Habitat Restoration in the Context of Watershed Prioritization: The Ecological Performance of Urban Stream Restoration Projects in Portland, Oregon

River Research and Applications

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 755-766

  Rios Touma, B ^a,d   Prescott, C ^b   Axtell, S ^b   Kondolf, G M ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Bureau of Environmental Services   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSIDAD TECNOLÓGICA INDOAMÉRICA   (Ecuador)

Author keywords

Bio monitoring; Habitat enhancement; Macroinvertebrates; North west streams; Restoration success; Tryon Creek

Indexed keywords

INVERTEBRATA;

EID: 84935752032     PISSN: 15351459     EISSN: 15351467     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rra.2769     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Anderson NH, Sedell JR. 1979. Detritus processing by macroinvertebrates in stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology 24: 351-377.
2. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder B, Stribling J. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers. USEPA: Washington.
3. Bêche L. 2004. Long-term variability, disturbance, and biological traits of aquatic invertebrates in Mediterranean-climate streams. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
4. Bêche LA, Resh VH. 2007. Short-term climatic trends affect the temporal variability of macroinvertebrates in California 'Mediterranean' streams. Freshwater Biology 52: 2317-2339.
5. Bêche LA, Statzner B. 2009. Richness gradients of stream invertebrates across the USA: taxonomy- and trait-based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 18: 3909-3930.
6. de Bello F, Lavergne S, Meynard CN, Leps J, Thuiller W. 2010. The partitioning of diversity: showing Theseus a way out of the labyrinth. Journal of Vegetation Science 21: 992-1000.
7. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological) 57: 289-300.
8. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O'Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E. 2005. Ecology-synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308: 636-637.
9. BES (Bureau of Environmental Services, City of Portland). 2005a. Framework for integrated management of watershed health. http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=33528&. Accesed 2 July 2012.
10. BES (Bureau of Environmental Services, City of Portland). 2005b. Portland watershed management plan http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/107808
11. BES (Bureau of Environmental Services, City of Portland). 2005c. Fanno and Tryon Creeks watershed management plan.
12. BES (Bureau of Environmental Services, City of Portland). 2007. Fanno-Tryon macroinvertebrate monitoring plan. http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/264454.
13. Blakely TJ, Harding JS, McIntosh AR, Winterbourn MJ. 2006. Barriers to the recovery of aquatic insect communities in urban streams. Freshwater Biology 51: 1634-1645.
14. Bradbury W, Nehlsen W, Nickelson TE, Moore KMS, Hughes RM, Heller D, Nicholas J, Bottom DL, Weaver WE, Beschta RL. 1995. Handbook for Prioritizing Watershed Protection and Restoration to Aid Recovery of Native Salmon. Pacific Rivers Council: Eugene, Oregon.
15. Brooks SS, Palmer MA, Cardinale BJ, Swan CM, Ribblett S. 2002. Assessing stream ecosystem rehabilitation: limitations of community structure data. Restoration Ecology 10: 156-168.
16. Carter JL, Resh VH. 2001. After site selection and before data analysis: sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 658-682.
17. Carter JL, Resh VH. 2013. Analytical approaches used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring programs of state agencies in the USA. Menlo Park, California: United States Geological Survey Report.
18. Chessel D, Dufour AB, Dray S. 2013. R package ade4(v 1.5-2): analysis of ecological data: exploratory and Euclidean methods in environmental sciences. CRAN Repository.
19. Dolédec S, Statzner B. 1994. Theoretical habitat templets, species traits, and species richness: 548 plant and animal species in the Upper Rhône River and its floodplain. Freshwater Biology 31: 523-538.
20. ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute: Redlands, CA.
21. Friberg N, Kronvang B, Hansen H, Svendsen LM. 1998. Long-term, habitat-specific response of a macroinvertebrate community to river restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 87-99.
22. Graça MAS. 2001. The role of invertebrates on leaf litter decomposition in streams-a review. International Review of Hydrobiology 86: 383-393.
23. Inman DL. 1952. Measures for describing the size distribution of sediments. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 22: 125-145.
24. Jackson ST, Hobbs RJ. 2009. Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history. Science 325: 567-569.
25. Karr JR, Chu EW. 2000. Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiologia 422: 1-14.
26. Kiffney PM, Richardson JS, Bull JP. 2003. Responses of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 1060-1076.
27. Kondolf GM. 1997. Application of the pebble count notes on purpose, method, and variants. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33: 79-87.
28. Kondolf GM, Li S. 1992. The pebble count technique for quantifying surface bed material size in instream flow studies. Rivers 3: 80-87.
