Restoring functional riparian ecosystems - Wiley Online Library

14 downloads 0 Views 86KB Size Report
2 Department of Biology, Missouri River Institute, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, 57069, ..... Dufour S, Hayden M, Stella J, Battles J, Piegay H. 2015.
ECOHYDROLOGY Ecohydrol. 8, 747–752 (2015) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/eco.1664

Preface Restoring functional riparian ecosystems: concepts and applications Jere A. Boudell,1* Mark D. Dixon,2 Stewart B. Rood3 and Juliet C. Stromberg4 2

KEY WORDS

1 Department of Biology, Clayton State University, Morrow, GA, 30260, USA Department of Biology, Missouri River Institute, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, 57069, USA 3 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 3M4, Canada 4 School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

floodplain; policy; practice; process-based; restoration; riparian

THE NEED FOR PROCESS-BASED RIPARIAN RESTORATION Riparian ecosystems provide vital interfaces between uplands and rivers (Gregory et al., 1991; Naiman et al., 2005), sustain regional biodiversity (Naiman et al., 1993; NRC 2002; Sabo et al., 2005) and support key ecosystem services for society (Bagstad et al., 2012). Overland and subsurface freshwater flow wind through watersheds and floodplains and ultimately into streams and rivers. The hydrologic connections between land and water maintain riparian structure and function and sustain the ecosystem processes and services upon which many organisms, including ourselves, are dependent. Once these critical hydrologic connections are broken, riparian ecosystems, and their associated ecosystem services, decline (Nilsson and Berggren, 2000). Despite policy and funding support, many attempts to restore functioning riparian ecosystems fail (Williams et al., 1997). Countless ecologists and practitioners have pointed to the difficulty of restoring riparian ecosystems when the underlying causes of degradation have not been addressed and ameliorated, when practices have focused narrowly on the re-creation of specific floodplain elements (e.g. stream meanders) and when hydrologic connectivity has not been re-established (Clewell and Rieger, 1997; Molles et al., 1998; Hobbs and Harris, 2001; Ruiz-Jaen and Aide, 2005; Bernhardt et al., 2007; Jähnig et al., 2011). In sum, the projects failed because they were not process based (Beechie et al., 2010).

*Correspondence to: Jere A. Boudell, Department of Biology, Clayton State University, Morrow, GA 30260, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Flood pulsing is an engine that drives riparian structure and function (Junk et al., 1989; Naiman and Décamps, 1997; Poff et al., 1997; Middleton, 1999). Flooding sculpts the floodplain, as sediment and vegetation are scoured through erosional forces. As floodwaters move across the floodplain, and encounter vegetation, energy is expended, and flood velocity declines. Flooding flushes the floodplain of accumulated salt, saturates soils, recharges alluvial groundwater and provides water to vegetation (Gregory et al., 1991; NRC, 2002; Naiman et al., 2005). Sediment is deposited when flood waters recede, which decreases stream turbidity and builds floodplains. Floodwaters can be rich in nutrients, and riparian ecosystems act as a buffer to absorb or dissipate the excess nutrients through the combined biogeochemical cycling activities of plants and soil microbes (Peterjohn and Correll, 1984; Gregory et al., 1991; Naiman et al., 2005). Fluvial geomorphic processes create temporal and spatial heterogeneity within the riparian landscape thereby sustaining a rich assortment of plant and animal life. Indeed, riparian ecosystems can be ‘hotspots’ of biodiversity (Naiman et al., 1993; Naiman and Décamps, 1997). The variation in water availability and in flood frequency and magnitude along a spatial gradient from river to upland allows for a diverse assemblage of plant functional types. Flood pulsing connects plant communities when seeds and other propagules entrained in floodwaters are dispersed across riparian landscapes (Boudell and Stromberg, 2008; Nilsson et al., 2010). These diverse and productive plant communities provide habitat to a variety of animals from permanent to temporary residents (NRC, 2002; Naiman et al., 2005). Riparian ecosystems are degraded by vertical, lateral and longitudinal hydraulic disconnection (Ligon et al., 1995; Ward and Stanford, 1995; Scott et al., 1999; Nilsson and

748

J. A. BOUDELL ET AL.

Svedmark, 2002; Stromberg et al., 2006), with an accompanying loss of ecosystem services. Groundwater extraction that vertically disconnects the floodplain from its river stresses organisms (e.g. phreatophytic trees) that rely upon a readily available water resource. Levees disrupt the lateral hydrologic connections between rivers and riparian zones by forming an embankment that channelizes rivers and prevents overbanking (Middleton, 1999; Gergel et al., 2002; NRC, 2002). Impoundment by dams, like channelization, changes the flow and sediment regimes of the river downstream and impacts riparian ecosystems upstream by permanent inundation or by rising water tables (Ligon et al., 1995; Nilsson and Berggren, 2000; NRC, 2002; Johnson et al., 2012; Volke et al., in press). Sometimes, flow alteration is extreme, ceasing flow altogether. The changes from the river’s natural flow regime can radically impact fluvial geomorphology, resulting in decreased diversity of fluvial landforms, increased erosion and channel incision, and decreased sediment and nutrient transport (Florsheim et al., 2008; Wohl et al., in press). Additionally, the timing, magnitude and duration of managed flow regimes are often out-of-sync with the life cycles of riparian species, causing population declines (Mahoney and Rood, 1998). Degradation of riparian ecosystems also occurs when land use practices remove riparian vegetation or alter watershed hydrology (NRC, 2002). Plant communities and soil structure are altered when vegetation is overgrazed and the ground trampled by livestock (Elmore and Kauffman, 1994). Banks degrade and collapse when cattle congregate along the stream, causing the channel to widen and leading to a suite of instream changes that affect aquatic organisms. Riparian ecosystems are narrowed when land is cleared for crops leaving only a remnant riparian buffer. Associated wetlands are drained to provide productive land for cultivation. Excess fertilizer in storm run-off flows can overwhelm the nutrient processing capacity of narrow or degraded riparian buffers, allowing the nutrient-enriched waters to enter the stream (Lovell and Sullivan, 2006). Riparian ecosystems in urban environments are influenced by many anthropogenic stressors such as vegetation removal, stream channelization, non-point and point source pollution and storm drainage that can exceed the natural peak flow capacity of the stream, leading to significant changes in channel morphology (Wenger et al., 2009). The combined effects lead to a suite of symptoms referred to as ‘urban stream syndrome’ (Meyer et al., 2005). Collectively, hydrologic disconnection and landscape modification create novel conditions for organisms (Poff et al., 1997). This may result in conditions that are better suited to upland species (Greene and Knox, 2014) or to those from other biogeographic regions (Stromberg et al., 2007) than to the original riparian species. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Owing to their recognized importance, riparian ecosystems are often the focus of restoration efforts (NRC, 1992; Bernhardt et al., 2005). The Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act, the Farm Bill and Endangered Species Act in the United States (NRC, 2002); the Water Framework Directive in Europe ([EC] European Commission, 2000) and internationally, The Ramsar Convention (Mattews, 1993) are frequently the policy basis that supports restoration efforts. In the United States alone, an average of more than one billion dollars per year was spent on riparian restoration projects between 1990 and 2003 (Bernhardt et al., 2005). It can be a lucrative business with whole industries focused on site evaluation, restoration and mitigation, and project monitoring. Despite the policy foundation, and availability of funding and expertise for riparian restoration, the successful restoration of degraded riparian ecosystems is faced with many challenges. There are numerous stakeholders invested in riparian ecosystems, with sometimes conflicting interests (Egan et al., 2011). Tension occurs between municipal and agricultural stakeholders and managers of floodplain ecosystems, although unexpected allegiances can develop as farmers and conservationists, both fight against long-distance water ‘grabs’ by cities. Residents rely on the services provided by rivers, and so local rivers are often diverted for irrigation, impounded to form reservoirs or leveed as part of a risk-management strategy to control flooding and provide a safer environment for floodplain residents. Additionally, many degraded riparian ecosystems exist in fragmented metropolitan environments where competition between stakeholders for land is intense (Bernhardt and Palmer, 2007). Thus, hydrologic connectivity, the foundation of a functioning riparian ecosystem, is rarely completely reestablished, and riparian ecosystems if restored, typically exist as disjointed and functionally disconnected narrow strips within an altered landscape matrix. Compounding these issues, the science and practice of restoration ecology is relatively new (Jordan et al., 1987; Young et al., 2005), with early efforts at river restoration often failing to take an integrative process-based or ecological approach. River restoration emerged primarily from the practice of hydrological engineering for flood control (Palmer and Bernhardt, 2006) and to support fisheries through environmental flow allocation before ‘spilling over’ into the floodplain to encompass experimental flooding. Many practitioners focused on the restoration of specific floodplain structural elements such as stream meanders during ‘hydrogeomorphological’ restoration (Bernhardt and Palmer, 2011) and the planting of a selection of riparian and upland species during landscape restoration (Bernhardt et al., 2005). Often, practitioners were unable to remedy the underlying causes of riparian degradation, which derived from poor watershed planning and involved multiple municipalities and Ecohydrol. 8, 747–752 (2015)

