Revisiting restored river reaches-Assessing change of aquatic and riparian communities after five years
Abstract
Hydromorphological restructuring of river sections, i.e. river restoration measures, often has little effects on aquatic biota, even in case of strong habitat alterations. It is often supposed that the biotic response is simply delayed as species require additional time to recolonize the newly generated habitats and to establish populations. To identify and specify the supposed lag time between restoration and biotic response, we investigated 19 restored river reaches twice in a five-year interval. The sites were restored one to ten years prior to the first sampling. We sampled three aquatic (fish, benthic invertebrates, macrophytes) and two riparian organism groups (ground beetles and riparian vegetation) and analyzed changes in assemblage composition and biotic metrics. With the exception of ground beetle assemblages, we observed no significant changes in richness and abundance metrics or metrics used for biological assessment. However, indicator taxa for near-natural habitat conditions in the riparian zone (indicators for regular inundation in plants and river bank specialists in beetles) improved significantly in the five-year interval. Contrary to general expectations in river restoration planning, we neither observed a distinct succession of aquatic communities nor a general trend towards "good ecological status" over time. Furthermore, multiple linear regression models revealed that neither the time since restoration nor the morphological status had a significant effec…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Multi-species communities require additional time to recolonize rapidly altered habitats/niche and establish viable populations.
“multi-species communities require additional time to recolonize rapidly altered habitats/niche and establish viable pop ulations (Lorenz et al., 2018).”
From A meta-analysis of environmental responses to freshwater ecosystem restoration in China (1987–2018) (2023) · cites this paper as Lorenz et al., 2018
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A meta-analysis of environmental responses to freshwater ecosystem restoration in China (1987–2018)
Fu, H., Xu, J., Zhang, H., García Molinos, J., Zhang, M., Klaar, M., & Brown, L. E. (2023) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120589 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lorenz, A. W., Haase, P., Januschke, K., Sundermann, A., & Hering, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
- Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt/M (DE)
- Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Lorenz, Armin W.
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-02
- Volume
- 613-614
- Pages
- 1185-1195
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2759745013
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 2.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- German Federal Environmental Foundation (AZ 31007-33/2)
- Kurt Lange Foundation
- Kreissparkasse Foundation Gelnhausen
- Hessian Foundation for Nature Conservation (AZ: SHN 1059)
- FP7 (282656)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
- Keywords
- river restoration, aquatic communities, riparian communities, recolonization, fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic plants, ground beetles, riparian vegetation, indicator taxa, ecological status, restoration targets
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