TY - JOUR A1 - Kamjunke, Norbert A1 - Rode, Michael A1 - Baborowski, Martina A1 - Kunz, Julia Vanessa A1 - Zehner, Jakob A1 - Borchardt, Dietrich A1 - Weitere, Markus T1 - High irradiation and low discharge promote the dominant role of phytoplankton in riverine nutrient dynamics JF - Limnology and oceanography / American Society of Limnology and Oceanography N2 - Rivers play a relevant role in the nutrient turnover during the transport from land to ocean. Here, highly dynamic planktonic processes are more important compared to streams making it necessary to link the dynamics of nutrient turnover to control mechanisms of phytoplankton. We investigated the basic conditions leading to high phytoplankton biomass and corresponding nutrient dynamics in eutrophic, 8th order River Elbe (Germany). In a first step, we performed six Lagrangian sampling campaigns in the lower river section at different hydrological conditions. While nutrient concentrations remained high at low algal densities in autumn and at moderate discharge in summer, high algal concentrations occurred at low discharge in summer. Under these conditions, concentrations of silica and nitrate decreased and rates of nitrate assimilation were high. Soluble reactive phosphorus was depleted and particulate phosphorus increased inversely. Rising molar C:P ratios of seston indicated a phosphorus limitation of phytoplankton, so far rarely observed in eutrophic large rivers. Global radiation combined with mixing depth had a strong predictive power to explain maximum chlorophyll concentration. In a second step, we estimated nutrient turnover exemplarily for N during the campaign with the lowest discharge based on mass balances and metabolism-based process measurements. Mass balance calculations revealed a total nitrate uptake of 423 mg N m(-2)d(-1). Increasing phytoplankton density dominantly explained whole river gross primary production and related assimilatory nutrient uptake. In conclusion, riverine nutrient uptake strongly depends on the growth conditions for phytoplankton, which are favored at high irradiation and low discharge. Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11778 SN - 0024-3590 SN - 1939-5590 VL - 66 IS - 7 SP - 2648 EP - 2660 PB - Wiley CY - Hoboken ER - TY - GEN A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Mühr, Bernhard A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schröter, Kai T1 - Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013 N2 - Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of €6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of €11.6 billion and hence was the most expensive natural hazard event in Germany up to now. The event of 2002 does, however, also mark a reorientation toward an integrated flood risk management system in Germany. Therefore, the flood of 2013 offered the opportunity to review how the measures that politics, administration, and civil society have implemented since 2002 helped to cope with the flood and what still needs to be done to achieve effective and more integrated flood risk management. The review highlights considerable improvements on many levels, in particular (1) an increased consideration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, (2) comprehensive property-level mitigation and preparedness measures, (3) more effective flood warnings and improved coordination of disaster response, and (4) a more targeted maintenance of flood defense systems. In 2013, this led to more effective flood management and to a reduction of damage. Nevertheless, important aspects remain unclear and need to be clarified. This particularly holds for balanced and coordinated strategies for reducing and overcoming the impacts of flooding in large catchments, cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation, the role of the general public in the different phases of flood risk management, as well as a transparent risk transfer system. Recurring flood events reveal that flood risk management is a continuous task. Hence, risk drivers, such as climate change, land-use changes, economic developments, or demographic change and the resultant risks must be investigated at regular intervals, and risk reduction strategies and processes must be reassessed as well as adapted and implemented in a dialogue with all stakeholders. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 294 KW - August 2002 flood KW - Central Europe KW - Floods Directive KW - June 2013 flood KW - governance KW - risk management cycle Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-100600 SN - 1866-8372 ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Bessel, Tina A1 - Callsen, Ines A1 - Falter, Daniela A1 - Hasan, Issa A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kox, Thomas A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Matthias, Max A1 - Meyer, Volker A1 - Mühr, Bernhard A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Pech, Ina A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Rother, Karl-Heinz A1 - Schröter, Kai T1 - Das Hochwasser im Juni 2013 BT - Bewährungsprobe für das Hochwasserrisikomanagement in Deutschland T3 - Schriftenreihe des DKKV ; 53 Y1 - 2015 SN - 978-3-933181-62-6 PB - Deutsches Komitee Katastrophenvorsorge CY - Bonn ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Mühr, Bernhard A1 - Müller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schröter, Kai T1 - Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013 JF - Ecology and society : E&S ; a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability N2 - Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of €6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of €11.6 billion and hence was the most expensive natural hazard event in Germany up to now. The event of 2002 does, however, also mark a reorientation toward an integrated flood risk management system in Germany. Therefore, the flood of 2013 offered the opportunity to review how the measures that politics, administration, and civil society have implemented since 2002 helped to cope with the flood and what still