Differing Effects of Restoration and Habitat Enhancement in Four Southern Appalachian Streams

References

1. ↵
   1. Al-Zankana, A.F.A.,
   2. L.S. Smallwood,
   3. T. Matheson and
   4. D.M. Harper

   . 2021. Hydromorphological rehabilitation improves channel morphology, instream biotopes, and macroinvertebrate communities, and thus enhances the conservation of an urban river. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 31:2697–2713.

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Anlanger, C.,
   2. K. Attermeyer,
   3. S. Hille,
   4. N. Kamjunke,
   5. K. Koll,
   6. M. König et al.

   2022. Large wood in river restoration: A case study on the effects on hydromorphology, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning. International Review of Hydrobiology 107:34–45.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Armitage, P.D.,
   2. D. Moss,
   3. J.F. Wright and
   4. M.T. Furse

   . 1983. The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Research 17(3):333–347.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
4. ↵
   1. Bernhardt, E.S.,
   2. E.B. Sudduth,
   3. M.A. Palmer,
   4. J.D. Allan,
   5. J.L. Meyer,
   6. G. Alexander et al.

   2007. Restoring rivers one reach at a time: Results from a survey of U.S river restoration practitioners. Restoration Ecology 15:482–493.

   OpenUrl
5. ↵
   1. Bernhardt, E.S. and
   2. M.A. Palmer

   . 2011. River restoration: The fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Applied Ecology 21(6):1926–1931.

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   1. Blöcher, J.R.,
   2. M.R. Ward,
   3. C.D. Matthaei and
   4. J.J Piggott

   . 2020. Multiple stressors and stream macroinvertebrate community dynamics: Interactions between fine sediment grain size and flow velocity. Science of the Total Environment 717:137070.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Brederveld, R.J.,
   2. S.C. Jähnig,
   3. A.W. Lorenz,
   4. S. Brunzel and
   5. M.B. Soons

   . 2011. Dispersal as a limiting factor in the colonization of restored mountain streams by plants and macroinvertebrates. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(5):1241–1250.

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Brookes, A.

   1987. The distribution and management of channelized streams in Denmark. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 1(1):3–16.

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   1. Buck, O.,
   2. D.K. Niyogi and
   3. C.R. Townsend

   . 2004. Scale-dependence of land use effects on water quality of streams in agricultural catchments. Environmental Pollution 130(2):287–299.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
10. ↵
    1. Chessman, B.C.

    1995. Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: A procedure based on habitat-specific sampling, family level identification and a biotic index. Australian Journal of Ecology 20(1):122–129.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Ernst, A.G.,
    2. D.R. Warren and
    3. B.P. Baldigo

    . 2012. Natural-channel-design restorations that changed geomorphology have little effect on macroinvertebrate communities in headwater streams. Restoration Ecology 20:532–540.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Erwin, S.O.,
    2. R.B. Jacobson and
    3. C.M. Elliott

    . 2017. Quantifying habitat benefits of channel reconfigurations on a highly regulated river system, Lower Missouri River, USA. Ecological Engineering 103:59–75.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Feld, C.K.,
    2. P. Segurado and
    3. C. Gutierrez-Canovas

    . 2016. Analysing the impact of multiple stressors in aquatic biomonitoring data: A ‘cookbook’ with applications in R. Science of the Total Environment 573:1320–1339.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
14. ↵
    1. Friberg, N.,
    2. L. Sandin and
    3. M.L. Pedersen

    . 2009. Assessing the effects of hydromorphological degradation on macroinvertebrate indicators in rivers: Examples, constraints, and outlook. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 5(1):86–96.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Gido, K.B.,
    2. W.K. Dodds and
    3. M.E. Eberle

    . 2010. Retrospective analysis of fish community change during a half-century of landuse and streamflow changes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29(3):970–987.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Gillette, D.P.,
    2. K. Daniel and
    3. C. Redd

