Citation:

Griffith, M. AND M. McManus. Consideration of spatial and temporal scales in stream restorations and biotic monitoring to assess restoration outcomes: A literature review, part 1. River Research and Applications. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated, New York, NY, 36(8):1385-1397, (2020).

Impact/Purpose:

This paper addresses Safe and Sustainable Water Resources research on the consideration of scale in matching environmental stressors and their sources, restoration, and recovery in streams (SSWR 3.01C.2). We find that in some cases untreated stressors may influence the outcomes of the restoration, but in many cases, there are mismatches in the temporal or spatial scale of the restoration. For example, either biomonitoring was conducted in too short a time for effects to be observed or the sources and stressors needing remediation occurred at a larger catchment scale when the restoration was conducted only at the reach scale. The results inform ongoing efforts to support local restorations of streams at scales from stream channels to watersheds by assessing the relationship between the scale of a restoration and the success of the restoration as measured by improvements in the biotic assemblages or their ecosystem function.

Description:

Stream and river restoration practices have become common in many parts of the world. We ask the question whether such restorations improve freshwater biotic assemblages or functions over time, and if not, can general reasons be identified for such outcomes. We conducted a literature survey and review of studies in which different types of stream restorations were conducted and outcomes reported. These restoration types included culvert restoration; acid mine restoration or industrial pollutant restoration; urban stream restoration; dam removal, changes in dam operation, or fish passage structures; instream habitat modification; riparian restoration or woody material addition; channel restoration and multiple restorations. The streams ranged from headwater streams to large rivers, and the regions included North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and a small number of sites in Asia and Africa. In this part of the review, we describe the methods used for the review and present reviews for the first three types of stream restorations. For culvert restorations, the small sample size and variable study design and biotic responses limited generalizing about temporal and spatial scale effects for that restoration type. The complex and often lengthy time to restore streams from acid mine drainage and industrial pollutants often resulted in positive biotic responses, but restored sites had reduced responses compared with reference sites. Most urban stream restorations had minimal or mixed improvements in biotic responses, with one mismatch in spatial scale evidenced by hydraulic structures used in a restoration unable to withstand peak discharge.

Record Details: