Intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams (IRES) are common across Europe and dominate some Mediterranean river networks. In all climate zones, IRES support high biodiversity and provide ecosystem services. As dynamic ecosystems that transition between flowing, pool, and dry states, IRES are typically poorly represented in biomonitoring programmes implemented to characterize EU Water Framework Directive ecological status. We report the results of a survey completed by representatives from 20 European countries to identify current challenges to IRES status assessment, examples of best practice, and priorities for future research. We identify five major barriers to effective ecological status classification in IRES: 1. the exclusion of IRES from Water Framework Directive biomonitoring based on their small catchment size; 2. the lack of river typologies that distinguish between contrasting IRES; 3. difficulties in defining the 'reference conditions' that represent unimpacted dynamic ecosystems; 4. classification of IRES ecological status based on lotic communities sampled using methods developed for perennial rivers; and 5. a reliance on taxonomic characterization of local communities. Despite these challenges, we recognize examples of innovative practice that can inform modification of current biomonitoring activity to promote effective IRES status classification. Priorities for future research include reconceptualization of the reference condition approach to accommodate spatiotemporal fluctuations in community composition, and modification of indices of ecosystem health to recognize both taxon-specific sensitivities to intermittence and dispersal abilities, within a landscape context.

1. Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. 2. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream nonrestored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain-inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land-water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. 3. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non-restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. 4. When comparing all restored to all non-restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. 5.When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. 6. Synthesis and applications. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects.

Despite the large number of river restoration projects carried out worldwide, evidence for strong and long-term positive ecological effects of hydromorphological restoration on macroinvertebrates is scarce. To improve the understanding of the success and failure of restoration measures, a standardized field study was carried out in nineteen paired restored and degraded river sections in mid-sized lowland and mountain rivers throughout Europe. We investigated if there were effects of restoration on macroinvertebrate biodiversity, and if these effects could be related to changes in microhabitat composition, diversity and patchiness. Effects were quantified for all taxa combined, as well as Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera separately. Additionally, species trait classifications of microhabitat preference types were used as a functional indicator. Restoration had no overall positive effects on the selected macroinvertebrate metrics. Rather, we did find positive relationships between the macroinvertebrate responses and the effect of restoration on the diversity and patchiness of microhabitats. Furthermore, the effects on macroinvertebrates could be related to changes in the cover of specific substrate types in the restored sections. We conclude that the limited effect of restoration on macroinvertebrate diversity overall reflected, at least in part, the limited effect of most restoration measures on microhabitat composition and diversity.

No abstract

Species reintroductions - the translocation of individuals to areas in which a species has been extirpated with the aim of re-establishing a self-sustaining population - have become a widespread practice in conservation biology. Reintroduction projects have tended to focus on terrestrial vertebrates and, to a lesser extent, fishes. Much less effort has been devoted to the reintroduction of invertebrates into restored freshwater habitats. Yet, reintroductions may improve restoration outcomes in regions where impoverished regional species pools limit the self-recolonisation of restored freshwaters. We review the available literature on macroinvertebrate reintroductions, focusing on identifying the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that determine their success or failure. Our study reveals that freshwater macroinvertebrate reintroductions remain rare, are often published in the grey literature and, of the attempts made, approximately one-third fail. We identify life-cycle complexity and remaining stressors as the two factors most likely to affect reintroduction success, illustrating the unique challenges of freshwater macroinvertebrate reintroductions. Consideration of these factors by managers during the planning process and proper documentation - even if a project fails - may increase the likelihood of successful outcomes in future reintroduction attempts of freshwater macroinvertebrates.