OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hughes, Francine M.R.; Colston, Adrian; Mountford, J. Owen (2005)
Publisher: Resilience Alliance
Journal: Ecology and Society
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: river restoration, floodplain forests, restoration objectives, QH540-549.5, Wicken Fen, predictability, variability, QH301-705.5, Ecology, restoration evaluation, Biology (General), restoration trajectories, reference systems
Flood disturbance processes play a key role in the functioning of riparian ecosystems and in the maintenance of biodiversity along river corridors. As a result, riparian ecosystems can be described as mobile habitat mosaics characterized by variability and unpredictability. Any river restoration initiative should aim to mimic these attributes. This paper suggests that there needs to be an increased institutional capacity to accept some levels of both variability and unpredictability in the ecological outcomes of river restoration projects. Restoration projects have frequently used some form of historical or contemporary reference system to define objectives and to help in the evaluation process. Using these reference systems can give a false sense of the predictability of ecological outcomes. We suggest that reference systems need to be used with caution for six reasons: (1) there are often no appropriate reference systems to use, (2) many catchment parameters have changed since the times of chosen historic reference systems, (3) climate change has been continuous throughout the Holocene, (4) projected climate change is of uncertain magnitude, (5) alien species cannot be avoided, and (6) landscape context changes through time. As well as defining short-term objectives, we suggest that river restoration projects should also formulate longer-term (decadel) restoration trajectories that are less predictable but more representative of real system attributes. Restoration trajectories could be defined using a range of ecological outcomes to accommodate interannual variability. The challenges of defining what levels of variability are important for restoring European floodplain forests are used to demonstrate the difficulties of broadening approaches and creating trajectories. In particular, the changing significance of variability at different spatial and temporal scales is discussed. An account is given of a restoration project at Wicken Fen in the United Kingdom in which nondeterministic approaches to goal setting have been initiated.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1996. Do rivers function as corridors for plant dispersal? Journal of Vegetation Science 7:593-598.
    • Johnson, W. C. 2002. Riparian vegetation diversity along regulated rivers: contribution of novel and relict habitats. Freshwater Biology 47:749-759.
    • Junk, W. J. 1989. Flood tolerance and tree distribution in central Amazonian floodplains.
    • Pages 47-64 in L. B. Holm-Nielsen, L. B. Nielsen, and H. Balslev, editors. Tropical forests. Academic Press, London, UK.
    • Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989.
    • The flood-pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106:110-127.
    • Kalliola, R., and M. Puhakka. 1988. River dynamics and vegetation mosaicism: a case study of the River Kamajohka, northernmost Finland.
    • Journal of Biogeography 15:703-719.
    • Kangas, P. C. 1989. Long-term development of forested wetlands. Pages 25-51 in A. Lugo, M. M.
    • Klimo, E., and H. Hager, editors. 2001. The floodplain forests in Europe: current situation and perspectives. European Forest Institute Research Report Number 10. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.
    • Holmes, N. T. H. 1991. Post-project appraisal of conservation enhancement of flood defence works.
    • Klötzli, F., and A. P. Grootjans. 2001. Restoration of natural and semi-natural wetland systems in central Europe: progress and predictability of developments. Restoration Ecology 9:209-219.
    • Hughes F. M. R. 1997. Floodplain biogeomorphology.
    • Progress in Physical Geography 21:501-529.
    • Hughes, F. M. R., editor. 2003. The flooded forest: guidance for policy makers and river managers in Europe on the restoration of floodplain forests.
    • FLOBAR2, Department of Geography. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
    • Hughes, F. M. R., and Rood, S. B. 2003. The allocation of river flows for the restoration of woody riparian and floodplain forest ecosystems: a review of approaches and their application in Europe.
    • Environmental Management 32:12-33.
    • Kondolf, G. M. 1995. Five elements for effective evaluation of stream restoration. Restoration Ecology 3:133-136.
    • Koutaniemi, L. 1991. Glacio-isostatically adjusted palaeohydrology, the rivers Ivalojoki and Oulankajoki, Northern Finland. Pages 65-78 in L.
    • Temperate palaeohydrology: fluvial processes in the temperate zone during the last 15000 years. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
    • Lefèvre, F., and D. Kajba. 2001. Indicators for monitoring genetic diversity. Pages 36-43 in F.
    • Vera, F. W. M. 2000. Grazing ecology and forest history. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
    • Van Dam, B. C., and S. Bordács, editors. 2002.
    • Genetic diversity in river populations of European black poplar: implications for riparian eco-system management; proceedings of an International Symposium on Genetic Diversity in River Populations of European Black Poplar. (Szekszard, Hungary, 2001). Verlag C. Nyomda, Budapest, Hungary.
    • 1998. Rehabilitation of degraded river habitat: an introduction. Pages 1-10 in L. C. de Waal, A. R. G.
    • Claret. 2002. Riverine landscape diversity.
    • Freshwater Biology 47:517-539.
    • Wissmar, R. C. and P. A. Bisson. 2003. Strategies for restoring river ecosystems: sources of variability and uncertainty. Pages 3-7 in R. C. Wissmar and P.
    • Wissmar, R. C., J. H. Braatne, R. L. Beschta, and S. B. Rood. 2003. Variability of riparian ecosystems: implications for restoration. Pages107-127 in R. C. Wissmar and P. A. Bisson, editors.
    • Hayes, K. S. Richards, and C. Nilsson. 2003.
    • Interactive effects of soil moisture, vegetation canopy, plant litter and seeds on diversity in a British wetland plant community. Journal of Ecology 91:976-986.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok