water

Article
Research on Sediment Deposition Characteristics and the
Vegetation Restoration of Ecological Riverbanks in the Deep
Waterway Regulation Scheme of Yangtze River
Jinpeng Li 1, * , Xuexia Wang 2 and Lei Wu 3

1 China Waterborne Transport Research Institute, Beijing 100088, China

2 Institute of Plant Nutrition, Resources and Environment, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry
Sciences, Beijing 100097, China; wxx0427@163.com
3 College of Forestry, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China;
wuleiibk@163.com
* Correspondence: lijinpeng@wti.ac.cn

Abstract: In order to explore the sediment deposition characteristic of ecological riverbanks associated
with vegetation restoration in the deep waterway regulation scheme of Yangtze River, two kinds
of typical ecological riverbanks and a traditional riprap riverbank (TRR) in engineering areas were
investigated. The vegetation community characteristics, sediment aggregate compositions, nutrient
contents, total organic carbon (TOC), sediment microbial biomass carbon (MBC), sediment microbial
biomass nitrogen (MBN), and sediment microbial biomass phosphorus (MBP) were determined.
The results indicated that the ecological restoration effect of the lattice gabion ballasted vegetation
mat riverbank (LGBVR) was best, followed by the mesh grid riverbank (MGR), and that of the
TRR was relatively poor. In different ecological riverbanks, the sediment aggregated compositions
were not significantly varied. The sediment contents of NH4 + -N, available phosphorus (AP), and
TOC in ecological riverbank areas were relatively higher than those of the TRR. In the LGBVR, the
sediment contents of MBC were relatively higher than those of the others. The sediment deposition
characteristics and ecological restoration effects in the study area should be monitored for a long time.
Citation: Li, J.; Wang, X.; Wu, L.
Keywords: sediment deposition; ecological riverbank; deep waterway; Yangtze River
Research on Sediment Deposition
Characteristics and the Vegetation
Restoration of Ecological Riverbanks
in the Deep Waterway Regulation
Scheme of Yangtze River. Water 2024, 1. Introduction
16, 2350. https://doi.org/10.3390/ As an important ecotone between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, a riparian zone
w16162350 can act as an indispensable corridor for substance, energy, and biological information
Academic Editors: Vito Ferro and flows [1–3]. At the same time, riparian zones have been strongly impacted and modified
Alessio Nicosia by artificial projects and natural flow regime alternations [4]. Conventionally, rock and
concrete materials have been widely applicated in riverbank protection projects. This
Received: 15 July 2024 emphasizes the structural stability and safety of flood control. However, these hard river-
Revised: 12 August 2024
banks and stream canalizations have negative effects on riparian ecosystems, ecological
Accepted: 20 August 2024
integrity, habitat connectivity, and esthetic value [5–8]. As effective methods for riparian
Published: 21 August 2024
protection and restoration, the ecological riverbank concepts have been widely accepted
and applied in developed countries, such as countries in the European Union, the USA,
and Japan, for years [9–11]. Ecological riverbank development is a promising tool to
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
maintain structure stability, safety, and riparian ecological restoration [12]. Recently, eco-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. logical riverbanks have played significant roles in improving surface water quality, aquatic
This article is an open access article ecosystem health, and biodiversity protection in the lower Yangtze River basin [13], and
distributed under the terms and they have become the main development trend in waterway regulation projects on eco-
conditions of the Creative Commons logical construction [12,14,15]. In general, for different rivers and navigation conditions,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// ecological riverbank development must conform to engineering stability and facilitate the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ growth of plants, organisms’ movement, surface and groundwater flow, riparian ecosystem
4.0/). protection, and ecological restoration effects [16,17].

Water 2024, 16, 2350. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16162350 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2024, 16, 2350 2 of 10

The Yangtze River waterway has unique advantages and great development potential
in navigation development, and it is known as the “golden waterway”, which is the main
framework for building a comprehensive three-dimensional transportation corridor in the
Yangtze River Economic Belt. In recent years, new riverbank structures such as concrete
grids, steel wire mesh gabions, and geogrids have been adopted to the waterway regulation
scheme in Yangtze River [15,18]. During the construction of the 12.5 m deep waterway
regulation scheme of Yangtze River below Nanjing, a variety of ecological riverbank forms
were developed and applied in some river sections. In this study, two kinds of typical
ecological riverbanks and a riprap riverbank in the engineering areas were selected and
surveyed in 2018. The vegetation restoration and sediment deposition characteristics
associated with ecological riverbanks were investigated in this study. The objectives of
this study were as follows: (1) to assess vegetation restoration and sediment deposition
characteristics in different ecological riverbanks; (2) to explore the ecological effects and
influence factors associated with ecological riverbank restoration; (3) to provide practices
for the structural design of ecological riverbanks in the waterway regulation scheme of
Yangtze River.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
As the national key engineer of the 12th and 13th five-year plans in China, the 12.5 m
deep waterway regulation scheme of Yangtze River below Nanjing started in June 2015
and was completed in June 2017. With the river reach length of 227 km, it includes
the Fujiangsha waterway, Kouanzhi waterway, Hechangzhou waterway, and Yizheng
waterway [19]. Affected by tidal flow at varying degrees, the Yangtze River is located at
a fluvial plain in this section near to the estuary. In this study area of Yangtze River, the
hydrodynamic and sediment movements are complex, which are affected by the current to
varying degrees [20].
In this study, the traditional riprap riverbank (TRR) region (Figure 1a) and two typ-
ical ecological riverbanks, including a lattice gabion ballasted vegetation-mat riverbank
(LGBVR) region (Figure 1b) and a mesh grid riverbank (MGR) region (Figure 1c), were
selected as study areas to explore the vegetation restoration associated with the sediment
deposition characteristic in the dry season in November of 2018.

