regulates the streamside development in the United States (Lee and Rotenberry 2015). According to the forest management guidelines in most North American jurisdictions, there is restriction on harvesting trees along the rivers and streams that leaves behind riparian buffer zones (Lee et al. 2004; Phoebus et al. 2017). Guidelines for multispecies riparian buffer installation have been developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service to reduce nonpoint source pollution (USDA 1997; Bourgeois et al. 2016).
Brazil is among the countries that have most advanced legislation for helping the restoration of riparian ecosystems (Meli and Brancalion 2017). The Brazilian Forest Law protects riparian forest through prescription of riparian buffer width according to the river width (Nunes et al. 2015; da Silva et al. 2017). Areas of permanent protection (APPs) are legally required set-asides suggested by Brazilian Forest Code (Brasil 2012) that include riparian and stream headwater zones in addition to other fragile landscape features with the aim of maintaining hydrological functions, soil stabilization and landscape connectivity (Zimbres et al. 2018). The Government of Canada took a strong decision to conserve the river and riparian ecosystems from agricultural practices. Since 1987, agricultural practices such as soil tillage, fertilization, and pesticide have been banned in a riparian zone of at least three meter wide along streams adjacent to agricultural fields in Quebec, Eastern Canada (Gouvernement du Québec 1987; Bourgeois et al. 2016).
Awareness
Awareness of local people is a pressing need for the conservation and management of the riparian zones. Environmental awareness is the awareness to the environmental issues and active involvement in environmental organizations (Altin et al. 2014; Mei et al. 2016). Lack of environmental awareness in the era of environmental problems such as urbanization, climate change, industrialization, deforestation and biodiversity loss is a major obstruction that delays the achievements of policy maker’s efforts to combat the environmental issues (Keles 2012; Mei et al. 2016). Strengthening of public awareness plays a significant role in environmental protection and biological conservation and social media can play a crucial role in this context (Steel et al. 2005; Jefferson et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2018).
In the era of global crisis, education is the most influential tool to implement sustainable development principles and ideas (Nasibulina 2015). Environmental education is a potential tool to combat environmental problems of protection and conservation (Palmer 1998; Potter 2009; Otto and Pensini 2017). The importance of environmental education has been widely accepted in the era of environmental problems (Jia-nan 2012). Environmental education aims to promote environmental awareness in society and instills enduring behavior in people (Ors 2012). A lack of understanding of functions and services of riparian zones is common among people. Riparian zones are the small natural features (SNFs) with large ecological importance. Hunter Jr. et al. (2017) stresses on the role of education for the conservation of SNFs. Informing people about the functions and importance of underappreciated, unrecognized features can be a key foundation for their conservation (Hunter Jr. et al. 2017). Several environmental education programs such as field trips, trekking, camping and adventurous activities develop relations with nature, improve sensitivity towards the nature and establish social relations (Palmberg and Kuru 2000; Uzun and Keles 2012).
Conclusion and recommendations
Riparian zones are the important transitional zones between aquatic system and upland terrestrial system. They are small natural features but deliver a range of ecosystem functions and services of high value. Despite their small area, they support river health through a multitude of ecosystem functions. Riparian zones function as the ecological engineers and deliver several ecosystem functions like riverbank stabilization, pollutants buffering, food and habitat provision to organisms, groundwater recharge and regulation of river temperature. Riparian zones also underpin human well-being by providing numerous ecosystem goods and services such as livestock forage, genetic resources, herbal medicines, ornamental resources, fuel wood, carbon sequestration, flood regulation, pollination, recreation and aesthetic value. Riparian zones, though improve river health but their own health is at the high risk. Riparian zones are among the most threatened ecosystems of the world mainly due to agricultural activities, urbanization, river flow alteration, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and biological invasion.
Riparian zone management is the need of hour to improve river health. In the era of global environmental changes, riparian zones can be managed using an integrated approach comprising of several dimensions such as riparian condition assessment, policy framework, stakeholders’ participation, management practices, legislation and awareness. Various management practices such as riparian buffer strips, streambank fencing, rotational grazing, off-stream watering points, alternate shade structures and payment for ecosystem services have been advocated as sustainable practices for riparian zone. Assessment of riparian condition is required not only before the execution of project but also after the implementation. There is a need to strengthen the environmental legislation to protect and manage the riparian ecosystems. Local people and various other stakeholders play a significant role in policy making and management. Last but not the least, without public awareness, we cannot hope much from the practices, policies, stakeholders’ participation and legislations. Therefore, public awareness should be increased for spreading the message of different aspects of riparian management.
The necessity for managing riparian zones in the changing global environment is an ongoing issue. The changing climate is now a reality and overgrowing population needs plenty of food production and houses for living and consequently urbanization, agricultural intensification and riparian zone degradation. Authors suggest following recommendations for integrated management of riparian zones to sustain the river health in the current scenario of environmental changes.
-
1.
Managing riparian zones in the time of global environmental changes needs an integrated approach combining socio-economic, technological, and legislative issues.
-
2.
Farmers should be financially supported to adopt the sustainable agricultural practices to produce food while improving watershed and maintaining agro-ecosystem biodiversity.
-
3.
The study about ecosystem functions and services will play a key role in riparian zone management.
-
4.
All the stakeholders should be a part of riparian zone management programs according to their abilities.
-
5.
River flow regime is the master deriver of river as well as riparian health. It is the need of hour to maintain the flow in river throughout year.
-
6.
Management practices should be applied after proper assessment of structure, functions, and services of riparian zones.
-
7.
Continuous assessment of riparian health with multiple indicators like riparian structure, composition, water quality, river flow regime, and soil quality can help to identify and prioritize the target areas for riparian protection and management.
-
8.
There is an urgent need for coordination and cooperation between different agencies and bodies involved in riparian restoration, conservation and management.
-
9.
Environmental education and awareness should be promoted to makes the riparian zone management a people’s movement.
-
10.
An integration of traditional knowledge, technology and nature based solutions would be a good option for riparian zone management.
References
Agouridis CT, Workman SR, Warner RC, Jennings GD (2005) Livestock grazing management impacts on stream water quality: a review 1. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41(3):591–606
Ahmed Z, Zafar MW, Ali S (2020) Linking urbanization, human capital, and the ecological footprint in G7 countries: An empirical analysis. Sustain City Soc 55:102064
Akasheh OZ, Neale CM, Jayanthi H (2008) Detailed mapping of riparian vegetation in the middle Rio Grande River using high resolution multi-spectral airborne remote sensing. J Arid Environ 72(9):1734–1744
Alarcon GG, Fantini AC, Salvador CH, Farley J (2017) Additionality is in detail: Farmers’ choices regarding payment for ecosystem services programs in the Atlantic forest, Brazil. J Rural Stud 54:177–186
Alemu T, Bahrndorff S, Hundera K, Alemayehu E, Ambelu A (2017) Effect of riparian land use on environmental conditions and riparian vegetation in the east African highland streams. Limnol-Ecol Manag Inland Water 66:1–11
Allan J (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 35:257–284
Allan JD, Castillo MM (2007) Stream ecology. Structure and function of running waters. 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht
Altin A, Tecer S, Tecer L, Altin S, Kahraman BF (2014) Environmental awareness level of secondary school students: a case study in Balıkesir (Türkiye). Proc Soc Behav Sci 141:1208–1214
Alvarenga LA, Mello CRD, Colombo A, Cuartas LA (2017) Hydrologic impacts due to the changes in riparian buffer in a headwater watershed. Cerne 23(1):95–102
Anbumozhi V, Radhakrishnan J, Yamaji E (2005) Impact of riparian buffer zones on water quality and associated management considerations. Ecol Eng 24(5):517–523
Anderson JR (1993) ‘State of Rivers’ Project: Report 1. Development and Validation of the Methodology, A Report to Department of Primary Industries, Queensland
Antunes P, Kallies G, Videira N, Santos R (2009) Participation and evaluation for sustainable river basin governance. Ecol Econ 68(4):931–939
Apan A, Raine SR, Paterson M (2002) Mapping and analysis of changes in the riparian landscape structure of the Lockyer Valley catchment, Queensland, Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 59:43–57
Armitage D (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environ Manag 35(6):703–715
Armour C, Duff D, Elmore W (1994) The effects of livestock grazing on western riparian and stream ecosystem. Fisheries 19(9):9–12
Arnell NW (2003) Effects of IPCC SRES emissions scenarios on river runoff: a global perspective. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 7:619–641
Arroyo LA, Johansen K, Armston J, Phinn S (2010) Integration of LiDAR and QuickBird imagery for mapping riparian biophysical parameters and land cover types in Australian tropical savannas. For Ecol Manag 259:598–606
Asanok L, Kamyo T, Norsaengsri M, Salinla-um P, Rodrungruang K, Karnasuta N, Kutintara U (2017) Vegetation community and factors that affect the woody species composition of riparian forests growing in an urbanizing landscape along the Chao Phraya River, central Thailand. Urban Forest Urban Green 28:138–149
ASCE (1998) River width adjustment. I: processes and mechanisms. J Hydraul Eng 124(9):881–902
Bączyk A, Wagner M, Okruszko T, Grygoruk M (2018) Influence of technical maintenance measures on ecological status of agricultural lowland rivers–systematic review and implications for river management. Sci Total Environ 627:189–199
Bai JH, Xiao R, Zhang KJ, Gao HF (2012) Arsenic and heavy metal pollution in wetland soils from tidal freshwater and salt marshes before and after the flowsediment regulation regime in the Yellow River Delta, China. J Hydrol 450–451:244–253
Bai JH, Jia J, Zhang GL, Zhao QQ, Lu QQ, Cui BS (2016) Spatial and temporal dynamics of heavy metal pollution and source identification in sediment cores from the short-term flooding riparian wetland in a Chinese delta. Environ Pollut 219:379–388
Bailey DW (2005) Identification and creation of optimum habitat conditions for livestock. Rangeland Ecol Manag 58:109–118
Bailey DW, Brown JR (2011) Rotational grazing systems and livestock grazing behavior in shrub-dominated semi-arid and arid rangelands. Rangeland Ecol Manag 64(1):1–9
Ball T (2008) Management approaches to floodplain restoration and stakeholder engagement in the UK: a survey. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 8(2–4):273–280
Ballinger A, Lake PS (2006) Energy and nutrient fluxes from rivers and streams into terrestrial food webs. Mar Freshw Res 57:15–28
Barrett C, Brandon K, Gibson C, Gjertsen H (2001) Conserving biodiversity amid weak institutions. Bio Sci 51(6):497–502
Beater MMT, Garner RD, Witkowski ETF (2008) Impacts of clearing invasive alien plants from 1995 to 2005 on vegetation structure, invasion intensity and ground cover in a temperate to subtropical riparian ecosystem. S Afr J Bot 74(3):495–507
Betz F, Lauermann M, Cyffka B (2018) Delineation of the riparian zone in data-scarce regions using fuzzy membership functions: an evaluation based on the case of the Naryn River in Kyrgyzstan. Geomorphology 306:170–181
Blackstock KL, Waylen KA, Dunglinson J, Marshall KM (2012) Linking process to outcomes-internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in river basin management planning. Ecol Econ 77:113–122
Boisjolie BA, Santelmann MV, Flitcroft RL, Duncan SL (2017) Legal ecotones: a comparative analysis of riparian policy protection in the Oregon Coast Range, USA. J Environ Manag 197:206–220
Booth DT, Cox SE, Simonds G (2007) Riparian monitoring using 2-cm GSD aerial photography. Ecol Ind 7(3):636–648
Boothroyd-Roberts K, Gagnon D, Truax B (2013) Can hybrid poplar plantations accelerate the restoration of forest understory attributes on abandoned fields? For Ecol Manag 287:77–89
Botero-Acosta A, Chu ML, Guzman JA, Starks PJ, Moriasi DN (2017) Riparian erosion vulnerability model based on environmental features. J Environ Manag 203:592–602
Bourgeois B, Vanasse A, Rivest D, Poulin M (2016) Establishment success of trees planted in riparian buffer zones along an agricultural intensification gradient. Agric Ecosyst Environ 222:60–66
Bragina L, Sherlock O, van Rossum AJ, Jennings E (2017) Cattle exclusion using fencing reduces Escherichia coli (E. coli) level in stream sediment reservoirs in northeast Ireland. Agr Ecosyst Environ 239:349–358
Braioni MG, Braioni A, Locascio A, Salmoiraghi G (2017) Some operational advice for reducing hydraulic risk and for protecting biodiversity and the landscape in riparian areas-river corridor. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 17:4–17
Brasil (2012) Federal Law n. 12.651, May 25th, 2012. Código Florestal Brasileiro. Gazette [of] Federative Republic of Brazil, Executive Power, Brasília, May 5th, 2012. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/l12651.htm.
Bren LJ (1993) Riparian zone, stream, and floodplain issues: a review. J Hydrol 150(2–4):277–299
Briske DD, Derner JD, Brown JR, Fuhlendorf SD, Teague WR, Havstad KM, Gillen RL, Ash AJ, Willms WD (2008) Rotational grazing on rangelands: reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence. Rangel Ecol Manag 61:3–17
Broadmeadow S, Nisbet TR (2004) The effects of riparian forest management on the freshwater environment: a literature review of best management practice. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 8(3):286–305
Brosofske KD, Chen J, Naiman RJ, Franklin JF (1997) Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecol Appl 7:1188–1200
Brost BM, Beier P (2012) Comparing linkage designs based on land facets to linkage designs based on focal species. PLoS ONE 7:e48965
Brown KS Jr (2000) Insetos indicadores da história, composic¸ ão, diversidade e integridade de matas ciliares. In: Rodrigues RR, Leitão Filho HF (eds) Matas ciliares, conservac¸ ão e recuperac¸ ão. USP, FAPESP, São Paulo, pp 223–231
Brueggen-Boman TR (2012) Effect of Implementing Best Management Practices on Water and Habitat Quality in the Upper Strawberry River Watershed, Fulton County, Arkansas. Arkansas State University, Ann Arbor, USA
Buckley C, Hynes S, Mechan S (2012) Supply of an ecosystem service-Farmers’ willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environ Sci Policy 24:101–109
Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag 30:492–507
Burger B, Reich P, Cavagnaro TR (2010) Trajectories of change: riparian vegetation and soil conditions following livestock removal and replanting. Aust Ecol 35(8):980–987
Burton TM, Likens GE (1973) Effect of strip-cutting on stream temperatures in Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Bioscience 23:433–435
Cabette HS, Souza JR, Shimano Y, Juen L (2017) Effects of changes in the riparian forest on the butterfly community (Insecta: Lepidoptera) in Cerrado areas. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 61(1):43–50
Calhoun JM (1988) Riparian management practices of the Department of Natural Resources. In: Raedeke K (ed.), Streamside Management: Riparian Wildlife and Forestry Interactions, Contribution No. 59, Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, pp 207–211
Capon SJ, Chambers LE, MacNally R, Naiman RJ, Davies P, Marshall N, Pittock J, Reid MA, Capon T, Douglas MM, Catford JA, Baldwin DS, Stewardson MJ, Roberts JA, Parsons M, Williams SE (2013) Riparian ecosystems in the 21st century: hotspots for climate change adaptation? Ecosystems 16:359–381
Cardinali A, Carletti P, Nardi S, Zanin G (2014) Design of riparian buffer strips affects soil quality parameters. Appl Soil Ecol 80:67–76
Carlton JT (1989) Man’s role in changing the face of the ocean: biological invasions and implications for conservation of near-shore environments. Conserv Biol 3:265–273
Casotti CG, Kiffer WP Jr, Costa LC, Rangel JV, Casagrande LC, Moretti MS (2015) Assessing the importance of riparian zones conservation for leaf decomposition in streams. Natureza & Conservação 13(2):178–182
Catford JA, Naiman RJ, Chambers LE, Roberts J, Douglas M, Davies P (2013) Predicting novel riparian ecosystems in a changing climate. Ecosystems 16(3):382–400
CEN (2004) EN 14614:2004 Water Quality-Guidance Standard for Assesseing the Hydromorphological Features of Rivers.
Chapman EW, Ribic CA (2002) The impact of buffer strips and stream-side grazing on small mammals in southwestern Wisconsin. Agric Ecosyst Environ 88(1):49–59
Chellaiah D, Yule CM (2018) Effect of riparian management on stream morphometry and water quality in oil palm plantations in Borneo. Limnologica 69:72–80
Chen C, Wu S, Meurk CD, Ma M, Zhao J, Tong X (2017) Effects of local and landscape factors on exotic vegetation in the riparian zone of a regulated river: Implications for reservoir conservation. Landsc Urban Plan 157:45–55
Chen C, Cheng H, Jia J, Wang X, Zhao J (2019) Use it or not: an agro-ecological perspective to flooded riparian land along the three gorges reservoir. Sci Total Environ 650:1062–1072
Chiramba T, Mogoi S, Martinez I, Jones T (2011) Payment for Environmental Services pilot project in Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya-a viable mechanism for watershed services that delivers sustainable natural resource management and improved livelihoods. In: UN-Water (eds) International Conference. Water in the Green Econony in Practice: Towards Rio+20. Zaragoza, Spain, pp 1–7
Chizinski CJ, Vondracek B, Blinn CR, Newman RM, Atuke DM, Fredricks K, Schlesser N (2010) The influence of partial timber harvesting in riparian buffers on macroinvertebrate and fish communities in small streams in Minnesota, USA. For Ecol Manag 259(10):1946–1958
Choi B, Dewey JC, Hatten JA, Ezell AW, Fan Z (2012) Changes in vegetative communities and water table dynamics following timber harvesting in small headwater streams. For Ecol Manag 281:1–11
Clary CR, Redmon L, Gentry T, Wagner K, Lyons R (2016) Nonriparian shade as a water quality best management practice for Grazing-lands: a case study. Rangelands 38(3):129–137
Cole LJ, Brocklehurst S, Robertson D, Harrison W, McCracken DI (2015) Riparian buffer strips: their role in the conservation of insect pollinators in intensive grassland systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 211:207–220
Collins K, Blackmore C, Morris D, Watson D (2007) A systemic approach to managing multiple perspectives and stakeholding in water catchments: some findings from three UK case studies. Environ Sci Pollut 10(6):564–574
Connolly NM, Pearson RG, Loong D, Maughan M, Brodie J (2015) Water quality variation along streams with similar agricultural development but contrasting riparian vegetation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 213:11–20
Correll DL (2005) Principles of planning and establishment of buffer zones. Ecol Eng 24:433–439
Creed IF, Beall FD, Clair TA, Dillon PJ, Hesslein RH (2008) Predicting export of dissolved organic carbon from forested catchments in glaciated landscapes with shallow soils. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008gb003294
Croke J, Thompson C, Fryirs K (2017) Prioritising the placement of riparian vegetation to reduce flood risk and end-of-catchment sediment yields: Important considerations in hydrologically-variable regions. J Environ Manag 190:9–19
Cummins KW, Wilzbach MA, Gates DM, Perry JB, Taliaferro WB (1989) Shredders and riparian vegetation. Bioscience 39(1):24–30
Da Ponte E, Kuenzer C, Parker A, Rodas O, Oppelt N, Fleckenstein M (2017) Forest cover loss in Paraguay and perception of ecosystem services: a case study of the Upper Parana Forest. Ecosyst Serv 24:200–212
da Silva RL, Leite MFA, Muniz FH, de Souza LAG, de Moraes FHR, Gehring C (2017) Degradation impacts on riparian forests of the lower Mearim river, eastern periphery of Amazonia. For Ecol Manag 402:92–101
Davis JW (1982) Livestock vs. riparian habitat management-there are solutions. p. 175–184. In: Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Symposium: Proc. 10. Univ. of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Sta. Moscow
de la Fuente B, Mateo-Sánchez MC, Rodríguez G, Gastón A, de Ayala RP, Colomina-Pérez D, Saura S (2018) Natura 2000 sites, public forests and riparian corridors: the connectivity backbone of forest green infrastructure. Land Use Policy 75:429–441
de Mello K, Randhir TO, Valente RA, Vettorazzi CA (2017) Riparian restoration for protecting water quality in tropical agricultural watersheds. Ecol Eng 108:514–524
de Mello K, Valente RA, Randhir TO, dos Santos ACA, Vettorazzi CA (2018) Effects of land use and land cover on water quality of low-order streams in Southeastern Brazil: watershed versus riparian zone. CATENA 167:130–138
de Sosa LL, Glanville HC, Marshall MR, Williams AP, Jones DL (2018a) Quantifying the contribution of riparian soils to the provision of ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 624:807–819
de Sosa LL, Williams AP, Orr HG, Jones DL (2018b) Riparian research and legislation, are they working towards the same common goals? A UK case study. Environ Sci Policy 82:126–135
Debano LF, Baker Jr MB (1999) Riparian ecosystems in southwestern United States. In: Ffolliott PF, Ortega-Rubio A (eds) Ecology and Management of Forests,Woodlands, and Shrublands in the Dryland Regions of the United States and Mexico: Perspectives for the 21st Century. University of Arizona-Cento de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste-USDA Forest Serves pp. 107–120.
