Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects
Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. We investigated ten pairs of restored r...
Saved in:
| Published in | The Journal of applied ecology Vol. 52; no. 6; pp. 1518 - 1527 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
Oxford
Blackwell Scientific Publications
01.12.2015
John Wiley & Sons Ltd Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
| Abstract | Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non‐restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain‐inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land–water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non‐restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. When comparing all restored to all non‐restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. Synthesis and applications. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non-restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain-inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land-water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non-restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. When comparing all restored to all non-restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non-restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain-inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land-water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non-restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. When comparing all restored to all non-restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. Synthesis and applications. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non‐restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain‐inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land–water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non‐restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. When comparing all restored to all non‐restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. Synthesis and applications. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non‐restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain‐inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land–water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non‐restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. When comparing all restored to all non‐restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. Synthesis and applications . The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. 1. Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. 2. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream nonrestored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain-inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land-water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. 3. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non-restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. 4. When comparing all restored to all non-restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. 5. When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopie composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopie composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. 6. Synthesis and applications. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. Summary Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non-restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain-inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land-water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non-restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. When comparing all restored to all non-restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. Synthesis and applications. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. Summary Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non‐restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain‐inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land–water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non‐restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. When comparing all restored to all non‐restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. Synthesis and applications. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. 1. Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. 2. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non-restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain-inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land-water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. 3. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non-restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. 4. When comparing all restored to all non-restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. 5. When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. 6. Synthesis and applications. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. |
| Author | Hering, Daniel Ecke, Frauke Kail, Jochem Vermaat, Jan Muhar, Susanne Verdonschot, Ralf C. M Siqueira, Tadeu Friberg, Nikolai Wolter, Christian Buijse, Tom Verdonschot, Piet F. M Paillex, Amael Schmidt, Torsten Schmutz, Stefan Gielczewski, Marek Brabec, Karel Poppe, Michaela Lorenz, Armin W Aroviita, Jukka Baattrup‐Pedersen, Annette Januschke, Kathrin Köhler, Jan Kupilas, Benjamin |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 fullname: Hering, Daniel – sequence: 2 fullname: Aroviita, Jukka – sequence: 3 fullname: Baattrup‐Pedersen, Annette – sequence: 4 fullname: Brabec, Karel – sequence: 5 fullname: Buijse, Tom – sequence: 6 fullname: Ecke, Frauke – sequence: 7 fullname: Friberg, Nikolai – sequence: 8 fullname: Gielczewski, Marek – sequence: 9 fullname: Januschke, Kathrin – sequence: 10 fullname: Köhler, Jan – sequence: 11 fullname: Kupilas, Benjamin – sequence: 12 fullname: Lorenz, Armin W – sequence: 13 fullname: Muhar, Susanne – sequence: 14 fullname: Paillex, Amael – sequence: 15 fullname: Poppe, Michaela – sequence: 16 fullname: Schmidt, Torsten – sequence: 17 fullname: Schmutz, Stefan – sequence: 18 fullname: Vermaat, Jan – sequence: 19 fullname: Verdonschot, Piet F. M – sequence: 20 fullname: Verdonschot, Ralf C. M – sequence: 21 fullname: Wolter, Christian – sequence: 22 fullname: Kail, Jochem – sequence: 23 fullname: Siqueira, Tadeu |
| BackLink | https://res.slu.se/id/publ/74934$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index |
| BookMark | eNqFkk1vEzEQhleoSKSFMyeEJS5c0trrr3VvKApfqgQS9Gx5d8eJo40d7F2i_BT-LXYCkeiB-uCRxu8z9ozfy-rCBw9V9ZLga5LXDaGCz2sh2DWpOSVPqtk5c1HNMK7JvFGYPKsuU9pgjBWndFb9WgQ_RpNG51doXAOKYYCEgkUJutEFjwbwq3GNjO-R82mMYLZobVo3mhGBXxvfwRb8iGyIKLqfkHdIY4jmSKep6yClW2SQdTD0KI1Tfyj1a4yWUww7MP4fYhfDJl-dnldPrRkSvPgTr6r798vvi4_zuy8fPi3e3c07wTmZS9x0pCEcpKLKGtsQpVprJQhqmeSKNQRzBcowkpO9lbYWrRSqkRT3ou_oVXV7qrs3K_B5DOC1N7FzSQfj9ODaaOJB76eo_VDCbmqTZqrhAmd4foLTHnJe76LbFnUh0zC1JpagE2jJFGVZ__akz13-mHLXeutSB8NgPIQpadJgSkTNmXxcKjllIq_yijcPpJswRZ-nlgtyKVnT5N_-n0pSwVgeVlHdnFRdDClFsOeeCNbFaLrYShdb6aPRMsEfEF0xhzsayw2Pc3s3wOGxa_Tnr8u_3KsTtymmOXOMNkLRWuXz16dza4I2q5g_8v5bjYkopq8xw_Q3eh39BA |
| CODEN | JAPEAI |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecolind_2022_109047 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecolind_2016_07_048 crossref_primary_10_5194_bg_14_1989_2017 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2021_151590 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jenvman_2019_06_095 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10841_020_00253_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s00267_017_0961_x crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecolind_2018_08_054 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10750_016_2652_7 crossref_primary_10_1002_rra_4153 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecolind_2020_106242 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_watbs_2023_100191 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2017_09_188 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10661_022_10457_2 crossref_primary_10_1111_cobi_13176 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10750_019_04034_x crossref_primary_10_1002_wat2_1355 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10980_016_0402_x crossref_primary_10_1002_fsh_10180 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecoleng_2019_06_004 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2019_02_037 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecoleng_2021_106367 crossref_primary_10_1002_eco_1852 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_limno_2021_125941 crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2664_13326 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12302_023_00736_1 crossref_primary_10_1051_e3sconf_20184002021 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10531_024_02921_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s12302_023_00756_x crossref_primary_10_1002_aqc_3616 crossref_primary_10_1139_cjfas_2023_0337 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jenvman_2024_120620 crossref_primary_10_1002_rra_3244 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_020_69796_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2016_11_215 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10750_016_2659_0 crossref_primary_10_3390_w8060240 crossref_primary_10_1002_nafm_10222 crossref_primary_10_1002_esp_5460 crossref_primary_10_1002_nafm_10863 crossref_primary_10_1002_iroh_202102098 crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2664_13013 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2021_150650 crossref_primary_10_1111_fwb_12927 crossref_primary_10_5194_hess_22_2717_2018 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2018_06_304 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2015_12_031 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10750_015_2482_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s12517_018_3843_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecoleng_2017_08_005 crossref_primary_10_3390_hydrobiology2020024 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10750_021_04701_y crossref_primary_10_1007_s10750_021_04589_8 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10750_021_04549_2 crossref_primary_10_1002_aqc_3352 crossref_primary_10_1111_rec_13433 crossref_primary_10_1111_rec_14123 crossref_primary_10_1111_rec_13394 crossref_primary_10_3390_w13233339 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecoleng_2024_107377 crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2664_12897 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10750_019_3908_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2017_07_161 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00958.x 