Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Stream Restoration Projects (stream + restoration_project)
Selected AbstractsRiver restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice?FRESHWATER BIOLOGY, Issue 2010MARGARET A. PALMER Summary 1. Stream ecosystems are increasingly impacted by multiple stressors that lead to a loss of sensitive species and an overall reduction in diversity. A dominant paradigm in ecological restoration is that increasing habitat heterogeneity (HH) promotes restoration of biodiversity. This paradigm is reflected in stream restoration projects through the common practice of re-configuring channels to add meanders and adding physical structures such as boulders and artificial riffles to restore biodiversity by enhancing structural heterogeneity. 2. To evaluate the validity of this paradigm, we completed an extensive evaluation of published studies that have quantitatively examined the reach-scale response of invertebrate species richness to restoration actions that increased channel complexity/HH. We also evaluated studies that used manipulative or correlative approaches to test for a relationship between physical heterogeneity and invertebrate diversity in streams that were not in need of restoration. 3. We found habitat and macroinvertebrate data for 78 independent stream or river restoration projects described by 18 different author groups in which invertebrate taxa richness data in response to the restoration treatment were available. Most projects were successful in enhancing physical HH; however, only two showed statistically significant increases in biodiversity rendering them more similar to reference reaches or sites. 4. Studies manipulating structural complexity in otherwise healthy streams were generally small in scale and less than half showed a significant positive relationship with invertebrate diversity. Only one-third of the studies that attempted to correlate biodiversity to existing levels of in-stream heterogeneity found a positive relationship. 5. Across all the studies we evaluated, there is no evidence that HH was the primary factor controlling stream invertebrate diversity, particularly in a restoration context. The findings indicate that physical heterogeneity should not be the driving force in selecting restoration approaches for most degraded waterways. Evidence suggests that much more must be done to restore streams impacted by multiple stressors than simply re-configuring channels and enhancing structural complexity with meanders, boulders, wood, or other structures. 6. Thematic implications: as integrators of all activities on the land, streams are sensitive to a host of stressors including impacts from urbanisation, agriculture, deforestation, invasive species, flow regulation, water extractions and mining. The impacts of these individually or in combination typically lead to a decrease in biodiversity because of reduced water quality, biologically unsuitable flow regimes, dispersal barriers, altered inputs of organic matter or sunlight, degraded habitat, etc. Despite the complexity of these stressors, a large number of stream restoration projects focus primarily on physical channel characteristics. We show that this is not a wise investment if ecological recovery is the goal. Managers should critically diagnose the stressors impacting an impaired stream and invest resources first in repairing those problems most likely to limit restoration. [source] A new index of habitat alteration and a comparison of approaches to predict stream habitat conditionsFRESHWATER BIOLOGY, Issue 10 2007BRIAN FRAPPIER Summary 1. Stream habitat quality assessment complements biological assessment by providing a mechanism for ruling out habitat degradation as a potential stressor and provides reference targets for the physical aspects of stream restoration projects. This study analysed five approaches for predicting habitat conditions based on discriminant function, linear regressions, ordination and nearest neighbour analyses. 2. Quantitative physical and chemical habitat and riparian conditions in minimally-impacted streams in New Hampshire were estimated using United States Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program protocols. Catchment-scale descriptors were used to predict segment-scale stream channel and riparian habitat, and the accuracy and precision of the different modelling approaches were compared. 3. A new assessment index comparing and summarizing the degree of correspondence between predicted and observed habitat based on Euclidean distance between the standardized habitat factors is described. Higher index scores (i.e. greater Euclidean distance) would suggest a greater deviation in habitat between observed conditions and expected reference conditions. As in most biotic indices, the range in index scores in reference sites would constitute a situation equivalent to reference conditions. This new index avoids the erroneous prediction of multiple, mutually exclusive habitat conditions that have confounded previous habitat assessment approaches. 4. Separate linear regression models for each habitat descriptor yielded the most accurate and precise prediction of reference conditions, with a coefficient of variation (CV) between predictions and observations for all reference sites of 0.269. However, for a unified implementation in regions where a classification-based approach has already been taken for biological assessment, a discriminant analysis approach, that predicted membership in biotic communities and compared the mean habitat features in the biotic communities with the observed habitat features, was similar in prediction accuracy and precision (CV = 0.293). 5. The best model had an error of 27% of the mean index value for the reference sites, indicating substantial room for improvement. Additional catchment characteristics not readily available for this analysis, such as average rainfall or winter snow-pack, surficial geological characteristics or past land-use history, may improve the precision of the predicted habitat features in the reference streams. Land-use history in New Hampshire and regional environmental impacts have greatly impacted stream habitat conditions even in streams considered minimally-impacted today; thus as regional environmental impacts change and riparian forests mature, reference habitat conditions should be re-evaluated. [source] Linking ecological theory with stream restorationFRESHWATER BIOLOGY, Issue 4 2007P. S. LAKE Summary 1. Faced with widespread degradation of riverine ecosystems, stream restoration has greatly increased. Such restoration is rarely planned and executed with inputs from ecological theory. In this paper, we seek to identify principles from ecological theory that have been, or could be, used to guide stream restoration. 