DeClerck FAJ, Jones SK, Attwood S, Bossio D, Girvetz E, Chaplin-Kramer B, Noriega IL (2016) Agricultural ecosystems and their services: the vanguard of sustainability? Current opinion in environmental sustainability 23:92–99
Deschênes M, Bélanger L, Giroux JF (2003) Use of farmland riparian strips by declining and crop damaging birds. Agr Ecosyst Environ 95(2–3):567–577
Dickard M, Gonzalez M, Elmore W, Leonard S, Smith D, Smith S, Staats J, Summers P, Weixelman D, Wyman S (2015) Riparian area management: Proper functioning condition assessment for lotic areas. Technical Reference 1737–15. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO.
Dixon I.H, Douglas MM, Dowe JL, Burrows DW, Townsend SA (2005) A rapid method for assessing the condition of riparian zones in the wet/dry tropics of northern Australia. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Australian Stream Management Conference, Launceston, Australia October 20–22.
Dixon I, Douglas M, Dowe J, Burrows D (2006) ‘Tropical Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition Version 1 (for use in tropical savannas)’, River Management Technical Guideline No. 7, Land & Water Australia, Canberra.
Dixon MD, Boever CJ, Danzeisen VL, Merkord CL, Munes EC, Scott ML, Cowman TC (2015) Effects of a ‘natural’flood event on the riparian ecosystem of a regulated large-river system: the 2011 flood on the Missouri River, USA. Ecohydrology 8(5):812–824
dos Anjos SO, Couceiro SRM, Rezende ACC, de Sousa Silva MD (2016) Composition and richness of woody species in riparian forests in urban areas of Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. Landscape and Urban Planning 150:70–78
Dosskey MG, Vidon P, Gurwick NP, Allan CJ, Duval TP, Lowrance R (2010) The role of riparian vegetation in protecting and improving chemical water quality in streams. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46:261–277
Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 81:163–182
Dwire KA, Mellmann-Brown S, Gurrieri JT (2017) Potential effects of climate change on riparian areas, wetlands, and groundwater-dependent ecosystems in the Blue Mountains, Oregon. Climate Services, USA
Džubáková K, Molnar P, Schindler K, Trizna M (2015) Monitoring of riparian vegetation response to flood disturbances using terrestrial photography. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:195–208
Easterling DR, Meehl GA, Parmesan C, Changnon SA, Karl TR, Mearns LO (2000) Climate extremes: Observations, modeling, and impacts. Science 289:2068–2074
Eglin T, Walter C, Nys C, Follain S, Forgeard F, Legout A, Squividant H (2008) Influence of waterlogging on carbon stock variability at hillslope scale in a beech forest (Fougères forest-West France). Ann For Sci 65(2):1–10
Etter A, McAlpine C, Wilson K, Phinn S, Possingham H (2006) Regional patterns of agricultural land use and deforestation in Colombia. Agr Ecosyst Environ 114(2–4):369–386
Euler J, Heldt S (2018) From information to participation and self-organization: Visions for European river basin management. Sci Total Environ 621:905–914
Everitt BL (1998) Chronology of the spread of tamarisk in the central Rio Grande. Wetlands 18:658–668
Feichtinger J, Pregernig M (2016) Beyond mandated participation: dealing with hydropower in the context of the water framework directive. Environ Pol Governance 26:351–365
Feld CK, Fernandes MDRP, Ferreira MT, Hering D, Ormerod SJ, Venohr M, Gutiérrez-Cánovas C (2018) Evaluating riparian solutions to multiple stressor problems in river ecosystems-A conceptual study. Water Res 139:381–394
Fennessy MS, Cronk JK (1997) The effectiveness and restoration potential of riparian ecotones for the management of nonpoint source pollution, particularly nitrate. Critical reviews in environmental science and technology 27(4):285–317
Fernandes MR, Aguiar FC, Ferreira MT (2011) Assessing riparian vegetation structure and the influence of land use using landscape metrics and geostatistical tools. Landscape and Urban Planning 99(2):166–177
Fernandes MR, Segurado P, Jauch E, Ferreira MT (2016) Riparian responses to extreme climate and land-use change scenarios. Sci Total Environ 569:145–158
Fernández D, Barquín J, Álvarez-Cabria M, Penas FJ (2014) Land-use coverage as an indicator of riparian quality. Ecol Ind 41:165–174
Ferreira MT, Aguiar FC, Nogueira C (2005) Changes in riparian woods over space and time: influence of environment and land use. For Ecol Manage 212(1–3):145–159
Fielding KS, Terry DJ, Masser BM, Bordia P, Hogg MA (2005) Explaining landholders’ decisions about riparian zone management: The role of behavioural, normative, and control beliefs. J Environ Manage 77(1):12–21
Fisher B, Turner RK (2008) Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol Cons 141(5):1167–1169
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68(3):643–653
Fitch L, Adams BW (1998) Can cows and fish co-exist? Can J Plant Sci 78(2):191–198
Fitch L, Ambrose N (2003) Riparian Areas: A User’s Guide to Health. Lethbridge, Alberta: Cows and Fish Program. ISBN No. 0–7785–2305–5.
Flanagan NE, Richardson CJ, Ho M (2015) Connecting differential responses of native and invasive riparian plants to climate change and environmental alteration. Ecol Appl 25(3):753–767
Forman RTT (1995) Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
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 Manage 154:333–345
Franklin DH, Cabrera ML, Byers HL, Matthews MK, Andrae JG, Radcliffe DE, Calvert VH (2009) Impact of water troughs on cattle use of riparian zones in the Georgia Piedmont in the United States. J Anim Sci 87(6):2151–2159
Freeman RE (1984) Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston
Fremier AK, Kiparsky M, Gmur S, Aycrigg J, Craig RK, Svancara LK, Scott JM (2015) A riparian conservation network for ecological resilience. Biol Cons 191:29–37
Fu B, Burgher I (2015) Riparian vegetation NDVI dynamics and its relationship with climate, surface water and groundwater. J Arid Environ 113:59–68
Fu B, Li Y, Wang Y, Zhang B, Yin S, Zhu H, Xing Z (2016) Evaluation of ecosystem service value of riparian zone using land use data from 1986 to 2012. Ecol Ind 69:873–881
Galatowitsch SM, Richardson DM (2005) Riparian scrub recovery after clearing of invasive alien trees in headwater streams of the Western Cape. Biol Cons 122:509–521
Gallego-Ayala J, Juízo D (2014) Integrating stakeholders’ preferences into water resources management planning in the Incomati river basin. Water Resour Manage 28(2):527–540
Gambino R (2005) Il territorio, il fiume: dal Progetto Po al Piano d’Area. In: Ostellino I (ed) Atlante del Parco fluviale del Po torinesi. Immagina il Po, Alinea, Firenze, ISBN: 9788881259915, pp. 16-19
Garner G, Malcolm IA, Sadler JP, Hannah DM (2017) The role of riparian vegetation density, channel orientation and water velocity in determining river temperature dynamics. J Hydrol 553:471–485
Garrastazú MC, Mendonça SD, Horokoski TT, Cardoso DJ, Rosot MA, Nimmo ER, Lacerda AE (2015) Carbon sequestration and riparian zones: assessing the impacts of changing regulatory practices in Southern Brazil. Land Use Policy 42:329–339
Glass JR, Floyd CH (2015) Effects of proximity to riparian zones on avian species richness and abundance in montane aspen woodlands. J Field Ornithol 86(3):252–265
Godwin DC, Miner JR (1996) The potential of off-stream livestock watering to reduce water quality impacts. Biores Technol 58(3):285–290
Gomi T, Sidle RC, Noguchi S, Negishi JN, Nik AR, Sasaki S (2006) Sediment and wood accumulations in humid tropical headwater streams: effects of logging and riparian buffers. For Ecol Manag 224(1–2):166–175
González E, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bourgeois B, Boz B, Nilsson C, Palmer G, Sher AA (2017) Integrative conservation of riparian zones. Biol Cons 211:20–29
Gonzalez del Tanago M, Garcia de Jalon D (2011) Riparian Quality Index (RQI): a methodology for characterising and assessing the environmental conditions of riparian zones. Limnetica 30(2):0235–0254
Goss CW, Goebel PC, Sullivan SMP (2014) Shifts in attributes along agriculture-forest transitions of two streams in central Ohio, USA. Agric Ecosyst Environ 197:106–117
Gouldson A, Lopez-Gunn E, van Alstine J, Rees Y, Davies M, Krishnarayan V (2008) New alternative and complementary environmental policy instruments and the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Eur Environ 18(6):359–370
Gouvernement du Québec (1987) Loi sur la qualité de l’environnement: politique des rives, du littoral et des plaines inondables. Gouvernement du Québec, Québec. www.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca
Graf WL, Clark SL, Kammerer MT, Lehman T, Randall K, Schroeder R (1991) Geomorphology of heavy metals in the sediments of Queen Creek, Arizona, USA. CATENA 18(6):567–582
Gray CL, Simmons BI, Fayle TM, Mann DJ, Slade EM (2016) Are riparian forest reserves sources of invertebrate biodiversity spillover and associated ecosystem functions in oil palm landscapes? Biol Cons 194:176–183
Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW (1991) An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41(8):540–550
Grizzetti B, Liquete C, Antunes P, Carvalho L, Geamănă N, Giucă R, Turkelboom F (2016) Ecosystem services for water policy: insights across Europe. Environ Sci Policy 66:179–190
Groffman PM, Bain DJ, Band LE, Belt KT, Brush GS, Grove JM, Zipperer WC (2003) Down by the riverside: urban riparian ecology. Front Ecol Environ 1(6):315–321
Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Griffin R, Feldman MW (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(24):7348–7355
Guevara G, Godoy R, Boeckx P, Jara C, Oyarzún C (2015) Effects of riparian forest management on Chilean mountain in-stream characteristics. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 15(3):160–170
Hagerty DJ, Spoor MF, Ullrich CR (1981) Bank failure and erosion on the Ohio River. Eng Geol 17:141–158
Hain A (2014) The Potential of Agroforestry for Rural Development in the European Union. Bachelor Thesis YSS-82812. International Development Studies at Wageningen University, Wageningen
Hale R, Reich P, Daniel T, Lake PS, Cavagnaro TR (2014) Scales that matter: guiding effective monitoring of soil properties in restored riparian zones. Geoderma 228:173–181
Hale R, Reich P, Daniel T, Lake PS, Cavagnaro TR (2018) Assessing changes in structural vegetation and soil properties following riparian restoration. Agric Ecosyst Environ 252:22–29
Hansen K, Duke E, Bond C, Purcell M, Paige G (2018) Rancher preferences for a payment for ecosystem services program in southwestern Wyoming. Ecol Econ 146:240–249
Hansen BD, Fraser HS, Jones CS (2019) Livestock grazing effects on riparian bird breeding behaviour in agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 270:93–102
Hanser B, Reich P, Lake PS, Cavagnaro T (2010) Minimum width requirements for riparian zones to protect flowing waters and to conserve biodiversity: a review and recommendations. Monash University, Melbourne
Hattermann FF, Krysanova V, Habeck A, Bronstert A (2006) Integrating wetlands and riparian zones in river basin modelling. Ecol Model 199(4):379–392
Heartstill-Scalley T, Aide TM (2003) Riparian vegetation and stream condition in a tropical agriculture-secondary forest mosaic. Ecol Appl 13:225–234
Hénault-Ethier L, Larocque M, Perron R, Wiseman N, Labrecque M (2017) Hydrological heterogeneity in agricultural riparian buffer strips. J Hydrol 546:276–288
Hoffman MT, Rohde RF (2011) Rivers through time: Historical changes in the riparian vegetation of the semi-arid, winter rainfall region of South Africa in response to climate and land use. J Hist Biol 44(1):59–80
Hoffmann CC, Kjaergaard C, Uusi-Kämppä J, Hansen HCB, Kronvang B (2009) Phosphorus retention in riparian buffers: review of their efficiency. J Environ Qual 38:1942–1955
Hood WG, Naiman RJ (2000) Vulnerability of riparian zones to invasion by exotic vascular plants. Plant Ecol 148:105–114
Hughes AO, Tanner CC, McKergow LA, Sukias JP (2016) Unrestricted dairy cattle grazing of a pastoral headwater wetland and its effect on water quality. Agric Water Manag 165:72–81
Hunter ML Jr, Acuña V, Bauer DM, Bell KP, Calhoun AJ, Felipe-Lucia MR, Lundquist CJ (2017) Conserving small natural features with large ecological roles: a synthetic overview. Biol Cons 211:88–95
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 996
Ives CD, Taylor MP, Nipperess DA, Hose GC (2013) Effect of catchment urbanization on ant diversity in remnant riparian corridors. Landsc Urban Plan 110:155–163
Jackson FL, Fryer RJ, Hannah DM, Millar CP, Malcolm IA (2018) A spatio-temporal statistical model of maximum daily river temperatures to inform the management of Scotland’s Atlantic salmon rivers under climate change. Sci Total Environ 612:1543–1558
Jansen A, Robertson A, Thompson L, Wilson A (2005) Rapid appraisal of riparian condition, Version 2. Land & Water Australia, Canberra
Jefferson R, McKinley E, Capstick S, Fletcher S, Griffin H, Milanese M (2015) Understanding audiences: making public perceptions research matter to marine conservation. Ocean Coast Manag 115:61–70
Jia-nan C (2012) Contributions of environmental NGO to environmental education in China. IERI Proc 2:901–906
Jiménez-Ruiz J, Santín-Montanyá MI, Pokrovsky OS (2016) An approach to the integrated management of exotic invasive weeds in riparian zones. Riparian Zones: Characteristics, Management Practices, and Ecological Impacts; Pokrovsky OS Ed:99–124.
Johansen K, Phinn S, Dixon I, Douglas M, Lowry J (2007) Comparison of image and rapid field assessments of riparian zone condition in Australian tropical savannas. For Ecol Manag 240(1–3):42–60
Johansen K, Phinn S, Witte C (2010) Mapping of riparian zone attributes using discrete return LiDAR, QuickBird and SPOT-5 imagery: assessing accuracy and costs. Remote Sens Environ 114(11):2679–2691
Jones KB, Slonecker ET, Nash MS, Neale AC, Wade TG, Hamann S (2010) Riparian habitat changes across the continental United States (1972–2003) and potential implications for sustaining ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 25:1261–1275
Kamp KV, Rigge M, Troelstrup NH Jr, Smart AJ, Wylie B (2013) Detecting channel riparian vegetation response to best-management-practices implementation in ephemeral streams with the use of spot high-resolution visible imagery. Rangeland Ecol Manag 66(1):63–70
Kardynal KJ, Hobson KA, Van Wilgenburg SL, Morissette JL (2009) Moving riparian management guidelines towards a natural disturbance model: an example using boreal riparian and shoreline forest bird communities. For Ecol Manag 257(1):54–65
Kauffman JB, Krueger WC (1984) Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications..: a review. Rangeland Ecol Manag J Range Manag Arch 37(5):430–438
Kauffman JB, Beschta RL, Otting N, Lytjen D (1997) An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 22(5):12–24
Kędra M, Wiejaczka Ł (2018) Climatic and dam-induced impacts on river water temperature: assessment and management implications. Sci Total Environ 626:1474–1483
Keles R (2012) The quality of life and the environment. Proc Soc Behav Sci 35:23–32
