Cited by 63Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFish Ecology and Management Studies

Revisiting restored river reaches-Assessing change of aquatic and riparian communities after five years

Lorenz, Armin W., Haase, Peter, Januschke, Kathrin, Sundermann, Andrea, Hering, Daniel·2018·Science of The Total Environment

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.188

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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