How sensitive are invertebrates to riparian-zone replanting in stream ecosystems?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Clearing native vegetation has pervasive effects on stream and river ecosystems worldwide. The stated aims of replanting riparian vegetation often are to restore water quality and to re-establish biotic assemblages. However reachscale restoration may do little to combat catchment-scale degradation, potentially inhibiting restoration success. Whether reinstating biodiversity is a realistic goal or appropriate indicator of restoration success over intermediate timeframes (,30 years) is currently unclear. We measured the response of aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages to riparian replanting in a chronosequence of replanted reaches on agricultural streams in south-eastern Australia. Sites had been replanted with native vegetation 8¿22 years before the study. Indices of macroinvertebrate sensitivity did not respond to replanting over the time gradient, probably because replanting had little benefit for local water quality or in-stream habitat. The invertebrate assemblages were influenced mainly by catchment-scale effects and geomorphological characteristics, but were closer to reference condition at sites with lower total catchment agricultural land cover. Reach-scale replanting in heavily modified landscapes may not effectively return biodiversity to pre-clearance condition over decadal time-scales. Restoration goals, and the spatial and temporal scale of processes required to meet them, should be carefully considered, and monitoring methods explicitly matched to desired outcomes.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1500-1511
Number of pages12
JournalMarine and Freshwater Research
Volume67
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2016

Fingerprint

riparian zone
riparian areas
invertebrate
invertebrates
catchment
macroinvertebrate
vegetation
ecosystems
ecosystem
water quality
biodiversity
aquatic invertebrates
riparian vegetation
chronosequences
scale effect
chronosequence
land cover
macroinvertebrates
agricultural land
timescale

Cite this

@article{dca8b68480a74dcc86fbf68292088293,
title = "How sensitive are invertebrates to riparian-zone replanting in stream ecosystems?",
abstract = "Clearing native vegetation has pervasive effects on stream and river ecosystems worldwide. The stated aims of replanting riparian vegetation often are to restore water quality and to re-establish biotic assemblages. However reachscale restoration may do little to combat catchment-scale degradation, potentially inhibiting restoration success. Whether reinstating biodiversity is a realistic goal or appropriate indicator of restoration success over intermediate timeframes (,30 years) is currently unclear. We measured the response of aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages to riparian replanting in a chronosequence of replanted reaches on agricultural streams in south-eastern Australia. Sites had been replanted with native vegetation 8¿22 years before the study. Indices of macroinvertebrate sensitivity did not respond to replanting over the time gradient, probably because replanting had little benefit for local water quality or in-stream habitat. The invertebrate assemblages were influenced mainly by catchment-scale effects and geomorphological characteristics, but were closer to reference condition at sites with lower total catchment agricultural land cover. Reach-scale replanting in heavily modified landscapes may not effectively return biodiversity to pre-clearance condition over decadal time-scales. Restoration goals, and the spatial and temporal scale of processes required to meet them, should be carefully considered, and monitoring methods explicitly matched to desired outcomes.",
keywords = "agriculture, biodiversity, indicator, restoration, river, spatial scale.",
author = "Darren Giling and {MAC NALLY}, Ralph and Ross THOMPSON",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1071/MF14360",
language = "English",
volume = "67",
pages = "1500--1511",
journal = "Marine Freshwater Research",
issn = "0067-1940",
publisher = "CSIRO",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How sensitive are invertebrates to riparian-zone replanting in stream ecosystems?

AU - Giling, Darren

AU - MAC NALLY, Ralph

AU - THOMPSON, Ross

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Clearing native vegetation has pervasive effects on stream and river ecosystems worldwide. The stated aims of replanting riparian vegetation often are to restore water quality and to re-establish biotic assemblages. However reachscale restoration may do little to combat catchment-scale degradation, potentially inhibiting restoration success. Whether reinstating biodiversity is a realistic goal or appropriate indicator of restoration success over intermediate timeframes (,30 years) is currently unclear. We measured the response of aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages to riparian replanting in a chronosequence of replanted reaches on agricultural streams in south-eastern Australia. Sites had been replanted with native vegetation 8¿22 years before the study. Indices of macroinvertebrate sensitivity did not respond to replanting over the time gradient, probably because replanting had little benefit for local water quality or in-stream habitat. The invertebrate assemblages were influenced mainly by catchment-scale effects and geomorphological characteristics, but were closer to reference condition at sites with lower total catchment agricultural land cover. Reach-scale replanting in heavily modified landscapes may not effectively return biodiversity to pre-clearance condition over decadal time-scales. Restoration goals, and the spatial and temporal scale of processes required to meet them, should be carefully considered, and monitoring methods explicitly matched to desired outcomes.

AB - Clearing native vegetation has pervasive effects on stream and river ecosystems worldwide. The stated aims of replanting riparian vegetation often are to restore water quality and to re-establish biotic assemblages. However reachscale restoration may do little to combat catchment-scale degradation, potentially inhibiting restoration success. Whether reinstating biodiversity is a realistic goal or appropriate indicator of restoration success over intermediate timeframes (,30 years) is currently unclear. We measured the response of aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages to riparian replanting in a chronosequence of replanted reaches on agricultural streams in south-eastern Australia. Sites had been replanted with native vegetation 8¿22 years before the study. Indices of macroinvertebrate sensitivity did not respond to replanting over the time gradient, probably because replanting had little benefit for local water quality or in-stream habitat. The invertebrate assemblages were influenced mainly by catchment-scale effects and geomorphological characteristics, but were closer to reference condition at sites with lower total catchment agricultural land cover. Reach-scale replanting in heavily modified landscapes may not effectively return biodiversity to pre-clearance condition over decadal time-scales. Restoration goals, and the spatial and temporal scale of processes required to meet them, should be carefully considered, and monitoring methods explicitly matched to desired outcomes.

KW - agriculture

KW - biodiversity

KW - indicator

KW - restoration

KW - river

KW - spatial scale.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988553402&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/sensitive-invertebrates-riparianzone-replanting-stream-ecosystems

U2 - 10.1071/MF14360

DO - 10.1071/MF14360

M3 - Article

VL - 67

SP - 1500

EP - 1511

JO - Marine Freshwater Research

JF - Marine Freshwater Research

SN - 0067-1940

IS - 10

ER -