PREFACE

stakeholders (Roni et al., 2008). As a result of historical land use patterns, continuing anthropogenic impacts and early approaches to stream restoration, restored riparian ecosystems are frequently a pale facsimile of riparian ecosystems associated with free-flowing, wild rivers. Increasingly, restoration practitioners and scientists are calling for better integration and implementation of ecological theory with restoration policy and practice (Cairns, 1991; Higgs, 1997; Middleton, 1999; Bernhardt et al., 2007; Beechie et al., 2010). Years of restoration practice, research and monitoring have pointed to the need for process-based holistic approaches that focus on remedying the underlying causes of degradation, restoring structure and function and returning key hydrologic and geomorphic processes (Middleton, 1999; Bernhardt et al., 2007; Beechie et al., 2010; Bernhardt and Palmer, 2011; Wohl et al., in press). Many articles and more than a few books have been published on the need for the reestablishment of hydrologic connectivity (Molles et al., 1998; Middleton, 2002; Hughes and Rood, 2003; Rood et al., 2003); realistic restoration goals and adaptive, longterm monitoring and management of restoration projects (Kondolf, 1995; Hobbs and Harris, 2001; Ruiz-Jaen and Aide, 2005; Bernhardt et al., 2007; Jähnig et al., 2011); and collaborations between policymakers, managers, practitioners and scientists (Clewell and Rieger, 1997; Aronson et al., 2007; Bernhardt et al., 2007). THIS ISSUE This special issue of Ecohydrology arose from the ‘Restoring functional riparian ecosystems: Concepts and applications’ symposium at the 2013 5th World Conference on Ecological Restoration, in Madison, Wisconsin, United States. Participants discussed the ecological issues and challenges related to process-based approaches to restoring riparian ecosystems. We continue this conversation as we focus on case studies for a variety of restoration issues that practitioners, managers, ecologists and society face today. Several papers in this issue point to gaps in our knowledge about freshwater ecosystems and the need for further study and long-term monitoring. Springer et al. (2015) describe the ecological characteristics and anthropogenic impacts on freshwater springs in Alberta, Canada. They find that the springs are valuable in conserving plant diversity yet are understudied and at risk due to groundwater extraction and other impacts. Dufour et al. (2015) report on the role that abandoned channels play in sustaining regional biodiversity and call for management practices that allow for migration and avulsion of river channels. Nilsson et al. (2015) review Finnish and Swedish boreal streams that were restored after years of use for timber floating and conclude that two decades is Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