Keller CM, Robbins CS, Hatfield JS (1993) Avian communities in riparian forests of different widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2):137–144
Kemkes RJ, Farley J, Koliba CJ (2010) Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecol Econ 69(11):2069–2074
Klein AM, Vaissiere BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 274:303–313
Klemas V (2014) Remote sensing of riparian and wetland buffers: an overview. J Coast Res 30(5):869–880
Kraus JM, Schmidt TS, Walters DM, Wanty RB, Zuellig RE, Wolf RE (2014) Cross-ecosystem impacts of stream pollution reduce resource and contaminant flux to riparian food webs. Ecol Appl 24(2):235–243
Kuglerová L, Ågren A, Jansson R, Laudon H (2014) Towards optimizing riparian buffer zones: Ecological and biogeochemical implications for forest management. For Ecol Manag 334:74–84
Kujanová K, Matoušková M, Hošek Z (2018) The relationship between river types and land cover in riparian zones. Limnologica 71:29–43
Lacko J, Topercer J, Súľovský M (2018) How disturbances and management practices affect bird communities in a Carpathian river ecosystem? Acta Oecol 88:29–40
Lake PS (2005) Perturbation, restoration and seeking ecological sustainability in Australian flowing waters. Hydrobiologia 552:109–120
Lang P, Jeschke M, Wommelsdorf T, Backes T, Lv C, Zhang X, Thomas FM (2015) Wood harvest by pollarding exerts long-term effects on Populus euphratica stands in riparian forests at the Tarim River, NW China. For Ecol Manag 353:87–96
Lawler DM, Grove JR, Couperwaite JS, Leeks GJL (1999) Downstream change in river bank erosion rates in the Swale-Ouse system, northern England. Hydrol Process 13:977–992
Le Maitre DC, Scott DF, Colvin C (1999) Review of information on interactions between vegetation and groundwater. Water SA 25(2):137–152
Lee MB, Rotenberry JT (2015) Effects of land use on riparian birds in a semiarid region. J Arid Environ 119:61–69
Lee P, Smyth C, Boutin S (2004) Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. J Environ Manag 70(2):165–180
Leimona B, van Noordwijk M, de Groot R, Leemans R (2015) Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. Ecosyst Serv 12:16–28
Li G, Jackson CR, Kraseski KA (2012) Modeled riparian stream shading: agreement with field measurements and sensitivity to riparian conditions. J Hydrol 428:142–151
Limburg KE, O’Neill RV, Costanza R, Farber S (2002) Complex systems and valuation. Ecol Econ 41(3):409–420
Line DE, Harman WA, Jennings GD, Thompson EJ, Osmond DL (2000) Nonpoint-source pollutant load reductions associated with livestock exclusion. J Environ Qual 29(6):1882–1890
Lytle DA, Poff NL (2004) Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends Ecol Evol 19(2):94–100
Macfarlane WW, Gilbert JT, Jensen ML, Gilbert JD, Hough-Snee N, McHugh PA, Bennett SN (2017) Riparian vegetation as an indicator of riparian condition: detecting departures from historic condition across the North American West. J Environ Manag 202:447–460
Mackay JE, Cunningham SC, Cavagnaro TR (2016) Riparian reforestation: are there changes in soil carbon and soil microbial communities? Sci Total Environ 566:960–967
Maddock I (1999) The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshw Biol 41(2):373–391
Malan JAC, Flint N, Jackson EL, Irving AD, Swain DL (2018) Off-stream watering points for cattle: protecting riparian ecosystems and improving water quality? Agric Ecosyst Environ 256:144–152
Malanson GP (1993) Riparian landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 296
Mander Ü, Kuusemets V, Lõhmus K, Mauring T (1997) Efficiency and dimensioning of riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Ecol Eng 8(4):299–324
Mander Ü, Hayakawa Y, Kuusemets V (2005) Purification processes, ecological functions, planning and design of riparian buffer zones in agricultural watersheds. Ecol Eng 24:421–432
Mander Ü, Tournebize J, Tonderski K, Verhoeven JT, Mitsch WJ (2017) Planning and establishment principles for constructed wetlands and riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Ecol Eng 296–300
Maraseni TN, Mitchell C (2016) An assessment of carbon sequestration potential of riparian zone of Condamine Catchment, Queensland, Australia. Land Use Policy 54:139–146
Martin J, Kurc SA, Zaimes G, Crimmins M, Hutmacher A, Green D (2012) Elevated air temperatures in riparian ecosystems along ephemeral streams: The role of housing density. J Arid Environ 84:9–18
Maruani T, Amit-Cohen I (2009) The effectiveness of the protection of riparian landscapes in Israel. Land Use Policy 26:911–918
Mayer PM, Reynolds SK, McCutchen MD, Canfield TJ (2006) Riparian buffer width, vegetative cover, and nitrogen removal effectiveness: a review of current science and regulations. US Environmental Protection Agency. Report number: EOA/600/R-05/118, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 40
McClure CJ, Korte AC, Heath JA, Barber JR (2015) Pavement and riparian forest shape the bird community along an urban river corridor. Glob Ecol Conserv 4:291–310
McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890
McVittie A, Norton L, Martin-Ortega J, Siameti I, Glenk K, Aalders I (2015) Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: an application to riparian buffer strips. Ecol Econ 110:15–27
Mei NS, Wai CW, Ahamad R (2016) Environmental awareness and behaviour index for Malaysia. Proc Soc Behav Sci 222:668–675
Meli P, Brancalion PH (2017) Contrasting regulatory frameworks to govern riparian forest restoration in Mexico and Brazil: Current status and needs for advances. World Dev Perspect 5:60–62
Meyer JL (1997) Stream health: incorporating the human dimension to advance stream ecology. J N Am Benthol Soc 16(2):439–447
Micheli ER, Kirchner JW (2002) Effects of wet meadow riparian vegetation on streambank erosion. 1. Remote sensing measurements of streambank migration and erodibility. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27(6):627–639
Michez A, Piégay H, Jonathan L, Claessens H, Lejeune P (2016) Mapping of riparian invasive specieswith supervised classification of Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) imagery. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 44:88–94
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute. http://berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/regions-and-cohesion/1/3/reco010305.xml
Miller J, Chanasyk D, Curtis T, Entz T, Willms W (2010) Influence of streambank fencing with a cattle crossing on riparian health and water quality of the Lower Little Bow River in Southern Alberta, Canada. Agric Water Manag 97(2):247–258
Miller J, Chanasyk D, Curtis T, Entz T, Willms W (2011) Environmental quality of Lower Little Bow River and riparian zone along an unfenced reach with off-stream watering. Agric Water Manag 98(10):1505–1515
Mishra A, Singh R, Raghuwanshi NS, Chatterjee C, Froebrich J (2013) Spatial variability of climate change impacts on yield of rice and wheat in the Indian Ganga Basin. Sci Total Environ 468:S132–S138
Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2007) Wetlands, 4th edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, New Jesey
Modiba RV, Joseph GS, Seymour CL, Fouché P, Foord SH (2017) Restoration of riparian systems through clearing of invasive plant species improves functional diversity of Odonate assemblages. Biol Cons 214:46–54
Morton C, Knowler D, Brugere C, Lymer D, Bartley D (2017) Valuation of fish production services in river basins: a case study of the Columbia River. Ecosyst Serv 24:101–113
Mosley E, Holmes SB, Nol E (2006) Songbird diversity and movement in upland and riparian habitats in the boreal mixedwood forest of northeastern Ontario. Can J For Res 36(5):1149–1164
Mosquera-Losada MR, Santiago-Freijanes JJ, Rois-Díaz M, Moreno G, den Herder M, Aldrey-Vázquez JA, Rigueiro-Rodríguez A (2018) Agroforestry in Europe: a land management policy tool to combat climate change. Land Use Policy 78:603–613
Mostaghimi S, Brannan KM, Dillaha III TA, Bruggeman AC (2001) Best management practices for nonpoint source pollution control: selection and assessment. In: Ritter WF, Shirmohammadi A (eds) Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution-Watershed Management and Hydrology, Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL, pp 257–304
Mountjoy NJ, Whiles MR, Spyreas G, Lovvorn JR, Seekamp E (2016) Assessing the efficacy of community-based natural resource management planning with a multi-watershed approach. Biol Cons 201:120–128
Muller E (1997) Mapping riparian vegetation along rivers: old concepts and new methods. Aquat Bot 58(3–4):411–437
Munné A, Prat N, Sola C, Bonada N, Rieradevall M (2003) A simple field method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian habitat in rivers and streams: QBR index. Aquatic Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 13(2):147–163
Naiman RJ, Décamps H (1997) The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 28:621–658
Naiman RJ, Decamps H, Pollock M (1993) The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol Appl 3:209–212
Naiman RJ, Decamps H, McClain ME (2005) Riparia-Ecology. Elsevier Academic Press, London, UK, Conservation and Management of Streamside Communities
Nakamura F, Yamada H (2005) Effects of pasture development on the ecological functions of riparian forests in Hokkaido in northern Japan. Ecol Eng 24(5):539–550
Nasibulina A (2015) Education for sustainable development and environmental ethics. Proc Soc Behav Sci 214:1077–1082
National Research Council (2002) Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management. National Academy Press, Washington
New T, Xie Z (2008) Impacts of large dams on riparian vegetation: applying global experience to the case of China’s Three Gorges Dam. Biodivers Conserv 17(13):3149–3163
Nilsson C, Berggren K (2000) Alterations of riparian ecosystems caused by river regulation: Dam operations have caused global-scale ecological changes in riparian ecosystems. How to protect river environments and human needs of rivers remains one of the most important questions of our time. BioScience 50(9):783–792.
