Next Article in Journal
Mechanisms That Control Phosphorus Availability and Accumulation in Intensive Agricultural Soils: Implications for Environmental Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
Building and Maintaining Low-Cost Particulate Matter Monitoring Networks in Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons from Burkina Faso, Niger, and Republic of Guinea
Previous Article in Special Issue
Study on Nutrient Release Characteristics During the Decomposition of Potamogeton crispus L. in the Huayang Lakes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Environments
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/environments13060352
environments-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Impact of Water Erosion and Erosion Control Activities on River Ecosystems: A Review

by
Eli Pavlova-Traykova
1,*,
Sevdalin Belilov
1,
Kiril Vassilev
2,
Dimitar Dimitrov
1,
Milena Mitova
3,
Rositsa Yaneva
1,
Kameliya Petrova
4,
Elena Todorova
1,
Blagoy Koychev
1,
Veselin Marinkov
1,
Beloslava Genova
2,
Martin Georgiev
5 and
Gana Gecheva
2,5,*
1
Forest Research Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1756 Sofia, Bulgaria
2
Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
3
Institute of Soil Science, Agrotechnologies and Plant Protection “Nikola Poushkarov”, 1331 Sofia, Bulgaria
4
Department of Silviculture, University of Forestry, 1756 Sofia, Bulgaria
5
Faculty of Biology, Plovdiv University, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2026, 13(6), 352; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13060352 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 1 May 2026 / Revised: 16 June 2026 / Accepted: 17 June 2026 / Published: 19 June 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Water Ecology: Aquatic Biodiversity, Habitat Restoration and Conservation)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Soil erosion (SE) is a constant, complex land degradation process, a common natural disaster that occurs all over the world and severely impacts soil fertility, food security, and environmental balance. Soil erosion depends on many factors, including soil properties, slope, vegetation, rainfall amount and intensity, and anthropogenic activities. There are two main natural erosive forces by which soil is eroded and transported—water and wind. Water erosion refers to the detachment, transportation, and deposition of soil particles (solid runoff) into river networks. These particles, varying in size and composition, are the main products of soil erosion and most strongly affect river ecosystems. Solid runoff, or sediment-laden runoff, affects water quality, destroying habitats, carrying pollutants, reducing reservoir storage, and causing flooding. Erosion control activities also influence river ecosystems in different ways. Hydrotechnical facilities, a major erosion control practice, can alter the composition of aquatic biota by disrupting longitudinal connectivity and isolating populations. Reforestation and afforestation are other erosion control practices that have a strong impact on ecosystems. Stormwater retention systems in urban and forest areas are also important measures addressed in this review. This review examines complex environmental interactions and the roles of erosion and erosion control activities in river ecosystems. During the research, several key points were established: erosion and erosion control activities significantly affect river ecosystems. There is a lack of quantitative analysis of erosion intensity and its influence on ecosystems. This is probably due to the exceptional complexity and diversity of river ecosystems, but such a study would provide important information about complex relationships in nature.

1. Introduction

Water erosion is a critical, long-term environmental challenge. It leads to soil degradation [1], increased losses of soil organic carbon [2], reduced food security, and loss of ecosystem services and biodiversity [3], diminishing land productivity and ecosystem stability worldwide [4]. It is a global problem, the most prevalent degradation process, accounting for 56%, followed by wind erosion at 28%, which has significantly increased its scope and intensity [5,6,7]. Erosion is a constant, progressive process [8], with consequences that are always associated with significant monetary losses, destruction, and damage [9]. The global soil erosion rate is projected to increase by 30–66% over the period 2015–2070 under three alternative climate-economic scenarios [10]. Soil erosion results in the loss of an estimated 75 billion tons of soil a year, which in turn causes financial losses of around 400 billion US dollars annually [11].
SE produces two principal categories of harm. The first is immediate and direct, resulting from the erosion process itself, such as the removal of soil or the impairment of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, residences, and agricultural areas [12]. The second category includes indirect effects arising from these primary impacts, notably reduced soil fertility, altered water flow patterns, degraded water quality, and heightened risks to food security [7]. Additionally, erosion may lead to consequences both on-site and off-site [13,14,15,16,17,18].
River ecosystems are among the most diverse ecosystems on Earth, are home to a rich array of biodiversity, and provide numerous benefits to humans [19], but they are highly sensitive to various environmental factors. They are among the most affected by water erosion because erosion means precisely the destruction and transport of eroded soil to watercourses.
The relocation of topsoil, enriched with organic matter, nutrients, and occasionally pollutants, significantly influences various taxonomic groups in rivers, including aquatic plants, invertebrates, and fish. Another major factor showing the effects of erosion on riverine biota is the flow regime, which determines the distribution and availability of distinct habitat types [20]. Sediment loading and diversion or strengthening of torrential rivers change their regime and have a profound effect on flora and fauna [21]. Large amounts of sediment can degrade water quality and disrupt river ecosystems. Excessive sedimentation can suffocate aquatic plants and organisms, reduce biodiversity, and potentially cause long-term damage to the fragile balance in these ecosystems. Hydrotechnical structures, built to strengthen rivers and serve as a major erosion-control practice, can alter the composition of aquatic biota. They can damage rivers by disrupting longitudinal connectivity and isolating populations. However, the construction of hydrotechnical facilities is believed to help increase plant diversity and create new habitats [22]. Afforestation and reforestation are other erosion control methods that significantly affect ecosystems. Over the years, the beneficial effects of trees on the soil, their characteristics, and their ability to reduce water and solid runoff have been studied [23,24,25,26,27]. This depends on many factors, such as slope and exposure, and altitude [28,29]. Dead leaf cover also has a significant effect on runoff amounts. Their effectiveness in reducing erosion processes has been proven many times through enhancing water quality, decreasing sediment and nutrient runoff [30,31,32,33], but in arid and semiarid regions, their impact is typically regarded as a fragile balance between mitigating soil erosion risk and exacerbating water scarcity [34] because they often diminish water quantity through increased evapotranspiration and reduced streamflow [30].
River erosion is a specific type of water erosion. Also called fluvial erosion, it is driven by the energy of flowing water, which increases with stream discharge, velocity, and sediment transport capacity [35]. This dynamic process reshapes landscapes, modifies river channels, and influences surrounding ecosystems through bank erosion and channel adjustment [36,37]. River erosion operates through four principal mechanisms: hydraulic action, abrasion, attrition, and solution, which erode and transport materials from the riverbed and riverbanks [38,39]. The ecological and environmental consequences of water erosion include elevated sediment loads that reduce water clarity, impair aquatic habitats, decrease reservoir storage capacity, and increase flood risk and land loss through bank erosion [40].
SE affects nearly all aspects of human life, it is a pervasive environmental, economic, and social problem, making it more than just a soil issue. It is a highly complex and serious natural risk and, in this regard, research on the influence of erosion on individual ecosystems, such as river ecosystems, is of particular interest to the scientific community [41,42]. In this context, this review aims to link two major and interconnected challenges: soil erosion and the health of river ecosystems.

