+
Nagayama, S., & Nakamura, F. (2010)
Fish habitat rehabilitation using wood in the world
Title: Fish habitat rehabilitation using wood in the world
Authors: Nagayama, S., & Nakamura, F.
Journal: Landscape and Ecological Engineering
Year: 2010
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-009-0092-5
Species or groups: Coho salmon, Brook trout, Brown trout, Rainbow trout, Longnose sucker, Steelhead, Cutthroat trout, Lampreys, Reticulate sculpin, Torrent sculpin, Atlantic salmon, Masu salmon, Kirikuchi charr, Common dace, European chub, Common roach, Mountain galaxias, River blackfish, Southern pygmy perch
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: To provide river managers and researchers with
practical knowledge about fish rehabilitation, various
studies of fish habitat rehabilitation that used wood were
reviewed. The review focuses on fish responses, wood
installation methods, and geomorphic features of the
rehabilitation sites. Most studies were conducted in moderately
sized (small and medium) streams with relatively
high bed gradients and aimed to improve the habitats of
salmonid species. In this stream type, structures spanning
the full (log dam) and partial (log deflector) width of the
river were most common, and wood structures that created
pools and covers were successful in improving fish habitat.
Some projects were conducted in moderately sized lowgradient
streams, in which wooden devices used to create
instream cover were effective for fish assemblages. There
were few studies in other aquatic ecosystems. However,
well-designed large wood structures, known as engineered
log jams, were used in rehabilitation projects for large
rivers. In slack-water or lentic systems such as sidechannels,
estuaries, and reservoirs, small and large wood
structures that created cover were used to improve habitat
for many fish species. For successful fish habitat rehabilitation
projects, the hydrogeomorphic conditions of rehabilitation
sites should be carefully examined to avoid
physical failure of wood structures. Although artificial
wood structures can be used to improve fish habitat in
various aquatic ecosystems, they should be considered to
be a complementary or interim habitat enhancement technique.
The recovery of natural dynamic processes at the
watershed scale is the ultimate target of restoration
programs.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Roni, P., Hanson, K., Beechie, T., Pess, G., Pollock, M., & Bartley, D.M. (2005)
Habitat rehabilitation for inland fisheries: Global review of effectiveness and guidance for rehabilitation of freshwater ecosystems.
Title: Habitat rehabilitation for inland fisheries: Global review of effectiveness and guidance for rehabilitation of freshwater ecosystems.
Authors: Roni, P., Hanson, K., Beechie, T., Pess, G., Pollock, M., & Bartley, D.M.
Journal: NA
Year: 2005
DOI: NA
Species or groups: Pacific salmon, Coho salmon, Steelhead, Cutthroat trout, Atlantic salmon, Brown trout, Rainbow trout, Brook trout, Threespine stickleback, Coast range sculpin, Reticulate sculpin, Torrent sculpin, lamprey, Pacific giant salamanders, Bullhead, Stone loach, macroinvertebrates, aquatic vegetation
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: The degradation of inland aquatic habitats through decades of human activities has lead
to massive efforts to rehabilitate freshwater habitats for fisheries and aquatic resources
in watersheds throughout the world. Many texts have been written on techniques
for rehabilitation though no comprehensive worldwide review of the effectiveness of
techniques has been undertaken. This paper reviews published evaluations of freshwater
habitat rehabilitation projects, including studies on roads improvements and sediment
reduction, riparian and floodplain rehabilitation, placement of habitat structures in lakes
and streams, addition of nutrients to increase aquatic production and other less common
techniques. In particular, the authors summarize what is known about the effects of
various techniques for restoring natural processes, improving habitat, and increasing
fish and biotic production. Recommendations on limitations of techniques, which
techniques are effective, as well as information on planning, prioritizing and monitoring
rehabilitation projects are also provided.
Despite locating more than 330 studies on effectiveness, as well as hundreds of
other papers on rehabilitation, it was difficult to draw firm conclusions about many
specific techniques because of the limited information provided on physical habitat,
biota and costs, as well as the short duration and scope of most published evaluations.
However, techniques such as reconnection of isolated habitats, rehabilitation of
floodplains and placement of instream structures have proven effective for improving
habitat and increasing local fish abundance under many circumstances. Techniques that
restore processes, such as riparian rehabilitation, sediment reduction methods (road
improvements), dam removal and restoration of floods, also show promise but may take
years or decades before a change in fish or other biota is evident. Other techniques such
as bank protection, beaver removal and bank debrushing can produce positive effects
for some species but more often produce negative impacts on biota or disrupt natural
processes.
Comparing the cost-effectiveness of different types of rehabilitation techniques
was not possible because few evaluations reported various costs or economic benefits;
however, estimates of average costs for various techniques are provided. Monitoring
and evaluations clearly need to be designed as part of the rehabilitation action. The
authors discuss the key steps to consider when designing monitoring and evaluation of
rehabilitation actions at various scales.
Similar to less-comprehensive reviews of rehabilitation, this review demonstrates
three key areas lacking in most rehabilitation projects: 1) adequate assessment of historic
conditions, impaired ecosystem processes and factors limiting biotic production; 2)
understanding upstream or watershed-scale factors that may influence effectiveness
of reach or localized rehabilitation; and 3) well-designed and -funded monitoring and
evaluation. These are the same factors that consistently limit the ability of published
studies to determine the success of a given technique at improving habitat conditions
or fisheries resources. Finally, this review suggests that many habitat rehabilitation
techniques show promise, but most have not received adequate planning, monitoring or
cost-benefit analysis.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Taylor, J.J., Rytwinski, T., Bennett, J.R., Smokorowski, K.E., Lapointe, N.W.R., Janusz, R., Clarke, K., Tonn, B., Walsh, J.C., Cooke, S.J. ( (2019)
The effectiveness of spawning habitat creation or enhancement for substrate-spawning temperate fish: a systematic review
Title: The effectiveness of spawning habitat creation or enhancement for substrate-spawning temperate fish: a systematic review
Authors: Taylor, J.J., Rytwinski, T., Bennett, J.R., Smokorowski, K.E., Lapointe, N.W.R., Janusz, R., Clarke, K., Tonn, B., Walsh, J.C., Cooke, S.J. (
Journal: Environmental Evidence
Year: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0162-6
Species or groups: Brook trout, Brown trout, Chinook salmon, Atlantic salmon, Masu salmon, Slimy sculpin, Longnose dace, Rainbow trout, lamprey, Reticulate sculpins, Torrent sculpins, Coho salmon, Steelhead
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Habitat is the foundation for healthy and productive fisheries. For fish that require substrate for spawning,
lack of appropriate spawning substrate is inherently limiting and a lack of access to suitable spawning habitat will
lead to population collapse. To ensure management resources are being allocated wisely and conservation targets are
being achieved, there is an increased need to consider the effectiveness of techniques to enhance or create habitat
that has been lost. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of techniques currently used
to create or enhance spawning habitat for substrate-spawning (including vegetation-spawning) fish in temperate
regions, and to investigate the factors that influence the effectiveness of habitat creation or enhancement.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Sondergaard, M., & Jeppesen, E. (2007)
Anthropogenic impacts on lake and stream ecosystems, and
approaches to restoration
Title: Anthropogenic impacts on lake and stream ecosystems, and
approaches to restoration
Authors: Sondergaard, M., & Jeppesen, E.
Journal: Journal of Applied Ecology
Year: 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01426.x
Species or groups: Fish
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: 1. Freshwater ecosystems have long been affected by numerous types of human
interventions that have a negative impact on their water quality and ecological state.
Fortunately, in most western countries the input of sewage to freshwater systems has
been reduced, but hydromorphological alterations, eutrophication-related turbidity
and loss of biodiversity remain major problems in many parts of the world. Such impacts
prevent the achievement of a high or good ecological state, as defined by the European
Water Framework Directive (WFD) or other standards.
2.
This paper synthesizes and links the findings presented in the seven papers of this
special profile, focusing on the effects of anthropogenic stressors on freshwater ecosystems
and on how to maintain and restore ecological quality. The papers cover a broad range
of research areas and methods, but are all centred on the relationship between dispersal
barriers, the connectivity of waterways and the restoration of rivers and lakes.
3.
The construction of dams and reservoirs disturbs the natural functioning of many
streams and rivers and shore-line development around lakes may reduce habitat
complexity. New methods demonstrate how reservoirs may have a severe impact on the
distribution and connectivity of fish populations, and new techniques illustrate the
potential of using graph theory and connectivity models to illustrate the ecological
implications. Hydromorphologically degraded rivers and streams can be restored
by addition of wood debris, but ‘passive’ restoration via natural wood recruitment
may be preferable. The most cost-effective way to restore streams may also include
information campaigns to farmers on best management practices. Removal of zooplanktivorous
fish often has marked positive effects on trophic structure in lakes, but there
is a tendency to return to turbid conditions after 8–10 years or less unless fish removal
is repeated.
4.
Synthesis and applications
. Development of new methods, as well as derivation of
more general conclusions from reviewing the effects of previous restoration efforts, are
crucial to achieve progress in applied freshwater research. The papers contained in this
Special Profile contribute on both counts, as well as illustrating the importance of
well-designed research projects and monitoring programmes to record the effects of
the interventions. Such efforts are vital if we are to improve our knowledge of freshwater
systems and to elaborate the best and most cost-effective recommendations. They may also
help in achieving a good ecological state or potential in water bodies by 2015, as
demanded by the European WFD.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Sievers, M., Hale, R., & Morrongiello, J.R. (2017)
Do trout response to riparian change? A meta-analysis with implications for restoration and management
Title: Do trout response to riparian change? A meta-analysis with implications for restoration and management
Authors: Sievers, M., Hale, R., & Morrongiello, J.R.
Journal: Freshwater Biology
Year: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12888
Species or groups: Brook trout, Brown trout, Cutthroat troat, Rainbow trout, Steelhead
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: There are strong conceptual links between riparian zones and freshwater fish via riparian
influences on water quality, habitat quality and availability, and trophic dynamics. Many of the
world’s riparian zones are, however, severely degraded, and the key functions they provide for fish
are lost or compromised. In response to their ongoing degradation, extensive works are underway
globally to restore the structure and function of riparian zones. Despite intense effort, we lack clear
empirical evidence of how fishes respond to changes in riparian zones.
2. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore how trout (specifically brook,
brown, cutthroat, rainbow and steelhead), fish with globally important social, cultural, economic and
ecological value, respond to key drivers of riparian alteration. We also identified where and with
which species current research is being undertaken and examined the broad characteristics of
different studies (e.g. location, focal species, length of study, study design) to better understand
potential knowledge gaps in our understanding of how trout respond to changes in riparian zones.
3. ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched for relevant peer-reviewed studies, and
from an initial 6514 papers, 55 were included in the formal meta-analysis. From these, we extracted
data to calculate response ratios comparing biological attributes at sites with altered riparian
characteristics to suitable unmanipulated control sites. We used linear mixed effects models to assess
general and species-specific trout responses to eight key ‘drivers’ of change in riparian condition.
4. Most studies were undertaken in North America using control-impact designs. We found little
evidence for species-specific responses to riparian change, and surprisingly, many drivers deemed
important in the literature (e.g. revegetation, managed canopy removal, grazing, and forestry
clearing) did not consistently influence trout population- or individual-level metrics. Nonetheless,
trout populations did respond positively to increasing woody debris and livestock exclusion (+87.7
and +66.6% respectively), and negatively to bushfire and afforestation (_x0001_67.4 and _x0001_88.2%
respectively). We found some evidence that positive riparian changes may just attract fish (i.e.
increased abundance or density) rather than enhance actual population production (i.e. individual
size and growth). While this conclusion necessarily needs to be interpreted with caution, it does
suggest that targeted research on the ‘production versus attraction’ hypothesis would be beneficial.
5. Several key drivers of riparian change, such as revegetation activities, have been the focus of only
limited research. More generally, long-term data are lacking for most drivers. Both of these key
information gaps limit our ability to predict the likely timing and trajectory of responses to riparian
management. Robust monitoring programmes in areas with altered riparian zones – particularly
using BACI designs to allow changes to be attributed to management – are required. The knowledge
gaps present for fishes as ecologically, socially and environmentally important as trout are likely to
be even more pronounced for the majority of less-studied freshwater fish species.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Stewart, G.B., Bayliss, H.R., Showler, D.A., Pullin, A.S., & Sutherland, W.J. (2006)
Does the use of in-stream structures and woody debris increase the abundance of salmonids?
Title: Does the use of in-stream structures and woody debris increase the abundance of salmonids?
Authors: Stewart, G.B., Bayliss, H.R., Showler, D.A., Pullin, A.S., & Sutherland, W.J.
Journal: Collaboration for Envrionmental Evidence
Year: 2006
DOI: NA
Species or groups: European bullhead, Brown trout, Coho salmon, Rainbow trout, Cutthroat trout, Brook trout, Bonneville cutthroat trout, Atlantic salmon, Chinook salmon, Arctic grayling, Colorado River cutthroat trout, Masu salmon
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: In-stream structures (such as flow deflectors, weirs and woody debris) have been
in widespread use for the last eighty years to increase the production of fish
stocks, primarily salmonids, but also species of conservation concern such as
European Bullhead Cottus gobio. A large number of studies, of variable quality,
have been undertaken to assess the effectiveness of in-stream structures, often
with conflicting results. It has therefore been hard to develop a consensus
regarding the utility of in-stream structures despite their continued use. This
systematic review formally synthesises empirical evidence regarding the
effectiveness of in-stream structures in terms of impact on abundance of salmonid
fish and C. gobio using a documented a priori protocol.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Strayer, D.L. & Findlay, S.E.G. (2010)
Ecology of freshwater shore zones
Title: Ecology of freshwater shore zones
Authors: Strayer, D.L. & Findlay, S.E.G.
Journal: Aquatic Science
Year: 2010
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-010-0128-9
Species or groups: Grass shrimp
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Freshwater shore zones are among the most
ecologically valuable parts of the planet, but have been
heavily damaged by human activities. Because the management
and rehabilitation of freshwater shore zones could
be improved by better use of ecological knowledge, we
summarize here what is known about their ecological
functioning. Shore zones are complexes of habitats that
support high biodiversity, which is enhanced by high
physical complexity and connectivity. Shore zones dissipate
large amounts of physical energy, can receive and
process extraordinarily high inputs of autochthonous and
allochthonous organic matter, and are sites of intensive
nutrient cycling. Interactions between organic matter inputs
(including wood), physical energy, and the biota are
especially important. In general, the ecological character of
shore zone ecosystems is set by inputs of physical energy,
geologic (or anthropogenic) structure, the hydrologic
regime, nutrient inputs, the biota, and climate. Humans
have affected freshwater shore zones by laterally compressing
and stabilizing the shore zone, changing
hydrologic regimes, shortening and simplifying shorelines,
hardening shorelines, tidying shore zones, increasing inputs
of physical energy that impinge on shore zones, pollution,
recreational activities, resource extraction, introducing
alien species, changing climate, and intensive development
in the shore zone. Systems to guide management and restoration
by quantifying ecological services provided by
shore zones and balancing multiple (and sometimes conflicting)
values are relatively recent and imperfect. We
close by identifying leading challenges for shore zone
ecology and management.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Smokorowski, K.E., & Pratt, T.C. (2007)
Effect of a change in physical structure and cover on fish and fish habitat in freshwater ecosystems – a review and meta-analysis
Title: Effect of a change in physical structure and cover on fish and fish habitat in freshwater ecosystems – a review and meta-analysis
Authors: Smokorowski, K.E., & Pratt, T.C.
Journal: Environmental Reviews
Year: 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/A06-007
Species or groups: Coho salmon, Cutthroat trout, Steelhead trout, Chinook salmon, Arctic grayling, Brook trout, Rainbow trout, Brown trout, Atlantic salmon, Johnny darter
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Aquatic resource managers are continually faced with construction or site development proposals which, if allowed
to proceed, would ultimately alter the physical structure and cover of fish habitat. In the absence of clear quantitative
guidelines linking the change in habitat to fish, resource managers often use the change in habitat area as a basis for
decisions. To assess the weight of scientific evidence in support of management decisions, we summarized both the observational
and experimental freshwater fish-habitat literature. We then extracted data from experimental studies (where possible)
for inclusion in a meta-analysis, to provide a more rigorous assessment of the published results of experimental
habitat manipulations. We found relatively strong and consistent correlational evidence linking fish and physical habitat
features, yet inconsistent evidence when narratively reviewing the experimental literature. On the whole, decreases in
structural habitat complexity are detrimental to fish diversity and can change species composition. Increases in structural
complexity showed increases, decreases, or no measurable changes in species and (or) communities. The majority of our
meta-analyses resulted in supporting a direct link between habitat and fish abundance or biomass, with fish biomass responding
most strongly to habitat change. Habitat alterations are most likely to affect individual species or community
structure, and thus evaluating the extent of the effect on a biological basis depends on management objectives.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Feld, C.K., Rosario Fernandes, M., Teresa Ferreira, M., Hering, D., Ormerod, S.J., Venohr, M., Guiterrez-Canovas, C. (2018)
Evaluating riparian solutions to multiple stressors problems in river ecosystems – A conceptual study
Title: Evaluating riparian solutions to multiple stressors problems in river ecosystems – A conceptual study
Authors: Feld, C.K., Rosario Fernandes, M., Teresa Ferreira, M., Hering, D., Ormerod, S.J., Venohr, M., Guiterrez-Canovas, C.
Journal: Water Research
Year: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.04.014
Species or groups: Fish (trout, eel), invertebrates, riparian vegetation
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Rivers are among the most sensitive of all ecosystems to the effects of global change, but options to
prevent, mitigate or restore ecosystem damage are still inadequately understood. Riparian buffers are
widely advocated as a cost-effective option to manage impacts, but empirical evidence is yet to identify
ideal riparian features (e.g. width, length and density) which enhance ecological integrity and protect
ecosystem services in the face of catchment-scale stressors. Here, we use an extensive literature review
to synthesise evidence on riparian buffer and catchment management effects on instream environmental
conditions (e.g. nutrients, fine sediments, organic matter), river organisms and ecosystem functions. We
offer a conceptual model of the mechanisms through which catchment or riparian management might
impact streams either positively or negatively. The model distinguishes scale-independent benefits
(shade, thermal damping, organic matter and large wood inputs) that arise from riparian buffer management
at any scale from scale-dependent benefits (nutrient or fine sediment retention) that reflect
stressor conditions at broader (sub-catchment to catchment) scales. The latter require concerted management
efforts over equally large domains of scale (e.g. riparian buffers combined with nutrient restrictions).
The evidence of the relationships between riparian configuration (width, length, zonation,
density) and scale-independent benefits is consistent, suggesting a high certainty of the effects. In
contrast, scale-dependent effects as well as the biological responses to riparian management are more
uncertain, suggesting that ongoing diffuse pollution (nutrients, sediments), but also sources of variability
(e.g. hydrology, climate) at broader scales may interfere with the effects of local riparian management.
Without concerted management across relevant scales, full biological recovery of damaged lotic ecosystems
is unlikely. There is, nevertheless, sufficient evidence that the benefits of riparian buffers
outweigh potential adverse effects, in particular if located in the upstream part of the stream network.
This supports the use of riparian restoration as a no-regrets management option to improve and sustain
lotic ecosystem functioning and biodiversity.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Roni, P., Hanson, K., & Beechie, T. (2008)
Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques
Title: Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques
Authors: Roni, P., Hanson, K., & Beechie, T.
Journal: North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Year: 2008
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1577/M06-169.1
Species or groups: Steelhead, Coho salmon, Cutthroat trout, Chinook salmon, Pacific salmon, Atlantic salmon, Brown trout, aquatic macroinvertebrates
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: The degradation of inland aquatic habitats caused by decades of human activities has led to
worldwide efforts to rehabilitate freshwater habitats for fisheries and aquatic resources. We reviewed
published evaluations of stream rehabilitation techniques from throughout the world, including studies on
road improvement, riparian rehabilitation, floodplain connectivity and rehabilitation, instream habitat
improvement, nutrient addition, and other, less-common techniques. We summarize current knowledge about
the effectiveness of these techniques for improving physical habitat and water quality and increasing fish and
biotic production. Despite locating 345 studies on effectiveness of stream rehabilitation, firm conclusions
about many specific techniques were difficult to make because of the limited information provided on
physical habitat, water quality, and biota and because of the short duration and limited scope of most
published evaluations. Reconnection of isolated habitats, floodplain rehabilitation, and instream habitat
improvement have, however, proven effective for improving habitat and increasing local fish abundance
under many circumstances. Techniques such as riparian rehabilitation, road improvements (sediment
reduction), dam removal, and restoration of natural flood regimes have shown promise for restoring natural
processes that create and maintain habitats, but no long-term studies documenting their success have yet been
published. Our review demonstrates that the failure of many rehabilitation projects to achieve objectives is
attributable to inadequate assessment of historic conditions and factors limiting biotic production; poor
understanding of watershed-scale processes that influence localized projects; and monitoring at inappropriate
spatial and temporal scales. We suggest an interim approach to sequencing rehabilitation projects that partially
addresses these needs through protecting high-quality habitats and restoring connectivity and watershed
processes before implementing instream habitat improvement projects.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Allouche, S. (2002)
Nature and functions of cover for riverine fish
Title: Nature and functions of cover for riverine fish
Authors: Allouche, S.
