Kathrin Januschke

Drivers and stressors of freshwater biodiversity patterns across different ecosystems and scales: a review

The present review with focus on the last decade (2000–2010) aims to (i) collecting the major hypotheses explaining freshwater biodiversity patterns, (ii) identifying the main stressors affecting freshwater biodiversity, and (iii) revealing information gaps regarding ecosystem types, organism groups, spatial and temporal scales to highlight research needs to better propose sound conservation measures. The comparative analysis addresses six organism groups ranging from microorganisms to fish in basins, rivers, lakes, wetlands, ponds and groundwater. Short-term studies at ecoregion and catchment scale focusing on invertebrates, macrophytes and fish in Palaearctic and Nearctic regions dominated. The most frequent hypotheses tested were the landscape filter concept, the species–area relationship, the metacommunity concept. Dominating natural drivers were area, heterogeneity and disturbance. Land use, eutrophication and habitat destruction were identified as most important stressors. Generally, freshwater biodiversity declined in response to these stressors in contrast to increasing biodiversity determined by natural drivers across all ecosystems. Preferred organism groups were fish and invertebrates, most frequently studied in rivers, in contrast to smaller organisms (e.g. bacteria) and, e.g. groundwater being underrepresented. Hypotheses originating from the last century are still tested in freshwater research, while novel concepts are either missing or untested. Protection of freshwater biodiversity is the ultimate challenge since it supports valuable ecosystems services ensuring perpetuation of mankind. For that, comprehensive large-scale studies with holistic approaches are urgently needed.

Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects

Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphological processes to occur. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non-restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain-inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land-water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non-restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. When comparing all restored to all non-restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. Synthesis and applications. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects.

Effects of stream restorations on riparian mesohabitats, vegetation and carabid beetles

We investigated the effects of hydromorphological restoration measures (mainly the removal of bank fixations) on riparian mesohabitats, vegetation and carabid beetles by comparing 24 restored to nearby non-restored floodplain sections in Germany. Mesohabitats were recorded along ten equally-spaced transects, plant communities and riparian plant and carabid beetle species along three transects per section. Based on 18 indices including habitat and species diversity, taxonomic diversity and functional indices we compared the frequency and magnitude of changes following restoration, both for the overall dataset and for each site individually. Riparian habitat diversity doubled in restored sections compared to non-restored sections. The numbers of vegetation units and plant and carabid beetle species richness also doubled in restored sections, whereas changes in Shannon diversity were most pronounced for mesohabitats and riparian plants. Taxonomic diversity of carabid beetles decreased in restored sections reflecting post restoration dominance of riparian Bembidion species. Stress-tolerant pioneers of plant and especially carabid species benefit strongly from the re-establishment of open sand and gravel bars, while hygrophilous species, which also include non-riparian species, did not respond to restoration. We conclude that restoring river hydromorphology has almost generally positive effects on riparian habitats and riparian biodiversity. Riparian biota are thus well-suited indicators for the effects of hydromorphological restoration.

Structural and functional responses of floodplain vegetation to stream ecosystem restoration

Most river restoration projects have applied relatively small-scale measures focused on improving specific instream conditions, with only limited outcomes for biodiversity in rivers and their adjacent riparian habitats. Here, we investigate the effects of both small- and large-scale restoration projects on floodplain vegetation across 20 European catchments. We focused on the roles of different restoration parameters (i.e., the number, spatial extent and type of restoration measure applied and restoration age) and specific environmental characteristics in regulating changes in plant diversity and trait composition following restoration. Among restoration characteristics, restoration type was the only significant determinant of plant community responses, with stream channel widening having the strongest effects, particularly on the diversity and composition of species traits favoured by increases in physical disturbance (e.g. flooding) and open habitat patch availability (e.g. plant growth form, life strategy and life span). Of the environmental variables, altitude and discharge were positively and most strongly related to responses of both species and trait diversity. Our results emphasise the value of (i) choosing relevant restoration measures that affect environmental conditions of importance for the target organism group and (ii) conducting restoration projects in environmental settings where the likelihood of restoration “success” is maximised.

Evaluating good-practice cases for river restoration across Europe: context, methodological framework, selected results and recommendations

This introductory paper presents 20 river restoration cases throughout Europe that were investigated in the EU-funded research project REFORM. In the following, this special issue provides seven specific papers that highlight and discuss the effects of restoration on the investigated river–floodplain systems. Additionally, restoration success was estimated from a socio-economic perspective. The first part of this paper presents the overall study concept and the general sampling design of the field investigations. Each study site was examined with the same array of methods, covering habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic and two floodplain-related organism groups, as well as food web composition and “aquatic terrestrial” interactions as reflected by stable isotopes. An overview of the rivers and the study sites summarizes main attributes of all investigated sites, with emphasis on the large-scale restoration projects. Some of the projects represent the “state of the art” restoration approaches for two major European river types: gravel-bed mountain rivers and sand-bed lowland rivers. Concluding, restoration efforts had positive effects even in the small restoration projects investigated but did not increase with project size. No “single best” measure could be identified, but river widening generally had a larger effect compared to other restoration measures.

Effects of river restoration on riparian ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Europe

Studies addressing the effects of river and floodplain restoration on riparian ground beetles mainly focus on single river sections or regions. We conducted a large-scale study of twenty paired restored and degraded river sections throughout Europe. It was tested (i) if restoration had an overall positive effect on total species richness, Shannon–Wiener diversity and richness of riparian, wetland and floodplain forest specialists, and (ii) if the effects depended on river and project characteristics as well as habitat differences caused by restoration. Groupwise comparison of the restored and degraded river sections showed that restoration had a significant positive effect on one out of the five metrics investigated (the number of riparian specialists), and pairwise comparison of the restored sections with the corresponding degraded sections revealed an additional positive effect of restoration on total species richness. These positive effects were related to a co-occurring set of environmental variables, with the effects being more apparent in widened river sections of high-gradient cobble/gravel-bed rivers where restoration decreased riparian woody vegetation and increased sparsely vegetated banks. These results clearly indicate that the effect of restoration on riparian ground beetle richness depends on the creation of such pioneer habitats.

Diverging response patterns of terrestrial and aquatic species to hydromorphological restoration: Restoration Effects

Although experiences with ecological restoration continue to accumulate, the effectiveness of restoration for biota remains debated. We complemented a traditional taxonomic analysis approach with information on 56 species traits to uncover the responses of 3 aquatic (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes) and 2 terrestrial (carabid beetles, floodplain vegetation) biotic groups to 43 hydromorphological river restoration projects in Germany. All taxonomic groups responded positively to restoration, as shown by increased taxonomic richness (10-164%) and trait diversity (habitat, dispersal and mobility, size, form, life history, and feeding groups) (15-120%). Responses, however, were stronger for terrestrial than aquatic biota, and, contrary to our expectation, taxonomic responses were stronger than those of traits. Nevertheless, trait analysis provided mechanistic insights into the drivers of community change following restoration. Trait analysis for terrestrial biota indicated restoration success was likely enhanced by lateral connectivity and reestablishment of dynamic processes in the floodplain. The weaker response of aquatic biota suggests recovery was hindered by the persistence of stressors in the aquatic environment, such as degraded water quality, dispersal constraints, and insufficient hydromorphological change. Therefore, river restoration requires combined local- and regional-scale approaches to maximize the response of both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Due to the contrasting responses of aquatic and terrestrial biota, the planning and assessment of river restoration outcomes should consider effects on both components of riverine landscapes.