Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters
Identifieur interne : 000E99 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000E98; suivant : 000F00Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters
Auteurs : C. WolterSource :
- Fisheries Management and Ecology [ 0969-997X ] ; 2010-04.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
Abstract Two rehabilitation projects were compared to determine their feasibility for successfully improving habitat for fish in urban waters. The first re‐meandering project involved channel reconstruction in the Müggelspree upstream of Berlin to create an aesthetically pleasing, stable, meandering channel. The second project addressed a typical habitat bottleneck for fish found in urban waterways; that of nursery habitats lost due to river engineering works. Rehabilitated and control sites were sampled before and after in the Müggelspree and once in the urban Spree River. A total of 30 303 fish belonging to 27 species were collected. The fish assemblage was dominated by generalist species with 81% roach, Rutilus rutilus (L.), and perch, Perca fluviatilis L. Species diversity did not improve in either the rural or urban stretch. In the Müggelspree, the loss of riverine habitats was mirrored by significant declines in the densities of chub, Leuciscus cephalus (L.), ide, Leuciscus idus (L.), gudgeon, Gobio gobio (L.), rheophilic and lithophilic species. By contrast, densities of rheophilic species around the artificial structures created in the urban Spree River, although the main effect was an overwhelming increase in roach and perch. The results suggest that if underlying bottlenecks can be identified, artificial structures can provide functional fish habitat that replaces the natural equivalent in urban river stretches. Consequently, even the most heavily degraded waters provide opportunities to improve fish diversity and fisheries using artificial habitat structures.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00725.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters</title><author><name sortKey="Wolter, C" sort="Wolter, C" uniqKey="Wolter C" first="C." last="Wolter">C. Wolter</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7</idno><date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00725.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000E99</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters</title><author><name sortKey="Wolter, C" sort="Wolter, C" uniqKey="Wolter C" first="C." last="Wolter">C. Wolter</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Fisheries Management and Ecology</title><idno type="ISSN">0969-997X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2400</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-04">2010-04</date><biblScope unit="volume">17</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="176">176</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="185">185</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0969-997X</idno></series><idno type="istex">F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00725.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">FME725</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0969-997X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Water Framework Directive</term><term>artificial shallows</term><term>good ecological potential</term><term>habitat improvement</term><term>re‐meandering</term><term>river restoration</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Abstract Two rehabilitation projects were compared to determine their feasibility for successfully improving habitat for fish in urban waters. The first re‐meandering project involved channel reconstruction in the Müggelspree upstream of Berlin to create an aesthetically pleasing, stable, meandering channel. The second project addressed a typical habitat bottleneck for fish found in urban waterways; that of nursery habitats lost due to river engineering works. Rehabilitated and control sites were sampled before and after in the Müggelspree and once in the urban Spree River. A total of 30 303 fish belonging to 27 species were collected. The fish assemblage was dominated by generalist species with 81% roach, Rutilus rutilus (L.), and perch, Perca fluviatilis L. Species diversity did not improve in either the rural or urban stretch. In the Müggelspree, the loss of riverine habitats was mirrored by significant declines in the densities of chub, Leuciscus cephalus (L.), ide, Leuciscus idus (L.), gudgeon, Gobio gobio (L.), rheophilic and lithophilic species. By contrast, densities of rheophilic species around the artificial structures created in the urban Spree River, although the main effect was an overwhelming increase in roach and perch. The results suggest that if underlying bottlenecks can be identified, artificial structures can provide functional fish habitat that replaces the natural equivalent in urban river stretches. Consequently, even the most heavily degraded waters provide opportunities to improve fish diversity and fisheries using artificial habitat structures.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>C. WOLTER</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>artificial shallows</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>good ecological potential</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>habitat improvement</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>re‐meandering</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>river restoration</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Water Framework Directive</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><abstract>Abstract Two rehabilitation projects were compared to determine their feasibility for successfully improving habitat for fish in urban waters. The first re‐meandering project involved channel reconstruction in the Müggelspree upstream of Berlin to create an aesthetically pleasing, stable, meandering channel. The second project addressed a typical habitat bottleneck for fish found in urban waterways; that of nursery habitats lost due to river engineering works. Rehabilitated and control sites were sampled before and after in the Müggelspree and once in the urban Spree River. A total of 30 303 fish belonging to 27 species were collected. The fish assemblage was dominated by generalist species with 81% roach, Rutilus rutilus (L.), and perch, Perca fluviatilis L. Species diversity did not improve in either the rural or urban stretch. In the Müggelspree, the loss of riverine habitats was mirrored by significant declines in the densities of chub, Leuciscus cephalus (L.), ide, Leuciscus idus (L.), gudgeon, Gobio gobio (L.), rheophilic and lithophilic species. By contrast, densities of rheophilic species around the artificial structures created in the urban Spree River, although the main effect was an overwhelming increase in roach and perch. The results suggest that if underlying bottlenecks can be identified, artificial structures can provide functional fish habitat that replaces the natural equivalent in urban river stretches. Consequently, even the most heavily degraded waters provide opportunities to improve fish diversity and fisheries using artificial habitat structures.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.747</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 805.039 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>6</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1597</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>4975</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>34638</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>10</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>231</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>17</volume><pages><total>10</total><last>185</last><first>176</first></pages><issn><json:string>0969-997X</json:string></issn><issue>2</issue><genre></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1365-2400</json:string></eissn><title>Fisheries Management and Ecology</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2400</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2010</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2010</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00725.x</json:string></doi><id>F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7</id><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>WILEY</p></availability><date>2010</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters</title><author><persName><forename type="first">C.</forename><surname>WOLTER</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Fisheries Management and Ecology</title><idno type="pISSN">0969-997X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2400</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2400</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-04"></date><biblScope unit="volume">17</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="176">176</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="185">185</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00725.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">FME725</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2010</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Abstract Two rehabilitation projects were compared to determine their feasibility for successfully improving habitat for fish in urban waters. The first re‐meandering project involved channel reconstruction in the Müggelspree upstream of Berlin to create an aesthetically pleasing, stable, meandering channel. The second project addressed a typical habitat bottleneck for fish found in urban waterways; that of nursery habitats lost due to river engineering works. Rehabilitated and control sites were sampled before and after in the Müggelspree and once in the urban Spree River. A total of 30 303 fish belonging to 27 species were collected. The fish assemblage was dominated by generalist species with 81% roach, Rutilus rutilus (L.), and perch, Perca fluviatilis L. Species diversity did not improve in either the rural or urban stretch. In the Müggelspree, the loss of riverine habitats was mirrored by significant declines in the densities of chub, Leuciscus cephalus (L.), ide, Leuciscus idus (L.), gudgeon, Gobio gobio (L.), rheophilic and lithophilic species. By contrast, densities of rheophilic species around the artificial structures created in the urban Spree River, although the main effect was an overwhelming increase in roach and perch. The results suggest that if underlying bottlenecks can be identified, artificial structures can provide functional fish habitat that replaces the natural equivalent in urban river stretches. Consequently, even the most heavily degraded waters provide opportunities to improve fish diversity and fisheries using artificial habitat structures.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>artificial shallows</term></item><item><term>good ecological potential</term></item><item><term>habitat improvement</term></item><item><term>re‐meandering</term></item><item><term>river restoration</term></item><item><term>Water Framework Directive</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2010-04">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7/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)1365-2400</doi><issn type="print">0969-997X</issn><issn type="electronic">1365-2400</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="FME"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ECOLOGY">Fisheries Management and Ecology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="04002"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/fme.2010.17.issue-2</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="17">17</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="2">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2010-04">April 2010</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="10" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00725.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="FME725"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="10"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1"><i>Original Articles</i></title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2010-02-05"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2010-03-12"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-16"></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="176">176</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="185">185</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Christian Wolter, Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Müggelseedamm 310, 12587 Berlin, Germany (e‐mail: <email normalForm="wolter@igb-berlin.de">wolter@igb‐berlin.de</email>)</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:FME.FME725.