Next Article in Journal
A Short-Term Water Demand Forecasting Model Using a Moving Window on Previously Observed Data
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Groundwater Level on Nitrate Nitrogen Accumulation in the Vadose Zone Beneath a Cotton Field
Previous Article in Special Issue
Use of Ecohydraulic-Based Mesohabitat Classification and Fish Species Traits for Stream Restoration Design
Article Menu
Issue 3 (March) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessReview
Water 2017, 9(3), 174; doi:10.3390/w9030174

Evaluating Stream Restoration Projects: What Do We Learn from Monitoring?

1
Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
2
Facultad de Ingenierías y Ciencias Agropecuarias, Ingeniería Ambiental, Unidad de Investigación en Biotecnología y Medio Ambiente -BIOMA-, Campus Queri, Calle José Queri, Edificio #8, PB, Universidad de las Américas, 170504 Quito, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: John S. Schwartz
Received: 1 September 2016 / Revised: 4 February 2017 / Accepted: 7 February 2017 / Published: 28 February 2017
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [237 KB, uploaded 6 March 2017]

Abstract

Two decades since calls for stream restoration projects to be scientifically assessed, most projects are still unevaluated, and conducted evaluations yield ambiguous results. Even after these decades of investigation, do we know how to define and measure success? We systematically reviewed 26 studies of stream restoration projects that used macroinvertebrate indicators to assess the success of habitat heterogeneity restoration projects. All 26 studies were previously included in two meta-analyses that sought to assess whether restoration programs were succeeding. By contrast, our review focuses on the evaluations themselves, and asks what exactly we are measuring and learning from these evaluations. All 26 studies used taxonomic diversity, richness, or abundance of invertebrates as biological measures of success, but none presented explicit arguments why those metrics were relevant measures of success for the restoration projects. Although changes in biodiversity may reflect overall ecological condition at the regional or global scale, in the context of reach-scale habitat restoration, more abundance and diversity may not necessarily be better. While all 26 studies sought to evaluate the biotic response to habitat heterogeneity enhancement projects, about half of the studies (46%) explicitly measured habitat alteration, and 31% used visual estimates of grain size or subjectively judged ‘habitat quality’ from protocols ill-suited for the purpose. Although the goal of all 26 projects was to increase habitat heterogeneity, 31% of the studies either sampled only riffles or did not specify the habitats sampled. One-third of the studies (35%) used reference ecosystems to define target conditions. After 20 years of stream restoration evaluation, more work remains for the restoration community to identify appropriate measures of success and to coordinate monitoring so that evaluations are at a scale capable of detecting ecosystem change. View Full-Text
Keywords: stream restoration; evaluating success; post-project appraisal; metrics; aquatic macroinvertebrates stream restoration; evaluating success; post-project appraisal; metrics; aquatic macroinvertebrates
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Rubin, Z.; Kondolf, G.M.; Rios-Touma, B. Evaluating Stream Restoration Projects: What Do We Learn from Monitoring? Water 2017, 9, 174.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Water EISSN 2073-4441 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top