Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2015 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Journal of Applied Ecology |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Web | http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12531/abstract;jsessionid=73808044E272FE857479A1CD06B3D283.f01t02?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+27th+February+from+09%3A00-14%3A00+GMT+%2F+04%3A00-09%3A00+EST+%2F+1 |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12531 |
| Field | Water pollution and control |
| Keywords | aquatic macrophytes; benthic invertebrates; fish; floodplain; flow patterns; food web; ground beetles; riparian vegetation; stable isotopes |
| Description | Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non-restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain-inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land-water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non-restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. When comparing all restored to all non-restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. We recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. |
| Related projects: |