Nilsson C, Dynesius M (1994) Ecological effects of river regulation on mammals and birds: a review. Regul Rivers Res Manag 9:45–53
Nilsson C, Svedmark M (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water regimes: riparian plant communities. Environ Manag 30(4):468–480
Nilsson C, Gunnel G, Johansson M, Sperens U (1989) Patterns of plant species richness along riverbanks. Ecology 70(1):77–84
Nilsson C, Jansson R, Kuglerová L, Lind L, Ström L (2013) Boreal riparian vegetation under climate change. Ecosystems 16(3):401–410
Nisbet D, Kreutzweiser D, Sibley P, Scarr T (2015) Ecological risks posed by emerald ash borer to riparian forest habitats: a review and problem formulation with management implications. For Ecol Manag 358:165–173
Nóbrega RL, Ziembowicz T, Torres GN, Guzha AC, Amorim RS, Cardoso D, Gerold G (2020) Ecosystem services of a functionally diverse riparian zone in the Amazon-Cerrado agricultural frontier. Glob Ecol Conserv 21:e00819
Novoa J, Chokmani K, Lhissou R (2018) A novel index for assessment of riparian strip efficiency in agricultural landscapes using high spatial resolution satellite imagery. Sci Total Environ 644:1439–1451
Nunes SS, Rlow JOS, Gardner TA, Siqueira JV, Sales MR, Souza CM (2015) A 22 year assessment of deforestation and restoration in riparian forests in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. Environ Conserv 42:193–203
O’Carroll A (2004) Where Land and Waters Meet: An Assessment of Canada’s Riparian Forest Management Standards. Global Forest Watch Canada, Global Forest Watch Canada, Edmonton, Alberta
O’Toole P, Chambers JM, Bell RW (2018) Understanding the characteristics of riparian zones in low relief, sandy catchments that affect their nutrient removal potential. Agric Ecosyst Environ 258:182–196
Olson BM, Kalischuk AR, Casson JP, Phelan CA (2011) Evaluation of cattle bedding and grazing BMPs in an agricultural watershed in Alberta. Water Sci Technol 64(2):326–333
Ors F (2012) Environmental education and the role of media in environmental education in Turkey. Proc Soc Behav Sci 46:1339–1342
Osborne LL, Kovacic DA (1993) Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshw Biol 29(2):243–258
Otto S, Pensini P (2017) Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Glob Environ Chang 47:88–94
Ou Y, Wang X, Wang L, Rousseau AN (2016) Landscape influences on water quality in a riparian buffer zone of drinking water source area. Northern China Environ Earth Sci 75(114):1–13
Padmalal D, Maya K, Sreebha S, Sreeja R (2008) Environmental effects of river sand mining: a case from the river catchments of Vembanad lake. Southwest coast of India Environmental geology 54(4):879–889
Paetzold A, Smith M, Warren PH, Maltby L (2011) Environmental impact propagated by cross-system subsidy: Chronic stream pollution controls riparian spider populations. Ecology 92(9):1711–1716
Pahl-Wostl C (2008) Requirements for adaptative water management. In: Pahl-Wostl C, Kabat P, Molten J (eds) Adaptive and integrated water management: coping with complexity and uncertainty. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–22
Palik B, Martin M, Zenner E, Blinn C, Kolka R (2012) Overstory and regeneration dynamics in riparian management zones of northern Minnesota forested watersheds. For Ecol Manag 271:1–9
Palmberg IE, Kuru J (2000) Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. J Environ Educ 31(4):32–36
Palmer J (1998) Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice. Progress and Promise, Routledge, London
Palmer GC, Bennett AF (2006) Riparian zones provide for distinct bird assemblages in forest mosaics of south-east Australia. Biol Cons 130(3):447–457
Palmer MA, Reidy Liermann CA, Nilsson C, Flörke M, Alcamo J, Lake PS, Bond N (2008) Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Front Ecol Environ 6(2):81–89
Pan G, Xu Y, Yu Z, Song S, Zhang Y (2015) Analysis of river health variation under the background of urbanization based on entropy weight and matter-element model: A case study in Huzhou City in the Yangtze River Delta, China. Environ Res 139:31–35
Pan B, Yuan J, Zhang X, Wang Z, Chen J, Lu J, Xu M (2016) A review of ecological restoration techniques in fluvial rivers. Int J Sedim Res 31(2):110–119
Parés M, Brugué Q, Espluga J, Miralles J, Ballester A (2015) The strengths and weaknesses of deliberation on river basin management planning: analysing the water framework directive implementation in Catalonia (Spain). Environ Pol Gov 25:97–110
Patten DO (1998) Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: diversity and human impacts. Wetlands 18(4):498–512
Pattison-Williams JK, Yang W, Liu Y, Gabor S (2017) Riparian wetland conservation: a case study of phosphorous and social return on investment in the Black River watershed. Ecosyst Serv 26:400–410
Pavlovic P, Mitrovic M, Ðordevic D, Sakan S, Slobodnik J, Liska I, Csanyi B, Jaric S, Kostic O, Pavlovic D, Marinkovic N, Tubic B, Paunovic M (2016) Assessment of the contamination of riparian soil and vegetation by trace metals-a Danube river case study. Sci Total Environ 540:396–409
Pavlović P, Marković M, Kostić O, Sakan S, Đorđević D, Perović V, Paunović M (2019) Evaluation of potentially toxic element contamination in the riparian zone of the River Sava. CATENA 174:399–412
Peng J, Tian L, Liu Y, Zhao M, Wu J (2017) Ecosystem services response to urbanization in metropolitan areas: thresholds identification. Sci Total Environ 607:706–714
Pennington DN, Hansel JR, Gorchov DL (2010) Urbanization and riparian forest woody communities: diversity, composition, and structure within a metropolitan landscape. Biol Cons 143(1):182–194
Peralta-Maraver I, Reiss J, Robertson AL (2018) Interplay of hydrology, community ecology and pollutant attenuation in the hyporheic zone. Sci Total Environ 610:267–275
Perry LG, Andersen DC, Reynolds LV, Nelson SM, Shafroth PB (2012) Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Glob Change Biol 18(3):821–842
Pert PL, Butler JRA, Brodie JE, Bruce C, Honzak M, Kroon FJ, Wong G (2010) A catchment-based approach to mapping hydrological ecosystem services using riparian habitat: a case study from the Wet Tropics. Aust Ecol Complex 7(3):378–388
Pettit NE, Naiman RJ (2007) Fire in the riparian zone: characteristics and ecological consequences. Ecosystems 10(5):673–687
Phillips JD (1989) Nonpoint source pollution control effectiveness of riparian forests along a coastal plain river. J Hydrol 110(3–4):221–237
Phoebus I, Segelbacher G, Stenhouse GB (2017) Do large carnivores use riparian zones? Ecological implications for forest management. For Ecol Manag 402:157–165
Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The Natural Flow Regime. Bioscience 47:769–784
Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E, Henriksen J (2010) The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw Biol 55(1):147–170
Poff B, Koestner KA, Neary DG, Henderson V (2011) Threats to riparian ecosystems in Western North America: an analysis of existing literature. J Am Water Resour Assoc 47:1241–1254
Pollen N, Simon A (2005) Estimating the mechanical effects of riparian vegetation on stream bank stability using a fiber bundle model. Water Resources Research 41(7).
Pollen-Bankhead N, Simon A (2010) Hydrologic and hydraulic effects of riparian root networks on streambank stability: Is mechanical root-reinforcement the whole story? Geomorphology 116(3–4):353–362
Popotnik GJ, Giuliano WM (2000) Response of birds to grazing of riparian zones. J Wildl Manag 64(4):976–982
Potter G (2009) Environmental education for the 21st century: where do we go now? J Environ Educ 41:22–33
Poulin R, Pakalnis RC, Sinding K (1994) Aggregate resources: production and environmental constraints. Environ Geol 23:221–227
Qian J, Liu J, Wang P, Wang C, Hu J, Li K, Guan W (2018) Effects of riparian land use changes on soil aggregates and organic carbon. Ecol Eng 112:82–88
Quinn JM, Brown PM, Boyce W, Mackay S, Taylor A, Fenton T (2001) Riparian zone classification for management of stream water quality and ecosystem health. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37:1509–1515
Rafika K, Rym K, Souad SB, Youcef L (2016) A public actor awareness for sustainable development. Proc Soc Behav Sci 216:151–162
Ramilan T, Scrimgoeur F, Marsh D (2010) Modelling riparian buffers for water quality enhancement in the Karapiro catchment. Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (2010) Conference (54th), 10–12 February 2010. Adelaide, Australia
Ramírez A, Pringle CM, Wantzen KM (2008) Tropical stream conservation. In: Dudgeon D (ed) Tropical stream ecology Academic Press, pp 285–304
Randhir TO, Ekness P (2013) Water quality change and habitat potential in riparian ecosystems. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 13:192–200
Rawluk AA (2013) The Investigation and Evaluation of Riparian Management Practices Within the Manitoba Landscape: Off-Stream Watering Systems. University of Manitoba (Canada), Ann Arbor p, p 226
Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Cons 141(10):2417–2431
Rheinhardt R, Brinson M, Meyer G, Miller K (2012a) Carbon storage of headwater riparian zones in an agricultural landscape. Carbon Balance Manag 7:4
Rheinhardt R, Brinson M, Meyer G, Miller K (2012b) Integrating forest biomass and distance from channel to develop an indicator of riparian condition. Ecol Ind 23:46–55
Richardson DM, Holmes PM, Esler KJ, Galatowitsch SM, Stromberg JC, Kirkman SP, Pyšek P, Hobbs RJ (2007) Riparian vegetation: degradation, alien plant invasions, and restoration prospects. Divers Distrib 13:126–139
Richit LA, Bonatto C, Carlotto T, da Silva RV, Grzybowski JMV (2017) Modelling forest regeneration for performance-oriented riparian buffer strips. Ecol Eng 106:308–322
Rigge M, Smart A, Wylie B (2013) Optimal placement of off-stream water sources for ephemeral stream recovery. Rangeland Ecol Manag 66(4):479–486
Rigge M, Smart A, Wylie B, de Van KK (2014) Detecting the influence of best management practices on vegetation near ephemeral streams with Landsat data. Rangeland Ecol Manag 67(1):1–8
Rivaes R, Rodríguez-González PM, Albuquerque A, Pinheiro AN, Egger G, Ferreira MT (2013) Riparian vegetation responses to altered flow regimes driven by climate change in Mediterranean rivers. Ecohydrology 6(3):413–424
Roche LM, Cutts BB, Derner JD, Lubell MN, Tate KW (2015) On-ranch grazing strategies: context for the rotational grazing dilemma. Rangeland Ecol Manag 68(3):248–256
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Nykvist B (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263):472–475