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2006.tb00676.x 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01709.x 10.1111/fwb.12190 10.1007/s11356-012-1135-2 10.1139/f00-246 10.1899/08-171.1 10.1007/s00442-006-0508-y 10.2307/3236309 10.1073/pnas.0405895101 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.09.069 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[1247:MEASNF]2.0.CO;2 10.1002/aqc.875 10.1007/s10750-012-1326-3 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02082.x 10.1111/fwb.12211 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01722.x 10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.03.002 10.1002/rra.870 10.1139/F10-021 10.1890/04-1372 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00451.x 10.1007/s10750-013-1511-z 10.1007/s10750-012-1255-1 10.1073/pnas.95.25.14843 10.1080/0266476042000214501 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00855.x 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.09.027 10.1126/science.1109769 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01740.x 10.1890/10-0618.1 10.1139/cjfas-2014-0344 10.1007/s10531-011-0119-8 10.1371/journal.pone.0084741 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02026.x 10.1577/M06-169.1 10.1007/s12237-008-9129-5 10.1007/s10531-007-9313-0 10.1016/B978-0-12-374794-5.00003-1 10.1577/T05-296.1 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01426.x 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01611.x 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.04.029 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00920.x 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02599.x 10.1007/s10750-012-1294-7 10.1002/9781118452592 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.011 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01807.x 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.10.001 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.031 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.08.009 10.1111/1365-2664.12107 10.5751/ES-01292-100112 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00605.x 10.1016/j.limno.2013.10.003 10.1007/s00267-009-9350-4 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2015 British Ecological Society 2015 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2015 British Ecological Society Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Dec 2015 Journal of Applied Ecology © 2015 British Ecological Society Wageningen University & Research |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2015 British Ecological Society – notice: 2015 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2015 British Ecological Society – notice: Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Dec 2015 – notice: Journal of Applied Ecology © 2015 British Ecological Society – notice: Wageningen University & Research |
| CorporateAuthor | Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet |
| CorporateAuthor_xml | – name: Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet |
| DBID | FBQ AAYXX CITATION 7SN 7SS 7T7 7U7 8FD C1K FR3 M7N P64 RC3 7QH 7ST 7U6 7UA F1W H95 L.G 7S9 L.6 ADTPV AOWAS QVL |
| DOI | 10.1111/1365-2664.12531 |
| DatabaseName | AGRIS CrossRef Ecology Abstracts Entomology Abstracts (Full archive) Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A) Toxicology Abstracts Technology Research Database Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management Engineering Research Database Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C) Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts Genetics Abstracts Aqualine Environment Abstracts Sustainability Science Abstracts Water Resources Abstracts ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic SwePub SwePub Articles NARCIS:Publications |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef Entomology Abstracts Genetics Abstracts Technology Research Database Toxicology Abstracts Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C) Engineering Research Database Ecology Abstracts Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A) Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional Sustainability Science Abstracts ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources Aqualine Environment Abstracts Water Resources Abstracts AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | Entomology Abstracts CrossRef Entomology Abstracts AGRICOLA Entomology Abstracts |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: FBQ name: AGRIS url: http://www.fao.org/agris/Centre.asp?Menu_1ID=DB&Menu_2ID=DB1&Language=EN&Content=http://www.fao.org/agris/search?Language=EN sourceTypes: Publisher |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Agriculture Biology Ecology |
| EISSN | 1365-2664 |
| EndPage | 1527 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_library_wur_nl_wurpubs_498560 oai_slubar_slu_se_74934 4299207191 3877284211 10_1111_1365_2664_12531 JPE12531 43869329 US201600092040 |
| Genre | article Feature |
| GeographicLocations | Europe |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: Europe |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: European Union's Seventh Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration funderid: 282656 – fundername: EU‐funded Integrated Project REFORM (Restoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management) |
