Article

Title: Ecological risks and opportunities from engineered artificial flooding as a means of achieving environmental flow objectives

Authors: Bond, N., Costelloe, J., King, A., Warfe, D., Reich, P., & Balcombe, S.

Journal: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Year: 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/130259

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Abstract: Restoration of floodplain ecosystems through the reinstatement of floods is often hampered by insufficient water as a result of competing human demands. An emerging alternative approach relies on floodplain infrastructure – such as levees, weirs, regulators, and pumps – to control water levels within floodplains without requiring landscapescale overbank floods. This technique, albeit water efficient and capable of achieving some ecological targets, does not mimic the hydraulics, hydrodynamics, and lateral connectivity of natural floods. Engineering approaches like this may risk detrimental ecological outcomes, including reductions in biotic connectivity, river–floodplain productivity, and water quality, and thus may fail to support the range of ecological processes required to sustain healthy river–floodplain systems. Here, we review the potential benefits, risks, and mitigation options associated with engineered artificial flooding. Given the growing challenge of equitable water allocation, further research on and monitoring of engineered floods as a tool to sustain floodplain ecosystems are urgently required.

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: Ecohydraulics at the Landscape Scale: Applying the concept of temporal landscape continuity in river restoration using cyclic floodplain rejuventation

Authors: Geerling, G.W., Duel, H., Buijse, A.D., & Smits, A.J.M.

Journal: nA

Year: 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118526576.ch23

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

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: A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers

Authors: Stanford, J.A., Ward, J.V., Liss, W.J., Frissel, C.A., Williams, R.N., Lichatowich, J.A., & Coutant, C.C.

Journal: Regulated Rivers: Research & Management

Year: 1996

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646(199607)12:4/5<391::AID-RRR436>3.0.CO;2-4

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Abstract: Large catchment basins may be viewed as ecosystems in which natural and cultural attributes interact. Contemporary river ecology emphasizes the four-dimensional nature of the river continuum and the propensity for riverine biodiversity and bioproduction to be largely controlled by habitat maintenance processes, such as cut and fill alluviation mediated by catchment water yield. Stream regulation reduces annual flow amplitude, increases baseflow variation and changes temperature, mass transport and other important biophysical patterns and attributes. As a result, ecological connectivity between upstream and downstream reaches and between channels, ground waters and floodplains may be severed. Native biodiversity and bioproduction usually are reduced or changed and non-native biota proliferate. Regulated rivers regain normative attributes as distance from the dam increases and in relation to the mode of dam operation. Therefore, dam operations can be used to restructure altered temperature and flow regimes which, coupled with pollution abatement and management of non-native biota, enables natural processes to restore damaged habitats along the river’s course. The expectation is recovery of depressed populations of native species. The protocol requires: restoring peak flows needed to reconnect and periodically reconfigure channel and floodplain habitats; stabilizing baseflows to revitalize food-webs in shallow water habitats; reconstituting seasonal temperature patterns (e.g. by construction of depth selective withdrawal systems on storage dams); maximizing dam passage to allow recovery of fish metapopulation structure; instituting a management belief system that relies upon natural habitat restoration and maintenance, as opposed to artificial propagation, installation of artificial instream structures (river engineering) and predator control; and, practising adaptive ecosystem management. Our restoration protocol should be viewed as an hypothesis derived from the principles of river ecology. Although restoration to aboriginal state is not expected, nor necessarily desired, recovering some large portion of the lost capacity to sustain native biodiversity and bioproduction is possible by management for processes that maintain normative habitat conditions. The cost may be less than expected because the river can do most of the work.

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 hydrochory (seed dispersal by water) with implications for riparian rehabilitation.

Authors: Hyslop, J., & Trowsdale, S.

Journal: Journal of Hydrology

Year: 2012

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Populus species, Salix species, sunflower, Toe-toe, Harakeke/New Zealand flax, Purei

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Abstract: Working alongside natural regeneration processes is an important part of an ecosystem approach to long-term, self-sustaining, riparian rehabilitation. Hydrochory (seed dispersal by water) is a key influence on such rehabilitation and has received limited attention. This review of hydrochory suggests it is the relationships between hydrology, fluvial geomorphology and seed biology which determine seed deposition and germination. In-stream geomorphic and hydraulic diversity are important for both seed transport and seed retention in fluvial systems. Woody debris and flotsam are important for long- distance seed dispersal, especially for seeds without specialised floating phenology. Lateral connectivity between the channel and floodplains, as well as timing of seed release, for example with receding flood flows, influence whether seeds are transported to sites with favourable germination conditions. Not all hydrochory is desirable, such as the spread of invasive plant species in New Zealand. It is clear that much more attention should be given to hydrochory to better align riparian management with natural ecosystem processes and improve the long- term outcomes of riparian rehabilitation

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 systematic review of assessment and conservation management in large floodplain rivers – Action postponed

Authors: Eros, T., Kuehne, L., Dolezsai, A., Sommerwerk, N., & Wolter, C.

Journal: Ecological Indicators

Year: 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.026

Species or groups: Fishes, macroinvertebrates, benthic algae, phytoplankton, macrophytes, anurans, birds, mammals, riparian vegetation

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Abstract: Large floodplain rivers (LFRs) are currently threatened by high levels of human alteration, and utilization is expected to grow. Assessments to determine ecological condition should address the specific environmental features of these unique ecosystems, while conservation management requires balancing maintenance of good ecological condition with the ecosystem services provided by LFRs. However, a systematic evaluation of the scientific literature on assessment of ecological condition of LFRs and trade-offs to guide conservation management is currently lacking. Here, we reviewed 153 peer reviewed scientific articles to characterize methodological patterns and trends and identify knowledge gaps in the assessment of LFRs. Our review revealed that most approaches used classical biotic indices for assessing ecological condition of LFRs. However, the number of articles specifically addressing the peculiarities of LFRs was low. Many studies used watershed level surveys and assessed samples from small streams to large rivers using the same methodological protocol. Most studies evaluated the status of main stem river habitats only, indicating large knowledge gaps with respect to the diversity of river-floodplain habitat types or lateral connectivity. Studies related to management were oriented toward specific rehabilitation actions rather than broader conservation of LFRs. Papers relating to ecosystem services of LFRs were especially few. Most importantly, these studies did not distinguish the different functional units of river-floodplain habitat types (e.g. eupotamon, parapotamon) and their role in ecosystem services provision. Overall, the number of articles was too low for meaningful analyses of the relationships and tradeoffs between biodiversity conservation, maintaining ecological condition, and use of ecosystem services in LFRs. Our review highlights research gaps and emphasizes the importance of developing more holistic indicators of ecosystem condition, which better reflect landscape level changes in structure and functioning of LFRs. As human use of water and land increases, the need to develop more effective spatial conservation prioritization tools becomes more important. Empirical research in this field can aid in solving conflicts between socio-economic demands for ecosystem services and nature conservation of LFRs.

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: Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity

Authors: Bunn, S.E., & Arthington, A.H.

Journal: Environmental Management

Year: 2002

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0

Species or groups: Aquatic macrophytes (Bulbous rush, tamarisk, Typha, water hyacinth), macroinvertebrates (blackflies, Murray crayfish, snails, atyid shrimp), fish (Coho salmon, Humpback chub, roach, western minnows, cutthroat trout, Colorado River squawfish, Clanwilliam yellowfish, chinook salmon, Australian bass, Macquarie perch, goldern perch, carp, mosquitofish, tilapia, Lake Tanganyika sardine), freshwater turtles, platypus, coolibahs

