Article

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: Macroinvertebrates, Atlantic salmon, Brown trout, minnow

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/120; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/819

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

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 (Brown trout, grayling), invertebrates, riparian vegetation

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/120; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/819

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

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: Aquatic macroinvertebrates

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/120; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/819

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

Title: Connecting phosphrous loss from agricultural landscapes to surface water quality

Authors: McDowell, R.W., Biggs, B.J.F., Sharpley, A.N., & Nguyen, L.

Journal: Chemistry and Ecology

Year: 2004

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02757540310001626092

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/246; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1665

Abstract: The loss of phosphorous (P) from the landscape is commonly viewed as deleterious for surface water quality. However, the quantities lost and the impact this can have on surface waters depends on numerous mechanisms that occur whilst en route. The aim of this review is to give an outline of these mechanisms and thus how sources of P in the agricultural landscape are connected to the impairment of surface water quality. Processes are dealt with by examining the potential for P loss from the landscape and its availability to aquatic plants during flow overland and subsurface flow and once in streamflow or a lake or reservoir. By examining the connectivity between P loss and the impact on surface water quality, potential mitigation and management of P losses are discussed for various aquatic systems.

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

Title: Factors influencing farmers' adoption of best management practices: A review and synthesis

Authors: Liu, T., Bruins, R.J.R., & Herberling, M.T.

Journal: Sustainability

Year: 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020432

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/246; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1665

Abstract: Best management practices (BMPs) for reducing agricultural non-point source pollution are widely available. However, agriculture remains a major global contributor to degradation of waters because farmers often do not adopt BMPs. To improve water quality, it is necessary to understand the factors that influence BMP adoption by farmers. We review the findings of BMP adoption studies from both developed and developing countries, published after (or otherwise not included in) two major literature reviews from 2007 and 2008. We summarize the study locations, scales, and BMPs studied; the analytical methods used; the factors evaluated; and the directionality of each factor’s influence on BMP adoption. We then present a conceptual framework for BMP adoption decisions that emphasizes the importance of scale, the tailoring or targeting of information and incentives, and the importance of expected farm profits. We suggest that future research directions should focus on study scale, on measuring and modeling of adoption as a continuous process, and on incorporation of social norms and uncertainty into decision-making. More research is needed on uses of social media and market recognition approaches (such as certificate schemes and consumer labeling) to influence BMP adoption.

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

Title: Managing diffuse phosphorus at the source versus at the sink

Authors: Macintosh, K.A., Mayer, B.K., McDowell, R.W., Powers, S.M., Baker, L.A., Boyer, T.H., & Rittmann, B.E.

Journal: Environmental Science & Technology

Year: 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01143

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/246; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1665

Abstract: Judicious phosphorus (P) management is a global grand challenge and critical to achieving and maintaining water quality objectives while maintaining food production. The management of point sources has been successful in lowering P inputs to aquatic environments, but more difficult is reducing P discharges associated with diffuse sources, such as nonpoint runoff from agriculture and urban landscapes, as well as P accumulated in soils and sediments. Strategies for effective diffuse-P management are imperative. Many options are currently available, and the most cost-effective and practical choice depends on the local situation. This critical review describes how the metrics of P quantity in kg ha−1 yr−1 and P form can influence decision-making and implementation of diffuse-P management strategies. Quantifying the total available pool of P, and its form, in a system is necessary to inform effective decision-making. The review draws upon a number of “current practice” case studies that span agriculture, cities, and aquatic sectors. These diverse examples from around the world highlight different diffuse-P management approaches, delivered at the source in the catchment watershed or at the aquatic sink. They underscore workable options for achieving water quality improvement and wider P sustainability. The diffuse-P management options discussed in this critical review are transferable to other jurisdictions at the global scale. We demonstrate that P quantity is typically highest and most concentrated at the source, particularly at farm scale. The most cost-effective and practically implementable diffuse-P management options are, therefore, to reduce P use, conserve P, and mitigate P loss at the source. Sequestering and removing P from aquatic sinks involves increasing cost, but is sometimes the most effective choice. Recovery of diffuse-P, while expensive, offers opportunity for the circular economy.

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

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: Galaxids (Inanga)

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/246; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1665

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

Title: A review of studies documenting the effects of agricultural best management practices on physiochemical and biological measures of stream ecosystem integrity

Authors: Kroll, S.A., & Oakland, H.C.

Journal: Natural Areas Journal

Year: 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3375/043.039.0105

Species or groups: Fish

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/246; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1665

Abstract: After decades of efforts by the agricultural and scientific communities to manage the impacts of farming through Best Management Practice (BMP) implementation, there is a need to communicate to program managers and policy makers how effective these practices actually are via their expected effects on aquatic ecosystems. Land managers, biologists, funders, and policy makers could all greatly benefit from how to account for factors that influence reductions in compounds accomplished by BMP projects, to set expectations for physiochemical and biological community responses. To date there have been a great deal of studies on how BMPs may relate to nutrients and sediment in streams, and there is some professional consensus on expected outcomes on water chemistry. Studies based on observational and/ or modelled data have yielded very broad ranges of 0–92% reductions in nitrogen compounds, 0–91% in phosphorus compounds, and 0–90% in total suspended sediments; these ranges make it difficult to choose values for reliable models and predictions. Uncertainty in expected abiotic responses to BMP implementation also implies a potentially broad range of biotic responses. In this review, we synthesize results from studies investigating how the application of agricultural BMPs affect the water quality and ecological integrity of nearby water bodies and provide suggestions for monitoring BMP projects to better understand the effects of these practices. The objective of this review is to compare study results on BMP effectiveness as well as to contribute information for decision-making on BMP implementation. Our synthesis highlights the high variability in reported BMP impacts and, subsequently, the need for single studies to be interpreted with caution. We conclude with recommendations for land management and further studies of BMP effectiveness.

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

Title: A review of the cost-effective and suitability of mitigation strategies to prevent phosphorus loss from dairy farms in New Zealand and Australia

Authors: McDowell, R.W., & Nash, D.

Journal: Journal of Environmental Quality

Year: 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2011.0041

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/246; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1665

Abstract: The loss of phosphorus (P) from land to water is detrimental to surface water quality in many parts of New Zealand and Australia. Farming, especially pasture-based dairying, can be a source of P loss, but preventing it requires a range of fully costed strategies because little or no subsidies are available and the eff ectiveness of mitigation strategies varies with diff erent farm management systems, topography, stream density, and climate. Th is paper reviews the cost-eff ectiveness of mitigation strategies for New Zealand and Australian dairy farms, grouping strategies into (i) management (e.g., decreasing soil test P, fencing streams off from stock, or applying low-water-soluble P fertilizers), (ii) amendments (e.g., alum or red mud [Bauxite residue]), and (iii) edge-of-fi eld mitigations (e.g., natural or constructed wetlands). In general, onfarm management strategies were the most cost-eff ective way of mitigating P exports (cost range, $0 to $200 per kg P conserved). Amendments, added to tile drains or directly to surface soil, were often constrained by supply or were labor intensive. Of the amendments examined, red mud was cost eff ective where cost was off set by improved soil physical properties. Edge-of-fi eld strategies, which remove P from runoff (i.e., wetlands) or prevent runoff (i.e., irrigation runoff recycling systems), were generally the least cost eff ective, but their benefi ts in terms of improved overall resource effi ciency, especially in times of drought, or their eff ect on other contaminants like N need to be considered. By presenting a wide range of fully costed strategies, and understanding their mechanisms, a farmer or farm advisor is able to choose those that suit their farm and maintain profi tability. Further work should examine the potential for targeting strategies to areas that lose the most P in time and space to maximize the cost-eff ectiveness of mitigation strategies, quantify the benefi ts of multiple strategies, and identify changes to land use that optimize overall dairy production, but minimize catchment scale, as versus farm scale, nutrient exports.

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

Title: A review of the efficiency of buffer strips for the maintenance and enhancement of riparian ecosystems

Authors: Hickey, M.B.C., & Doran, B.