| GroupedDBID | -~X .3N .GA .Y3 05W 0R~ 10A 1OC 29J 2AX 2WC 31~ 33P 3SF 4.4 42X 50Y 50Z 51W 51X 52M 52N 52O 52P 52S 52T 52U 52W 52X 53G 5GY 5HH 5LA 5VS 66C 702 7PT 8-0 8-1 8-3 8-4 8-5 8UM 930 A03 AAESR AAEVG AAHBH AAHHS AAHKG AAHQN AAISJ AAKGQ AAMNL AANLZ AAONW AASGY AAXRX AAYCA AAYJJ AAZKR ABBHK ABCQN ABCUV ABEFU ABEML ABJNI ABPLY ABPPZ ABPVW ABSQW ABTAH ABTLG ABXSQ ACAHQ ACCFJ ACCZN ACFBH ACGFS ACHIC ACNCT ACPOU ACPRK ACSCC ACSTJ ACXBN ACXQS ADBBV ADEOM ADIZJ ADKYN ADMGS ADMHG ADOZA ADULT ADXAS ADZMN ADZOD AEEZP AEIGN AEIMD AENEX AEQDE AEUPB AEUYR AFAZZ AFBPY AFEBI AFFPM AFGKR AFRAH AFWVQ AFZJQ AGHNM AGUYK AHBTC AHXOZ AI. AILXY AITYG AIURR AIWBW AJBDE AJXKR ALAGY ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN ALVPJ AMBMR AMYDB ANHSF AQVQM AS~ ATUGU AUFTA AZBYB AZVAB BAFTC BFHJK BHBCM BMNLL BMXJE BNHUX BROTX BRXPI BY8 CAG CBGCD COF CS3 CUYZI D-E D-F DCZOG DEVKO DPXWK DR2 DRFUL DRSTM DU5 E3Z EBS ECGQY EJD F00 F01 F04 F5P FBQ G-S G.N GODZA GTFYD H.T H.X HF~ HGD HGLYW HQ2 HTVGU HZI HZ~ IHE IPSME IX1 J0M JAAYA JBMMH JBS JEB JENOY JHFFW JKQEH JLS JLXEF JPM JST K48 LATKE LC2 LC3 LEEKS LH4 LITHE LOXES LP6 LP7 LUTES LW6 LYRES MEWTI MK4 MRFUL MRSTM MSFUL MSSTM MXFUL MXSTM N04 N05 N9A NF~ O66 O9- OIG OK1 P2P P2W P2X P4D PQQKQ Q.N Q11 QB0 R.K ROL RX1 SA0 SUPJJ UB1 VH1 VOH W8V W99 WBKPD WH7 WHG WIH WIK WIN WNSPC WOHZO WQJ WXSBR WYISQ XG1 XIH YQT YYP ZY4 ZZTAW ~02 ~IA ~KM ~WT AAMMB AEFGJ AEYWJ AGXDD AGYGG AIDQK AIDYY 24P AEUQT AFPWT DOOOF EQZMY ESX JSODD WRC AAYXX CITATION 7SN 7SS 7T7 7U7 8FD C1K FR3 M7N P64 RC3 7QH 7ST 7U6 7UA F1W H95 L.G 7S9 L.6 ADTPV AOWAS 02 08R 0R 31 3N ABHUG ABPTK ABWRO ACXME ADACO ADAWD ADDAD ADZLD AESBF AGJLS AIFVT AIRJO AS CWIXF DWIUU GA HZ IA KM NF P4A PQEST QVL RIG UNR WT X XHC Y3 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c6551-708c1815e7939faf8199bff7e63f4759481059e9a41f7edf7f26b7698730d6dc3 |
| IEDL.DBID | DR2 |
| ISSN | 0021-8901 1365-2664 |
| IngestDate | Tue Jan 05 18:06:59 EST 2021 Thu Aug 21 06:40:58 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 18:29:39 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 15:07:00 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 25 10:45:35 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 25 10:51:21 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 02:58:36 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 22:54:03 EDT 2025 Wed Jan 22 16:27:04 EST 2025 Thu Jul 03 22:31:52 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 03 09:45:25 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 6 |
| Language | English |
| License | http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c6551-708c1815e7939faf8199bff7e63f4759481059e9a41f7edf7f26b7698730d6dc3 |
| Notes | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12531 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 14 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/1365-2664.12531 |
| PQID | 1736445945 |
| PQPubID | 37791 |
| PageCount | 10 |
| ParticipantIDs | wageningen_narcis_oai_library_wur_nl_wurpubs_498560 swepub_primary_oai_slubar_slu_se_74934 proquest_miscellaneous_1803162547 proquest_miscellaneous_1753466660 proquest_journals_1857748895 proquest_journals_1736445945 crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2664_12531 crossref_citationtrail_10_1111_1365_2664_12531 wiley_primary_10_1111_1365_2664_12531_JPE12531 jstor_primary_43869329 fao_agris_US201600092040 |
| ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX QVL |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | December 2015 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2015-12-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 12 year: 2015 text: December 2015 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | Oxford |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Oxford |
| PublicationTitle | The Journal of applied ecology |
| PublicationYear | 2015 |
| Publisher | Blackwell Scientific Publications John Wiley & Sons Ltd Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Blackwell Scientific Publications – name: John Wiley & Sons Ltd – name: Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| References | 2009; 44 2010; 55 2009; 46 2010; 18 2015; 72 2002; 12 2013; 61 2013; 20 2005; 21 2011; 56 2007; 30 2014; 66 2006; 135 2010; 67 2002; 47 2004; 31 2013; 58 2014; 729 2010; 29 2013; 50 2008; 28 2011; 20 2005; 308 2011; 21 2014; 9 1998; 95 2003; 40 2001; 58 1996; 7 2004; 101 2007; 203 2004; 41 2015; 58 2012 2013; 704 2008; 18 2006; 9 2008; 17 2005 2006; 150 1991 2007; 52 2014; 45 2010; 47 2009; 32 2011; 106 2014; 38 2011; 44 2015 2011; 48 2012; 49 2013 2005; 15 2007; 44 e_1_2_7_5_1 e_1_2_7_3_1 e_1_2_7_7_1 e_1_2_7_19_1 e_1_2_7_60_1 e_1_2_7_62_1 e_1_2_7_15_1 e_1_2_7_41_1 e_1_2_7_13_1 e_1_2_7_43_1 e_1_2_7_11_1 e_1_2_7_45_1 e_1_2_7_47_1 e_1_2_7_26_1 e_1_2_7_49_1 e_1_2_7_28_1 Hering D. (e_1_2_7_16_1) 2015 e_1_2_7_50_1 e_1_2_7_25_1 e_1_2_7_31_1 e_1_2_7_52_1 e_1_2_7_23_1 e_1_2_7_33_1 e_1_2_7_54_1 e_1_2_7_21_1 e_1_2_7_35_1 e_1_2_7_56_1 e_1_2_7_37_1 e_1_2_7_58_1 e_1_2_7_39_1 e_1_2_7_6_1 e_1_2_7_4_1 EEA (European Environment Agency) (e_1_2_7_9_1) 2012 e_1_2_7_8_1 e_1_2_7_18_1 e_1_2_7_40_1 e_1_2_7_61_1 e_1_2_7_2_1 e_1_2_7_14_1 e_1_2_7_42_1 e_1_2_7_12_1 e_1_2_7_44_1 e_1_2_7_10_1 e_1_2_7_46_1 e_1_2_7_48_1 e_1_2_7_27_1 e_1_2_7_29_1 Hicks B.J. (e_1_2_7_17_1) 1991 e_1_2_7_51_1 e_1_2_7_30_1 e_1_2_7_53_1 e_1_2_7_24_1 e_1_2_7_32_1 e_1_2_7_55_1 e_1_2_7_22_1 e_1_2_7_34_1 e_1_2_7_57_1 e_1_2_7_20_1 e_1_2_7_36_1 e_1_2_7_59_1 e_1_2_7_38_1 |
