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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
The Handbook of Research Synthesis.
Howel, D., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1995) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533295 · Cited by 3,657
Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Bradburn, M. J. (2001) · Systematic Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch15 · Cited by 2,163
Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts
Bernhardt, E. S., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clayton, S., Dahm, C., Follstad-Shah, J., et al. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1109769 · Cited by 1,903
The Handbook of Research Synthesis.
Light, R. J., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2291021 · Cited by 1,880
The need for evidence-based conservation
Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M., & Knight, T. M. (2004) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018 · Cited by 1,822
Self-citationDesign and Analysis of Ecological Experiments
Scheiner, S. (2020) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781003059813 · Cited by 1,703
Standards for ecologically successful river restoration
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., et al. (2005) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x · Cited by 1,578
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- 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
- 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
- 10.1139/f00-132 · DOI
- Holmes N., 1998, A review of river rehabilitation in the UK, 1990–1996. R and D Technical Report W175
- Hunt R., 1974, Annual production by brook trout in Lawrence Creek during eleven successive years., Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin Number 82
- 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
- Langford T. E. L., 2001, Effects of physical restructuring of channels on the flora and fauna of three Wessex rivers
- Linløkken A., 1997, Effects of in-stream habitat enhancement on fish populations of a small Norwegian stream., Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research, 73, 50
- Mesick C. F., 1995, Response of brown trout to streamflow, temperature, and habitat restoration in a degraded stream., Rivers, 5, 75
- O'Grady M., 2006, Channels and challenges: the enhancement of salmonid rivers
- Roni P., 2005, Habitat rehabilitation for inland fisheries: global review of effectiveness and guidance for rehabilitation of freshwater ecosystems., Fisheries Technical Paper 484
- Sharp S., 1998, Meta-analysis regression: statistics, biostatistics, and epidemiology., Stata Technical Bulletin, 42, 16
- Stata Corporation., 2003, Stata statistical software: release 8.2. Stata Corporation
- 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
Toward an Era of Restoration in Ecology: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities Ahead
Suding, K. N. (2011) · Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145115 · Cited by 1,161
River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice?
Palmer, M. A., Menninger, H., & Bernhardt, E. S. (2010) · Freshwater Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x · Cited by 977
Biological invasions: a field synopsis, systematic review, and database of the literature
Lowry, E., Rollinson, E. J., Laybourn, A. J., Scott, T. E., Aiello‐Lammens, M. E., Gray, S. M., Mickley, J., & Gurevitch, J. (2013) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.431 · Cited by 332
Doing more good than harm – Building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management
Pullin, A. S., & Knight, T. (2009) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.010 · Cited by 295
Self-citationThe 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
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.
- 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 › 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