    . 2016. Fish and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage response to removal of a partially breached lowhead dam. River Research and Applications 32:1776–1789.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Gonçalves, F.B. and
    2. M.S.D. Menezes

    . 2011. A comparative analysis of biotic indices that use macroinvertebrates to assess water quality in a coastal river of Paraná state, southern Brazil. Biota Neotropica 11:27–36.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Hill, R.A.,
    2. E.W. Fox,
    3. S.G. Leibowitz,
    4. A.R. Olsen,
    5. D.J. Thornbrugh and
    6. M.H. Weber

    . 2017. Predictive mapping of the biotic condition of conterminous US rivers and streams. Ecological Applications 27(8):2397–2415.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Hilsenhoff, W.L.

    1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7(1):65–68.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
20. ↵
    1. Hughes, R.M.,
    2. A.T. Herlihy,
    3. R. Comeleo,
    4. D.V. Peck,
    5. R.M. Mitchell and
    6. S.G. Paulsen

    . 2023. Patterns in and predictors of stream and river macroinvertebrate genera and fish species richness across the conterminous USA. Knowledge & Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 424(19):1–16.

    OpenUrl
21. ↵
    1. Jaag, O. and
    2. H. Ambühl

    . 1964. The effect of the current on the composition of biocoenoses in flowing water streams. Advances in Water Pollution Research 1:31–49.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. James, A.B.W.,
    2. Z.S. Dewson and
    3. R.G. Death

    . 2009. The influence of flow reduction on macroinvertebrate drift density and distance in three New Zealand streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28(1):220–232.

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Jähnig, S.C.,
    2. A.W. Loren.,
    3. D. Hering,
    4. C. Antons,
    5. A. Sundermann,
    6. E. Jedicke and
    7. P. Haase

    . 2011. River restoration success: A question of perception. Ecological Applications 21(6):2007–2015.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
24. ↵
    1. Jones, J.I.,
    2. J.F. Murphy,
    3. A.L. Collins,
    4. D.A. Sear,
    5. P.S. Naden and
    6. P.D. Armitage

    . 2011. The impact of fine sediment on macro-invertebrates. River Research and Applications 28(8):1055–1071.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
25. ↵
    1. Karr, J.R.

    1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwater Biology 41(2):221–234.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
26. ↵
    1. Kondolf, G.M.

    1997. Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environmental Management 21(4):533–551.

    OpenUrlCrossRefGeoRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 1. Kruskal, J.B.

    1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115–129.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
28. ↵
    1. Larsen, S.,
    2. I.P. Vaughan and
    3. S.J. Ormerod

    . 2009. Scale-dependent effects of fine sediments on temperate headwater invertebrates. Freshwater Biology 54(1)203–219.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Lorenz, A.W.,
    2. S.C. Jähnig and
    3. D. Hering

    . 2009. Re-meandering German lowland streams: Qualitative and quantitative effects of restoration measures on hydromorphology and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management 44(4):745–754.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
30. ↵
    1. Lourenço-Amorim, C.,
    2. V. Neres-Lima,
    3. T.P. Moulton,
    4. C.Y. Sasada-Sato,
    5. P. Oliveira-Cunha and
    6. E. Zandonà

    . 2014. Control of periphyton standing crop in an Atlantic Forest stream: The relative roles of nutrients, grazers, and predators. Freshwater Biology 59(11):2365–2373.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Lydy, M.J.,
    2. C.G. Crawford and
    3. J.W. Frey

    . 2000. A comparison of selected diversity, similarity, and biotic indices for detecting changes in benthic-invertebrate community structure and stream quality. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39(4):469–479.

    OpenUrlGeoRef
32. ↵
    1. Malmqvist, B. and
    2. S. Rundle

    . 2002. Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environmental Conservation 29(2):134–153.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
33. ↵
    1. Mattson, K.M. and
    2. P.L. Angermeier

    . 2007. Integrating human impacts and ecological integrity into a risk-based protocol for conservation planning. Environmental Management 39(1):125–138.

