ArticleRiver research and applications2020
Consideration of spatial and temporal scales in stream restorations and biotic monitoring to assess restoration outcomes: A literature review, Part 1.
Article in River research and applications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal stream synoptic (LSS) monitoring to evaluate water quality in restored streams.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2024Article
- Decreasing trends in total suspended solids and cumulative effects of nonpoint source projects in the Cuyahoga River Watershed, OH.Journal of Great Lakes research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stream and river restoration practices have become common in many parts of the world. We ask the question whether such restorations improve freshwater biotic assemblages or functions over time, and if not, can general reasons be identified for such outcomes. We conducted a literature survey and review of studies in which different types of stream restorations were conducted and outcomes reported. These restoration types included culvert restoration; acid mine restoration or industrial pollutant restoration; urban stream restoration; dam removal, changes in dam operation, or fish passage structures; instream habitat modification; riparian restoration or woody material addition; channel restoration and multiple restorations. The streams ranged from headwater streams to large rivers, and the regions included North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and a small number of sites in Asia and Africa. In this part of the review, we describe the methods used for the review and present reviews for the first three types of stream restorations. For culvert restorations, the small sample size and variable study design and biotic responses limited generalizing about temporal and spatial scale effects for that restoration type. The complex and often lengthy time to restore streams from acid mine drainage and industrial pollutants often resulted in positive biotic responses, but restored sites had reduced responses compared to reference sites. Most urban stream restorations had minimal or mixed improvements in biotic responses, with one mismatch in spatial scale evidenced by hydraulic structures used in a restoration unable to withstand peak discharge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33364915PMC7751668What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.