Chalk stream restoration: Physical and ecological responses to gravel augmentation.

Lewis A Dolman, Andrew S Vowles, Paul S Kemp
Author Information
  1. Lewis A Dolman: International Centre for Ecohydraulics Research, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Hampshire, Southampton, United Kingdom. ORCID
  2. Andrew S Vowles: International Centre for Ecohydraulics Research, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Hampshire, Southampton, United Kingdom.
  3. Paul S Kemp: International Centre for Ecohydraulics Research, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Hampshire, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Abstract

To mitigate the morphological and ecological impacts of direct (e.g. dredging) and indirect (e.g. damaged river function) sediment loss, gravel augmentation is commonly practiced in river systems globally. Despite this, the effectiveness of this practice remains poorly understood, especially in less often considered systems such as chalk streams which present uncommon conditions (e.g. low stream power, stable flow) and may respond to interventions in ways that differ from systems more commonly studied. This study quantified immediate (0-1 years) and short-term (1-2 years) physical and ecological responses to gravel augmentation at two English chalk stream restoration sites: Home Stream (HS; River Test) and East Lodge (EL; River Itchen). We quantified habitat (depth, velocity, substrate composition), cover of different macrophytes, and macroinvertebrate (before-after-control-impact) abundance and community structure. Restoration reduced depth and increased gravel cover in both sites and decreased the cover of filamentous green algae in HS. Macroinvertebrate communities became more dominated by silt-intolerant taxa, while abundance [HS only] and taxon richness increased 1-2 years post-restoration. Whilst the responses found were generally positive in light of the restoration goals, the effects varied across sites, post-restoration time periods and ecological groups, emphasising the need for the more holistic monitoring of restoration projects considering community-level responses at different sites and systems over ecologically relevant timescales. This will help inform on the generality and longevity of responses and provide the evidence needed to develop sound restoration practice.

References

  1. Environ Manage. 1997 Jul;21(4):533-51 [PMID: 9175542]
  2. Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 16;7(1):205 [PMID: 28302999]
  3. J Environ Manage. 2020 Jun 15;264:110417 [PMID: 32217312]
  4. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014 Jan 22;2014:309673 [PMID: 24587718]
  5. Sci Total Environ. 2018 Mar 15;618:961-970 [PMID: 29126643]
  6. Ecol Appl. 2011 Sep;21(6):1926-31 [PMID: 21939034]
  7. J Environ Manage. 2020 Jul 1;265:110288 [PMID: 32421567]
  8. Ambio. 2021 Jan;50(1):85-94 [PMID: 32040746]
  9. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Mar 1;706:135743 [PMID: 31841838]
  10. Sci Total Environ. 2022 Sep 10;838(Pt 1):155877 [PMID: 35569654]
  11. Ecol Appl. 2011 Sep;21(6):1962-71 [PMID: 21939037]
  12. Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 20;6:29269 [PMID: 27435118]
  13. Environ Monit Assess. 2020 Feb 18;192(3):184 [PMID: 32072347]

MeSH Term

Rivers
Ecosystem
Animals
Conservation of Natural Resources
Geologic Sediments
Invertebrates
Environmental Restoration and Remediation
Biodiversity

Word Cloud

Similar Articles

Cited By