2.2. Sampling Surveys

At the spatial scale for the MGR region, 3 survey transects were set perpendicular to
the river flow direction (Figure 1c). On each transect, 3 sampling sites were set at equal
distances along the transverse gradient of the riparian zone. There were 12 sampling sites
(E1–E12) for the MGR region. As for the LGBVR region, 2 gabions with 2 sampling sites (L1
and L2) were randomly selected (Figure 1b). As for the TRR region, 3 survey transects were
also set perpendicular to the river flow direction (Figure 1a). On each transect, 3 sampling
sites were set at equal distances along the transverse gradient. There were 9 sampling sites
(S1–S9) for the TRR region. In addition, two control sampling sites (CSs) (D1 and D2) were
randomly selected and set outside the influence range of the riverbank engineering areas
(Figure 1a,c).
According to the terrestrial vegetation community survey method [21], in each sam-
pling site, the quadrat size was 1 m × 1 m and the plants’ Latin names and numbers were
recorded. At the same time, the aboveground parts of plant biomasses were obtained by
a collection method, and the biomasses (g·m−2 ) were determined in the laboratory (by
drying in a 75 ◦ C oven for 48 h). At each sampling site, surface sediment samples (0–5 cm)
were collected with an inner diameter of 5 cm of soil drilling, and 3 samples were taken
from each sampling site and mixed into 1 sediment sample.
Water 2024,16,
Water2024, 16,2350
x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of
of10
11

Figure1.1. Sampling
Figure Sampling sites of ecological
ecological riverbanks
riverbanksin inthe
thedeep
deepwaterway
waterwayscheme
schemeofof Yangtze
Yangtze River:
River: (a)
traditional
(a) riprap
traditional riverbank,
riprap TRR;
riverbank, (b)(b)
TRR; lattice gabion
lattice ballasted
gabion vegetation-mat
ballasted riverbank,
vegetation-mat LGBVR;
riverbank, LGBVR; (c)
mesh grid riverbank, MGR.
(c) mesh grid riverbank, MGR.

2.3.
2.2.Analysis
Sampling Surveys
In
Atthis
thestudy,
spatialthe pHfor
scale values of sediment
the MGR region, were measured
3 survey using
transects wereanset
acidity meter (theto
perpendicular
water
the river flow direction (Figure 1c). On each transect, 3 sampling sites were setelectrical
to sediment ratio was 2.5:1) (PHS-3C, Sanxin, China). The values of sediment at equal
conductivity
distances along (EC)the
were measured
transverse using aofconductivity
gradient the riparian meter (the water
zone. There wereto12sediment
samplingratio
sites
was 5:1) (DDS-11A, Leici, China). +
(E1-E12) for the MGR region. As forThethecontents of ammonia
LGBVR region, nitrogen
2 gabions with 2(NH 4 -N), sites
sampling nitrate
(L1
nitrogen − -N), available phosphorus (AP), and available potassium (AK) in sediment
and L2) (NOwere3 randomly selected (Figure 1b). As for the TRR region, 3 survey transects were
were
also measured using flow
set perpendicular analyzers
to the river flow(AA3, Bran+Luebbe,
direction German).
(Figure 1a). On eachThe contents
transect, of total
3 sampling
nitrogen (TN) were determined via the addition of the ammonia nitrogen (NH + -N) and
4
sites were set at equal−distances along the transverse gradient. There were 9 sampling sites
nitrate
(S1–S9)nitrogen (NOregion.
for the TRR 3 -N) contents.
In addition,Thetwo
contents
controlofsampling
sedimentsites
microbial biomass
(CSs) (D1 and D2)carbon
were
(MBC),
randomly selected and set outside the influence range of the riverbank engineering were
microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN), and microbial biomass phosphorus (MBP) areas
measured by the chloroform fumigation–K2 SO4 extraction method [22]. By using the wet
(Figure 1a,c).
sieving method [23], the sediment aggregate could be classified and calculated as large
According to the terrestrial vegetation community survey method [21], in each
macroaggregates (>2.00 mm), small macroaggregates (2.00–0.25 mm), microaggregates
sampling site, the quadrat size was 1 m × 1 m and the plants’ Latin names and numbers
(0.25–0.053 mm), and silt + clay fractions (<0.053 mm). The separated sediment aggregates
were recorded. At the same time, the aboveground parts of plant biomasses were obtained
were air-dried and the sediment total organic carbon (TOC) contents were measured. The
by a collection method, and the biomasses (g·m−2) were determined in the laboratory (by
sediment TOC contents were the mean values of the sediment aggregate TOC contents. The
drying in a 75 °C oven for 48 h). At each sampling site, surface sediment samples (0–5 cm)
sediment organic carbon (TOC) contents were measured by the K2 Cr2 O7 -FeSO4 oxidation
were collected with an inner diameter of 5 cm of soil drilling, and 3 samples were taken
method [24].
from each sampling site and mixed into 1 sediment sample.
2.4. Biodiversity Index
2.3. Analysis
The biodiversity index can reflect the species composition, structural stability, and
In thisofstudy,
complexity the pH community
a vegetation values of sediment were
[25]. These measured
were using
calculated as an acidity meter (the
follows:
water to sediment ratio
Margalef index (d) [26]: was 2.5:1) (PHS-3C, Sanxin, China). The values of sediment
electrical conductivity (EC) were dmeasured = (S − 1)/lnNusing a conductivity meter (the water(1)
to
sediment ratio was 5:1) (DDS-11A, Leici, China). The contents of ammonia nitrogen (NH4+-
Shannon–Weaver
N), nitrate nitrogen (NO index (H′ ) [27]:
3−-N), available phosphorus (AP), and available potassium (AK)

