Cited by 130Fish Ecology and Management StudiesHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology

Effectiveness of engineered in‐stream structure mitigation measures to increase salmonid abundance: a systematic review

Stewart, Gavin B., Bayliss, Helen R., Showler, David A., Sutherland, William J., Pullin, Andrew S.·2009·Ecological Applications

Abstract

Engineered in-stream structures are often installed to increase salmonid abundance, either for commercial gain in fisheries or for conservation purposes in degraded habitats. Having been in widespread use for the last 80 years, at an estimated cost of hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars each year, the effectiveness of these structures is still widely debated in the literature. Many studies of varying quality have been undertaken that attempt to address this issue, but it has proved difficult for practitioners to develop a consensus regarding the utility of these structures, despite their continued use. Systematic review methodology was used to formally synthesize empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of engineered in-stream structures as a management tool to increase salmonid abundance. Meta-analysis shows that evidence regarding the effectiveness of in-stream devices is equivocal. Heterogeneity is significant both for population size and local habitat preference. This heterogeneity is related to stream width, with in-stream devices being less effective in larger streams. Consequently, widespread use of in-stream structures for restoration, particularly in larger streams, is not supported by the current scientific evidence base.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/07-1311.1

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Evaluating aquatic ecosystem change is not well suited to conventional experimental approaches because replicates of large ecosystems are not available.

    “Like other research problems with attributes that vary between landscapes (e.g., planning climate adaptation for food supply), evaluating aquatic ecosystem change is not well suited to conventional experimental approaches because replicates of large ecosystems are not available; although case studies can provide insight, more formal evaluative and predictive methods are needed to provide”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Stewart et al. 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stewart, G. B., Bayliss, H. R., Showler, D. A., Sutherland, W. J., & Pullin, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Pullin, Andrew S.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-06
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
931-941
ISSN
  • 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5582
OpenAlex
W2128017386
Cited by
130
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 12
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecological Applications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (NE/C508734/1, NE/C508742/2, NE/C508734/2)
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
fish passage, habitat restoration, stream width, habitat preference, population size, salmonid conservation, fisheries management, restoration effectiveness
MeSH terms
Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Population Dynamics, Salmonidae, Ecosystem, Rivers

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