Defining and Achieving Fish Habitat Rehabilitation in Large, Low‐Gradient Rivers

Bayley, Peter B.; O’Hara, K.; Steel, R.

doi:10.1002/9780470696026.ch19

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bayley, O’Hara & Steel (2000) discuss the use of instream structures in the rehabilitation of low‐gradient rivers and suggest that off‐channel and marginal habitats are relatively more important in such systems. Vegetation plays a greater role in providing habitat complexity in lowland rivers, compared to high gradient rivers where channel morphology is naturally more variable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This weak response may have been because the schemes were inappropriate in design and scale, and that the fish populations lacked the potential for increase by such measures. We recommend that rehabilitation strategies for lowland rivers are revised and stress that techniques devised for higher gradient rivers may be inappropriate for many lowland rivers, where wetland, marginal and off-channel habitats may have more impact (Bayley et al 2000). The schemes investigated here are typical of the earlier rehabilitation efforts made in Britain and there has since been considerable development in the field of river rehabilitation.…”

Section:          mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In North America, artificial riffles have been successful in some cases but high failure rates have also been reported, indicating that the technique may only be useful in certain conditions (Avery 1996). Bayley, O'Hara & Steel (2000) discuss the use of instream structures in the rehabilitation of low-gradient rivers and suggest that off-channel and marginal habitats are relatively more important in such systems. Vegetation plays a greater role in providing habitat complexity in lowland rivers, compared to high gradient rivers where channel morphology is naturally more variable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Pretty

Harrison

Shepherd

et al. 2003

Journal of Applied Ecology

209

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section:          mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Pretty

Harrison

Shepherd

et al. 2003

Journal of Applied Ecology

209

215

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is imperative for sound fish stock management that the suitability of habitats for 0-group fish is assessed and this should be given attention in any rehabilitation programme (Cowx and Welcomme, 1998;Bayley et al, 2000). Numerous studies have described the habitat utilization of 0-group fish of species that are indigenous to the Rhine (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suitable habitats for 0‐group fish in rehabilitated floodplains along the lower River Rhine

Grift

Buijse

Densen

et al. 2003

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The suitability of rehabilitated floodplains along the lower River Rhine for rheophilic cyprinids was assessed by investigating the spatial distribution of 0-group fish among, and within, three newly created secondary channels, an oxbow lake reconnected at its downstream end and several existing groyne fields. Fish were sampled during April through September 1997-1999 with seine nets and trawls and, for each sample, the habitat (physical environment) was characterized (flow, depth, substrate and inundated terrestrial vegetation). The new water bodies provide more suitable habitats for 0-group fish than the groyne fields. Their beneficial value differs, however, between reproductive guilds and depends on the morphological and hydrological conditions. Total fish density increased along a gradient of decreasing water flow whereas the proportion of rheophilic species (Barbus barbus, Gobio gobio, Leuciscus idus and Aspius aspius) decreased. Flow velocity and water depth were the most important factors determining habitat utilization. Rheophilic fish were spatially separated from eurytopic fish (e.g. Abramis brama, Rutilus rutilus and Stizostedion lucioperca). During flood events, inundated terrestrial vegetation was an important habitat for the larvae of all species. To enhance the riverine fish community, floodplain water bodies should have complex shorelines, and a high variability of flow velocities. Their slopes should be moderate to maximize the probability of terrestrial vegetation getting inundated during spring and summer. Future management of similar floodplains should focus on more diverse and accessible aquatic habitats to increase overall fish species diversity, since different types of water body clearly have complementary values.

show abstract

“…Except for a couple of studies conducted in navigation pools of the upper Mississippi River (Anderson and Day, ; Canfield et al , ), most other great river studies involving characterization of benthic communities and water quality in depositional zones did not include simultaneous measurements of factors related to quality of sediments or attempt to relate sediment quality with macroinvertebrate community responses. Most of the aforementioned studies were not designed with these goals in mind even though aquatic biota in large rivers is known to respond to physical habitat manipulations (Gore, ; Bayley et al , ; Langler and Smith, ). These information gaps have created a need for developing approaches that measure habitat quality with specific indicators, so that the success of restoration activities in large rivers can be evaluated more effectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of the Relative Quality of Dike Pools for Benthic Macroinvertebrates in the Lower Missouri River, Usa

Poulton

Allert

2011

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A habitat‐based aquatic macroinvertebrate study was initiated in the Lower Missouri River to evaluate relative quality and biological condition of dike pool habitats. Water‐quality and sediment‐quality parameters and macroinvertebrate assemblage structure were measured from depositional substrates at 18 sites. Sediment porewater was analysed for ammonia, sulphide, pH and oxidation–reduction potential. Whole sediments were analysed for particle‐size distribution, organic carbon and contaminants. Field water‐quality parameters were measured at subsurface and at the sediment–water interface. Pool area adjacent and downstream from each dike was estimated from aerial photography. Macroinvertebrate biotic condition scores were determined by integrating the following indicator response metrics: % of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), % of Oligochaeta worms, Shannon Diversity Index and total taxa richness. Regression models were developed for predicting macroinvertebrate scores based on individual water‐quality and sediment‐quality variables and a water/sediment‐quality score that integrated all variables. Macroinvertebrate scores generated significant determination coefficients with dike pool area (R2 = 0.56), oxidation–reduction potential (R2 = 0.81) and water/sediment‐quality score (R2 = 0.71). Dissolved oxygen saturation, oxidation–reduction potential and total ammonia in sediment porewater were most important in explaining variation in macroinvertebrate scores. The best two‐variable regression models included dike pool size + the water/sediment‐quality score (R2 = 0.84) and dike pool size + oxidation–reduction potential (R2 = 0.93). Results indicate that dike pool size and chemistry of sediments and overlying water can be used to evaluate dike pool quality and identify environmental conditions necessary for optimizing diversity and productivity of important aquatic macroinvertebrates. A combination of these variables could be utilized for measuring the success of habitat enhancement activities currently being implemented in this system. Published in 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Defining and Achieving Fish Habitat Rehabilitation in Large, Low‐Gradient Rivers

Cited by 4 publications

References 30 publications

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

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

Suitable habitats for 0‐group fish in rehabilitated floodplains along the lower River Rhine

An Evaluation of the Relative Quality of Dike Pools for Benthic Macroinvertebrates in the Lower Missouri River, Usa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About