Literature DB >> 21939035

Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems.

Christy R Violin1, Peter Cada, Elizabeth B Sudduth, Brooke A Hassett, David L Penrose, Emily S Bernhardt.   

Abstract

Streams, as low-lying points in the landscape, are strongly influenced by the stormwaters, pollutants, and warming that characterize catchment urbanization. River restoration projects are an increasingly popular method for mitigating urban insults. Despite the growing frequency and high expense of urban stream restoration projects, very few projects have been evaluated to determine whether they can successfully enhance habitat structure or support the stream biota characteristic of reference sites. We compared the physical and biological structure of four urban degraded, four urban restored, and four forested streams in the Piedmont region of North Carolina to quantify the ability of reach-scale stream restoration to restore physical and biological structure to urban streams and to examine the assumption that providing habitat is sufficient for biological recovery. To be successful at mitigating urban impacts, the habitat structure and biological communities found in restored streams should be more similar to forested reference sites than to their urban degraded counterparts. For every measured reach- and patch-scale attribute, we found that restored streams were indistinguishable from their degraded urban stream counterparts. Forested streams were shallower, had greater habitat complexity and median sediment size, and contained less-tolerant communities with higher sensitive taxa richness than streams in either urban category. Because heavy machinery is used to regrade and reconfigure restored channels, restored streams had less canopy cover than either forested or urban streams. Channel habitat complexity and watershed impervious surface cover (ISC) were the best predictors of sensitive taxa richness and biotic index at the reach and catchment scale, respectively. Macroinvertebrate communities in restored channels were compositionally similar to the communities in urban degraded channels, and both were dissimilar to communities in forested streams. The macroinvertebrate communities of both restored and urban degraded streams were correlated with environmental variables characteristic of degraded urban systems. Our study suggests that reach-scale restoration is not successfully mitigating for the factors causing physical and biological degradation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21939035     DOI: 10.1890/10-1551.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  6 in total

1.  Shade Trading: An Emerging Riparian Forest-Based Payment for Ecosystem Services Market in Oregon, USA.

Authors:  Kathleen Guillozet
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Are Urban Stream Restoration Plans Worth Implementing?

Authors:  Auri Sarvilinna; Virpi Lehtoranta; Turo Hjerppe
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Identifying Societal Preferences for River Restoration in a Densely Populated Urban Environment: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Central Brussels.

Authors:  Wendy Y Chen; Inge Liekens; Steven Broekx
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  The potential and limitations of linking biological monitoring data and restoration needs of urbanized waterways: a case study.

Authors:  Stanley Kemp
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 2.513

5.  Long-term assessment of floodplain reconnection as a stream restoration approach for managing nitrogen in ground and surface waters.

Authors:  Paul M Mayer; Michael J Pennino; Tammy A Newcomer-Johnson; Sujay S Kaushal
Journal:  Urban Ecosyst       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 2.686

6.  Watershed urbanization alters the composition and function of stream bacterial communities.

Authors:  Si-Yi Wang; Elizabeth B Sudduth; Matthew D Wallenstein; Justin P Wright; Emily S Bernhardt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.