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="3"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="1"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters</title><title type="shortAuthors">C. WOLTER</title><title type="short">FUNCTIONAL VS SCENIC RESTORATION</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>C.</givenNames><familyName>WOLTER</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="aff-1-1" countryCode="DE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">artificial shallows</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">good ecological potential</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">habitat improvement</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">re‐meandering</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">river restoration</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">Water Framework Directive</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Abstract </b> Two rehabilitation projects were compared to determine their feasibility for successfully improving habitat for fish in urban waters. The first re‐meandering project involved channel reconstruction in the Müggelspree upstream of Berlin to create an aesthetically pleasing, stable, meandering channel. The second project addressed a typical habitat bottleneck for fish found in urban waterways; that of nursery habitats lost due to river engineering works. Rehabilitated and control sites were sampled before and after in the Müggelspree and once in the urban Spree River. A total of 30 303 fish belonging to 27 species were collected. The fish assemblage was dominated by generalist species with 81% roach, <i>Rutilus rutilus</i> (L.), and perch, <i>Perca fluviatilis</i> L. Species diversity did not improve in either the rural or urban stretch. In the Müggelspree, the loss of riverine habitats was mirrored by significant declines in the densities of chub, <i>Leuciscus cephalus</i> (L.), ide, <i>Leuciscus idus</i> (L.), gudgeon, <i>Gobio gobio</i> (L.), rheophilic and lithophilic species. By contrast, densities of rheophilic species around the artificial structures created in the urban Spree River, although the main effect was an overwhelming increase in roach and perch. The results suggest that if underlying bottlenecks can be identified, artificial structures can provide functional fish habitat that replaces the natural equivalent in urban river stretches. Consequently, even the most heavily degraded waters provide opportunities to improve fish diversity and fisheries using artificial habitat structures.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>FUNCTIONAL VS SCENIC RESTORATION</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">C.</namePart><namePart type="family">WOLTER</namePart><affiliation>Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany</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">2010-04</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010</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">3</extent><extent unit="tables">1</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Abstract Two rehabilitation projects were compared to determine their feasibility for successfully improving habitat for fish in urban waters. The first re‐meandering project involved channel reconstruction in the Müggelspree upstream of Berlin to create an aesthetically pleasing, stable, meandering channel. The second project addressed a typical habitat bottleneck for fish found in urban waterways; that of nursery habitats lost due to river engineering works. Rehabilitated and control sites were sampled before and after in the Müggelspree and once in the urban Spree River. A total of 30 303 fish belonging to 27 species were collected. The fish assemblage was dominated by generalist species with 81% roach, Rutilus rutilus (L.), and perch, Perca fluviatilis L. Species diversity did not improve in either the rural or urban stretch. In the Müggelspree, the loss of riverine habitats was mirrored by significant declines in the densities of chub, Leuciscus cephalus (L.), ide, Leuciscus idus (L.), gudgeon, Gobio gobio (L.), rheophilic and lithophilic species. By contrast, densities of rheophilic species around the artificial structures created in the urban Spree River, although the main effect was an overwhelming increase in roach and perch. The results suggest that if underlying bottlenecks can be identified, artificial structures can provide functional fish habitat that replaces the natural equivalent in urban river stretches. Consequently, even the most heavily degraded waters provide opportunities to improve fish diversity and fisheries using artificial habitat structures.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>Keywords</genre><topic>artificial shallows</topic><topic>good ecological potential</topic><topic>habitat improvement</topic><topic>re‐meandering</topic><topic>river restoration</topic><topic>Water Framework Directive</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Fisheries Management and Ecology</title></titleInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0969-997X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1365-2400</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2400</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">FME</identifier><part><date>2010</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>17</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>176</start><end>185</end><total>10</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00725.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">FME725</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</accessCondition><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 000E99 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000E99 | 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:F1EE52D9F02C92F5A45F8BDD5B900FB53D560BF7
|texte= Functional vs scenic restoration – challenges to improve fish and fisheries in urban waters
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.39. |  |