Jamova cesta 2 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija http://www3.fgg.uni-lj.si/

DRUGG – Digitalni repozitorij UL FGG http://drugg.fgg.uni-lj.si/

V zbirki je izvirna različica izdajatelja. Prosimo, da se pri navajanju sklicujete na bibliografske podatke, kot je navedeno:

University of Ljubljana Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering

Jamova cesta 2 SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia http://www3.fgg.uni-lj.si/en/

DRUGG – The Digital Repository http://drugg.fgg.uni-lj.si/

This is a publisher’s version PDF file. When citing, please refer to the publisher's bibliographic information as follows:

Repnik Mah, P., Mikoš, M., Bizjak, A. 2010. Hidromorfološka tipizacija slovenskih rek. Acta Geographica Slovenica 50, 2: 202-218. DOI: 10.3986/AGS50202

Univerza v Ljubljani

Fakulteta za gradbeništvo in geodezijo

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by Digital Repository UL FGG

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010, 201–229

HYDROMORPHOLOGICALCLASSIFICATION OF SLOVENIAN RIVERS

HIDROMORFOLO[KA TIPIZACIJASLOVENSKIH REK

Petra Repnik Mah, Matja` Miko{, Ale{ Bizjak

Veliki Obrh Creek, Stari Trg pri Lo`u.Veliki Obrh, Stari Trg pri Lo`u.

PE

TRA

RE

PN

IK M

AH

Petra Repnik Mah, Matja` Miko{, Ale{ Bizjak, Hydromorphological classification of Slovenian rivers

Hydromorphological classification of Slovenian rivers

DOI: 10.3986/AGS50202UDC: 556.53(497.4)COBISS: 1.01

ABSTRACT: This paper provides an overview of hydromorphological and related classifications of riversin Slovenia and elsewhere. The Rosgen classification is presented in greater detail; it was used in the studyas the basis for developing the first Slovenian hydromorphological classification. A hydromorphologicalsurvey form was designed to classify rivers and used in the office and field survey of hydromorphologi-cal variables in the 95 river sections selected in Slovenia. In the river sections studied, hydromorphologicaltypes were identified by analyzing the co-occurrence of selected hydromorphological variables. This methodwas used to identify 10 hydromorphological types, for which the main hydromorphological features arepresented in this paper. Based on the results of the first hydromorphological classification of Slovenianrivers, guidelines are provided for future work.

KEYWORDS: hydrology, rivers, classification, hydromorphological types, hydromorphological variables,co-occurrence analysis, Slovenia

The article was submitted for publication on July 7, 2009.

ADDRESSES:Petra Repnik MahInstitute for Water of the Republic of SloveniaHajdrihova ulica 28 c, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, SloveniaE-mail: petra.repnik�izvrs.si

Matja` Miko{, Ph.D.University of LjubljanaFaculty of Civil and Geodetic EngineeringJamova cesta 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, SloveniaE-mail: matjaz.mikos�fgg.uni-lj.si

Ale{ Bizjak, Ph.D.Institute for Water of the Republic of SloveniaHajdrihova ulica 28 c, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, SloveniaE-mail: ales.bizjak�izvrs.si

Contents

1 Introduction 2032 Established river classifications 2032.1 International river classifications 2032.1.1 The Rosgen classification of rivers 2052.2 Classifying rivers in Slovenia 2063 Method and results 2063.1 Data capture technique 2063.2 Field and office data capture 2093.3 Data analysis and hydromorphological

types identified 2134 Discussion 2145 Conclusion 2156 References 215

202

1 IntroductionRiver systems are complex features on the Earth's surface whose creation and changes depend on the geo-logical base, lithologic structure, climate, and topographic factors (Knighton 1998; Fogg and Wells 1998).Although every river system is a unique phenomenon, they are generally defined as tripartite systems(Schumm 1977), in which energy is converted into various forms of organic and inorganic matter, cre-ating three typical zones: the uppermost zone or crenon, the central or upstream portion or rhithron, andthe downstream stretch or potamon. The uppermost zones of rivers are dominated by mountain reliefand V-shaped valleys, and characterized by rough sediment with large grain diameter, high slope, nar-row channels, and consequently high velocities of current and erosion as the predominant process. Thesecharacteristics gradually change in the central and downstream parts of the river, with increasingly widervalleys, wider and deeper channels, and a higher characteristic flow. The predominant processes in thecentral parts include the transport of sediment eroded in the uppermost parts, which then accumulatesin the downstream parts of the river systems. Here floodplains usually develop in the wide valleys, withwidely sinuous or in places even meandering channels, oxbow lakes, distributary channels, and wetlands.

Macrofactors such as climate, lithologic base, erosion, accumulation, and vegetation shape process-es at the level of the entire drainage basin and consequently also at lower levels (i.e., parts of the basin,river section, habitat, or microhabitat) and control the microfactors (Frissell et al. 1986; Naiman et al. 1992).In areas with comparable macrofactors, comparable hydromorphological characteristics also develop. Thesecan be determined using classification schemes, which provide a systematic overview of hydromorpho-logical characteristics and make it possible to categorize river systems into manageable groups accordingto their similarity and connectedness (Platts 1980).

Classification schemes enable an in-depth understanding of complex processes, from those occurringat the level of the drainage basin to those at the level of a micro-habitat. In order to better understandriver systems, classifications have thus been developed that define river systems according to the geo-morphological characteristics of the valley and the catchment area, the characteristics of the hydrologicalregime, valley floor and floodplain dynamics, the pattern and morphological characteristics of the chan-nel, morphodynamic processes, and forms of adaptation to morphological changes, erosion intensity,sediment accumulation, and so on (Rosgen 1996; Kondolf et al. 2003).

In the past decades, the applicability of classification schemes has also spread to the management level.Using classification schemes, guiding views can be determined for individual river sections (Zumbroichet al. 1999; Detering et al. 2003; Patt et al. 2008). These are compared with the state of the hydromorphologicalcharacteristics of anthropogenic modifications to river sections and, from this viewpoint, also suitably cat-egorized into modification classes. A guiding view is also used as a reference in preparing rehabilitationmeasures to improve the hydromorphological condition of rivers (Palmer et al. 2005; Montgomery 2006).

Given the numerous classifications already developed around the world, which also include the hydro-morphological characteristics of rivers, this paper provides an overview of them. The Rosgen classificationof rivers is presented in greater detail because it deals with hydromorphological characteristics most thor-oughly and has therefore been used as the basis for preparing the Slovenian hydromorphological classification.This study verified whether the sections of Slovenian rivers classified according to the main geomorphologicaland morphological characteristics following the Rosgen classification are also similar in terms of certainmore detailed hydromorphological characteristics. In addition, the purpose of the study was also to ver-ify whether, based on these characteristics, it is possible to identify the characteristic hydromorphologicaltypes of Slovenian rivers and prepare detailed hydromorphological descriptions and analyses of the typesidentified.

2 Established river classifications2.1 International river classifications

River classifications have been developed since the end of the nineteenth century and many of them arepartly or entirely based on hydromorphological factors. The earliest classification that classified rivers accord-ing to the characteristics of mountainous and lowland channels was developed in 1850 by James DwightDana. In 1875, John Wesley Powell developed a classification based on the genetic connection with geo-

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

203

Petra Repnik Mah, Matja` Miko{, Ale{ Bizjak, Hydromorphological classification of Slovenian rivers

logical structure, and in 1899 William Morris Davis presented his theory of channel development, where-by he classified rivers according to their development stage. In the early twentieth century, the connectionbetween the form of the river network and the geological and lithologic characteristics of river systemsbegan to be explored. In 1914, Grove Karl Gilbert developed a hypothesis about the structure of the riverbed,which became the premise for further classifications. In 1932, Emilie R. Zernitz developed a classifica-tion of rivers according to the form of the river network.

Classifications gradually began to include river processes. In 1957, Leopold and Wolman used the ratiobetween the channel slope and flow rate to classify rivers according to channel pattern. A number of authorsfurther improved their classification, whereby they emphasized the differences between anastomosed andbraided channels. Schumm (1963; 1977) also dealt with classifying alluvial channels. He classified riversfrom the viewpoint of channel stability and mode of sediment transport (e.g., suspended, bedload, or a com-bination of both). In 1992, Nanson and Croke explained the connection between the channel and floodplainby classifying rivers according to the type of floodplain.

Rivers were classified according to detailed characteristics of the channel by Howard (1980; 1987),who distinguished between alluvial channels and bedrock channels, and further divided them accordingto channel substrate; Downs (1994; 1995), who classified rivers according to the channel's adaptation toprocesses; Church (1992), who classified rivers according to the ratio between the (sediment) grain sizeand channel depth; Grant et. al (1990), and Whiting and Bradley (1993), who developed a classificationbased on the predominant structures in the uppermost part of the river; Montgomery and Buffington,who presented their classification of rivers in mountainous regions in 1997, taking into account the pre-dominant hydromorphological forms of the riverbed that develop in correlation to transport capacity.Henderson (1963) classified alluvial channels based on grain size and the characteristics of transportingsediments. Brice and Blodgett (1978) described four types of river channels in greater detail: braided, braid-ed point-bar, wide-bend point-bar, and equi-width point-bar. Culbertson et al. (1967) developed a classificationbased on the structures that form through depositional features, channel pattern, sinuosity, floodplaintypes, bank heights, and levee formation. Khan (1971) developed a quantitative classification for sand-bedstreams based on sinuosity, slope, and channel pattern. Mollard (1973) and later on Church (1992) divid-ed rivers with floodplains into a number of types according to flow, slope, sediment supply, and channelstability. Kellerhals et al. (1976) also explored alluvial channels and classified them according to channelpattern, frequency of islands, bar types, and lateral channel migration. Later on, Church and Jones (1982)presented a classification of rivers according to bar types and channel pattern, and determined that thetypical channel morphology results from the gradient and volume of sediment supply. Selby (1985) estab-lished connections between channel pattern, gradient, and the type, supply, and dominant textures ofsediments. Also Paustian et al. (1992) presented a process-based classification that identifies morpholo-gy at the regional level (Rosgen 1994; Kondolf et al. 2003; Bizjak 2003). In 1994, Rosgen developed a detailedclassification of rivers based on geomorphological and hydromorphological characteristics of rivers.

Based on the recognition that stream flow is the key variable in hydromorphology, a number of clas-sifications have been developed at a smaller, regional level, and included findings about downstream changesin the flow. In addition to these classifications, hierarchical classifications have also been developed suchas ones based on eco-regions, ones that are used to improve water management, and those developed accord-ing to the characteristics of individual zones of the river basin or river sections. One of the best-knownclassifications that proceed from studying zones is Schumm's classification (1977), which classifies riversinto three functional zones: the erosion, transport, and deposition zones. However, the most frequently usedclassification is that of Horton (1945) or Strahler (1957), which divides rivers according to stream order.

New, more general classifications have developed together with a number of methods for assessingthe hydromorphological condition of rivers. For example, the German method known as Gewässer -strukturgütebewertung (Assessment of Watercourse Structure, GSGB; Zumbroich et al. 1999) distinguishesbetween rivers in gorges and V-shaped valleys, rivers in wide U-shaped flood valleys, meandering rivers,rivers in troughlike flood valleys, rivers in gravel-bed valleys, and lowland rivers (which are further divid-ed by substrate); the British River Habitat Survey (RHS, Raven et al. 1998) distinguishes between peatbogstreams, steep streams, upland plateau streams, coastal streams, mountain valley rivers, small lowland rif-fle-dominated rivers, clay rivers, and so on. Modern-day classifications of rivers primarily aim to improvewater management and are used primarily in Germany, France, the UK, and the US (Gordon et al. 2004;Palmer et al. 2005; Gurnell et al. 2006).

204

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

205

In the EU member states, biotic classifications of rivers began to develop for implementing the WaterFramework Directive (Directive 2000/60/ES); they serve as the basis for assessing the ecological condi-tion of rivers (Dodkins et al. 2005; Urbani~ 2007; Brown 2009). The Directive stipulates two possible systemsof river classifications: system A or a fixed typology with typology descriptors defined in advance, andsystem B or an alternative characterization with obligatory and optional river classification factors. In EUmember states, the process of implementing the Water Framework Directive resulted in a number of stud-ies of river types, whereas the wide selection of factors of the most frequently used classification undersystem B resulted in a wide selection of biotic river classifications. The latter are also a necessary prereq-uisite for evaluating the ecological condition of rivers (Dodkins et al. 2005; Urbani~ 2007; Brown 2009).