29. Lepori F, Palm D, Brännäs E, Malmqvist B. 2005. Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological Applications 15: 2060-2071.
30. Leps J, de Bello F, Lavorel S, Berman S. 2006. Quantifying and interpreting functional diversity of natural communities: practical considerations matter. Preslia 78: 481-501.
31. Louhi P, Mykrä H, Paavola R, Huusko A, Vehanen T, Mäki-Petäys A, Muotka T 2011. Twenty years of stream restoration in Finland: little response by benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Ecological Applications 21: 1950-1961.
32. Madin IP. 2009. Portland, Oregon, geology by tram, train, and foot. Preprint. Oregon Geology 69: 1-20.
33. Mendez P. 2007. Life history of benthic macroinvertebrates: studies and applications to freshwater ecology. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
34. Miller SW, Budy P, Schmidt JC. 2009. Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to in-stream habitat restoration: applications of meta-analysis to river restoration. Restoration Ecology 18: 8-19.
35. Moerke AH, Lamberti GA. 2004. Restoring stream ecosystems: lessons from a midwestern state. Restoration Ecology 12: 327-334.
36. Muotka T, Laasonen P. 2002. Ecosystem recovery in restored headwater streams: the role of enhanced leaf retention. Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 145-156.
37. Nakano D, Nakamura F. 2006. Responses of macroinvertebrate communities to river restoration in a channelized segment of the Shibetsu River, Northern Japan. River Research and Applications 22: 681-689.
38. Nehlsen W. 1997. Prioritizing watersheds in Oregon for salmon restoration. Restoration Ecology 5: 25-33.
39. Palmer M, Bernhardt E, Allan J, Lake P, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad SJ. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 208-217.
40. Palmer MA, Menninger HL, Bernhardt E. 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology 55:205-222.
41. Plafkin JL, Barbour MT, Porter KD, Gross SK, Hughes RM. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency: Washington DC, USA.
42. Purcell AH, Friedrich C, Resh VH. 2002. An assessment of a small urban stream restoration project in northern California. Restoration Ecology 10: 685-694.
43. Rao CR. 1982. Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients-a unified approach. Theoretical Population Biology 21: 24-43.
44. Richardson JS, Bilby RE, Bondar CA. 2005. Organic matter dynamics in small streams of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41: 921-934.
45. Roni P, Beechie TJ, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1-20.
46. 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.
47. Schiff R, Benoit G, MacBroom J. 2011. Evaluating stream restoration: a case study from two partially developed 4th order Connecticut, U.S.A. streams and evaluation monitoring strategies. River Research and Applications 27: 431-460.
48. Siccama TG, Bormann FH, Likens GE. 1970. The Hubbard Brook ecosystem study: productivity, nutrients, and phytosociology of the herbaceous layer. Ecological Monographs 40: 389-402.
49. Statzner B, Bis B, Dolédec S, Usseglio-Polatera P. 2001. Perspectives for biomonitoring at large spatial scales: a unified measure for the functional composition of invertebrate communities in European running waters. Basic and Applied Ecology 2: 73-85.
50. Sundermann A, Stoll S, Haase P. 2011a. River restoration success depends on the species pool of the immediate surroundings. Ecological Applications 21: 1962-1971.
51. Sundermann A, Antons C, Cron N, Lorenz AW, Hering D, Haase P. 2011b. Hydromorphological restoration of running waters: effects on benthic invertebrate assemblages. Freshwater Biology 56: 1689-1702.
52. Townsend CR, Hildrew AG. 1994. Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river systems. Freshwater Biology 31: 265-275.
53. Trimble DE. 1963. Geology of Portland, Oregon, and adjacent areas. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1119: 119p.
54. Tullos DD, Penrose DL, Jennings GD, Cope WG. 2009. Analysis of functional traits in reconfigured channels: implications for the bioassessment and disturbance of river restoration. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28: 80-92.
55. USEPA. 2007. National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Field Operations Manual. EPA-841-B-07-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC.
56. Usseglio-Polatera P, Bournaud M, Richoux P, Tachet H. 2000. Biological and ecological traits of benthic freshwater macroinvertebrates: relationships and definition of groups with similar traits. Freshwater Biology 43: 175-205.
57. Vanoni VA. (ed). 1975. Sedimentation Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers: NY, USA.
58. Violin CR, Cada P, Sudduth EB, Hassett BA, Penrose DL, Bernhardt ES. 2011. Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems. Ecological Applications 21: 1932-1949.
59. Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Meyer JL, Webster JR. 1997. Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science 277: 102-104.
60. Warfe DM, Barmuta LA, Wotherspoon S. 2008. Quantifying habitat structure: surface convolution and living space for species in complex environments. Oikos 117: 1764-1773.
61. 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(10): 1-12. doi: 10.1029/2005WR003985
62. Wolman MG. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 35(6): 951-956.