▪ Abstract  The world's population is concentrated in urban areas. This change in demography has brought landscape transformations that have a number of documented effects on stream ecosystems. The most consistent and pervasive effect is an increase in impervious surface cover within urban catchments, which alters the hydrology and geomorphology of streams. This results in predictable changes in stream habitat. In addition to imperviousness, runoff from urbanized surfaces as well as municipal and industrial discharges result in increased loading of nutrients, metals, pesticides, and other contaminants to streams. These changes result in consistent declines in the richness of algal, invertebrate, and fish communities in urban streams. Although understudied in urban streams, ecosystem processes are also affected by urbanization. Urban streams represent opportunities for ecologists interested in studying disturbance and contributing to more effective landscape management.

No abstract

No abstract

A comparative (15)N-tracer study of nitrogen dynamics in headwater streams from biomes throughout North America demonstrates that streams exert control over nutrient exports to rivers, lakes, and estuaries. The most rapid uptake and transformation of inorganic nitrogen occurred in the smallest streams. Ammonium entering these streams was removed from the water within a few tens to hundreds of meters. Nitrate was also removed from stream water but traveled a distance 5 to 10 times as long, on average, as ammonium. Despite low ammonium concentration in stream water, nitrification rates were high, indicating that small streams are potentially important sources of atmospheric nitrous oxide. During seasons of high biological activity, the reaches of headwater streams typically export downstream less than half of the input of dissolved inorganic nitrogen from their watersheds.

Summary1. Increasingly, river managers are turning from hard engineering solutions to ecologically based restoration activities in order to improve degraded waterways. River restoration projects aim to maintain or increase ecosystem goods and services while protecting downstream and coastal ecosystems. There is growing interest in applying river restoration techniques to solve environmental problems, yet little agreement exists on what constitutes a successful river restoration effort. 2. We propose five criteria for measuring success, with emphasis on an ecological perspective. First, the design of an ecological river restoration project should be based on a specified guiding image of a more dynamic, healthy river that could exist at the site. Secondly, the river's ecological condition must be measurably improved. Thirdly, the river system must be more self-sustaining and resilient to external perturbations so that only minimal follow-up maintenance is needed. Fourthly, during the construction phase, no lasting harm should be inflicted on the ecosystem. Fifthly, both pre-and postassessment must be completed and data made publicly available. 3. Determining if these five criteria have been met for a particular project requires development of an assessment protocol. We suggest standards of evaluation for each of the five criteria and provide examples of suitable indicators. 4. Synthesis and applications . Billions of dollars are currently spent restoring streams and rivers, yet to date there are no agreed upon standards for what constitutes ecologically beneficial stream and river restoration. We propose five criteria that must be met for a river restoration project to be considered ecologically successful. It is critical that the broad restoration community, including funding agencies, practitioners and citizen restoration groups, adopt criteria for defining and assessing ecological success in restoration. Standards are needed because progress in the science and practice of river restoration has been hampered by the lack of agreed upon criteria for judging ecological success. Without well-accepted criteria that are ultimately supported by funding and implementing agencies, there is little incentive for practitioners to assess and report restoration outcomes. Improving methods and weighing the ecological benefits of various restoration approaches require organized national-level reporting systems.