2.1.1 The Rosgen classification of rivers

The purpose of the Rosgen classification is to predict fluvial processes based on a hydromorphologicalanalysis of the river, to determine specific hydraulic and sediment relations for a given morphological chan-nel type and state, to develop a mechanism to extrapolate site-specific data to mutually comparable rivers,and to provide a consistent frame of reference for more correct water management. The classification con-

STRUCTURALCONTROLS,LITHOLOGY

FLUVIAL PROCESSDEPOSITIONAL

MATERIALSCLIMATIC INFLUENCE BROAD LIFE ZONES

BASIN RELIEF – LANDFORMS – VALLEY MORPHOLOGY

WATERSHADE

DRAINAGE NETWORK

CHANNEL SLOPEValley slope / sinuosity

CHANNEL SHAPENarrow – DeepWide – Shallow

ENTRENCHMENT RATIOWIDTH/DEPTH RATIO

SINUOSITY

RIPARIAN VEGETATIONDEPOSITION PATTERNDEBRIS OCCURRENCE

MEANDER PATTERNCHANNEL STABILITY

RATINGSEDIMENT SUPPLY

BED STABILITYW/D RATIO »STATE«

SEDIMENTMEASUREMENTS:Bedload Sediment

Suspended SedimentSTREAMFLOW

MEASUREMENTS:HydraulicsResistance

Hydrographs

GEOMORPHICCHARACTERIZATION

LEVEL ITypes A through G

MORPHOLOGICALDESCRIPTION

LEVEL IITypes A1-A6 … G1-G6

STREAM STATE ORCONDITION

LEVEL III

VALIDATION LEVELLEVEL IV

CHANNEL SLOPECHANNEL MATERIALS

BANK EROSION POTENTIALSTREAM SIZE/ORDER

FLOW REGIMEALTERED CHANNEL »STATE«

DIMENSIONSPATTERNS

SLOPEMATERIALS

STABILITY:Aggradation/Degradation

SEDIMENT:Change in Storage &

Mtrs. Size DistributionImbeddedness Distribution

BANK EROSION RATES:?TimeTrends - Stability

CHANNEL PATTERNSSingle Thread

Multiple ThreadAnastomosed

SinuosityMeander Width Ratio

Figure 1: Hierarchical river inventory levels (Rosgen 1996).

Petra Repnik Mah, Matja` Miko{, Ale{ Bizjak, Hydromorphological classification of Slovenian rivers

sists of four levels (Figure 1), which gradually move from the first, general geomorphological, descrip-tion to extremely detailed hydromorphological descriptions and evaluations. At the first two levels, theRosgen classification defines seven main types and 42 subtypes of rivers.

The first level includes a geomorphological description with variables such as channel slope, chan-nel shape, channel pattern, and sinuosity. Characteristics at this level are identified and quantified fromtopographic maps and aerial photographs. The second level focuses on more detailed morphological fea-tures collected through a field analysis of sections: entrenchment ratio, channel dimension, channel patternand shape, and predominant substrate. It thus provides a quantitative morphological definition that hasan applied value in management. The third level describes the stream conditions and includes a numberof additional variables: riparian vegetation, sediment supply, flow regime, debris occurrence, depositionpattern, channel stability, bank erosion potential, and direct anthropogenic disturbances. At the fourthand last level, variables are defined with individual measurements that verify the relations established atprevious levels.

2.2 Classifying rivers in Slovenia

In Slovenia, classifying rivers based on hydromorphological factors is still at the initial stage of develop-ment. In addition to the hydromorphological classification of rivers presented in this paper (Repnik 2006),a hydrogeomorphological classification is also underway (Natek 2006). In general, hydromorphologicalcharacteristics of rivers can be partly defined using a number of similar examples of classifications ofwater-related natural phenomena that have been performed in Slovenia: Slovenian Flood Classification(Gams 1973), Regional-Ecological Regionalization (Gams 1986), Typology of Landscapes and Definitionof Special-Value Landscapes in Slovenia (Hudoklin 1994), Landscape Regionalization (Maru{i~ 1998a–e),Landscape Characteristics of Slovenian Watercourses (Bratina Jurkovi~ 1999), Watercourse CategorizationAccording to Ecomorphological Importance (Fazarinc et al. 2002), Surface Water Typology (Brilly et al. 2003),and Surface Water Body Typology (Urbani~ 2007).

3 Method and results

3.1 Data capture technique

Given that to date no detailed hydromorphological databases have been created in Slovenia that wouldmake it possible to classify rivers, extensive collection of hydromorphological variables took place as partof this study. Data can be captured using techniques such as inventorying hydromorphological variablesin the field (a field approach), modeling reference hydromorphological conditions, analyzing historicalhydromorphological data, and analyzing paleolimnological data (CIS 2003). The expert-opinion techniqueis also often used in combination with these techniques, but it is often subjective and thus more difficultto repeat. If the preserved state of rivers is suitable for defining reference hydromorphological characteristicsin the field, the field approach is the most appropriate technique for capturing data despite the great amountof time this requires. Other techniques prove to be useful primarily in cases when field data cannot be obtained.

In Slovenia, the overall length of rivers with a catchment area of more than 10 km2 is 4,797.4 km. Ofthis, 1,328.7km or 27.7% of the river network exhibits only few anthropogenic changes (Fazarinc et al. 2002).A large share of barely changed river network is a good argument for selecting a spatial approach in preparingthe classification. According to the results of the study Categorization of Watercourses by Eco-MorphologicalImportance (Fazarinc et al. 2002), which categorizes rivers according to degree of anthropogenic impact,sections belonging to class 1 (i.e., natural watercourses) or class 1–2 (only slightly changed watercours-es) are identified as suitable for capturing data (Figure 2). Among the suitable sections, sections for studyinghydromorphological types were selected according to the following additional criteria:• River catchment area at sample location of 10 to 100 km2;• Even distribution of sample locations across the entire hydrographic network;• Even distribution of sample locations in individual bioregions;• Representativeness of sections according to landscape hydromorphological features;• Accessibility of sample locations for the purposes of fieldwork.

206

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

207

Lege

nd/

lege

nda

:

Nat

ura

l or

nea

r-n

atu

ral s

trea

m/

nar

aven

ali

zelo

mal

o sp

rem

enje

n v

odot

ok

Slig

htl

y or

mod

erat

ely

mod

ifie

d s

trea

m/

mal

o al

i zm

ern

o sp

rem

enje

n v

odot

ok

Sign

ific

antl

y m

odif

ied

str

eam

/ob

~utn

o sp

rem

enje

n v

odot

ok

Gre

atly

or

enti

rely

mod

ifie

d s

trea

m/

mo~

no

ali z

elo

mo~

no

spre

men

jen

vod

otok

Scal

e/m

erilo

:

Dat

a pr

ovid

ed b

y/av

torj

i vse

bin

e: R

ok F

azar

inc

et a

l./R

ok F

azar

inc

in s

odel

avci

Map

by/

avto

rica

zem

ljevi

da:

Maj

a K

rega

rSo

urc

e/vi

r: I

n{t

itu

t za

vod

e R

S, 2

002

05

1015

202.

5km

Figure 2: Degrees of anthropogenic alteration of watercourses (adapted from Fazarinc et al. 2002).

Petra Repnik Mah, Matja` Miko{, Ale{ Bizjak, Hydromorphological classification of Slovenian rivers

208

Table 1: Overview of hydromorphological variables gathered in the office and in the field.

Category Hydromorphological variables

General data (section) River name and code, bioregion, landscape unit, nearby settlement, section coordinates, elevationElevation zone, geological base, precipitationCatchment area size, channel width classDate of inventory, person inventorying

Data on stream flow Hydrometric station, flow Q (m3/s), water level h (cm), T (°C), flow decile, mean flow Qsr (m3/s),

quantity and dynamics minimum specific flow with a 20-year return period qmin,20, flow regime

General data (transect) Transect coordinates and lengthChanges in channel Channel-forming width bs (m), changes to channel-forming width Δbs (m), entrenched channel width and depth width bu (m), longitudinal depth changes Δhv (m), lateral depth changes Δhp (m), mean water depth

h (m), maximum water depth hmax (m), entrenched channel depth hu (m), width/depth ratio w/dChannel structure Entrenchment ratio, bank height hb (m), bank slope α (°), channel slope I (%)Predominant relief Plain, hummocks, hills, mountainsValley type Gorge, V-shaped valley, U-shaped valley, shallow valley, broad valleyRiver type Karst, plain, hummocky, hilly, mountainous biotic typeDepth changes Not perceptible, small, moderate, great, extremely greatWidth changes Not perceptible, small, moderate, great, extremely great

Channel pattern Single-thread, multiple-thread, anastomosedSinuosity Flat or slightly sinuous, moderately sinuous, extensively sinuous, meanderingChannel shape U, flat U, deepened U, broad or widened, double trapezoid, stepsSubstrate Clay, silt, sand, gravel, pebble, cobble, bedrock, boulderIsland (no.) No island, bare island, vegetated island – young successive stage, vegetated island – mature successive stagePebble, gravel, None, lateral or alternating, longitudinal, at a bend, center, at a confluenceand sand bar (no.)

Other forms (no.) Pool (pool illuminance), cascade, step, gentle cascade, rapid, riffle, shallowForm sequences Colluvium, bedrock, cascade, step-pool, flat bed, pool-rapid, pool-riffle, dune-rippleBed roughness Not perceptible, small, moderate, great, extremely greatWater stream diversity Not perceptible, small, moderate, great, extremely greatBank materials Bedrock, rock, soil, combinationErosion (shares) Not evident, erosion in bends and narrows, longitudinal erosionBank forms Root clumps, tree deflectorsChannel vegetation Overgrown with terrestrial vegetation, overgrown with aquatic vegetationcover (share)

Presence of fallen trees None, small, medium, greatand woody debris

Type of riparian None, autochthonous, allochthonousvegetation

Riparian vegetation No vegetation, autochthonous-continuous, autochthonous-segmented, autochthonous-dispersed,distribution autochthonous-thinned, allochthonous

Riparian vegetation age No vegetation, young successive stage, intermediate successive stage, mature successive stageRiparian forms None, side flow, standing water, oxbow, swamp, combinationTransitional upland Autochthonous forest, overgrown land, meadow or uncultivated land, allochthonous forest, other land usefringe land use

Distribution and width No vegetation, autochthonous-continuous, autochthonous-segmented, autochthonous-dispersed,of transitional upland autochthonous-thinned, allochthonousfringe vegetation

Transitional upland No vegetation, young successive stage, intermediate successive stage, mature successive stagefringe vegetation age

In the sections selected, data were captured using the transect method (Bizjak 2003; Miko{ and Bizjak2007), which reduces and optimizes the scope and time complexity of gathering data. Transects are rec-tangular transverse sections of the channel cartographically defined in advance. Their width equals thechannel width times two, and their length also includes a 50-meter riparian zone in addition to the chan-nel width. They are distributed 100m apart. In the area of a selected 500-meter section, six transects wererecorded. A total of 95 river sections or 570 transects were analyzed in the study.

Riparia

n zone stru

cture

Channel and substrate stru

cture

General data

3.2 Field and office data capture

A survey form (Table 1) was developed to inventory the hydromorphological variables in the river sectionsand transects selected in advance. The selection of hydromorphological variables on the survey form includesthe selected variables listed in the Rosgen and Montgomery classifications (Rosgen 1996, Montgomeryet al. 1997) and the selected methods for evaluating the hydromorphological condition: the RCE method(Petersen 1992), the SVAP method (Newton et al. 1998; Lavren~i~ 2005; Lavren~i~ et al. 2006), the RHS method(Raven et al. 1998), the GSGB method (Zumbroich et al. 1999), the IFF method (Siligardi et al. 2000;Batisti~ 2005; Batisti~ et al. 2006), the AUSRIVAS method (Parsons et al. 2001), and the synthesis method(Bizjak 2003; Miko{ and Bizjak 2007). During the study, the survey form was further optimized and targethydromorphological variables were added to it.

The majority of hydromorphological variables were captured in the field, although some were alsocaptured through office work. The hydromorphological equipment used included the following: GPS nav-igation, a level staff, an electronic rangefinder, a tape measure, and a clinometer for estimating the channelbed slope. The channel dimensions were measured, on the basis of which the channel width/depth andentrenchment ratios were then calculated. The predominant relief of the river sections was determined basedon the relative differences in elevation and valley type was determined based on the form of the valley cross-sec-tions (Leksikon, Geografija 2001); in addition, channel patterns, sinuosity, and channel shape (Parsonset al. 2001) were determined as well as the predominant substrate according to the typical grain classes(Miko{ 2000). Individual hydromorphological forms of bed were determined based on structuraldescriptions (Zumbroich et al. 1999; Parsons et al. 2001), and the sequences of bed forms were determinedaccording to their classification (Montgomery et al. 1997). Depending on the bed forms, sections also dif-fer from one another in terms of bed form roughness and variety of stream flow surface, which werequalitatively estimated. Bank materials, erosion, and bank forms were identified for individual sections(Zumbroich et al. 1999); in addition, vegetation cover, and the presence of fallen trees and woody debris

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

209

Anastomosed

GorgeBroad

BraidedSingle BraidedSingle Anastomosed

01 1 00

01 0 01 0

ExtensiveNo, slight Moderate Meandering

0 0 0

Channel pattern

Sinuosity

Channel shape UV Flat U Deepened U

01 0 0

Trapezoid Widened

0 0

MH1Type

ExtensiveNo, slight Moderate Meandering

01 0 0

UV Flat U Deepened U

0 1 0 0

Trapezoid Widened

0 0

MH2

Channel slope > 4% 1–4% < 1%

0 01

Sinuosity

Channel shape

Type

Figure 3: Decision tree for types MH1 and MH2.

Petra Repnik Mah, Matja` Miko{, Ale{ Bizjak, Hydromorphological classification of Slovenian rivers

210

MH

1M

H1

MH

2M

H2

MH

3M

H4

HH

1H

H2

HP

1H

P1

HP

2H

P3

HP

4T

YP

E

> 4

%>

4%>

4%

>4%

1–4%

14%–

14%–

1-4%

< 1

%<

1%<

1%

< 1

%<

1%

CH

AN

NE

L S

LOP

E

VV-s

hap

-sh

apeedd

U-s

hap

U-s

hap

eeddV

-sh

aped

U-s

hap

edV

,U-s

hap

edsh

allo

wbbrr

ooaadd

broa

dbr

oad

broa

dV

AL

LE

Y T

YP

E

sin

gsi

ngl

elesi

ng

sin

glele

sin

gle

brai

ded

sin

gle

sin

gle

sin

gsi

ngl

elesi

ngl

esi

ngl

esi

ngl

eC

HA

NN

EL

PA

TT

ER

N

no

no,,

slig

slig

ht

ht

no

no,,

slig

slig

ht

ht

no,

slig

ht

mod

erat

en

o,sl

igh

tsl

igh

t,m

oder

ate

eextxteen

sin

sivve

,e,m

ean

drm

ean

drin

ein

em

oder

ate,

exte

nsi

vem

oder

ate

mod

erat

eSI

NU

OSI

TY

VVfl

at U

flat

Ufl

at U

wid

ened

flat

Ufl

at U

UUde

epen

ed U

flat

UU

CH

AN

NE

L S

HA

PE

3.42

3.42

8.75

8.75

7.96

26.7

9.18

7.96

11.6

111

.61

3.35

8.28

4.98

WID

TH

/DE

PT

H R

AT

IO

ccoobbbb

le,

le,

ppeebb

bblele

ccoobbbb

le,

le,

ppeebb

bble,le,gg

rraavvee

llco

bble

,p

ebbl

egr

avel

,san

d,p

ebbl

eco

bble

,p

ebbl

e,gr

avel

peb

ble,

grav

el,c

obbl

esa

nd,

san

d,ccl

alayy,,

ppeebb

bblele

clay

,gra

vel,

san

dgr

avel

,san

d,

clay

clay

RRap

id,

apid

,ppooo

l,ol,

casc

aca

scadd

e,e,stst

eepprra

pid

,ap

id,pp

oool,ol,

shal

shal

loloww

rap

id,p

ool,

grav

el b

ar,

casc

ade

grav

el b

ar,

san

d ba

r,is

lan

ds

rapi

d,gr

avel

bar,

poo

lgr

avel

bar

,p

ool,

rapi

dpp

ooolol

riff

le,g

rave

lba

r,sa

nd

bar

grav

el b

ar,

riff

le,s

and

bar

poo

l

CH

AN

NE

L M

AT

ER

IAL

S

HY

DR

OM

OR

PH

OLO

GIC

AL

FOR

MS

RE

LIE

Fm

oun

tain

s an

d h

ills

(MH

)h

ills

and

hum

moc

ks (

HH

)hu

mm

ocks

an

d p

lan

es (

HP

)

Figure 4: M

ain hydrom

orphological features of identified hydromorphological types.

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

211

!G

H1/

MH

1

!G

H2/

MH

2

!G

H3/

MH

3

!G

H4/

MH

4

Scal

e/m

erilo

:

Dat

a pr

ovid

ed b

y/av

tori

ca v

sebi

ne:

Pet

ra R

epn

ik M

ahM

ap b

y/av

tori

ca z

emlje

vid

a: M

aja

Kre

gar

Sou

rce/

vir:

In

{tit

ut

za v

ode

RS,

200

9

Hill

s an

d h

um

moc

ks/

hri

bovi

to–g

ri~e

vnat

rel

ief

Hu

mm

ocks

an

d p

lain

s/gr

i~ev

nat

o–ra

vnin

ski r

elie

f

05

1015

202.

5km

!H

G1/

HH

1

!H

G2/

HH

2

GR

1/H

P1

GR

2/H

P2

GR

3/H

P3

GR

4/H

P4

Lege

nd/

lege

nda

:

Mou

nta

ins

and

hill

s/go

rsko

–hri

bovi

t re

lief

Figure 5: Hydromorphological types of stream sections.

Petra Repnik Mah, Matja` Miko{, Ale{ Bizjak, Hydromorphological classification of Slovenian rivers

212

Figure 6: Type MH1 – Jesenica Creek, Jesenice. Figure 7: Type MH2 – Suha Creek, Stara Fu`ina.

Figure 8: Type MH3 – I{ka River, I{ka Vas. Figure 9: Type MH4 – Pi{nica Creek, Kranjska Gora.

Figure 10: Type HH1 – Blan{~ica Creek, Blanca. Figure 11: Type HH2 – Osp Creek, Osp.

were defined. Vegetation type, distribution, and age, and the presence of hydromorphological forms suchas wetlands, side flows, and oxbows were analyzed for the riparian zone and transitional upland fringe.The predominant land use was explored separately for the transitional upland fringe.

The following data were inventoried in the office for the selected river sections: bioregion code andname (Urbani~ 2007), settlement, landscape unit (Maru{i~ 1998a–e), elevation zone, geological base, pre-cipitation, and minimum specific flow with a twenty-year return period (Brilly et al. 2003), catchment areasize ([raj 2001), hydrometric station, flow characteristics (www.arso.gov.si), and flow regime (Hrvatin 1998).

3.3 Data analysis and hydromorphological types identified

The data obtained were used to calculate the average values of the hydromorphological variables measuredfor individual river sections and to determine the predominant characteristics of the hydromorpholog-ical variables observed. These were also used as the input data for further spatial analysis. A co-occurrenceanalysis was applied to analyze the overlapping of data layers and spatial characteristics. This includedthe hydromorphological variables listed at the first level of the Rosgen classification: channel slope, chan-

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

213

Figure 12: Type HP1 – Lipsenj{~ica Creek, Grahovo. Figure 13: Type HP2 – Lipnica Creek, Murska Sobota.

Figure 14: Type HP3 – Tunj{~ica Creek, Komenda. Figure 15: Type HP4 – Senu{a Creek, Kostanjevica na Krki.

Petra Repnik Mah, Matja` Miko{, Ale{ Bizjak, Hydromorphological classification of Slovenian rivers

214

nel pattern, sinuosity, and channel shape; in addition, valley type was also taken into account. Decisiontrees were developed for individual combinations of selected hydromophological variables (Figure 3).

Ten hydromorphological types were identified using co-occurrence analysis: four types in regions withmountains and hills regions (Type MH), two types in regions with hills and hummocks (Type HH), andfour types in regions with hummocks and plains (Type HP; Figures 5–15). Following this, from all of thehydromorphological variables recorded that define individual types the similarity of three hydromor-phological variables was tested in greater detail: the width/depth ratio, substrate, and hydromorphologicalforms (Figure 4).

4 DiscussionThis study revealed that the hydromorphological types defined based on the main hydromorphologicalvariables selected are also characterized by a similarity between more detailed hydromorphological vari-ables. The following variables in particular reflect a similarity within individual hydromorphological types:channel materials, width/depth ratio, and the type and number of hydromorphological forms. Hydro -morphological types also differ the most in terms of these features (Figure 16).

Within the types identified, the greatest co-occurrence among the hydromorphological variables ana-lyzed is typical of the type and number of hydromorphological forms. The greatest diversity and numberwas determined for the mountain-hill types, in which rapids and pools are especially typical, although

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

MH1/GH1 MH2/GH2 MH3/GH3 MH4/GH4 HH1/HG1 HH2/HG2 HP1/GR1 HP2/GR2 HP3/GR3 HP4/GR4

Type/Tip

No.

ofH

M fo

rms

pe r

se c

t io n

/ [t e

v ilo

HM

ob l

ik d

na

v o d

seku

Island/Otok

Sand bar /Pe{~ina

Gravel bar /Prodi{~e

Pool / Tolmun

Riffle /Brazda

Rapid/ Brzica

Step/Stopnja

Cascade / Kaskada

Shallow/Plitvina

Figure 16: Type and number of hydromorphological forms in the hydromorphological types analyzed.

the step-pool and pool-rapid sequences are also present. Gravel bars stand out in Type MH4 (mountainsand hills) because the channel is braided and crisscrossed with gravel bars due to its reduced slope, greatwidth, and reduced transport capacity. The diversity and number of hydromorphological forms decreas-es from hill-hummock types towards hummock-plain types. In addition to gravel bars and rapids, rifflesor pool-rapid and pool-riffle sequences typically occur in the hill-hummock types. In the last type group,sand bars and deep pools also occur in addition to riffles and gravel bars.

Analysis of the findings showed that detailed hydromorphological variables are more similar in thegroup of types identified in the mountain-hill and hummock-plain regions; minor deviations occur inthe group of types in the hill-hummock regions, which indicates a need for a further breakdown or clas-sification of types. In the event of deviations of a type's individual features, the following question alwaysarises: To what extent should the classification be expanded to include new hydromorphological variables?Every classification is limited by its own unlimitedness (Wright et al. 1984) and thus demands a selectionof only target variables, which justify the purpose of classification.

The hydromorphological features in selected river sections were similar to the extent that in no casewas more than one hydromorphological type identified within a section. If longer sections had been ana-lyzed, transitions from one type into another would have definitely been established because streams aresystems, in which features and processes change downstream. Only exceptionally can a stream be definedby only one hydromorphological type from its source to its mouth; in Slovenia, this could be primarilyexpected with rivers on karst poljes.

5 ConclusionThe creativity of hydromorphological classification studies in Slovenia and the broad applicability of clas-sification schemes were the main motivations in preparing the Slovenian hydromorphological classificationof rivers. In the process of classifying rivers, hydromorphological sample images will also be developedin order to provide better insight into the hydromorphological diversity of Slovenian rivers. The hydromor-phological classification will also serve as a basis for defining the concepts of renovations and implementingrenovation measures in anthropogenically modified river sections.

In further steps of hydromorphological classification of rivers, the hydromorphological types iden-tified must also be ascribed to the river sections not included in the analysis. Here, it is of key importanceto produce individual data layers concerning channel slope, valley type, channel pattern, sinuosity, andchannel shape in advance. This would significantly reduce the timeframe of fieldwork, which would onlybe performed for the purposes of verifying the key hydromorphological features of individual types. Aspart of future hydromorphological classification of rivers, it is also necessary to define those hydromor-phological variables for which no official names and explanations yet exist in Slovenian.

6 ReferencesBatisti~, P. 2005: Vrednotenje ekomorfolo{ke kakovosti vodotokov z metodo IFF. Diploma thesis. Univerza

v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za gradbeni{tvo in geodezijo. Ljubljana.Batisti~, P., Bizjak, A., Miko{, M. 2006: Testing of the I.F.F. method for ecomorphological assessment of

rivers in Slovenia. Geophysical Research Abstracts 8, 01675. http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/01675/EGU06-J-01675-1.pdf

Bizjak, A. 2003: Sintezni postopek ocenjevanja hidromorfolo{kega stanja re~nih koridorjev, razvit z analizostanja na reki Dragonji. Doctoral dissertation. Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za gradbeni{tvo ingeodezijo. Ljubljana.

Bizjak, A., Miko{, M. 2004: Synthesis procedure of assessing the hydromorphological status of river corri-dors : The Dragonja river case study. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics.Madrid. International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research.

Bratina Jurkovi~, N. 1999: Vrednotenje krajinskih zna~ilnosti vodotokov v Sloveniji. Master's thesis. Univerzav Ljubljani, Biotehni{ka fakulteta. Ljubljana.

Brice, J.C., Blodgett, J.C. 1978: Counter measures for hydraulic problems at bridges. Analysis Assessment,Report No. FHWA-RD-78-162, Washington, D.C.

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

215

Petra Repnik Mah, Matja` Miko{, Ale{ Bizjak, Hydromorphological classification of Slovenian rivers

Brilly, M., Vidmar, A., [raj, M. 2003: Tipologija povr{inskih vodnih teles – prostorska baza tipov vodotokovin jezer, sistem A in sistem B. Poro~ilo. Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za gradbeni{tvo in geodezijo.Ljubljana.

