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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1890/07-1311.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 60 references

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Bayley P., 2002, A review of studies on responses of salmon and trout to habitat change, with potential for application in the Pacific Northwest., Report to the Washington State Independent Science Panel
  2. Gargan P. G., 2002, The effectiveness of habitat enhancement on Salmon and Trout stocks in streams in the Corrib Catchment., Thirteenth International Salmonid Habitat Enhancement Workshop
  3. 10.1139/f00-132 · DOI
  4. Holmes N., 1998, A review of river rehabilitation in the UK, 1990–1996. R and D Technical Report W175
  5. Hunt R., 1974, Annual production by brook trout in Lawrence Creek during eleven successive years., Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin Number 82
  6. Knudsen E. E., 1987, Effects of riprap bank reinforcement on juvenile salmonids in four western Washington streams., Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 7, 351
  7. Langford T. E. L., 2001, Effects of physical restructuring of channels on the flora and fauna of three Wessex rivers
  8. Linløkken A., 1997, Effects of in-stream habitat enhancement on fish populations of a small Norwegian stream., Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research, 73, 50
  9. Mesick C. F., 1995, Response of brown trout to streamflow, temperature, and habitat restoration in a degraded stream., Rivers, 5, 75
  10. O'Grady M., 2006, Channels and challenges: the enhancement of salmonid rivers
  11. Roni P., 2005, Habitat rehabilitation for inland fisheries: global review of effectiveness and guidance for rehabilitation of freshwater ecosystems., Fisheries Technical Paper 484
  12. Sharp S., 1998, Meta-analysis regression: statistics, biostatistics, and epidemiology., Stata Technical Bulletin, 42, 16
  13. Stata Corporation., 2003, Stata statistical software: release 8.2. Stata Corporation
  14. Stewart G. B., 2006, Does the use of in-stream structures and woody debris increase the abundance of salmonids? Systematic Review No. 12

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–130 of 130

Related

See all

Metadata

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.
ORCID
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-06
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
931-941
ISSN
  • 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5582
DOI
10.1890/07-1311.1
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
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
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 › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Earth-Surface Processes › 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