Premium
Does restoration work? It depends on how we measure success
Author(s) -
Mahlum Shad,
Cote David,
Wiersma Yolanda F.,
Pennell Curtis,
Adams Blair
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
restoration ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.214
H-Index - 100
eISSN - 1526-100X
pISSN - 1061-2971
DOI - 10.1111/rec.12649
Subject(s) - culvert , environmental science , fish <actinopterygii> , transponder (aeronautics) , habitat , computer science , fishery , ecology , geography , geology , meteorology , biology , geotechnical engineering
The restoration of 4 partial stream barriers was evaluated in watersheds of Terra Nova National Park, Newfoundland, Canada from 2009 to 2011. Brook trout ( n = 462) were tagged and tracked moving through our study sites using passive‐integrated transponder telemetry and the restoration actions were assessed using 3 different measures: passage success rates; the range of passable flows; and the availability of passable flows. We considered the observed results within a before‐after‐control‐impact (BACI) design that included reference reaches and pre‐restoration observations. The conclusions of BACI analyses were also contrasted with those that would have been obtained from commonly used before‐after (B‐A) or control‐impact (C‐I) study designs. While the restoration actions changed hydrological conditions in a way that should facilitate fish passage, our biological measures indicated that success was variable across culverts and within culverts depending on the measure evaluated. Furthermore, the natural temporal and spatial variability of fish movements often resulted in different conclusions between the more robust BACI design and the more commonly used B‐A and C‐I designs. Our results demonstrate that restoration of partial barriers may not always yield dramatic improvements. Furthermore, without suitable controls, the chances of drawing false conclusions regarding restorations in temporally and spatially dynamic systems are substantial.