| References_xml | – volume: 67 start-page: 831 year: 2010 end-page: 841 article-title: Do in‐stream restoration structures enhance salmonid abundance? A meta‐analysis publication-title: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science – volume: 12 start-page: 1247 year: 2002 end-page: 1260 article-title: Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater publication-title: Ecological Applications – volume: 32 start-page: 1 year: 2009 end-page: 17 article-title: Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of application and applications in need of science publication-title: Estuaries and Coasts – volume: 41 start-page: 1140 year: 2004 end-page: 1154 article-title: The effect of instream rehabilitation structures on macroinvertebrates in lowland rivers publication-title: Journal of Applied Ecology – year: 2005 article-title: Restoring riparian ecosystems: the challenge of accommodating variability and designing restoration trajectories publication-title: Ecology and Society – volume: 46 start-page: 406 year: 2009 end-page: 416 article-title: Effects of re‐braiding measures on hydromorphology, floodplain vegetation, ground beetles and benthic invertebrates in mountain rivers publication-title: Journal of Applied Ecology – volume: 49 start-page: 202 year: 2012 end-page: 212 article-title: Macrophytes respond to reach‐scale river restorations publication-title: Journal of Applied Ecology – volume: 7 start-page: 593 year: 1996 end-page: 598 article-title: Do rivers function as corridors for plant dispersal? publication-title: Journal of Vegetation Science – volume: 15 start-page: 2060 year: 2005 end-page: 2071 article-title: Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? publication-title: Ecological Applications – volume: 50 start-page: 988 year: 2013 end-page: 997 article-title: Does it make economic sense to restore rivers for their ecosystem services? publication-title: Journal of Applied Ecology – volume: 31 start-page: 799 year: 2004 end-page: 815 article-title: Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions publication-title: Journal of Applied Statistics – volume: 44 start-page: 1089 year: 2007 end-page: 1094 article-title: Anthropogenic impacts on lake and stream ecosystems, and approaches to restoration publication-title: Journal of Applied Ecology – volume: 56 start-page: 1689 year: 2011 end-page: 1702 article-title: Hydromorphological restoration of running waters: effects on benthic invertebrate assemblages publication-title: Freshwater Biology – volume: 66 start-page: 141 year: 2014 end-page: 149 article-title: 10 years after the largest river restoration project in Northern Europe: hydromorphological changes on multiple scales in River Skjern publication-title: Ecological Engineering – volume: 101 start-page: 14132 year: 2004 end-page: 14137 article-title: Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services publication-title: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America – volume: 52 start-page: 752 year: 2007 end-page: 769 article-title: A strategy to assess river restoration success publication-title: Freshwater Biology – volume: 48 start-page: 1241 year: 2011 end-page: 1250 article-title: Dispersal as a limiting factor in the colonization of restored mountain streams by plants and macroinvertebrates publication-title: Journal of Applied Ecology – volume: 52 start-page: 616 year: 2007 end-page: 631 article-title: Constraints on recovery: using molecular methods to study connectivity of aquatic biota in rivers and streams publication-title: Freshwater Biology – volume: 18 start-page: 8 year: 2010 end-page: 19 article-title: Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to instream habitat restoration: applications of meta‐analysis to river restoration publication-title: Restoration Ecology – volume: 58 start-page: 2310 year: 2013 end-page: 2324 article-title: Impacts of land use at the catchment scale constrain the habitat benefits of stream riparian buffers publication-title: Freshwater Biology – volume: 38 start-page: 243 year: 2014 end-page: 255 article-title: Mountain river restoration measures and their success(ion): effects on river morphology, local species pool, and functional composition of three organism groups publication-title: Ecological Indicators – volume: 58 start-page: 311 year: 2015 end-page: 321 article-title: The effect of river restoration on fish, macroinvertebrates and macrophytes: a meta‐analysis publication-title: Ecological Indicators – volume: 203 start-page: 72 year: 2007 end-page: 86 article-title: Development of migration models for macroinvertebrates in the Zwalm river basin (Flanders, Belgium) as tools for restoration management publication-title: Ecological Modelling – volume: 58 start-page: 2050 year: 2013 end-page: 2064 article-title: Distance, dams and drift: what structures populations of an endangered, benthic stream fish? publication-title: Freshwater Biology – volume: 30 start-page: 145 year: 2007 end-page: 156 article-title: Restoration of Skjern River and its valley ‐ short‐term effects on river habitats, macrophytes and macroinvertebrates publication-title: Ecological Engineering – volume: 9 start-page: e84741 year: 2014 article-title: The Importance of the regional species pool, ecological species traits and local habitat conditions for the colonization of restored river reaches