needs to be done to achieve effective and more integrated flood risk management. The review highlights considerable improvements on many levels, in particular (1) an increased consideration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, (2) comprehensive property-level mitigation and preparedness measures, (3) more effective flood warnings and improved coordination of disaster response, and (4) a more targeted maintenance of flood defense systems. In 2013, this led to more effective flood management and to a reduction of damage. Nevertheless, important aspects remain unclear and need to be clarified. This particularly holds for balanced and coordinated strategies for reducing and overcoming the impacts of flooding in large catchments, cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation, the role of the general public in the different phases of flood risk management, as well as a transparent risk transfer system. Recurring flood events reveal that flood risk management is a continuous task. Hence, risk drivers, such as climate change, land-use changes, economic developments, or demographic change and the resultant risks must be investigated at regular intervals, and risk reduction strategies and processes must be reassessed as well as adapted and implemented in a dialogue with all stakeholders. KW - August 2002 flood KW - Central Europe KW - Floods Directive KW - governance KW - June 2013 flood KW - risk management cycle Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08547-210251 SN - 1708-3087 SN - 1195-5449 VL - 21 IS - 2 PB - Resilience Alliance CY - Wolfville, NS ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Kienzler, Sarah A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Muehr, Bernhard A1 - Mueller, Meike A1 - Otto, Antje A1 - Petrow, Theresia A1 - Pisi, Sebastian A1 - Schroeter, Kai T1 - Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013 JF - Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability N2 - Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of (sic)6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of (sic)11.6 billion and hence was the most expensive natural hazard event in Germany up to now. The event of 2002 does, however, also mark a reorientation toward an integrated flood risk management system in Germany. Therefore, the flood of 2013 offered the opportunity to review how the measures that politics, administration, and civil society have implemented since 2002 helped to cope with the flood and what still needs to be done to achieve effective and more integrated flood risk management. The review highlights considerable improvements on many levels, in particular (1) an increased consideration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, (2) comprehensive property-level mitigation and preparedness measures, (3) more effective flood warnings and improved coordination of disaster response, and (4) a more targeted maintenance of flood defense systems. In 2013, this led to more effective flood management and to a reduction of damage. Nevertheless, important aspects remain unclear and need to be clarified. This particularly holds for balanced and coordinated strategies for reducing and overcoming the impacts of flooding in large catchments, cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation, the role of the general public in the different phases of flood risk management, as well as a transparent risk transfer system. Recurring flood events reveal that flood risk management is a continuous task. Hence, risk drivers, such as climate change, land-use changes, economic developments, or demographic change and the resultant risks must be investigated at regular intervals, and risk reduction strategies and processes must be reassessed as well as adapted and implemented in a dialogue with all stakeholders. KW - August 2002 flood KW - Central Europe KW - Floods Directive KW - governance KW - June 2013 flood KW - risk management cycle Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08547-210251 SN - 1708-3087 VL - 21 SP - 8612 EP - 8614 PB - Resilience Alliance CY - Wolfville ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Merz, Bruno A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Kunz, Michael A1 - Pittore, Massimiliano A1 - Babeyko, Andrey A1 - Bresch, David N. A1 - Domeisen, Daniela I. A1 - Feser, Frauke A1 - Koszalka, Inga A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Pantillon, Florian A1 - Parolai, Stefano A1 - Pinto, Joaquim G. A1 - Punge, Heinz Jürgen A1 - Rivalta, Eleonora A1 - Schröter, Kai A1 - Strehlow, Karen A1 - Weisse, Ralf A1 - Wurpts, Andreas T1 - Impact forecasting to support emergency management of natural hazards JF - Reviews of geophysics N2 - Forecasting and early warning systems are important investments to protect lives, properties, and livelihood. While early warning systems are frequently used to predict the magnitude, location, and timing of potentially damaging events, these systems rarely provide impact estimates, such as the expected amount and distribution of physical damage, human consequences, disruption of services, or financial loss. Complementing early warning systems with impact forecasts has a twofold advantage: It would provide decision makers with richer information to take informed decisions about emergency measures and focus the attention of different disciplines on a common target. This would allow capitalizing on synergies between different disciplines and boosting the development of multihazard early warning systems. This review discusses the state of the art in impact forecasting for a wide range of natural hazards. We outline the added value of impact-based warnings compared to hazard forecasting for the emergency phase, indicate challenges and pitfalls, and synthesize the review results across hazard types most relevant for Europe. KW - impact forecasting KW - natural hazards KW - early warning Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1029/2020RG000704 SN - 8755-1209 SN - 1944-9208 VL - 58 IS - 4 PB - American Geophysical Union CY - Washington ER -