Rood SB, Mahoney JM, Reid DE, Zilm L (1995) Instream flows and the decline of riparian cottonwoods along the St Mary River. Alberta Can J Bot 73:1250–1260
Rood SB, Samuelson GM, Braatne JH, Gourley CR, Hughes FM, Mahoney JM (2005) Managing river flows to restore floodplain forests. Front Ecol Environ 3(4):193–201
Rosenzweig C, Karoly D, Vicarelli M, Neofotis P, Wu Q, Casassa G, Tryjanowski P (2008) Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature 453(7193):353–357
Rosot MAD, Maran JC, da Luz NB, Garrastazú MC, de Oliveira YMM, Franciscon L, de Freitas JV (2018) Riparian forest corridors: a prioritization analysis to the landscape sample units of the Brazilian National Forest Inventory. Ecol Ind 93:501–511
Rottenborn SC (1999) Predicting the impacts of urbanization on riparian bird communities. Biol Cons 88(3):289–299
Ruwanza S, Gaertner M, Esler KJ, Richardson DM (2013) The effectiveness of active and passive restoration on recovery of indigenous vegetation in riparian zones in the Western Cape, South Africa: a preliminary assessment. S Afr J Bot 88:132–141
Ryan RL, Erickson DL, De Young R (2003) Farmers’ motivations for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed. J Environ Plan Manag 46(1):19–37
Sabo JL, Sponseller R, Dixon M, Gade K, Harms T, Heffernan J, Jani A, Katz G, Soykan C, Watts J (2005) Riparian zones increase regional species richness by harboring different, not more, species. Ecology 86:56–62
Salemi LF, Groppo JD, Trevisan R, de Moraes JM, de Paula LW, Martinelli LA (2012) Riparian vegetation and water yield: a synthesis. J Hydrol 454:195–202
Sangha KK, Preece L, Villarreal-Rosas J, Kegamba JJ, Paudyal K, Warmenhoven T, RamaKrishnan PS (2018) An ecosystem services framework to evaluate indigenous and local peoples’ connections with nature. Ecosyst Serv 31:111–125
Santiago J, Molinero J, Pozo J (2011) Impact of timber harvesting on litterfall inputs and benthic coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM) storage in a small stream draining a eucalyptus plantation. For Ecol Manag 262(6):1146–1156
Santos MJ, Matos HM, Palomares F, Santos-Reis M (2011) Factors affecting mammalian carnivore use of riparian ecosystems in Mediterranean climates. J Mammal 92:1060–1069
Scalenghe R, Edwards AC, Ajmone Marsan F, Barberis E (2002) The effect of reducing conditions on the solubility of phosphorus in a diverse range of European agricultural soils. Eur J Soil Sci 53:439–447
Schipper AM, Lotterman K, Leuven RS, Ragas AM, de Kroon H, Hendriks AJ (2011) Plant communities in relation to flooding and soil contamination in a lowland Rhine River floodplain. Environ Pollut 159(1):182–189
Schultz RC, Collettil JP, Isenhart TM, Simpkins WW, Mize CW, Thompson ML (1995) Design and placement of a multi-species riparian buffer strip system. Agrofor Syst 29(3):201–226
Scott A, Carter C, Hardman M, Grayson N, Slaney T (2018) Mainstreaming ecosystem science in spatial planning practice: Exploiting a hybrid opportunity space. Land Use Policy 70:232–246
Seavy NE, Gardali T, Golet GH, Griggs FT, Howell CA, Kelsey R, Weigand JF (2009) Why climate change makes riparian restoration more important than ever: recommendations for practice and research. Ecol Restor 27(3):330–338
Seena S, Carvalho F, Cássio F, Pascoal C (2017) Does the developmental stage and composition of riparian forest stand affect ecosystem functioning in streams? Sci Total Environ 609:1500–1511
Shackleton CM, Guthrie G, Keirungi J, Stewart J (2003) Fuelwood availability and use in the Richtersveld National Park. S Afr Koedoe 46(2):1–8
Shafroth PB, Stromberg JC, Patten DO (2002) Riparian vegetation response to altered disturbance and stress regimes. Ecol Appl 12(1):107–123
Sharitz RR, Boring LR, Lear DHV, Pinder JE (1992) Integrating ecological concepts with natural resource management of southern forests. Ecol Appl 2(3):226–237
Shen Q, Gao G, Lü Y, Wang S, Jiang X, Fu B (2017) River flow is critical for vegetation dynamics: lessons from multi-scale analysis in a hyper-arid endorheic basin. Sci Total Environ 603:290–298
Shields FD, Bowie AJ Jr, Cooper CM (1995) Control of streambank erosion due to bed degradation with vegetation and structure. Water Res Bull 31:475–489
Si J, Feng Q, Cao S, Yu T, Zhao C (2014) Water use sources of desert riparian Populus euphratica forests. Environ Monit Assess 186(9):5469–5477
Simon A, Collison AJ (2002) Quantifying the mechanical and hydrologic effects of riparian vegetation on streambank stability. Earth Surf Proc Land 27(5):527–546
Singh PK, Saxena S (2018) Towards developing a river health index. Ecol Ind 85:999–1011
Singh R, Singh GS (2019) Integrated management of the Ganga River: An ecohydrological approach. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2019.10.007
Sirombra MG, Mesa LM (2012) A method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian forests in subtropical Andean streams: QBRy index. Ecol Ind 20:324–331
Smaill SJ, Ledgard N, Langer ER, Henley D (2011) Establishing native plants in a weedy riparian environment. NZ J Mar Freshwater Res 45:357–367
Smiley PC Jr, King KW, Fausey NR (2011) Influence of herbaceous riparian buffers on physical habitat, water chemistry, and stream communities within channelized agricultural headwater streams. Ecol Eng 37(9):1314–1323
Soman S, Beyler S, Kraft S, Thomas D, Winstanley D (2007) Ecosystem services from riparian areas: a brief summary of the literature. Prepared for the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Illinois River Coordinator Council.
Song W, Deng XZ (2017) Land-use/land-cover change and ecosystem service provision in China. Sci Total Environ 576:705–719
Sosa B, Romero D, Fernández G, Achkar M (2018c) Spatial analysis to identify invasion colonization strategies and management priorities in riparian ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 411:195–202
Sovell LA, Vondracek B, Frost JA, Mumford KG (2000) Impacts of rotational grazing and riparian buffers on physicochemical and biological characteristics of southeastern Minnesota, USA, streams. Environ Manag 26(6):629–641
Sreebha S, Padmalal D (2011) Environmental impact assessment of sand mining from the small catchment rivers in the southwestern coast of India: a case study. Environ Manag 47(1):130–140
Steel BS, Smith C, Opsommer L, Curiel S, Warner-Steel R (2005) Public ocean literacy in the United States. Ocean Coast Manag 48:97–114
Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Folke C (2015) Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):1259855
Sterzyńska M, Shrubovych J, Kaprus I (2014) Effect of hydrologic regime and forest age on Collembola in riparian forests. Appl Soil Ecol 75:199–209
Stohlgren TJ, Bull KA, Otsuki Y, Villa CA, Lee M (1998) Riparian zones as havens for exotic plant species in the central grasslands. Plant Ecol 138:113–125
Strayer DL, Beighley RE, Thompson LC, Brooks S, Nilsson C (2003) Effects of land cover on stream ecosystems: roles of empirical models and scaling issues. Ecosystems 6:407–423
Ström L, Jansson R, Nilsson C, Johansson ME, Xiong S (2011) Hydrologic effects on riparian vegetation in a boreal river: an experiment testing climate change predictions. Glob Change Biol 17(1):254–267
Stromberg JC, Tiller R, Richter B (1996) Effects of groundwater on riparian vegetation of semiarid regions: San Pedro, Arizona. Ecol Appl 6:113–131
Stromberg JC, Beauchamp VB, Dixon MD, Lite SJ, Paradzick C (2007) Importance of low-flow and highflow characteristics to restoration of riparian vegetation along rivers in arid south-western United States. Freshw Biol 52:651–679
Stutter MI, Chardon WJ, Kronvang B (2012) Riparian buffer strips as a multifunctional management tool in agricultural landscapes: introduction. J Environ Qual 41:297–303
Sunil C, Somashekar RK, Nagaraja BC (2010) Riparian vegetation assessment of Cauvery River basin of South India. Environ Monit Assess 170(1–4):545–553
Syversen N (2005) Effect and design of buffer zones in the Nordic climate: The influence of width, amount of surface runoff, seasonal variation and vegetation type on retention efficiency for nutrient and particle runoff. Ecol Eng 24(5):483–490
Tabacchi E, Correll DL, Hauer R, Pinay G, Planty-Tabacchi AM, Wissmar RC (1998) Development, maintenance and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscape. Freshwater Biol 40:497–516
Tabacchi E, Lambs L, Guilloy H, Planty-Tabacchi AM, Muller E, Decamps H (2000) Impacts of riparian vegetation on hydrological processes. Hydrol Process 14(16–17):2959–2976
Taffarello D, do Carmo Calijuri M, Viani RAG, Marengo JA, Mendiondo EM, (2017) Hydrological services in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil: An ecosystem-based adaptation using ecohydrological monitoring. Clim Serv 8:1–16
Tererai F, Gaertner M, Jacobs SM, Richardson DM (2013) Eucalyptus invasions in riparian forests: effects on native vegetation community diversity stand structure and composition. For Ecol Manag 297:84–93
Thevs N, Zerbe S, Schnittler M, Abdusalih N, Succow M (2008) Structure, reproduction and flood-induced dynamics of riparian Tugai forests at the Tarim River in Xinjiang. NW China Forestry 81(1):45–57
Todd RL, Lowrance RR, Hendrickson O, Asmussen LE, Leonard R, Fail J, Herrick B (1983) Riparian vegetation as filters of nutrients exported from a coastal plain agricultural watershed. In: Lowrance RR, Todd RL, Asmussen LE, Leonard RA (eds) Nutrient Cycling in Agricultural Ecosystems. Special publication-University of Georgia, Agriculture Experiment Stations (USA), p 485
Tompalski P, Coops NC, White JC, Wulder MA, Yuill A (2017) Characterizing streams and riparian areas with airborne laser scanning data. Remote Sens Environ 192:73–86
Tonin AM, Gonçalves JF, Bambi P, Couceiro SR, Feitoza LA, Fontana LE, Lemes-Silva AL (2017) Plant litter dynamics in the forest-stream interface: precipitation is a major control across tropical biomes. Sci Rep 7(1):10799
Tonkin JD, Merritt DM, Olden JD, Reynolds LV, Lytle DA (2018) Flow regime alteration degrades ecological networks in riparian ecosystems. Nat Ecol Evolut 2(1):86–93
Trimble SW, Mendel AC (1995) The cow as a geomorphic agent-a critical review. Geomorphology 13:233–253
Truax B, Gagnon D, Lambert F, Fortier J (2017) Riparian buffer growth and soil nitrate supply are affected by tree species selection and black plastic mulching. Ecol Eng 106:82–93
Tumpach C, Dwivedi P, Izlar R, Cook C (2018) Understanding perceptions of stakeholder groups about Forestry Best Management Practices in Georgia. J Environ Manag 213:374–381
Undersander DJ, Albert B, Porter P, Crossley A (1992) Pastures for Profit: A Hands on Guide to Rotational Grazing. University of Wisconsin Extension Service No. A3529, Madison.