2. Materials and Methods

Extensive research was conducted using multiple academic sources and scientific databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, as well as professional social networking sites for scientists and researchers, including ResearchGate and Academia.edu. We did not consider conference papers or abstracts for this review, nor did we include any gray literature sources. A substantial number of articles were initially collected based on the specified keywords. The main search keywords included: soil erosion, fluvial erosion, river ecosystems, afforestation, planted forest, runoff, sediment transport, hydromorphology, aquatic plants, water macrophytes, water quality, and turbidity.
Articles were selected based on the following criteria: written in English, published after 2000, and focused on river or aquatic ecosystems. It was necessary to expand the scope of analysis to include articles pertaining to aquatic ecosystems, as focusing only on river ecosystems did not give us comprehensive results. This study is based on the most relevant publications identified through a comprehensive review and analysis.

3. Results

The biogeographic classification of aquatic ecosystems commonly relies on ecoregions [43]. This approach is also used within the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which often uses a top-down framework to define river and lake types. In addition, the longitudinal zonation concept describes several characteristic zones along river systems, each associated with specific ecosystem types [44]: the headwater zone (crenon), typically characterized by low organic matter inputs; the mountain stream zone (rhithron), where coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM) dominates; and the lowland zone (potamon), characterized by lower flow velocity and fine particulate organic matter (FPOM).
Rivers connect terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal marine systems by providing an open route for transport and migration [45]. The defining feature of river ecosystems is flowing water (lotic habitats). There are many classifications of rivers based on abiotic and biotic variables [46], but they are mainly classified by the size and speed of the current.
Water erosion and erosion control activities in water currents are typically associated with rivers in mountainous or semi-mountainous regions because steep slopes are required for detachment, transport, and deposition—features uncommon in rivers in flatter areas.
In water courses with clearly expressed erosion processes in the watershed, several characteristic parts are distinguished. In the upper regions of the watershed, where the gradients are greatest, water flows at maximal velocity and transports a profusion of sediments. As the slope diminishes further downstream, water velocity decreases, reducing its erosive power. In the lower reaches, both the slope of the terrain and flow speed decline, causing the water to lose its capacity for erosion and instead deposit the sediments it carries.
Soil erosion poses significant challenges for water resources due to its strong direct and indirect influence on various elements of the water cycle and on physical changes in water flows. The detailed analysis identified key factors by which water erosion affects river ecosystems. Erosion control activities were considered separately.

3.1. Impact of Water Erosion on River Ecosystems

3.1.1. Physical Alterations of Rivers by Fluvial Erosion

Physical alteration of rivers is a dynamic, natural process, but soil erosion is a primary driver of this alteration. Hydromorphological changes are among the most widespread pressures affecting Europe’s waters [47]. Morphology refers to the shapes of riverbeds, their structure and development, and the changes resulting from water flow and sedimentary processes [48]. River morphology and the surrounding landscapes have evolved continuously. Erosion plays a major role in hydromorphological changes [49], and predicting whether erosion or deposition will occur remains a significant challenge [50]. A better understanding of how erosion influences river morphology could lead to significant benefits for decision-makers and stakeholders and support the development of future models that capture rivers’ natural complexity [51].
Erosion changes a riverbed’s shape and structure in several ways. One is a cross-sectional alteration. This occurs when rivers flow down steep slopes, carving a narrow, deep “V”-shaped channel. Under certain geological conditions, “U”-shaped channels are carved [52]. In flatter regions, lateral erosion occurs as rivers undermine their banks, leading to landslides and widening the riverbed. In some regions, riverbank erosion is a critical public concern with permanent and long-term impacts on people’s lives and the economy [53]. This is because human settlements, arable land, industrial infrastructure, and other features are located too close to eroding riverbanks. For example, along the Danube in Hungary, settlements are at risk, and a large amount of municipal and industrial infrastructure has already been damaged. Archaeological sites in the Bulgarian part of the river are also affected [53]. In Bangladesh, thousands of people were forced to migrate from their places of origin due to bank erosion [53].
The second type involves changes to the longitudinal profile associated with river meanders. To reverse the adverse ecological consequences of the river, re-meandering is used as a suitable river restoration practice to improve water quality, enhance aquatic and riparian habitats, and facilitate human uses [54,55,56]. An example of increased habitat heterogeneity is the River Glaven in the UK [55]. In different streams in Jutland, Denmark, habitat diversity is greater than in channelized reaches, with greater variation in width and depth. However, the author’s general recommendation is that restoration schemes should aim to restore natural structures and enhance the potential to regenerate the natural geomorphological processes that sustain habitats in streams and rivers [56]. Meander correction is also used for flood risk management [57,58]. In one of the sub-watersheds of the River Tweed (UK), the re-meandered reach showed some flood attenuation compared to its former straightened channel [55].
Erosion also shapes the river bottom, producing distinct formations such as potholes in rocky riverbeds and alternating shallow and deep spots [59]. Severe erosion can wash away fine sediments, exposing a rocky-bottomed channel. Along with the width and trough shape of the riverbed, water erosion also affects river depth. Flow velocity is a key hydromorphological element determining the ecological status of the water body [60]. It depends on water discharge and sediment load. Depth directly affects bottom habitats and structure, and it impacts aquatic plant growth by restricting access to carbon dioxide, oxygen, light, and other essential resources [61,62]. Physical changes caused by erosion influence habitat complexity, thereby decreasing biodiversity and the ecological status of surface waters, as the natural morphology of rivers is crucial for aquatic ecosystems [63].