Brown, L. E., Hannah, D.M., Milner, A.M. 2009: ARISE: a classification tool for Alpine River and StreamEcosystem. Freshwater Biology 54-6. London. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2008.02161.x

Church, M. 1992: Channel morphology and typology. In: Calow, P., Petts, G. The River Handbook:Hydrological and Ecological Principles. Birmingham.

Church, M., Jones, D. 1982: Channel bars in gravel-bed rivers. In: Hey, R.D., Bathurst, J.C., Thorne. Gravel-bedrivers: Fluvial processes, engineering and management. London.

CIS. 2003: River and lakes – Typology, reference conditions and classification systems. Guidance docu-ment 10. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive 60, 2000. Brussels.Internet: http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guid-ance_documents/gds10srefcondspolicyssum/_EN_1.0_&a=d (14 Jun 2006).

Collins, B.D., Montgomery, D.R. 2001: Importance of archival and process studies to characterizing pre-settlement riverine geomorphic process and habitat in the Puget Lowland. In: Dorava, J. B.,Montgomery, D.R., Placsak, B., Fitzpatrick, F. Geomorphic Processes and Riverine Habitat. AmericanGeophysical Union. Washington.

Culbertson, D.M., Young, L. E., Brice, J. C. 1967: Scour and fill in alluvial channels. US Geological Survey.Washington.

Detering, U., Drüke, J., Hübner, T., Hüsing, K.-H., Klähn, D., Kolf, R., Lacombe, J., Lanphen, B., Mathea,C., Meyer-Höltzl, S., Schütz, E., Hänel, S. 2003: Wasserwirtschaft Nordrhein-Westfalen, Handbuch zurnaturnahen Entwicklung von Fließgewässern. Ministerium für Umwelt und Naturschutz, Landwirtschaftund Verbraucherschutz. Düsseldorf.

Direktiva 2000/60/ES 2000: Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta In Sveta 2000/60/ES z dne 23. oktobra 2000o dolo~itvi okvira za ukrepe Skupnosti na podro~ju vodne politike. Bruselj.

Dodkins, I., Rippey, B., Harrington, T. J., Bradley, C., Chathain, B.N., Kelly-Quinn, M., McGarrigle, M.,Hodge, S., Trigg, D. 2005: Developing an optimal river typology for biological elements within theWater Framework Directive. Water Research 39-15. DOI:10.1016/j.watres.2005.06.008

Downs, P.W. 1994: Characterization of river channel adjustments in the Thames Basin, South-East England.Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 9:151–175. DOI: 10.1002/rrr.3450090303

Downs, P.W. 1995: Estimating the probability of river channel adjustment. Earth Surface Processes andLandforms 20. DOI: 10.1002/esp.3290200710

Doyle, M.W., Miller, D. E., Harbor, J.M. 1999: Should river restoration be based on classification schemesor process models? Insights from the history of geomorphology. ASCE International Conference onWater Resources Engineering, Seattle, WA. http://www.blwi.com/DoyleMD_StreamRestoration_Histo -rical_1999aa.pdf (23 Oct 2006).

Fazarinc, R., Hlad, B., Kondri~, T., Bizjak, A., Bratina, N. 2002: Kategorizacija vodotokov po ekomorfo-lo{kem pomenu – novelacija metodologije in kategoriziranje vodotokov. Vodnogospodarski in{titut.Ljubljana.

Fogg, J., Wells, G. 1998: Stream corridor restoration: Principles, processes and practices. Federal InteragencyStream Restoration Working Group. Washington D.C.

Frissell, C. A., Liss, W. J., Warren, C. E., Hurley, M.D. 1986: A hierarchical framework for streamhabitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10. DOI:10.1007/BF01867358

Gams, I. 1973: Prispevek h klasifikaciji poplav v Sloveniji. Geografski obzornik 1-2. LjubljanaGams, I. 1986: Osnove pokrajinske ekologije. Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta. LjubljanaGordon, N.D., McMahon, T.A., Finlayson, B.L., Grippel, C. J., Nathan, R. J. 2004: Stream hydrology: An intro-

duction for ecologists. London.Grant, G. E., Swanson, F. J., Wolman, M.G. 1990: Pattern and origin of stepped-bed morphology in

high-gradient streams, Western Cascades, Oregon. Geological Society of America Bulletin102. DOI:http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/3/340

Gurnell, A.M., Angold, P., Gregory, P. J. 2006: Classification of river corridors: Issues to be addressed indeveloping an operational methodology. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems4-3. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.3270040304

216

Henderson, F.M. 1963: Stability of alluvial channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers128. Chicago.

Horton, R. E. 1945: Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; Hydrophysical approachto quantitative morphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin 56. Boulder.

Howard, A.D. 1980: Thresholds in river regimes. In: Coates, D.R., Vitek, J.D. Thresholds in Geomorphology.London.

Howard, A.D. 1987: Modeling fluvial systems: rock-, gravel- and sand-bad channels. In: Richards, K. RiverChannels. Environment and Process. Oxford.

Hrvatin, M. 1998: Preto~ni re`imi v Sloveniji. Geografski zbornik 38. Ljubljana.Hudoklin, J. 1994: Tipologija krajin in opredeljevanje krajin posebnih vrednosti v Sloveniji. Master's thesis.

Univerza v Ljubljani, Biotehni{ka fakulteta. Ljubljana.Kellerhals, R., Church, M., Bray, D. I. 1976: Classification and analysis of river processes. Journal of the

Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 102-7. Washington.Khan, H.R. 1971: Laboratory studies of alluvial river channel patterns. Ph.D. Dissertation. Dept. of Civil

Engineering Department, Colorado State University. Fort Collins.Knighton, D. 1998: Fluvial forms and processes: A new perspective. London.Kondolf, G.M. 1995: Geomorphological stream channel classification in aquatic habitat restoration: Uses

and limitations. Aquatic Conservation 5. Malden. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.3270050205Kondolf, G.M., Montgomery, D.R., Piegay, H., Schmitt, L. 2003: Geomorphic classification of rivers and

streams. In: Kondolf, G.M., Piegay, H. Tools in fluvial geomorphology. London.Lavren~i~, U. 2005. Ekomorfolo{ko vrednotenje vodotokov z metodo SVAP. Diploma thesis. Univerza

v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za gradbeni{tvo in geodezijo. Ljubljana.Lavren~i~, U., Bizjak, A., Miko{, M. 2006: A comparison between different methods for ecomorphologi-

cal assessment of rivers. Geophysical Research Abstracts 8, 01690. Internet: http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/01690/EGU06-J-01690-1.pdf

Leksikon, Geografija. 2001. Ljubljana.Leopold, L. B. Wolman, M.G. 1957: River Channel Patterns – Braided, Meandering, and Straight, US

Geological Survey Professional paper 282(B). Washington.Leopold, L. B., Maddock, T. 1953: The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic

implications. U. S. Geological Survey Professional paper 252. Washington.Leopold, L. B., Wolman, M.G., Miller, J. P. 1964: Fluvial processes in geomorphology.Malakoff, D. 2006: The river doctor. Internet: www.sciencemag.org (27 Apr 2006)Maru{i~, J. 1998a: Krajine alpske regije, Regionalna razdelitev krajinskih tipov v Sloveniji. Ministrstvo za

okolje in prostor, Urad RS za okolje in prostor. LjubljanaMaru{i~, J. 1998b: Krajine predalpske regije, Regionalna razdelitev krajinskih tipov v Sloveniji. Ministrstvo

za okolje in prostor, Urad RS za okolje in prostor. LjubljanaMaru{i~, J. 1998c: Krajine subpanonske regije, Regionalna razdelitev krajinskih tipov v Sloveniji. Ministrstvo

za okolje in prostor, Urad RS za okolje in prostor. LjubljanaMaru{i~, J. 1998d: Kra{ke krajine notranje Slovenije, Regionalna razdelitev krajinskih tipov v Sloveniji.

Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor, Urad RS za okolje in prostor. LjubljanaMaru{i~, J. 1998e: Krajine primorske regije, Regionalna razdelitev krajinskih tipov v Sloveniji. Ministrstvo

za okolje in prostor, Urad RS za okolje in prostor. LjubljanaMiko{, M. 2000: Urejanje vodotokov. Skripta. Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za gradbeni{tvo in geodezijo.

LjubljanaMiko{, M., Bizjak, A. 2007: Gewässerstrukturgüterkartierungen in Slowenien anhand verschiedener

Methoden. Österreischische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft 59-1/2. Wien.Mollard, J.D. 1973: Air photo interpretation of fluvial features. In Fluvial Processes and Sedimentation.

Research Council of Canada. Edmonton.Montgomery, D.R. 2006: Geomorphology and restoration ecology. Journal of Contemporary Water Research

& Education 134. Washington. Internet: http://duff.geology.washington.edu/grg/publications/pdfs/Montgomery_Jrnl_Contp_Wtr_Res_Ed_2006.pdf (23 Jun 2006).

Montgomery, D.R., Buffington, J.M. 1997: Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins.Geological society of America Bulletin 5. Washington. DOI: doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1997)109<0596:CRMIMD>2.3.CO;2

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

217

Petra Repnik Mah, Matja` Miko{, Ale{ Bizjak, Hydromorphological classification of Slovenian rivers

Naiman, R. J., Lonzarich, D.G., Beechie, T. J., Ralph, S.C. 1992: General principles of classification andthe assessment of conservation potential in rivers. In: Boon, P. J., Calow, P., Pets, G. E. River conser-vation and management. New York.

Nanson, G.C., Croke, J. C. 1992: A genetic classification of floodplains. Geomorphology 4. Amsterdam.DOI: doi:10.1016/0169-555X(92)90039-Q

Natek, K. 2006: Geografska tipizacija vodotokov. Personal communication. Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofskafakulteta, Oddelek za geografijo. Ljubljana.

Newton, B., Pringle, C.M., Bjorkland, R. 1999: Stream Visual Assessment Protocol. USDA Natural ResourcesConservation Service. Washington.

Palmer, M.A., Bernhardt, E. S., Allan, J.D., Lake, P. S., Alexander, G., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clayton, S., Dahm,C.N., Follstad Shah, J., Galat, D. L., Loss, S.G., Goodwin, P., Hart, D.D., Hassett, B., Jenkinskon, R.,Kondolf, G.M., Lave, R., Meyer, J. L., O'Donnell, T.K., Pagano, L., Sudduth, E. 2005: Standards for eco-logically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42. London. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x

Parsons, M., Thoms, M., Norris, R. 2001: Australian river assessment system: AusRivAS physical assess-ment protocol, Monitoring river health initiative technical report 22. Cooperative Research Centreof Freshwater Ecology. Canberra.

Patt, H., Jürging, P., Kraus, W. 2008: Naturnaher Wasserbau, Entwicklung und Gestaltung von Fließgewässern.Springer.

Paustian, S. J. 1992: A channel type users guide for the Tsongas National Forest, Southeast Alaska. TechnicalPaper 26. Washington.

Petersen, R. 1992: The RCE: A riparian, channel, and environmental inventory for small streams in theagricultural landscape. Freshwater Biology 27. London. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.1992.tb00541.x

Platts, W.S. 1980: A plea for fishery habitat classification. Fisheries 5. Washington. DOI: 10.1577/1548-8446(1980)005<0002:APFFHC>2.0.CO;2

Raven, P. J., Holmes, N.T.H., Dawson, F.H., Fox, P. J. A., Everard, M., Fozzard, I.R., Rouen, K. J. 1998: Riverhabitat quality, the physical character of rivers and streams in the UK and Isle of Man. River HabitatSurvey 2. Bristol.

Repnik, P. 2006: Prispevek k hidromorfolo{ki tipizaciji slovenskih vodotokov. Diploma thesis. Univerzav Ljubljani, Fakulteta za gradbeni{tvo in geodezijo. Ljubljana.

Rosgen, D. 1996: Applied river morphology. Pagosa Springs.Schumm, S.A. 1963: A Tentative Classification of Alluvial River Channels. US Geological Survey Circular 477.

Washington.Schumm, S.A. 1977: The Fluvial System. New York.Selby, M. J. 1985: Earth's changing surface: an introduction to geomorphology. Oxford.Siligardi, M., Cappelletti, C., Chierici, E., Ciutti, F., Egaddi, F., Franceschini, A., Maiolini, B., Mancini, L.,

Miniciardi, M.R., Monuani, C., Rossi, G. L., Sansoni, R., Zanetti, M. 2000: I.F.F. Indice di FunzionalitaFluviale. Roma.

[raj, M. 2001: [ifrant padavinskih obmo~ij vodotokov Republike Slovenije. Acta hydrotehnica 19-30. Ljubljana.Strahler, A.N. 1957: Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions, American Geophysical

Union 38-6. Washington.Urbani~, G. 2007: Predstavitev rezultatov tipologije rek (biolo{ko preverjene) v Sloveniji. Personal com-

munication. Ljubljana.Whiting, P. J., Bradley, J.B. 1993: A process-based classification system for headwater streams. Earth Surface

Process and Landforms 18. Malden. DOI: 10.1002/esp.3290180704Wright, J. F., Moss, D., Armitage, P.D., Furse, M.T. 1984: A preliminary classification of running water

sites in Great Britain based on macroinvertebrate species and prediction on community type usingenvironmental data. Freshwater Biology 14. London. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365–2427.1984.tb00039.x

Zumbroich, T., Müller, A., Friedrich, G. 1999: Strukturgüte von Fließgewässern, Grundlagen und Kartierung.Berlin.

