Consideration of spatial and temporal scales in stream restorations and biotic monitoring to assess restoration outcomes: A literature review, part 1. (23rd August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Griffith, Michael B.; McManus, Michael G.
• Is Part Of: River research and applications. Volume 36:Number 8(2020)
• Page Start: 1385
• Page End: 1397
• Publication Date: 2020-08-23
• Subjects: biotic assemblages -- biotic functions -- outcome assessment -- spatial and temporal scales -- stream and river restoration; Rivers -- Regulation -- Periodicals; Rivers -- Periodicals; 551.483
• DOI: 10.1002/rra.3692
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1535-1459

Abstract

Abstract: Stream and river restoration practices have become common in many parts of the world. We ask the question whether such restorations improve freshwater biotic assemblages or functions over time, and if not, can general reasons be identified for such outcomes. We conducted a literature survey and review of studies in which different types of stream restorations were conducted and outcomes reported. These restoration types included culvert restoration; acid mine restoration or industrial pollutant restoration; urban stream restoration; dam removal, changes in dam operation, or fish passage structures; instream habitat modification; riparian restoration or woody material addition; channel restoration and multiple restorations. The streams ranged from headwater streams to large rivers, and the regions included North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and a small number of sites in Asia and Africa. In this part of the review, we describe the methods used for the review and present reviews for the first three types of stream restorations. For culvert restorations, the small sample size and variable study design and biotic responses limited generalizing about temporal and spatial scale effects for that restoration type. The complex and often lengthy time to restore streams from acid mine drainage and industrial pollutants often resulted in positive biotic responses, but restored sites had reduced responses compared with reference sites. Most urban stream restorations had minimal or mixed improvements in biotic responses, with one mismatch in spatial scale evidenced by hydraulic structures used in a restoration unable to withstand peak discharge.