Cited by 1,578Hydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFish Ecology and Management StudiesFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology

Standards for ecologically successful river restoration

Open access
PALMER, M.A., BERNHARDT, E.S., ALLAN, J. D., LAKE, P.S., ALEXANDER, G., BROOKS, S., CARR, J., CLAYTON, S. +14 more·2005·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Increasingly, river managers are turning from hard engineering solutions to ecologically based restoration activities in order to improve degraded waterways. River restoration projects aim to maintain or increase ecosystem goods and services while protecting downstream and coastal ecosystems. There is growing interest in applying river restoration techniques to solve environmental problems, yet little agreement exists on what constitutes a successful river restoration effort. We propose five criteria for measuring success, with emphasis on an ecological perspective. First, the design of an ecological river restoration project should be based on a specified guiding image of a more dynamic, healthy river that could exist at the site. Secondly, the river's ecological condition must be measurably improved. Thirdly, the river system must be more self‐sustaining and resilient to external perturbations so that only minimal follow‐up maintenance is needed. Fourthly, during the construction phase, no lasting harm should be inflicted on the ecosystem. Fifthly, both pre‐ and post‐assessment must be completed and data made publicly available. Determining if these five criteria have been met for a particular project requires development of an assessment protocol. We suggest standards of evaluation for each of the five criteria and provide examples of suitable indicators. Synthesis and applications. Billions of dollars are currently spent restoring streams and rivers, yet to date there are no agreed upon standards for what constitutes ecologically beneficial stream and river restoration. We propose five criteria that must be met for a river restoration project to be considered ecologically successful. It is critical that the broad restoration community, including funding agencies, practitioners and citizen restoration groups, adopt criteria for defining and assessing ecological success in restoration. Standards are needed because progress in the science and practice of river restoration has been hampered by the lack of agreed upon criteria for judging ecological success. Without well‐accepted criteria that are ultimately supported by funding and implementing agencies, there is little incentive for practitioners to assess and report restoration outcomes. Improving methods and weighing the ecological benefits of various restoration approaches require organized national‐level reporting systems.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 lack of significant ecological improvements may reflect the generally poor understanding of ecological response to any restoration activity.

    “but may also reflect the generally poor understanding of ecological response to any restoration activity (Bernhardt et al. 2005;Palmer et al. 2005;Bernhardt and Palmer 2007).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Palmer et al. 2005