218

219

Pe tra Rep nik Mah, Mat ja` Miko{, Ale{ Biz jak, Hi dro mor fo lo{ ka tipi za ci ja slo ven skih rek

Hi dro mor fo lo{ ka tipi za ci ja slo ven skih rek

DOI: 10.3986/AGS50202UDK: 556.53(497.4)COBISS: 1.01

IZVLE^EK: V pris pev ku je podan pre gled hidro mor fo lo{ kih in sorod nih tipi za cij rek v sve tu in v Slo ve -ni ji. Podrob ne je je pred stav lje na Ros ge no va tipi za ci ja, ki je bila v ra zi ska vi priv ze ta kot izho di{ ~e za izde la voprve slo ven ske hidro mor fo lo{ ke tipi za ci je. Za potre be tipi za ci je rek je bil izde lan hidro mor fo lo{ ki popi -sni list, ki je bil upo rab ljen pri kabi net nem in teren skem zaje mu hidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk na izbra nih95 re~ nih odse kih po Slo ve ni ji. Na obrav na va nih re~ nih odse kih so bili z ana li zo sopo jav lja nja izbra nihhidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk dolo ~e ni hidro mor fo lo{ ki tipi. Z ome nje no meto do dela je bilo opre de -lje nih 10 hi dro mor fo lo{ kih tipov, za kate re so v pris pev ku nave de ne glav ne hidro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti.Na osno vi rezul ta tov prve ga hidro mor fo lo{ ke ga tipi zi ra nja slo ven skih rek so poda ne smer ni ce za nadalj -nje delo.

KLJU^NE BESEDE: hidro lo gi ja, reke, tipi za ci ja, hidro mor fo lo{ ki tipi, hidro mor fo lo{ ke spre men ljiv ke,ana li za sopo jav lja nja, Slo ve ni ja

Ured ni{ tvo je pre je lo pris pe vek 7. ju li ja 2009.

NASLOVI:Pe tra Rep nik MahIn {ti tut za vode Repub li ke Slo ve ni jeHaj dri ho va uli ca 28 c, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni jaE-po {ta: petra.rep nik �i zvrs.si

dr. Mat ja` Miko{Uni ver za v Ljub lja niFa kul te ta za grad be ni{ tvo in geo de zi joJa mo va cesta 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni jaE-po {ta: mmi kos �fgg.uni-lj.si

dr. Ale{ Biz jakIn {ti tut za vode Repub li ke Slo ve ni jeHaj dri ho va uli ca 28 c, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni jaE-po {ta: ales.biz jak �i zvrs.si

Vse bi na

1 Uvod 2212 Uve ljav lje ne tipi za ci je rek 2212.1 Mednarodne tipi za ci je rek 2212.1.1 Ros ge no va tipi za ci ja rek 2232.2 Tipi za ci je rek v slo ven skem pro sto ru 2243 Meto da dela in rezul ta ti 2243.1 Teh ni ka zaje ma podat kov 2243.2 Teren ski in kabi net ni zajem podat kov 2253.3 Ana li za podat kov in pre poz na ni

hidro mor fo lo{ ki tipi 2284 Disku si ja 2285 Sklep 2296 Lite ra tu ra 229

220

1 UvodRe~ ni siste mi so kom plek sni poja vi na zemelj skem povr{ ju, ki so nasta li in se spre mi nja jo v od vi sno stiod geo lo{ ke pod la ge, lito lo{ ke zgrad be, pod neb ja in topo graf skih dejav ni kov (Knigh ton 1998; Fogg inWells 1998). ^eprav je vsak re~ ni sistem edins tven pojav, so v splo {nem opre de lje ni kot tro del ni siste mi(Schumm 1977), kjer se ener gi ja pre tvar ja v raz li~ ne obli ke `ive in ne`i ve nara ve in ustvar ja tri zna ~il naobmo~ ja – povir ni del ali zgor nji tek (kre non), osred nji del ali sred nji tek (ri tron) in ni`in ski del ali spod -nji tek (po ta mon). Za povir ne dele rek, kjer obi ~aj no pre vla du je jo gor ski relief in doli ne V-ob li ke, so zna ~il nigrob sedi ment z ve li kim pre me rom zrna, velik padec, ozke stru ge in posle di~ no veli ke hitro sti vod ne ga tokater ero zi je kot pre vla du jo ~e ga pro ce sa. Te zna ~il no sti se v sred njih in ni`in skih delih rek postop no spre -mi nja jo, saj nara{ ~a jo {iri na doli ne, {iri na in glo bi na stru ge ter karak te ri sti~ ni pre tok. Pre vla du jo ~i pro cesv sred njih delih je pre me{ ~a nje v po vir nih delih ero di ra ne ga sedi men ta, ki se nato aku mu li ra v ni ̀ in skihdelih re~ nih siste mov. Tu se v {i ro kih doli nah obi ~aj no raz vi je jo poplav ne rav ni ce s {i ro ko viju ga jo ~i miali pone kod tudi mean dri ra jo ~i mi stru ga mi, mrtvi ca mi, stran ski mi roka vi in mokri{ ~i.

Ma kro-de jav ni ki, kot so pod neb je, lito lo{ ka pod la ga, ero zi ja, aku mu la ci ja in vege ta ci ja, obli ku je jo pro -ce se na rav ni celot ne ga pore~ ja in posle di~ no na ni` ji rav ni, to je na rav ni dela pore~ ja, re~ ne ga odse ka, habi ta tain mikro ha bi ta ta ter nad zi ra jo mikro-de jav ni ke (Fris sell in osta li 1986; Nai man in osta li 1992). V ob mo~ -jih s pri mer lji vi mi makro-de jav ni ki se tako obli ku je jo tudi pri mer lji ve hidro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti. Tese lah ko dolo ~a jo s po mo~ jo tipi za cij skih shem, ki poda ja jo siste ma ti ~en pre gled hidro mor fo lo{ kih zna -~il no sti in omo go ~a jo kate go ri zi ra nje re~ nih siste mov v ob vla dlji ve sku pi ne gle de na nji ho vo med se boj nopodob nost in pove za nost (Platts 1980).

Ti pi za cij ske she me omo go ~a jo poglob lje no razu me va nje kom plek snih pro ce sov – od tistih, ki pote -ka jo na rav ni pore~ ja do pro ce sov na rav ni mikro ha bi ta ta. Z na me nom bolj {e ga razu me va nja re~ nih siste movso bile tako raz vi te tipi za ci je, ki opre de lju je jo re~ ne siste me gle de na geo mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti doli ne inpris pev ne ga obmo~ ja, zna ~il no sti hidro lo{ ke ga re`i ma, zna ~il no sti dolin ske ga dna in dina mi ko poplav -ne rav ni ce, obli ko stru ge, mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti stru ge in mor fo-di na mi~ ne pro ce se ter obli ke pri la ga ja njana mor fo lo{ ke spre mem be, inten zi te to ero zi je, aku mu li ra nja sedi men tov ipd. (Ros gen 1996; Kon dolf inosta li 2003).

V zad njih deset let jih se je upo rab nost tipi za cij skih shem raz {i ri la tudi na uprav ljav sko raven. S po -mo~ jo tipi za cij skih shem se lah ko za posa mez ne re~ ne odse ke dolo ~i jo refe ren~ ne hidro mor fo lo{ ke podo be(nem. Leit bild, ang. Gui ding View) (Zum broich in osta li 1999; Dete ring in osta li 2003; Patt in osta li 2008).Te se pri mer ja jo s sta njem hidro mor fo lo{ kih last no sti antro po ge no spre me nje nih odse kov rek in s tegavidi ka tudi pri mer no kate go ri zi ra jo v raz re de spre me nje no sti. Refe ren~ na hidro mor fo lo{ ka podo ba je tudivodi lo pri pri pra vi ukre pov obnov ali reha bi li ta cij, ki se upo rab lja jo za izbolj {a nje hidro mor fo lo{ ke ga sta -nja rek (Pal mer in osta li 2005; Mont go mery 2006).

Gle de na v sve tu {te vil ne `e izde la ne tipi za ci je, ki obrav na va jo tudi hidro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti rek,je v ~lan ku pri prav ljen pre gled teh. Izmed teh tipi za cij je podrob ne je opi sa na Ros ge no va tipi za ci ja rek, kihidro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti naj bolj podrob no obrav na va in je bila zato priv ze ta kot izho di{ ~e za pri pra -vo slo ven ske hidro mor fo lo{ ke tipi za ci je. V ra zi ska vi je bilo pre ver je no ali so si odse ki slo ven skih rek, tipi zi ra nigle de na glav ne geo mor fo lo{ ke in mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti po Ros ge no vi tipi za ci ji, podob ni tudi gle de naneka te re podrob nej {e hidro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti. Prav tako je bil namen razi ska ve pre ve ri ti, ali je mo` -no na pod la gi teh pre poz na ti zna ~il ne hidro mor fo lo{ ke tipe slo ven skih rek ter pri pra vi ti podrob nej {ehidro mor fo lo{ ke opi se in ana li ze pre poz na nih tipov.

2 Uve ljav lje ne tipi za ci je rek

2.1 Mednarodne tipi za ci je rek

Ti pi za ci je rek se v sve tu raz vi ja jo `e od kon ca 19. sto let ja dalje, mno ge med nji mi v ce lo ti ali del no teme -lji jo na hidro mor fo lo{ kih dejav ni kih. Prvo zna no tipi za ci jo, ki je reke tipi zi ra la gle de na zna ~il no sti gor skihin rav nin skih strug, je raz vil James Dwight Dana leta 1850. John Wesley Powell je leta 1875 raz vil tipi za -ci jo na pod la gi genet ske pove za no sti z geo lo{ ko struk tu ro, leta 1899 je Wil liam Mor ris Davis pred sta vilteo ri jo raz vo ja stru ge in reke tipi zi ral gle de na raz voj ni sta dij. V zgod njem 20. sto let ju so pri ~e li prou ~e va ti

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

221

Pe tra Rep nik Mah, Mat ja` Miko{, Ale{ Biz jak, Hi dro mor fo lo{ ka tipi za ci ja slo ven skih rek

pove za vo med obli ko re~ ne mre ̀ e in geo lo{ ki mi ter lito lo{ ki mi zna ~il nost mi re~ nih siste mov. Leta 1914je Gro ve Karl Gil bert raz vil hipo te zo o struk tu ri dna reke, ki je posta la izho di{ ~e za nadalj nje tipi za ci je.Tipi za ci jo rek gle de na obli ko re~ ne mre ̀ e pa je raz vil Emi lie R. Zer nitz leta 1932.

Po sto po ma so tipi za ci je pri ~e le vklju ~e va ti re~ ne pro ce se. Leta 1957 sta Leo pold in Wol man na pod -la gi raz mer ja med pad cem in pre to kom tipi zi ra la reke gle de na obli ko stru ge. Nju no tipi za ci jo so {te vil niavtor ji nad gra di li, pri ~emer so pou da ri li raz li ke med raz cep lje ni mi in delje ni mi stru ga mi. S ti pi za ci jo alu -vial nih strug se je ukvar jal tudi Schumm (1963, 1977). Reke je tipi zi ral z vi di ka sta bil no sti stru ge in vrstopre me{ ~e nih pla vin (leb de ~e, rinje ne ozi ro ma kom bi na ci ja). Pove za vo med stru go in poplav no rav ni costa v ti pi za ci ji rek gle de na vrsto poplav ne rav ni ce poja sni la Nan son in Cro ke leta 1992.