Journal: Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture
Year: 2002
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae:2002037
Species or groups: Brown madtoms, aquatic invertebrates, sunfish, Pirate perch, Coho salmon, Dolly Varden trout, Brook trout, Rainbow trout, Brown trout
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: This review attempts to assess the nature and the role of cover for riverine fish
assemblages. Although early identified as a key factor for fish distribution, especially for
salmonids, cover (i.e. woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, turbidity…) still remains the
variable least considered in the studies of fish habitat relationships. This is mainly due to
the diversity of ecological functions of cover structures in fish assemblages. Cover
structures are structuring components of fish habitat and contribute to the biological
productivity of streams. But, at the individual scale, cover fulfils three main functions:
protection against predators, visual isolation reducing competition, and hydraulic shelter. In
fact, the use of cover by fish results from a trade-off between the costs and the benefits
associated with its use. Although the relationships between fish and cover appear
extremely complex and context-specific, a growing body of evidence highlights the potential
role of cover for management purposes.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Miller, S.W., Budy, P., & Schmidt, J.C. (2010)
Quantifying Macroinvertebrate Responses to
In-Stream Habitat Restoration: Applications of
Meta-Analysis to River Restoration
Title: Quantifying Macroinvertebrate Responses to
In-Stream Habitat Restoration: Applications of
Meta-Analysis to River Restoration
Authors: Miller, S.W., Budy, P., & Schmidt, J.C.
Journal: Restoration Ecology
Year: 2010
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00605.x
Species or groups: Aquatic macroinvertebrates
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: The assumption that restoring physical habitat heterogeneity
will increase biodiversity underlies many river restoration
projects, despite few tests of the hypothesis. With over
6,000 in-stream habitat enhancement projects implemented
in the last decade at a cost exceeding $1 billion, there is a
clear need to assess the consistency of responses, as well
as factors explaining project performance. We adopted an
alternative approach to individual case-studies by applying
meta-analysis to quantify macroinvertebrate responses to
in-stream habitat restoration. Meta-analysis of 24 separate
studies showed that increasing habitat heterogeneity had
significant, positive effects on macroinvertebrate richness,
although density increases were negligible. Large woody
debris additions produced the largest and most consistent
responses, whereas responses to boulder additions and
channel reconfigurations were positive, yet highly variable.
Among all strategies, the strength and consistency of
macroinvertebrate responses were related to land use or
watershed-scale conditions, but appeared independent of
project size, stream size, or recovery time. Overall, the low
quality and quantity of pre- and post-project monitoring
data reduced the robustness of our meta-analysis. Specifically,
the scope and strength of conclusions regarding
the ubiquity of macroinvertebrate responses to restoration,
as well as the identification of variables controlling
project performance was limited. More robust applications
of meta-analysis to advance the science and practice
of river restoration will require implementing rigorous
study designs, including pre- and post-project monitoring
replicated at both restored and control sites, collection
of abiotic and biotic variables at relevant spatiotemporal
scales, and increased reporting of monitoring results in
peer-reviewed journals and/or regional databases.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Lester, R.E., & Boulton, A.J. (2008)
Rehabilitating agricultural streams in Australia with wood: A review
Title: Rehabilitating agricultural streams in Australia with wood: A review
Authors: Lester, R.E., & Boulton, A.J.
Journal: Environmental Management
Year: 2008
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9151-1
Species or groups: Coho salmon, aquatic macroinvertebrates
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Worldwide, the ecological condition of streams
and rivers has been impaired by agricultural practices such
as broadscale modification of catchments, high nutrient and
sediment inputs, loss of riparian vegetation, and altered
hydrology. Typical responses include channel incision,
excessive sedimentation, declining water quality, and loss
of in-stream habitat complexity and biodiversity. We
review these impacts, focusing on the potential benefits and
limitations of wood reintroduction as a transitional rehabilitation
technique in these agricultural landscapes using
Australian examples. In streams, wood plays key roles in
shaping velocity and sedimentation profiles, forming pools,
and strengthening banks. In the simplified channels typical
of many agricultural streams, wood provides habitat for
fauna, substrate for biofilms, and refuge from predators and
flow extremes, and enhances in-stream diversity of fish and
macroinvertebrates.
Most previous restoration studies involving wood reintroduction
have been in forested landscapes, but some
results might be extrapolated to agricultural streams. In
these studies, wood enhanced diversity of fish and macroinvertebrates,
increased storage of organic material and
sediment, and improved bed and bank stability. Failure to
meet restoration objectives appeared most likely where
channel incision was severe and in highly degraded environments.
Methods for wood reintroduction have logistical
advantages over many other restoration techniques, being
relatively low cost and low maintenance. Wood reintroduction
is a viable transitional restoration technique for
agricultural landscapes likely to rapidly improve stream
condition if sources of colonists are viable and water
quality is suitable.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Dominguez, L.G., & Cederholm, C.J. (2000)
Rehabilitating Stream Channels Using Large Woody Debris with Considerations for Salmonid Life History and Fluvial Geomorphic Processes
Title: Rehabilitating Stream Channels Using Large Woody Debris with Considerations for Salmonid Life History and Fluvial Geomorphic Processes
Authors: Dominguez, L.G., & Cederholm, C.J.
Journal:
Year: 2000
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429104411
Species or groups: Coho salmon, Steelhead, Cutthroat trout, Chum salmon
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. exist in fluvial systems that are physically and
biologically dynamic. Salmonid life history characteristics and associated habitat requirements vary
widely by species. Some species use the freshwater environment almost solely for incubation, while
others use it for both incubation and extended rearing. Salmon species have evolved into several
life history patterns that maximize their potential for survival and minimize their spatial and
temporal overlap. To rehabilitate salmon habitat and thereby strengthen wild runs requires a
knowledge of fish life histories and the aquatic system’s potential range of conditions. Using large
woody debris to rehabilitate stream channels is a popular management activity in the Pacific
Northwest. Prior knowledge of factors such as spawning distribution and timing, incubation environment
quality, seasonal rearing habitat needs (i.e., summer/winter), limiting factors in freshwater
production, and the relative habitat quality and availability is imperative for successful projects.