749

not enough time for riparian organisms to recover and that long-term monitoring and an overall landscape perspective are needed. The importance of hydrogeomorphic processes and constraints for restoration is also discussed. Rood et al. (2015) find that forested riparian communities provide greater erosional resistance to flooding than grasslands; hence, conserving riparian forests would stabilize stream banks. Riparian tree species such as Populus sp. have life cycle events that are tied to regional climatic flood regimes (Mahoney and Rood, 1998), and Tiedemann and Rood (2015) report on the loss of Populus colonization sites on the flow-regulated Boise River, United States, caused by attenuated flows that failed to create the necessary surfaces for regeneration. Based on findings from their manipulative field experiment, they suggest that, along with managed flow releases, clearing and regrading of the floodplain may be necessary for successful Populus recruitment. Dixon et al. (2015) report the outcome of a 500-year flood on passive restoration of Populus and associated species along the regulated Missouri River, United States. Despite the magnitude of the flood, its effectiveness for Populus recruitment was limited by the geomorphic legacies of 60 years of flow regulation, the extreme duration of flooding and its divergence from historical flow patterns. In a related paper, Johnson et al. (2015) point out that successful passive restoration through managed flow releases requires more than changes in flood frequency and magnitude on the Missouri River. Flow releases are devoid of sediment, leading to channel incision, loss of hydrologic connectivity and alteration of floodplain structure and function. Passive process-based restoration may not suffice to bring degraded riparian ecosystems to their former glory unless efforts focus more intensively on geomorphological structure and processes. It is the new, the novel or hybrid environment, that confounds our efforts to restore degraded riparian ecosystems to historical conditions, and ecologists increasingly are discounting the past as a restoration template. Conducting restoration in novel environments leads us to re-assess our definitions of restoration success, provides opportunities to learn from surprises and stimulates the development of innovative restoration approaches that take advantage of infrastructure and resources available in the novel system. These challenges and opportunities are both powerfully illustrated in urban environments where anthropogenic change is pervasive. Beauchamp et al. (2015) describe the influence of initial plantings and the restoration process on community assembly and soil properties in urban riparian sites. They report significant differences in tree community composition between paired restored and unrestored sites in the Baltimore metropolitan area; however, they also found Ecohydrol. 8, 747–752 (2015)

750

J. A. BOUDELL ET AL.

that tree seedling composition between the sites became more similar over time. Soils of the restored sites had lower levels of Pb and Zn, but similar levels of Ca in comparison with unrestored urban riparian soils. Their results underscore the complexity of urban riparian restoration as species from surrounding sites disperse into restored sites over time, and the legacy of soil toxins from urban land use remains. While the reintroduction of riparian species into radically changed environments may be fraught with difficulties, innovative restoration approaches may develop and unintended positive consequences may be revealed when we focus our energies on how to restore hydrogeomorphic processes within these novel environments. Middleton et al. (2015) describe how increased discharge from a river diversion, originally intended to prevent the influx of oil released during the Deep Water Horizon spill in 2010, ultimately reduced salinity and increased productivity in Taxodium distichum (bald cypress) swamps. Another novel approach to functional restoration is the use of storm water and effluent discharge to support urban riparian forests and marshlands as described by Bateman et al. (2015). In this paper, the authors find that, in combination with actively restored sites, these ‘accidentally’ restored sites contributed to overall regional diversity in an urban landscape matrix and warrant protective measures to secure the novel water sources. It is a daunting challenge to implement process-based restoration in a world that is undergoing urbanization and climate change and in which multiple stakeholders prioritize different endpoints of riparian restoration. Successful restoration planning and implementation should solicit input from multiple and diverse stakeholders, and we must develop approaches that encourage their participation (Wohl et al., 2005). Broadbent et al. (2015) present a blueprint for the use of ecological endpoints as a tool to assess how stakeholders value the ecosystem services provided by riparian ecosystems in the arid southwestern United States. This approach is of particular importance when we include climate change impacts because the public is divided on whether or not they view climate change as a concern (Riffkin, 2014). Convincing a skeptical public to have a flexible attitude towards restoration outcomes while practitioners devise adaptive restoration approaches to mitigate and prepare for the effects of climate change will also be challenging. Ecologists have long discussed the moving target that is ecosystem restoration. The poignancy of this task is underscored when we include regional projections for climate change in our restoration plans. Both Perry et al. (2015) and Boudell et al. (2013) call for flexibility in restoration planning and implementation, and the need for valuing alternative recovery pathways, as we restore Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

