Annex 1 - Literature Study Information Sources

Annex 1 - Literature study information sources

Table 7. Summary of literature study resources

Organisation name / Web address
River Restoration Centre / www.therrc.co.uk
STOWA / www.stowa.nl
Rijkswaterstaat / www.rijkswaterstaat.nl
Natural England / www.naturalengland.org.uk
UK Environment Agency / www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Thames Water / www.thameswater.co.uk
Emschergenossenschaft / www.emschergenossenschaft.de
US Environmental Protection Agency / www.epa.gov/epahome
LIFE+ / http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/
European Centre for River Rehabilitation (ECRR) / www.ecrr.org
Database name / Web address
Online public access catalogue (OPAC) / www.kdc.kun.nl/adlib-opac.html
Web of science / http://apps.isiknowledge.com
Dutch central catalogue / PiCarta / online contents / http://picarta.pica.nl
Science.gov / www.science.gov
Grey literature in the Netherlands (GLIN) / http://picarta.pica.nl
Greynet / http://www.greynet.org/greysourceindex.html
Opensigle / http://opensigle.inist.fr/
Milieuliteratuurbestand (MLB) / www.allesovermilieu.nl
Websites (general) / Web address
The STREAM project / www.streamlife.org.uk
SEMIDE/EMWIS / www.semide.net
PWM / www.portalwatermanagement.net
The British Library catalogue / www.catalogue.bl.uk
Restoring Rivers / www.restoringrivers.org
Virtual Library / Web address
BUBL link, Infomine, PSIgate / http://bubl.ac.uk/, http://infomine.ucr.edu/, http://www.intute.ac.uk
Metasearch engine / Web address
Oaister, Metacrawler, Scirus / www.oaister.org, www.metacrawler.com, www.scirus.com
Environmental search engine / Web address
Ecoearth, Earthplatform, Thegreensearchengine, Earthie / Ecoearth.info, Earthplatform.com, Thegreensearchengine.ca, Earthie.com

Table 8. Search terms used during the literature study

river / restoration / measurement / monitoring
stream / rehabilitation / objectives / assessment
rivieren / recolonisation / target / analysis
beken / benthos / indicators
benthic / indicatoren
lotic / appraisal
recovery

Annex 2 - Overview of literature study - articles and indicators

m - morphological improvement / lc - lateral connectivity / dr - dam removal
ich - in channel habitat improvement / hyd - hydrological improvement / rw - rewatering
rp - riparian planting / pol .-.. pollutant mitigation

Table 9. Overview of literature study: fish indicators

Reference / Land use / River size / Intervention type / Early indication? (within 5 yrs)
√ - positive response × - negative / no response / Monitoring duration (yrs)
Lai et al. 2004 / agricultural / small / ich, m / √ number of species / 3 months
Shields et al. 2003 / agriculture, forestry / small / ich / √ mean number species per sample / 1
× species richness, mean biomass, mean number species per sample, size, %centrarchids
Decker et al. 2008 / agricultural / medium / rw / √ species composition, individual abundance / 1
Chovanec et al. 2002 / urban / large / lc, m / √ number of species / 2
Schwartz & Herricks, 2007 / urban / medium / ich / √ density, biomass, shannon diversity, species richness / 2
Rosi-Marshaal et al. 2006 / limited anthropogenic influence / small / ich / √ size of individuals / 2
× total abundance
Pederson, Anderson et al. 2007 / agricultural / large / hyd, m, lc / × mortality / 2
Bushaw-Newton et al. 2002 / agriculture, forestry / medium / dr / √ rheophilic species / 2
× migratory species
Hepworth et al. 2004 / agricultural / medium / Ich, hyd / √ density, biomass / 3
× health score
Klein et al. 2007 / agricultural / medium / ich, lc / × salmonid density / 3
Lamouroux et al. 2006 / urban / large / hyd / √ relative species abundance / 4
× species richness, density
Brooks et al. 2006 / agricultural / medium / ich / √ local abundance / 4
× species richness, general abundance, assemblage
Shields et al. 2006 / agriculture, forestry / small / ich / √ Increased biomass, increased size, %family composition / 4
× number of individuals, number species
Simons et al. 2001 / agricultural / large / m / √ nursery habitat rheophilic A + B fish, density / 5
× rheophilic A age ≥ 1 individuals
Lepori et al. 2005 / agricultural / medium / ich / × evenness, standardized biomass, standardized abundance, total richness / 3-8
Douglas shields et al. 2007 a / agricultural / small / m, ich / √ species composition / 10 – 11
× overall abundance
Douglas shields et al. 2007 b / agricultural / small / m, ich / √ overall abundance, species number / 10 – 11
× species composition

a,b,c – Different restoration sites within the same paper.

Table 10. Overview of literature study: macroinvertebrate indicators

Reference / Land use / River size / Intervention type / Early indication? (within 5 yrs)
√ - positive response × - negative / no response / Monitoring duration (yrs)
Brooks et al. 2002 / limited anthropogenic influence / small / ich / × abundance, functional feeding groups, taxonomic richness, diversity, evenness, EPT taxa / 62 days
Lai et al. 2004 / limited anthropogenic influence / small / ich, m / √ taxa richness / 3 months
Decker et al. 2008 / limited anthropogenic influence / medium / rw / √ emphemeroptera + dipteran abundance / 1
Walther & Whiles, 2008 / agriculture, forestry, wetlands / medium / ich / √ EPT taxa, EPT biomass, general assemblage, functional groups / 1
× general diversity, density, biomass
Biggs et al. 1998 / limited anthropogenic influence / medium / m, lc / × reduction in rare species, species richness only to pre-rehabilitation values / 1-2
Blakeley & Harding, 2005 / urban / small / m, ich / × taxonomic richness, EPT taxa, density / 2
Larned et al. 2006 / urban / small / m, ich, rp / √ EPT taxa number / 2
× native taxa index, species richness, total density, macroinvertebrate community index, %individuals in EPT taxa
Rosi-Marshaal et al. 2006 / limited anthropogenic impact / small / ich / × density, diversity, functional feeding group / 2
Bushaw-Newton et al. 2002 / agriculture, forestry / medium / dr / √species composition / 2
× EPT taxa, %chironomids, mean density
Entrekin et al. 2009 a / forestry / small / ich / √ secondary production / 2
× taxa number, density, biomass
Entrekin et al. 2009 b / forestry / small / ich / × taxa number, secondary production, / 2
Entrekin et al. 2009 c / forestry / small / ich / √ biomass / 2
× taxa number, secondary production
Purcell et al. 2002 / urban / small / m, ich, lc, rp / √ biotic index (fewer pollution sensitive taxa) / 3
× species composition, species richness
Pederson, Friberg et al. 2007 / agricultural / large / m, ich / √ total jack-knife estimated species richness / 3
× habitat weighted mean diversity and abundance, mean species richness, EPT taxa number, BMWP*
Bij De Vaate et al. 2007 / mixed land use (urban, agriculture) / large / ich, m / √ lotic species, exotic species / 3
× species richness
Tullos et al. 2006 a / agricultural / variable / ich / × habitat specialists / 4
Tullos et al. 2006 b / urban / variable / ich / √ habitat specialists / 4
Simons et al. 2001 / agricultural / Large / m / √ rheophilic macroinvertebrate taxa, density, taxa number, rare rheophilic species / 5
× total taxa number, species density
Muotka et al. 2002 / forestry / small / ich / √ taxon richness, functional feeding groups, species composition / 8
Lepori et al. 2005 / forestry / medium / ich / × total abundance, evenness, taxonomic density, taxonomic richness, between patch similarity (2 metrics) / 3-8

*British monitoring working party score

a,b,c – Different restoration sites within the same paper

Table 11. Overview of literature study: morphological indicators

Reference / Land use / River size / Intervention type / Early indication? (within 5 yrs)
√ - positive response × - negative / no response / Monitoring duration (yrs)
Lai et al. 2004 / limited anthropogenic influence / small / ich, m / √ re-arrangement of bed following storm / 3 months
Kronvang et al. 1998 a / agriculture / medium / m / √ sinuosity, channel slope / 1
Kronvang et al. 1998 b / agriculture / medium / m / √ sinuosity / 1
Shields et al. 2003 / agriculture, forestry / small / ich / √ initial deposition then loss of structures and scouring during high flows / 1
Kondolf & Downs 2002 / rural, residential / small / ich / × floodplain scouring / 2
Wolfert, 2001 / agricultural / small / m / √ thalweg, cross section, bed diversity / 2
Bushaw-Newton et al. 2002 / agriculture, forestry / medium / dr / √ sediment balance / 2
Jahnig, 2007 / rural, agricultural residential / medium / m / √ channel width, depth profiles / 2-4
Pederson et al. 2006 / agricultural / small / m, ich, lc / √ interface slopes, bank width / >3
× width, depth, sinuosity
Klein et al. 2007 / agriculture / medium / ich, lc / √ channel length, sinuosity, bank slope decrease, thalweg depths / 3
× median channel width, median width/depth values
Shields et al. 2006 / agriculture, forestry / small / ich / √ deeper base flow / 4

a,b,c – Different restoration sites within the same paper.

Table 12. Overview of literature study: physico-chemical indicators

Reference / Land use / River size / Intervention type / Early indication? (within 5 yrs)
√ - positive response × - negative / no response / Monitoring duration (yrs)
Blakeley & Harding, 2005 / urban / small / m, ich / × pH, dissolved O2, turbidity, temperature, alkalinity, PO4-p, specific conductivity, light, substrate index, inorganic / organic sediment, heavy metals / 2
Larned et al. 2006 / urban / small / m, ich, rp / √ dissolved O2 (after macrophyte planting) / 2
Bushaw-Newton et al. 2002 / agriculture, forestry / medium / dr / × nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, total suspended solids, phosphorous, temperature, dissolved O2 / 2
Klein et al. 2007 / agriculture / medium / ich, lc / × temperature / 3
Pederson et al. 2006 / agricultural / small / m, ich, lc / × pH, total inorganic carbon, total N, No3, Total-P, Po4, temperature / >3

Table 13. Overview of literature study: habitat structure indicators

Reference / Land use / River size / Intervention type / Early indication? (within 5 yrs)
√ - positive response × - negative / no response / Monitoring duration (yrs)
Kronvang et al. 1998 a / agricultural / medium / m / √ pools, runs, riffles, glide, deadwater / <1
Kronvang et al. 1998 b / urban / medium / m / √ deadwater / <1
× runs, riffles, pools, glide
Jay-Lacey & Miller, 2004 / forestry / large / ich / √ scour holes / <1following flood event
Schwartz & Herricks, 2007 / urban / medium / ich / √ riffles, pools / 1
× bed substrate, shade
Browning, 2008 a / urban / small / ich / × rapid stream assessment / 1
Browning, 2008 b / urban / small / lc, m / × rapid stream assessment / 1
Browning, 2008 c / urban / small / ich, m, lc / × rapid stream assessment / 1
Shields et al. 2003 / agriculture, forestry / small / ich / √ deepened pool habitats / 1
Jacobsen & Thom, 2001 / ?mixed / ?varied / ich, rp, m / √ wood debris, pool area, slackwater, secondary channels, salmonid habitat / 1
× fine sediment (variability), gravel, habitat area
Levell & Chang, 2008 / agriculture, forestry, industry / small / ich, m / × fine sediment deposition, cross sectional degradation / 2
Entrekin et al. 2009 / forestry / small / ich / √ substrate type related to macroinvertebrate 2ndry production / 2
× substrate percentage cover
Kondolf & Downs, 2002 / agricultural / medium / ich / √ scouring / deposition, areas of low flow / 2.5
Babakaiff & Harelt, n.d. / forestry / medium / ich / √ scouring holes / <3
Rosi-Marshaal et al. 2006 / limited anthropogenic influence / small / ich / √ increase average + maximum depth, habitat quality score / 3
× organic matter content
Klein et al. 2007 / agriculture / medium / ich, lc / √ pools, riffles, glides, substrate grain size, spawning habitat / 3
Bij De Vaate et al. 2007 / urban, agriculture / large / ich, m / √ habitat quality index / 3
Pederson et al. 2006 / agricultural / small / m, ich, lc / √ substrate composition / >3
Kondolf & Downs, 2002 / mixed / medium / ich / × substrate / 4
Brooks et al. 2006 / agricultural / medium / ich / √ sediment deposition / erosion, reach complexity, pool habitat, exposed wood / 4
Purcell et al. 2002 / urban / small / m, ich, lc, rp / √ riffles, vegetative protection, substrate / <5
Muotka et al. 2002 / forestry / small / ich / √ bed roughness / 8
× moss cover
Douglas shields et al. 2007 a / agricultural / small / m, ich / × %bed gravel coverage, mean large wood density / 10 – 11
Douglas shields et al. 2007 b / agricultural / small / m, ich / √ %bed gravel coverage, mean large wood density / 10 – 11

a,b,c – Different restoration sites within the same paper.

Table 14. Overview of literature study: hydrological indicators

Reference / Land use / River size / Intervention
type / Early indication? (within 5 yrs)
√ - positive response × - negative / no response / Monitoring duration (yrs)
Brooks et al. 2002 / limited anthropogenic influence / small / ich / √ flow spatial variability / 62days
× flow rate, spatial variability of turbulence
Jay-Lacey & Miller, 2004 / forestry / large / ich / √ low velocity zones created / <1following flood event
Kronvang et al. 1998 a / agriculture / medium / m / √ flood frequency, stream-power, bank-full discharge / 1
Kronvang et al. 1998 b / agriculture / medium / m / √ stream-power, width at bank-full, flood frequency, flood duration, flood volume, discharge, bank-full discharge / 1
Kronvang et al. 1998 c / urban / medium / m / √ flood volume, flood frequency / 1
Shields et al. 2003 / agriculture, forestry / small / ich / √ increased flow resistance, retention, reduced velocities, depth, mean water width / 1
Larned et al. 2006 / urban / small / m, ich, rp / √ velocity / 2
Pederson, Friberg et al. 2007 / agricultural / large / m, ich / √ cross sectional velocity distribution, current velocity, increased heterogeneity of depth distributions / 3
Klein et al., 2007 / agriculture / medium / ich, lc / √ distance between water surface and top of banks reduced, floodplain storage, inundation, retention period / 3
× Median bank-full water velocity, median low flow velocity, groundwater depth
Pederson et al. 2006 / agricultural / small / m, ich, lc / √ velocity distribution / >3
× discharge, current velocity
Shields et al. 2006 / agriculture, forestry / small / ich / √ increased flow resistance, retention, moderate velocities, velocities within structures / 4
× velocity distribution
Purcell et al. 2002 / urban / small / m, ich, lc, rp / √ velocity/depth regime, channel flow status / <5
Douglas shields et al. 2007 a / agricultural / small / m, ich / √ mean water width, mean water depth / 10 – 11
Douglas shields et al. 2007 b / agricultural / small / m, ich / √ mean water width / 10 – 11
× mean water depth

a,b,c – Different restoration sites within the same paper.