Gle de na podrob ne zna ~il no sti stru ge so reke tipi zi ra li Howard (1980, 1987), ki je lo~il alu vial ne stru -ge in stru ge na mati~ ni kam ni ni ter jih nada lje ~le nil gle de na sub strat; Downs (1994, 1995), ki je reketipi zi ral gle de na pro ce sno pri la ga ja nje stru ge; Church (1992), ki je reke tipi zi ral gle de na raz mer je medveli kost jo zrna (se di men ta) in glo bi no stru ge; Grant et. al (1990) ter Whi ting in Brad ley (1993), ki so izdela litipi za ci jo gle de na pre vla du jo ~e struk tu re v po vir nem delu; Mont go mery in Buf fing ton pa sta leta 1997pred sta vi la tipi za ci jo rek v go ra tih pre de lih in sicer gle de na pre vla du jo ~e hidro mor fo lo{ ke obli ke re~ nega dna,ki nasta ne jo v od vi sno sti od pre me sti tve ne zmog lji vo sti. Alu vial ne stru ge je na osno vi veli ko sti pre me razrna in zna ~il no sti pre me{ ~a nja pla vin tipi zi ral Hen der son (1963). Bri ce in Blod gett (1978) sta podrob -ne je opi sa la {ti ri tipe strug – delje ne stru ge, stru ge s pro di{ ~i v za vo ju, stru ge s {i ro ki mi zavo ji in pro di{ ~iin stru ge z ena ko mer ni mi zavo ji in pro di{ ~i. Gle de na struk tu re, ki nasta ja jo z od la ga njem plavin, obli -ko stru ge, viju ga vost jo, obli ko poplav ne rav ni ce, vi{i no bre ̀ in in izob li ko va nje nasi pov je tipi za ci jo izde lalCul bert son s so de lav ci (1967). Kvan ti ta tiv no tipi za ci jo za reke s pe{ ~e nim dnom je ob upo {te va nju viju -ga vo sti, pad ca in obli ke stru ge izde lal Khan (1971). Mol lard (1973) in kasne je Church (1992) sta rekes po plav ni mi rav ni ca mi raz vr sti la v {te vil ne tipe gle de na pre tok, padec, raz po lo` lji vost pla vin in sta bil -nost stru ge. Alu vial ne stru ge je prou ~e val in na pod la gi obli ke stru ge, pogo sto sti oto kov, vrste pro di{~ inpre~ ne migra ci je ~le nil tudi Kel ler hals s so de lav ci (1976). Church in Jones (1982) sta kasne je pred sta vi latipi za ci jo rek gle de na tipe pro di{~ in obli ko stru ge in ugo to vi la, da je zna ~il na mor fo lo gi ja rezul tat pad -ca dna in koli ~i ne raz po lo` lji vih pla vin. Pove za ve med obli ko stru ge, pad cem ter vrsto, raz po lo` lji vost join pre vla du jo ~im sub stra tom je poi skal Selby (1985). Tudi Pau stian s so de lav ci (1992) je podal pro ce snoosno va no tipi za ci jo, ki pre poz na va mor fo lo gi jo na nivo ju regi je (Ros gen 1994, Kon dolf in osta li 2003, Biz -jak 2003). Leta 1994 je gle de na geo mor fo lo{ ke in hidro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti rek podrob no tipi za ci joizde lal Ros gen.

S spoz na njem, da je mo~ vod ne ga toka klju~ na spre men ljiv ka v hi dro mor fo lo gi ji, so nasta le {te vil netipi za ci je na podrob nej {em, regio nal nem nivo ju, ki so vklju ~e va le dog na nja o dol vod nem spre mi nja njumo~i vod ne ga toka. Poleg ome nje nih tipi za cij so bile izde la ne tudi hie rar hi~ ne tipi za ci je, npr. na osno vieko re gij, tipi za ci je, ki slu ̀ i jo bolj {e mu uprav lja nju voda ter tipi za ci je, ki so nare je ne gle de na zna ~il no stiposa mez nih con v po re~ ju ozi ro ma re~ nih odse kov. Ena naj bolj zna nih tipi za cij, ki izha ja iz preu ~e va njacon, je Schum mo va tipi za ci ja (1977), ki reke raz de li na tri funk cio nal na obmo~ ja – obmo~ ja ero zi je, pre -me{ ~a nja in aku mu li ra nja, med tem ko je pogo sto upo rab lje na Hor to no va (1945) ozi ro ma Strah ler je va(1957) tipi za ci ja, ki reke raz vr{ ~a gle de na red reke.

Z raz vo jem {te vil nih metod za oce nje va nje hidro mor fo lo{ ke ga sta nja rek so se za potre be tega raz vi -le tudi nove, bolj splo {ne tipi za ci je. Kot pri mer nava ja mo nem{ ko meto do Gewässer struk turgüte be wer tung(GSGB) (Zum broich in osta li 1999), ki raz li ku je reke v so te skah ali V-do li nah, reke v {i ro kih poplav nihU-do li nah, mean dri ra jo ~e reke, reke v po plav nih kadu nja stih doli nah, reke v prod na tih doli nah in rav -nin ske reke (ki so nadalj nje podrob ne je ~le nje ne gle de na sub strat) in bri tan sko meto do River Habi tatSur vey (RHS) (Ra ven in osta li 1998), ki raz li ku je reke s {o ta stim dnom, reke z ve li kim pad cem dna, rekena pla no tah, obal ne reke, reke v gor skih doli nah, ni`in ske reke s pre vla du jo ~i mi vod ni mi braz da mi, rekez gli ne nim dnom, itd. Sodob ne tipi za ci je rek, ki so name nje ne pred vsem bolj {e mu uprav lja nju voda, sov upo ra bi pred vsem v Nem ~i ji, Fran ci ji, Veli ki Bri ta ni ji in Zdru ̀ e nih dr`a vah Ame ri ke (Gor don in osta li2004, Pal mer 2005, Gur nell in osta li 2006).

Vod na direk ti va (Di rek ti va 2000/60/ES) dolo ~a dva mo` na siste ma tipi za ci je rek, sistem A ali fik snotipo lo gi jo z vna prej dolo ~e ni mi deskrip tor ji tipi za ci je in sistem B ali alter na tiv no opre de li tev z ob vez ni -mi in izbir ni mi dejav ni ki tipi za ci je rek. Imple men ta cij ski pro ces vod ne direk ti ve je v dr ̀ a vah ~la ni cahEvrop ske uni je botro val {te vil nim razi ska vam tipov rek, {irok izbor dejav ni kov naj ve~ krat upo rab lje ne

222

tipi za ci je po siste mu B pa {iro ke mu izbo ru biot skih tipi za cij rek. Te so tudi nuj no izho di{ ~e za oce no eko -lo{ ke ga sta nja rek (Dod kins 2005, Urba ni~ 2007, Brown 2009).

2.1.1 Ros ge no va tipi za ci ja rek

Na men Ros ge no ve tipi za ci je je pred vi de ti re~ ne pro ce se na pod la gi hidro mor fo lo{ ke ana li ze reke, ugoto -vi ti spe ci fi~ ne hidra vli~ ne pove za ve in zna ~il no sti pre me{ ~a nja sedi men tov za posa mez ne tipe rek in nji ho vosta nje, raz vi ti meha ni zem, ki bo omo go ~al ekstra po la ci jo podat kov na med se boj no pri mer lji ve reke inizde la ti kon si sten ten okvir refe ren~ nih raz mer, ki bi slu ̀ il pra vil nej {e mu uprav lja nju rek. Tipi za ci ja je sestav -lje na iz {ti rih rav ni (Sli ka 1), ki od prve ga splo {no geo mor fo lo{ ke ga opi sa posto po ma pre ha ja jo do zelopodrob nih hidro mor fo lo{ kih opi sov in ocen. Ros ge no va tipi za ci ja na prvih dveh rav neh opre de li 7 glav -nih tipov in 42 pod ti pov rek.

Prva raven je geo mor fo lo{ ki opis, ki vklju ~u je spre men ljiv ke kot so padec reke, obli ka pro fi la, obli kastru ge in viju ga vost. Zna ~il no sti na tej rav ni so pre poz na ne in kvan ti fi ci ra ne iz topo graf skih kart in aero-po -snet kov. Dru ga raven obrav na va podrob nej {e mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti, ki so zbra ne s te ren sko ana li zoodse kov – ure za nost stru ge, dimen zi ja stru ge, obli ka stru ge in pro fi la in pre vla du jo~ sub strat. Tako poda -

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

223

akumuliran material vpliv podnebja biotski dejavniki

RELIEF PORE^JA – OBLIKE POVR[JA – MORFOLOGIJA DOLINE

PORE^JE

DRENA@NA MRE@A

PADEC STRUGEpadec dna doline / vijugavost

OBLIKA PROFILAozek-globok{irok-plitev

KOLI^NIK UREZANOSTIRAZMERJE

[IRINA/GLOBINAVIJUGAVOST

OBRE@NA VEGETACIJAAKUMULIRANJE

MATERIALAPOJAV DROBIRSKIH TOKOV

OBLIKA MEANDRAOCENA STABILNOSTI

STRUGERAZPOLO@LJIVA KOLI^INA

SEDIMENTASTABILNOST DNA

STANJE [IRINA/GLOBINA

MERITVE SEDIMENTA:rinjene plavinelebde~e plavine

MERITVE TOKA:hidravlika

uporhidrogram

GEOMORFOLO[KAKARAKTERIZACIJA

I. RAVENtipi »A« do »G«

MORFOLO[KI OPISII. RAVEN

tipi A1-A6 …. G1-G6

STANJE ali RAZMERE

III. RAVEN

VERIFIKACIJAIV. RAVEN

PADEC STRUGETVORIVO STRUGE

EROZIJA bre`in (potencial)VELIKOST REKE / RED

PRETO^NI RE@IMspremenjeno STANJE struge

dimenzijeoblikapadec

tvorivo

STABILNOSTpoglabljanje/zaprojanje

SEDIMENTspreminjanje zaloge sedimenta

zrnavostna sestavaerodiranost bre`in

~asovni trendi – stabilnost

OBLIKA STRUGEenojna

razvejanarazcepljenavijugavost

dimenzije meandra

dejavniki, ki vplivajo nastrukturo; litologija

re~ni procesi

Sli ka 1: Rav ni re~ ne ga popi sa (Ros gen 1996).

Pe tra Rep nik Mah, Mat ja` Miko{, Ale{ Biz jak, Hi dro mor fo lo{ ka tipi za ci ja slo ven skih rek

ja kvan ti ta tiv no mor fo lo{ ko opre de li tev, ki ima upo rab no vred nost za uprav ljav ske name ne, med tem kotret ja raven opi su je sta nje reke. Na tej rav ni so obrav na va ne {te vil ne dodat ne spre men ljiv ke – obre` na vegeta -ci ja, raz po lo` lji va koli ~i na sedi men ta, pre to~ ni re`im, pojav nost dro bir skih tokov, aku mu li ra nje mate ria la,sta bil nost stru ge, ero di ra nost bre ̀ in in nepo sred ne antro po ge ne mot nje. Na zad nji, ~etr ti rav ni, so spre -men ljiv ke dolo ~e ne s po sa mez ni mi meri tva mi, ki veri fi ci ra jo pove za ve iz pred hod nih rav ni.

2.2 Tipi za ci je rek v slo ven skem pro sto ru

V slo ven skem pro sto ru so tipi za ci je rek na osno vi hidro mor fo lo{ kih dejav ni kov {e v za ~et nih fazah raz -vo ja. Poleg v tem pris pev ku pred stav lje ne hidro mor fo lo{ ke tipi za ci je rek (Rep nik 2006) je v pri pra vi tudihidro geo mor fo lo{ ka tipi za ci ja (Na tek 2006). Sicer pa lah ko hidro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti rek del no opre -de li mo iz {te vil nih sorod nih pri me rov tipi za cij z vodo pove za nih narav nih poja vov, ki so bile oprav lje nev Slo ve ni ji, med nji mi: Kla si fi ka ci ja poplav v Slo ve ni ji (Gams 1973), Pokra jin sko-eko lo{ ka regio na li za ci -ja (Gams 1986), Tipo lo gi ja kra jin in opre de lje va nje kra jin poseb nih vred no sti v Slo ve ni ji (Hu do klin 1994),Kra jin ska regio na li za ci ja (Ma ru {i~ 1998 a-e), Kra jin ske zna ~il no sti vodo to kov v Slo ve ni ji (Bra ti na Jur ko -vi~ 1999), Kate go ri za ci ja vodo to kov po eko mor fo lo{ kem pome nu (Fa za rinc in osta li 2002), Tipo lo gi japovr {in skih voda (Brilly in osta li 2003) in Tipo lo gi ja povr {in skih vod nih teles (Ur ba ni~ 2007).

3 Meto da dela in rezul ta ti

3.1 Teh ni ka zaje ma podat kov

Gle de na to, da v Slo ve ni ji {e ni izde la nih podrob nih hidro mor fo lo{ kih podat kov nih zbirk, ki bi omo go -~a le tipi za ci jo rek, je bil v sklo pu razi ska ve izve den obse ̀ en zajem hidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk. Zajempodat kov je mo`en s teh ni ka mi kot so popis hidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk na tere nu (te ren ski pri stop),mode li ra nje refe ren~ nih hidro mor fo lo{ kih raz mer, ana li za zgo do vin skih hidro mor fo lo{ kih podat kov inana li za paleo lim no lo{ kih podat kov (CIS 2003). Pogo sto je upo rab lje na tudi teh ni ka eks pert ne ga mne njav kom bi na ci ji z na {te ti mi teh ni ka mi, ki pa je mno go krat sub jek tiv na in zato te` je ponov lji va. V ko li korje ohra nje nost rek tako dobra, da je mo` no opre de li ti refe ren~ ne hidro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti na tere nu,je teren ski pri stop kljub ~asov ni zah tev no sti naj pri mer nej {a teh ni ka za zajem podat kov. Osta le teh ni keso upo rab ne pred vsem v pri me rih, ko podat kov na tere nu ni mo` no pri do bi ti.

