Developing a broader scientific foundation for river restoration: Columbia River food webs
Open accessAbstract
Well-functioning food webs are fundamental for sustaining rivers as ecosystems and maintaining associated aquatic and terrestrial communities. The current emphasis on restoring habitat structure—without explicitly considering food webs—has been less successful than hoped in terms of enhancing the status of targeted species and often overlooks important constraints on ecologically effective restoration. We identify three priority food web-related issues that potentially impede successful river restoration: uncertainty about habitat carrying capacity, proliferation of chemicals and contaminants, and emergence of hybrid food webs containing a mixture of native and invasive species. Additionally, there is the need to place these food web considerations in a broad temporal and spatial framework by understanding the consequences of altered nutrient, organic matter (energy), water, and thermal sources and flows, reconnecting critical habitats and their food webs, and restoring for changing environments. As an illustration, we discuss how the Columbia River Basin, site of one of the largest aquatic/riparian restoration programs in the United States, would benefit from implementing a food web perspective. A food web perspective for the Columbia River would complement ongoing approaches and enhance the ability to meet the vision and legal obligations of the US Endangered Species Act, the Northwest Power Act (Fish and Wildlife Program), and federal treaties with Northwest Indian Tribes while meeting fundamental needs for improved river management.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The LCRE is affected by upstream dam operations, runoff conditions, hatchery practices, and other factors and by ocean conditions and tributary watersheds.
“The LCRE is affected by upstream dam operations, runoff conditions, hatchery practices, and other factors and by ocean conditions and tributary watersheds (Naiman et al. 2012).”
From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Naiman et al. 2012
The Setting section (page unavailable) says dams and water storage altered downstream flows and food webs in the estuary; the Rivers section describes effects of hatchery releases. The paper also discusses tributary inputs and marine-derived food, but the passages do not establish that ocean conditions affect the lower Columbia River estuary or specifically identify runoff conditions as a driver. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Stewart, G. B., Bayliss, H. R., Showler, D. A., Sutherland, W. J., & Pullin, A. S. (2009) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/07-1311.1 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- Bernhardt ES, et al. (2005) Ecology. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308(5722):636-637.
- Palmer MA, Filoso S (2009) Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 325(5940): 575-576.
- Good TP, Harms TK, Ruckelshaus MH (2003) Misuse of checklist assessments in endangered species recovery efforts. Conserv Ecol 7(2):12.
- Terborgh J (2010) Trophic Cascades, ed Estes JA (Island Press, Washington, DC).
- Rooney N, McCann KS (2012) Integrating food web di- versity, structure and stability. Trends Ecol Evol 27(1): 40-46.
- McCann KS, Rooney N (2009) The more food webs change, the more they stay the same. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364(1524):1789-1801.
- Carpenter SR, Chisholm SW, Krebs CJ, Schindler DW, Wright RF (1995) Ecosystem experiments. Science 269 (5222):324-327.
- Ellis BK, et al. (2011) Long-term effects of a trophic cascade in a large lake ecosystem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(3):1070-1075.
- Naiman RJ, Décamps H, McClain ME (2005) Riparia: Ecology, Conservation and Management of Streamside Communities (Elsevier/Academic, San Diego).
- Jardine TD, et al. (2012) Fish mediate high food web connectivity in the lower reaches of a tropical flood- plain river. Oecologia 168(3):829-838.
- Williams RN, ed (2006) Return to the River: Restoring Salmon to the Columbia River (Elsevier, Amsterdam).
- Grossman GD (2012) Population regulation of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in Hunt Creek, Michigan: A 50-year study. Freshwat Biol, 10.1111/j.1365- 2427.2012.02806.x. · DOI
- Paquet PJ, et al. (2011) Hatcheries, conservation, and sustainable fisheries-achieving multiple goals: Re- sults of the hatchery scientific review group's Columbia River Basin review. Fisheries (Bethesda, Md) 36: 547-561.
- Carey MP, Sanderson BL, Barnas KA, Olden JD (2012) Native invaders-challenges for science, management, policy, and society. Front Ecol Environ, 10.1890/110060. · DOI
- Focazio MJ, et al. (2008) A national reconnaissance for pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater con- taminants in the United States-II) Untreated drinking water sources. Sci Total Environ 402(2-3):201-216.
- Relyea R, Hoverman J (2006) Assessing the ecology in ecotoxicology: A review and synthesis in freshwater systems. Ecol Lett 9:1157-1171.
- Naiman RJ, Helfield JM, Bartz KK, Drake DC, Honea JM (2009) Challenges for Diadromous Fishes in a Dynamic Global Environment, Symposium 69, eds Haro AJ, et al. (American Fish Society, Bethesda, MD) pp 395-425.
- Krümmel EM, et al. (2003) Delivery of pollutants by spawning salmon. Nature 425(6955):255-256.
- Wiese FK, Parrish JK, Thompson CW, Maranto C (2008) Ecosystem-based management of predator-prey rela- tionships: Piscivorous birds and salmonids. Ecol Appl 18(3):681-700.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration
Diefenderfer, H. L., Johnson, G. E., Thom, R. M., Buenau, K. E., Weitkamp, L. A., Woodley, C. M., Borde, A. B., & Kropp, R. K. (2016) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.1242 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Thom, R. M., Breithaupt, S. A., Diefenderfer, H. L., Borde, A. B., Roegner, G. C., Johnson, G. E., & Woodruff, D. L. (2018) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1002/eap.1759 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Goertler, P. A. L., Scheuerell, M. D., Simenstad, C. A., & Bottom, D. L. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162121 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Shallow-Water Habitat in the Lower Columbia River Estuary: A Highly Altered System
Templeton, W. J., Jay, D. A., Diefenderfer, H. L., & Talke, S. A. (2024) · Estuaries and Coasts · doi:10.1007/s12237-023-01229-3 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“The many salmon and trout stocks represent culturally and economically important species dependent on the LCRE food web (Blumm 2002; Lichatowich et al 2018; Naiman et al. 2012; Pulwarty and Redmond 1997; Waples et al 2008).”
- Authors
- Naiman, R. J., Alldredge, J. R., Beauchamp, D. A., Bisson, P. A., Congleton, J., Henny, C. J., Huntly, N., Lamberson, R., Levings, C., Merrill, E. N., Pearcy, W. G., Rieman, B. E., Ruggerone, G. T., Scarnecchia, D., Smouse, P. E., & Wood, C. C.
- Affiliations
- The University of Western Australia (AU)
- Washington State University (US)
- United States Geological Survey (US)
- US Forest Service (US)
- Utah State University (US)
- Cal Poly Humboldt (US)
- Fisheries and Oceans Canada (CA)
- Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, OR 97204;
- Oregon State University (US)
- Natural Resources Consultants, Seattle, WA 98199;
- University of Idaho (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Corresponding author
- Naiman, Robert J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2012-11-28
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 52
- Pages
- 21201-21207
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC3535603
- OpenAlex
- W2154835111
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9
- FWCI
- 0.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
- Keywords
- river restoration, food webs, Columbia River Basin, habitat carrying capacity, contaminants, invasive species, nutrient fluxes, organic matter, threatened species, river management
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Facility Design and Construction, United States, Food Chain, Rivers, Aquatic Organisms
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