SynthesisGlobal change biology2026
Native and Non-Native Populations Respond Unevenly to River Barrier Removals.
Synthesis in Global change biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The multi-faceted threats of habitat degradation and biological invasions are increasing concerns for the integrity of freshwater ecosystems and their associated services globally. Removal of anthropogenic riverine barriers has gained momentum over the last three decades, motivated by the maintenance requirements of the aging infrastructure, while also functioning as a primary means of restoring river connectivity to promote ecosystem recovery and native biodiversity. Although barrier removals are intended to benefit native species dispersal, these actions can simultaneously facilitate non-native species spread and increase biological invasion risk, creating a conservation paradox. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis, we synthesised the patterns and trends in responses between native and non-native populations to riverine barrier removals globally. Since 1998, research interest in the effects of barrier removals has rapidly accumulated, but with a major geographic imbalance towards North America (80% of studies). Fishes were the most studied taxon (74%), followed by riparian and aquatic plants (24%) and invertebrates (15%). The removal of dams dominated (85%), compared to road culverts (7%) and weirs (2%). Results from 2840 reported effect sizes showed that both native and non-native population sizes generally increased after barrier removal, but the positive effect was strongest for native species. Moreover, these population responses were highly context-dependent, with taxonomic grouping, sampling directionality and time since removal affecting outcomes. Non-native population growth outstripped that of native species in the first few years post-removal and non-native invertebrates responded the most favourably to barrier removal. While native species typically benefit from barrier removals overall, our analyses highlight context-specific responses that can simultaneously benefit non-native populations and erode long-term conservation outcomes. As river restoration efforts continue to gain traction globally, further planning and research are required to anticipate and assess long term population recoveries, to reconcile conservation quagmires around interacting global environmental changes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.