3.1.2. Ecological Balance Through Sedimentation and Pollution

Over the past few decades, major changes have occurred across all ecosystems because of climate change. In river ecosystems, climate change is associated with extreme events, including periods of drought and intense rainfall, increased soil erosion, and sediment siltation. Excess sediment from eroding soils contributes to oxygen depletion during decomposition, which restricts aquatic life. This occurs via aerobic and anaerobic decomposition of organic matter, followed by oxidation reactions [64].
Sediment transport also increases turbidity [65,66]. This reduces light penetration, as suspended sediments can account for up to 80% of variation in light availability [67,68,69], thereby inhibiting metabolic processes and limiting photosynthesis in aquatic plants [70]. In the Ynagtse River, the influence of sediment turbidity has been investigated, and it has been established that turbidity caused by suspended particles can impede irradiance penetration and reduce the photosynthetic capacity of macrophytes [70].
An increased amount of sediment in rivers likewise leads to deterioration in water quality by altering river trophic status [71,72]. The trophic status of water bodies is a key indicator of their ecological health, reflecting the degree of nutrient accumulation (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus) and the resulting biological productivity. Aquatic species serve as bioindicators of lake and river trophic status because of their specific ecological preferences [71,72]. For example, aquatic macrophytes respond strongly to environmental conditions (e.g., light and substrate availability, nutrients) and integrate environmental fluctuations over time at a fine spatial scale [73].
Runoff water often carries sediment particles, which are frequently associated with agricultural nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as pesticide residues. Soil erosion is also considered the main factor in the nano- and microplastic pollution of rivers. It is estimated that about 22,700 tons of nano- and microplastics entered the river system from agricultural land via soil erosion in 2020 [74]. These substances can negatively affect downstream rivers, including drinking water sources [75]. Such nutrient and pollutant inputs can, in turn, influence the structure and composition of aquatic macrophyte communities. Under nutrient stress, bank assemblages are supported in upland rivers, whereas sites exposed to pronounced hydromorphological and chemical disturbance provide conditions for the development of atypical vascular aquatic plant assemblages [76]. Macrophyte abundance tends to decline with increasing nitrogen concentrations, particularly in mountain and semi-mountain rivers, whereas lowland rivers are consistently affected by intensive human land-use pressures [77].
Floodplains are a key component of riverine ecosystems and play a major role in sedimentation. They are dynamic zones that intermittently store and redistribute sediments during overbank flows [78]. For example, research in the Gamcheon River basin found that floodplain vegetation strongly influences sediment deposition, particularly in the long-flood scenario [78]. Floodplains are shaped by flows of water and sediment, which in turn influence and are influenced by biological processes. They are often converted to agricultural and urban development, and these land uses are frequently protected by infrastructure such as dams and levees [79]. Floodplains and river ecosystems function as two separate systems, yet as a single, continuously connected organism through a constant exchange of water, energy, materials, and organisms. A central concept is the Flood Pulse Concept, which holds that rivers and floodplains are linked through exchanges of water, nutrients, organic matter, energy, and organisms [80,81]. During floods, water carries these materials into the main channel, where they nourish aquatic microorganisms and invertebrates. The river, in turn, deposits mineral-rich sediments (alluvium) onto the plain, making riverside soils extremely fertile and supporting dense vegetation [82]. In the Rio Grande floodplain, research has examined how the ecosystem responds to the flood pulse. The study found that during flooding, floodplain sediments became fully saturated, and the water table at the experimental site rose above the forest floor within 1–2 weeks. As water drained from the site, it left the soil enriched with a significant amount of nutrients [82]. When river water spills onto the floodplain, dense vegetation acts as a natural filter. It captures pesticides, heavy metals, and excess nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers from surrounding farmland before the water flows back into the river or seeps into the subsoil. Floodplains are also vital habitats and ecological corridors. They create a mosaic of wetlands, marshes, and riparian habitats that support exceptionally high biodiversity and serve as ecological corridors for numerous terrestrial and aquatic species [83,84].

3.2. Impact of Erosion Control Activities on River Ecosystems

3.2.1. Afforestation and Reforestation

Forests play a key role in regulating the water cycle and protecting soil resources [85]. Undisturbed perennial forestlands generally produce the least amount of runoff and soil erosion among all land use systems [86]. Forests protect soil from water erosion by intercepting rainfall, enhancing water infiltration, and reducing soil erodibility by altering soil properties, primarily through fundamental changes in organic matter and nutrients cycling [87,88].
In disturbed terrain with a high risk of erosion, one of the most common practices is planting forests. It is important to distinguish between afforestation and reforestation (planted forests). Planted forests are forests predominantly composed of trees established through planting and/or deliberate seeding on land that was previously forested, whereas afforestation is the establishment of a forest through planting and/or deliberate seeding on land formerly used for non-forest purposes, thereby effecting a land-use transition from non-forest to forest [89]. However, the terminology is occasionally misused, and reforestation is described as afforestation. Despite their differences, both practices are primary nature-based solutions for mitigating the negative impacts of erosion.
Afforestation and reforestation using monocultures (single-species plantations) of coniferous species are among the most common practices for soil erosion protection worldwide [90]. Forest cultures with pioneer species help mitigate soil erosion; however, they are highly susceptible to adverse impacts from climate change, fungal pathogens, and insect pests. This vulnerability arises because these species are often planted in environments that do not match their optimal growth and development requirements. Compared with monocultures, mixed forests, especially tree-shrub mixtures, significantly reduce annual runoff and sediment yield [91]. In China, mixed forests have been shown to significantly reduce runoff and sediment yield in areas with slopes of 16–25°, sandy soils, and dry regions (HI < 30). Plantation age, slope angle, soil texture, and humidity index also affect soil erosion [91].
Afforestation is among the most effective methods for erosion control [92]. It influences water regulation by increasing infiltration and retention, thereby reducing surface runoff [93]. As a form of land cover change, it may lead to biodiversity loss [94]. It can also cause declines in soil moisture, particularly in water-limited regions [30]. Afforestation significantly reduces water yield at the catchment scale due to increased evapotranspiration [95]. On the Loess Plateau in China, soil has been shown to become extremely dry in both deep and shallow layers after tree planting [95]. These findings underscore the depth and complexity of ecological relationships. In our case, understanding how afforestation affects soil moisture is crucial for studying the water cycle.
Changes in the water cycle after reforestation are influenced by a range of factors, including increased evapotranspiration as forests regenerate, the time since reforestation, prevailing local climate conditions, pre- and post-planting soil characteristics, soil depth, and underlying geology. Because these factors may fluctuate over time, the hydrological outcomes associated with reforestation are site-specific and subject to ongoing change [96].
Silvicultural practices and their associated activities also affect the forest’s protective function. In managed forests, regardless of forest origin, the construction and operation of the forest road network are major contributors to soil degradation and accelerated erosion. Although they occupy a relatively small share of the total area of forest ecosystems (usually less than 10%), forest roads account for over 80% of the sediment removed from watersheds [97,98]. The primary reason is the drastic change in the soil’s physical and mechanical properties. Temporary roads are unpaved and rarely have drainage systems. Compaction from heavy forest equipment significantly reduces microporosity and infiltration capacity. As a result, surface water runoff concentrates in the ruts, transforming them into artificial drainage channels that cause linear erosion (rill and gully).
Proper silvicultural measures should also be considered to reduce sediment and nutrient losses. In some regions of the US, certain silvicultural practices have been shown to reduce sediment by 53–94%, total nitrogen by 60–80%, and phosphorus by 85–86% [99].