degraded riparian ecosystems in an uncertain world. Perry et al. (2015) also discuss the variety of tools that are available to assist planners with adjusting restoration approaches as needed. Boudell et al. (2013) describe the challenge of finding reference sites when targets are ambiguous and where the biotic community, owing to elements such as seed banks, has flexible, alternative development and recovery pathways. We extend thanks to the contributors to the conference symposium and to this special issue. We hope that the papers in this issue will stimulate further research on process-based riparian restoration approaches and discussion on how to implement these approaches in novel, changing environments.

REFERENCES Aronson J, Milton SJ, Blignaut JN. 2007. Restoring Natural Capital: Science, Business, and Practice. Island Press: DC. Bagstad KJ, Semmens D, Winthrop R, Jaworski D, Larson J. 2012. Ecosystem services valuation to support decision making on public lands—a case study of the San Pedro River watershed, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, 2012–5251, 93 p. Bateman HL, Stromberg JC, Banville MJ, Makings E, Scott BD, Suchy A, Wolkis D. 2015. Novel water sources restore plant and animal communities along an urban river. Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/eco.1560. Beauchamp VB, Swan CM, Szlavecz K, Hu J. 2015. Riparian community structure and soil properties of restored urban streams. Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/eco.1644. Beechie TJ, Sear DA, Olden JD, Pess GR, Buffington JM, Moir H, Roni P, Pollock MM. 2010. Process-based principles of restoring river ecosystems. BioScience 60: 209–222. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA. 2007. Restoring streams in an urbanizing world. Freshwater Biology 52: 738–751. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, et al. 2005. Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308: 636–637. Bernhardt JS, Sudduth EB, Palmer MA, 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. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA. 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications 21: 1926–1931. Boudell JA, Jacobo JM, Farinãs SA. 2013. Urban stream restoration in a changing world: alternative pathways in the Southern Piedmont USA. 5th World Conference on Ecological Restoration, Society for Ecological Restoration, October 6–11, 2013. Madison, WI, USA. Conference Book of Abstracts. http://www.ser2013.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/10/SER2013-Book-of-Abstracts.pdf Boudell JA, Stromberg JC. 2008. Flood pulsing and metacommunity dynamics in a desert riparian ecosystem. Journal of Vegetation Science 19: 373–380. Broadbent CD, Brookshire DS, Goodrich D, Dixon MD, Brand LA, Thacher J, Stewart S. 2015. Valuing preservation and restoration alternatives for ecosystem services in the southwestern USA. Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/eco.1628. Cairns J Jr. 1991. The status of the theoretical and applied science of restoration ecology. The Environmental Professional 13: 186–194. Clewell A, Rieger JP. 1997. What practitioners need from restoration ecologists. Restoration Ecology 5: 350–354. Dixon MD, Boever CJ, Danzeisen VL, Merkord CL, Munes EC, Scott ML, Johnson WC, Cowman TC. 2015. Effects of a ‘natural’ flood event on the riparian ecosystem of a regulated large-river system: the 2011 flood on the Missouri River, USA. Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/eco.1613. Dufour S, Hayden M, Stella J, Battles J, Piegay H. 2015. Maintaining channel abandonment processes increases riparian plant diversity within fluvial corridors. Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/eco.1546. Ecohydrol. 8, 747–752 (2015)

