Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective
Identifieur interne : 000972 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000971; suivant : 000973Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective
Auteurs : Timo Muotka ; Jukka Syrj NenSource :
- Freshwater Biology [ 0046-5070 ] ; 2007-04.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
1. Most Finnish streams were channelised during the 19th and 20th century to facilitate timber floating. By the late 1970s, extensive programmes were initiated to restore these degraded streams. The responses of fish populations to restoration have been little studied, however, and monitoring of other stream biota has been negligible. In this paper, we review results from a set of studies on the effects of stream restoration on habitat structure, brown trout populations, benthic macroinvertebrates and leaf retention. 2. In general, restoration greatly increased stream bed heterogeneity. The cover of mosses in channelised streams was close to that of unmodified reference sites, but after restoration moss cover declined to one‐tenth of the pre‐restoration value. 3. In one stream, densities of age‐0 trout were slightly lower after restoration, but the difference to an unmodified reference stream was non‐significant, indicating no effect of restoration. In another stream, trout density increased after restoration, indicating a weakly positive response. The overall weak response of trout to habitat manipulations probably relates to the fact that restoration did not increase the amount of pools, a key winter habitat for salmonids. 4. Benthic invertebrate community composition was more variable in streams restored 4–6 years before sampling than in unmodified reference streams or streams restored 8 years before sampling. Channelised streams supported a distinctive set of indicator species, most of which were filter‐feeders or scrapers, while most of the indicators in streams restored 8 years before sampling were shredders. 5. Leaf retentiveness in reference streams was high, with 60–70% of experimentally released leaves being retained within 50 m. Channelised streams were poorly retentive (c. 10% of leaves retained), and the increase in retention following restoration was modest (+14% on average). Aquatic mosses were a key retentive feature in both channelised and natural streams, but their cover was drastically reduced through restoration. 6. Mitigation of the detrimental impacts of forestry (e.g. removal of mature riparian forests) is a major challenge to the management of boreal streams. This goal cannot be achieved by focusing efforts only on restoration of physical structures in stream channels, but also requires conservation and ecologically sound management of riparian forests.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01727.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FFLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective</title><author><name sortKey="Muotka, Timo" sort="Muotka, Timo" uniqKey="Muotka T" first="Timo" last="Muotka">Timo Muotka</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Department, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Syrj Nen, Jukka" sort="Syrj Nen, Jukka" uniqKey="Syrj Nen J" first="Jukka" last="Syrj Nen">Jukka Syrj Nen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FF</idno><date when="2007" year="2007">2007</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01727.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FF/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000972</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective</title><author><name sortKey="Muotka, Timo" sort="Muotka, Timo" uniqKey="Muotka T" first="Timo" last="Muotka">Timo Muotka</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Department, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Syrj Nen, Jukka" sort="Syrj Nen, Jukka" uniqKey="Syrj Nen J" first="Jukka" last="Syrj Nen">Jukka Syrj Nen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Freshwater Biology</title><idno type="ISSN">0046-5070</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2427</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2007-04">2007-04</date><biblScope unit="volume">52</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="724">724</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="737">737</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0046-5070</idno></series><idno type="istex">3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FF</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01727.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">FWB1727</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0046-5070</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>benthic macroinvertebrates</term><term>boreal streams</term><term>juvenile trout</term><term>restoration assessment</term><term>stream restoration</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">1. Most Finnish streams were channelised during the 19th and 20th century to facilitate timber floating. By the late 1970s, extensive programmes were initiated to restore these degraded streams. The responses of fish populations to restoration have been little studied, however, and monitoring of other stream biota has been negligible. In this paper, we review results from a set of studies on the effects of stream restoration on habitat structure, brown trout populations, benthic macroinvertebrates and leaf retention. 2. In general, restoration greatly increased stream bed heterogeneity. The cover of mosses in channelised streams was close to that of unmodified reference sites, but after restoration moss cover declined to one‐tenth of the pre‐restoration value. 3. In one stream, densities of age‐0 trout were slightly lower after restoration, but the difference to an unmodified reference stream was non‐significant, indicating no effect of restoration. In another stream, trout density increased after restoration, indicating a weakly positive response. The overall weak response of trout to habitat manipulations probably relates to the fact that restoration did not increase the amount of pools, a key winter habitat for salmonids. 