in sediment were measured using flow analyzers n (AA3, Bran+Luebbe, German). The
′
contents of total nitrogen (TN) wereHdetermined= − ∑ Pi lnP via ithe addition of the ammonia nitrogen(2)
(NH4+-N) and nitrate nitrogen (NO3−-N) contents. i =1 The contents of sediment microbial
biomass carbon (MBC), microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN), and microbial biomass
Water 2024, 16, 2350 4 of 10

Pielou index (J) [28]:

J = H ′ /ln(S) (3)
where Pi is the proportion of the number of plant species (i) individuals to the total number
of individuals in each sampling site, n is the total number of plant species in each sampling
site, and N is the total number of all plant species individuals in each sampling site. S is the
classification taxa number of plant species in each sampling site.

2.5. Data Analysis

SPSS Statistical 22.0 was performed for one-way ANOVA test and Pearson correlation
analysis. To analyze the sediment characteristic differences on the ecological riverbanks,
a one-way ANOVA test was employed, and the significance was tested using the LSD
method (α = 0.05). Pearson correlation analysis was employed to analyze the vegetation
community and sediment characteristics of the ecological riverbanks.

3. Results
3.1. Vegetation Community Characteristics
Regarding different ecological riverbanks, Table 1 shows that the MGR region had
eight plant species, the Pielou index (J) was at its highest, and the dominant species were
Kalimeris indica and Cardamine hirsute. The LGBVR region had six plant species, it had
the highest Margalef index (d) and Shannon-Weaver index (H′ ), and the dominant species
were Phragmites australis and Cardamine hirsute. The TRR region had six plant species and
the dominant species was Veronica anagallis-aquatica. The LGBVR region had the highest
biomass due to large and tall phragmite communities, followed by the MGR region, and
the TRR region had lowest biomass. In addition, the CSs region of the natural riparian
riverbank had 12 plant species and a relatively higher biomass. The one-way ANOVA test
also indicated that the biomass of the LGBVR region was significantly different compared
to the MGR and TRR regions. The biomass was not significantly different between the
LGBVR and CSs regions. For biodiversity indices, the Pielou index (J) of the CSs region
was significantly different compared to that of the MGR, LGBVR, and TRR region.

Table 1. Vegetation community characteristics in different ecological riverbanks. Mesh grid riverbank
(MGR); lattice gabion ballasted vegetation-mat riverbank (LGBVR); traditional riprap riverbank
(TRR); control sampling sites (CSs). Lowercase letters in same rows indicate a significant difference at
the 0.05 level by one-way ANOVA test; the same applies below.

MGR LGBVR TRR CSs

Types of Riverbank
(Mean ± SE) (Mean ± SE) (Mean ± SE) (Mean ± SE)
Numbers of sampling
12 2 9 2
sites
Numbers of species 8 6 6 12
Margalef index (d) 0.37 ± 0.14 a 0.65 ± 0.00 a 0.47 ± 0.04 a 0.45 ± 0.01 a
Shannon–Weaver
0.66 ± 0.24 a 1.08 ± 0.17a 0.92 ± 0.07 a 0.48 ± 0.01 a
index (H’)
Pielou index (J) 0.82 ± 0.08 a 0.78 ± 0.12 a 0.80 ± 0.07 a 0.44 ± 0.01 b
Biomass (g·m−2 ) 74.53 ± 27.08 b 1225.01 ± 200.33 a 11.47 ± 4.79 b 368.34 ± 25.48 ab
Phragmites australis,
Latin names of Kalimeris indica, Phragmites australis, Veronica
Achyranthes aspera,
dominant species Cardamine hirsute Cardamine hirsute anagallis-aquatica
Polygonum hydropiper, etc.

