Evaluations of Sediment Traps and Artificial Gravel Riffles Constructed to Improve Reproduction of Trout in Three Wisconsin Streams

Avery, E. L.

doi:10.1577/1548-8675(1996)016<0282:eostaa>2.3.co;2

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evaluations of adult salmon or trout response to instream habitat structures or gravel placement have generally been limited to short-term studies demonstrating that adult salmonids spawn on accumulated gravel at weirs (Avery 1996;House 1996;Gortz 1998) or observations of spawning activity or redds near enhancement sites (Moreau 1984;Crispin et al 1993;Iversen et al 1993;House 1996; Table 3). Of the 14 papers we examined on enhancement of spawning areas, 13 reported some type of positive response in fry, adults, or spawning activity.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Instream Habitat Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Water quality, water quantity, erosion, and sedimentation prevent many projects from achieving full biological potential. These factors were particularly common among riparian (see Rinne 1999;Medina et al 2005), floodplain connectivity (e.g., Moerke and Lamberti 2003;Cowx and Van Zyll de Jong 2004), and instream habitat projects (e.g., Avery 1996;Thompson 2006). Each factor limiting project success results from a lack of understanding of the physical and ecological context of the project, which clearly reinforces the point made by numerous authors that broader watershed processes must be considered when planning projects (e.g., Aitken 1935;Beechie and Bolton 1999;Roni et al 2002;Wohl et al 2005;Beechie et al 2008, this volume).…”

Section: Implications For Planning and Prioritizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Global Review of the Physical and Biological Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques

Roni

Hanson

Beechie

2008

N American J Fish Manag

521

519

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The degradation of inland aquatic habitats caused by decades of human activities has led to worldwide efforts to rehabilitate freshwater habitats for fisheries and aquatic resources. We reviewed published evaluations of stream rehabilitation techniques from throughout the world, including studies on road improvement, riparian rehabilitation, floodplain connectivity and rehabilitation, instream habitat improvement, nutrient addition, and other, less‐common techniques. We summarize current knowledge about the effectiveness of these techniques for improving physical habitat and water quality and increasing fish and biotic production. Despite locating 345 studies on effectiveness of stream rehabilitation, firm conclusions about many specific techniques were difficult to make because of the limited information provided on physical habitat, water quality, and biota and because of the short duration and limited scope of most published evaluations. Reconnection of isolated habitats, floodplain rehabilitation, and instream habitat improvement have, however, proven effective for improving habitat and increasing local fish abundance under many circumstances. Techniques such as riparian rehabilitation, road improvements (sediment reduction), dam removal, and restoration of natural flood regimes have shown promise for restoring natural processes that create and maintain habitats, but no long‐term studies documenting their success have yet been published. Our review demonstrates that the failure of many rehabilitation projects to achieve objectives is attributable to inadequate assessment of historic conditions and factors limiting biotic production; poor understanding of watershed‐scale processes that influence localized projects; and monitoring at inappropriate spatial and temporal scales. We suggest an interim approach to sequencing rehabilitation projects that partially addresses these needs through protecting high‐quality habitats and restoring connectivity and watershed processes before implementing instream habitat improvement projects.

show abstract

Section: Effectiveness Of Instream Habitat Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Planning and Prioritizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Review of the Physical and Biological Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques

Roni

Hanson

Beechie

2008

N American J Fish Manag

521

519

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reviews of such spawning habitat rehabilitation (SHR) projects are detailed elsewhere (e.g., Kondolf, 2000;Wheaton et al, 2004c). While SHR projects appear to attract spawning fish and may increase embryo survival and fry production , numerous failures have also been documented (Frissell and Nawa, 1992;Avery, 1996). Expectations of stability are one of the greatest inadequacies associated with SHR (Wheaton et al, 2004c).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sediment budget for salmonid spawning habitat rehabilitation in a regulated river

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In channelized lowland rivers, depth is unlikely to be a limiting factor for fish populations but, rather, flow deflectors have been used to create areas of faster flow and encourage sinuosity in the flow pattern of straightened channels. Similarly, artificial riffles were originally used to enhance salmonid spawning habitat in North America (Avery 1996) and have been adopted for use in British lowland rivers to benefit lithophilous spawners such as chub Leuciscus cephalus (L.) and dace L. Leuciscus (L.). 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).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, artificial riffles were originally used to enhance salmonid spawning habitat in North America (Avery 1996) and have been adopted for use in British lowland rivers to benefit lithophilous spawners such as chub Leuciscus cephalus (L.) and dace L. Leuciscus (L.). 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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Evaluations of Sediment Traps and Artificial Gravel Riffles Constructed to Improve Reproduction of Trout in Three Wisconsin Streams

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Global Review of the Physical and Biological Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques

Global Review of the Physical and Biological Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques

Sediment budget for salmonid spawning habitat rehabilitation in a regulated river

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About