Towards a multi-metric assessment of river restoration ecological outcomes across projects and contexts
Charrat, B.; Floury, M.; Palt, M.; Jeliazkov, A.; Stoll, S.; Tales, E.; Verdonschot, R. C. M.; Weber, C.; Lorenz, A.; Le Pichon, C.; Piffady, J.
Show abstract
The assessment of the ecological outcomes of river restoration projects remains a complex undertaking due to the high variability of responses observed. This variability is dependent on a number of factors, including the location of the site under study, the indicators and taxa utilised in the analysis. In this study, a multi-metric and multi-contextual approach was applied to analyse 62 river restoration projects located in France, Germany and the Netherlands. This methodological approach facilitated the characterisation of the responses exhibited by macroinvertebrate communities in response to restoration initiatives, and the subsequent identification of the environmental contexts and the categories of restoration measures that exerted influence on these responses. Utilising log-response ratios based on both taxonomic and functional ecological metrics, a k-means clustering analysis was performed. This analysis yielded two distinct groups of sites: the first exhibiting predominantly positive responses to restoration, and the second demonstrating neutral or marginally negative responses. Positive responses have been shown to be associated with ambitious restoration projects, which are characterised by measures targeting regional-scale processes. These measures include the implementation of projects designed to improve river longitudinal continuity in degraded catchment areas, where the density of obstacles and the intensity of agricultural use are particularly high. Conversely, restoration initiatives targeting local-scale issues within more natural contexts or at high altitude exhibited minimal to no ecological response. This study emphasises the significance of an integrated approach that incorporates various facets (taxonomic and functional) of biodiversity, along with a meticulous examination of the environmental context and project construction, to enhance the evaluation of the ecological benefits of river restoration. The findings of this study may also be applicable in the context of fieldwork, providing practitioners with a framework to inform the design of restoration projects.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of Run-of-River Damming on Increasing Phytoplankton Biomass and Species Shift in a Large Amazonian River 95%
- Space-time dynamics in monitoring neotropical fish communities using eDNA metabarcoding 95%
- Impact of upstream landslide on perialpine lake ecosystem: an assessment using multi-temporal satellite data 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Recent land use and land cover pressures on Iberian peatlands 94%
- Integrated Plankton and Trace Metal Analysis asIndicators of Organic Pollution Threats fromCarp-Cultured Ponds to Adjacent Ecosystems:Implications for Sustainability 93%
- Advancing ecological assessment: The integration of eDNA metabarcoding into an estuarine fish index 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Agricultural impacts on streams near Nitrate Vulnerable Zones: a case study in the Ebro basin, northern Spain 94%
- Vegetation characteristics control sediment and nutrient retention on but not underneath vegetation in floodplain meadows 93%
- Distribution patterns of aquatic birds in a high-Andean wetland in southeastern Peru: an approach based on environmental factors 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- On the efficacy of restoration in stream networks: comments, critiques, and prospective recommendations 95%
- The persistence in time of distributional patterns in marine megafauna impacts zonal conservation strategies 94%
- Disentangling the effects of eutrophication and natural variability on macrobenthic communities across French coastal lagoons 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.