ReviewRestoration of riparian vegetation: A global review of implementation and evaluation approaches in the international, peer-reviewed literature
Graphical abstract
Introduction
Evaluation of success has been the main weakness of restoration ecology since this discipline emerged in the early 1980s (Walker et al., 2007). The assessment of restoration outcomes has been traditionally jeopardized by underfunding and the lack of systematic and objective evaluation criteria (Bernhardt et al., 2007, Kondolf et al., 2007), even though these criteria are necessary for adaptive management as well as the advancement of the field of restoration ecology as a whole (Kondolf et al., 2007, Walker et al., 2007, Shafroth et al., 2008, Suding, 2011). Because of this, numerous efforts have been made to establish standards and common criteria for evaluating restoration (Hobbs and Norton, 1996, Palmer et al., 2005, Dufour and Piégay, 2009, Suding, 2011). In this review we examine the extent to which recommendations for project monitoring of vegetation restoration are being followed across the globe for one ecosystem type, riparian vegetation, and where we might improve as a discipline.
The most widely cited metrics of restoration success are by the Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI), which proposed a list of nine key attributes that a successfully restored ecosystem should have, such as being resilient to natural disturbances and self-sustainable (SERI, 2004). The SERI Primer also suggested that it is necessary to compare metrics from restoration sites with values from natural reference sites or sites that have not sustained the degradation that restoration is intended to redress (SERI, 2004). Others have recommended that project sites should be monitored before and after restoration implementation in combination with comparisons to control sites (e.g., Before-After Control-Impact design, Palmer et al., 2005, Bernhardt et al., 2007). It is still debatable whether restoration should target reproducing the species composition and physical structure of desirable final states represented by reference sites vs. focusing on changes over time of certain ecosystem components and recovery of functionality (Dufour and Piégay, 2009). Finally, one must consider spatial and temporal scales of monitoring, given that recovery of restored ecosystems usually takes years or even centuries, and responses of ecosystems to restoration activities may be often non-linear or stochastic and vary in space (Trowbridge, 2007). Because of this, some authors have proposed that integrating multi-scale information should be an essential part of restoration assessments, including considerations of impact beyond project boundaries (González del Tánago and García de Jalón, 2006, Aguiar et al., 2011).
It has been argued that few studies have the resources to follow these recommendations (Ruiz-Jaen and Aide, 2005); however, a comprehensive review of the international literature is necessary to investigate the actual extent to which this is true. Given that the most appropriate monitoring approach will also depend upon the ecosystem being restored, we will restrict our review to a specific ecosystem. We have selected restoration of riparian vegetation along river systems as our focus because studies dating back to the 1990s (e.g., Battaglia et al., 1995, Friedman et al., 1995, Roelle and Gladwin, 1999) exist to document these projects, and because degradation of river ecosystems is an international rather than local concern. A synoptic view of these restoration strategies, and especially an assessment of how to evaluate their success, is still lacking despite major investments annually worldwide for restoring riparian habitats. As pointed out by Weisberg et al. (2013), many of the first studies on the ecology of riparian vegetation focused on understanding the decline of Salicaceae gallery forests and the mechanisms underlying their regeneration (Johnson et al., 1976, Stromberg and Patten, 1991, Stromberg, 1993, Rood and Heinz-Milne, 1989, Rood and Mahoney, 1990, and Rood, 1998); the first restoration trials that received academic attention often equated riparian restoration with restoration of Salicaceae forests (e.g., Friedman et al., 1995, Roelle and Gladwin, 1999, Rood and Mahoney, 2000, Rood et al., 2003). With a significant and growing body of literature, restoration of riparian vegetation nowadays goes beyond restoration of Salicaceae forests. We believe that a comprehensive review of riparian vegetation restoration strategies and the empirical evaluations that have been completed up to this point could be a first step towards the development of standard protocols for monitoring river restoration projects.
In this study, we reviewed how restoration success of riparian vegetation has been evaluated in the scientific literature in order to answer the following questions: (1) Which restoration strategies were evaluated in different regions in the world and how have they been applied? (2) Which assessment approaches have been used (e.g., scale of monitoring and use of reference sites)? (3) Which evaluation metrics have been used as success criteria and how have they been computed? (4) Which factors explained success? Finally, by answering these four questions, our goal was to learn from previous experiences and suggest methods to improve the evaluation of restoration projects of riparian vegetation in the future.