    OpenUrlPubMed
34. ↵
    1. Masese, F. and
    2. P. Raburu

    . 2017. Improving the performance of the EPT Index to accommodate multiple stressors in Afrotropical streams. African Journal of Aquatic Science 42(3): 219–233.

    OpenUrl
35. ↵
    1. Mason, S.J.,
    2. B.L. McGlynn and
    3. G.C. Poole

    . 2012. Hydrologic response to channel reconfiguration on Silver Bow Creek, Montana. Journal of Hydrology 438:125–136.

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. McCune, B. and
    2. J.B. Grace

    . 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design.
37. ↵
    1. McCune, B. and
    2. M.J. Mefford

    . 2016. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 7. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design.
38. ↵
    1. Miller, S.W.,
    2. P. Budy and
    3. J.C. Schmidt

    . 2009. Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to instream habitat restoration: Applications of meta-analyses to river restoration. Restoration Ecology 18:8–19.

    OpenUrl
39. ↵
    1. Muotka, T. and
    2. J. Syrjänen

    . 2007. Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: A boreal perspective. Freshwater Biology 52(4):724–737.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
40. ↵
    1. Nilsson, C.,
    2. L.E. Polvi,
    3. J. Gardeström,
    4. E.M. Hasselquist,
    5. L. Lind and
    6. J.M. Sarneel

    . 2015. Riparian and in-stream restoration of boreal streams and rivers: Success or failure? Ecohydrology 8(5): 753–764.

    OpenUrl
41. ↵
    1. Nilsson, C.,
    2. J.M. Sarneel,
    3. D. Palm,
    4. J. Gardeström,
    5. F. Pilotto,
    6. L.E. Polvi et al.

    2017. How do biota respond to additional physical restoration of restored streams? Ecosystems 20:144–162.

    OpenUrl
42. ↵
    1. Noe, G.B.,
    2. M.J. Cashman,
    3. K. Skalak,
    4. A. Gellis.,
    5. K.G. Hopkins,
    6. D. Moyer et al.

    2020. Sediment dynamics and implications for management: State of the science from long-term research in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 7(4):e1454.

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Palmer, M.A.,
    2. E.S. Bernhardt,
    3. J.D. Allan,
    4. P.S. Lake,
    5. G. Alexander,
    6. S. Brooks et al.

    2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42(2):208–217.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
44. ↵
    1. Palmer, M.A.,
    2. H.L. Menninger and
    3. E. Bernhardt

    . 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: A failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology 55:205–222.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
45. ↵
    1. Paltridge, R.M.,
    2. P.L. Dostine,
    3. C.L. Humphrey and
    4. A.J. Boulton

    . 1997. Macroinvertebrate recolonization after re-wetting of a tropical seasonally-flowing stream (Magela Creek, Northern Territory, Australia). Marine and Freshwater Research 48(7):633–645.

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Paukert, C.P.,
    2. K.L. Pitts,
    3. J.B. Whittier and
    4. J.D. Olden

    . 2011. Development and assessment of a landscape-scale ecological threat index for the Lower Colorado River Basin. Ecological Indicators 11(2):304–310.

    OpenUrl
47. ↵
    1. Poos, M.S. and
    2. D.A. Jackson

    . 2012. Addressing the removal of rare species in multivariate bioassessments: The impact of methodological choices. Ecological Indicators 18:82–90.

    OpenUrl
48. ↵
    1. Reynoldson, T.B.,
    2. R.H. Norris,
    3. V.H. Resh.,
    4. K.E. Day and
    5. D.M. Rosenberg

    . 1997. The reference condition: A comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16(4):833–852.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
49. ↵
    1. Richards, C. and
    2. K.L. Bacon

    . 1994. Influence of fine sediment on macroinvertebrate colonization of surface and hyporheic stream substrates. The Great Basin Naturalist 54(2):106–113.

    OpenUrl
50. ↵
    1. Roni, P.,
    2. T.J. Beechie,
    3. R.E. Bilb.,
    4. F.E. Leonett.,
    5. M.M. Pollock and
    6. G.R. Pess

    . 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22(1):1–20.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
51. ↵
    1. Rosgen, D.L.

    1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
52. ↵
    1. Roy, A.H.,
    2. A.D. Rosemond.,
    3. M.J. Paul.,
    4. D.S. Leigh and
    5. J.B. Wallace

    . 2003. Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanization (Georgia, U.S.A.). Freshwater Biology 48(2):329–346.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
53. ↵
    1. Selego, S.M.,
    2. C.L. Ros.,
    3. G.T. Merovich,
    4. S.A. Welsh and
    5. J.T. Anderson

    . 2012. Community-level response of fishes and aquatic macroinvertebrates to stream restoration in a third-order tributary of the Potomac River, USA. International Journal of Ecology 2012:1–9.

    OpenUrl
54. ↵
    1. Stewart-Oaten, A.,
    2. J.R. Bence and
    3. C.W. Osenberg

    . 1992. Assessing effects of unreplicated perturbations: No simple solutions. Ecology 73(4):1396–1404.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
55. ↵
    1. Sundermann, A.,
    2. S. Stoll and
    3. P. Haase

    . 2011a. River restoration success depends on the species pool of the immediate surroundings. Ecological Applications 21(6):1962–1971.

    OpenUrlPubMed
56. ↵
    1. Sundermann, A.,
    2. C. Antons.,
    3. N. Cron.,
    4. A.W. Lorenz.,
    5. D. Hering and
    6. P. Haase

    . 2011b. Hydromorphological restoration of running waters: Effects on benthic invertebrate assemblages. Freshwater Biology 56:1689–1702.

    OpenUrl
57. ↵
    1. Tullos, D.D.,
    2. D.L. Penrose,
    3. G.D. Jennings and
    4. G. Cope

    . 2009. Analysis of functional traits in reconfigured channels: Implications for the bioassessment and disturbance of river restoration. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28:80–92.

    OpenUrl
58. ↵
    1. USACE

    . 2003. Stream mitigation guidelines. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Wilmington District, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and Division of Water Quality. SDMS Docu ID 55473.
59. ↵
    1. Vannote, R.L.,
    2. G.W. Minshall.,
    3. K.W. Cummins.,
    4. J.R. Sedell and
    5. C.E. Cushing

    . 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37(1):130–137.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
60. ↵
    1. Violin, C.R.,
    2. P. Cada,
    3. E.B. Sudduth,
    4. B.A. Hassett,
    5. D.L. Penrose and
    6. E.S. Bernhardt

    . 2011. Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems. Ecological Applications 21(6):1932–1949.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
61. ↵
    1. Vörösmarty, C.J.,
    2. P.B. McIntyre,
    3. M.O. Gessner,
    4. D. Dudgeon,
    5. A. Prusevich,
    6. P. Green et al.

    2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467(7315):555–561.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
62. ↵
    1. Walsh, C.J.,
    2. A.H. Roy,
    3. J.W. Feminella,
    4. P.D. Cottingham,
    5. P.M. Groffman and
    6. R.P. Morgan

    . 2005. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24(3):706–723.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
63. ↵
    1. Weigel, B.M.,
    2. J. Lyons,
    3. L.K Paine,
    4. S.I. Dodson and
    5. D.J. Undersander

    . 2000. Using stream macroinvertebrates to compare riparian land use practices on cattle farms in southwestern Wisconsin. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15:93–106.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
64. ↵
    1. Wood, P.J. and
    2. P.D. Armitage

    . 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environmental Management 21:203–217.

    OpenUrlCrossRefGeoRefPubMedWeb of Science