PREFACE [EC] European Commission. 2000. Directive of the European parliament and of the council 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal 2000 L 327/1. European Commission, Brussels. Egan D, Hjerpe EE, Abrams J, Higgs E. 2011. Human dimensions of ecological restoration: integrating science, nature and culture 2cd. Ed. The Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration Series. Island Press, DC. Elmore W, Kauffman B. 1994. Riparian and watershed systems: degradation and restoration. In Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West, Vavra M, Laycock WA, Pieper, RD (eds). Society for Range Management: Denver, Co. Florsheim JL, Mount JF, Chin A. 2008. Bank erosion as a desirable attribute of rivers. BioScience 58: 519–529. Gergel SE, Dixon MD, Turner MG. 2002. Consequences of human-altered floods: levees, floods, and floodplain forests along the Wisconsin River. Ecological Applications 12: 1755–1770. Greene SL, Knox JC. 2014. Coupling legacy geomorphic surface facies to riparian vegetation: assessing red cedar invasion along the Missouri River downstream of Gavins Point dam, South Dakota. Geomorphology 204: 277–286. Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41: 540–551. Higgs ES. 1997. What is good ecological restoration? Conservation Biology 11: 338–348. Hobbs RJ, Harris JA. 2001. Restoration ecology: repairing the Earth’s ecosystems in the new millennium. Restoration Ecology 9: 239–246. Hughes FM, Rood SB. 2003. Allocation of rivers flows for restoration of floodplain forest ecosystems: a review of approaches and their applicability in Europe. Environmental Management 32: 12–33. Jähnig SC, Lorenz AW, Hering D, Antons C, Sundermann A, Jedicke E, Haase P. 2011. River restoration success: a question of perception. Ecological Applications 21: 2007–2015. Johnson WC, Dixon MD, Scott ML, Rabbe L, Larson G, Volke M, Werner B. 2012. Forty years of vegetation change on the Missouri River floodplain. BioScience 62: 123–135. Johnson WC, Volke MA, Scott ML, Dixon MD. 2015. The dammed Missouri: prospects for recovering Lewis and Clark’s River. Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/eco.1534. Jordan WR III, Gilpin ME, Aber JD. 1987. Restoration Ecology. Cambridge University Press: England. Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE. 1989. The flood pulse concept in riverfloodplain systems. Canadian Special Publications in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106: 110–127. Kondolf GM. 1995. Five elements for effective evaluation of stream restoration. Restoration Ecology 3: 133–136. Ligon FK, Dietrich WE, Trush WJ. 1995. Downstream ecological effects of dams: a geomorphic perspective. BioScience 45: 183–192. Lovell ST, Sullivan WC. 2006. Environmental benefits of conservation buffers in the United States: evidence, promise, and open questions. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 112: 249–260. Mahoney JM, Rood SB. 1998. Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling recruitment—an integrative model. Wetlands 18: 634–645. Mattews GVT. 1993. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: Its History and Development. Ramsar Convention Bureau: Gland. Meyer JL, Paul MJ, Taulbee WK. 2005. Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 602–612. Middleton B. 1999. Wetland Restoration: Flood Pulsing and Disturbance Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: N.Y. Middleton B. 2002. Flood Pulsing in Wetlands: Restoring the Natural Hydrological Balance. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: N.Y. Middleton BA, Johnson D, Roberts BJ. 2015. Hydrologic remediation for the deepwater horizon incident drove ancillary primary production increase in coastal swamps. Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/eco.1625. Molles MC Jr, Crawford CS, Ellis LM, Valett HM, Dahm CN. 1998. Managed flooding for riparian ecosystem restoration. BioScience 48: 749–756. Naiman RJ, Décamps H. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 621–658.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