We review woody debris ecology in streams and provide planning information for woody debris
placement projects. In addressing limiting aspects of properly functioning aquatic and riparian
ecosystems, instream and riparian habitats can be created that provide the interim structural framework
for streams until riparian and upland forests recover from past disturbances. The discussion
is based on a decision flow diagram that guides the need assessment process and suggests appropriate
rehabilitation technique. Visits to several stream rehabilitation projects, combined with
information from the literature and our own experience, led us to a number of conclusions supporting
stream restoration for future sustainability of Pacific salmonids.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Crook, D.A., & Robertson, A.I. (1999)
Relationship between riverine fish and woody debris: implications for lowland rivers
Title: Relationship between riverine fish and woody debris: implications for lowland rivers
Authors: Crook, D.A., & Robertson, A.I.
Journal: Marine Freshwater Research
Year: 1999
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/MF99072
Species or groups: Brown trout, Brook charr, Rainbow trout, Chinook salmon, Smallmouth bass, Coho salmon, Atlantic salmon, Masu salmon, River blackfish, Grass pickerel, Horny-head chub, Bluegill, Rock bass, Spotted sucker, Bigmouth buffalo, Black crappie, Walleye, Sauger, Emerald shiner, Common carp, cichlids, Murray cod, Trout cod, Golden perch, Largemouth bass, Cutthroat trout, Longear sunfish
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: This paper reviews studies of relationships between riverine fish and woody debris at microand
meso-habitat scales, and discusses the potential functions of instream structure for lowland river fish.
Experimental research, mainly in North America, has identified three main functions of woody debris as
microhabitat for fish in upland streams: overhead cover that decreases predation risk both vertically and
horizontally; horizontal visual isolation that reduces contact between fish; and velocity refuge which minimizes
energetic costs. As with habitat features in other aquatic environments, increasing spatial complexity
of woody debris may modify predatorprey interactions and provide greater surface areas for the
growth of prey items. Woody debris may also provide spatial reference points for riverine fish to assist
them in orienting within their surroundings. Lowland rivers differ from upland streams in terms of a
number of physical variables, including turbidity, depth and water turbulence. Relationships between fish
and woody debris in lowland rivers are likely to rely on mechanisms different to those in upland streams.
Recent initiatives involving the reintroduction of woody debris into previously cleared lowland rivers to
replace lost fish habitat are a positive development for lowland river restoration. However, if woody
debris reintroduction is to maximally benefit lowland river fisheries, there is a requirement for better
understanding of the ecological functions of woody debris in lowland rivers
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Nakano, D., Nagayama, S., Kawaguchi, Y., & Nakamura, F. (2008)
River restoration for macroinvertebrate communities in lowland rivers: Insights from restorations of the Shibetsu River, north Japan
Title: River restoration for macroinvertebrate communities in lowland rivers: Insights from restorations of the Shibetsu River, north Japan
Authors: Nakano, D., Nagayama, S., Kawaguchi, Y., & Nakamura, F.
Journal: Landscape and Ecological Engineering
Year: 2008
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-008-0038-3
Species or groups: Aquatic macroinvertebrates
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Because of human impacts, lowland rivers are
among the most degraded running water ecosystems, with
their floodplains being the center of human activity.
Recently, many programs to restore running water ecosystems
have been undertaken using various methods in
streams and rivers of North America, Europe, and Far East
Asia. However, research and knowledge on the effects of
river restoration in lowland rivers are limited around the
world. The restoration project involving the first reconstruction
of a meandering channel in Asia has been
conducted in a lowland river section of the Shibetsu River,
northern Japan. We review the geomorphologic and
hydraulic characteristics of lowland rivers and their environments
for macroinvertebrates and discuss approaches to
restoring macroinvertebrate communities in lowland rivers,
using insights from the restoration project in the Shibetsu
River. It is concluded that the recovery of macroinvertebrate
assemblages in channelized lowland rivers requires
the implementation of restoration methods to create stable
substrates.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Taniguchi, Y., Inoue, M., & Kawaguchi, Y. (2001)
Stream fish habitat science and management in Japan: A review
Title: Stream fish habitat science and management in Japan: A review
Authors: Taniguchi, Y., Inoue, M., & Kawaguchi, Y.
Journal: Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management
Year: 2001
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/146349801317276035
Species or groups: Salmonids, Rainbow trout, Masu salmon
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Japanese freshwater fish habitats can be generally categorized into 1) rivers and streams, 2) ponds and lakes,
and 3) rice fields and small irrigation channels connecting them. Of these, reviewing studies on stream fish habitat
is the primary objective of this paper. Streams in Japan have widely received severe habitat alterations through
construction of artificial instream structures as well as modification of riparian vegetations. As a result, streamdwelling
fishes that require natural flow regimes, substrates, and riparian vegetation have declined their populations
in great deal in many parts of the country. Recent studies have found riparian forests control water
temperature and provide woody debris creating cover structures for the stream fishes resulting in enhancing their
carrying capacity. Differences in riparian vegetation types (forest versus grass) played an important role in
determining the local distribution of salmonids. Also, experiments removing concrete-lined channel and installing
log-drop structures demonstrated that such the treatment greatly improved fish habitat.
