1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics
  4. Volume 45, 2014
  5. Article

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics

Volume 45, 2014

Ecological Restoration of Streams and Rivers: Shifting Strategies and Shifting Goals

Abstract

Ecological restoration has grown rapidly and now encompasses not only classic ecological theory but also utilitarian concerns, such as preparedness for climate change and provisioning of ecosystem services. Three dominant perspectives compete to influence the science and practice of river restoration. A strong focus on channel morphology has led to approaches that involve major Earth-moving activities, such as channel reconfiguration with the unmet assumption that ecological recovery will follow. Functional perspectives of river restoration aim to regain the full suite of biogeochemical, ecological, and hydrogeomorphic processes that make up a healthy river, and though there is well-accepted theory to support this, research on methods to implement and assess functional restoration projects is in its infancy. A plethora of new studies worldwide provide data on why and how rivers are being restored as well as the project outcomes. Measurable improvements postrestoration vary by restoration method and measure of outcome.

Keyword(s): channel design, restoration, river, social context, success outcomes
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935
2014-11-23
2025-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ecolsys/45/1/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Amirault H. 2012. Stream restoration in Canada—the state of the union (or perhaps confederation) Presented at the NCSU-SRP Bienn. Stream Restor. Conf., Stream Restor Southeast: Innov. Ecol., Wilmington, NC [Google Scholar]
  2. Arthington AH, Pusey BJ. 2003. Flow restoration and protection in Australian rivers. River Res. Appl. 19:377–95 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bady P, Doledec S, Fesl C, Gayraud S, Bacchi M, Scholl F. 2005. Use of invertebrate traits for the biomonitoring of European large rivers: the effects of sampling effort on genus richness and functional diversity. Freshw. Biol. 50:1159–73 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beechie TJ, Sear DA, Olden JD, Pess GR, Buffington JM. et al. 2010. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. Bioscience 60:3209–22 [Google Scholar]
  5. Benayas J, Newton A, Diaz A, Bullock J. 2009. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325:59441121–24 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA. 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecol. Appl. 21:61926–31 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K. et al. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:5722636–37 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernhardt ES, Sudduth EB, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Meyer JL. et al. 2007. Restoring rivers one reach at a time: results from a survey of U.S. river restoration practitioners. Restor. Ecol. 15:3482–93 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bond NR, Lake PS. 2003. Local habitat restoration in streams: constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 4:3193–98 [Google Scholar]
  10. Booth EG, Loheide SP. 2010. Effects of evapotranspiration partitioning, plant water stress response and topsoil removal on the soil moisture regime of a floodplain wetland: implications for restoration. Hydrol. Process. 24:202934–46 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bronner CE, Bartlett AM, Whiteway SL, Lambert DC, Bennett SJ, Rabideau AJ. 2013. An assessment of U.S. stream compensatory mitigation policy: necessary changes to protect ecosystem functions and services. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49:2449–62 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brooks SS, Lake PS. 2007. River restoration in Victoria, Australia: Change is in the wind, and none too soon. Restor. Ecol. 15:3584–91 [Google Scholar]
  13. Buchanan BP, Walter MT, Nagle GN, Schneider RL. 2012. Monitoring and assessment of a river restoration project in central New York. River Res. Appl. 28:2216–33 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bukaveckas PA. 2007. Effects of channel restoration on water velocity, transient storage, and nutrient uptake in a channelized stream. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41:51570–76 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bullock JM, Aronson J, Newton AC, Pywell RF, Rey-Benayas JM. 2011. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26:10541–49 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bunn SE, Abal EG, Smith MJ, Choy SC, Fellows CS. et al. 2010. Integration of science and monitoring of river ecosystem health to guide investments in catchment protection and rehabilitation. Freshw. Biol. 55:223–40 [Google Scholar]
  17. Casanova MT. 2011. Using water plant functional groups to investigate environmental water requirements. Freshw. Biol. 56:2637–52 [Google Scholar]
  18. Christian-Smith J, Merenlender AM. 2010. The disconnect between restoration goals and practices: a case study of watershed restoration in the Russian River basin, California. Restor. Ecol. 18:195–102 [Google Scholar]
  19. Clapcott JE, Young RG, Goodwin EO, Leathwick JR. 2010. Exploring the response of functional indicators of stream health to land-use gradients. Freshw. Biol. 55:102181–99 [Google Scholar]
  20. Davies PE, Harris JH, Hillman TJ, Walker KF. 2010. The sustainable rivers audit: assessing river ecosystem health in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 61:7764–77 [Google Scholar]
  21. Diamond J, Stribling JR, Huff L, Gilliam J. 2012. An approach for determining bioassessment performance and comparability. Environ. Monit. Assess. 184:42247–60 [Google Scholar]
  22. Doremus H, Tarlock AD. 2013. Can the Clean Water Act succeed as an ecosystem protection law?. J. Energy Environ. Law 4:46–56 [Google Scholar]
  23. Doyle MW, Shields DF. 2012. Compensatory mitigation for streams under the Clean Water Act: reassessing science and redirecting policy. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 48:3494–509 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ernst AG, Warren DR, Baldigo BP. 2012. Natural channel design restorations that changed geomorphology have little effect on macroinvertebrate communities in headwater streams. Restor. Ecol. 20:4532–40 [Google Scholar]
  25. Falk DA, Zedler JB, Palmer MA. 2006. Foundations of Restoration Ecology Washington DC: Island [Google Scholar]
  26. Febria CM, Koch BJ, Palmer MA. 2014. Operationalising the ecosystem services framework for managing riverine biodiversity. How Can an Ecosystem Services Approach Help Address Global Water Challenges? J Martin-Ortega, B Ferrier, I Gordon, S Khan, in press Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  27. Filoso S, Palmer MA. 2011. Assessing stream restoration effectiveness at reducing nitrogen export to downstream waters. Ecol. Appl. 21:61989–2006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fischenich JC. 2006. Functional objectives for stream restoration ERDC TN-EMRRP SR-52, US Army Eng. Res. Dev. Cent., Vicksburg, MS [Google Scholar]
  29. Fletcher TD, Walsh CJ, Bos D, Nemes V, RossRakesh S. et al. 2011. Restoration of stormwater retention capacity at the allotment-scale through a novel economic instrument. Water Sci. Technol. 64:2494–502 [Google Scholar]
  30. Forman I. 2011. The uncertain future of NEPA and mountaintop removal. Columbia Environ. Law 36:163–91 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gabriele W, Welti N, Hein T. 2013. Limitations of stream restoration for nitrogen retention in agricultural headwater streams. Ecol. Eng. 60:224–34 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gardeström J, Holmqvist D, Polvi LE, Nilsson C. 2013. Demonstration restoration measures in tributaries of the Vindel River catchment. Ecol. Soc. 18:3art8 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gerlak AK, Zamora-Arroyo F, Kahler HP. 2013. A delta in repair: restoration, binational cooperation and the future of the Colorado River Delta. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 55:329–40 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gilvear DJ, Casas-Mulet R, Spray CJ. 2012. Trends and issues in delivery of integrated catchment scale river restoration: lessons learned from a national river restoration survey within Scotland. River Res. Appl. 28:234–46 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gilvear DJ, Spray CJ, Casas-Mulet R. 2013. River rehabilitation for the delivery of multiple ecosystem services at the river network scale. J. Environ. Manag. 126:30–43 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gobster PH, Hull RB. 2000. Restoring Nature Washington DC: Island [Google Scholar]