751

Naiman RJ, Décamps H, McClain ME. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Streamside Communities. Elsevier/ Academic Press: Amsterdam, NL. Naiman RJ, Décamps H, Pollock M. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3: 209–212. Nilsson C, Berggren K. 2000. Alterations of riparian ecosystems caused by river regulation. BioScience 50: 783–792. Nilsson C, Brown RL, Jansson R, Merritt DM. 2010. The role of hydrochory in structuring riparian and wetland vegetation. Biological Reviews 85: 837–858. Nilsson C, Svedmark M. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water regimes: riparian plant communities. Environmental Management 30: 468–480. Nilsson C, Polvi LE, Gardeström J, Hasselquist EM, Lind L, Sarneel JM. 2015. Riparian and in-stream restoration of boreal streams and rivers: success or failure? Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/eco.1480. NRC. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. NRC. 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES. 2006. Hydroecology and river restoration: ripe for research and synthesis. Water Resources Research 42: W03S07. Perry LG, Reynolds LV, Beechie TJ, Collins MJ, Shafroth PB. 2015. Incorporating climate change projections into riparian restoration planning and design. Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/ eco.1645. Peterjohn WT, Correll DL. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65: 1466–1475. Poff NL, Allan D, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47: 769–784. Riffkin R. 2014. Climate change not a top worry in U.S. Gallup. Retrieved 01 March 2015. Roni P, Hanson K, Beechie T. 2008. Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 856–890. Rood SB, Gourley CR, Ammon EM, et al. 2003. Flows for floodplain forests: a successful riparian restoration. BioScience 53: 647–656. Rood SB, Bigelow SG, Polzin ML, Gill KM, Coburn CA. 2015. Biological bank protection: trees are more effective than grasses at resisting erosion from major river floods. Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/ eco.1544. Ruiz-Jaen MC, Aide TM. 2005. Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restoration Ecology 13: 569–577. Sabo JL, Sponseller R, Dixon M, Gade K, Harms T, Heffernan J, Jani A, Katz G, Soykan C, Watts J, Welter J. 2005. Riparian zones increase regional species diversity by harboring different, not more species. Ecology 86: 56–62. Scott ML, Shafroth PB, Auble GT. 1999. Responses of riparian cottonwoods to alluvial water table declines. Environmental Management 23: 347–358. Springer AE, Stevens LE, Ledbetter JD, Schaller EM, Gill KM, Rood SB. 2015. Ecohydrology and stewardship of Alberta springs ecosystems. Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/eco.1596. Stromberg JC, Lite SJ, Rychener TJ, Levick L, Dixon MD, Watts JW. 2006. Status of the riparian ecosystem in the upper San Pedro River, Arizona: application of an assessment model. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 115: 145–173. Stromberg JC, Lite SJ, Marler R, Paradzick C, Shafroth PB, Shorrock D, White JM, White MS. 2007. Altered stream-flow regimes and invasive species: the Tamarix case. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16: 381–393. Tiedemann RB, Rood SB. 2015. Flood flow attenuation diminishes cottonwood colonization sites: an experimental test along the Boise River, USA. Ecohydrology . DOI:10.1002/eco.1619. Volke MA, Scott ML, Johnson WC, Dixon MD. In press. The ecological significance of emerging deltas in regulated rivers. BioScience. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biv040.

Ecohydrol. 8, 747–752 (2015)

752

J. A. BOUDELL ET AL.

Ward JV, Stanford JA. 1995. Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11: 105–119. Wenger SJ, Roy AH, Jackson CR, Bernhardt ES, et al. 2009. Twenty-six key research questions in urban stream ecology: an assessment of the state of the science. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28: 1080–1098. Williams JE, Wood CA, Dombeck MP. 1997. Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Wohl E, Angermeier PL, Bledsoe B, Kondolf GM, MacDonnell L, Merritt DM, Palmer MA, Poff, NL, Tarboton D. 2005. River restoration. Water Resources Research 41: W10301. Wohl E, Bledsoe BP, Jacobson RB, Poff NL, Rathburn SL, Walters DM, Wilcox AC. In press. The “natural” sediment regime in rivers. BioScience. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biv002. Young TP, Petersen DA, Clary JJ. 2005. The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms. Ecology Letters 8: 662–673.

Ecohydrol. 8, 747–752 (2015)