V Slo ve ni ji je dol ̀ i na rek s pris pev no povr {i no ve~ jo od 10km2 4797,4km. Izmed teh je 1328,7km ali27,7% obrav na va ne re~ ne mre ̀ e antro po ge no zelo malo spre me nje nih (Fa za rinc in osta li 2002). Velik dele`zelo malo spre me nje ne re~ ne mre ̀ e je argu ment za izbi ro pro stor ske ga pri sto pa pri pri pra vi tipi za ci je.Gle de na rezul ta te razi ska ve Kate go ri za ci ja vodo to kov po eko mor fo lo{ kem pome nu (Fa za rinc in osta li 2002),ki reke kate go ri zi ra gle de na stop njo antro po ge ne ga vpli va, so bili kot pri mer ni odse ki za zajem podat -kov iden ti fi ci ra ni tisti, ki sodi jo v 1. (na rav ni vodo to ki) ali 1.–2. raz red (zelo malo spre me nje ni vodo to ki)(Sli ka 2). Izmed pri mer nih odse kov so bili odse ki za preu ~e va nje hidro mor fo lo{ kih tipov dolo ~e ni z do -dat ni mi kri te ri ji:• pris pev na povr {i na reke na loka ci ji vzor~ ne ga mesta od 10 do 100 km2,• ena ko mer na poraz de lje nost vzor~ nih mest po celot ni hidro graf ski mre ̀ i,• ena ko mer na poraz de lje nost vzor~ nih mest v po sa mez nih bio re gi jah,• re pre zen ta tiv nost odse kov gle de na pokra jin ske hidro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti in• do stop nost vzor~ nih mest za potre be teren ske ga dela.

Sli ka 2: Stop nje antro po ge ne spre me nje no sti vodo to kov (pri la go je no po: Faza rinc in osta li 2002).Glej angle{ ki del pris pev ka.

Za jem podat kov na izbra nih odse kih je bil izve den z me to do tran sek tov (Biz jak 2003; Miko{ inBizjak 2007), s ka te ro sta obseg in ~asov na zah tev nost zaje ma podat kov zmanj {a na in opti mi zi ra na. Tran -sek ti so pra vo kot ni in pred hod no kar to graf sko dolo ~e ni pre~ ni odse ki stru ge. Nji ho va {iri na je ena kadvo krat ni ku {iri ne stru ge, dol ̀ i na tran sek ta pa poleg {iri ne stru ge zaje ma tudi 50m obre` ni pas. Raz me{ -

224

~e ni so na medo sni raz da lji 100m. V ob mo~ ju izbra ne ga 500m odse ka je bilo popi sa nih 6 tran sek tov. V ra -zi ska vi je bilo skup no ana li zi ra nih 95 re~ nih odse kov ozi ro ma 570 tran sek tov.

3.2 Teren ski in kabi net ni zajem podat kov

Za popis hidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk na pred hod no izbra nih re~ nih odse kih in tran sek tih je bil izde -lan popi sni list (Pre gled ni ca 1). Nabor hidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk v po pi snem listu vklju ~u je izbra nespre men ljiv ke, ki so nave de ne v Ros ge no vi in Mont go mery je vi tipi za ci ji (Ros gen 1996; Mont go mery in osta -li 1997) ter izbra nih meto dah za oce no hidro mor fo lo{ ke ga sta nja: RCE meto di (Pe ter sen 1992), SVAP meto di

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

225

splo {ni podat ki

struk tu ra stru ge in sub stra ta

struk tu ra obre` ne ga pasu

Pre gled ni ca 1: Pre gled teren sko in kabi net no zaje tih hidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk.

Ka te go ri ja Hi dro mor fo lo{ ke spre men ljiv ke

splo {ni podat ki (od sek) ime reke, {ifra reke, bio re gi ja, kra jin ska eno ta, nase lje v bli ̀ i ni, koor di na te odse ka, nad mor ska vi{i navi {in ski pas, geo lo{ ka pod la ga, koli ~i na pada vinve li kost pris pev ne povr {i ne, raz red gle de na {iri no stru geda tum popi sa, popi so va lec

po dat ki o ko li ~i ni in dina mi ki vo do mer na posta ja, pre tok Q (m3/s), vodo staj h (cm), T (°C), decil pre to ka, sred nji pre tok Qsr (m3/s),

vod ne ga toka mini mal ni spe ci fi~ ni pre tok z 20-let no povrat no dobo qmin,20, pre to~ ni re`im

splo {ni podat ki (tran sekt) koor di na ti tran sek ta, dol ̀ i na tran sek taspre mi nja nje {iri ne {i ri na stru go tvor ne stru ge bs (m), spre mi nja nje stru go tvor ne {iri ne Δbs (m), ure za na {iri na stru ge bu (m),in glo bi ne stru ge vzdol` no spre mi nja nje glo bi ne Δhv (m), pre~ no spre mi nja nje glo bi ne Δhp (m), pov pre~ na glo bi na

vode h (m), naj ve~ ja glo bi na vode hmax (m), glo bi na ure za ne stru ge hu (m), raz mer je {iri na/glo bi na {/gstruk tu ra stru ge ko li~ nik ure za no sti, vi{i na bre ̀ in hb (m), naklon bre ̀ in α (°), padec stru ge I (%)pre vla du jo~ relief rav ni na, gri ~ev je, hri bov je, gorov jetip doli ne vint gar ali kanjon, V-do li na, kori ta sta ali U-do li na, poda nja doli na, plo ska doli natip reke kra{ ki, rav nin ski, gri ~ev nat, hri bo vit, gor ski; biot ski tipspre mi nja nje glo bi ne neo paz no, majh no, zmer no, veli ko, zelo veli kospre mi nja nje {iri ne neo paz no, majh no, zmer no, veli ko, zelo veli ko

ob li ka stru ge enoj na, raz ve ja na, raz cep lje navi ju ga vost rav na ali rah lo viju ga sta, nei zra zi to viju ga sta, izra zi to viju ga sta, mean dri ra jo ~aob li ka pro fi la U-ob li ka, pli tva U-ob li ka, poglob lje na U-ob li ka, {iro ka ali zapro je na obli ka, dvoj na tra pez na obli ka,

stop ni ~a sta obli kasub strat gli na, melj, pesek, prod, gru{~, grob lja, mati~ na kam ni na, sami ceotok ({te vi lo) ni oto ka, neza ra{ ~en otok, zara{ ~en otok – mlad suk ce siv ni sta dij, zara{ ~en otok – zrel suk ce siv ni sta dijgru{ ~i{ ~e, pro di{ ~e, ni obli ke, stran ska-iz me nju jo ~a, vzdol` na, v za vo ju, sre din ska, na soto~ jupe{ ~i na ({te vi lo)

dru ge obli ke ({te vi lo) tol mun (os vet lje nost tol mu na), kaska da, stop nja, polo` na kaska da, brzi ca, braz da, pli tvi naza po red ja oblik ko lu vij, mati~ na kam ni na, kaska da, stop nja-tol mun, rav no dno, tol mun-br zi ca, tol mun-braz da, dina-re broraz gi ba nost dna neo paz na, majh na, zmer na, veli ka, zelo veli kape strost vod ne ga toka neo paz na, majh na, zmer na, veli ka, zelo veli katvo ri vo bre ̀ i ne ma ti~ na kam ni na, ska la, zem lji na, kom bi na ci japri sot nost ero zi je (de le`) ni raz vid no, ero zi ja v za vo jih in o`i nah, vzdol` na ero zi jaob li ke na bre ̀ i ni ko re nin ski pre ple ti, dre ve sni odbi ja ~ipre kri tost stru ge (de le`) pre ra{ ~e nost s te re sti~ no vege ta ci jo, zara{ ~e nost z ak va ti~ no vege ta ci jopri sot nost zapad le ga ni obli ke, majh na, sred nja, veli ka

drev ja in plav ne ga lesa

vr sta obre` ne vege ta ci je ve ge ta ci je ni, avtoh to na, aloh to nadi stri bu ci ja obre` ne ve ge ta ci je ni, avtoh to na-skle nje na, avtoh to na-~le nje na, avtoh to na-raz tre se na, avtoh to na-raz red ~e na, aloh to navege ta ci je

sta rost obre` ne vege ta ci je ve ge ta ci je ni, mlad suk ce siv ni sta dij, vme sni suk ce siv ni sta dij, zrel suk ce siv ni sta dijobre` ne obli ke ni obli ke, obtok, zasta la voda, mrtvi ca, mo~ vir je, kom bi na ci jaraba pri bre` ja av toh ton gozd, zem lji{ ~e v za ra{ ~a nju, trav nik ali ledi na, aloh ton gozd, dru ga rabadi stri bu ci ja pri bre` ne ve ge ta ci je ni, avtoh to na-skle nje na, avtoh to na-~le nje na, avtoh to na-raz tre se na, avtoh to na-raz red ~e na, aloh to navege ta ci je in {iri na

sta rost pri bre` ne ve ge ta ci je ni, mlad suk ce siv ni sta dij, vme sni suk ce siv ni sta dij, zrel suk ce siv ni sta dijvege ta ci je

Pe tra Rep nik Mah, Mat ja` Miko{, Ale{ Biz jak, Hi dro mor fo lo{ ka tipi za ci ja slo ven skih rek

(New ton in osta li 1998, Lavren ~i~ 2005; Lavren~i~ in ostali 2006), RHS meto di (Ra ven in osta li 1998), GSGBmeto di (Zum broich in osta li 1999), IFF meto di (Si li gar di in osta li 2000, Bati sti~ 2005; Bati sti~ in ostali 2006),AUSRIVAS meto di (Par sons in osta li 2001) in Sin tez ni meto di (Biz jak 2003; Miko{ in Bizjak 2007). Popi -sni list je bil med razi ska vo {e opti mi zi ran ter nad grajen s cilj ni mi hidro mor fo lo{ ki mi spre men ljiv ka mi.

Hi dro mor fo lo{ ke spre men ljiv ke so bile zaje te ve~i no ma na tere nu, posa mez ne tudi kabi net no. Pri deluje bila upo rab lje na hidro mor fo lo{ ka opre ma – GPS navi ga ci ja, geo det ska lata, elek tron ski raz da lje mer,meril ni trak in pado mer za od~i ta va nje pad ca dna stru ge. Izmer je ne so bile dimen zi je stru ge iz kate rihsta bila izra ~u na na koli~ nik {iri ne in glo bi ne stru ge in koli~ nik ure za no sti stru ge. Za re~ ne odse ke je bilna osno vi rela tiv nih vi{in skih raz lik dolo ~en pre vla du jo~ relief, gle de na obli ko pre~ ne ga pre re za doli netip doli ne (Lek si kon Geo gra fi ja 2001), dolo ~e ni pa so bili tudi obli ka stru ge, viju ga vost in obli ka pro fi la(Par sons in osta li 2001) ter pre vla du jo~ sub strat gle de na zna ~il ne zrna vost ne raz re de (Mi ko{ 2000). Posa -mez ne hidro mor fo lo{ ke obli ke dna so bile dolo ~e ne gle de na opi se struk tur (Zum broich in osta li 1999;Par sons in osta li 2001), zapo red ja oblik dna pa gle de na nji ho vo kla si fi ka ci jo (Mont go mery in osta li 1997).V od vi sno sti od oblik dna se odse ki med seboj lo~i jo tudi po raz gi ba no sti dna in pestro sti gla di ne vod -ne ga toka, ki sta bili dolo ~e ni kva li ta tiv no. Za posa me zen odsek je bilo pre poz na no tvo ri vo bre ̀ i ne, pri sot nostero zi je ter obli ke na bre ̀ i ni (Zum broich in osta li 1999), opre de lje na je bila pre kri tost stru ge z ve ge ta ci joter pri sot nost zapad le ga drev ja in plav ne ga lesa. Za obre` ni in pri bre` ni pas je bila ana li zi ra na vrsta, distri -bu ci ja in sta rost vege ta ci je ter pri sot nost hidro mor fo lo{ kih oblik kot so mokri{ ~a, obto ki, mrtvi ce ipd.Za pri bre` ni pas je bila lo~e no obrav na va na tudi pre vla du jo ~a raba.

Ka bi net no so bili za izbra ne re~ ne odse ke popi sa ni podat ki: {ifra in ime bio re gi je (Ur ba ni~ 2007), nase -lje, kra jin ska eno ta (Ma ru {i~ 1998a–e), vi{in ski pas, geo lo{ ka pod la ga, koli ~i na pada vin in mini mal nispe ci fi~ ni pre tok z 20-let no povrat no dobo (Brilly in osta li 2001), veli kost pris pev ne povr {i ne ([raj 2001),vodo mer na posta ja in pre to~ ne karak te ri sti ke (www.arso.gov.si) ter pre to~ ni re`im reke (Hr va tin 1998).