3.2. Sediment Aggregate Compositions

Table 2 shows that the LGBVR region had relatively higher values of pH and EC in
sediments. The sediment aggregate compositions of large macroaggregates (>2.00 mm)
and small macroaggregates (2.00–0.25 mm) had relatively higher values in the CSs region
(33.22%), followed by the LGBVR region (32.23%). Otherwise, they had relatively lower
values in the MGR region (31.41%) and TRR region (30.62%). The one-way ANOVA test
also indicated that the EC values of sediment were significantly different between the
LGBVR and CSs regions.
Water 2024, 16, 2350 5 of 10

Table 2. Sediment aggregate compositions in different ecological riverbanks. Lower case letters in
same rows are same to Table 1.

MGR LGBVR TRR CSs

Types of Riverbank
(Mean ± SE) (Mean ± SE) (Mean ± SE) (Mean ± SE)
Numbers of sampling
12 2 9 2
sites
pH 7.52 ± 0.08 a 7.64 ± 0.11 a 7.53 ± 0.15 a 7.29 ± 0.25 a
EC(µs·cm−1 ) 109.1 ± 8.6 ab 151.7 ± 19.9 a 111.4 ± 8.2 ab 91.4 ± 1.0 b
>2.00 mm (%) 5.4 ± 0.3 a 4.8 ± 0.1 a 4.9 ± 0.3 a 5.5 ± 1.4 a
2.00–0.25 mm (%) 26.1 ± 0.5 a 27.4 ± 0.2 a 25.7 ± 0.4 a 27.8 ± 2.8 a
0.25–0.053 mm (%) 45.9 ± 0.9 a 45.7 ± 0.5 a 46.7 ± 0.8 a 45.7 ± 2.6 a
<0.053 mm (%) 22.7 ± 0.4 a 22.1 ± 0.8 a 22.7 ± 0.7 a 21.1 ± 1.2 a

3.3. Sediment Nutrient Contents

Table 3 shows that the LGBVR region had relatively higher values of NH4 + -N, TN,
and AP content in sediments. The TRR region had relatively higher values of AK content.
As for the LGBVR region, the one-way ANOVA test indicated that sediment TN contents
were significantly different compared to those of the MGR (p = 0.032) and TRR (p = 0.042)
regions. Its sediment NH4 + -N contents were significantly different compared to those of
the MGR (p = 0.042) and TRR (p = 0.043) regions. Furthermore, the sediment NO3 − -N, AP,
and AK contents displayed no difference among the riverbanks and the CSs region.

Table 3. Sediment nutrient contents in different ecological riverbanks. Lower case letters in same
rows are same to Table 1.

Types of MGR LGBVR TRR CSs

Riverbank (Mean ± SE) (Mean ± SE) (Mean ± SE) (Mean ± SE)
Numbers of
12 2 9 2
sampling sites
NH4 + -N
1.97 ± 0.12 b 2.71 ± 0.52 a 1.95 ± 0.15 b 2.04 ± 0.06 ab
(mg·kg−1 )
NO3 -N(mg·kg−1 ) 2.35 ± 0.18 a 3.04 ± 0.08 a 2.42 ± 0.30 a 3.29 ± 1.06 a
TN (mg·kg−1 ) 4.32 ± 0.19 b 5.75 ± 0.43 a 4.38 ± 0.30 b 5.33 ± 1.12 ab
AP (mg·kg−1 ) 18.13 ± 1.65 a 21.97 ± 3.41 a 18.93 ± 1.54 a 21.68 ± 2.39 a
AK (mg·kg−1 ) 315.37 ± 15.15 a 339.55 ± 41.33 a 341.74 ± 21.25 a 315.88 ± 40.68 a

3.4. Sediment TOC Contents

Figure 2 shows that the MGR region had relatively higher mean values of TOC content
in sediments. The LGBVR region had relatively lower mean values of TOC content. The
one-way ANOVA test indicated that the sediment mean TOC content in the MGR region
was significantly different compared to that in the TRR region (p = 0.026). Moreover,
the sediment aggregate TOC contents were not significantly different among ecological
riverbanks and the CSs region.

3.5. Sediment MBC, MBN, and MBP Contents

Table 4 shows that the values of MBC content, MBC/TOC, and MBC/MBN were
highest in the LGBVR-region sediment. The sediment in the CSs region had highest MBN
and MBP contents. The sediments in the TRR region had relatively higher MBN contents.
The sediments in the LGBVR region had relatively higher MBP contents. As for the LGBVR
region, one-way ANOVA demonstrated that the sediment MBC content was significantly
different compared to that in the MGR region (p = 0.009). The sediment value of MBC/TOC
in the LGBVR region was significantly different compared to that in the MGR region
(p = 0.001) and TRR region (p = 0.001). The sediment value of MBC/MBN in the LGBVR
region was significantly different compared to that in the MGR region (p = 0.000) and TRR
region (p = 0.000).
 3.4. Sediment TOC Contents
Figure 2 shows that the MGR region had relatively higher mean values of TOC content
in sediments. The LGBVR region had relatively lower mean values of TOC content. The one-
way ANOVA test indicated that the sediment mean TOC content in the MGR region was
Water 2024, 16, 2350 significantly different compared to that in the TRR region (p = 0.026). Moreover, the 6 of 10
sediment aggregate TOC contents were not significantly different among ecological
riverbanks and the CSs region.

