No abstract

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.

SUMMARY1. Knowledge of the ecology of droughts in flowing waters is scattered and fragmentary, with much of the available information being gathered opportunistically. Studies on intermittent and arid-zone streams have provided most of the information. 2. Drought in streams may be viewed as a disturbance in which water inflow, river flow and water availability fall to extremely low levels for extended periods of time. As an ecological perturbation, there is the disturbance of drought and the responses of the biota to the drought. 3. Droughts can either be periodic, seasonal or supra-seasonal events. The types of disturbance for seasonal droughts are presses and for supra-seasonal droughts, ramps. 4. In droughts, hydrological connectivity is disrupted. Such disruption range from flow reduction to complete loss of surface water and connectivity. The longitudinal patterns along streams as to where flow ceases and drying up occurs differs between streams. Three patterns are outlined: 'downstream drying', 'headwater drying' and 'mid-reach drying'. 5. There are both direct and indirect effects of drought on stream ecosystems. Marked direct effects include loss of water, loss of habitat for aquatic organisms and loss of stream connectivity. Indirect effects include the deterioration of water quality, alteration of food resources, and changes in the strength and structure of interspecific interactions. 6. Droughts have marked effects on the densities and size-or age-structure of populations, on community composition and diversity, and on ecosystem processes. 7. Organisms can resist the effects of drought by the use of refugia. Survival in refugia may strongly influence the capacity of the biota to recover from droughts once they break. 8. Recovery by biota varies markedly between seasonal and supra-seasonal droughts. Faunal recovery from seasonal droughts follows predictable sequences, whilst recovery from supraseasonal droughts varies from one case to another and may be marked by dense populations of transient species and the depletion of biota that normally occur in the streams. 9. The restoration of streams must include the provision of drought refugia and the inclusion of drought in the long-term flow regime.

Summary 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.

Summary  The restoration of physical habitat has emerged as a key activity for managers charged with reversing the damage done by humans to streams and rivers, and there has been a great expenditure of time, money and other resources on habitat restoration projects. Most restoration projects appear to assume that the creation of habitat is the key to restoring the biota (‘the field of dreams hypothesis’). However, in many streams where new habitat is clearly required if populations and communities are to be restored, there may be numerous other factors that cause the expected link between habitat and biotic restoration to break down. We discuss five issues that are likely to have a direct bearing on the success, or perceived success of local habitat restoration projects in streams: (i) barriers to colonization, (ii) temporal shifts in habitat use, (iii) introduced species, (iv) long‐term and large‐scale processes, and (v) inappropriate scales of restoration. The purpose of the study was primarily to alert ecologists and managers involved in stream habitat restoration to the potential impacts of these issues on restoration success. Furthermore, the study highlights the opportunities provided by habitat restoration for learning how the factors we discuss affect populations, communities and ecosystems.