4. Benthic invertebrate community composition was more variable in streams restored 4–6 years before sampling than in unmodified reference streams or streams restored 8 years before sampling. Channelised streams supported a distinctive set of indicator species, most of which were filter‐feeders or scrapers, while most of the indicators in streams restored 8 years before sampling were shredders. 5. Leaf retentiveness in reference streams was high, with 60–70% of experimentally released leaves being retained within 50 m. Channelised streams were poorly retentive (c. 10% of leaves retained), and the increase in retention following restoration was modest (+14% on average). Aquatic mosses were a key retentive feature in both channelised and natural streams, but their cover was drastically reduced through restoration. 6. Mitigation of the detrimental impacts of forestry (e.g. removal of mature riparian forests) is a major challenge to the management of boreal streams. This goal cannot be achieved by focusing efforts only on restoration of physical structures in stream channels, but also requires conservation and ecologically sound management of riparian forests.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>TIMO MUOTKA</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Biology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland</json:string><json:string>Research Department, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>JUKKA SYRJÄNEN</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>benthic macroinvertebrates</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>boreal streams</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>juvenile trout</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>restoration assessment</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>stream restoration</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><abstract>1. Most Finnish streams were channelised during the 19th and 20th century to facilitate timber floating. By the late 1970s, extensive programmes were initiated to restore these degraded streams. The responses of fish populations to restoration have been little studied, however, and monitoring of other stream biota has been negligible. In this paper, we review results from a set of studies on the effects of stream restoration on habitat structure, brown trout populations, benthic macroinvertebrates and leaf retention. 2. In general, restoration greatly increased stream bed heterogeneity. The cover of mosses in channelised streams was close to that of unmodified reference sites, but after restoration moss cover declined to one‐tenth of the pre‐restoration value. 3. In one stream, densities of age‐0 trout were slightly lower after restoration, but the difference to an unmodified reference stream was non‐significant, indicating no effect of restoration. In another stream, trout density increased after restoration, indicating a weakly positive response. The overall weak response of trout to habitat manipulations probably relates to the fact that restoration did not increase the amount of pools, a key winter habitat for salmonids. 4. Benthic invertebrate community composition was more variable in streams restored 4–6 years before sampling than in unmodified reference streams or streams restored 8 years before sampling. Channelised streams supported a distinctive set of indicator species, most of which were filter‐feeders or scrapers, while most of the indicators in streams restored 8 years before sampling were shredders. 5. Leaf retentiveness in reference streams was high, with 60–70% of experimentally released leaves being retained within 50 m. Channelised streams were poorly retentive (c. 10% of leaves retained), and the increase in retention following restoration was modest (+14% on average). Aquatic mosses were a key retentive feature in both channelised and natural streams, but their cover was drastically reduced through restoration. 6. Mitigation of the detrimental impacts of forestry (e.g. removal of mature riparian forests) is a major challenge to the management of boreal streams. This goal cannot be achieved by focusing efforts only on restoration of physical structures in stream channels, but also requires conservation and ecologically sound management of riparian forests.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>5</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>2419</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7510</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>49624</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>14</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>345</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>52</volume><pages><total>14</total><last>737</last><first>724</first></pages><issn><json:string>0046-5070</json:string></issn><issue>4</issue><genre></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1365-2427</json:string></eissn><title>Freshwater Biology</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2427</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2007</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01727.x</json:string></doi><id>3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FF</id><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FF/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FF/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FF/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>WILEY</p></availability><date>2007</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective</title><author><persName><forename type="first">TIMO</forename><surname>MUOTKA</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Biology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland</affiliation><affiliation>Research Department, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland</affiliation></author><author><persName><forename type="first">JUKKA</forename><surname>SYRJÄNEN</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Freshwater Biology</title><idno type="pISSN">0046-5070</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2427</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2427</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2007-04"></date><biblScope unit="volume">52</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="724">724</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="737">737</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FF</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01727.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">FWB1727</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2007</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>1. Most Finnish streams were channelised during the 19th and 20th century to facilitate timber floating. By the late 1970s, extensive programmes were initiated to restore these degraded streams. The responses of fish populations to restoration have been little studied, however, and monitoring of other stream biota has been negligible. In this paper, we review results from a set of studies on the effects of stream restoration on habitat structure, brown trout populations, benthic macroinvertebrates and leaf retention. 2. In general, restoration greatly increased stream bed heterogeneity. The cover of mosses in channelised streams was close to that of unmodified reference sites, but after restoration moss cover declined to one‐tenth of the pre‐restoration value. 3. In one stream, densities of age‐0 trout were slightly lower after restoration, but the difference to an unmodified reference stream was non‐significant, indicating no effect of restoration. In another stream, trout density increased after restoration, indicating a weakly positive response. The overall weak response of trout to habitat manipulations probably relates to the fact that restoration did not increase the amount of pools, a key winter habitat for salmonids. 4. Benthic invertebrate community composition was more variable in streams restored 4–6 years before sampling than in unmodified reference streams or streams restored 8 years before sampling. Channelised streams supported a distinctive set of indicator species, most of which were filter‐feeders or scrapers, while most of the indicators in streams restored 8 years before sampling were shredders. 5. Leaf retentiveness in reference streams was high, with 60–70% of experimentally released leaves being retained within 50 m. Channelised streams were poorly retentive (c. 10% of leaves retained), and the increase in retention following restoration was modest (+14% on average). Aquatic mosses were a key retentive feature in both channelised and natural streams, but their cover was drastically reduced through restoration. 6. Mitigation of the detrimental impacts of forestry (e.g. removal of mature riparian forests) is a major challenge to the management of boreal streams. This goal cannot be achieved by focusing efforts only on restoration of physical structures in stream channels, but also requires conservation and ecologically sound management of riparian forests.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>benthic macroinvertebrates</term></item><item><term>boreal streams</term></item><item><term>juvenile trout</term></item><item><term>restoration assessment</term></item><item><term>stream restoration</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2007-04">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FF/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2427</doi><issn type="print">0046-5070</issn><issn type="electronic">1365-2427</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="FWB"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="FRESHWATER BIOLOGY">Freshwater Biology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="04004"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/fwb.2007.52.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="52">52</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2007-04">April 2007</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="9" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01727.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="FWB1727"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="14"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2007-03-02"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2007-03-02"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.5 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-04-09"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-26"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="724">724</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="737">737</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>T. Muotka, University of Oulu, Department of Biology, PO Box 3000, 90014 University of Oulu, Finland. E‐mail: <email>timo.muotka@oulu.fi</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:FWB.FWB1727.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>(Manuscript accepted 21 November 2006)</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="7"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective</title><title type="shortAuthors"><i>T. Muotka and J. Syrjänen</i></title><title type="short"><i>Recovery of restored boreal streams</i></title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1 #a2"><personName><givenNames>TIMO</givenNames><familyName>MUOTKA</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>JUKKA</givenNames><familyName>SYRJÄNEN</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="FI"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Biology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="FI"><unparsedAffiliation>Research Department, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="FI"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">benthic macroinvertebrates</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">boreal streams</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">juvenile trout</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">restoration assessment</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">stream restoration</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Summary</title><p>1. Most Finnish streams were channelised during the 19th and 20th century to facilitate timber floating. By the late 1970s, extensive programmes were initiated to restore these degraded streams. The responses of fish populations to restoration have been little studied, however, and monitoring of other stream biota has been negligible. In this paper, we review results from a set of studies on the effects of stream restoration on habitat structure, brown trout populations, benthic macroinvertebrates and leaf retention.</p><p>2. In general, restoration greatly increased stream bed heterogeneity. The cover of mosses in channelised streams was close to that of unmodified reference sites, but after restoration moss cover declined to one‐tenth of the pre‐restoration value.</p><p>3. In one stream, densities of age‐0 trout were slightly lower after restoration, but the difference to an unmodified reference stream was non‐significant, indicating no effect of restoration. In another stream, trout density increased after restoration, indicating a weakly positive response. The overall weak response of trout to habitat manipulations probably relates to the fact that restoration did not increase the amount of pools, a key winter habitat for salmonids.</p><p>4. Benthic invertebrate community composition was more variable in streams restored 4–6 years before sampling than in unmodified reference streams or streams restored 8 years before sampling. Channelised streams supported a distinctive set of indicator species, most of which were filter‐feeders or scrapers, while most of the indicators in streams restored 8 years before sampling were shredders.</p><p>5. Leaf retentiveness in reference streams was high, with 60–70% of experimentally released leaves being retained within 50 m. Channelised streams were poorly retentive (<i>c.</i> 10% of leaves retained), and the increase in retention following restoration was modest (+14% on average). Aquatic mosses were a key retentive feature in both channelised and natural streams, but their cover was drastically reduced through restoration.</p><p>6. Mitigation of the detrimental impacts of forestry (e.g. removal of mature riparian forests) is a major challenge to the management of boreal streams. This goal cannot be achieved by focusing efforts only on restoration of physical structures in stream channels, but also requires conservation and ecologically sound management of riparian forests.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Recovery of restored boreal streams</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">TIMO</namePart><namePart type="family">MUOTKA</namePart><affiliation>Department of Biology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland</affiliation><affiliation>Research Department, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">JUKKA</namePart><namePart type="family">SYRJÄNEN</namePart><affiliation>Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2007-04</dateIssued><edition>(Manuscript accepted 21 November 2006)</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2007</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="figures">7</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">1. Most Finnish streams were channelised during the 19th and 20th century to facilitate timber floating. By the late 1970s, extensive programmes were initiated to restore these degraded streams. The responses of fish populations to restoration have been little studied, however, and monitoring of other stream biota has been negligible. In this paper, we review results from a set of studies on the effects of stream restoration on habitat structure, brown trout populations, benthic macroinvertebrates and leaf retention. 2. In general, restoration greatly increased stream bed heterogeneity. The cover of mosses in channelised streams was close to that of unmodified reference sites, but after restoration moss cover declined to one‐tenth of the pre‐restoration value. 3. In one stream, densities of age‐0 trout were slightly lower after restoration, but the difference to an unmodified reference stream was non‐significant, indicating no effect of restoration. In another stream, trout density increased after restoration, indicating a weakly positive response. The overall weak response of trout to habitat manipulations probably relates to the fact that restoration did not increase the amount of pools, a key winter habitat for salmonids. 4. Benthic invertebrate community composition was more variable in streams restored 4–6 years before sampling than in unmodified reference streams or streams restored 8 years before sampling. Channelised streams supported a distinctive set of indicator species, most of which were filter‐feeders or scrapers, while most of the indicators in streams restored 8 years before sampling were shredders. 5. Leaf retentiveness in reference streams was high, with 60–70% of experimentally released leaves being retained within 50 m. Channelised streams were poorly retentive (c. 10% of leaves retained), and the increase in retention following restoration was modest (+14% on average). Aquatic mosses were a key retentive feature in both channelised and natural streams, but their cover was drastically reduced through restoration. 6. Mitigation of the detrimental impacts of forestry (e.g. removal of mature riparian forests) is a major challenge to the management of boreal streams. This goal cannot be achieved by focusing efforts only on restoration of physical structures in stream channels, but also requires conservation and ecologically sound management of riparian forests.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>Keywords</genre><topic>benthic macroinvertebrates</topic><topic>boreal streams</topic><topic>juvenile trout</topic><topic>restoration assessment</topic><topic>stream restoration</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Freshwater Biology</title></titleInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0046-5070</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1365-2427</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2427</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">FWB</identifier><part><date>2007</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>52</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>724</start><end>737</end><total>14</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FF</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01727.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">FWB1727</identifier><recordInfo><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Eau/explor/LotaV3/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000972 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000972 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Eau
|area= LotaV3
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:3EE02212EC15364C9B993A9F93D7DF2EE338C8FF
|texte= Changes in habitat structure, benthic invertebrate diversity, trout populations and ecosystem processes in restored forest streams: a boreal perspective
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.39. |  |