Figure 2. Sediment mean TOC content and its aggregate compositions. TOC contents in different
ecological riverbanks. Lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate a significant difference at the
0.05 level.
Figure 2. Sediment mean TOC content and its aggregate compositions. TOC contents in
different ecological
Table riverbanks.
4. Sediment MBC, Lowercase
MBN, and letters above theinbar
MBP contents chart indicate
different a riverbanks. Lower case
ecological
significant difference
letters at theare
in same rows 0.05 level.
same to Table 1.
Types of MGR LGBVR TRR CSs
3.5. Sediment MBC, MBN, and MBP
Riverbank (MeanContents
± SE) (Mean ± SE) (Mean ± SE) (Mean ± SE)
Table Numbers
4 showsofthat the values of MBC content, MBC/TOC, and MBC/MBN were
12 2 9 2
highest insampling
the LGBVR-region
sites sediment. The sediment in the CSs region had highest MBN
MBC (mg · kg −1 ) 596.23 ± 27.56 b 803.67 ± 47.67 ac 671.16 ± 28.561 ab 704.90 ± 107.40 ab
and MBP contents. The sediments in the TRR region had relatively higher MBN contents.
MBN (mg · kg −1 ) 33.12 ± 1.53 a 32.88 ± 3.90 a 37.29 ± 1.59 a 39.16 ± 5.97 a
The sediments in the LGBVR region had relatively higher MBP contents. As for the
MBP (mg·kg−1 ) 6.58 ± 0.07 a 6.60 ± 0.20 a 6.52 ± 0.07 a 6.65 ± 0.15 a
LGBVR region, one-way ANOVA
MBC/TOC
demonstrated0.014
0.010 ± 0.000 c
that± the sediment0.012
0.001 a
MBC content
± 0.001 b
was
0.012 ± 0.001 abc
significantly different compared
MBC/MBN to±
18.000 that in bthe MGR
0.000 region
24.970 (p =a0.009).18.000
± 4.415 The sediment
± 0.000 b value
18.000 ± 0.000 b

3.6. Correlation Analysis

Table 5 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients among the vegetation and sediment
characteristics in different ecological riverbanks. The sediment contents of NO3 − -N were
significantly correlated with TN (r = 0.841, p < 0.01). The sediment contents of NH4 + -N
were significantly correlated with MBC/MBN (r = 0.674, p < 0.01). The sediment contents of
MBC were significantly correlated with MBN (r = 0.966, p < 0.01) and MBC/TOC (r = 0.938,
p < 0.01). The sediment contents of MBN were significantly correlated with MBC/TOC
(r = 0.882, p < 0.01). The biomasses were significantly correlated with MBN (r = 0.536,
p < 0.05). The sediment EC values were significantly correlated with AK (r = 0.643, p < 0.05).

Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficients between vegetation and sediment characteristics in ecological
riverbanks. ** means significant correlation at 0.01 level (bilateral); * means significant correlation at
0.05 level (bilateral).
N Biomass pH EC NH4 + -N NO3 − -N TN AP AK TOC MBC MBN MBP MBC/TOC MBC/MBN

N 1.000
Biomass 0.251 1.000
pH 0.406 −0.291 1.000
EC −0.481 −0.308 −0.225 1.000
NH4 + -N 0.067 −0.124 −0.064 −0.237 1.000
NO3 - -N 0.219 −0.145 0.231 −0.028 −0.038 1.000
TN 0.225 −0.192 0.165 −0.152 0.509 0.841 ** 1.000
AP −0.143 −0.034 −0.022 −0.078 −0.075 −0.020 −0.058 1.000
AK −0.491 −0.383 −0.187 0.643 * −0.273 0.047 −0.108 −0.185 1.000
TOC 0.001 0.340 −0.145 −0.310 0.054 0.007 0.035 −0.276 −0.487 1.000
MBC 0.401 0.480 −0.180 0.061 0.138 0.016 0.088 0.112 −0.356 −0.159 1.000
MBN 0.360 0.536 * −0.245 0.027 −0.039 −0.017 −0.036 0.142 −0.323 −0.100 0.966 ** 1.000
MBP 0.112 −0.203 0.372 −0.185 0.267 0.065 0.201 0.105 0.029 −0.253 −0.403 −0.509 1.000
MBC/TOC 0.367 0.289 −0.113 0.161 0.125 0.010 0.077 0.160 −0.143 −0.487 0.938 ** 0.882 ** −0.270 1.000
MBC/MBN 0.234 −0.104 0.201 0.137 0.674 ** 0.126 0.474 −0.089 −0.194 −0.251 0.333 0.079 0.301 0.402 1.000
Water 2024, 16, 2350 7 of 10

4. Discussion
4.1. Sediment Deposition Characteristics in Ecological Riverbanks
Worldwide, rivers have been tremendously affected and modified by artificial river-
banks for navigation channels [29,30]. The accumulation of sediment deposition and
organic matter in riparian zones has improved the soil conditions that are the basis for
vegetation restoration and biodiversity maintenance [31]. Traditionally, in Yangtze River
waterway regulation schemes, riverbank constructions were mostly made of concrete,
cemented rock, riprap, and wire gabions, which are not suitable for sedimental deposition
and vegetation restoration [16,32,33]. Ecological riverbanks can prevent and remove large
amounts of nutrients from upland areas [30]. In recent years, ecological riverbanks have
been widely used to restore the riparian ecosystem, and various forms have been developed
in China [18,33]. This study demonstrated that the LGBVR region had the best effects of
sedimental deposition, nutrient accumulation, and biological fixed carbon. It also had
relatively higher values of NH4 + -N, TN, AP, MBC contents, MBC/TOC, and MBC/MBN in
sediments. MBC was regarded as bioactive carbon components in sediment and is sensitive
to the ecological restoration effect [25]. The structure of the LGBVR was developed to
facilitate sediment deposition and nutrient accumulation and does not affect the growth
of plant roots. According to the survey, it had 10–15 cm of siltation in the gabion after
the completion of 1 year, which made it especially suitable for the growth of perennial
phragmites. In addition, the bottom layers of the MGR are geotextiles and a bamboo
woven mat, and sediments are deposited among three-dimensional network components.
Although it has certain advantages in promoting sedimental deposition, its structure is
more suitable for the growth of annual shallow root herbaceous plants. Furthermore, the
MGR region had relatively higher values of TOC content in sediments. For the TRR region,
the sediments were concentrated between the stone crevices, and the sediment deposition
and plant growth conditions were poor.

4.2. Vegetation Restoration and Sediment Deposition Characteristics in Ecological Riverbanks

The accumulation of sediment and organic matter improves soil conditions and was
the material basis for vegetation restoration and biodiversity maintenance in riparian
zones [31]. In riparian zones, ecological riverbanks can benefit sediment deposition, de-
crease the water flow velocity, and facilitate plant growth [34,35]. The unique structure of
ecological riverbanks can promote plant colonization, growth, and sedimental deposition,
but the vegetation restoration and sediment deposition effects are obviously different in
different forms of ecological riverbanks. In the same climate zone, an ecological riverbank
structure such as an eco-bag, an eco concrete tetrad-ball in Hang-jia-hu plain [13], or the
planting of a concrete revetment in an island of the estuary of Yangtze River [8] can have a
good vegetation restoration effect. The plant species composition and dominant species
are important indicators for vegetation succession [36]. In this study, the LGBVR region
had the highest biomass, Margalef index (d), and Shannon–Weaver index (H′ ), and its
dominant species was Phragmites australis. Although the MGR has certain advantages in
resisting water flow impact and promoting sedimental deposition, it is not suitable for the
colonization and growth of perennial plants in the short term. In the frequently submerged
area near the riverside, this study also revealed that the sediment deposition and vegetation
restoration effect of the riprap riverbank were better because it was closer to the natural
state. In the French and Swiss Alps region, riprap riverbanks had relatively poor vegetation
restoration effects [37]. However, in sub-tropical areas, they had relatively good ecological
restoration effects compared to a gabion revetment in Cuatien River, Vietnam [17]. For
periodically submerged riverbank areas, the riprap riverbank’s sediment deposition and
vegetation restoration effects were comparatively better than those achieved using the
MGR and LGBVR. Therefore, along the transverse gradient of riparian zones, ecological
riverbank development should adopt the mixed use of different structure forms in the deep
waterway regulation scheme of Yangtze River [38,39]. In the lower reach of the Yangtze
River, the deep waterway regulation scheme is affected by both runoff and tidal currents,
Water 2024, 16, 2350 8 of 10

and the river level variation and riverbed evolution are complex [15]. In the riparian zone
survey, the natural habitat conditions varied with different plant communities, which was
related to the water flow magnitude and sedimental deposition characteristics [40,41]. Due
to the high structural stability and safety requirements, the ecological riverbanks were only
studied in parts of river sections in this project. Furthermore, the design, construction, and
maintenance of ecological riverbanks needs to be further evaluated.