Journal: Water Quality Research Journal of Canada

Year: 2004

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2166/wqrj.2004.042

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/246; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1665

Abstract: Vegetative buffer strips are being widely promoted as an effective technique to protect rivers and streams from the negative impacts of adjacent land uses including forestry and agriculture. An extensive review of the literature revealed that despite the intuitive appeal of buffer strips, data demonstrating their efficacy is highly variable and most studies demonstrating significant nutrient removal in buffer zones come from studies undertaken in riparian buffers greater than 30 m wide. These buffers are much wider than what land managers can typically expect farmers to remove from active production in order to protect water quality. Research attempting to demonstrate the efficacy of riparian buffers needs to focus on buffer widths that are within the range that landowners are likely to “give up” in the name of water quality protection. Lack of experimental evidence from buffers in the 1- to 10-m width range typically encountered on farms makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of riparian buffers in agricultural areas.

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

Title: Best management practices to mitigate faecal contamination by livestock of New Zealand waters

Authors: Collins, R., McLeod, M., Hedley, M., Donnison, A., Close, M., Hanly, J., Horne, D., Ross, C., Davies-Colley, R., Bagshaw, C., & Matthews, L.

Journal: New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research

Year: 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00288230709510294

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/246; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1665

Abstract: This paper summarises findings from the Pathogen Transmission Routes Research Program, describing pathogen pathways from farm animals to water bodies and measures that can reduce or prevent this transfer. Significant faecal contamination arises through the deposition of faeces by grazing animals directly into waterways in New Zealand. Bridging of streams intersected by farm raceways is an appropriate mitigation measure to prevent direct deposition during herd crossings, whilst fencing stream banks will prevent access from pasture into waterways by cattle that are characteristically attracted to water. Riparian buffer strips not only prevent cattle access to waterways, they also entrap microbes from cattle and other animals being washed down-slope towards the stream in surface runoff. Microbial water quality improvements can be realised by fencing stock from ephemeral streams, wetlands, seeps, and riparian paddocks that are prone to saturation. Soil type is a key factor in the transfer of faecal microbes to waterways. The avoidance of, or a reduction in, grazing and irrigation upon poorly drained soils characterised by high bypass flow and/or the generation of surface runoff, are expected to improve microbial water quality. Dairyshed wastewater should be irrigated onto land only when the water storage capacity of the soil will not be exceeded. This "deferred irrigation" can markedly reduce pollutant transfer to waterways, particularly that via subsurface drains and groundwater. Advanced pond systems provide excellent effluent quality and have particular application where soil type and/or climate are unfavourable for irrigation. Research needs are indicated to reduce faecal contamination of waters by livestock.

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

Title: Guidelines for managing cattle grazing in riparian areas to protect water quality: Review of research and best management practices policies

Authors: Mosely, J.C., Cook, P.S., Griffis, A.J., & O'Laughlin, J.

Journal: NA

Year: 1997

DOI: NA

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/246; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1665