3.2.2. Hydrotechnical Facilities

Rivers have historically been heavily modified for various purposes [100]. Fortifications of various sizes and functions are constructed in watercourses and their adjacent areas. Technical work addresses acute problems in protection against torrential floods and sediments [101], promotes slope stability, and reduces both the volume and speed of runoff [102]. These facilities can be transverse, and others are longitudinal protection structures. Transverse structures include spurs, sills, check dams, and longitudinal embankments or levees in the form of guide bunds or banks, afflux bunds, and approach embankments.
Longitudinal protection structures run parallel to riverbanks, primarily to prevent flooding, erosion, and meandering. They are built along natural banks and typically extend over long stretches.
A spur is a structure designed to extend from a riverbank into a stream or river. Its purpose is to redirect water flow away from the bank. A sill is a low, transverse structure placed across a river or stream bed to limit erosion. It is used in areas with moderate or low gradients and serves a purpose similar to that of a check dam, but is smaller.
Check dams are widely recognized as effective structures for erosion control and water retention, providing multiple hydrological and geomorphological benefits [103,104]. For example, research in two small catchments in Greece found that check dams in the Eleonas catchment can retain 11,226.9 m3 of sediment, and those in the Panteleimon catchment can retain 8738.32 m3 of sediment. These results are not at full system capacity and demonstrate how well check dams reduce erosion and regulate sediment transport in this study area [103].
Check dams are transverse structures built across streams, gullies, or torrents. They come in various sizes and can be made from materials such as concrete, loose rocks, gabions, or wood [104]. They induce morphological adjustments and create discontinuities in the fluvial environment, leading to barrier impacts on fish populations [105]. In some cases, this has led to the creation of habitats [106].
The main hydrological benefits of check dams are their ability to regulate runoff and retain sediment. They can also enhance vegetation development and habitat diversity in mountain streams, while improving groundwater recharge and streamflow regulation [106,107]. Sediment detention provides additional substrate for riparian plants, further increasing the potential for infiltration and groundwater storage capacity [107]. However, these alterations in flow and sediment dynamics may also have unintended ecological consequences. Water-level homogenization resulting from physical disturbance is a key factor driving the replacement of native macrophyte communities dominated by aquatic bryophytes with vascular plant communities in upland rivers [76]. An additional negative factor for macrophytes is the transport of suspended sediments. Check dams also affect velocity, which is considered the most important environmental factor for organisms living in rivers. Many species are found either in fast-flowing stream sections or in slow-moving waters, but not in both [60]. A change in the natural flow can weaken or eliminate a given species.

3.2.3. Stormwater Retention Systems

Heavy rainfall, which has become more frequent with climate change, is a major driver of runoff that transports sediment and other particles. To reduce, infiltrate, and slow intense runoff before it reaches urban streams, stormwater retention measures can be implemented. These measures help mitigate erosion by controlling the peak flow rate and total runoff volume reaching vulnerable soils [108]. Effective stormwater management relies on preventing erosion and sediment runoff. Together, they protect water quality, prevent property damage, and maintain landscape stability. In urban areas, stormwater retention measures include green roofs, rain gardens, permeable pavements, and constructed wetlands, although their implementation on slopes requires special consideration because of complex hydrological and geotechnical conditions [109]. To determine the capability of stormwater retention systems, including volumes and percentages of runoff retained, exfiltrated, and drained as outflow in infiltration trenches, and the average peak flow reduction in each infiltration trench, a specially designed, built, and monitored structural soil trench with saplings was used in Melbourne. It was established that increasing the system/catchment size to 39% increased runoff retention to 57%, and reduced peak flows by 76%. Increasing the exfiltration rate to 1 mm h−1, as effectively simulated by the leak, increased retention to 91% and peak flows to 89% [108].
In forested areas, stormwater control measures are designed to reduce erosion, filter pollutants, and maintain natural hydrological cycles during heavy rainfall. These measures function by intercepting rainfall, slowing surface runoff, promoting infiltration, and reducing sediment transport [110]. Riparian buffers, consisting of strips of trees and vegetation along watercourses, are effective at trapping sediments, reducing nutrient and pesticide transport, and mitigating peak flows [111,112]. Wetland buffers and vegetated overland flow areas further improve water quality by retaining sediments, removing nutrients, and attenuating flood peaks through increased water storage and slower flow velocities [113,114].

4. Discussion

Erosion control activities provide significant hydrological and geomorphological benefits; however, they may also cause unintended ecological consequences, particularly for aquatic communities (Table 1). The balance between these positive and negative effects depends strongly on local environmental conditions and the scale of implementation. Therefore, there is a clear need to compile robust, comprehensive datasets on both positive and negative effects to support informed, evidence-based decision-making.
It was established that there is a lack of application of different methodologies for assessing the intensity of erosion and, accordingly, what impact these values have on taxonomic groups in river ecosystems.

5. Conclusions

Soil erosion is a complex environmental process with serious, long-term consequences for river ecosystems. It alters channel morphology, degrades water quality, disrupts ecological stability, and affects biodiversity. Sediment-laden runoff transports nutrients, pollutants, and microplastics, intensifying erosion’s ecological effects on aquatic systems.
At the same time, erosion control activities, including afforestation, reforestation, and hydrotechnical structures, serve a dual function. While they are essential for reducing soil loss, regulating runoff, and stabilizing landscapes, they also lead to changes in hydrological regimes and habitats. These erosion control activities can alter species composition, disrupt ecological connectivity, and, in some cases, create new but different habitats. Their effects are highly dependent on local environmental conditions, measurement practices, and time.
The connections among soil erosion, erosion control activities, and the river ecosystem are highly complex. The primary research gap is the lack of quantitative assessments linking erosion intensity and control measures to measurable ecological indicators. Future research should prioritize developing interdisciplinary approaches, including quantitative methods, to better understand these relationships.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.P.-T. and G.G.; methodology, E.P.-T., G.G. and M.M.; validation, R.Y. and E.T.; formal analysis, D.D., M.G. and K.P.; investigation, G.G., B.K. and V.M.; resources, M.G., S.B. and D.D.; data curation, S.B., K.V. and D.D.; writing—original draft preparation, E.P.-T., G.G., K.V., B.G. and S.B.; writing—review and editing, E.P.-T., G.G., E.T. and S.B., visualization, E.P.-T.; supervision, G.G.; project administration, E.P.-T.; funding acquisition, E.P.-T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Bulgarian National Science Fund, under the 2025 Fundamental Research Funding Competition [Grant No KΠ-06-H96/6].

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed at the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to the Bulgarian National Science Fund, which supported this work through funding underthe 2025 Fundamental Research Funding Competition [Grant No KΠ-06-H96/6].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
SESoil erosion

