Stream Conditions after 18 Years of Passive Riparian Restoration in Small Fish-bearing Watersheds

Martens, Kyle D.; Devine, Warren D.; Minkova, Teodora; Foster, Alex D.

doi:10.1007/s00267-019-01146-x

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although instream conditions are expected to recover more slowly than riparian areas (Martens, Devine, Minkova, & Foster, 2019; Pander & Geist, 2013), the conservation reaches in this study had clearer water and more heterogeneous habitats than reference reaches within 5 years of restorative actions. These newly restored riparian ecosystems had seemingly reduced stream turbidity at the conservation reaches by effectively reducing the local influx of sediments (Kauffman et al, 1997; Sovell, Vondracek, Frost, & Mumford, 2000; Voichick, Kennedy, Topping, Griffiths, & Fry, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

The local responses of aquatic ecosystems to adjacent grassland conservation: Can streams of dreams exist in a degraded riverscape?

Schumann

Graeb

Pfrimmer

et al. 2021

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape homogenization and the removal of riparian areas have altered stream ecosystems worldwide. Numerous conservation programmes attempt to improve water quality and increase instream habitat heterogeneity to elicit desired biological responses. However, the effectiveness of many conservation efforts on isolated stream fragments remains unknown, especially in grassland regions. The effects of grassland conservation practices and the re‐establishment of riparian corridors in the James River basin, South Dakota (USA) on stream water quality, habitat availability and aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages were studied in an agriculturally dominated prairie landscape. Grassland conservation efforts may have repaired riparian condition, reduced turbidity and created more diverse instream habitat complexes at conservation sites based on comparisons with paired reference reaches. Reference sites were relatively homogeneous, with prevalent siltation, bank erosion and disturbances to the riparian vegetation. Owing to significant riparian vegetation development, overhanging and aquatic vegetation, benthic detritus and woody materials were significantly more common at conservation reaches. Restoration efforts that assume ‘if you (re‐)build it, they will come’ (i.e. the ‘field of dreams’ hypothesis) underestimate other important barriers to biodiversity restoration in dynamic, grassland riverscapes. Although aquatic organisms in grassland ecosystems are adapted to rapidly inhabit available habitats, the development of niche space at conservation reaches did not directly result in colonization by aquatic life. Grassland management actions did not address stream connectivity issues or overcome land use influences elsewhere in the riverscape that may govern the responses of aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish. Stream fragmentation and continuing, damaging land use patterns seemed to exceed the positive effects of restoring isolated stream reaches in these heavily degraded catchments. Catchment‐scale management strategies that combine reach‐level restoration actions with efforts to improve connectivity are likely to be more successful in degraded riverscapes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

The local responses of aquatic ecosystems to adjacent grassland conservation: Can streams of dreams exist in a degraded riverscape?

Schumann

Graeb

Pfrimmer

et al. 2021

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, since ~2600 bce wood loadings in rivers have declined globally as a result of riparian harvest, conversion of floodplain forests to other land uses, and instream wood removal (Montgomery et al, 2003; Wohl, 2014). These causes have resulted in wood loadings that are currently much lower than historical levels in many watersheds worldwide (Martens et al, 2019, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Along with riparian protection, riparian restoration is widely recognized as an important means of increasing wood recruitment for long‐term wood recovery (Meleason et al, 2003). However, even with changes to riparian areas due to restoration, increases in naturally recruited wood will not begin for 30–100 years (Beechie et al, 2000; Meleason et al, 2003) and recovery to natural wood loading levels is likely to take more than 200–250 years (Martens et al, 2019; Stout et al, 2018). Therefore, relying on passive riparian and stream recovery is unlikely to increase the quality of stream conditions in the near future.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does over two decades of active wood reintroduction result in changes to stream channel features and aquatic habitats of a forested river system?

Pess

McHenry²,

Liermann

et al. 2022

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, wood reintroduction has been a commonly assessed stream restoration technique. Many of the efforts have focused on shortterm, localized physical changes and response of salmonids to wood reintroduction.Few have examined how long-term, spatially extensive increases in wood loadings alter stream channel morphology and the geomorphic processes responsible for these changes. We used before and after photos as well as a wood storage survey with tagged restoration logs in a small, low-elevation Western Washington watershed to characterize the effects of 23 years of wood additions. In the 6 km of wood placement we saw an increase in wood loading and channel-spanning logjams, which contributed to deeper and more frequent pools, a reduction in particle size, increases in sediment storage, reduced stream width, vegetation re-establishment in the riparian zone, and increased development and maintenance of floodplain channels. The largest geomorphic changes occurred due to restoration wood effectively storing pieces moving downstream. These findings imply that the cumulative habitat restoration actions and associated changes to stream habitat conditions are identifiable through comparison of historical and current photos as well as more quantitative habitat metrics. It also demonstrates that wood placement that simulates the function of large key, stable pieces accelerates habitat recovery within basins subjected to historic logging.

show abstract

“…Natural resource managers often undertake restoration actions such as restocking fish or creating habitat where structural roughness elements including large wood and boulders have been scoured (Montgomery et al, ). While the effects of restoration projects have received extensive study (Roni, ), fewer investigations have been conducted of streams that are recovering passively without intervention from both human‐caused and natural disturbances (Martens, Devine, Minkova, & Foster, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aquatic and riparian ecosystem recovery from debris flows in two western Washington streams, USA

Foster

Claeson

Bisson

et al. 2020

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An exceptionally powerful storm struck southwestern Washington in December 2007 causing large debris flows in two adjacent streams. The two affected streams had been studied prior to the storm, providing a rare opportunity to examine ecosystem recovery. We monitored the streams and their riparian zones for six years after the disturbances to determine whether recovery rates of biota, physical habitat, and water temperature differed, and if so, what factors affected resilience. Along both streams, the debris flows removed wide swaths of soil, rock, and coniferous riparian forests, widening the active channel and increasing solar exposure and summer water temperatures. Initially depauperate of vegetation, after four years red alder trees dominated the riparian plant communities. The warmer water, greater solar radiation, and unstable substrates likely contributed to variable benthic insect and tailed frog tadpole densities over time, although benthic insect communities became more similar after three years. The debris flows also decreased channel slopes and removed channel step barriers such that cutthroat trout were able to rapidly occupy habitats far upstream, but sculpins were slower to recolonize and both fish species exhibited some differences in recovery between the two streams. Crayfish were severely impacted by the debris flows; this may be due to attributes of their life history and the timing of the flows. Overall, we found that recolonizing aquatic species exhibited varying levels of resilience and recovery after the disturbances being related to the influence of physical habitat conditions, species dispersal ability, and the presence of nearby source populations.

show abstract

Stream Conditions after 18 Years of Passive Riparian Restoration in Small Fish-bearing Watersheds

Cited by 20 publications

References 75 publications

The local responses of aquatic ecosystems to adjacent grassland conservation: Can streams of dreams exist in a degraded riverscape?

The local responses of aquatic ecosystems to adjacent grassland conservation: Can streams of dreams exist in a degraded riverscape?

How does over two decades of active wood reintroduction result in changes to stream channel features and aquatic habitats of a forested river system?

Aquatic and riparian ecosystem recovery from debris flows in two western Washington streams, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About