Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42253095›Full record

SynthesisGlobal change biology2026

Native and Non-Native Populations Respond Unevenly to River Barrier Removals.

Ellen J Dolan, Ismael Soto, Julian D Olden, Jonathan D Tonkin, Fengzhi He, Laís Carneiro, Jaimie T A Dick, Ross N Cuthbert

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Ellen J DolanInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0009-0008-6865-4306
Ismael SotoUniversity of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Vodňany, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-7288-6336
Julian D OldenSchool of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2143-1187
Jonathan D TonkinSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-6053-291X
Fengzhi HeKey Laboratory of Marsh Wetland Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7594-8205
Laís CarneiroUniversité Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Société Evolution, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3828-7751
Jaimie T A DickInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Ross N CuthbertInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2770-254X

Funding

Chinese Academy of Sciences E355S122Chinese Academy of Sciences E529S101Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentExcelencia Severo Ochoa grant MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 CEX2024-001498-SMinistry of Business, Innovation and Employment CAWX2101Richard C. and Lois M. Worthington Endowed ProfessorRutherford Discovery Fellowship RDF-18-UOC-007
6 · The paper itself

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

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemIntroduced SpeciesRiversAnimalsBiodiversityFishesInvertebratesartificial barriersbiological invasiondam removalsinvasive speciesmeta‐analysispopulationsriverssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42253095
PMCPMC13244418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.