River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice?

Abstract

SUMMARY1. Stream ecosystems are increasingly impacted by multiple stressors that lead to a loss of sensitive species and an overall reduction in diversity. A dominant paradigm in ecological restoration is that increasing habitat heterogeneity (HH) promotes restoration of biodiversity. This paradigm is reflected in stream restoration projects through the common practice of re-configuring channels to add meanders and adding physical structures such as boulders and artificial riffles to restore biodiversity by enhancing structural heterogeneity. 2. To evaluate the validity of this paradigm, we completed an extensive evaluation of published studies that have quantitatively examined the reach-scale response of invertebrate species richness to restoration actions that increased channel complexity ⁄ HH. We also evaluated studies that used manipulative or correlative approaches to test for a relationship between physical heterogeneity and invertebrate diversity in streams that were not in need of restoration. 3. We found habitat and macroinvertebrate data for 78 independent stream or river restoration projects described by 18 different author groups in which invertebrate taxa richness data in response to the restoration treatment were available. Most projects were successful in enhancing physical HH; however, only two showed statistically significant increases in biodiversity rendering them more similar to reference reaches or sites. 4. Studies manipulating structural complexity in otherwise healthy streams were generally small in scale and less than half showed a significant positive relationship with invertebrate diversity. Only one-third of the studies that attempted to correlate biodiversity to existing levels of in-stream heterogeneity found a positive relationship. 5. Across all the studies we evaluated, there is no evidence that HH was the primary factor controlling stream invertebrate diversity, particularly in a restoration context. The findings indicate that physical heterogeneity should not be the driving force in selecting restoration approaches for most degraded waterways. Evidence suggests that much more must be done to restore streams impacted by multiple stressors than simply re-configuring channels and enhancing structural complexity with meanders, boulders, wood, or other structures. 6. Thematic implications: as integrators of all activities on the land, streams are sensitive to a host of stressors including impacts from urbanisation, agriculture, deforestation, invasive species, flow regulation, water extractions and mining. The impacts of these individually or in combination typically lead to a decrease in biodiversity because of reduced water quality, biologically unsuitable flow regimes, dispersal barriers, altered inputs of organic matter or sunlight, degraded habitat, etc. Despite the complexity of these stressors, a large number of stream restoration projects focus primarily on physical channel characteristics. We show that this is not a wise investment if ecological recovery is the goal. Manage...

Spatio-temporal heterogeneity of riparian soil morphology in a restored floodplain

“…Such associations were already demonstrated between soil texture and moisture and Salix nigra (Schaff et al, 2003). These results agree with the idea that restoring the physical heterogeneity of a site promotes its biological diversity (Miller et al, 2010;Palmer et al, 2010) and gives a positive signal for project evaluation. However, the extent to which weak or strong correlations will improve or hamper a restoration project's success remains to be determined.…”

Modern comprehensive approach to monitor the morphodynamic evolution of a restored river corridor

“…Hence, in the context of this paper, we define river restoration as "the input actions that serve to trigger the fluvial ecosystem evolution toward a new self-sustaining statistical equilibrium (if existing)" (Wohl et al, 2005). Following the initiation of restoration, it is also important to address the question of quantifying its success (Peter et al, 2006;Palmer et al, 2010), especially as far as coupled hydroecological processes are concerned (M. Schirmer, personal communication, 2010). In this respect, useful hydrologic and ecologic indicators have been developed to evaluate the present status of rivers .…”

Benefits of riparian forest for the aquatic ecosystem assessed at a large geographic scale

“…Less uniform responses are found for the macroinvertebrates, for which positive effects are mainly reported for urban areas (Suren and McMurtrie, 2005;Rios and Bailey, 2006;Death and Collier, 2010;Astorga et al, 2011). Inability to identify these outcomes in consistent relationships between the presence and extent of riparian cover and the quality of the aquatic system is often attributed to the context of multiple stressors impacting the river system (Palmer et al, 2010). Even so, riparian forests are generally acknowledged for their importance in river ecosystem functioning (Gregory et al, 1991), being closely linked to the hydromorphological quality of the river (Van Looy et al, 2008).…”