  37. González del Tánago M, García de Jalón D. 2006. Attributes for assessing the environmental quality of riparian zones. Limnetica 25:389–402 [Google Scholar]
  38. González del Tánago M, García de Jalón D, Román M. 2012. River restoration in Spain: theoretical and practical approach in the context of the European Water Framework Directive. Environ. Manag. 50:1123–39 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gross M. 2003. Inventing Nature: Ecological Restoration by Public Experiments Oxford, UK: Lexington Books [Google Scholar]
  40. Haase P, Hering D, Jähnig SC, Lorenz AW, Sundermann A. 2012. The impact of hydromorphological restoration on river ecological status: a comparison of fish, benthic invertebrates, and macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 704:1475–88 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hagen D, Svavarsdottir K, Nilsson C, Tolvanen AK, Raulund-Rasmussen K. et al. 2013. Ecological and social dimensions of ecosystem restoration in the Nordic countries. Ecol. Soc. 18:434 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hall RK, Guiliano D, Swanson S, Philbin MJ, Lin J. et al. 2014. An ecological function and services approach to total maximum daily load (TMDL) prioritization. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186:2413–33 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hallett LM, Standish RJ, Hulvey KB, Gardener MR, Suding KN. et al. 2013. Toward a conceptual framework for novel ecosystems. Novel Ecosystems RJ Hobbs, ES Higgs, CM Hall 16–28 Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  44. Harman W, Starr R, Carter M, Tweedy L, Clemmons M. et al. 2012. A function-based framework for stream assessment and restoration projects EPA 843-K-12-006, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
  45. Hart DD, Johnson TE, Bushaw-Newton KL, Horwitz RJ, Bednarek AT. et al. 2002. Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for ecological research and river restoration. Bioscience 52:669–82 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hauer RF, Lamberti GA. 2007. Methods in Stream Ecology San Diego: Elsevier, 2nd. ed. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hester ET, Gooseff MN. 2010. Moving beyond the banks: hyporheic restoration is fundamental to restoring ecological services and functions of streams. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44:51521–25 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hines SL, Hershey AE. 2011. Do channel restoration structures promote ammonium uptake and improve macroinvertebrate-based water quality classification in urban streams. Inland Water 1:133–45 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hobbs RJ, Hallett LM, Ehrlich PR, Mooney HA. 2011. Intervention ecology: applying ecological science in the twenty-first century. Bioscience 61:6442–50 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoellein TJ, Tank JL, Entrekin SA, Rosi-Marshall EJ, Stephen ML, Lamberti GA. 2012. Effects of benthic habitat restoration on nutrient uptake and ecosystem metabolism in three headwater streams. River Res. Appl. 28:91451–61 [Google Scholar]
  51. Holl KD, Stout VM, Reid JL, Zahawi RA. 2013. Testing heterogeneity-diversity relationships in tropical forest restoration. Oecologia 173:2569–78 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hossler K, Bouchard V, Fennessy MS, Frey SD, Anemaet E, Herbert E. 2011. No-net-loss not met for nutrient function in freshwater marshes: recommendations for wetland mitigation policies. Ecosphere 2:7art82 [Google Scholar]
  53. Iovanna R, Griffiths C. 2006. Clean water, ecological benefits, and benefits transfer: a work in progress at the U. S EPA. Ecol. Econ. 60:2473–82 [Google Scholar]
