The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Global Review of the Physical and Biological Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques
Abstract
The degradation of inland aquatic habitats caused by decades of human activities has led to worldwide efforts to rehabilitate freshwater habitats for fisheries and aquatic resources. We reviewed published evaluations of stream rehabilitation techniques from throughout the world, including studies on road improvement, riparian rehabilitation, floodplain connectivity and rehabilitation, instream habitat improvement, nutrient addition, and other, less-common techniques. We summarize current knowledge about the effectiveness of these techniques for improving physical habitat and water quality and increasing fish and biotic production. Despite locating 345 studies on effectiveness of stream rehabilitation, firm conclusions about many specific techniques were difficult to make because of the limited information provided on physical habitat, water quality, and biota and because of the short duration and limited scope of most published evaluations. Reconnection of isolated habitats, floodplain rehabilitation, and instream habitat improvement have, however, proven effective for improving habitat and increasing local fish abundance under many circumstances. Techniques such as riparian rehabilitation, road improvements (sediment reduction), dam removal, and restoration of natural flood regimes have shown promise for restoring natural processes that create and maintain habitats, but no long-term studies documenting their success have yet been published. Our review demonstrates that the failure of many rehabilitation projects to achieve objectives is attributable to inadequate assessment of historic conditions and factors limiting biotic production; poor understanding of watershed-scale processes that influence localized projects; and monitoring at inappropriate spatial and temporal scales. We suggest an interim approach to sequencing rehabilitation projects that partially addresses these needs through protecting high-quality habitats and restoring connectivity and watershed processes before implementing instream habitat improvement projects.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Woodward (2011) · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374794-5.00003-1 · Cited by 292
The effect of river restoration on fish, macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes: a meta-analysis
Kail, J., Brabec, K., Poppe, M., & Januschke, K. (2015) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.011 · Cited by 243
River restoration success: a question of perception
Jähnig, S. C., Lorenz, A. W., Hering, D., Antons, C., Sundermann, A., Jedicke, E., & Haase, P. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/10-0618.1 · Cited by 203
A comparative review of recovery processes in rivers, lakes, estuarine and coastal waters
Verdonschot, P. F. M., Spears, B. M., Feld, C. K., Brucet, S., Keizer-Vlek, H., Borja, A., Elliott, M., Kernan, M., & Johnson, R. K. (2013) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/s10750-012-1294-7 · Cited by 165
Craig, L. S., Olden, J. D., Arthington, A. H., Entrekin, S., Hawkins, C. P., Kelly, J. J., Kennedy, T. A., Maitland, B. M., Rosi, E. J., Roy, A. H., et al. (2017) · Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene · doi:10.1525/elementa.256 · Cited by 154
Metadata
- Authors
- Roni, P., Hanson, K., & Beechie, T.
- Venue
- North American Journal of Fisheries Management
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-06-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 856-890
- ISSN
- 0275-5947 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-8675
- OpenAlex
- W2068649094
- Cited by
- 615
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Global Review of the Physical and Biological Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1577/m06-169.1
- The paper
- Roni, P., Hanson, K., & Beechie, T. (2008). Global Review of the Physical and Biological Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. https://doi.org/10.1577/m06-169.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.