References

  1. Wang, L.; Yan, H.; Wang, X.W.; Wang, Z.; Yu, S.X.; Wang, T.W.; Shi, Z.H. The Potential for Soil Erosion Control Associated with Socio-Economic Development in the Hilly Red Soil Region, Southern China. Catena 2020, 194, 104678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lal, R. Accelerated Soil Erosion as a Source of Atmospheric CO2. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 188, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Scholes, R.; Montanarella, L.; Brainich, A.; Barger, N.; Brink, B.T. The Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration: Summary for Policymakers; Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): Bonn, Germany, 2018; ISBN 978-3-947851-04-1. [Google Scholar]
  4. Firoozi, A.A.; Firoozi, A.A. Water Erosion Processes: Mechanisms, Impact, and Management Strategies. Results Eng. 2024, 24, 103237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Montanarella, L.; Pennock, D.J.; McKenzie, N.; Badraoui, M.; Chude, V.; Baptista, I.; Mamo, T.; Yemefack, M.; Singh, A.M.; Yagi, K.; et al. World’s soils are under threat. Soil 2016, 2, 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lal, R. Soil Erosion by Wind and Water: Problems and Prospects. In Soil Erosion Research Methods; Lal, R., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 1–10. ISBN 978-0-203-73935-8. [Google Scholar]
  7. Shokri, N.; Robinson, D.A.; Afshar, M.; Alewell, C.; Aminzadeh, M.; Arthur, E.; Broothaerts, N.; Campbell, G.A.; Eklund, L.; Gupta, S.; et al. Rethinking Global Soil Degradation: Drivers, Impacts, and Solutions. Rev. Geophys. 2025, 63, e2025RG000883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Spalevic, V.; Barovic, G.; Vujacic, D.; Curovic, M.; Behzadfar, M.; Djurovic, N.; Dudic, B.; Billi, P. The Impact of Land Use Changes on Soil Erosion in the River Basin of Miocki Potok, Montenegro. Water 2020, 12, 2973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Marinov, I.T.; Pavlova-Traykova, E. Flood Risk Assessment in Connection with Ecosystem Services in Smolyan Region, Bulgaria. For. Sci. 2018, 2, 83–90. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sartori, M.; Ferrari, E.; M’Barek, R.; Philippidis, G.; Boysen-Urban, K.; Borrelli, P.; Montanarella, L.; Panagos, P. Remaining Loyal to Our Soil: A Prospective Integrated Assessment of Soil Erosion on Global Food Security. Ecol. Econ. 2024, 219, 108103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Borrelli, P.; Robinson, D.A.; Fleischer, L.R.; Lugato, E.; Ballabio, C.; Alewell, C.; Meusburger, K.; Modugno, S.; Schütt, B.; Ferro, V.; et al. An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Li, X.; Cooper, J.R.; Plater, A.J. Quantifying Erosion Hazards and Economic Damage to Critical Infrastructure in River Catchments: Impact of a Warming Climate. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 32, 100287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lal, R. Soil Degradation by Erosion. Land Degrad. Dev. 2001, 12, 519–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Boardman, J.; Poesen, J. Soil Erosion in Europe; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2006; ISBN 978-0-470-85910-0. [Google Scholar]
  15. Majoro, F.; Wali, U.G.; Munyaneza, O.; Naramabuye, F.-X.; Mukamwambali, C. On-Site and Off-Site Effects of Soil Erosion: Causal Analysis and Remedial Measures in Agricultural Land—A Review. Rwanda J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Environ. 2020, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pandey, S.; Kumar, P.; Zlatic, M.; Nautiyal, R.; Panwar, V.P. Recent Advances in Assessment of Soil Erosion Vulnerability in a Watershed. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2021, 9, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. De Vente, J.; Poesen, J.; Verstraeten, G.; Govers, G.; Vanmaercke, M.; Van Rompaey, A.; Arabkhedri, M.; Boix-Fayos, C. Predicting Soil Erosion and Sediment Yield at Regional Scales: Where Do We Stand? Earth-Sci. Rev. 2013, 127, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Daggupati, P.; Sheshukov, A.Y.; Douglas-Mankin, K.R. Evaluating Ephemeral Gullies with a Process-Based Topographic Index Model. Catena 2014, 113, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hanna, D.E.L.; Tomscha, S.A.; Ouellet Dallaire, C.; Bennett, E.M. A Review of Riverine Ecosystem Service Quantification: Research Gaps and Recommendations. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 1299–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung The Soil Atlas. 2024. Available online: https://eu.boell.org/SoilAtlas (accessed on 20 April 2026).
  21. Bunn, S.E.; Arthington, A.H. Basic Principles and Ecological Consequences of Altered Flow Regimes for Aquatic Biodiversity. Environ. Manag. 2002, 30, 492–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Brooks, A.J.; Wolfenden, B.; Downes, B.J.; Lancaster, J. Barriers to Dispersal: The Effect of a Weir on Stream Insect Drift. River Res. Appl. 2018, 34, 1244–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bombino, G.; Tamburino, V.; Zimbone, S.M. Assessment of the Effects of Check-Dams on Riparian Vegetation in the Mediterranean Environment: A Methodological Approach and Example Application. Ecol. Eng. 2006, 27, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Parhizkar, M. Effects of Tree and Shrub Species on Soil Quality, Sediment Detachment Capacity Caused by Rills and Surface Slope Stability in Forest Lands of Northern Iran. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2024, 39, 795–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, P.; Qi, S.; Zhang, L.; Tang, Y.; Lai, J.; Liao, R.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, J.; Lu, J.; et al. The Effect of Different Vegetation Restoration Types on Soil Quality in Mountainous Areas of Beijing. Forests 2023, 14, 2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Martin, C.; Pohl, M.; Alewell, C.; Körner, C.; Rixen, C. Interrill Erosion at Disturbed Alpine Sites: Effects of Plant Functional Diversity and Vegetation Cover. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2010, 11, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, Z.; Hou, Y.; Fang, H.; Yu, D.; Zhang, M.; Xu, C.; Chen, M.; Sun, L. Effects of Plant Species Diversity on Soil Conservation and Stability in the Secondary Succession Phases of a Semihumid Evergreen Broadleaf Forest in China. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2012, 67, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fu, B.-J.; Wang, Y.-F.; Lu, Y.-H.; He, C.-S.; Chen, L.-D.; Song, C.-J. The Effects of Land-Use Combinations on Soil Erosion: A Case Study in the Loess Plateau of China. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2009, 33, 793–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nyairo, R. Effect of Slope on Water Run-off and Soil Vulnerability in an Unglaciated Sub-Watershed: A Case Study of Conservation Practice Siting. Environ. Syst. Res. 2024, 13, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Farley, K.A.; Jobbágy, E.G.; Jackson, R.B. Effects of Afforestation on Water Yield: A Global Synthesis with Implications for Policy. Glob. Change Biol. 2005, 11, 1565–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Porto, P.; Walling, D.E.; Callegari, G. Investigating the Effects of Afforestation on Soil Erosion and Sediment Mobilisation in Two Small Catchments in Southern Italy. Catena 2009, 79, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Romero-Diaz, A.; Belmonte-Serrato, F.; Ruiz-Sinoga, J.D. The Geomorphic Impact of Afforestations on Soil Erosion in Southeast Spain. Land Degrad. Dev. 2010, 21, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sisay, M.W. Evaluating the Impact of Assisted Natural Regeneration and Afforestation on Soil Erosion Dynamics Using High-Resolution Imagery in Semi-Arid Ethiopia. Sci. Rep. 2026, 16, 9795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sensoy, H.; Kara, O. Slope Shape Effect on Runoff and Soil Erosion under Natural Rainfall Conditions. iForest-Biogeosciences For. 2014, 7, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Popović, P.; Devauchelle, O.; Abramian, A.; Lajeunesse, E. Sediment Load Determines the Shape of Rivers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 118, e2111215118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kronvang, B.; Andersen, H.E.; Larsen, S.E.; Audet, J. Importance of Bank Erosion for Sediment Input, Storage and Export at the Catchment Scale. J. Soils Sediments 2013, 13, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hooke, J. Morphodynamics of Active Meandering Rivers Reviewed in a Hierarchy of Spatial and Temporal Scales. Geomorphology 2023, 439, 108825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nda, M.; Bida, S.M.; Jiya, G.S.; Ebenehi, I.Y.; Adama, G. Riverbank Erosion, Sediment Transport and Reservoir Sedimentation: An Overview. Savannah J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2023, 1, 210–214. [Google Scholar]
  39. Müller-Hagmann, M.; Albayrak, I.; Auel, C.; Boes, R.M. Field Investigation on Hydroabrasion in High-Speed Sediment-Laden Flows at Sediment Bypass Tunnels. Water 2020, 12, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gonzalez Rodriguez, L.; McCallum, A.; Kent, D.; Rathnayaka, C.; Fairweather, H. A Review of Sedimentation Rates in Freshwater Reservoirs: Recent Changes and Causative Factors. Aquat. Sci. 2023, 85, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Florsheim, J.L.; Mount, J.F.; Chin, A. Bank Erosion as a Desirable Attribute of Rivers. BioScience 2008, 58, 519–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wantzen, K.; Mol, J. Soil Erosion from Agriculture and Mining: A Threat to Tropical Stream Ecosystems. Agriculture 2013, 3, 660–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Funk, S.M. Ecoregions: Mapping Ecosystems to Protect Biodiversity. In Life on Land; Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals; Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Salvia, A.L., Wall, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 270–282. ISBN 978-3-319-95980-1. [Google Scholar]
  44. Doretto, A.; Piano, E.; Larson, C.E. The River Continuum Concept: Lessons from the Past and Perspectives for the Future. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2020, 77, 1853–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dooge, J.C.I. (Ed.) Fresh Surface Water. In Encyclopedia of Water Sciences, Engineering and Technology Resources. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS); EOLSS Publishers Co. Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2009; Available online: https://www.eolss.net (accessed on 20 April 2026).
  46. Ouellet Dallaire, C.; Lehner, B.; Sayre, R.; Thieme, M. A Multidisciplinary Framework to Derive Global River Reach Classifications at High Spatial Resolution. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 024003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Carvalho, L.; Mackay, E.B.; Cardoso, A.C.; Baattrup-Pedersen, A.; Birk, S.; Blackstock, K.L.; Borics, G.; Borja, A.; Feld, C.K.; Ferreira, M.T.; et al. Protecting and restoring Europe’s waters: An analysis of the future development needs of the Water Framework Directive. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 658, 1228–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Li, H.; Xu, X.; Wu, M.; Liu, Z. Spatiotemporal Evolution Trajectory of Channel Morphology and Controlling Factors of Yongding River, Beijing, China. Water 2021, 13, 1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hohensinner, S.; Hauer, C.; Muhar, S. River Morphology, Channelization, and Habitat Restoration. In Riverine Ecosystem Management; Schmutz, S., Sendzimir, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 41–65. ISBN 978-3-319-73249-7. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kim, H.; Yoo, H.; Paik, K.; Kim, D.-H. Qualitative Assessment Model for Longitudinal Riverbed Erosion and Deposition Based on Suspended Sediment Impacts and Hydraulic Geometry Relationship. J. Hydrol. 2025, 657, 133049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hasan, I.; Dey, J.; Munna, M.M.R.; Preya, A.; Nisanur, T.B.; Memy, M.J.; Zeba, M.Z.S. Morphological Changes of River Bank Erosion and Channel Shifting Assessment on Arial Khan River of Bangladesh Using Landsat Satellite Time Series Images. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2024, 24, 100381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yan, Q.; Iwasaki, T.; Stumpf, A.; Belmont, P.; Parker, G.; Kumar, P. Hydrogeomorphological Differentiation between Floodplains and Terraces. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2018, 43, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Das, T.K.; Haldar, S.K.; Das Gupta, I.; Sen, S. River Bank Erosion Induced Human Displacement and Its Consequences. Living Rev. Landsc. Res. 2014, 8, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kondolf, G.M. River Restoration and Meanders. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, art42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Costaz-Puyou, I.; Williams, R.; Black, A.; Spray, C.; MacDonell, C. Re-Meandering Attenuates Frequent High-Flows and Diversifies Physical Habitat in a Gravel-Bed River. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 388, 125672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Pedersen, M.L.; Kristensen, K.K.; Friberg, N. Re-meandering of lowland streams: Will disobeying the laws of geomorphology have ecological consequences? PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e108558, Erratum in PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118939. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  57. Zhu, Q.; Klaar, M.; Willis, T.; Holden, J. A Quantitative Review of Natural Flood Management Research. WIREs Water 2025, 12, e1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pearson, E.; Baldwin, M.; Bard, H.; Bromley, T.; Broomby, J.; Burgess, T.; Burgess-Gamble, L.; Champion, H.; Hannah, E.; Hankin, B.; et al. Working with Natural Processes: Evidence Directory Update; Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 2025.
  59. Jadhav, R.; Thite, S.; Pawar, S.; Patil, K.; Chumchu, P. Exploring the Natural Pothole Dataset Generated by the Abrasion and Cavitation Effects of River Water on Rocks. Data Brief 2024, 57, 110873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Lenar-Matyas, A.; Korpak, J.; Wałęga, A.; Radecki-Pawlik, A. The Impact of Anthropogenic Modification of a Mountain River Channel on the Quality of Aquatic Habitats. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 392, 126625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Lin, X.; Wu, X.; Gao, Z.; Ge, X.; Xiong, J.; Tan, L.; Wei, H. The Effects of Water Depth on the Growth of Two Emergent Plants in an In-Situ Experiment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Li, C.; Zhang, Y.-H.; Wu, X.-X.; Jiang, Y.-S.; Li, W.-T.; Zhang, P.-D. Changes in Survival and Growth in Response to Different Combinations of Turbidity and Duration in Eelgrass Zostera Marina Plants. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2021, 249, 107108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Damseth, S.; Thakur, K.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, S.; Mahajan, D.; Kumari, H.; Sharma, D.; Sharma, A.K. Assessing the Impacts of River Bed Mining on Aquatic Ecosystems: A Critical Review of Effects on Water Quality and Biodiversity. HydroResearch 2024, 7, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Anthony, K.R.N.; Ridd, P.V.; Orpin, A.R.; Larcombe, P.; Lough, J. Temporal Variation of Light Availability in Coastal Benthic Habitats: Effects of Clouds, Turbidity, and Tides. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2004, 49, 2201–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Shen, X.; Sun, T.; Su, M.; Dang, Z.; Yang, Z. Short-Term Response of Aquatic Ecosystem Metabolism to Turbidity Disturbance in Experimental Estuarine Wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 136, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Teng, W.; Guoxiang, W.; Qiang, L. Effects of Water Turbidity on the Photosynthetic Characteristics of Myriophyllum spicatum L. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2007, 6, 773–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Abhari, M.N.; Iranshahi, M.; Ghodsian, M.; Firoozabadi, B. Experimental Study of Obstacle Effect on Sediment Transport of Turbidity Currents. J. Hydraul. Res. 2018, 56, 618–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Davies-Colley, R.J.; Smith, D.G. Turbidity, Suspended Sediment, and Water Clarity: A Review. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2001, 37, 1085–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schneider, S. Macrophyte Trophic Indicator Values from a European Perspective. Limnologica 2007, 37, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Issaka, S.; Ashraf, M.A. Impact of soil erosion and degradation on water quality: A review. Geol. Ecol. Landsc. 2017, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Li, Y.; Fang, L.; Wang, Y.; Mi, W.; Ji, L.; Zhang, G.; Yang, P.; Chen, Z.; Bi, Y. Anthropogenic Activities Accelerated the Evolution of River Trophic Status. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 136, 108584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lee, M.-H.; Jung, H.-J.; Kim, S.-H.; An, S.-U.; Choi, J.H.; Lee, H.-J.; Huh, I.-A.; Hur, J. Potential Linkage between Sediment Oxygen Demand and Pore Water Chemistry in Weir-Impounded Rivers. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 619–620, 1608–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Jupke, J.F.; Birk, S.; Apostolou, A.; Aroviita, J.; Baattrup-Pedersen, A.; Baláži, P.; Barešová, L.; Blanco, S.; Borrego-Ramos, M.; van Dam, H.; et al. European River Typologies Fail to Capture Diatom, Fish, and Macrophyte Community Composition. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 896, 165081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Wang, Y.; Jing, S.; Hou, P.; Ni, R.; Niu, L.; Wanger, T.C.; Liu, W.; Liu, K. Soil Erosion Is a Major Drive for Nano & Micro-Plastics to Enter Riverine Systems from Cultivated Land. Water Res. 2024, 256, 121597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Abeysingha, N.S.; Ray, R.L. Rivers at Risk, Soil Erosion in a Changing Climate: A Comprehensive Review. Discov. Soil 2025, 2, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gecheva, G.; Pall, K.; Todorov, M.; Traykov, I.; Gribacheva, N.; Stankova, S.; Birk, S. Anthropogenic Stressors in Upland Rivers: Aquatic Macrophyte Responses. A Case Study from Bulgaria. Plants 2021, 10, 2708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Lemm, J.U.; Venohr, M.; Globevnik, L.; Stefanidis, K.; Panagopoulos, Y.; Van Gils, J.; Posthuma, L.; Kristensen, P.; Feld, C.K.; Mahnkopf, J.; et al. Multiple Stressors Determine River Ecological Status at the European Scale: Towards an Integrated Understanding of River Status Deterioration. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 1962–1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Fernandez, J.E.; Kim, S.; Jang, E.; Kang, W. Assessment of Floodplain Sediment Deposition Using Synthetic Aperture Radar-Based Surface Deformation Analysis. Water 2025, 17, 3137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Opperman, J.J.; Galloway, G.E.; Duvail, S. The Multiple Benefits of River–Floodplain Connectivity for People and Biodiversity. In Encyclopedia of Biodiversity; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 144–160. ISBN 978-0-12-384720-1. [Google Scholar]
  80. Nagel, G.W.; De Moraes Novo, E.M.L.; Martins, V.S.; Campos-Silva, J.V.; Barbosa, C.C.F.; Bonnet, M.P. Impacts of Meander Migration on the Amazon Riverine Communities Using Landsat Time Series and Cloud Computing. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Tockner, K.; Malard, F.; Ward, J.V. Floodplain–River Ecosystems: Lateral Connections and the Implications of Human Interference. Geomorphology 2003, 56, 335–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Valett, H.M.; Baker, M.A.; Morrice, J.A.; Crawford, C.S.; Molles, M.C.; Dahm, C.N.; Moyer, D.L.; Thibault, J.R.; Ellis, L.M. Biogeochemical and metabolic responses to the flood pulse in semiarid floodplain. Ecology 2005, 86, 220–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Stoffers, T.; Buijse, A.D.; Geerling, G.W.; Jans, L.H.; Schoor, M.M.; Poos, J.J.; Verreth, J.A.J.; Nagelkerke, L.A.J. Freshwater Fish Biodiversity Restoration in Floodplain Rivers Requires Connectivity and Habitat Heterogeneity at Multiple Spatial Scales. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 838, 156509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Tockner, K.; Pusch, M.; Borchardt, D.; Lorang, M.S. Multiple Stressors in Coupled River–Floodplain Ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 2010, 55, 135–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Franklin, P.; Dunbar, M.; Whitehead, P. Flow Controls on Lowland River Macrophytes: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 400, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lal, R. Soil Erosion Under Forests. In Principles of Soil Conservation and Management; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 321–344. ISBN 978-90-481-8529-0. [Google Scholar]
  87. Liu, Y.-F.; Liu, Y.; Shi, Z.-H.; López-Vicente, M.; Wu, G.-L. Effectiveness of Re-Vegetated Forest and Grassland on Soil Erosion Control in the Semi-Arid Loess Plateau. Catena 2020, 195, 104787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Haghverdi, K.; Kooch, Y. Long-Term Afforestation Effect and Help to Optimize Degraded Forest Lands and Reducing Climate Changes. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 142, 105656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Terms and Definitions; Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper Series; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2025; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a6e225da-4a31-4e06-818d-ca3aeadfd635/content (accessed on 22 April 2026).
  90. Moldovan, M.; Tăut, I.; Rebrean, F.A.; Szilard, B.; Arion, I.D.; Dîrja, M. Determining the Anti-Erosion Efficiency of Forest Stands Installed on Degraded Land. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gong, C.; Tan, Q.; Liu, G.; Xu, M. Impacts of Mixed Forests on Controlling Soil Erosion in China. Catena 2022, 213, 106147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Geng, W.; Hu, Z.; Duan, C.; Zhang, X.; Wang, M.; Wang, H.; Strauss, P. Integrated Land Preparation and Afforestation Enhance Soil Erosion Resistance in the Hilly and Gully Region of the Loess Plateau, China. Catena 2026, 263, 109707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Enescu, C.M.; Mihalache, M.; Ilie, L.; Dincă, L.; Timofte, A.I.; Murariu, G. Afforestation of Degraded Lands: A Global Review of Practices, Species, and Ecological Outcomes. Forests 2025, 16, 1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Prangel, E.; Kasari-Toussaint, L.; Neuenkamp, L.; Noreika, N.; Karise, R.; Marja, R.; Ingerpuu, N.; Kupper, T.; Keerberg, L.; Oja, E.; et al. Afforestation and Abandonment of Semi-natural Grasslands Lead to Biodiversity Loss and a Decline in Ecosystem Services and Functions. J. Appl. Ecol. 2023, 60, 825–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Jia, X.; Shao, M.; Zhu, Y.; Luo, Y. Soil Moisture Decline Due to Afforestation across the Loess Plateau, China. J. Hydrol. 2017, 546, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Van Meerveld, I.; Seibert, J. Reforestation Effects on Low Flows: Review of Public Perceptions and Scientific Evidence. WIREs Water 2025, 12, e1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Buniran, M.N.; Ismail, M.H.; Zaki, P.H.; Bawon, P.; Gandaseca, S. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Erosion Occurrences on Forest Roads. Glob. For. J. 2026, 4, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Duţă, C.; Borz, S.; Sălăjan, A. Estimating current state of soil erosion induced by skid trails geometry in mountainous conditions. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2018, 17, 697–704. [Google Scholar]
