Other formats:
BibTeX
LaTeX
RIS
@article{1336250,
author = {Hering, Daniel and Aroviita, Jukka and BaattrupandPedersen, Annette and Brabec, Karel and Buijse, Tom and Ecke, Frauke and Friberg, Nikolai and Gielczewski, Marek and Januschke, Kathrin and Koehler, Jan and Kupilas, Benjamin and Lorenz, Armin W. and Muhar, Susanne and Paillex, Amael and Poppe, Michaela and Schmidt, Torsten and Schmutz, Stefan and Vermaat, Jan and Verdonschot, Piet F. M. and Verdonschot, Ralf C. M. and Wolter, Christian and Kail, Jochem},
article_location = {HOBOKEN (USA)},
article_number = {6},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12531},
keywords = {aquatic macrophytes; benthic invertebrates; fish; floodplain; flow patterns; food web; ground beetles; riparian vegetation; stable isotopes},
language = {eng},
issn = {0021-8901},
journal = {Journal of Applied Ecology},
title = {Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects},
url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12531/abstract;jsessionid=73808044E272FE857479A1CD06B3D283.f01t02?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+27th+February+from+09%3A00-14%3A00+GMT+%2F+04%3A00-09%3A00+EST+%2F+1},
volume = {52},
year = {2015}
}
TY - JOUR
ID - 1336250
AU - Hering, Daniel - Aroviita, Jukka - Baattrup-Pedersen, Annette - Brabec, Karel - Buijse, Tom - Ecke, Frauke - Friberg, Nikolai - Gielczewski, Marek - Januschke, Kathrin - Koehler, Jan - Kupilas, Benjamin - Lorenz, Armin W. - Muhar, Susanne - Paillex, Amael - Poppe, Michaela - Schmidt, Torsten - Schmutz, Stefan - Vermaat, Jan - Verdonschot, Piet F. M. - Verdonschot, Ralf C. M. - Wolter, Christian - Kail, Jochem
PY - 2015
TI - Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects
JF - Journal of Applied Ecology
VL - 52
IS - 6
SP - 1518-1527
EP - 1518-1527
PB - Blackwell Scientific Publications
SN - 00218901
KW - aquatic macrophytes
KW - benthic invertebrates
KW - fish
KW - floodplain
KW - flow patterns
KW - food web
KW - ground beetles
KW - riparian vegetation
KW - stable isotopes
UR - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12531/abstract;jsessionid=73808044E272FE857479A1CD06B3D283.f01t02?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+27th+February+from+09%3A00-14%3A00+GMT+%2F+04%3A00-09%3A00+EST+%2F+1
L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12531/abstract;jsessionid=73808044E272FE857479A1CD06B3D283.f01t02?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+27th+February+from+09%3A00-14%3A00+GMT+%2F+04%3A00-09%3A00+EST+%2F+1
N2 - Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non-restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain-inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land-water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non-restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. When comparing all restored to all non-restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. We recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects.
ER -
HERING, Daniel, Jukka AROVIITA, Annette BAATTRUP-PEDERSEN, Karel BRABEC, Tom BUIJSE, Frauke ECKE, Nikolai FRIBERG, Marek GIELCZEWSKI, Kathrin JANUSCHKE, Jan KOEHLER, Benjamin KUPILAS, Armin W. LORENZ, Susanne MUHAR, Amael PAILLEX, Michaela POPPE, Torsten SCHMIDT, Stefan SCHMUTZ, Jan VERMAAT, Piet F. M. VERDONSCHOT, Ralf C. M. VERDONSCHOT, Christian WOLTER and Jochem KAIL. Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects. \textit{Journal of Applied Ecology}. HOBOKEN (USA): Blackwell Scientific Publications, 2015, vol.~52, No~6, p.~1518-1527. ISSN~0021-8901. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12531.
|
