Cited by 48Hydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologySoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics

Ecosystem responses to channel restoration decline with stream size in urban river networks

Levi, Peter S., McIntyre, Peter B.·2020·Ecological Applications

Abstract

Urban streams are often severely impaired due to channelization, high loads of nutrients and contaminants, and altered land cover in the watershed. Physical restoration of stream channels is widely used to offset the effects of urbanization on streams, with the goal of improving ecosystem structure and function. However, these efforts are rarely guided by strategic analysis of the factors that mediate the responsiveness of stream ecosystems to restoration. Given that ecological gradients from headwater streams to mainstem rivers are ubiquitous, we posited that location within a river network could mediate the benefits of channel restoration. We studied existing stream restorations in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to determine (1) whether restorations improve ecosystem function (e.g., nutrient uptake, whole-stream metabolism) and (2) how ecosystem responses vary by position in the urban river network. We quantified a suite of physicochemical and biological metrics in six pairs of contiguous restored and concrete channel reaches, spanning gradients in baseflow discharge (19-196 L/s) and river network position (i.e., headwater to mainstem). Hydrology differed dramatically between the restored and concrete reaches; water velocity was reduced 2- to 13-fold while water residence time was 50-5,000% greater in adjacent restored reaches. Restored reaches had shorter nutrient uptake lengths for ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate, as well as higher whole-stream metabolism. Furthermore, the majori…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eap.2107

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lotic and lentic elements of a watershed may strongly vary in the outcomes of restoration projects, depending on their specific hydrologic and biological conditions.

    “Therefore, lotic and lentic ele­ ments of a watershed may strongly vary in the outcomes of restoration projects, depending on their specific hydrologic and biological condi­ tions (Levi and McIntyre, 2020).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levi, P. S., & McIntyre, P. B.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Levi, Peter S.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-03-23
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
e02107-e02107
ISSN
  • 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5582
OpenAlex
W3008168405
Cited by
48
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4
FWCI
4.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecological Applications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (M03029P23)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Keywords
channel restoration, urban rivers, stream size, headwater streams, nutrient uptake, water residence time, water velocity, autotrophy, gross primary productivity, ecosystem functioning, restoration planning, channelization, Milwaukee
MeSH terms
Nitrates, Water, Wisconsin, Ecosystem, Rivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review