Literature DB >> 29947087

Diverging response patterns of terrestrial and aquatic species to hydromorphological restoration.

Francesca Pilotto1, Jonathan D Tonkin2, Kathrin Januschke3, Armin W Lorenz3, Jonas Jourdan1, Andrea Sundermann1,4, Daniel Hering3, Stefan Stoll3,5, Peter Haase1,6.   

Abstract

Although experiences with ecological restoration continue to accumulate, the effectiveness of restoration for biota remains debated. We complemented a traditional taxonomic analysis approach with information on 56 species traits to uncover the responses of 3 aquatic (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes) and 2 terrestrial (carabid beetles, floodplain vegetation) biotic groups to 43 hydromorphological river restoration projects in Germany. All taxonomic groups responded positively to restoration, as shown by increased taxonomic richness (10-164%) and trait diversity (habitat, dispersal and mobility, size, form, life history, and feeding groups) (15-120%). Responses, however, were stronger for terrestrial than aquatic biota, and, contrary to our expectation, taxonomic responses were stronger than those of traits. Nevertheless, trait analysis provided mechanistic insights into the drivers of community change following restoration. Trait analysis for terrestrial biota indicated restoration success was likely enhanced by lateral connectivity and reestablishment of dynamic processes in the floodplain. The weaker response of aquatic biota suggests recovery was hindered by the persistence of stressors in the aquatic environment, such as degraded water quality, dispersal constraints, and insufficient hydromorphological change. Therefore, river restoration requires combined local- and regional-scale approaches to maximize the response of both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Due to the contrasting responses of aquatic and terrestrial biota, the planning and assessment of river restoration outcomes should consider effects on both components of riverine landscapes.
© 2018 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  composición de rasgos; composición taxonómica; diversidad funcional; diversidad multibiótica; functional diversity; multibiotic diversity; planicie inundable ribereño; restauración de corriente; ribereño; riparian; river floodplain; stream restoration; taxonomic composition; trait composition

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29947087     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13176

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  3 in total

1.  The application of metacommunity theory to the management of riverine ecosystems.

Authors:  Christopher J Patrick; Kurt E Anderson; Brown L Brown; Charles P Hawkins; Anya Metcalfe; Parsa Saffarinia; Tadeu Siqueira; Christopher M Swan; Jonathan D Tonkin; Lester L Yuan
Journal:  WIREs Water       Date:  2021-08-16       Impact factor: 7.428

2.  Late Holocene anthropogenic landscape change in northwestern Europe impacted insect biodiversity as much as climate change did after the last Ice Age.

Authors:  Francesca Pilotto; Alexis Rojas; Philip I Buckland
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 5.530

3.  Negative resistance and resilience: biotic mechanisms underpin delayed biological recovery in stream restoration.

Authors:  Isabelle C Barrett; Angus R McIntosh; Catherine M Febria; Helen J Warburton
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 5.349

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.