Section snippets
Selection of articles
A literature search in ISI Web of Science was done in October 2014. The chain of keywords used in the topic category were “(riparian or floodplain or river or stream) near (vegetation or forest* or plant*) and (resto* or rehabilit* or recover* or remov* or reforest* or planting) and (success* or reference or degrad* or fail*)”. We also manually browsed all volumes of Ecological Restoration and Ecological Management and Restoration (SERI journals) between 1990 and 2012, given that these thematic
Results and discussion
Our review of 169 papers revealed strong convergence of approaches for both the restoration activity itself and also how and which vegetation was evaluated. The 169 papers were published in 58 different journals, but 41% were from just five, and only 25 articles (15%) were published in journals with an impact factor higher than 3.000 (Appendix S2). We found that the number of publications progressively increased since the first article in 1991, but more than half of them were published during
Conclusions
Three decades after the emergence of restoration ecology, articles evaluating success in the recovery of riparian vegetation have begun to appear frequently in the scientific literature. However, published evaluations have been mainly local. This is not necessarily bad and indeed we hope that more of those studies are published in the future. However, broadening the assessment approach (e.g., metrics and criteria used, factors of success explored, number of projects assessed, and larger spatial
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme.
References (57)
- et al.
Reciprocal interactions and adjustments between fluvial landforms and vegetation dynamics in river corridors: a review of complementary approaches
Earth Sci. Rev.
(2007) - et al.
Using functional diversity as an indicator of restoration success of a cut-over bog
Ecol. Eng.
(2013) - et al.
Can indicator species predict restoration outcomes early in the monitoring process? A case study with peatlands
Ecol. Indic.
(2013) - et al.
Combining indicator species and key environmental and management factors to predict restoration success
Ecol. Indic.
(2014) - et al.
Linking the restoration of rivers and riparian zones/wetlands in Europe: sharing knowledge through case studies
Ecol. Eng.
(2013) - et al.
How is success or failure in river restoration projects evaluated? Feedback from French restoration projects
J. Environ. Manag.
(2014) - et al.
Riparian vegetation metrics as tools for guiding ecological restoration in riverscapes
Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
(2011) - et al.
Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling recruitment – an integrative model
Wetlands
(1998) - et al.
Functional responses and resilience of boreal forest ecosystem after reduction of deer density
PLoS One
(2014) - et al.
Multiple stable states and models of riparian vegetation succession on the Animas River, Colorado
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
(1995)
Riparian forest restoration: conflicting goals, trade-offs, and measures of success
Sustainability
Early secondary succession in a Southeastern U.S. alluvial floodplain
J. Veg. Sci.
Success of active revegetation after Tamarix removal in riparian ecosystems of the Southwestern United States: a quantitative assessment of past restoration projects
Restor. Ecol.
Restoring rivers one reach at a time: results from a survey of U.S. river restoration practitioners
Restor. Ecol.
Analyzing the impacts of dams on riparian ecosystems: a review of research strategies and their relevance to the Snake River through Hells Canyon
Environ. Manag.
Restoration: an acid test for ecology
Ecosystem engineers modulate exotic invasions in riparian plant communities by modifying hydrogeomorphic connectivity
River Res. Appl.
From the myth of a lost paradise to targeted river restoration: forget natural references and focus on human benefits
River Res. Appl.
Restoration of riparian forest using irrigation, artificial disturbance, and natural seedfall
Environ. Manag.
Attributes for assessing the environmental quality of riparian zones
Limnetica
Vegetation response following invasive tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) removal and implications for riparian restoration
Restor. Ecol.
A functional approach to fen restoration analysis
Appl. Veg. Sci.
Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology
Restor. Ecol.
Forest overstory vegetation and environment on the Missouri River Floodplain in North Dakota
Ecol. Monogr.
Two decades of river restoration in California: what can we learn?
Restor. Ecol.
Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant ecology
J. Ecol.
Numerical Ecology
What does species richness tell us about functional trait diversity? Predictions and evidence for responses of species and functional trait diversity to land-use change
Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr.
Cited by (129)
Impacts of the Three Gorges Dam on riparian vegetation in the Yangtze River Basin under climate change
2024, Science of the Total EnvironmentA long-term case study indicates improvements in floodplain biodiversity after river restoration
2024, Ecological EngineeringScientific challenges and biophysical knowledge gaps for implementing nutrient offset projects
2023, Journal of Environmental ManagementImproved statistical models for the relationship between riparian vegetation and river flow in arid environments: Implications for flow management
2023, Science of the Total Environment