Abstract: Riparian areas* are lands adjacent to water bodies. Consequently, these lands are more moist and more productive than contiguous floodpJains or uplands. Riparian areas provide a wealth of products and values including clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and scenic beauty. These lands are also valuable sites for timber production, cropland agriculture, and livestock grazing. Appropriate management of riparian areas is thus a vital environmental and economic issue. Livestock grazing in riparian areas is controversial. Many riparian areas in the United States have been mismanaged and degraded by improper livestock grazing. However, the negative effects of grazing in riparian areas can be minimized or eliminated with proper management. Grazing management is the key to attaining the benefits riparian areas offer livestock while maintaining water quality standards and fully functioning riparian ecosystems. Water quality in many of Idaho's waters translates directly into conditions that support adequate habitat for fish. Protecting water quality and providing forage for cattle are only two of the many functions of land areas adjacent to water. This report addresses only the water quality protective functions of riparian zones. This is not to say that the many other values of riparian areas are less important than water quality, but these other purposes are not required by the federal Clean Water Act. The purpose of this report is to provide management guidelines that will help livestock producers meet the goals of the Clean Wa~er Act while grazing cattle in riparian areas. Depending on the current condition of a particular riparian area, this could mean that the producer may have to modify the timing, frequency ~ and intensitY of grazing in order to maintain conditions that will protect water quality. These guidelines are based on a review of research results published in the scientific literature. That review is in Chapter 1 of this report. Best management practices, or Executive Summary. 1 BMPs, are the Clean Water Act's approach to minimizing the adverse impacts of livestock grazing and other land-use activities on water quality. The guidelines in this report may be useful for resource" stewardship in riparian areas whether or not a livestock producer is following grazing management strategies that have been offic'ially incorporated into BMPs. Chapter 2 of this report explains the origin and purpose of BMPs, and should be informative not only for producers considering their use but also for officials responsible for designing and overseeing the implementation of BMPs. In addition, the overall policy context of livestock grazing and water quality in Idaho is addressed in Chapter 3. Two case examples " from Idaho (Sawmill Creek and Clover Creek) illustrate the relationship between scientific research and on-the-ground BMP application. This report attempts to reply to three focus questions about riparian grazing. In short, what management strategies are indicated by research) how are BMPs administered, and how does state policy protect water quality? The fu]] questions and short summaries of the replies are given below.

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

Title: Livestock grazing management impacts on stream water quality: A review

Authors: Agouridis, C.T., Workman, S.R., Warner, R.C., & Jennings, G.D.

Journal: Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Year: 2005

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03757.x

Species or groups: Aquatic macroinvertebrates, fish

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/246; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1665

Abstract: Controlling agricultural nonpoint source pollution from livestock grazing is a necessary step to improving the water quality of the nation’s streams. The goal of enhanced stream water quality will most likely result from the implementation of an integrated system of best management practices (BMPs) linked with stream hydraulic and geomorphic characteristics. However, a grazing BMP system is often developed with the concept that BMPs will function independently from interactions among controls, climatic regions, and the multifaceted functions exhibited by streams. This paper examines the peer reviewed literature pertaining to grazing BMPs commonly implemented in the southern humid region of the United States to ascertain effects of BMPs on stream water quality. Results indicate that the most extensive BMP research efforts occurred in the western and midwestern U.S. While numerous studies documented the negative impacts of grazing on stream health, few actually examined the success of BMPs for mitigating these effects. Even fewer studies provided the necessary information to enable the reader to determine the efficacy of a comprehensive systems approach integrating multiple BMPs with pre-BMP and post- BMP geomorphic conditions. Perhaps grazing BMP research should begin incorporating geomorphic information about the streams with the goal of achieving sustainable stream water quality. (KEY TERMS: sustainability; agriculture; environmental impacts; water quality; nonpoint source pollution; best management practices.)

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

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: Rough-skin newt, Dunn's salamander, red-legged frog, ensatinas, Pacific giant salamander, Western redback salamander, American toad, Wood frog, Red-backed salamander, Two-lined salamander, Black-bellied salamander, Spotted salamander, Tailed frog, Cascade torrent salamander, Giant salamander, Western red-backed salamander

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/747 ; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/120

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

Title: Agricultural conservation practices and wetland ecosystem services in the wetland-rich Piedmont-Coastal Plain region

Authors: De Steven, D., & Lowrance, R.

