Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Tree Planting

Tree planting is a method of revegetation not only meant for wooded areas as this action helps to improve both the function and health of riparian zones. Planting trees in the riparian zone assists riparian zones in acting as a pollution buffer and filter for aquatic ecosystems. Trees can be planted both to create new buffer strips as well as to rehabilitate pre-existing buffer strips. Trees also provide many benefits individually to an ecosystem, such as acting as a source of woody debris and nutrients, maintaining water temperatures, encouraging biodiversity, as well as help in carbon sequestration.

Rating:
There was a mix of CEESAT scores for this intervention; 2 syntheses scored Red or Amber in each element demonstrating limitations in the rigour and the transparency in which these reviews were conducted (i.e., no a-priori protocol, critical appraisal, or search strategy provided). Three syntheses (Smith & Sutherland 2014, Roni et al. 2008, Flávio et al. 2017) demonstrated Green in at least one element. Sievers et al. (2017) is a detailed and systematic synthesis, demonstrating rigour in their review conduct by scoring Gold or Green in every CEESAT element. The majority of syntheses scored well in RASCAT but two syntheses scored Red in at least one category. Nunes et al. (2020) and Flávio et al. (2017) reviewed studies with climates not relevant to a Canadian context and failed to provide consideration of implications, practical advice, or recommendations for decision-makers. Nunes et al. (2020) also did not review species endemic to Canada.

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: Trees (Oak), deer, elk, beaver, mountain beaver, fish

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/360

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)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

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, Rainbow trout

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/360

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)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

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: Coniferous trees, oak trees, fish, willows

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/360

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)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J. (2014)

Amphibian conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions

Title: Amphibian conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions

Authors: Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J.

Journal: NA

Year: 2014

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Common midwife toad, Perez's frog, Western toad, Wood frog, salamanders

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/849

Abstract: NA

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Nunes, S., Gastauer, M., Cavalcante, R.B.L., Ramos, S.J., Caldeira, C.F. Jr., Silva, D., Rodrigues, R.R., Salomão, R., Oliveira, M., Souza-Filho, P.W.M., & Siqueria, J.O (2020)

Challenges and opportunities for large-scale reforestation in the Eastern Amazon using native species

Title: Challenges and opportunities for large-scale reforestation in the Eastern Amazon using native species

Authors: Nunes, S., Gastauer, M., Cavalcante, R.B.L., Ramos, S.J., Caldeira, C.F. Jr., Silva, D., Rodrigues, R.R., Salomão, R., Oliveira, M., Souza-Filho, P.W.M., & Siqueria, J.O

Journal: Forest Ecology and Management

Year: 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118120

Species or groups: Andiroba, chestnut, copaiba, gray freijó, paricá, white tachi, agelim, ipe

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2570

Abstract: Reforestation and forest restoration are recognized as an effective means of halting biodiversity loss and increasing the performance of ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and the protection and maintenance of water resources. The objective of this review is to describe the main challenges and opportunities for large-scale forest restoration and reforestation using native species in the Amazon, focusing on Pará state and the Itacaiúnas watershed. Large-scale forest restoration and reforestation in the Eastern Amazon may contribute to meeting national and global restoration commitments and reducing/eliminating the actual forest deficit caused by noncompliance with the Brazilian Native Vegetation Protection Law, concomitantly mitigating impacts on climate change, enhancing ecosystem services (e.g., protection of water resources and reduction of soil erosion) and maintaining biodiversity. The selection of active and passive reforestation approaches depends on land-use history, landscape context and reforestation targets, and the promotion of natural regeneration reduces implementation costs. To measure the ecological and socioeconomic success of forest restoration and reforestation, a large number of on-the-ground and remote indicators are available, and the use of a combination of both methods can reduce the monitoring cost. The socioeconomic benefits of reforestation include financial gains from restoration and carbon programs; furthermore, the commercialization of timber and non-timber products and their use for subsistence may improve livelihoods and farm incomes. Nevertheless, implementation of largescale reforestation in the Eastern Amazon requires research regarding the selection and the nutritional demands of native species and the development of adequate soil management strategies that promote the growth of native species and yields. The insufficient availability of seeds and seedlings is a major bottleneck for large-scale forest restoration and reforestation with native species. Thus, increasing the availability, diversity and quality of seedlings and seeds of native species to supply the demand for planting activities, as well as the registration of producers in the National Register of Seeds and Seedlings, is necessary to achieve compliance with national legislation and international commitments. Competition between reforestation and the expansion of agricultural and cattle ranching frontiers combined with a lack of markets for commercial products from restored areas constrains the socioeconomic viability of large-scale reforestation. To outweigh deforestation incentives, regulation and effective implementation of markets and programs such as REDD+, CDM and PES is thus paramount. To enhance the integration of human well-being, socioeconomic enhancements and ecological functionality, forest and landscape restoration concepts offer promising tools for the region.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Flávio, H.M., Ferreira, P., Formigo, N., & Svendsen, J.C. (2017)

Reconciling agriculture and stream restoration in Europe: A review relating to the EU Water Framework Directive

Title: Reconciling agriculture and stream restoration in Europe: A review relating to the EU Water Framework Directive

Authors: Flávio, H.M., Ferreira, P., Formigo, N., & Svendsen, J.C.

Journal: Science of the Total Environment

Year: 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.057

Species or groups: Macroinvertebrates, riparian and aquatic plants, birds, amphibians, fish

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/360

Abstract: Agriculture is widespread across the EU and has caused considerable impacts on freshwater ecosystems. To revert the degradation caused to streams and rivers, research and restoration efforts have been developed to recover ecosystem functions and services, with the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) playing a significant role in strengthening the progress. Analysing recent peer-reviewed European literature (2009–2016), this review explores 1) the conflicts and difficulties faced when restoring agriculturally impacted streams, 2) the aspects relevant to effectively reconcile agricultural land uses and healthy riverine ecosystems and 3) the effects and potential shortcomings of the first WFD management cycle. Our analysis reveals significant progress in restoration efforts, but it also demonstrates an urgent need for a higher number and detail of restoration projects reported in the peer-reviewed literature. The first WFD cycle ended in 2015 without reaching the goal of good ecological status in many European waterbodies. Addressing limitations reported in recent papers, including difficulties in stakeholder integration and importance of small headwater streams, is crucial. Analysing recent developments on stakeholder engagement through structured participatory processes will likely reduce perception discrepancies and increase stakeholder interest during the next WFD planning cycle. Despite an overall dominance of nutrient-related research, studies are spreading across many important topics (e.g. stakeholder management, land use conflicts, climate change effects), which may play an important role in guiding future policy. Our recommendations are important for the second WFD cycle because they 1) help secure the development and dissemination of science-based restoration strategies and 2) provide guidance for future research needs.

Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Tree Planting

Roni, P., Hanson, K., Beechie, T., Pess, G., Pollock, M., & Bartley, D.M. (2005)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Sievers, M., Hale, R., & Morrongiello, J.R. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Roni, P., Hanson, K., & Beechie, T. (2008)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J. (2014)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Nunes, S., Gastauer, M., Cavalcante, R.B.L., Ramos, S.J., Caldeira, C.F. Jr., Silva, D., Rodrigues, R.R., Salomão, R., Oliveira, M., Souza-Filho, P.W.M., & Siqueria, J.O (2020)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Flávio, H.M., Ferreira, P., Formigo, N., & Svendsen, J.C. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Other Interventions

Find other Interventions

Fencing of Farm Animals

Agricultural Run-off Control

Bycatch Reduction – Fish

Bycatch Reduction – Turtles

Find other Interventions

Article

Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Tree Planting

Roni, P., Hanson, K., Beechie, T., Pess, G., Pollock, M., & Bartley, D.M. (2005)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Sievers, M., Hale, R., & Morrongiello, J.R. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Roni, P., Hanson, K., & Beechie, T. (2008)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J. (2014)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Nunes, S., Gastauer, M., Cavalcante, R.B.L., Ramos, S.J., Caldeira, C.F. Jr., Silva, D., Rodrigues, R.R., Salomão, R., Oliveira, M., Souza-Filho, P.W.M., & Siqueria, J.O (2020)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Flávio, H.M., Ferreira, P., Formigo, N., & Svendsen, J.C. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Other Interventions

Find other Interventions

Fencing of Farm Animals

Agricultural Run-off Control

Bycatch Reduction – Fish

Bycatch Reduction – Turtles

Find other Interventions