Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33364915›Full record

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.

Michael B Griffith, Michael G McManus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael B GriffithU. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Michael G McManusU. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

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

biotic assemblagesbiotic functionsoutcome assessmentspatial and temporal scalesstream and river restoration

Identifiers

PMID33364915
PMCPMC7751668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.