Ecology

On the efficacy of restoration in stream networks: comments, critiques, and prospective recommendations

10.24072/pcjournal.52 - Peer Community Journal, Volume 1 (2021), article no. e52.

Get full text PDF Peer reviewed and recommended by PCI
Swan and Brown (2017) recently addressed the effects of restoration on stream communities under the meta-community framework. Using a combination of headwater and mainstem streams, Swan and Brown (2017) evaluated how position within a stream network affected the outcome of restoration on invertebrate communities. Ostensibly, their hypotheses were partially supported as restoration had stronger effects in headwater streams: invertebrate taxonomic richness was increased and temporal variability decreased in restored reaches; however, these results were not consistent upon closer scrutiny for both the original paper (Swan and Brown 2017) and the later erratum (Swan and Brown 2018). Here, I provide a secondary analysis of the data, with hypotheses and interpretations in the context of stream, meta-community, and restoration ecology. Swan and Brown (2017, 2018) evaluated the effect of restoration on sites receiving various combinations of in-channel manipulation and riparian reforestation treatments. Given the difference in the relative importance of environmental filtering and dispersal between headwaters and mainstems and the structure of river networks, I contend that different restoration treatments have differential effects between headwaters and mainstems. I hypothesized in-channel manipulations would have more consistent effects between headwaters and mainstems compared to riparian reforestation, and I used this hypothesis to guide site selection in the re-analysis. I then compared results from the re-analysis to those presented by Swan and Brown (2017, 2018). I did not find any effects of restoration on local diversity, spatial dissimilarity, or temporal variability, let alone differential effects of restoration between headwaters and mainstems; these results are contrary Swan and Brown (2017, 2018), who reported that restoration increased taxonomic richness, increased spatial dissimilarity, and decreased temporal variability in restored headwater streams. I demonstrate further that the statistical tests conducted by Swan and Brown (2017, 2018) were invalid and, therefore, recommend the use of the results presented here. More broadly, I suggest, in agreement with Swan and Brown (2017, 2018) and a growing body of research, that river and stream restoration will likely have greater success if a regional approach is taken to designing and implementing restoration projects.
Published online:
DOI: 10.24072/pcjournal.52
Murray-Stoker, David 1

1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B2, Canada
License: CC-BY 4.0
Copyrights: The authors retain unrestricted copyrights and publishing rights
@article{10_24072_pcjournal_52,
     author = {Murray-Stoker, David},
     title = {On the efficacy of restoration in stream networks: comments, critiques, and prospective recommendations},
     journal = {Peer Community Journal},
     eid = {e52},
     publisher = {Peer Community In},
     volume = {1},
     year = {2021},
     doi = {10.24072/pcjournal.52},
     url = {https://peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10.24072/pcjournal.52/}
}
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Murray-Stoker, David
TI  - On the efficacy of restoration in stream networks: comments, critiques, and prospective recommendations
JO  - Peer Community Journal
PY  - 2021
DA  - 2021///
VL  - 1
PB  - Peer Community In
UR  - https://peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10.24072/pcjournal.52/
UR  - https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.52
DO  - 10.24072/pcjournal.52
ID  - 10_24072_pcjournal_52
ER  - 
%0 Journal Article
%A Murray-Stoker, David
%T On the efficacy of restoration in stream networks: comments, critiques, and prospective recommendations
%J Peer Community Journal
%D 2021
%V 1
%I Peer Community In
%U https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.52
%R 10.24072/pcjournal.52
%F 10_24072_pcjournal_52
Murray-Stoker, David. On the efficacy of restoration in stream networks: comments, critiques, and prospective recommendations. Peer Community Journal, Volume 1 (2021), article  no. e52. doi : 10.24072/pcjournal.52. https://peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10.24072/pcjournal.52/

Peer reviewed and recommended by PCI : 10.24072/pci.ecology.100052

Conflict of interest of the recommender and peer reviewers:
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.

[1] Altermatt, F. Diversity in riverine metacommunities: a network perspective, Aquatic Ecology, Volume 47 (2013) no. 3, pp. 365-377 | DOI

[2] Anderson, M. J.; Ellingsen, K. E.; McArdle, B. H. Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta diversity, Ecology Letters, Volume 9 (2006) no. 6, pp. 683-693 | DOI

[3] Bernhardt, E. S.; Palmer, M. A. River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation, Ecological Applications, Volume 21 (2011) no. 6, pp. 1926-1931 | DOI

[4] Booth, D. B.; Roy, A. H.; Smith, B.; Capps, K. A. Global perspectives on the urban stream syndrome, Freshwater Science, Volume 35 (2016) no. 1, pp. 412-420 | DOI

[5] Campbell Grant, E. H.; Lowe, W. H.; Fagan, W. F. Living in the branches: population dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic networks, Ecology Letters, Volume 10 (2007) no. 2, pp. 165-175 | DOI

[6] Cohen, J. Eta-Squared and Partial Eta-Squared in Fixed Factor Anova Designs, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Volume 33 (1973) no. 1, pp. 107-112 | DOI

[7] Collins, K. E.; Doscher, C.; Rennie, H. G.; Ross, J. G. The Effectiveness of Riparian ‘Restoration’ on Water Quality—A Case Study of Lowland Streams in Canterbury, New Zealand, Restoration Ecology, Volume 21 (2013) no. 1, pp. 40-48 | DOI

[8] Downes, B. J.; Lancaster, J.; Glaister, A.; Bovill, W. D. A fresh approach reveals how dispersal shapes metacommunity structure in a human‐altered landscape, Journal of Applied Ecology, Volume 54 (2017) no. 2, pp. 588-598 | DOI