Journal: Ecological Applications

Year: 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0231.1

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284

Abstract: In the eastern U.S. Coastal Plain and Piedmont region, diverse inland wetlands (riverine, depressional, wet flats) have been impacted by or converted to agriculture. Farm Bill conservation practices that restore or enhance wetlands can return their ecological functions and services to the agricultural landscape. We review the extent of regional knowledge regarding the effectiveness of these conservation practices. Riparian buffers and wetland habitat management have been the most commonly applied wetland-related practices across the region. Riparian Forest Buffers (RFB) have been most studied as a practice. Water quality functions including pollutant removal, provision of aquatic habitat, and enhanced instream chemical processing have been documented from either installed RFBs or natural riparian forests; forest buffers also serve wildlife habitat functions that depend in part on buffer width and connectivity. Wetland restoration/creation and habitat management practices have been less studied on regional agricultural lands; however, research on mitigation wetlands suggests that functional hydrology, vegetation, and faunal communities can be restored in depressional wetlands, and the wetland habitat management practices represent techniques adapted from those used successfully on wildlife refuges. Other conservation practices can also support wetland services. Drainage management on converted wetland flats restores some water storage functions, and viable wetlands can persist within grazed flats if livestock access and grazing are managed appropriately. Because wetland hydrogeomorphic type influences functions, ecosystem services from conservation wetlands will depend on the specifics of how practices are implemented. In a region of diverse wetlands, evaluation of ecological benefits could be improved with more information on the wetland types restored, created, and managed.

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

Title: Role of buffer strips in Management of waterway pollution: A review

Authors: Barling, R.D., & Moore, I.D.

Journal: Environmental Management

Year: 1994

DOI: NA

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/120

Abstract: A buffer strip can perform a multitude of functions, and these include channel stability, a filter for sediment and nutrients, water purification (e.g., bacteria and pathogens), a nondisturbance area, and the provision of terrestrial and stream habitat. These functions are reviewed with specific application to Australian conditions, and methods for modeling their performance are outlined. The primary focus is on the use of buffer strips to minimize waterway pollution from diffuse sources since their use is often justified on this basis. Particular attention is given to the conditions under which a buffer strip will act as an effective filter and the conditions under which it will fail. Buffer strips are most effective when the flow is shallow (nonsubmerged), slow, and enters the buffer strip uniformly along its length. Their sediment trapping performance decreases as the sediment particle size decreases. Nutrients are often preferentially attached to fine sediment. As a result, buffer strips are better filters of sediment than of nutrients. Buffer strips should only be considered as a secondary conservation practice after controlling the generation of pollutants at their source and, to be effective, buffer strips should always be carefully designed, installed, and maintained

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

Title: Riparian buffer strips as a multifunctional management tool in agricultural landscapes: Introduction

Authors: Stutter, M.I., Chardon, W.J., & Kronvang, B.

Journal: Journal of Environmental Quality

Year: 2012

DOI: NA

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/120; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/161

Abstract: Catchment riparian areas are considered key zones to target mitigation measures aimed at interrupting the movement of diff use substances from agricultural land to surface waters. Hence, unfertilized buff er strips have become a widely studied and implemented “edge of fi eld” mitigation measure assumed to provide an eff ective physical barrier against nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and sediment transfer. To ease the legislative process, these buff ers are often narrow mandatory strips along streams and rivers, across diff erent riparian soil water conditions, between bordering land uses of diff ering pollution burdens, and without prescribed buff er management. It would be easy to criticize such regulation for not providing the opportunity for riparian ecosystems to maximize their provision for a wider range of ecosystem goods and services. Th e scientifi c basis for judging the best course of action in designing and placing buff ers to enhance their multifunctionality has slowly increased over the last fi ve years. Th is collection of papers aims to add to this body of knowledge by giving examples of studies related to riparian buff er management and assessment throughout Europe. Th is introductory paper summarizes discussion sessions and 13 selected papers from a workshop held in Ballater, UK, highlighting research on riparian buff ers brought together under the EU COST Action 869 knowledge exchange program. Th e themes addressed are (i) evidence of catchment- to national-scale eff ectiveness, (ii) ecological functioning linking terrestrial and aquatic habitats, (iii) modeling tools for assessment of eff ectiveness and costs, and (iv) process understanding enabling management and manipulation to enhance pollutant retention in buff ers. Th e combined understanding led us to consider four principle key questions to challenge buff er strip research and policy.

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

Title: Review of riparian buffer zone effectiveness

Authors: Parkyn, S.

Journal: NA

Year: 2004

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Banded kokopu

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/819; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/120

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

Title: Major factors influencing the efficacy of vegetated buffers on sediment trapping: A review and analysis

Authors: Liu, X., Zhang, X., & Zhang, M

Journal: Journal of Environmental Quality

Year: 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2007.0437

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1387; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284

Abstract: Sediment is a major agricultural pollutant threatening water quality. Vegetated buffers, including vegetative fi lter strips, riparian buff ers, and grassed waterways, are best management practices (BMPs) installed in many areas to fi lter sediments from tailwaters, and deter sediment transport to water bodies. Along with reducing sediment transport, the fi lters also help trap sediment bound nutrients and pesticides. Th e objectives of this study were: (i) to review vegetated buff er effi cacy on sediment trapping, and (ii) to develop statistical models to investigate the major factors infl uencing sediment trapping. A range of sediment trapping effi cacies was found in a review of over 80 representative BMP experiments. A synthesis of the literature regarding the eff ects of vegetated buff ers on sediment trapping is needed. Th e meta-analysis results based on the limited data showed that buff er width and slope are two major factors infl uencing BMPs effi cacy of vegetated buff ers on sediment trapping. Regardless of the area ratio of buff er to agricultural fi eld, a 10 m buff er and a 9% slope optimized the sediment trapping capability of vegetated buff ers.

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

Title: Environmental benefits of conservation buffers in the United States: Evidence, promise, and open questions

Authors: Taylor Lovell, S. & Sullivan, W.C.

Journal: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

Year: 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.002

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284

Abstract: Conservation buffers can have a tremendously positive impact on the ecological health of rural landscapes by reducing erosion, improving water quality, increasing biodiversity, and expanding wildlife habitats. Yet, in spite of our knowledge of their value, conservation buffers have not been fully embraced by landowners, or even by policy makers in the United States (US). In this critical review, we examine why conservation buffers remain underutilized in US agroecosystems. We examine the literature on the environmental benefits of buffers, the economic issues related to buffer adoption, and the importance of the aesthetic quality and design of buffers.We propose that many questions related to buffer design and management remain unanswered, and suggest a variety of areas in which future research is necessary to improve buffer functionality and adoption. The implications of this synthesis for designers, planners, scientists, policy makers, and citizens are discussed. Recommendations include: modifying policies to better reflect the preferences of landowners and society, studying buffer systems at the watershed scale using multidisciplinary approaches, and designing buffers that consider aesthetic preferences and regional variation.

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

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/2284

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.

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

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

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/120

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

Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Sediment & Erosion Control – Riparian Buffers

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)

Feld, C.K., Rosario Fernandes, M., Teresa Ferreira, M., Hering, D., Ormerod, S.J., Venohr, M., Guiterrez-Canovas, C. (2018)

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)

McDowell, R.W., Biggs, B.J.F., Sharpley, A.N., & Nguyen, L. (2004)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Liu, T., Bruins, R.J.R., & Herberling, M.T. (2018)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Macintosh, K.A., Mayer, B.K., McDowell, R.W., Powers, S.M., Baker, L.A., Boyer, T.H., & Rittmann, B.E. (2018)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

McKergow, L.A., Matheson, F.E., & Quinn, J.M. (2016)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Kroll, S.A., & Oakland, H.C. (2019)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

McDowell, R.W., & Nash, D. (2012)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Hickey, M.B.C., & Doran, B. (2004)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Collins, R., McLeod, M., Hedley, M., Donnison, A., Close, M., Hanly, J., Horne, D., Ross, C., Davies-Colley, R., Bagshaw, C., & Matthews, L. (2007)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Mosely, J.C., Cook, P.S., Griffis, A.J., & O'Laughlin, J. (1997)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Agouridis, C.T., Workman, S.R., Warner, R.C., & Jennings, G.D. (2005)

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)

De Steven, D., & Lowrance, R. (2011)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Barling, R.D., & Moore, I.D. (1994)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Stutter, M.I., Chardon, W.J., & Kronvang, B. (2012)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Parkyn, S. (2004)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Liu, X., Zhang, X., & Zhang, M (2008)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Taylor Lovell, S. & Sullivan, W.C. (2006)

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)

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)

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