Riparian Restoration: Current Status and the Reach to the Future

Nine Articles in the special issue of Restoration Ecology addrssing the subject of site selection for riparian restoration activities were critically examined for this review. The approaches described make significant and original contributions to the field of riparian restoration. All are interdisciplinary to some extent, often combining the fields of hydrology, geomorphology, and biology in the design of restorationss. A common component among the articles is that they take a broad view, if not a watershed view, of restoration site selection. The approaches can be generally descrobed as top‐down strategic approaches to siting restorations, as opposed to the more methods‐ and site‐driven bottom‐up, or tactical, approach. All the articles recognize the importance of developing endpoints related to the ecological function of riparian ecosystems. they succeed in their quest for these indicators of ecological function to varying degrees. The most common indica‐for used in these papers is riparian vegetation. Several additional elements of scientific investigation, if successfully pursued, could provide vital information and advance our understanding of riparian restoration: developing interdisciplinary approaches more fully; defining endpoints and reference conditions; implementing multiple scale approaches; viewing restorations as experimental ecosystem manipulations; developing a philosophy regarding exotic species; incorporating geographic information systems more often; and integrating science, society, and politics. the foundation provided by the contributions in this issue should provide a strong basis for the rapid advancement of future research in the area of riparian restoration.

[1]  C. Neale,et al.  Vulnerability of Riparian Vegetation to Catastrophic Flooding: Implications for Riparian Restoration , 1997 .

[2]  Michael P. O'Neill,et al.  The Role of GIS in Selecting Sites for Riparian Restoration Based on Hydrology and Land Use , 1997 .

[3]  C. Hawkins,et al.  Riparian Restoration in the Western United States: Overview and Perspective , 1997 .

[4]  J. Kershner.  Setting Riparian/Aquatic Restoration Objectives within a Watershed Context , 1997 .

[5]  C. Neale.  Classification and Mapping of Riparian Systems Using Airborne Multispectral Videography , 1997 .

[6]  A Comparison of Approaches to Prioritizing Sites for Riparian Restoration , 1997 .

[7]  W. Nehlsen.  Prioritizing Watersheds in Oregon for Salmon Restoration , 1997 .

[8]  Christopher M. U. Neale,et al.  Identifying Sites for Riparian Wetland Restoration: Application of a Model to the Upper Arkansas River Basin , 1997 .

[9]  Richard R. Harris,et al.  Two‐Stage System for Prioritizing Riparian Restoration at the Stream Reach and Community Scales , 1997 .

[10]  Richard R. Harris,et al.  Applying a Two‐Stage System to Prioritize Riparian Restoration at the San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California , 1997 .

[11]  Mark M. Brinson,et al.  The Role of Reference Wetlands in Functional Assessment and Mitigation , 1996 .

[12]  David H. Getches,et al.  The Watershed Source Book: Watershed-Based Solutions to Natural Resource Problems , 1996 .

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

[14]  Richard E. Sparks,et al.  Need for Ecosystem Management of Large Rivers and Their Floodplains These phenomenally productive ecosystems produce fish and wildlife and preserve species , 1995 .

[15]  James M. Omernik,et al.  Ecoregions: A Spatial Framework for Environmental Management , 1995 .

[16]  James R. Karr,et al.  Biological Integrity versus Biological Diversity as Policy DirectivesProtecting biotic resources , 1994 .

[17]  A. Spacie,et al.  Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Systems , 1994 .

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

[19]  J. Karr,et al.  Entering the watershed , 1993 .

[20]  P. Maitland.  Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: Science, technology, and public policy , 1993 .

[21]  C. Frissell,et al.  Incidence and Causes of Physical Failure of Artificial Habitat Structures in Streams of Western Oregon and Washington , 1992 .

[22]  J. Omernik,et al.  Ecological regions versus hydrologic units: Frameworks for managing water quality , 1991 .

[23]  G. Minshall.  Stream Ecosystem Theory: A Global Perspective , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[24]  C. Frissell,et al.  A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context , 1986 .

[25]  James R. Karr,et al.  Assessing biological integrity in running waters : a method and its rationale , 1986 .