[9] Heino, J. Does dispersal ability affect the relative importance of environmental control and spatial structuring of littoral macroinvertebrate communities?, Oecologia, Volume 171 (2013) no. 4, pp. 971-980 | DOI

[10] Heino, J.; Melo, A. S.; Siqueira, T.; Soininen, J.; Valanko, S.; Bini, L. M. Metacommunity organisation, spatial extent and dispersal in aquatic systems: patterns, processes and prospects, Freshwater Biology, Volume 60 (2015) no. 5, pp. 845-869 | DOI

[11] Heino, J.; Muotka, T.; Paavola, R. Determinants of macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: regional and local influences, Journal of Animal Ecology, Volume 72 (2003) no. 3, pp. 425-434 | DOI

[12] Lake, P. S.; Bond, N.; Reich, P. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration, Freshwater Biology, Volume 52 (2007) no. 4, pp. 597-615 | DOI

[13] Leibold, M. A.; Holyoak, M.; Mouquet, N.; Amarasekare, P.; Chase, J. M.; Hoopes, M. F.; Holt, R. D.; Shurin, J. B.; Law, R.; Tilman, D.; Loreau, M.; Gonzalez, A. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology, Ecology Letters, Volume 7 (2004) no. 7, pp. 601-613 | DOI

[14] Louhi, P.; Mykrä, H.; Paavola, R.; Huusko, A.; Vehanen, T.; Mäki-Petäys, A.; Muotka, T. Twenty years of stream restoration in Finland: little response by benthic macroinvertebrate communities, Ecological Applications, Volume 21 (2011) no. 6, pp. 1950-1961 | DOI

[15] Miller, S. W.; Budy, P.; Schmidt, J. C. Quantifying Macroinvertebrate Responses to In-Stream Habitat Restoration: Applications of Meta-Analysis to River Restoration, Restoration Ecology, Volume 18 (2010) no. 1, pp. 8-19 | DOI

[16] Muotka, T.; Syrjänen, J. Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective, Freshwater Biology, Volume 52 (2007) no. 4, pp. 724-737 | DOI

[17] Oksanen et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan, (2019)

[18] Orzetti, L. L.; Jones, R. C.; Murphy, R. F. Stream Condition in Piedmont Streams with Restored Riparian Buffers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed1, JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Volume 46 (2010) no. 3, pp. 473-485 | DOI

[19] Palmer, M. A.; Menninger, H. L.; Bernhardt, E. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice?, Freshwater Biology, Volume 55 (2010), pp. 205-222 | DOI

[20] Palmer, M. A.; Hondula, K. L.; Koch, B. J. Ecological Restoration of Streams and Rivers: Shifting Strategies and Shifting Goals, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Volume 45 (2014) no. 1, pp. 247-269 | DOI

[21] Pinheiro J.; Bates D.; DebRoy S.; Sarkar D.; and R Core Team nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-139. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme, (2019)

[22] Quinn, G. P.; Keough, M. J. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists, Cambridge University Press, (2002) | DOI

[23] R Development Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://cran.r-project.org/, (2019)

[24] Rosi-Marshall, E. J.; Wallace, J. B. Invertebrate food webs along a stream resource gradient, Freshwater Biology, Volume 47 (2002) no. 1, pp. 129-141 | DOI

[25] Shaw, R. G.; Mitchell-Olds, T. Anova for Unbalanced Data: An Overview, Ecology, Volume 74 (1993) no. 6, pp. 1638-1645 | DOI

[26] Smith, R. F.; Venugopal, P. D.; Baker, M. E.; Lamp, W. O. Habitat filtering and adult dispersal determine the taxonomic composition of stream insects in an urbanizing landscape, Freshwater Biology, Volume 60 (2015) no. 9, pp. 1740-1754 | DOI

[27] Sundermann, A.; Stoll, S.; Haase, P. River restoration success depends on the species pool of the immediate surroundings, Ecological Applications, Volume 21 (2011) no. 6, pp. 1962-1971 | DOI

[28] Swan, C. M.; Brown, B. L. Metacommunity theory meets restoration: isolation may mediate how ecological communities respond to stream restoration, Ecological Applications, Volume 27 (2017) no. 7, pp. 2209-2219 | DOI

[29] Swan, C.; Brown, B. Erratum for: Metacommunity theory meets restoration: isolation may mediate how ecological communities respond to stream restoration, Ecological Applications, Volume 28 (2018) no. 5, pp. 1370-1371 | DOI

[30] Tonkin, J. D.; Stoll, S.; Sundermann, A.; Haase, P. Dispersal distance and the pool of taxa, but not barriers, determine the colonisation of restored river reaches by benthic invertebrates, Freshwater Biology, Volume 59 (2014) no. 9, pp. 1843-1855 | DOI

[31] Vannote, R. L.; Minshall, G. W.; Cummins, K. W.; Sedell, J. R.; Cushing, C. E. The River Continuum Concept, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Volume 37 (1980) no. 1, pp. 130-137 | DOI

[32] Wahl, C. M.; Neils, A.; Hooper, D. Impacts of land use at the catchment scale constrain the habitat benefits of stream riparian buffers, Freshwater Biology, Volume 58 (2013), pp. 2310-2324 | DOI

[33] Zuur, A. F.; Ieno, E. N.; Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Volume 1 (2009) no. 1, pp. 3-14 | DOI

Cited by Sources: