Restoration of the rivers Brede, Cole and Skerne: a joint Danish and British EU-LIFE demonstration project, V—short‐term impacts on the conservation value of aquatic macroinvertebrate and macrophyte assemblages

Biggs, Jeremy; Corfield, Antony; Grøn, Per; Hansen, Hans Ole; Walker, David H.; Whitfield, Mericia; Williams, Penny

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0755(199801/02)8:1<241::aid-aqc269>3.3.co;2-0

Cited by 21 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Large‐scale projects (a few to several kilometres of actively rehabilitated river) often employ many different rehabilitation techniques and may cost a large amount of money (e.g. Biggs et al . 1998; Kronvang et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of instream structures

Pretty

Harrison

Shepherd

et al. 2003

Journal of Applied Ecology

210

215

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. River rehabilitation schemes are now widespread in the UK and elsewhere, but there have been few systematic assessments of their ecological effect, particularly on target organisms such as fish. Fish populations were therefore assessed in 13 lowland rivers using point abundance measures and depletion electrofishing. Each river was sampled in two reaches, respectively containing a small-scale rehabilitation scheme (artificial riffles or flow deflectors) and an unrehabilitated control reach. Detailed geomorphological surveys were undertaken for the two study reaches in each river to assess the physical and hydraulic effect of rehabilitation. 2. There were large qualitative and quantitative differences among rivers and some had relatively impoverished fish faunas. Overall, total fish abundance, species richness, diversity and equitability were not significantly different between rehabilitated and control reaches. This was true for both the sampling methods used. Bullhead Cottus gobio and stone loach Barbatula barbatula tended to be more abundant in rehabilitated reaches, but this was significant only for artificial riffles. There was a significant between-year difference in fish abundance. 3. In general, rehabilitation schemes increased depth and flow heterogeneity, and fish species richness and diversity appeared to respond positively to increased flow velocity in restored reaches. However, there were few significant relationships between the fish fauna and physical variables, indicating that increasing physical (habitat) heterogeneity does not necessarily lead to higher biological diversity. We therefore caution against the use of physical responses to rehabilitation as a surrogate or reliable predictor of ecological response. 4. The weak response of fishes to rehabilitation may have been because the schemes were inappropriate in design and scale for low-gradient rivers. Furthermore, fish assemblages may have lacked the potential for recovery because of poor water quality and /or because the schemes were isolated within longer sections of degraded river. More extensive and directed biological monitoring is essential to improve understanding and enable future improvements in the design of schemes and the selection of sites with greater potential for successful rehabilitation. 5. Synthesis and applications. From this substantial sample of lowland rivers, there is little evidence of any general benefit to fish of small-scale instream structures in river rehabilitation. From present ecological knowledge it may be that resources would be better devoted to promoting the development of lateral and off-channel habitats within the river corridor. Physical restoration will be most effective when used alongside other strategies to augment fish populations such as water quality management.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of instream structures

Pretty

Harrison

Shepherd

et al. 2003

Journal of Applied Ecology

210

215

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is consistent with dynamics observed in disturbed communities, where one or a few taxa, usually generalists and opportunistic colonizers with short, multivoltine lifecycles (i.e., weedy species), dominate by taking advantage of uninhabited space (e.g., Wallace and Gurtz 1986). We observed temporary impacts from project construction at the Restoration site (i.e., channel disturbance and reduced riparian vegetation in the first postproject year), but the biological community recovered relatively quickly, as has been observed in other studies (e.g., Friberg et al 1998, Biggs et al 1998). Overall, this study provides evidence that active restoration projects of this nature have the potential to quickly enhance the biological integrity of degraded stream habitats.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although stream restoration projects may also impact downstream communities, available studies indicate that impacts to macroinvertebrate communities may only last a few months (Tikkanen et al 1994, Biggs et al 1998). This study indicated that benthic macroinvertebrate communities at the Downstream site were not significantly impacted by project construction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responses of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates to Stream Channel Reconstruction in a Degraded Rangeland Creek in the Sierra Nevada

Herbst¹,

Kane²

2009

Ecological Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Streams on western rangelands are sometimes degraded to the point that reestablishing lost ecological values requires rebuilding their physical structure, shape, and form. We evaluated the biological response to reconstruction of a small rangeland stream channel through comparisons of aquatic invertebrate communities before and after engineering activities and in relation to local and regional reference stream conditions. We measured geomorphic and riparian habitat features along with benthic macroinvertebrates for two years prior to restoration actions and for two years afterward. Stream restoration activities included the construction of a new channel to replace an incised meadow stream reach (including addition of coarse rock substrate, erosion control fabric, and willow planting) and the rehabilitation of gullies and roads in the meadow and its watershed. In postproject monitoring, we found statistically significant changes in the macroinvertebrate community and trophic structure at the restored site. These were exhibited as increases in EPT taxa (mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies) and the proportion and diversity of sensitive taxa, decreased tolerant taxa, and an increase in consumers of riparian organic matter (shredders) and decrease in fine organic particle filter-feeders. A site monitored downstream of the restoration activities exhibited increased deposition of fines and sand one year after project construction, but was similar to preproject conditions in the second year, and the macroinvertebrate community was unchanged. Improved biological integrity at the restored site showed that rapid recovery can occur in rebuilt streams within rehabilitated watersheds, but neither degraded nor enhanced conditions were transferred to downstream habitat, at least over the initial postproject period.

show abstract

“…In the majority of macrophyte case studies, recovery was investigated with regard to area coverage or plant biomass, whereas a few studies also focused on the taxonomic composition of macrophyte communities (e.g., Biggs et al 1998 ;Eichler et al 1995 ;Gergs 2006 ). In the majority of macrophyte case studies, recovery was investigated with regard to area coverage or plant biomass, whereas a few studies also focused on the taxonomic composition of macrophyte communities (e.g., Biggs et al 1998 ;Eichler et al 1995 ;Gergs 2006 ).…”

Section: Macrophytesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 236

Voogt¹

2016

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoration of the rivers Brede, Cole and Skerne: a joint Danish and British EU-LIFE demonstration project, V—short‐term impacts on the conservation value of aquatic macroinvertebrate and macrophyte assemblages

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of instream structures

River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of instream structures

Responses of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates to Stream Channel Reconstruction in a Degraded Rangeland Creek in the Sierra Nevada

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 236

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About