by fish publication-title: PLoS ONE – start-page: 483 year: 1991 end-page: 518 – volume: 52 start-page: 597 year: 2007 end-page: 615 article-title: Linking ecological theory with stream restoration publication-title: Freshwater Biology – volume: 135 start-page: 1398 year: 2006 end-page: 1408 article-title: Coho salmon smolt production from constructed and natural floodplain habitats publication-title: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society – volume: 28 start-page: 856 year: 2008 end-page: 890 article-title: Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques publication-title: North American Journal of Fisheries Management – volume: 9 start-page: 271 year: 2006 end-page: 278 article-title: Wind dispersal in freshwater wetlands: knowledge for conservation and restoration publication-title: Applied Vegetation Science – volume: 72 start-page: 466 year: 2015 end-page: 478 article-title: Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction publication-title: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science – volume: 55 start-page: 205 year: 2010 end-page: 222 article-title: River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? publication-title: Freshwater Biology – volume: 58 start-page: 282 year: 2001 end-page: 292 article-title: Density and size of juvenile salmonids in response to placement of large woody debris in western Oregon and Washington streams publication-title: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences – volume: 20 start-page: 1781 year: 2013 end-page: 1793 article-title: Effects of hydromorphology and riparian vegetation on the sediment quality of agricultural low‐order streams: consequences for stream restoration publication-title: Environmental Science and Pollution Research – volume: 704 start-page: 453 year: 2013 end-page: 474 article-title: A comparative review of recovery processes in rivers, lakes, estuarine and coastal waters publication-title: Hydrobiologia – start-page: 97 year: 2012 – volume: 21 start-page: 2007 year: 2011 end-page: 2015 article-title: River restoration success: a question of perception publication-title: Ecological Applications – volume: 21 start-page: 1075 year: 2005 end-page: 1094 article-title: River widening: an approach to re‐storing riparian habitats and plant species publication-title: River Research and Applications – volume: 44 start-page: 119 year: 2011 end-page: 209 article-title: From natural to degraded rivers and back again: a test of restoration ecology theory and practice publication-title: Advances in Ecological Research – volume: 729 start-page: 49 year: 2014 end-page: 60 article-title: Ecological effects of rehabilitation measures at the Austrian Danube: a meta‐analysis of fish assemblages publication-title: Hydrobiologia – volume: 106 start-page: 307 year: 2011 end-page: 331 article-title: Feedbacks between geomorphology and biota controlling Earth surface processes and landforms: a review of foundation concepts and current understandings publication-title: Earth‐Science Reviews – volume: 704 start-page: 489 year: 2013 end-page: 501 article-title: Upstream river morphology and riparian land use overrule local restoration effects on ecological status assessment publication-title: Hydrobiologia – volume: 61 start-page: 174 year: 2013 end-page: 181 article-title: Do adult and YOY fish benefit from river restoration measures? publication-title: Ecological Engineering – volume: 44 start-page: 745 year: 2009 end-page: 754 article-title: Re‐meandering german lowland streams: qualitative and quantitative effects of restoration measures on hydromorphology and macroinvertebrates publication-title: Environmental management – volume: 45 start-page: 50 year: 2014 end-page: 60 article-title: Improving restoration practice by deriving appropriate techniques from analysing the spatial organization of river networks publication-title: Limnologica – year: 2015 article-title: Data from: Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects publication-title: Dryad Digital Repository – volume: 40 start-page: 1060 year: 2003 end-page: 1076 article-title: Responses of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams publication-title: Journal of Applied Ecology – volume: 704 start-page: 475 year: 2013 end-page: 488 article-title: The impact of hydromorphological restoration on river ecological status: A comparison of fish, benthic invertebrates, and macrophytes publication-title: Hydrobiologia – volume: 47 start-page: 671 year: 2010 end-page: 680 article-title: A comparative analysis of restoration measures and their effects on hydromorphology and benthic invertebrates in 26 central and southern European rivers publication-title: Journal of Applied Ecology – volume: 150 start-page: 50 year: 2006 end-page: 60 article-title: Condition‐dependent dispersal of a patchily distributed riparian ground beetle in response to disturbance publication-title: Oecologia – volume: 29 start-page: 344 year: 2010 end-page: 358 article-title: Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges publication-title: Journal of the North American Benthological Society – volume: 308 start-page: 636 year: 2005 end-page: 637 article-title: Ecology ‐ synthesizing US river restoration efforts publication-title: Science – volume: 47 start-page: 559 year: 2002 end-page: 579 article-title: Geomorphic dynamics of floodplains: ecological implications and a potential modelling strategy publication-title: Freshwater Biology – volume: 95 start-page: 14843 year: 1998 end-page: 14847 article-title: Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past publication-title: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America – volume: 66 start-page: 150 year: 2014 end-page: 157 article-title: The Gelså River Restoration Revisited: community persistence of the macroinvertebrate community over an 11‐year period publication-title: Ecological Engineering – volume: 17 start-page: 3133 year: 2008 end-page: 3148 article-title: Assemblage structure and conservation value of spiders and carabid beetles from restored lowland river banks publication-title: Biodiversity & Conservation – volume: 18 start-page: 52 year: 2010 end-page: 64 article-title: Plant community recovery following restoration in temporally variable riparian wetlands publication-title: Restoration Ecology – volume: 18 start-page: 1200 year: 2008 end-page: 1216 article-title: Hydromorphological parameters indicating differences between single‐and multiple‐channel mountain rivers in Germany, in relation to their modification and recovery publication-title: Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems – volume: 20 start-page: 3147 year: 2011 end-page: 3164 article-title: Effects of stream restorations on riparian mesohabitats, vegetation and carabid beetles publication-title: Biodiversity and Conservation – year: 2013 – ident: e_1_2_7_15_1 doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00958.x – ident: e_1_2_7_51_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2006.tb00676.x – ident: e_1_2_7_30_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01709.x – ident: e_1_2_7_43_1 doi: 10.1111/fwb.12190 – ident: e_1_2_7_56_1 doi: 10.1007/s11356-012-1135-2 – ident: e_1_2_7_46_1 doi: 10.1139/f00-246 – ident: e_1_2_7_53_1 doi: 10.1899/08-171.1 – ident: e_1_2_7_4_1 doi: 10.1007/s00442-006-0508-y – start-page: 97 volume-title: European Waters – Assessment of Status and Pressures year: 2012 ident: e_1_2_7_9_1 – ident: e_1_2_7_26_1 doi: 10.2307/3236309 – ident: e_1_2_7_55_1 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0405895101 – ident: e_1_2_7_12_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.09.069 – ident: e_1_2_7_40_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x – ident: e_1_2_7_3_1 doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[1247:MEASNF]2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_7_20_1 doi: 10.1002/aqc.875 – year: 2015 ident: e_1_2_7_16_1 article-title: Data from: Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects publication-title: Dryad Digital Repository – ident: e_1_2_7_33_1 doi: 10.1007/s10750-012-1326-3 – ident: e_1_2_7_35_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02082.x – ident: e_1_2_7_60_1 doi: 10.1111/fwb.12211 – ident: e_1_2_7_18_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01722.x – ident: e_1_2_7_7_1 doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.03.002 – ident: e_1_2_7_44_1 doi: 10.1002/rra.870 – ident: e_1_2_7_61_1 doi: 10.1139/F10-021 – ident: e_1_2_7_32_1 doi: 10.1890/04-1372 – ident: e_1_2_7_37_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00451.x – ident: e_1_2_7_49_1 doi: 10.1007/s10750-013-1511-z – ident: e_1_2_7_13_1 doi: 10.1007/s10750-012-1255-1 – ident: e_1_2_7_14_1 doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.25.14843 – ident: e_1_2_7_11_1 doi: 10.1080/0266476042000214501 – ident: e_1_2_7_28_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00855.x – ident: e_1_2_7_36_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.09.027 – ident: e_1_2_7_5_1 doi: 10.1126/science.1109769 – ident: e_1_2_7_62_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01740.x – ident: e_1_2_7_23_1 doi: 10.1890/10-0618.1 – ident: e_1_2_7_48_1 doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2014-0344 – ident: e_1_2_7_24_1 doi: 10.1007/s10531-011-0119-8 – ident: e_1_2_7_52_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084741 – ident: e_1_2_7_6_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02026.x – ident: e_1_2_7_45_1 doi: 10.1577/M06-169.1 – ident: e_1_2_7_39_1 doi: 10.1007/s12237-008-9129-5 – ident: e_1_2_7_31_1 doi: 10.1007/s10531-007-9313-0 – ident: e_1_2_7_10_1 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374794-5.00003-1 – ident: e_1_2_7_47_1 doi: 10.1577/T05-296.1 – ident: e_1_2_7_50_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01426.x – ident: e_1_2_7_21_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01611.x – start-page: 483 volume-title: Influence of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats year: 1991 ident: e_1_2_7_17_1 – ident: e_1_2_7_8_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.04.029 – ident: e_1_2_7_42_1 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00920.x – ident: e_1_2_7_54_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02599.x – ident: e_1_2_7_59_1 doi: 10.1007/s10750-012-1294-7 – ident: e_1_2_7_58_1 doi: 10.1002/9781118452592 – ident: e_1_2_7_27_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.011 – ident: e_1_2_7_22_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01807.x – ident: e_1_2_7_29_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.10.001 – ident: e_1_2_7_25_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.031 – ident: e_1_2_7_41_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.08.009 – ident: e_1_2_7_2_1 doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12107 – ident: e_1_2_7_19_1 doi: 10.5751/ES-01292-100112 – ident: e_1_2_7_38_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00605.x – ident: e_1_2_7_57_1 doi: 10.1016/j.limno.2013.10.003 – ident: e_1_2_7_34_1 doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9350-4 |
| SSID | ssj0009533 |
| Score | 2.4227087 |
| Snippet | Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is... 1. Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is... Summary Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river... Summary Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river... |
| SourceID | wageningen swepub proquest crossref wiley jstor fao |
| SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Enrichment Source Index Database Publisher |
| StartPage | 1518 |
| SubjectTerms | aquatic habitat Aquatic habitats aquatic invertebrates Aquatic macrophytes Aquatic organisms Aquatic plants Benthic fauna Benthic invertebrates Biosphere Biota Ecology Ekologi Environmental restoration field experimentation Fish Floodplain Floodplains Flow patterns Food web food webs Ground beetles Habitats Insects Invertebrates macrophytes Nitrogen Restoration Riparian vegetation Rivers Stable isotopes Vegetation |
| Title | Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects |
| URI | https://www.jstor.org/stable/43869329 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2F1365-2664.12531 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1736445945 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1857748895 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1753466660 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1803162547 https://res.slu.se/id/publ/74934 http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F498560 |
| Volume | 52 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1ta9UwFA46ELYPvkzHqlMiiPill942r34bsjEGiqgX_BaSNnXitVeaW8b2T_y3npO-uDt8QfzU0jShSc85eZo-eQ4hzzyTsmJinuYVdynztU1VqarUCtQrYyVncdf76zfiZMFOP_KRTYh7YXp9iGnBDT0jxmt0cOvCFScf-FmCzWCOjjup8QrConf5FdndPpk8EhEUTH2DuA9yea7V35iXbtZ2NRIUN6FnLye6Q7bPwd2buP9pE9bGeen4DnFjj3o6ypdZt3az8vKa2ON_dfkuuT2gVnrYm9k9csM3u2Tn8FM7KHf4XXKrz2p5cZ98R8Wr1gYkVFPAlxQZjIGuahoi76uhmL1lfUZtU9HPqGDr7VeKguEAfKlvztAQcdGSAqCmLRJHaBsT4EQroqGLSR5fUksj_45GiVxsP8_o-Hdho8aw3BQekMXx0YdXJ-mQASItBUC5VGaqBAjCPUQRXdsa4It2dS29KGoUKmQK4aHXls3hYlXLOhdOCq0gblWiKos9stWsGr9PaO404yoruVeOeV1YK6xVotJe2ix3PCGz8f2bcpBHxywdSzN-JuHoGxx9E0c_IS-mCt96ZZDf37oPBmUsvJVgFu9zVPVDsSsIoAnZi1Y2NcEKJQBT64QcjGZnhrASzFwWgF-h3_zXxYoDmldKQ_HTqRjiBf4Eso1fddgEL8D_hMj-cI-CUA8fxkwm5Hlv8dPzoRx5WHbOtngwwRvJdMESUvz0CNNgHqwQ7x3s2px3rWmWeIDWgmFacXyE3t7_NoDm9O1RPHn4rxUekW0Ybt4TkA7I1rrt_GOAkWv3JEaKH6sHZog |
| linkProvider | Wiley-Blackwell |
| linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3bbtQwELWgCNE-cClUDRQwEkK8ZJVNbMfmrYJWS2krBF2pb5aTOBSxzVbxRhX8CX_LjHNht-IixFNW64tiZ2Z84hyfIeS5ZWlaMDEO44JnIbOlCWUui9AI1CtjOWf-1PvRsZhM2cEpP106C9PqQwwbbugZPl6jg-OG9JKXdwQtwUawSONR6huY1xv18998iJeEd9t08khFkLD4dfI-yOa50sHKynS9NPOeorgKPltB0Q2yfgkOX_kTUKvA1q9M-3dI3o-pJaR8GTWLbJR_uyL3-H-Dvktud8CV7raWdo9cs9Um2dj9VHfiHXaT3GwTW369T76j6FVtHHKqKUBMiiRGR-cldZ76VVFM4LI4o6Yq6GcUsbXmnKJmOGBfaqsztEXct6SAqWmN3BFa-xw43pCoa3yex1fUUE_Bo14lF_uPI9p_YFhp0e04uQdkur938noSdkkgwlwAmgvTSOaAQriFQKJKUwKCUVlZplYkJWoVMokI0SrDxvBnUaZlLLJUKAmhqxBFnmyRtWpe2W1C40wxLqOcW5kxqxJjhDFSFMqmJoozHpBRbwA67xTSMVHHTPdvSjj7Gmdf-9kPyMuhwUUrDvL7qttgUdrAU3F6-jFGYT_Uu4IYGpAtb2ZDFyyRAmC1CshOb3e6iyxOj9MEICyMm_-6WHIA9FIqKH42FEPIwO9AprLzBrvgCbigENEf6kiI9vBuzNKAvGhNfrg_VCR3syYzNV60szplKmEBSX66hK4wFZbzdTvD1pdNrasZXqA3p5mSHG-hNfi_TaA-eL_nfzz81wZPya3JydGhPnx7_O4RWYep5y0faYesLerGPgZUucie-LDxA-_6aqQ |
| linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3bbtQwELWgCNQ-cCmtGihgJIR4ySqb2I7NW0W7KgWqCliJN8tJbIpYslW8UQV_wt8y4yRLt-IixFNW64tiZ2Z84hyfIeSJZXleMTGO04oXMbPOxLKUVWwE6pWxkrNw6v3NsTicsqMPfGAT4lmYTh9iueGGnhHiNTr4WeUuOHnPzxJsBGs0nqS-xkSiMHvD_tv0gu5ul00emQgS1r5e3QfJPJc6WFmYrjozHxiKq9iz0xPdIOvn4O91OAC1imvDwjS5RYphSB0f5fOoXRSj8tsltcf_GvNtcrOHrXSvs7M75IqtN8nG3seml-6wm-R6l9by613yHSWvGuORUU0BYFKkMHo6d9QH4ldNMX3L4pSauqKfUMLWmi8UFcMB-VJbn6Il4q4lBURNG2SO0CZkwAlmRH0bsjw-p4YGAh4NGrnYf5rQ4fPCSot-v8lvkenk4P2Lw7hPARGXArBcnCeyBAzCLYQR5YwD_KIK53IrModKhUwiPrTKsDH8WbncpaLIhZIQuCpRldk2Wavntd0hNC0U4zIpuZUFsyozRhgjRaVsbpK04BEZDc9fl70-OqbpmOnhPQlnX-Ps6zD7EXm2bHDWSYP8vuoOGJQ28FS8nr5LUdYP1a4ggkZkO1jZsguWSQGgWkVkdzA73ccVr8d5BgAWxs1_XSw5wHkpFRQ_XhZDwMCvQKa28xa74Bk4oBDJH-pIiPXwZszyiDztLH55f6hH7mdtYRq8aG91zlTGIpL99AhdYyIsH-r2dq3P20bXM7xAb14zJTneQmfvf5tAfXRyEH7c-9cGj8iNk_2Jfv3y-NV9sg4zzzsy0i5ZWzStfQCQclE8DEHjB03maVM |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Contrasting+the+roles+of+section+length+and+instream+habitat+enhancement+for+river+restoration+success%3A+a+field+study+of+20+European+restoration+projects&rft.jtitle=The+Journal+of+applied+ecology&rft.au=Hering%2C+Daniel&rft.au=Aroviita%2C+Jukka&rft.au=Baattrup%E2%80%90Pedersen%2C+Annette&rft.au=Brabec%2C+Karel&rft.date=2015-12-01&rft.issn=0021-8901&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=6+p.1518-1527&rft.spage=1518&rft.epage=1527&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2F1365-2664.12531&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0021-8901&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0021-8901&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0021-8901&client=summon |