USDA The United States Department of Agriculture (1997) Riparian Forest Buffer Conservation Practice Standard, Code 392. USDA, Iowa NRCS, Des Moines
Uzun FV, Keles O (2012) The effects of nature education project on the environmental awareness and behavior. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 46:2912–2916
Valero E, Picos J, Álvarez X (2014) Characterization of riparian forest quality of the Umia River for a proposed restoration. Ecol Eng 67:216–222
Verbrugge LN, Ganzevoort W, Fliervoet JM, Panten K, van den Born RJ (2017) Implementing participatory monitoring in river management: the role of stakeholders’ perspectives and incentives. J Environ Manag 195:62–69
Vesipa R, Camporeale C, Ridolfi L (2017) Effect of river flow fluctuations on riparian vegetation dynamics: Processes and models. Adv Water Resour 110:29–50
Vidon P (2010) Riparian zone management and environmental quality: a multi-contaminant challenge. Hydrol Process 24(11):1532–1535
Vidon P, Campbell MA, Gray M (2008) Unrestricted cattle access to streams and water quality in till landscape of the Midwest. Agric Water Manag 95:322–330
Vidon P, Allan C, Burns D, Duval TP, Gurwick N, Inamdar S, Sebestyen S (2010) Hot spots and hot moments in riparian zones: potential for improved water quality management. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46(2):278–298
Viegas G, Stenert C, Schulz UH, Maltchik L (2014) Dung beetle communities as biological indicators of riparian forest widths in southern Brazil. Ecol Ind 36:703–710
Vigiak O, Malagó A, Bouraoui F, Grizzetti B, Weissteiner CJ, Pastori M (2016) Impact of current riparian land on sediment retention in the Danube River Basin. Sustain Water Qual Ecol 8:30–49
Villasenor E, Porter-Bolland L, Escobar F, Guariguata MR, Moreno-Casasola P (2016) Characteristics of participatory monitoring projects and their relationship to decision-making in biological resource management: a review. Biodivers Conserv 25:2001–2019
Vosse S, Esler KJ, Richardson DM, Holmes PM (2008) Can riparian seed banks initiate restoration after alien plant invasion? Evidence from the Western Cape, South Africa. S Afr J Bot 74(3):432–444
Vowell JL (2001) Using stream bioassessment to monitor best management practice effectiveness. For Ecol Manag 143:237–244
Wang Y, Ao L, Lei B, Zhang S (2015) Assessment of heavy metal contamination from sediment and soil in the riparian zone China’s Three Gorges Reservoir. Pol J Environ Stud 24:2253–2259
Wang J, Zhang Z, Greimann B, Huang V (2018) Application and evaluation of the HEC-RAS–riparian vegetation simulation module to the Sacramento River. Ecol Model 368:158–168
Wanjala S, Mwinami T, Harper DM, Morrison EH, Pacini N (2018) Ecohydrological tools for the preservation and enhancement of ecosystem services in the Naivasha Basin. Kenya Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 18(2):155–173
Wasser L, Chasmer L, Day R, Taylor A (2015) Quantifying land use effects on forested riparian buffer vegetation structure using LiDAR data. Ecosphere 6(1):1–17
Webb RH, Leake SA (2006) Ground-water surface-water interactions and long-term change in riverine riparian vegetation in the southwestern United States. J Hydrol 320(3–4):302–323
Webster JR, Benfield EF, Ehrman TP, Schaeffer MA, Tank JL, D’Angelo HJJDJ (1999) What happens to allochthonous material that falls into streams? A synthesis of new and published information from Coweeta. Freshw Biol 41:687–705
Welsch DJ, Hornbeck JW, Verry ES, Dolloff A Greis JG (2000) Riparian area management: themes and recommendations. In: Verry Elon S, Hornbeck JW, Dolloff CA (eds) Riparian management in forests of the continental Eastern United States. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, CRC Press LLC, pp 321–340
Whitfield PE, Gardner T, Vives SP, Gilligan MR, Courtenay WR Jr, Ray GC, Hare JA (2002) Biological invasion of the indo-pacific lion fish Pterois volitans along the Atlantic coast of North America. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 235:289–297
Whitworth MR, Martin DC (1990) Instream benefits of CRP filter strips. In: McCabe RE (ed) Transactions of the 55th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC, pp 40–45
Wilcock RJ, Betteridge K, Shearman D, Fowles CR, Scarsbrook MR, Thorrold BS, Costall D (2009) Riparian protection and on-farm best management practices for restoration of a lowland stream in an intensive dairy farming catchment: a case study. NZ J Mar Freshwat Res 43(3):803–818
Wilson CAME, Stoesser T, Bates PD (2005) Modelling of open channel flow through vegetation. In: Bates PD, Lane SN, Ferguson RI (eds) In Computational fluid dynamics: applications in environmental hydraulics. Wiley, Chichester, pp 395–428
Wintle BC, Kirkpatrick JB (2007) The response of riparian vegetation to Xood-maintained habitat heterogeneity. Austral Ecol 32:592–599
Wu M, Che Y, Lv Y, Yang K (2017) Neighbourhood-scale urban riparian ecosystem classification. Ecol Ind 72:330–339
Wu Y, Xie L, Huang SL, Li P, Yuan Z, Liu W (2018) Using social media to strengthen public awareness of wildlife conservation. Ocean Coast Manag 153:76–83
Wunder S (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv Biol 21:48–58
Yang S, Chen B (2014) Environmental impact of manwan hydropower plant on river ecosystem service. Energy Procedia 61:2721–2724
Yang S, Bai J, Zhao C, Lou H, Zhang C, Guan Y, Yu X (2018) The assessment of the changes of biomass and riparian buffer width in the terminal reservoir under the impact of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project in China. Ecol Ind 85:932–943
Ye F, Chen Q, Li R (2010) Modelling the riparian vegetation evolution due to flow regulation of Lijiang River by unstructured cellular automata. Ecol Inf 5(2):108–114
Ye C, Cheng X, Zhang K, Du M, Zhang Q (2017) Hydrologic pulsing affects denitrification rates and denitrifier communities in a revegetated riparian ecotone. Soil Biol Biochem 115:137–147
Ye C, Butler OM, Du M, Liu W, Zhang Q (2019) Spatio-temporal dynamics, drivers and potential sources of heavy metal pollution in riparian soils along a 600 kilometre stream gradient in Central China. Sci Total Environ 651:1935–1945
Yeung AC, Lecerf A, Richardson JS (2017) Assessing the long-term ecological effects of riparian management practices on headwater streams in a coastal temperate rainforest. For Ecol Manag 384:100–109
Zhang G, Bai J, Zhao Q, Jia J, Wen X (2017) Heavy metals pollution in soil profiles from seasonal-flooding riparian wetlands in a Chinese delta: levels, distributions and toxic risks. Phys Chem EarthParts A/B/C 97:54–61
Zhang X, Meng Y, Xia J, Wu B, She D (2018) A combined model for river health evaluation based upon the physical, chemical, and biological elements. Ecol Ind 84:416–424
Zimbres B, Machado RB, Peres CA (2018) Anthropogenic drivers of headwater and riparian forest loss and degradation in a highly fragmented southern Amazonian landscape. Land Use Policy 72:354–363
Zipperer WC, Foresman TW, Walker SP, Daniel CT (2012) Ecological consequences of fragmentation and deforestation in an urban landscape: a case study. Urban Ecosyst 15:533–544
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank the director, Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi for supporting in multiple ways during research. Rinku Singh and A. K. Tiwari thank the University Grant Commission (UGC), Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India for providing fellowship. We are highly obliged to the Central office, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi for their support in official work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Singh, R., Tiwari, A.K. & Singh, G.S. Managing riparian zones for river health improvement: an integrated approach. Landscape Ecol Eng 17, 195–223 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-020-00436-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-020-00436-5