The Rapid Riparian Revegetation Approach

Abstract

Loss of native riparian vegetation and dominance of invasive species can have negative consequences for river and floodplain dynamics, trophic interactions, water quality, and riparian systems' ability to buffer some of the impacts of climate change. In response, restoration and enhancement efforts have increased in scope and scale in recent years, despite the fact that there is limited information on the effectiveness of techniques. This paper describes one approach to riparian restoration and enhancement, termed Rapid Riparian Revegetation (R3), which promotes rapid cover of woody plants in a composition designed to mimic reference site conditions. Limited peer-to-peer learning opportunities and the significant investment in time and resources required to document practices, monitor outcomes and disseminate findings hampers practitioners' ability to both systematically improve ecological restoration practices and to share lessons learned with broader audiences. This paper seeks to narrow this gap by describing in detail riparian revegetation project planning, management actions, and costs incurred within typical grant funded projects. Initial planting densities prescribed in this approach are typically in the range of 5,400 to 6,400 stems per hectare (approx. 2,200 to 2,600 per acre), with inter-planting in the second year at 1,300 to 1,600 stems per hectare (approx. 530 to 650 per acre).

Urban Stream Restoration Projects: Do Project Phase, Distance, and Type Affect Nearby Property Sale Prices?

“…Urban restoration projects improve regulating and supporting ecosystem services such as buffering of flood flows, maintenance of water quality, minimization of erosion, and maintenance of aquatic food webs (Pander and Geist 2013;Palmer, Filoso, and Fanelli 2014;Yeakley et al 2016). However, full functionality may take decades for some restoration projects (Guillozet, Smith, and Guillozet 2014;Gardali and Holmes 2011); these changes may not be observed by private property owners, and benefits are diffuse (Hoang, Fenner, and Skenderian 2016).…”

“…Projects that remove invasives and revegetate and projects that restore fish and wildlife habitat are likely to benefit nearby property owners to the extent that these projects improve aesthetics and are maintained over time. The benefit to property owners in other buffers (0.25 to 0.5 km and 0.5 to 1 km), such as improvements in water quality and in the number and diversity of fish and wildlife, depends on the aggregate effect of many projects inside and outside of the study area, with some projects taking decades to achieve full functionality (Guillozet, Smith, and Guillozet 2014;Gardali and Holmes 2011).…”

Feed the bees and shade the streams: riparian shrubs planted for restoration provide forage for native bees

“…Riparian restoration often involves establishing vegetation, primarily shrubs and trees (Guillozet et al 2014;Averett et al 2017b) that are planted to improve stream condition by shading water (Wondzell et al 2019), stabilizing banks (Hughes 2016), and connecting terrestrial habitats (Rockwell & Stephens 2018;Stanford et al 2020). While riparian restoration objectives do not traditionally include improving pollinator habitat, pollinators may benefit from restoration that includes pollen-and nectar-producing plants (e.g., Golet et al 2011;Williams 2011;de Araújo et al 2018).…”