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
Riparian and in-stream restoration of boreal streams and rivers: success or failure?
Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences. (Landscape Ecology Group ; Arcum)
Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences. (Landscape Ecology Group ; Arcum)
Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences. (Landscape Ecology Group ; Arcum)
Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences. (Landscape Ecology Group)
Show others and affiliations
2015 (English)In: Ecohydrology, ISSN 1936-0584, E-ISSN 1936-0592, Vol. 8, no 5, 753-764 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

We reviewed follow-up studies from Finnish and Swedish streams that have been restored after timber floating to assess the abiotic and biotic responses to restoration. More specifically, from a review of 18 case studies (16 published and 2 unpublished), we determined whether different taxonomic groups react differently or require different periods of time to respond to the same type of restoration. Restoration entailed returning coarse sediment (cobbles and boulders) and sometimes large wood to previously channelized turbulent reaches, primarily with the objective of meeting habitat requirements of naturally reproducing salmonid fish. The restored streams showed a consistent increase in channel complexity and retention capacity, but the biotic responses were weak or absent in most species groups. Aquatic mosses growing on boulders were drastically reduced shortly after restoration, but in most studies, they recovered after a few years. Riparian plants, macroinvertebrates and fish did not show any consistent trends in response. We discuss seven alternative explanations to these inconsistent results and conclude that two decades is probably too short a time for most organisms to recover. We recommend long-term monitoring using standardized methods, a landscape-scale perspective and a wider range of organisms to improve the basis for judging to what extent restoration in boreal streams has achieved its goal of reducing the impacts from timber floating.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell, 2015. Vol. 8, no 5, 753-764 p.
Keyword [en]
recovery, restoration, streams, timber floating
National Category
Oceanography, Hydrology, Water Resources Environmental Sciences Ecology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-107307DOI: 10.1002/eco.1480ISI: 000358538800002OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-107307DiVA: diva2:848153
Note

Special Issue:Restoring functional riparian ecosystems: concepts and applications

Available from: 2015-08-24 Created: 2015-08-21 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nilsson, ChristerPolvi, Lina EGardeström, JohannaMaher Hasselquist, ElizaLind, LovisaSarneel, Judith M
By organisation
Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences
In the same journal
Ecohydrology
Oceanography, Hydrology, Water ResourcesEnvironmental SciencesEcology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 498 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