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Abstract: The flow regime is regarded by many aquatic ecologists to be the key driver of river and floodplain wetland ecosystems. We have focused this literature review around four key principles to highlight the important mechanisms that link hydrology and aquatic biodiversity and to illustrate the consequent impacts of altered flow regimes: Firstly, flow is a major determinant of physical habitat in streams, which in turn is a major determinant of biotic composition; Secondly, aquatic species have evolved life history strategies primarily in direct response to the natural flow regimes; Thirdly, maintenance of natural patterns of longitudinal and lateral connectivity is essential to the viability of populations of many riverine species; Finally, the invasion and success of exotic and introduced species in rivers is facilitated by the alteration of flow regimes. The impacts of flow change are manifest across broad taxonomic groups including riverine plants, invertebrates, and fish. Despite growing recognition of these relationships, ecologists still struggle to predict and quantify biotic responses to altered flow regimes. One obvious difficulty is the ability to distinguish the direct effects of modified flow regimes from impacts associated with land-use change that often accompanies water resource development. Currently, evidence about how rivers function in relation to flow regime and the flows that aquatic organisms need exists largely as a series of untested hypotheses. To overcome these problems, aquatic science needs to move quickly into a manipulative or experimental phase, preferably with the aims of restoration and measuring ecosystem response.

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: Ecological Issues in floodplains and riparian corridors.

Authors: Bolton, S., & Shelberg, J.

Journal: NA

Year: 2001

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Salmon, macroinvertebrates, aquatic plants, birds/waterfowl, aquatic mammals (otter, beaver, muskrat, mink)

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

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: Linking ecological theory with stream restoration

Authors: Lake, P.S., Bond, N., & Reich, P.

Journal: Freshwater Biology

Year: 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01709.x

Species or groups: Western carp gudgeons, Mountain galaxias, trout, Red river gum

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Abstract: 1. Faced with widespread degradation of riverine ecosystems, stream restoration has greatly increased. Such restoration is rarely planned and executed with inputs from ecological theory. In this paper, we seek to identify principles from ecological theory that have been, or could be, used to guide stream restoration. 2. In attempts to re-establish populations, knowledge of the species’ life history, habitat template and spatio-temporal scope is critical. In many cases dispersal will be a critical process in maintaining viable populations at the landscape scale, and special attention should be given to the unique geometry of stream systems 3. One way by which organisms survive natural disturbances is by the use of refugia, many forms of which may have been lost with degradation. Restoring refugia may therefore be critical to survival of target populations, particularly in facilitating resilience to ongoing anthropogenic disturbance regimes. 4. Restoring connectivity, especially longitudinal connectivity, has been a major restoration goal. In restoring lateral connectivity there has been an increasing awareness of the riparian zone as a critical transition zone between streams and their catchments. 5. Increased knowledge of food web structure – bottom-up versus top-down control, trophic cascades and subsidies – are yet to be applied to stream restoration efforts. 6. In restoration, species are drawn from the regional species pool. Having overcome dispersal and environmental constraints (filters), species persistence may be governed by local internal dynamics, which are referred to as assembly rules. 7. While restoration projects often define goals and endpoints, the succession pathways and mechanisms (e.g. facilitation) by which these may be achieved are rarely considered. This occurs in spite of a large of body of general theory on which to draw. 8. Stream restoration has neglected ecosystem processes. The concept that increasing biodiversity increases ecosystem functioning is very relevant to stream restoration. Whether biodiversity affects ecosystem processes, such as decomposition, in streams is equivocal. 9. Considering the spatial scale of restoration projects is critical to success. Success is more likely with large-scale projects, but they will often be infeasible in terms of the available resources and conflicts of interest. Small-scale restoration may remedy specific problems. In general, restoration should occur at the appropriate spatial scale such that restoration is not reversed by the prevailing disturbance regime. 10. The effectiveness and predictability of stream ecosystem restoration will improve with an increased understanding of the processes by which ecosystems develop and are maintained. Ideas from general ecological theory can clearly be better incorporated into stream restoration projects. This will provide a twofold benefit in providing an opportunity both to improve restoration outcomes and to test ecological theory.

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: Lost floodplain wetland environments and efforts to restore connectivity, habitat, and water quality settings on the Great Barrier Reef

Authors: Waltham, N.R., Burrows, D., Wegscheidl, C., Buelow, C., Ronan, M., Connolly, N., Groves, P., Marie-Audas, D., Creighton, C., & Sheaves, M.

Journal: Frontiers in Marine Science

Year: 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00071

Species or groups: Mouth almighty, Agassiz's glass fish, Sailfin glassfish, Pennyfish, Pacific shortfinned eel, Speckled longfin eel, Blue salmon catfish, Fly-specked hardyhead, Longtom, Talang queenfish, MIlkfish, Mozambique tilapia, Castelnau's herring, Western Pacific gizzard shad, Bony bream, Goldfish, Empire gudgeon, Firetail gudgeon, Western carp gudgeon, Snakehead gudgeon, Southern purple-spotted gudgeon, Sleepy cod, Hawaiian ladyfish, Hamilton's thryssa, Freshwater anchovy, Deep-bodied mojarra, Whipfin silver-biddy, Speckled goby, Northern snub-nosed garfish, Rock flagtail, Barramundi, Leiognathus decorus, Common ponyfish, Mangrove red snapper, Russell's snapper, Indo-Pacific tarpon, Dwarf rainbowfish, Eastern rainbowfish, silver moonyfish, Flathead grey mullet, Liza subviridus, Bluespot mullet, Shark mullet, Three spot gourami, butter jew, Hyrtl's catfish, Rendahl's catfish, Eastern mosquitofish, Southern platyfish, Spotted blue-eye, Pacific blue-eye, spotbanded scat, spotted scat, Golden-lined spinefoot, Northern whiting, Yellowfin bream, goldsilk seabream, Barred grunter, Silver perch, Scooty grunter, spangled grunter, Small-headed grunter, Crescent grunter, Bullrout, common archerfish, Buffon's river garfish

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Abstract: Managers are moving toward implementing large-scale coastal ecosystem restoration projects, however, many fail to achieve desired outcomes. Among the key reasons for this is the lack of integration with a whole-of-catchment approach, the scale of the project (temporal, spatial), the requirement for on-going costs for maintenance, the lack of clear objectives, a focus on threats rather than services/values, funding cycles, engagement or change in stakeholders, and prioritization of project sites. Here we critically assess the outcomes of activities in three coastal wetland complexes positioned along the catchments of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) lagoon, Australia, that have been subjected to restoration investment over a number of decades. Each floodplain has been modified by intensive agricultural production, heavy industry and mining infrastructure, urban/peri urban expansion, aquaculture development and infrastructure expansion. Most development has occurred in low-lying coastal floodplains, resulting in major hydrological modifications to the landscape. This has left the floodplain wetlands in a degraded and hydrologically modified state, with poor water quality (hypoxic, eutrophication, sedimentation, and persistent turbidity), loss of habitat, and disconnected because of flow hydraulic barriers, excessive aquatic plant growth, or establishment of invasive species. Successful GBR wetland ecosystem restoration and management first requires an understanding of what constitutes “success” and must be underpinned by an understanding of complex cause and effect pathways, with a focus on management of services and values. This approach should recognize that these wetlands are still assets in a modified landscape. Suitable, long term, scientific knowledge is necessary to provide government and private companies with the confidence and comfort that their investment delivers dividend (environmental) returns.

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: Maintaining and restoring hydrologic habitat connectivity in mediterranean streams: an integrated modeling framework

Authors: Merelander, A.M., & Matella, M.K.

Journal: Hydrobiologia

Year: 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1468-y

Species or groups: Chinook salmon, Sacramento splittail, phytoplankton,

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Abstract: Hydrologic alterations designed to provide a stable water supply and to prevent flooding are commonly used in mediterranean-climate river (medrivers) basins, and these alterations have led to habitat loss and significant declines in aquatic biodiversity. Often the health of freshwater ecosystems depends on maintaining and recovering hydrologic habitat connectivity, which includes structural components related to the physical landscape, functionality of flow dynamics, and an understanding of species habitat requirements for movement, reproduction, and survival. To advance our understanding of hydrologic habitat connectivity and benefits of habitat restoration alternatives we provide: (1) a review of recent perspectives on hydrologic connectivity, including quantitative methods; and (2) a modeling framework to quantify the effects of restoration on hydrologic habitat connectivity. We then illustrate this approach through a case study on lateral hydrologic habitat connectivity that results from channel restoration scenarios using scenarios with different historic and climate-change flows to restore fish floodplain habitat in a med-river, the San Joaquin River, California. Case study results show that in addition to the channel alterations, higher flows are required to recover significant flooded habitat area, especially given reductions in flows expected under climate change. These types of studies will help the planning for restoration of hydrologic habitat connectivity in medrivers, a critical step for mediterranean species recovery.

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: Restoring freshwater ecosystems in riverine landscapes: the roles of connectivity and recovery processes

Authors: Jansson, R., Nilsson, C., & Malmqvist, B.

Journal: Freshwater Biology

Year: 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01737.x

Species or groups: Insects, fish, crustaceans, rotifers, nematodes, riparian vegetation (Populus spp., Salix spp.), aquatic mosses (Fontinalis spp.)

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Abstract: 1. This paper introduces key messages from a number of papers emanating from the Second International Symposium on Riverine Landscapes held in August 2004 in Sweden, focusing on river restoration. Together these papers provide an overview of the science of river restoration, and point out future research needs. 2. Restoration tests the feasibility of recreating complex ecosystems from more simple and degraded states, thereby presenting a major challenge to ecological science. Therefore, close cooperation between practitioners and scientists would be beneficial, but most river restoration projects are currently performed with little or no scientific involvement. 3. Key messages emanating from this series of papers are: The scope, i.e. the maximum and minimum spatial extent and temporal duration of habitat use, of species targeted for restoration should be acknowledged, so that all relevant stages in their life cycles are considered. Species that have been lost from a stream cannot be assumed to recolonise spontaneously, calling for strategies to ensure the return of target species to be integrated into projects. Possible effects of invasive exotic species also need to be incorporated into project plans, either to minimise the impact of exotics, or to modify the expected outcome of restoration in cases where extirpation of exotics is impractical. 4. Restoration of important ecological processes often implies improving connectivity of the stream. For example, longitudinal and lateral connectivity can be enhanced by restoring fluvial dynamics on flood-suppressed rivers and by increasing water availability in rivers subject to water diversion or withdrawal, thereby increasing habitat and species diversity. Restoring links between surface and ground water flow enhances vertical connectivity and communities associated with the hyporheic zone. 5. Future restoration schemes should consider where in the catchment to locate projects to make restoration most effective, consider the cumulative effects of many small projects, and evaluate the potential to restore ecosystem processes under highly constrained conditions such as in urban areas. Moreover, restoration projects should be properly monitored to assess whether restoration has been successful, thus enabling adaptive management and learning for the future from both successful and unsuccessful restorations.

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: Restoring Lateral Connections Between Rivers and Floodplains: Lessons from Rehabilitation Projects

Authors: Coops, H., Tockner, K., Amoros, C., Hein ,T., & Quinn, G.

Journal: NA

Year: 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-33187-2_2

Species or groups: Benthic invertebrates (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera), riparian arthropods, aquatic plants (lesser water-parsnip, Callitriche sp., curled pondweed, Chara sp., Fan-leaved Water-crowfoot, speedwell, Jointed rush, Common water-plantain, Carex sp., blunt-flowered rush, European speedwell, spiny water nymph, and river water-crowfoot)

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

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: The Yangtze River floodplain: Threats and rehabilitation

Authors: Wang, H., Liu, X., Wang, H.

Journal: American Fisheries Society Symposium

Year: 2016

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophytes (Common reed, Chinese giant reed, Manchurian wild rice, Potamogeton malaianus, Hydrilla, Hornwort, eel grass), hygrophytes (Carex spp., Bermuda grass), molluscs, insects, fish

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Abstract: The Yangtze (Changjiang) River floodplain is one of the most important ecosystems in China, as well as in the world, but is seriously threatened by multiple factors. Thus, it is crucial and urgent to rehabilitate the river floodplain. This paper reviews ecological studies conducted on the Yangtze River floodplain and presents suggestions for conservation and rehabilitation. First, the Yangtze River system is briefly introduced. Formed 23 million years ago, the Yangtze River is ca. 6,300 km in length with a mean annual runoff of 9.6 × 1011 m3. Thousands of floodplain lakes are distributed along the mid-lower Yangtze River, and the total area remains 15,770 km2 at present. Such a river-lake complex ecosystem holds a unique and diverse biota, with ca. 400 hydrophytes and hygrophytes, ca. 170 mollusks, ca. 200 fishes, ca. 400 water birds, and endangered dolphins and porpoises. Second, main threats to the Yangtze River floodplain ecosystem are identified: (1) habitat loss, including river channelization, sharp shrinkage of lake area (ca. 10,000 km2 since the 1950s), degradation of lakeshore zones, and sand overmining; (2) alternations of hydrological regimes, including construction of ca. 47,000 reservoirs in the whole basin and disconnection of most floodplain lakes from the main stem; (3) water pollution, including eutrophication, heavy metals, and organic pollutants; and (4) overexploitation of biological resources, including overfishing and intensive pen culture. Third, effects of river–lake disconnection on lake ecosystems are summarized on the basis of our studies in the past 20 years. It was found that (1) disconnection is one of the main causes of lake eutrophication; (2) species diversity, biomass, and production of macrophytes and macrobenthos reach maxima at some levels of intermediate river connectivity; (3) disconnection greatly reduces fish species richness of each habitat guild, and natural fish larvae is severely depleted; and (4) disconnection simplifies macroinvertebrate food web structure, and the trophic basis of the simplified food web is more heavily dependent on detritus in disconnected lakes. Last, conservation strategies are proposed. Since the Yangtze River floodplain is a huge integrated system, the biodiversity conservation must be conducted on the whole basin scale. By establishing species–area models of fishes, the minimum protected area of Yangtze-connected lakes is estimated to be ca. 14,400 km2. It means that at least 8,900 km2 of disconnected lakes should be reconnected with the Yangtze main stem, and ecohydrological operation of dams and sluices is the feasible approach. Based upon our preliminary studies on environmental flow requirements, the following measures are suggested: (1) lower water levels during spring to improve germination of macrophytes, and control rising rates of water levels during spring–summer to ensure development of macrophytes; and (2) open sluice gates to restore migration routes for juveniles migrating into lakes during April–September and for adults migrating back to the Yangtze main stem during November–December.

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: World prospects for floodplain fisheries

Authors: Welcomme, R.

Journal: Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology

Year: 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10104-009-0013-0

Species or groups: Mozambique tilapia, snakeheads, anabantids, clariid catfishes

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Abstract: Rivers contribute some 5 million tons of fish for human consumption, most of which comes from major floodplains. Fisheries in the tropics are over-exploited and show signs of fishing-down. Several trends are damaging river fisheries. Floodplains are being drained for irrigated agriculture, leading to modifications to their form and function. River channels are also being modified. The modifications result in the loss of some fish guilds. The growing demand for water is leading to increasing abstraction and control of flow by dams. This means that there is often insufficient water available for the functioning of the system with lessened survival of fish species and lowering of production. Flood control to curb urban and farmland flooding is exacerbating the separation of the plain from the river. Technical solutions are now well established and include the creation of protected floodplain beads in the developing landscape, and the agreement of environmental flows. Political and social application of these solutions is more difficult and calls for the application of mechanisms to incorporate fisheries interests into generalised river development plans.

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: 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: Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, minnows, suckers, rheophilic cyprinids, Pike-perch, catfish, carp, amphibians, dragonflies, aquatic vegetation

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

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: 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: Arctic grayling, Chinook salmon, Northern pike

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

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

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: Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, amphibians, dragonflies, cyprinids, rheophilic fishes, plankton, aquatic macroinvertebrates, aquatic plants, Northern pike, Nase

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

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: 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: Italian edible frog

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2576

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: 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/840

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: Environmental Watering for Food Webs in the Living Murray Icon Sites: A literature review and identification of research priorities relevant to the environmental actions of flow enhancement and retaining floodwater on floodplains

Authors: Brookes, J., Aldridge, K., Ganf, G., Paton, D., Shiel, R., & Wedderburn, S.

Journal: NA

Year: 2009

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Zooplankton, aquatic macroinvertebrates, carp, Murray cod, Australian smelt, Carp gudgeon, Murray rainbowfish, Unspecked hardyhead, Murry hardyhead, Chanda perch, Flathead gudgeon, Dwarf flathead gudgeon, Macquarie perch, Freshwater catfish, Western blue spot goby, Short-finned eel, Goldfish, Redfin, Eastern Gambusia, Small-mouthed hardyhead, Yellow-eye mullet, Mulloway, Golden perch, Silver perch, Trout cod, Southern pygmy perch, Bony herring, Common galaxias, Congolli, Yarra pygmy perch, Western carp gudgeon, Black swan, Fairy tern, Australian shelduck, Silver gull, Banded stilt, Australian bittern, Purple swamphen, Australasian grebe, Hoary-headed grebe, Great crested grebe, Australian pelican, Darter, Great cormorant, Pied cormorant, Little black cormorant, Black-faced shag, Little pied cormorant, Pacfic heron, Great egret, White-faced heron, Little egret, Cattle egret, Rufous night heron, Australasian bittern, Glossy ibis, Australian white ibis, Straw-necked ibis, Royal spoonbill, Yellow-billed spoonbill, Plumed whistling duck, Blue-billed duck, Musk duck, Freckled duck, Cape Barren goose, Maned duck, Pink-eared duck, Grey teal, Chestnut teal, Pacific black duck, Australasian shoveller, Hardhead, Baillon's crake, Australian crake, Spotless crake, Dusky moorhen, Black-tailed native-hen, Eurasian coot, Pied oystercatcher, Sooty oystercatcher, Black-winged stilt, Red-necked avocet, Pacific golden plover, Grey plover, Red-capped plover, Double-banded plover, Black-fronted plover, Hooded plover, Red-kneed dotterel, Banded lapwing, Masked lapwing, Latham's snipe, Black-tailed godwit, Bar-tailed godwit, Whimbrel, Eastern curlew, Marsh sandpiper, Common greenshank, Wood sandpiper, Terek sandpiper, Common sandpiper, Ruddy turnstone, Red knot, Sanderling, Red-necked stint, Long-toed stint, Sharp-tailed sandpiper, Curlew sandpiper, Gull-billed tern, Caspian tern, Crested tern, Whiskered tern, Sacred kingfisher

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

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

Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Wildlife Passage – Re-establishment of Lateral Connectivity

Bond, N., Costelloe, J., King, A., Warfe, D., Reich, P., & Balcombe, S. (2014)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Geerling, G.W., Duel, H., Buijse, A.D., & Smits, A.J.M. (2013)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Stanford, J.A., Ward, J.V., Liss, W.J., Frissel, C.A., Williams, R.N., Lichatowich, J.A., & Coutant, C.C. (1996)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Hyslop, J., & Trowsdale, S. (2012)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Eros, T., Kuehne, L., Dolezsai, A., Sommerwerk, N., & Wolter, C. (2019)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Bunn, S.E., & Arthington, A.H. (2002)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Bolton, S., & Shelberg, J. (2001)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Lake, P.S., Bond, N., & Reich, P. (2007)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Waltham, N.R., Burrows, D., Wegscheidl, C., Buelow, C., Ronan, M., Connolly, N., Groves, P., Marie-Audas, D., Creighton, C., & Sheaves, M. (2019)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Merelander, A.M., & Matella, M.K. (2013)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Jansson, R., Nilsson, C., & Malmqvist, B. (2007)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Coops, H., Tockner, K., Amoros, C., Hein ,T., & Quinn, G. (2006)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Wang, H., Liu, X., Wang, H. (2016)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Welcomme, R. (2008)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

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)

Sondergaard, M., & Jeppesen, E. (2007)

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)

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

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Brookes, J., Aldridge, K., Ganf, G., Paton, D., Shiel, R., & Wedderburn, S. (2009)

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