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 - 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",
    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

    Y1 - 2016

    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

    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 -