|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Editors' Call ARTICLES Rock Creek Restoration Project Post-Fire Watershed Recovery Wild Trout on Private Ranches Headwaters Outreach Initiative Guide to Colorado's Small Native Fish FEATURES Legal Developments Research Summaries BACK ISSUES Volume 17 Number 1 Spring 2006 Volume 16, Number 4 Winter 2005 Volume 16, Number 3 Fall 2005 Volume 16, Number 2 Summer 2005 Volume 16, Number 1 Spring 2005 Volume 15, Number 4 Winter 2004 Volume 15, Number 3 Fall 2004 Volume 15, Number 2 Summer 2004 Volume 15, Number 1 Spring 2004 Volume 14, Number 3 Fall/Winter 2003 Volume 14, Number 2 Summer 2003 Volume 14, Number 1 Spring 2003 Volume 13, Number 3, Fall 2002 PREVIOUS ISSUES |
Research Summaries
Billions of dollars are currently spent restoring streams and rivers, yet to date there are no agreed upon standards for what constitutes ecologically beneficial stream and river restoration. We propose five criteria that must be met for a river restoration project to be considered ecologically successful. It is critical that the broad restoration community, including funding agencies, practitioners and citizen restoration groups, adopt criteria for defining and assessing ecological success in restoration. Standards are needed because progress in the science and practice of river restoration has been hampered by the lack of agreed upon criteria for judging ecological success. Without well-accepted criteria that are ultimately supported by funding and implementing agencies, there is little incentive for practitioners to assess and report restoration outcomes. Improving methods and weighing the ecological benefits of various restoration approaches require organized national-level reporting systems.
Restoration projects have frequently used some form ofhistorical or contemporary reference system to define objectives and to help in the evaluation process. Using these reference systems can give a false sense of the predictability of ecological outcomes. We suggest that reference systems need to be used with caution for six reasons: (1) there are often no appropriate reference systems to use, (2) many catchment parameters have changed since the times of chosen historic reference systems, (3) climate change has been continuous throughout the Holocene, (4) projected climate change is of uncertain magnitude, (5) alien species cannot be avoided, and (6) landscape context changes through time. As well as defining short-term objectives, we suggest that river restoration projects should also formulate longer-term (decadal) restoration trajectories that are less predictable but more representative of real system attributes. Restoration trajectories could be defined using a range of ecological outcomes to accommodate inter-annual variability. The challenges of defining what levels of variability are important for restoring European floodplain forests are used to demonstrate the difficulties of broadening approaches and creating trajectories. In particular, the changing significance of variability at different spatial and temporal scales is discussed. An account is given of a restoration project at Wicken Fen in the United Kingdom in which nondeterministic approaches to goal setting have been initiated. | |||||||||||
| Posted on June 21, 2006. |