  54. Jähnig SC, Brabec K, Buffagni A, Erba S, Lorenz AW. et al. 2010. A comparative analysis of restoration measures and their effects on hydromorphology and benthic invertebrates in central and southern European rivers. J. Appl. Ecol. 47:671–80 [Google Scholar]
  55. Jeong K-S, Kim H-G, Jeong J-C, Kim D-K, Kim H-W. et al. 2011. Current status of Korean streams and exploring areas with high necessity for stream structure restoration. Ann. Limnol. Int. J. Limnol. 47:S117–25 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kail J, Arle J, Jähnig SC. 2012. Limiting factors and thresholds for macroinvertebrate assemblages in European rivers: empirical evidence from three datasets on water quality, catchment urbanization, and river restoration. Ecol. Indic. 18:63–72 [Google Scholar]
  57. Kasahara T, Hill AR. 2006. Hyporheic exchange flows induced by constructed riffles and steps in lowland streams in southern Ontario, Canada. Hydrol. Process. 20:4287–305 [Google Scholar]
  58. Katz SL, Barnas K, Hicks R, Cowen J, Jenkinson R. 2007. Freshwater habitat restoration actions in the Pacific Northwest: a decade's investment in habitat improvement. Restor. Ecol. 15:3494–505 [Google Scholar]
  59. Klein LR, Clayton SR, Alldredge JR, Goodwin P. 2007. Long term monitoring and evaluation of the Lower Red River meadow restoration project, Idaho, USA. Restor. Ecol. 15:2223–39 [Google Scholar]
  60. Kline JD, Mazzotta MJ, Spies TA, Harmon ME. 2013. Applying the ecosystem services concept to public land management. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 42:1139–58 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kline M, Cahoon B. 2010. Protecting river corridors in Vermont. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 46:2227–36 [Google Scholar]
  62. Kondolf GM, Boulton AJ, Daniel SO, Poole GC, Rahel FJ. et al. 2006. Process-based ecological river restoration: visualizing three-dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecol. Soc. 11:2art5 [Google Scholar]
  63. Kondolf GM, Piégay H. 2003. Tools in Fluvial Geomorphology Chichester, UK: Wiley- Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  64. Kondolf GM, Yang C-N. 2008. Planning river restoration projects: social and cultural dimensions. River Restoration: Managing the Uncertainty in Restoring Physical Habitats S Darby, D Sear 43–60 Chichester, UK: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  65. Lake PS, Bond N, Reich P. 2007. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshw. Biol. 52:4597–615 [Google Scholar]
  66. Lave R. 2013. Fields and Streams: Stream Restoration, Neoliberalism, and the Future of Environmental Science Athens: Univ. Ga. Press [Google Scholar]
  67. Lave R, Doyle M, Robertson M. 2010. Privatizing stream restoration in the U.S. Soc. Stud. Sci. 40:5677–703 [Google Scholar]
  68. Levell AP, Chang H. 2008. Monitoring the channel process of a stream restoration project in an urbanizing watershed: a case study of Kelley Creek, Oregon, USA. River Res. Appl. 24:2169–82 [Google Scholar]
  69. Louhi P, Mykrä H, Paavola R, Huusko A, Vehanen T. et al. 2011. Twenty years of stream restoration in Finland: little response by benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Ecol. Appl. 21:61950–61 [Google Scholar]
  70. Marks JC, Haden GA, O'Neill M, Pace C. 2010. Effects of flow restoration and exotic species removal on recovery of native fish: lessons from a dam decommissioning. Restor. Ecol. 18:6934–43 [Google Scholar]
  71. Marsh GP. 1864. Man and Nature; Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. New York: Scribner [Google Scholar]
  72. Miller JR, Kochel RC. 2010. Assessment of channel dynamics, in-stream structures and post-project channel adjustments in North Carolina and its implications to effective stream restoration. Environ. Earth Sci. 59:81681–92 [Google Scholar]
  73. Montoya D, Rogers L, Memmott J. 2012. Emerging perspectives in the restoration of biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27:12666–72 [Google Scholar]
  74. Moore KD, Moore JW. 2013. Ecological restoration and enabling behavior: a new metaphorical lens?. Conserv. Lett. 6:11–5 [Google Scholar]
  75. Morandi B, Piégay H, Lamouroux N, Vaudor L. 2014. How is success or failure in river restoration projects evaluated?. J. Environ. Manag. 137:178–88 [Google Scholar]
  76. Muotka T, Laasonen P. 2002. Ecosystem recovery in restored headwater streams: the role of enhanced leaf retention. J. Appl. Ecol. 39:145–56 [Google Scholar]
  77. Nagle G. 2007. Invited commentary for hydrological processes evaluating “natural channel design” stream projects. Hydrol. Process. 21:1–7 [Google Scholar]
  78. Naiman R, Decamps H, McClain M. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Streamside Communities San Diego: Academic [Google Scholar]
  79. Nakamura K, Tockner K, Amano K. 2006. River and wetland restoration: lessons from Japan. Bioscience 56:5419 [Google Scholar]
  80. Newcomer TA, Kaushal SS, Mayer PM, Shields AR, Canuel EA. et al. 2012. Influence of natural and novel organic carbon sources on denitrification in forest, degraded urban, and restored streams. Ecol. Monogr. 82:4449–66 [Google Scholar]
  81. Niezgoda SL, Johnson PA. 2005. Improving the urban stream restoration effort: identifying critical form and processes relationships. Environ. Manag. 35:5579–92 [Google Scholar]
  82. Opperman JJ, Luster R, McKenney BA, Roberts M, Meadows AW. 2010. Ecologically functional floodplains: connectivity, flow regime, and scale. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 46:2211–26 [Google Scholar]
  83. Orzetti LL, Jones C, Murphy RF. 2010. Stream condition in Piedmont streams with restored riparian buffers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 46:3473–85 [Google Scholar]
  84. Palmer M, Allan JD, Meyer J, Bernhardt ES. 2007. River restoration in the twenty-first century: data and experiential knowledge to inform future efforts. Restor. Ecol. 15:3472–81 [Google Scholar]
  85. Palmer MA, Ambrose RF, Poff NLR. 1997. Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol. 5:4291–300 [Google Scholar]
  86. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G. et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:2208–17 [Google Scholar]
  87. Palmer MA, Febria CM. 2012. The heartbeat of ecosystems. Science 336:60871393–94 [Google Scholar]
  88. Palmer MA, Filoso S. 2009. Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 325:5940575–76 [Google Scholar]
  89. Palmer MA, Filoso S, Fanelli RM. 2014. From ecosystems to ecosystem services: stream restoration as ecological engineering. Ecol. Eng. 65:62–70 [Google Scholar]
  90. Palmer MA, Hondula KL. 2014. Restoration as mitigation: analysis of stream mitigation for coal mining impacts in southern Appalachia. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48:10552–-60 [Google Scholar]
  91. Palmer MA, Menninger HL, Bernhardt ES. 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice. Freshw. Biol. 55:1205–22 [Google Scholar]
  92. Parkyn SM, Smith BJ. 2011. Dispersal constraints for stream invertebrates: setting realistic timescales for biodiversity restoration. Environ. Manag. 48:3602–14 [Google Scholar]
  93. Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ. et al. 2010. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw. Biol. 55:1147–70 [Google Scholar]
  94. Quinn JM, Smith BJ, Bellingham MA, Croker GF. 2009. Integrated catchment management effects on flow, habitat, instream vegetation and macroinvertebrates in Waikato, New Zealand, hill-country streams. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 43:755–802 [Google Scholar]
  95. Ramchunder SJ, Brown LE, Holden J. 2012. Catchment-scale peatland restoration benefits stream ecosystem biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 49:1182–91 [Google Scholar]
  96. Reynolds LK, Waycott M, McGlathery KJ. 2013. Restoration recovers population structure and landscape genetic connectivity in a dispersal-limited ecosystem. J. Ecol. 101:1288–97 [Google Scholar]
  97. Richardson CJ, Flanagan NE, Ho M, Pahl JW. 2011. Integrated stream and wetland restoration: a watershed approach to improved water quality on the landscape. Ecol. Eng. 37:125–39 [Google Scholar]
  98. Roberts BJ, Mulholland PJ, Houser JN. 2007. Effects of upland disturbance and in stream restoration on hydrodynamics and ammonium uptake in headwater streams. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 2 6:138–53 [Google Scholar]
  99. Robson BJ, Mitchell BD, Chester ET. 2009. Recovery Pathways After Flow Restoration in Rivers Canberra: Natl. Water Comm. [Google Scholar]
  100. Rodrigues RR, Gandolfi S, Nave AG, Aronson J, Barreto TE. et al. 2011. Large-scale ecological restoration of high-diversity tropical forests in SE Brazil. For. Ecol. Manag. 261:101605–13 [Google Scholar]
  101. Roley SS, Tank JL, Stephen ML, Johnson LT, Beaulieu JJ, Witter JD. 2012. Floodplain restoration enhances denitrification and reach-scale nitrogen removal in an agricultural stream. Ecol. Appl. 22:1281–97 [Google Scholar]
  102. Rosgen D. 1998. Applied Stream Geomorphology Pagoda Springs, CO: Widland Hydrol. [Google Scholar]
  103. Rosgen DL. 2011. Natural channel design: fundamental concepts, assumptions, and methods. Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems: Scientific Approaches, Analyses, and Tools Geophys. Monogr. Ser., 194. A Simon, SJ Bennett, JM Castro 69–93 Washington, DC: Am. Geophys. Union [Google Scholar]
  104. Rumps JM, Katz SL, Barnas K, Morehead MD, Jenkinson R. et al. 2007. Stream restoration in the Pacific Northwest: analysis of interviews with project managers. Restor. Ecol. 15:3506–15 [Google Scholar]
  105. Ryder L, de Eyto E, Gormally M, Sheehy Skeffington M, Dillane M, Poole R. 2011. Riparian zone creation in established coniferous forests in Irish upland peat catchments: physical, chemical, and biological implications. Biol. Environ. Proc. R. Irish Acad. 111B:1–20 [Google Scholar]
  106. Sanon S, Hein T, Douven W, Winkler P. 2012. Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs: the case of an urban floodplain in Vienna, Austria. J. Environ. Manag. 111:159–72 [Google Scholar]
  107. Schiff R, Benoit G, MacBroom J. 2011. Evaluating stream restoration: a case study from two partially developed 4th order Connecticut, USA streams and evaluating monitoring strategies. River Res. Appl. 27:431–60 [Google Scholar]
  108. Schneider P, Vogt T, Schirmer M, Doetsch J, Linde N. et al. 2011. Towards improved instrumentation for assessing river-groundwater interactions in a restored river corridor. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15:82531–49 [Google Scholar]
  109. Scrimgeour G, Jones N, Tonn WM. 2013. Benthic macroinvertebrate response to habitat restoration in a constructed Arctic stream. River Res. Appl. 29:3352–65 [Google Scholar]
  110. Selvakumar A, Connor TPO, Struck SD. 2010. Role of stream restoration on improving benthic macroinvertebrates and in-stream water quality in an urban watershed: case study. J. Environ. Eng. 136:1127–39 [Google Scholar]
  111. SER (Soc. Ecol. Restor.) Int. Soc. Sci. Policy Work. Group 2004. SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration Washington, DC: SER [Google Scholar]
  112. Shackelford N, Hobbs RJ, Burgar JM, Erickson TE, Fontaine JB. et al. 2013. Primed for change: developing ecological restoration for the 21st century. Restor. Ecol. 21:3297–304 [Google Scholar]
  113. Shields FD Jr., Copeland RR, Klingeman PC, Doyle MW, Simon A. 2003. Design for stream restoration. J. Hydraul. Eng. 129:8575–84 [Google Scholar]
  114. Simon A, Doyle M, Kondolf M, Shields FD Jr., Rhoads B, McPhillips M. 2007. Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen classification and associated “natural channel design” methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel response. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 43:51117–31 [Google Scholar]
  115. Smith B, Clifford NJ, Mant J. 2014. The changing nature of river restoration. WIREs Water 1:249–61 [Google Scholar]
  116. Smith SM, Prestegaard KL. 2005. Hydraulic performance of a morphology-based stream channel design. Water Resour. Res. 41:11W11413 [Google Scholar]
  117. Smith SMC, Belmont P, Wilcock PR. 2011. Closing the gap between watershed modeling, sediment budgeting, and stream restoration. Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems: Scientific Approaches, Analyses, and Tools Geophys. Monogr. Ser. 194, ed. A Simon, SJ Bennett, JM Castro 293–318 Washington, DC: Am. Geophys. Union [Google Scholar]
  118. Smucker NJ, Detenbeck NE. 2014. Meta-analysis of lost ecosystem attributes in urban streams and the effectiveness of out-of-channel management practices. Restor. Ecol. In press. doi: 10.1111/rec.12134 [Google Scholar]
  119. Sternecker K, Wild R, Geist J. 2013. Effects of substratum restoration on salmonid habitat quality in a subalpine stream. Environ. Biol. Fish. 96:121341–51 [Google Scholar]
  120. Sudduth EB, Hassett BA, Cada P, Bernhardt ES. 2011. Testing the field of dreams hypothesis: functional responses to urbanization and restoration in stream ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 21:61972–88 [Google Scholar]
  121. Suding KN, Gross KL, Houseman GR. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:146–53 [Google Scholar]
  122. Sundermann A, Stoll S, Haase P. 2011. River restoration success depends on the species pool of the immediate surroundings. Ecol. Appl. 21:61962–71 [Google Scholar]
  123. Sweka JA, Hartman KJ. 2006. Effects of large woody debris addition on stream habitat and brook trout populations in Appalachian streams. Hydrobiologia 559:363–78 [Google Scholar]
  124. Thompson R, Parkinson S. 2011. Assessing the local effects of riparian restoration on urban streams. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 45:4625–36 [Google Scholar]
  125. Tischew S, Baasch A, Conrad MK, Kirmer A. 2010. Evaluating restoration success of frequently implemented compensation measures: results and demands for control procedures. Restor. Ecol. 18:4467–80 [Google Scholar]
  126. Tullos DD, Penrose DL, Jennings GD, Cope WG. 2009. Analysis of functional traits in reconfigured channels: implications for the bioassessment and disturbance of river restoration. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 28:180–92 [Google Scholar]
  127. Vehanen T, Huusko A, Mäki-Petäys A, Louhi P. Mykrä H, Muotka T. 2010. Effects of fish habitat rehabilitation on brown trout (Salmo trutta) in boreal forest streams. Freshw. Biol. 55:2200–14 [Google Scholar]
  128. Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD, Ladson AR. 2005. Stream restoration in urban catchments through redesigning stormwater systems: looking to the catchment to save the stream. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 24:3690–705 [Google Scholar]
  129. Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P. 2002. Effects of watershed best management practices on habitat and fish in Wisconsin streams. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 38:3663–80 [Google Scholar]
  130. Wheaton JM, Darby SE, Sear DA. 2008. The scope of uncertainties in river restoration. River Restoration: Managing the Uncertainty in Restoring Physical Habitat S Darby, D Sear 21–40 Chichester, UK: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  131. Wohl E, Angermeier PL, Bledsoe B, Kondolf GM, MacDonnell L. et al. 2005. River restoration. Water Resour. Res. 41:10W10301 [Google Scholar]
  132. Woo H. 2010. Trends in ecological river engineering in Korea. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 4:4269–78 [Google Scholar]
  133. Woolsey S, Capelli F, Gonser T, Hoehn E, Hostmann M. et al. 2007. A strategy to assess river restoration success. Freshw. Biol. 52:4752–69 [Google Scholar]
  134. Woolsey S, Weber C, Gonser T, Hoehn E, Hostmann M. et al. 2005. Handbook for evaluating rehabilitation projects in rivers and streams Publication by the Rhone-Thur project. Eawag, WSL, LCH-EPFL, VAW-ETHZ 108 pp. [Google Scholar]
  135. Wortley L, Hero J-M, Howes M. 2013. Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review of the literature. Restor. Ecol. 21:5537–43 [Google Scholar]
  136. Ji Y-X, Huang M-S, Wei Z-X, Lu Z-L. 2008. Research and application of multi-naturalness river restoration technologies in Shanghai. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 17:2264 [Google Scholar]
  137. Yu G, Huang HQ, Wang Z, Brierley G, Zhang K. 2012. Rehabilitation of a debris-flow prone mountain stream in southwestern China—strategies, effects and implications. J. Hydrol. 414:231–43 [Google Scholar]
  138. Yu G, Wang Z-Y, Zhang K, Duan X, Chang T-C. 2010. Restoration of an incised mountain stream using artificial step-pool system. J. Hydraul. Res. 48:2178–87 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935
Loading
Ecological Restoration of Streams and Rivers: Shifting Strategies and Shifting Goals
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 45, 247 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error