    In “Why the need for ecological standards?” (page unavailable), the paper says most restoration projects are not monitored and information about their outcomes is largely inaccessible. Its “No lasting harm” discussion describes a project with little habitat improvement that yielded lessons for future restoration. These passages support a gap in knowledge about river-restoration outcomes, but do not establish that poor understanding explains a general lack of significant ecological improvement across any restoration activity. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Water, Watersheds, and Land Use in New Mexico: Impacts of Population Growth on Natural Resources, Santa Fe Region (ed. P.S. Johnson), pp. 108 -109. Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Socorro, NM.
  2. Bohn, B.A. & Kershner, J.L. (2002) Establishing aquatic restoration priorities using a watershed approach. Journal of Environmental Management , 64 , 355 -363.
  3. Downes, B.J., Barmuta, L.A., Fairweather, P.G. et al. (2002) Monitoring Ecological Impacts . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  4. Gillilan, S., Boyd, K., Hoitsma, T. & Kauffman, M. (2005) Challenges in developing and implementing ecological standards for geomorphic river restoration projects: a prac- titioner response to Palmer et al. (2005). Journal of Applied Ecology, 42.
  5. Gilman, R.T., Abell, R.A. & Williams, C.E. (2004) How can conservation biology inform the practice of integrated river basin management? International Journal of River Basin Management, 2, 1-14.
  6. Gunderson, L.H. (2000) Ecological resilience: theory to practice. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 421-439.
  7. Holling, C.S. (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1-23.
  8. Holmes, N.T.H. (1998) A Review of River Rehabilitation in the UK, 1990-1996. Technical Report W175. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
  9. © 2005 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 208-217
  10. Jansson, R., Backx, H., Boulton, A.J., Dixon, M., Dudgeon, D., Hughes, F.M.R., Nakamura, K., Stanley, E.H. & Tockner, K. (2005) Stating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecolo- gically successful river restoration: a comment on Palmer et al. (2005). Journal of Applied Ecology, 42.
  11. Johansson, M.E. & Nilsson, C. (2002) Responses of riparian plants to flooding in free-flowing and regulated boreal rivers: an experimental study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 971-986.
  12. Karr, J.R. & Chu, E.W. (1999) Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  13. Kern, K. (1992) Restoration of lowland rivers: the German experience. Lowland Floodplain Rivers: Geomorphological Perspectives (eds P.A. Carling & G.E. Petts), pp. 279 -297.
  14. Kern, K. (1994) Grundlagen Naturnaher Gewassergestaltung- Geomorphologische Entwicklung Von Fliessgewassern. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
  15. Kondolf, G.M., Montgomery, D.R., Piégay, H. & Schmitt, L. (2003) Geomorphic classification of rivers and streams. Tools in Fluvial Geomorphology (eds G.M. Kondolf & H. Piégay), pp. 171 -204.
  16. Leopold, A. (1948) Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
  17. Lepori, F., Palm, D. & Malmqvist, B. (2005) Effects of stream restoration on ecosystem functioning: detritus retentiveness and decomposition. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2004.00965.x. · DOI
  18. Middleton, B. (1999) Wetland Restoration, Flood Pulsing, and Disturbance Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY.
  19. Muotka, T. & Laasonen, P. (2002) Ecosystem recovery in restored headwater streams: the role of enhanced leaf reten- tion. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 145 -156.
  20. NRC (1992) Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  21. NRC (1996) Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  22. Ormerod, S.J. (2003) Restoration in applied ecology: editor's introduction. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 44-50.
  23. Palmer, M.A., Ambrose, R. & Poff, N.L. (1997) Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Journal of Restoration Ecology, 5, 291-300.
  24. Palmer, M.A., Hart, D.D., Allan, J.D. & the National River Restoration Science Synthesis Working Group (2003) Bridging engineering, ecological, and geomorphic science to enhance riverine restoration: local and national efforts. Proceedings of a National Symposium on Urban and Rural Stream Protection and Restoration (eds P. Bizier & P. DeBarry) (cd-rom). EWRI World Water and Environmental Con- gress, Philadelphia, PA (June 2003). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
  25. Petroski, H. (1985) To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design. St Martin's Press, New York, NY.
  26. Poole, G.C., Frissell, C.A. & Ralph, S.C. (1997) In-stream habitat unit classification: inadequacies for monitoring and some consequences for management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 33, 879 -896.
  27. Postel, S. & Richter, B. (2003) Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature, Island Press, Washington, DC.
  28. Pretty, J.L., Harrison, S.S.C., Shepherd, D.J., Smith, C., Hildrew, A.G. & Hey, R.D. (2003) River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefits of in-stream structures. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 251-256.
  29. Roni, P., Beechie, T.J., Bilby, R.E., Leonetti, F.E., Pollock, M.M. & Pess, G.P. (2002) A review of stream restoration tech- niques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 22, 1-20.
  30. Skidmore, P.B., Shields, F.D., Doyle, M.W. & Miller, D.E. (2001) A categorization of approaches to natural channel design. Proceedings of the 2001 Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration Conference (ed. D. F. Hayes). CD-ROM. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
  31. Sparks, R.E., Nelson, J.C. & Yin, Y. (1998) Naturalization of the flood regime in regulated rivers. Bioscience, 48, 706 -720. Ecological success in river restoration © 2005 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 208-217
  32. Strange, R.M. (1999) Historical biogeography, ecology, and fish distributions: conceptual issues for establishing IBI criteria. Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities (ed. T.P. Simon), pp. 65-78. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  33. Underwood, A.J. (1996) On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Detecting Ecological Impacts: Concepts and Applications in Coastal Habitats (eds R.J. Schmitt & C.W. Osenberg), pp. 151-175. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
  34. Yin, Y. & Nelson, J. (1996) Modifications of the Upper Mississippi River and the effects on floodplain forests. Science for Flood- plain Management into the 21st Century. (ed. J. A. Kelmelis), pp. 29 -40, Vol.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
PALMER, M. A., BERNHARDT, E. S., ALLAN, J. D., LAKE, P. S., ALEXANDER, G., BROOKS, S., CARR, J., CLAYTON, S., DAHM, C. N., FOLLSTAD SHAH, J., GALAT, D. L., LOSS, S. G., GOODWIN, P., HART, D. D., HASSETT, B., JENKINSON, R., KONDOLF, G. M., LAVE, R., MEYER, J. L., O'DONNELL, T. K., PAGANO, L., & SUDDUTH, E.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • University of Idaho (US)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • University of California System (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
PALMER, M.A.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-03-14
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
208-217
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W2149683554
Cited by
1,578
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 83 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 90 · 2013: 81 · 2012: 88
FWCI
59.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • U.S. Geological Survey
  • Graduate School, University of Maryland
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Keywords
river restoration, restoration standards, ecological indicators, ecosystem services, river resilience, self-sustaining ecosystems

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