2. In attempts to re-establish populations, knowledge of the species' life history, habitat template and spatio-temporal scope is critical. In many cases dispersal will be a critical process in maintaining viable populations at the landscape scale, and special attention should be given to the unique geometry of stream systems 3. One way by which organisms survive natural disturbances is by the use of refugia, many forms of which may have been lost with degradation. Restoring refugia may therefore be critical to survival of target populations, particularly in facilitating resilience to ongoing anthropogenic disturbance regimes. 4. Restoring connectivity, especially longitudinal connectivity, has been a major restoration goal. In restoring lateral connectivity there has been an increasing awareness of the riparian zone as a critical transition zone between streams and their catchments. 5. Increased knowledge of food web structure , bottom-up versus top-down control, trophic cascades and subsidies , are yet to be applied to stream restoration efforts. 6. In restoration, species are drawn from the regional species pool. Having overcome dispersal and environmental constraints (filters), species persistence may be governed by local internal dynamics, which are referred to as assembly rules. 7. While restoration projects often define goals and endpoints, the succession pathways and mechanisms (e.g. facilitation) by which these may be achieved are rarely considered. This occurs in spite of a large of body of general theory on which to draw. 8. Stream restoration has neglected ecosystem processes. The concept that increasing biodiversity increases ecosystem functioning is very relevant to stream restoration. Whether biodiversity affects ecosystem processes, such as decomposition, in streams is equivocal. 9. Considering the spatial scale of restoration projects is critical to success. Success is more likely with large-scale projects, but they will often be infeasible in terms of the available resources and conflicts of interest. Small-scale restoration may remedy specific problems. In general, restoration should occur at the appropriate spatial scale such that restoration is not reversed by the prevailing disturbance regime. 10. The effectiveness and predictability of stream ecosystem restoration will improve with an increased understanding of the processes by which ecosystems develop and are maintained. Ideas from general ecological theory can clearly be better incorporated into stream restoration projects. This will provide a twofold benefit in providing an opportunity both to improve restoration outcomes and to test ecological theory. [source] Hyporheic exchange flows induced by constructed riffles and steps in lowland streams in southern Ontario, CanadaHYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, Issue 20 2006Tamao Kasahara Abstract Stream,subsurface water interaction induced by natural riffles and constructed riffles/steps was examined in lowland streams in southern Ontario, Canada. The penetration of stream water into the subsurface was analysed using hydrometric data, and the zone of > 10% stream water was calculated from a chemical mixing equation using tracer injection of bromide and background chloride concentrations. The constructed riffles studied induced more extensive hyporheic exchange than the natural riffles because of their steeper longitudinal hydraulic head gradients and coarser streambed sediments. The depth of > 10% stream water zone in a small and a large constructed riffle extended to > 0·2 m and > 1·4 m depths respectively. Flux and residence time distribution of hyporheic exchange were simulated in constructed riffles using MODFLOW, a finite-difference groundwater flow model. Hyporheic flux and residence time distribution varied along the riffles, and the exchange occurring upstream from the riffle crest was small in flux and had a long residence time. In contrast, hyporheic exchange occurring downstream from the riffle crest had a relatively short residence time and accounted for 83% and 70% of total hyporheic exchange flow in a small and large riffle respectively. Although stream restoration projects have not considered the hyporheic zone, our data indicate that constructed riffles and steps can promote vertical hydrologic exchange and increase the groundwater,surface water linkage in degraded lowland streams. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Stream Restoration in the Upper Midwest, U.S.A.RESTORATION ECOLOGY, Issue 4 2006Gretchen G. Alexander Abstract Restoration activities intended to improve the condition of streams and rivers are widespread throughout the Upper Midwest, U.S.A. As with other regions, however, little information exists regarding types of activities and their effectiveness. We developed a database of 1,345 stream restoration projects implemented from the years 1970 to 2004 for the states of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin in order to analyze regional trends in goals, presence of monitoring, spatial distribution, size, and cost of river restoration projects. We found that data on individual projects were fragmented across multiple federal, state, and county agencies, as well as nonprofit groups and consulting firms. The most common restoration goals reported for this region were in-stream habitat improvement, bank stabilization, water-quality management, and dam removal. The former two were most common in Michigan and Wisconsin, where salmonid fisheries enhancement appeared to be an important concern, whereas water-quality management was most frequent in Ohio. The most common restoration activities were the use of sand traps and riprap, and other common activities were related to the improvement of fish habitat. The median cost was $12,957 for projects with cost data, and total expenditures since 1990 were estimated at $444 million. Over time, the cost of individual projects has increased, whereas the median size has decreased, suggesting that restoration resources are being spent on smaller, more localized, and more expensive projects. Only 11% of data records indicated that monitoring was performed, and more expensive projects were more likely to be monitored. Standardization of monitoring and record keeping and dissemination of findings are urgently needed to ensure that dollars are well spent and restoration effectiveness is maximized. [source] | ||||||||||