  99. Edwards, P.J.; Williard, K.W.J. Efficiencies of Forestry Best Management Practices for Reducing Sediment and Nutrient Losses in the Eastern United States. J. For. 2010, 108, 245–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gibling, M.R. River Systems and the Anthropocene: A Late Pleistocene and Holocene Timeline for Human Influence. Quaternary 2018, 1, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kostadinov, S.; Braunović, S.; Dragićević, S.; Zlatić, M.; Dragović, N.; Rakonjac, N. Effects of Erosion Control Works: Case Study—Grdelica Gorge, the South Morava River (Serbia). Water 2018, 10, 1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Shrestha, A.B.; Ezee, G.C.; Adhikary, R.P.; Rai, S.K. Resource Manual on Flash Flood Risk Management; Module 3—Structural Measures; International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD): Kathmandu, Nepal, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  103. Theofanidis, A.; Kastridis, A.; Sapountzis, M. Effectiveness of Torrential Erosion Control Structures (Check Dams) Under Post-Fire Conditions—The Importance of Immediate Construction. Land 2025, 14, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Lucas-Borja, M.E.; Piton, G.; Yu, Y.; Castillo, C.; Antonio Zema, D. Check Dams Worldwide: Objectives, Functions, Effectiveness and Undesired Effects. Catena 2021, 204, 105390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Jones, P.E.; Consuegra, S.; Börger, L.; Jones, J.; Garcia De Leaniz, C. Impacts of Artificial Barriers on the Connectivity and Dispersal of Vascular Macrophytes in Rivers: A Critical Review. Freshw. Biol. 2020, 65, 1165–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Bombino, G.; Boix-Fayos, C.; Gurnell, A.M.; Tamburino, V.; Zema, D.A.; Zimbone, S.M. Check Dam Influence on Vegetation Species Diversity in Mountain Torrents of the Mediterranean Environment. Ecohydrology 2014, 7, 678–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Norman, L.M.; Brinkerhoff, F.; Gwilliam, E.; Guertin, D.P.; Callegary, J.; Goodrich, D.C.; Nagler, P.L.; Gray, F. Hydrologic Response of Streams Restored with Check Dams in the Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona. River Res. Appl. 2016, 32, 519–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hanley, P.A.; Livesley, S.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Grey, V.; Szota, C. Stormwater Retention Performance of Tree Integrated Infiltration Trenches Designed for Suburban Streetscapes. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 954, 176634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Chen, B.; Chui, T.F.M. A Review on Implementing Sustainable Drainage Systems in Sloping Environments: Understanding, Approaches, and Opportunities. J. Hydrol. 2025, 661, 133577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Hawks, B.S.; Aust, W.M.; Bolding, M.C.; Barrett, S.M.; Schilling, E.B.; Prisley, S.P. Increased levels of forestry best management practices reduce sediment delivery from Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain clearcut harvests and access features, southeastern states, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 529, 120697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Stutter, M.; Costa, F.B.; Ó hUallacháin, D. The interactions of site-specific factors on riparian buffer effectiveness across multiple pollutants: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 798, 149238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Tsai, Y.; Zabronsky, H.M.; Zia, A.; Beckage, B. Efficacy of Riparian Buffers in Phosphorus Removal: A Meta-Analysis. Front. Water 2022, 4, 882560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Walton, C.R.; Zak, D.; Audet, J.; Petersen, R.J.; Lange, J.; Oehmke, C.; Wichtmann, W.; Kreyling, J.; Grygoruk, M.; Jabłońska, E.; et al. Wetland buffer zones for nitrogen and phosphorus retention: Impacts of soil type, hydrology and vegetation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 727, 138709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Bring, A.; Thorslund, J.; Rosén, L.; Tonderski, K.; Åberg, C.; Envall, I.; Laudon, H. Effects on groundwater storage of restoring, constructing or draining wetlands in temperate and boreal climates: A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 2022, 11, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Positive and negative effects of erosion control activities on river ecosystems.
Table 1. Positive and negative effects of erosion control activities on river ecosystems.
Erosion Control ActivityPositive EffectsNegative EffectsReferences
Afforestation/ReforestationReduces soil erosion and surface runoff; improves water infiltration and soil stability; decreases sediment and nutrient transport to rivers; enhances water qualityMay reduce streamflow due to increased evapotranspiration; can lead to soil moisture depletion; potential biodiversity loss, especially in monocultures; alteration of natural habitats[30,31,94,95]
Check damsReduce runoff velocity; enhance sediment retention; promote groundwater recharge; create new habitats; increase riparian vegetation establishmentDisrupt longitudinal connectivity; act as barriers for aquatic organisms; alter natural flow regime; may lead to water level homogenization and changes in macrophyte communities; sediment accumulation upstream[76,104,106,107]
Sills and grade-control structuresStabilize riverbeds; reduce channel incision and headward erosion; control sediment transport; maintain channel morphologyModify natural sediment dynamics; alter habitat structure; may reduce habitat heterogeneity[49,102]
Spurs (groynes)Redirect flow away from banks; reduce bank erosion; stabilize riverbanksAlter flow patterns; may cause local erosion downstream; reduce habitat connectivity and diversity[22,49]
Embankments/leveesProtect against flooding; stabilize riverbanks; prevent lateral erosionDisconnect rivers from floodplains; reduce habitat diversity; alter natural hydrological processes[21,49]
Vegetation buffer strips/riparian vegetation restorationTrap sediments and nutrients; improve water quality; stabilize banks; enhance biodiversity and ecological functioningMay reduce available land for agriculture; effectiveness depends on width, vegetation type, and maintenance[27,26,87]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pavlova-Traykova, E.; Belilov, S.; Vassilev, K.; Dimitrov, D.; Mitova, M.; Yaneva, R.; Petrova, K.; Todorova, E.; Koychev, B.; Marinkov, V.; et al. Impact of Water Erosion and Erosion Control Activities on River Ecosystems: A Review. Environments 2026, 13, 352. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13060352

AMA Style

Pavlova-Traykova E, Belilov S, Vassilev K, Dimitrov D, Mitova M, Yaneva R, Petrova K, Todorova E, Koychev B, Marinkov V, et al. Impact of Water Erosion and Erosion Control Activities on River Ecosystems: A Review. Environments. 2026; 13(6):352. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13060352

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pavlova-Traykova, Eli, Sevdalin Belilov, Kiril Vassilev, Dimitar Dimitrov, Milena Mitova, Rositsa Yaneva, Kameliya Petrova, Elena Todorova, Blagoy Koychev, Veselin Marinkov, and et al. 2026. "Impact of Water Erosion and Erosion Control Activities on River Ecosystems: A Review" Environments 13, no. 6: 352. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13060352

APA Style

Pavlova-Traykova, E., Belilov, S., Vassilev, K., Dimitrov, D., Mitova, M., Yaneva, R., Petrova, K., Todorova, E., Koychev, B., Marinkov, V., Genova, B., Georgiev, M., & Gecheva, G. (2026). Impact of Water Erosion and Erosion Control Activities on River Ecosystems: A Review. Environments, 13(6), 352. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13060352

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop