Stream corridor restoration research: a long and winding road

Stream corridor restoration research and practice is presented as an example of the application of ecology and engineering to solve a class of environmental problems. Interest and public investment in stream corridor restoration has increased sharply in developed nations over the last two decades, as evidenced by the volume of technical and refereed literature. However, real progress at the regional and national scale depends on successful research outcomes. Research addressing problems associated with stream corridor ecosystem restoration is beset by numerous problems. First, terms referring to restoration are loosely defined. Secondly, stream ecosystems are not amenable to rigorous experimental design because they are governed by a host of independent variables that are heterogeneous in time and space, they are not scalable, and their response times are often too long for human attention spans. These problems lead to poorly controlled or uncontrolled experiments with outcomes that are not reproducible. Extension of results to other sites or regions is uncertain. Social factors further complicate research and practice—riparian landowners may or may not cooperate with the experiment, and application of findings normally occurs through a process of suboptimal compromise. Economic issues, namely assigning costs for present and future ecosystem services that provide off-site benefits, further impede progress. Clearly, the situation calls for a hybrid approach between the rigor of the ecologist and the judgment and pragmatism of the engineer. This hybrid approach can be used to develop creative, low-cost approaches to address key factors limiting recovery. © 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V.

[1]  W. J. Matthews,et al.  Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes , 1989 .

[2]  PETER W. DOWNS,et al.  Post-Project Appraisals in Adaptive Management of River Channel Restoration , 2002, Environmental management.

[3]  Robert J. Steedman,et al.  Ecosystem Health as a Management Goal , 1994, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[4]  D. Rapport,et al.  Fish Community Structure as a Measure of Degradation and Rehabilitation of Riparian Systems in an Agricultural Drainage Basin , 1998, Environmental management.

[5]  I. Schlosser,et al.  The Role of Predation in Age‐ and Size‐Related Habitat Use by Stream Fishes , 1987 .

[6]  F. Douglas Shields,et al.  River Channel Restoration: Guiding Principles for Sustainable Projects. , 1997 .

[7]  F. Douglas Shields,et al.  Effects of large woody debris removal on physical characteristics of a sand-bed river , 1992 .

[8]  A. Simon A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels , 1989 .

[9]  G. Mathias Kondolf,et al.  Five Elements for Effective Evaluation of Stream Restoration , 1995 .

[10]  F. Richard Hauer Organic matter transport and retention in a blackwater stream recovering from flow augmentation and thermal discharge , 1989 .

[11]  James R. Karr,et al.  Defining and assessing ecological integrity: Beyond water quality , 1993 .

[12]  John R. Kelly,et al.  Application of ecological theory to determining recovery potential of disturbed lotic ecosystems: Research needs and priorities , 1990 .

[13]  S. Fennessy,et al.  Review of: Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: Science, technology, and public policy: Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems-Science, Technology, and Public Policy, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC , 1993 .

[14]  T. L. Napier,et al.  Use of Soil and Water Protection Practices Among Farmers in Three Midwest Watersheds , 2001, Environmental management.

[15]  G. Mathias Kondolf,et al.  Evaluating stream restoration projects , 1995 .

[16]  Charles M. Cooper,et al.  Design and management of edge-of-field water control structures for ecological benefits , 2002 .

[17]  F. D. Shields,et al.  Rehabilitation of aquatic habitats in warmwater streams damaged by channel incision in Mississippi , 1998, Hydrobiologia.

[18]  F. D. Shields,et al.  Use of the index of biotic integrity to assess physical habitat degradation in warmwater streams , 1995, Hydrobiologia.

[19]  F. Douglas Shields,et al.  Response of fishes and aquatic habitats to sand-bed stream restoration using large woody debris ∗ , 2003 .

[20]  Glenn W. Suter,et al.  A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes , 1993 .

[21]  Scott S. Knight,et al.  Rehabilitation of warmwater stream ecosystems following channel incision , 1997 .

[22]  J. B. Wallace,et al.  Quantification of Wood Habitat in Subtropical Coastal Plain Streams , 1984 .

[23]  E. Herricks,et al.  Interaction Between Scientists and Nonscientists in Community-Based Watershed Management: Emergence of the Concept of Stream Naturalization , 1999, Environmental management.

[24]  C. Pringle,et al.  Changing academic culture: interdisciplinary, science‐based graduate programmes to meet environmental challenges in freshwater ecosystems , 1999 .

[25]  James R. Karr,et al.  Relationships between Woody Debris and Fish Habitat in a Small Warmwater Stream , 1984 .

[26]  C. M. Cooper,et al.  Effects of channel incision on base flow stream habitats and fishes , 1994 .

[27]  C. Ryan,et al.  Stream Restoration and Enhancement Projects: Is Anyone Monitoring? , 2002, Environmental management.

[28]  Charles F. Rabeni,et al.  Integrating biological realism into habitat restoration and conservation strategies for small streams , 1996 .

[29]  F. Douglas Shields,et al.  Cyclic perturbation of lowland river channels and ecological response , 2000 .

[30]  I. Schlosser,et al.  Stream Fish Ecology: A Landscape PerspectiveLand use, which influences the terrestrial-aquatic interface, can affect fish populations and their community dynamics , 1991 .