Evaluating stream restoration projects

Kondolf, G. Mathias; Micheli, E. R.

doi:10.1007/bf02471999

Cited by 266 publications

(179 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

173

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, a recent (27 April 2016) search for '(stream* OR river*) AND restoration' in the Core Collection of Web of Science generated 9134 hits and the number of papers quadrupled between years 2000 and 2014. Although most stream restoration projects are completed without or with very little evaluation of the outcome (Kondolf and Micheli 1995;Bernhardt and others 2005;Suding 2011), the growing body of literature and initiatives such as RiverWiki (2014) have expanded the knowledge about how restoration measures should be designed to be effective (for example, Alexander and Allan 2007;Kail and others 2007;Jä hnig and others 2010;Palmer and others 2010;Fryirs and others 2013;Nilsson and others 2015;Wohl and others 2015). Streams can now be restored more effectively than just a few decades ago, but there is certainly room for further improvements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Biota Respond to Additional Physical Restoration of Restored Streams?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoration of channelized streams by returning coarse sediment from stream edges to the wetted channel has become a common practice in Sweden. Yet, restoration activities do not always result in the return of desired biota. This study evaluated a restoration project in the Vindel River in northern Sweden in which practitioners further increased channel complexity of previously restored stream reaches by placing very large boulders (>1 m), trees (>8 m), and salmonid spawning gravel from adjacent upland areas into the channels. One reach restored with basic methods and another with enhanced methods were selected in each of ten different tributaries to the main channel. Geomorphic and hydraulic complexity was enhanced but the chemical composition of riparian soils and the communities of riparian plants and fish did not exhibit any clear responses to the enhanced restoration measures during the first 5 years compared to reaches restored with basic restoration methods. The variation in the collected data was among streams instead of between types of restored reaches. We conclude that restoration is a disturbance in itself, that immigration potential varies across landscapes, and that biotic recovery processes in boreal river systems are slow. We suggest that enhanced restoration has to apply a catchment-scale approach accounting for connectivity and availability of source populations, and that low-intensity monitoring has to be performed over several decades to evaluate restoration outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Biota Respond to Additional Physical Restoration of Restored Streams?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evaluating the success of river restoration projects is often made impossible due to the lack of both pre-and post-monitoring data (Kondolf and Micheli, 1995;Lake, 2001;Palmer et al, 2005). This lack of data has for decades hampered progress in our scientific and practical understanding of what defines a successful river restoration project.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

10 years after the largest river restoration project in Northern Europe: Hydromorphological changes on multiple scales in River Skjern

Kristensen

Kronvang

Wiberg‐Larsen

et al. 2014

Ecological Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe lower river Skjern (Denmark) historically contained a large variation in habitats and the river ran through large areas with wetlands, many backwaters, islands and oxbow lakes. During the 1960s the river was channelized and the wetland drained. A restoration during 2001-2002 transformed 19 km of channelized river into 26 km meandering river. The short-term effects of this restoration have previously been reported and for this study we revisited the river and with new data evaluated the long-term (10 years) hydrological effects of the restoration. The evaluation was done on three different scales: (1) instream habitats, (2) channel stability and (3) re-connection with the floodplain. In-stream habitats had changed little over the past 10 years and the habitats today showed close similarity with the habitats recorded immediately after the restoration. Measurements of channel stability showed that erosion and sedimentation have changed the cross-sectional profiles over the last 10 years, resulting in a net input of sediment to the lower reaches of the river. However, the change of channel form was a slow process and predicted bank retreat over a 100 year period was only up to 6.8 m. Hence the formation of lost habitats (islands, backwaters and oxbow lakes) is a very slow process and the spontaneous development of these habitats will take centuries. Furthermore, the evaluation also showed that the restoration re-connected the river with its floodplain and large areas of riparian areas are today periodically flooded, but that the flooding is controlled and tamed due to the restoration design. The restoration of River Skjern has therefore failed to re-create the natural habitats formerly present and the natural dynamic processes that shape these habitats are slow. To speed up this process we therefore recommend restoration engineering using a natural guiding image when restoring lowland rivers in the future and through this restoring the lost habitats and the dynamic processes characteristic of natural rivers.

show abstract

“…The sustainability of functional restoration efforts and their management remains an open question: on which time scale, for which compartment and over which spatial scales should they be considered? In this context, it appears crucial to continue the post-restoration monitoring over medium (3-5 years) and long (> 5-10 years) time scales to evaluate restoration success (Jähnig et al, 2011;Kondolf and Micheli, 1995;Palmer et al, 2005).…”

Section: Provide Key-information To Manage Functional Restoration Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to balance these impacts by recovering fluvial processes (Bravard et al, 1986;Hering et al, 2015;Naiman et al, 1993Naiman et al, , 1988 and ecosystem services (Acuña et al, 2013;Large and Gilvear, 2015;Loomis et al, 2000), an increasing number of restoration projects have been carried out over the last decades (Kondolf and Micheli, 1995;Wohl et al, 2005). In Europe, this trend has been supported by the Water 5 Framework Directive (IKSR-CIPR-ICBR, 2005;WFD, 2000).…”

Section: Introduction 30mentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term river trajectories to enhance restoration efficiency and sustainability on the Upper Rhine: an interdisciplinary study (Rohrschollen Island, France)

Eschbach

Schmitt

Imfeld

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. While the history of a fluvial hydrosystem can provide essential knowledge on present functioning, historical context remains rarely considered in river restoration. Here we show the relevance of an interdisciplinary study for improving 15 restoration within the framework of a European LIFE+ project on the French side of the Upper-Rhine (Rohrschollen Island).Planimetric evolution combined with historical high flow data enabled to reconstruct pre-disturbance hydromorphological functioning and major changes that occurred on the reach. A deposition frequency assessment combining vertical evolution of the Rhine thalweg, chronology of deposits in the floodplain and a hydrological model revealed that the period of vertical incision in the main channel corresponded to high rates of narrowing and lateral channel filling. The analysis of filling 20 processes by Passega diagram and IRLS dating highlight that periods of engineering works were closely related to fine sediment deposition, which present also concomitant heavy metal accumulation. In fact, current fluvial forms, processes and sediment chemistry around the Rohrschollen Island directly reflect the disturbances that occurred during past correction works, and up to today. Our results underscore the advantage of combining functional restoration with detailed knowledge of pasttrajectory to: (i) understand the functioning of the hydrosystem prior anthropogenic disturbances, (ii) characterize the human-25 driven morphodynamic adjustments during the two last centuries, (iii) characterize physio-chemical sediment properties to trace anthropogenic activities and evaluate the potential impact of the restoration on pollutant remobilization, (iv) deduce postrestoration evolution and (v) evaluate efficiency and sustainability of the restoration effects. We anticipate our approach to expand the toolbox of decision-makers and help orientating functional restoration actions in the future.

show abstract

Evaluating stream restoration projects

Cited by 266 publications

References 16 publications

How Do Biota Respond to Additional Physical Restoration of Restored Streams?

How Do Biota Respond to Additional Physical Restoration of Restored Streams?

10 years after the largest river restoration project in Northern Europe: Hydromorphological changes on multiple scales in River Skjern

Long-term river trajectories to enhance restoration efficiency and sustainability on the Upper Rhine: an interdisciplinary study (Rohrschollen Island, France)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About