4.3 Review

How strong is the evidence - based on macroinvertebrate community responses - that river restoration works?

Journal

ECOHYDROLOGY & HYDROBIOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 196-214

Publisher

INT CENTRE ECOLOGY, POLISH ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecohyd.2019.11.001

Keywords

Biodiversity; Channel reconfiguration; Hydromorphology; Large woody debris; Rehabilitation; Stream

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We reviewed river rehabilitation studies published from 1984 to 2019 to identify factors that might limit effective rehabilitation. This encompasses 89 papers that reported outcomes of 379 independent projects. We found that methods used to evaluate the outcomes of rehabilitation projects may have failed to properly assess the outcomes, which has led to a poor diagnosis of both the problem and the effectiveness of any solution. We identified four methodological limitations that have often precluded the rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of stream rehabilitation: (1) The most comprehensive Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) study design was not common practice. (2) Most studies sampled rivers for only one season following rehabilitation, and therefore could not account for seasonal or annual variations that could affect macroinvertebrate community composition. (3) Multi-habitat sampling - to comprehensively represent macroinvertebrate communities in study reaches - was rarely applied. (4) The most commonly employed indicators of rehabilitation success were macroinvertebrate taxa richness and diversity, even though these measures may fail to identify other consequential changes in ecosystem structure and function. Ecosystem functional indicators such as macroinvertebrate Functional Feeding Group (FFG) and Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) diversity, density, biomass and secondary production often had better responses, but were rarely assessed. Future rehabilitation projects and monitoring of their outcomes should aim to rehabilitate ecosystem functions, not solely structures. BACI monitoring design and multi-habitat sampling at in-stream biotope level are required to detect physical and biological changes that may otherwise go unnoticed. The presence of upstream population sources can facilitate biotic recolonisation and decrease the post-project time frame of recovery. (C) 2019 European Regional Centre for Ecohydrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available