As the general public became aware of the serious degradation of aquatic habitats, river management policy
has gradually shifted to include conservation and improvement of river environment as habitat for wildlife during
the last two decades. For fish migration, installation of fishway on dams has been prevailing, and research efforts
have been made to design more effective fishway and passable weirs. In many cases, however, such restoration
work lacks ecological data for assessment of their effectiveness. When such knowledge on fish habitat are
accumulated, a vital issue will be how it is accounted into actual management. Future studies on fish habitat
should shift toward treating habitat network at larger spatial scales to seek better designs for distributing appropriate
habitats over a whole catchment. Such studies should also include clarifying the habitat requirements of
endangered species and effects of non-native on native species.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Bryant, M.D. (1983)
The role and management of woody debris in west coast salmonid nursery streams
Title: The role and management of woody debris in west coast salmonid nursery streams
Authors: Bryant, M.D.
Journal: North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Year: 1983
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1983)3<322:TRAMOW>2.0.CO;2
Species or groups: Coho salmon, Dolly Varden trout, Cutthroat trout, Rainbow trout, Pink salmon, Chum salmon
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Debris removal is a frequently used management technique for small streams in logged watersheds,
but many stream-cleaning techniques overlook important habitat requirements of juvenile
salmonids. Reviews of some past management practices show little systematic evaluation or monitoring
of physical or biological effects. A review of several studies (most of them not associated
with debris removal) shows the importance of woody debris as salmonid habitat. The role of organic
debris in small stream systems is discussed and a set of criteria for debris removal is proposed.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Gurnell, A.M., Gregory, K.J., & Petts, G.E. (1995)
The role of coarse woody debris in forest aquatic habitats: implications for management
Title: The role of coarse woody debris in forest aquatic habitats: implications for management
Authors: Gurnell, A.M., Gregory, K.J., & Petts, G.E.
Journal: Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Year: 1995
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3270050206
Species or groups: Aquatic macroinvertebrates, fish
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: 1. Throughout the Temperate Forest biogeographical zone, river valleys were once heavily
wooded. Fallen trees had a major impact upon river systems by ponding water and storing
sediments, and valley floors were characterized by extensive wetlands with networks of minor
channels linking to the main channel. Concern for environmental conservation and for the
rehabilitatior. of damaged aquatic ecosystems has led to research on the links between river channel
dynamics and vegetation, and an interest in the use of dead wood for environmentally sensitive
engineering approaches to river management.
2. Accumulations of coarse woody debris (CWD) have an impact on the hydrological, hydraulic,
sedimentological, morphological and biological characteristics of river channels. These impacts are
very significant for the stability and biological productivity of river channels in forested catchments.
3. As a result of the geomorphological and ecological importance of CWD in river channels in
forested catchments, such debris requires careful management. In particular indiscriminate removal
of CWD should be avoided.
4. In the context of commercial forestry, a sequence of linked management options can be
employed to control sediment and organic matter transport within river systems and to enhance
channel stability and physical habitat diversity. These management options include selective removal
of less stable debris, addition of debris to the river where the natural supply is inadequate, the
maintenance of buffer strips of riparian trees which can act as a source of CWD, and the active
management of woodland buffer strips to provide a wide range of physical habitat characteristics
including light, temperature, flow, sediment transport and substrate conditions, thereby promoting
high biological diversity within the river environment.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Roni, P., Beechie, T., Pess, G., & Hanson, K. (2015)
Wood placement in river restoration: Fact, fiction, and future direction
Title: Wood placement in river restoration: Fact, fiction, and future direction
Authors: Roni, P., Beechie, T., Pess, G., & Hanson, K.
Journal: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Year: 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2014-0344
Species or groups: Darters, catfishes, Trout cod, Steelhead, Brook trout, Brown trout, Cutthroat trout, Coho salmon, Atlantic salmon, Rainbow trout, aquatic invertebrates
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Despite decades of research on wood in rivers, the addition of wood as a river restoration technique remains
controversial. We reviewed the literature on natural and placed wood to shed light on areas of continued debate. Research on
river ecology demonstrates that large woody debris has always been a natural part of most rivers systems. Although a few studies
have reported high structural failure rates (>50%) of placed instream wood structures, most studies have shown relatively low
failure rates (<20%) and that placed wood remains stable for several years, though long-term evaluations of placed wood are rare.
The vast majority of studies on wood placement have reported improvements in physical habitat (e.g., increased pool frequency,
cover, habitat diversity). Studies that have not reported improvements in physical habitat often found that watershed processes
(e.g., sediment, hydrology, water quality) had not been addressed. Finally, most evaluations of fish response to wood placement
have shown positive responses for salmonids, though few studies have looked at long-term watershed-scale responses or studied
a wide range of species.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
McKergow, L.A., Matheson, F.E., & Quinn, J.M. (2016)
Riparian management: A restoration tool for New Zealand streams
Title: Riparian management: A restoration tool for New Zealand streams
Authors: McKergow, L.A., Matheson, F.E., & Quinn, J.M.
Journal: Ecological Management & Restoration
Year: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12232
Species or groups: Northern koura, stoneflies, Brown trout
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Many New Zealanders are planning and implementing riparian management,and riparian fencing and planting are now standard best practice tools for water quality andhabitat restoration. New Zealand has a long history of action, with the first catchment riparianschemes and science dating back to the 1970s. As a result of this, there is now solid scien-tific evidence that demonstrates the value of a range of management actions including thefollowing: riparian zones and buffers for livestock exclusion (fencing with or without planting),nutrient processing, shading small streams for temperature control, providing leaf and woodinput to stream ecosystems, and enhancing fish and invertebrate habitat. In the last decadeor so, on-ground action has accelerated significantly with the introduction of dairy industryand government agreed targets. In 2015, 96% of dairy cows had been excluded from water-ways >1 m wide and >30 cm deep on land that cows graze during the milking season provid-ing impetus for on-ground action to spread into other pastoral industries. Tools for planning,managing and implementing successful riparian restoration have proliferated, informed byon-ground successes and failures. Despite this, there remain challenges for individuals orcommunities planning riparian restoration. Careful case-by-case assessment is recom-mended to ensure that plans match design to local landscape constraints and can realisti-cally contribute to improved water quality or habitat outcomes.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Parkyn, S. (2004)
Review of riparian buffer zone effectiveness
Title: Review of riparian buffer zone effectiveness
Authors: Parkyn, S.
Journal: NA
Year: 2004
DOI: NA
Species or groups: Freshwater crayfish, benthic macroinvertebrates
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/809
Abstract: The purpose of this report is to review and summarise published research on the efficiency and management of riparian buffer zones (RBZ) with respect to the attenuation of sediment and nutrients, and biodiversity enhancement. While there have been numerous studies on the efficiency of RBZ with respect to sediment and nutrients, many of these studies have been small-scale and site-specific. Therefore, a review of these studies needs to consider an assessment of the catchment scale factors that influence the effectiveness of RBZ in attenuating catchment loads.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Feld, C.K., Birk, S., Bradley, D.C., Hering, D., Kail, J., Marzin, A., Melcher, A., Nemitz, D., Pedersen, M.L., Pletterbauer, F., Pont, D., Verdonschot, P.F.M., & Friberg, N. (2011)
From Natural Design to Degraded Rivers and Back Again: A Test of Restoration Ecology Theory and Practices
Title: From Natural Design to Degraded Rivers and Back Again: A Test of Restoration Ecology Theory and Practices
Authors: Feld, C.K., Birk, S., Bradley, D.C., Hering, D., Kail, J., Marzin, A., Melcher, A., Nemitz, D., Pedersen, M.L., Pletterbauer, F., Pont, D., Verdonschot, P.F.M., & Friberg, N.
Journal: NA
Year: 2011
DOI: NA
Species or groups: Benthic macroinvertebrates, fish (Coho salmon, Rainbow trout)
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: Extensive degradation of ecosystems, combined with the increasing demands
placed on the goods and services they provide, is a major driver of biodiversity
loss on a global scale. In particular, the severe degradation of large rivers, their
catchments, floodplains and lower estuarine reaches has been ongoing for
many centuries, and the consequences are evident across Europe. River restoration
is a relatively recent tool that has been brought to bear in attempts to
reverse the effects of habitat simplification and ecosystem degradation, with a
surge of projects undertaken in the 1990s in Europe and elsewhere, mainly
North America. Here, we focus on restoration of the physical properties (e.g.
substrate composition, bank and bed structure) of river ecosystems to ascertain
what has, and what has not, been learned over the last 20 years.
First, we focus on three common types of restoration measures- riparian
buffer management, instream mesohabitat enhancement and the removal of
weirs and small dams- to provide a structured overview of the literature. We
distinguish between abiotic effects of restoration (e.g. increasing habitat
diversity) and biological recovery (e.g. responses of algae, macrophytes,
macroinvertebrates and fishes).
We then addressed four major questions: (i) Which organisms show clear
recovery after restoration? (ii) Is there evidence for qualitative linkages
between restoration and recovery? (iii) What is the timescale of recovery?
and (iv) What are the reasons, if restoration fails?
Overall, riparian buffer zones reduced fine sediment entry, and nutrient and
pesticide inflows, and positive effects on stream organisms were evident. Buffer
width and length were key: 5-30 m width and > 1 km length were most effective.
The introduction of large woody debris, b,oulders and gravel were the most
commonly used restoration measures, but the potential positive effects of such
local habitat enhancement schemes were often likely to be swamped by largerscale
geomorphological and physico-chemical effects. Studies demonstrating
long-term biological recovery due to habitat enhancement were notable by their
absence. In contrast, weir removal can have clear beneficial effects, although
biological recovery might lag behind for several years, as huge amounts affine
sediment may have accumulated upstream of the former barrier.
Three Danish restoration schemes are provided as focal case studies to
supplement the literature review and largely supported our findings. While
the large-scale re-meandering and re-establishment of water levels at River
Skjern resulted in significant recovery of riverine biota, habitat enhancement
schemes at smaller-scales in other rivers were largely ineffective and failed to
show long-term recovery.
The general lack of knowledge derived from integrated, well-designed and
long-term restoration schemes is striking, and we present a conceptual
framework to help address this problem. The framework was applied to the
three restoration types included in our study and highlights recurrent causeeffect
chains, that is, commonly observed relationships of restoration measures
(cause) and their effects on abiotic and biotic conditions (effect). Such
conceptual models can provide useful new tools for devising more effective
river restoration, and for identifying avenues for future research in restoration
ecology in general.
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
+
Matthews, W.J. (1998)
Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology
Title: Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology
Authors: Matthews, W.J.
Journal: NA
Year: 1998
DOI: NA
Species or groups: Chihuahua chub, salmonids (coho salmon), Rock bass, trout (Brook trout), sunfish (Bluegill), Smallmouth bass, Central stoneroller, catfish, Pirate perch, Blacktail shiners, Steelcolor shiner
Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772
Abstract: NA
Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)
-
2.1
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
-
5.2
-
6.1
-
6.2
-
6.3
-
7.1
-
7.2
-
7.3
-
8.1
Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)
-
1.1
-
2.1
-
2.2
-
3.1
-
3.2
-
4.1
-
4.2
-
4.3
-
5.1