5. Conclusions
In this study, the sediment deposition characteristics associated with the vegetation
restoration of two kinds of typical ecological riverbanks, LGBVR and MGR, and TRR were
investigated in the deep waterway regulation scheme of Yangtze River. For the LGBVR
region, it had the highest biomass due to large and tall phragmite communities. It also
had the highest Margalef index (d) and Shannon–Weaver index (H′ ) values, as well as the
highest MBC content, MBC/TOC, and MBC/MBN in sediments. For the MGR region, it
had the highest number of plant species (eight) and Pielou index (J) and a relatively higher
biomass in sampling sites. It also had highest values of TOC contents in sediment. The
TRR region had the lowest biomass. In general, the LGBVR region had the best vegetation
restoration and sediment deposition effects, followed by the MGR region. The TRR region
had a relatively poor ecological restoration effect. Furthermore, the sediment deposition
and vegetation restoration effects in different forms of ecological riverbanks are still in
the process of dynamic succession, and these ecological effects need to be studied for a
long time.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.L.; methodology, J.L., X.W. and L.W.; software, J.L.;
validation, J.L.; formal analysis, J.L.; investigation, J.L., X.W. and L.W.; resources, J.L.; data curation,
J.L., X.W. and L.W.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.; writing—review and editing, J.L.;
visualization, J.L.; supervision, J.L.; project administration, J.L.; funding acquisition, J.L. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Key science and technology projects in the transportation
sector, grant number 2018-ZD3-024, and the Central public-interest scientific institution basal research
fund of China, grant number WTI-62203.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the project was not yet completed.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Nilsson, C.; Berggren, K. Alteration of riparian ecosystems caused by river regulation. BioScience 2000, 50, 783–792. [CrossRef]
2. Wang, Z.Y.; Pei, Y.S. Ecological risk resulting from invasive species: A lesson from riparian wetland rehabilitation. Procedia
Environ. Sci. 2012, 13, 1798–1808. [CrossRef]
3. Luo, Z.L.; Zuo, Q.T.; Shao, Q.X. A new framework for assessing river ecosystem health with consideration of human service
demand. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 640–641, 442–453. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Paetzold, A.; Yoshimura, C.; Tockner, K. Riparian arthropod responses to flow regulation and river channelization. J. Appl. Ecol.
2008, 45, 894–903. [CrossRef]
5. Hartig, J.H.; Zarull, M.A.; Cook, A. Soft shoreline engineering survey of ecological effectiveness. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 1231–1238.
[CrossRef]
6. Addy, S.; Wilkinson, M.E. Geomorphic and retention responses following the restoration of a sand-gravel bed stream. Ecol. Eng.
2019, 130, 131–146. [CrossRef]
7. Schwindt, S.; Pasternack, G.B.; Bratovich, P.M.; Rabone, G.; Simodynes, D. Hydro-morphological parameters generate lifespan
maps for stream restoration management. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 232, 475–489. [CrossRef]
8. He, Y.; Wang, P.C.; Sheng, H.; Wang, D.F.; Huang, M.S.; Cao, C.J. Sustainability of riparian zones for non-point source pollution
control in Chongming Island: Status, challenges, and perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118804. [CrossRef]
9. Die Moran, A.; El Kadi Abderrezzak, K.; Mosselman, E.; Habersack, H.; Lebert, F.; Aelbrecht, D.; Laperrousaz, E. Physical model
experiments for sediment supply to the old Rhine through induced bank erosion. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2013, 28, 431–447. [CrossRef]
10. Taylor, D.L.; Bolgrien, D.W.; Angradi, T.R.; Pearson, M.S.; Hill, B.H. Habitat and hydrology condition indices for the upper
Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio rivers. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 29, 111–124. [CrossRef]
Water 2024, 16, 2350 9 of 10