226

01 1 00

01 0 01 0

0 0 0

01 0 0 0 0

01 0 0

U

0 1 0 0 0 0

> 4 % 1–4 % < 1 %

0 01

Vintgar, kanjonV-oblika U-oblika Plitva Ploska

RazvejanaEnojna Razcepljena RazvejanaEnojna Razcepljena

IzrazitaNi, rahla Neizrazita

Oblika struge

Tip doline

Vijugavost

Oblika profila

Tip GH1

USplo{~en U Poglobljen U Trapez Raz{irjen

Padec struge

Meandirajo~a

IzrazitaNi, rahla Neizrazita Meandirajo~a

V

V

Splo{~en U Poglobljen U Trapez Raz{irjen

GH2

Vijugavost

Oblika profila

Tip

Sli ka 3: Odlo ~i tve no dre vo za tip GH1 in tip GH2.

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

227

GH

1G

H1

GH

2G

H2

GH

3G

H4

HG

1H

G2

GR

1G

R1

GR

2G

R3

GR

4T

IP

> 4

%>

4%

> 4

%>

4%

1–4

%1–

4 %

1–4

%1–

4 %

< 1

%<

1%

< 1

%<

1 %

< 1

%PA

DE

C S

TR

UG

E

VV-o-o

bblik

alik

aU

-oU

-obbl

ika

lika

V-o

blik

aU

-obl

ika

V,U

-obl

ika

plit

vapl

oska

plos

kapl

oska

plo

ska

plo

ska

TIP

DO

LIN

E

eeno

noj

na

jna

eeno

noj

na

jna

enoj

na

razv

ejan

aen

ojn

aen

ojn

aeen

on

ojn

ajn

aen

ojn

aen

ojn

aen

ojn

aO

BL

IKA

ST

RU

GE

ni,

ni,

rrah

laah

lan

i,n

i,rra

hla

ahla

ni,

rah

lan

eizr

azit

an

i,ra

hla

rah

la,

nei

zraz

ita

izr

izra

zita

,az

ita,

mea

ndi

rm

ean

dira

joajo~

a~a

nei

zraz

ita,

izra

zita

nei

zraz

ita

nei

zraz

ita

VIJ

UG

AV

OST

VVsp

lo{~

splo

{~een

Un

Usp

lo{~

en U

raz{

irje

na

splo

{~en

Usp

lo{~

enU

UUp

oglo

blje

n U

splo

{~en

UU

OB

LIK

A P

RO

FIL

A

3,42

3,42

8,75

8,75

7,96

26,7

9,18

7,96

11,6

111

,61

3,35

8,28

4,98

RA

ZM

ER

JE B

/H

ggrroobb

ljlja,a,ggrr

u{~

u{~

ggrroobb

ljlja,a,

ggrru

{~,

u{~

,pprroo

ddgr

oblja

,gru

{~pr

od,p

esek

,gr

u{~

grob

lja,

gru

{~,p

rod

gru

{~,p

rod,

grob

ljapp

esek

,es

ek,gg

lina,

lina,

ggrru

{~u

{~gl

ina,

prod

,p

esek

prod

,pes

ek,

glin

agl

ina

bbrzi

ca,

rzic

a,tto

lmolm

un

,u

n,

kask

aka

skad

a,d

a,stst

ooppn

jn

jaa

bbrzi

ca,

rzic

a,tto

lmolm

un

,u

n,

plit

vp

litvi

na

ina

brzi

ca,

tolm

un

,pr

odi{

~e,

kask

ada

brzi

ca,

prod

i{~e

,to

lmu

n

prod

i{~e

,to

lmu

n,

brzi

ca

rraavn

insk

ivn

insk

itto

lmolm

un

un

braz

da,

prod

i{~e

,p

e{~i

na

prod

i{~e

,br

azd

a,p

e{~i

na

ravn

insk

ito

lmu

n

SUB

STR

AT

OB

LIK

E D

NA

RE

LIE

Fgo

rsko

-hri

bovi

t (G

H)

hri

bovi

to-g

ri~e

vnat

(H

G)

gri~

evn

ato-

ravn

insk

i (G

R)

prod

i{~e

,p

e{~i

na,

otok

i

Sli ka 4: Glav ne hidro m

or fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti pre poz na nih hidro m

or fo lo{ kih tipov.

Pe tra Rep nik Mah, Mat ja` Miko{, Ale{ Biz jak, Hi dro mor fo lo{ ka tipi za ci ja slo ven skih rek

3.3 Ana li za podat kov in pre poz na ni hidro mor fo lo{ ki tipi

Iz pri dob lje nih podat kov so bile za posa mez ne re~ ne odse ke izra ~u na ne pov pre~ ne vred no sti mer je nihhidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk in od~i ta ne pre vla du jo ~e zna ~il no sti opa zo va nih hidro mor fo lo{ kih spre -men ljivk. Le-te so pred stav lja le tudi vhod ne podat ke za nadalj njo pro stor sko ana li zo. Upo rab lje na je bilaana li za sopo jav lja nja, s ka te ro se ana li zi ra pre kri va nje podat kov nih slo jev in pro stor skih zna ~il no sti. V anali -zo sopo jav lja nja so bile vklju ~e ne hidro mor fo lo{ ke spre men ljiv ke, ki so nave de ne na prvi rav ni Ros ge no vetipi za ci je – padec stru ge, obli ka stru ge, viju ga vost in obli ka pro fi la, dodat no pa je bila upo {te va na obli kadoli ne. Za posa mez ne kom bi na ci je izbra nih hidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk so bila izde la na odlo ~i tve nadre ve sa (Sli ka 3).

Z ana li zo sopo jav lja nja je bilo pre poz na nih 10 hi dro mor fo lo{ kih tipov: {tir je tipi v gor skem ozi ro mapre hod nem hri bo vi tem sve tu (oz na ka GH), dva tipa v hri bo vi tem ozi ro ma pre hod nem gri ~ev na tem sve -tu (HG) in {tir je tipi v gri ~ev na tem ozi ro ma rav nin skem sve tu (GR) (Sli ka 5-15). Izmed vseh popi sa nihhidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk, ki defi ni ra jo posa mez ne tipe, je bila nada lje podrob ne je pre ver je na podob -nost treh hidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk: raz mer je {iri ne in glo bi ne stru ge, sub stra ta in oblik dna (Sli ka 4).

Sli ka 5: Hidro mor fo lo{ ki tipi ana li zi ra nih re~ nih odse kov.Glej angle{ ki del pris pev ka.

Sli ka 6-15: Hidro mor fo lo{ ki tipi.Glej angle{ ki del pris pev ka.

4 Disku si jaZ ra zi ska vo je bilo ugo tov lje no, da je za hidro mor fo lo{ ke tipe, ki so bili dolo ~e ni gle de na izbra ne glav nehidro mor fo lo{ ke spre men ljiv ke, zna ~il na tudi podob nost podrob nej {ih hidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk.Zno traj posa mez ne ga hidro mor fo lo{ ke ga tipa so si podob ne pred vsem hidro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti – struk -tu ra sub stra ta, raz mer je med stru go tvor no {iri no in glo bi no ter vrsta in {te vil~ nost oblik dna. Gle de nanave de ne zna ~il no sti se hidro mor fo lo{ ki tipi med se boj no tudi naj bolj raz li ku je jo (Sli ka 16).

Sli ka 16: Vrsta in {te vi lo oblik dna v ana li zi ra nih hidro mor fo lo{ kih tipih.Glej angle{ ki del pris pev ka.

Iz med vseh ana li zi ra nih hidro mor fo lo{ kih spre men ljivk je za pre poz na ne tipe naj ve~ je sopo jav lja njezna ~il no za vrsto in {te vil~ nost hidro mor fo lo{ kih oblik dna. Naj ve~ ja pestrost in {te vil~ nost je ugo tov lje -na v gor sko-hri bo vi tih tipih, kjer so zna ~il no pri sot ne pred vsem brzi ce in tol mu ni, vid ni pa sta tudi zapo red jihidro mor fo lo{ kih oblik stop nja-tol mun in tol mun-br zi ca. Izsto pa jo ~e se pri gor sko-hri bo vi tem tipu GH4pojav lja jo pro di{ ~a, saj je stru ga zara di zmanj {a ne ga pad ca dna, veli ke {iri ne stru ge in zmanj {a ne pre me -sti tve ne zmog lji vo sti raz ve ja na in pre pre de na s pro di{ ~i. Pestrost in {te vil~ nost hidro mor fo lo{ kih oblikse od hri bo vi to-gri ~ev na tih tipov zmanj {u je do gri ~ev na to-rav nin skih tipov. V hri bo vi to-gri ~ev na tih tipihse poleg pro di{~ in brzic zna ~il no pri~ ne jo pojav lja ti tudi braz de ozi ro ma zapo red ji tol mun-br zi ca in tol -mun-braz da. V zad nji sku pi ni tipov se poleg brazd in pro di{~ pojav lja jo tudi pe{ ~i ne in glo bo ki tol mu ni.

Ana li za rezul ta tov je poka za la, da so si podrob nej {e hidro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti bolj podob ne v sku -pi ni tipov, pre poz na nih v gor sko-hri bo vi tem in gri ~ev na to-rav nin skem sve tu, med tem ko do manj {ihodsto panj pri ha ja v sku pi ni tipov hri bo vi to-gri ~ev na te ga sve ta, kar naka zu je na potre bo po nadalj nji ~le -ni tvi ozi ro ma dolo ~i tvi tipov. Ob poja vu odsto panj posa mez nih zna ~il no sti tipa pa se ved no zasta vi vpra {a nje,v ko lik {ni meri tipi za ci jo raz {i ri ti z no vi mi hidro mor fo lo{ ki mi spre men ljiv ka mi. Vsa ka tipi za ci ja je namre~ome je na z last no neo me je nost jo (Wright in osta li 1984) in zato zah te va izbor le cilj nih spre men ljivk, kiopra vi ~u je jo namen tipi za ci je.

Hi dro mor fo lo{ ke zna ~il no sti na izbra nih re~ nih odse kih so si bile podob ne v to lik {ni meri, da v nobe -nem pri me ru ni bilo pre poz na nih ve~ hidro mor fo lo{ kih tipov zno traj odse ka. V ko li kor bi obrav na va lidalj {e odse ke, bi ned vom no nale te li do pre ho dov med raz li~ ni mi tipi, saj so reke siste mi, kjer se zna ~ilnostiin pro ce si dol vod no spre mi nja jo. Izje mo ma je reka od izvi ra do izli va lah ko opre de lje na tudi z enim samimhidro mor fo lo{ kim tipom, kar bi bilo v slo ven skem pro sto ru pri ~a ko va ti pred vsem pri rekah na kra{ kih poljih.

228

5 SklepIno va tiv nost hidro mor fo lo{ kih tipi za cij skih razi skav v do ma ~em pro sto ru in {iro ka upo rab nost tipi za -cij skih shem sta bili osnov ni moti va ci ji za pri pra vo slo ven ske hidro mor fo lo{ ke tipi za ci je rek. V po stop kutipi zi ra nja rek bodo kot nad grad nja izde la ne hidro mor fo lo{ ke vzor~ ne podo be, ki bodo poda le bolj {i vpo -gled v hi dro mor fo lo{ ko pestrost slo ven skih rek. Hidro mor fo lo{ ka tipi za ci ja bo tudi izho di{ ~e za dolo ~a njekon cep tov obnov in izva ja nje obno vi tve nih ukre pov antro po ge no spre me nje nih re~ nih odse kov.

V na dalj njih kora kih hidro mor fo lo{ ke ga tipi zi ra nja rek je potreb no pre poz na ne hidro mor fo lo{ ke tipepri pi sa ti tudi re~ nim odse kom, ki niso bili zaje ti v ana li zo. Pri tem je klju~ ne ga pome na vna prej{ nja izdela -va posa mez nih podat kov nih slo jev o pad cu dna stru ge, tipu doli ne, obli ki stru ge, viju ga vo sti in obli ki pro fi la.S tem bi bil zmanj {an obseg ~asov no zelo zah tev ne ga teren ske ga dela, ki bi se izva jal le za potre be pre ve -ri tve klju~ nih hidro mor fo lo{ kih zna ~il no sti posa mez nih tipov. V ok vi ru hidro mor fo lo{ ke ga tipi zi ra njarek je v pri hod nje potreb no defi ni ra ti tudi posa mez ne hidro mor fo lo{ ke spre men ljiv ke, za kate re v slo -ven skem jezi ku {e nima mo urad ne ga poi me no va nja in obraz lo ̀ i tve.

6 Lite ra tu raGlej angle{ ki del pris pev ka.

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

229