River restoration with the use of in-stream structures has been widely implemented to
maintain/improve physical habitats. However, the response of aquatic biota has often been
too weak to justify the high costs of restoration projects. The ecological effectiveness of river
restoration has thus been much debated over claims that large-scale environmental drivers
often overshadow the potential positive ecological effects of locally placed in-stream
structures. In this study, we used a two-dimensional hydrodynamic-habitat model to evaluate
the ecological effectiveness of habitat restoration with the use of in-stream structures in
various water discharges, ranging from near-dry to environmental flows. The habitat
suitability of benthic macroinvertebrates and of three cyprinid fish species was simulated for
six restoration schemes and at four discharge scenarios, and was compared with a reference
model, without in-stream structures. We found that the ecological response to habitat
restoration varied by species and life stages, it strongly depended on the reach-scale flow
conditions, it was often negative at near-environmental flows, and when positive, mostly at
near-dry flows, it was too low to justify the high costs of river restoration. Flow variation was
the major environmental driver that our local habitat restoration schemes attempted -but
mostly failed-to fine-tune. We conclude that traditional river restoration, based on trial and
error, will likely fail and should be ecologically pre-optimized before field implementation.
Widespread use of in-stream structures for ecological restoration is not recommended.
However, at near-dry flows, the response of all biotic elements except for
macroinvertebrates, was positive. In combination with the small habitat-suitability differences
observed among structure types and densities, we suggest that sparse/moderate in-stream
structure placement can be used for cost-effective river restoration, but it will only be
ecologically effective -thus justifying the high implementation costs-when linked to very
specific purposes: (i) to conserve endangered species and (ii) to increase/improve habitat
availability/suitability during dry periods, thus proactively preventing/reducing the current and
future ecological impacts of climate change.
«
River restoration with the use of in-stream structures has been widely implemented to
maintain/improve physical habitats. However, the response of aquatic biota has often been
too weak to justify the high costs of restoration projects. The ecological effectiveness of river
restoration has thus been much debated over claims that large-scale environmental drivers
often overshadow the potential positive ecological effects of locally placed in-stream
structures. In this study, we used a two-dim...
»