11. Chen, Q.F.; Guo, B.B.; Zhao, C.S.; Zhang, J. A comprehensive ecological management approach for northern mountain rivers in
China. Chemosphere 2019, 234, 25–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Liang, K.M.; Zhang, J.E.; Zhao, B.L.; Ye, Y.Q.; Kong, X.H. Review on the application and research of ecological riverbanks for
water systems. Trop. Geogr. 2014, 34, 116–122. (In Chinese)
13. Cai, W.W.; Zhou, Z.Y.; Xia, J.H.; Wang, W.M.; Dou, C.B.; Zeng, Z. An advanced index of ecological Integrity (IEI) for assessing
ecological efficiency of restauration revetments in river plain. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 108, 105762. [CrossRef]
14. Chen, Y.M.; Xu, S.D.; Jin, Y. Evaluation on ecological restoration capability of revetment in inland restricted channel. KSCE J. Civ.
Eng. 2016, 20, 2548–2558. [CrossRef]
15. Liu, H.H.; Yang, S.F.; Cao, M.X. Advances in ‘golden waterway’ regulation technologies of Yangtze River. Adv. Eng. Sci. 2017, 49,
17–27. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
16. Schmitt, K.; Schäffer, M.; Koop, J.; Symmank, L. River bank stabilisation by bioengineering: Potentials for ecological diversity. J.
Appl. Water Eng. Res. 2018, 6, 262–273. [CrossRef]
17. Tang, V.T.; Fu, D.F.; Binh, T.N.; Rene, E.R.; Sang, T.T.T.; Singh, R.P. An investigation on performance and structure of ecological
revetment in a sub-tropical area: A case study on Cuatien River, Vinh City, Vietnam. Water 2018, 10, 636. [CrossRef]
18. Xu, C.H.; Bu, H.B.; Cheng, W.H.; Chen, Z.Q. Development and application of ecological protection bank for inland waterway.
Port Waterw. Eng. 2009, 432, 107–110. (In Chinese)
19. Cao, M.X.; Shen, X.; Ying, H.H. Study on ecological structures of waterway regulation in the Yangtze River below Nanjing. Port
Waterw. Eng. 2018, 538, 1–11. (In Chinese)
20. Chen, X.Y. Regulation method and construction thoughts of deep-water channel of the Yangtze River below Nanjing city. Port
Waterw. Eng. 2011, 461, 99–105. (In Chinese)
21. Dong, M.; Wang, Y.F.; Kong, F.Z. Survey and Analysis Methods for Terrestrial Biocommunity; China Standard Press: Beijing, China,
1997. (In Chinese)
22. Vance, E.D.; Brookes, P.C.J. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass carbon. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1987, 19,
703–704. [CrossRef]
23. Cambardella, C.A.; Elliott, E.T. Carbon and nitrogen distribution in aggregates from cultivated and native grassland soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 1993, 57, 1071–1076. [CrossRef]
24. Walkley, A.J.; Black, I.A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification
of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, X.X.; Zhang, L.; Liang, L.N.; Song, N.N.; Liu, D.S.; Wang, J.C. Effects of straw returning on the stability of soil organic
carbon in wheat-maize rotation systems. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2020, 39, 1774–1782. (In Chinese)
26. Margalef, D.R. Information theory in ecology. Soc. Gen. Syst. Res. 1957, 3, 36–71.
27. Shannon, C.E.; Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication; University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL, USA, 1949.
28. Pielou, E.C. Ecological Diversity; John Wiley & Sons Inc: New York, NY, USA, 1975.
29. Nilsson, C.; Reidy, C.A.; Dynesius, M.; Revenga, C. Fragment and flow regulation of the world’s large river system. Science 2005,
308, 405–408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Symmank, L.; Natho, S.; Scholz, M.; Schröder, U.; Raupach, K.; Schulz-Zunkel, C. The impact of bioengineering techniques for
riverbank protection on ecosystem services of riparian zones. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 158, 106040. [CrossRef]
31. Zhang, J.Y.; Zhao, H.L.; Zhang, T.H.; Zhao, X.Y. Dynamics of species diversity of communities in restoration processes in Horqin
sandy land. Acta Phytoecol. Sin. 2004, 28, 86–92. (In Chinese)
32. Wang, Y.; Ding, Y.R.; Fan, B.L. Study on river regime evolution and ecological revetment for Jingjiang reach after impoundment
of TGP. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2011, 20 (Suppl. S1), 117–122. (In Chinese)
33. Zhan, L.T.; Chen, Y.M.; Bouazza, A. Combination of Porous Ecological Concrete and Geocell in Riverbank Protection; Springer Singapore
Pte. Limited: Singapore, 2018; pp. 280–287.
34. Nakamura, F.; Seo, J.I.; Akasaka, T.; Swanson, F.J. Large wood, sediment, and flow regimes: Their interactions and temporal
changes caused by human impacts in Japan. Geomorphology 2017, 279, 176–187. [CrossRef]
35. Kiss, T.; Nagy, J.; Fehérváry, I.; Vaszkó, C. (Mis) management of floodplain vegetation: The effect of invasive species on vegetation
roughness and flood levels. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 686, 931–945. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Liu, Y.Y.; Gu, B.; Wang, L. Species diversity of plant community and the niche of dominant species in Beichuan after earthquake
engineering. Chin. J. Ecol. 2019, 38, 309–320. (In Chinese)
37. Cavaillé, P.; Ducasse, L.; Breton, V.; Dommanget, F.; Tabacchi, E.; Evette, A. Functional and taxonomic plant diversity for riverbank
protection works: Bioengineering techniques close to natural banks and beyond hard engineering. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 151,
65–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Li, J.P.; Xuan, H.; Wang, X.X.; Li, T. Comprehensive evaluation on implement effect of ecological riverbank project in deep
waterway regulation of Yangtze River. Yangtze River 2022, 53, 211–217. (In Chinese)
39. Li, J.P.; Wu, L.; Liu, S.; Xuan, H.; Wang, X.X. Terrestrial vegetation restoration of ecological riverbank in the deep waterway
regulation scheme of Yangtze River. J. Yangtze River Sci. Res. Inst. 2021, 38, 31–37. (In Chinese)
Water 2024, 16, 2350 10 of 10

40. Wollny, J.T.; Otte, A.; Harvolk-Schöning, S. Riparian plant species composition alternates between species from standing and
flowing water bodies—Results of field studies upstream and downstream of weirs along the German rivers Lahn and Fulda. Ecol.
Eng. 2019, 139, 105576. [CrossRef]
41. Wang, L.; Ge, M.T.; Chen, N.G.; Ding, J.H.; Shen, X.W. An evaluation model of riparian landscape: A case in rural Qingxi Area,
Shanghai. Land 2022, 11, 1512. [CrossRef]

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.