Matthew R. Orr, Nicholas P. Weber, Ron J. Reuter, S. Herzog, Heather M. Broughton, Samantha Bango
{"title":"Multiyear trajectories of stream and riparian responses to beaver dam analogs on a low‐gradient channel lacking woody riparian vegetation","authors":"Matthew R. Orr, Nicholas P. Weber, Ron J. Reuter, S. Herzog, Heather M. Broughton, Samantha Bango","doi":"10.1111/rec.14223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Beaver‐based restoration techniques seek to assist with the recovery of stream systems that have been damaged, degraded, or destroyed. In addition to reintroducing beaver, restoration practitioners have sought to mimic the influence of beaver dams on stream processes by building beaver dam analogs (BDAs). Stream restoration has been criticized for a lack of extended monitoring and a dearth of empirical evidence for the efficacy of BDAs. Here, we extend early and previously reported 1‐ to 2‐year monitoring of five BDAs on a low‐gradient stream lacking woody riparian vegetation to 3–6 years, depending on the parameter examined. BDAs raised groundwater near the stream and did not affect water temperatures during the duration of monitoring. Consistent with elevated groundwater levels, riparian willow cuttings grew 2.8–9.6 times more when planted near BDAs than far from BDAs, which was more than the 1.3‐ to 1.4‐fold difference after the first growing season. In contrast, a short‐term association between BDAs and willow survival disappeared in the long term. Likewise, sediment aggradation above the upstream BDA 1 year after construction reversed completely 4 years later, probably due to structural damage during high flows that could not be repaired until flows abated. Annual peak flow levels explained over 80% of the variation in the number of structures requiring annual repair. Our results suggest that BDA‐based restoration should account for both the costs of structure maintenance during project planning and the importance of long‐term monitoring during project assessment.","PeriodicalId":54487,"journal":{"name":"Restoration Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restoration Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14223","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Beaver‐based restoration techniques seek to assist with the recovery of stream systems that have been damaged, degraded, or destroyed. In addition to reintroducing beaver, restoration practitioners have sought to mimic the influence of beaver dams on stream processes by building beaver dam analogs (BDAs). Stream restoration has been criticized for a lack of extended monitoring and a dearth of empirical evidence for the efficacy of BDAs. Here, we extend early and previously reported 1‐ to 2‐year monitoring of five BDAs on a low‐gradient stream lacking woody riparian vegetation to 3–6 years, depending on the parameter examined. BDAs raised groundwater near the stream and did not affect water temperatures during the duration of monitoring. Consistent with elevated groundwater levels, riparian willow cuttings grew 2.8–9.6 times more when planted near BDAs than far from BDAs, which was more than the 1.3‐ to 1.4‐fold difference after the first growing season. In contrast, a short‐term association between BDAs and willow survival disappeared in the long term. Likewise, sediment aggradation above the upstream BDA 1 year after construction reversed completely 4 years later, probably due to structural damage during high flows that could not be repaired until flows abated. Annual peak flow levels explained over 80% of the variation in the number of structures requiring annual repair. Our results suggest that BDA‐based restoration should account for both the costs of structure maintenance during project planning and the importance of long‐term monitoring during project assessment.
期刊介绍:
Restoration Ecology fosters the exchange of ideas among the many disciplines involved with ecological restoration. Addressing global concerns and communicating them to the international research community and restoration practitioners, the journal is at the forefront of a vital new direction in science, ecology, and policy. Original papers describe experimental, observational, and theoretical studies on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater systems, and are considered without taxonomic bias. Contributions span the natural sciences, including ecological and biological aspects, as well as the restoration of soil, air and water when set in an ecological context; and the social sciences, including cultural, philosophical, political, educational, economic and historical aspects. Edited by a distinguished panel, the journal continues to be a major conduit for researchers to publish their findings in the fight to not only halt ecological damage, but also to ultimately reverse it.