umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Diverging response patterns of terrestrial and aquatic species to hydromorphological restoration
Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1848-3154
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Conservation Biology, ISSN 0888-8892, E-ISSN 1523-1739, Vol. 33, no 1, p. 132-141Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Although experiences with ecological restoration continue to accumulate, the effectiveness of restoration for biota remains debated. We complemented a traditional taxonomic analysis approach with information on 56 species traits to uncover the responses of 3 aquatic (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes) and 2 terrestrial (carabid beetles, floodplain vegetation) biotic groups to 43 hydromorphological river restoration projects in Germany. All taxonomic groups responded positively to restoration, as shown by increased taxonomic richness (10–164%) and trait diversity (habitat, dispersal and mobility, size, form, life history, and feeding groups) (15–120%). Responses, however, were stronger for terrestrial than aquatic biota, and, contrary to our expectation, taxonomic responses were stronger than those of traits. Nevertheless, trait analysis provided mechanistic insights into the drivers of community change following restoration. Trait analysis for terrestrial biota indicated restoration success was likely enhanced by lateral connectivity and reestablishment of dynamic processes in the floodplain. The weaker response of aquatic biota suggests recovery was hindered by the persistence of stressors in the aquatic environment, such as degraded water quality, dispersal constraints, and insufficient hydromorphological change. Therefore, river restoration requires combined local- and regional-scale approaches to maximize the response of both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Due to the contrasting responses of aquatic and terrestrial biota, the planning and assessment of river restoration outcomes should consider effects on both components of riverine landscapes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2019. Vol. 33, no 1, p. 132-141
Keywords [en]
functional diversity, multibiotic diversity, riparian, river floodplain, stream restoration, taxonomic composition, trait composition
National Category
Ecology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-165411DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13176ISI: 000455121500014PubMedID: 29947087OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-165411DiVA, id: diva2:1372547
Available from: 2019-11-25 Created: 2019-11-25 Last updated: 2019-11-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Pilotto, Francesca

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Pilotto, Francesca
In the same journal
Conservation Biology
Ecology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 10 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf