Premium
Diverging response patterns of terrestrial and aquatic species to hydromorphological restoration
Author(s) -
Pilotto Francesca,
Tonkin Jonathan D.,
Januschke Kathrin,
Lorenz Armin W.,
Jourdan Jonas,
Sundermann Andrea,
Hering Daniel,
Stoll Stefan,
Haase Peter
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
conservation biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.2
H-Index - 222
eISSN - 1523-1739
pISSN - 0888-8892
DOI - 10.1111/cobi.13176
Subject(s) - biota , ecology , biological dispersal , macrophyte , habitat , restoration ecology , species richness , floodplain , environmental science , biology , population , sociology , demography
Although experiences with ecological restoration continue to accumulate, the effectiveness of restoration for biota remains debated. We complemented a traditional taxonomic analysis approach with information on 56 species traits to uncover the responses of 3 aquatic (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes) and 2 terrestrial (carabid beetles, floodplain vegetation) biotic groups to 43 hydromorphological river restoration projects in Germany. All taxonomic groups responded positively to restoration, as shown by increased taxonomic richness (10–164%) and trait diversity (habitat, dispersal and mobility, size, form, life history, and feeding groups) (15–120%). Responses, however, were stronger for terrestrial than aquatic biota, and, contrary to our expectation, taxonomic responses were stronger than those of traits. Nevertheless, trait analysis provided mechanistic insights into the drivers of community change following restoration. Trait analysis for terrestrial biota indicated restoration success was likely enhanced by lateral connectivity and reestablishment of dynamic processes in the floodplain. The weaker response of aquatic biota suggests recovery was hindered by the persistence of stressors in the aquatic environment, such as degraded water quality, dispersal constraints, and insufficient hydromorphological change. Therefore, river restoration requires combined local‐ and regional‐scale approaches to maximize the response of both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Due to the contrasting responses of aquatic and terrestrial biota, the planning and assessment of river restoration outcomes should consider effects on both components of riverine landscapes.