Advertisement

Chinese Geographical Science

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Global Trends in Dam Removal and Related Research: A Systematic Review Based on Associated Datasets and Bibliometric Analysis

  • Liuyong Ding
  • Liqiang Chen
  • Chengzhi DingEmail author
  • Juan TaoEmail author
Article

Abstract

Dam removal has been increasingly reported globally and is becoming an important approach for river management, restoration and environmental conservation in damming rivers. However, current limited knowledge of global trends in dam removal and related research may be potentially biased in terms of the geographic distribution and organisms studied. Such bias could mislead dam removal planning and management in different areas and ecological conservation for different taxa. In this study, we quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed datasets of dam removal and publications of dam removal research using bibliometric methods. A total of 1449 dam removal documents were published from 1953 to 2016. Trends, current hotspots and future directions of dam removal research were identified. The results from this study reveal that dam removal largely occurred in the North America and Europe, and most of the removed dams were small and old dams. With respect to the topic analysis, more dam removal studies should focus on the responses of a wide range of organisms, not only fish, as well as the interspecies relationships, food webs and ecosystem structures and functions. Based on our findings, we also provide some suggestions for future dam removal planning and analysis.

Keywords

dam demolition literature research topics weir 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgement

We wish to thank Dr. Wu Ruidong from Yunnan University for his helpful suggestions on the manuscript.

References

  1. ReferencesGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackers P, White W R, 1973. Sediment transport: new approach and analysis. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 99(11): 2041–2060.Google Scholar
  3. Alcaraz C, Carmona-Catot G, Risueño P et al., 2015. Assessing population status of Parachondrostoma arrigonis (Steindachner, 1866), threats and conservation perspectives. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 98(1): 443–455. doi: 10.1007/s10641-014-0274-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angermeier P L, 2008. Fish conservation: a guide to understanding and restoring global aquatic biodiversity and fishery resources. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(3): 802–804. doi: 10.1899/0887-3593(2008)27[802:BR]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter R M, 1977. Environmental effects of dams and impoundments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8: 255–283. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.08.110177.001351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bednarek A T, 2001. Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environmental Management, 27(6): 803–814. doi: 10.1007/s002670010189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellmore J R, Duda J J, Craig L S et al., 2017. Status and trends of dam removal research in the United States. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 4(3): e1164. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohrerova Z, Park E, Halloran K et al., 2017. Water quality changes shortly after low–head dam removal examined with cultural and microbial source tracking methods. River Research and Applications, 33(1): 113–122. doi: 10.1002/rra.3069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Born S M, Genskow K D, Filbert T L et al., 1998. Socioeconomic and institutional dimensions of dam removals: the wisconsin experience. Environmental Management, 22(3): 359–370. doi: 10.1007/s002679900111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brewitt P K, 2016. Do the fish return? A qualitative assessment of anadromous pacific salmonids’ upstream movement after dam removal. Northwest Science, 90(4): 433–449. doi: 10.3955/046.090.0405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brouwer J H D, Renkema J M S, Kersten A M P, 2014. Endnote X7. Wageningen: Wageningen UR Library.Google Scholar
  12. Bunn S E, Arthington A H, 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30(4): 492–507. doi: 10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheng F, Granata T, 2007. Sediment transport and channel adjustments associated with dam removal: field observations. Water Resources Research, 43(3): W03444. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ding Chengzhi, Jiang Xiaoming, Wang Lieen et al., 2018. Fish assemblage responses to a low-head dam removal in the Lancang River. Chinese Geographical Science. doi: 10.1007/s11769-018-0995-xGoogle Scholar
  15. Dudgeon D, 2003. The contribution of scientific information to the conservation and management of freshwater biodiversity in tropical Asia. Hydrobiologia, 500(1–3): 295–314. doi: 10.1023/A:1024666627070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dudgeon D, 2010. Prospects for sustaining freshwater biodiversity in the 21st century: linking ecosystem structure and function. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(5–6): 422–430. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dugan P J, Barlow C, Agostinho A A et al., 2010. Fish migration, dams, and loss of ecosystem services in the Mekong basin. Ambio, 39(4): 344–348. doi: 10.1007/s13280-010-0036-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO, 2001. Dams, Fish and Fisheries: Opportunities, Challenges and Conflict Resolution. Rome: The Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
  19. Foley M M, Bellmore J R, O’Connor J E et al., 2017. Dam removal: listening in. Water Resources Research, 53(7): 5229–5246. doi: 10.1002/2017WR020457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gangloff M M, Edgar G J, Wilson B, 2016. Imperilled species in aquatic ecosystems: emerging threats, management and future prognoses. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(5): 858–871. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grant G, 2001. Dam removal: panacea or Pandora for rivers? Hydrological Processes, 15(8): 1531–1532. doi: 10.1002/hyp.473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halsing D L, Moore M R, 2008. Cost-effective management alternatives for snake river chinook salmon: a biologicaleconomic synthesis. Conservation Biology, 22(2): 338–350. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00913.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hart D D, Johnson T E, Bushaw-Newton K L et al., 2002. Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for ecological research and river restoration: we develop a risk assessment framework for understanding how potential responses to dam removal vary with dam and watershed characteristics, which can lead to more effective use of this restoration method. Bioscience, 52(8): 669–682. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0669:DRCAOF]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirsch J E, 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46): 16569–16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kang J H, Kazama S, 2013. Short-term river response and restoration of biological diversity following slit construction. Journal of Hydro-Environment Research, 7(3): 161–173. doi: 10.1016/j.jher.2013.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Katopodis C, Aadland L P, 2006. Effective dam removal and river channel restoration approaches. International Journal of River Basin Management, 4(3): 153–oi: 10.1080/15715124.2006.9635285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klima V A, 2014. The Penobscot River Restoration Trust and the Return of Alewife and Blueback Herring, Alosa Pseudoharengus and a. Aestivalis, in the Penobscot River, Maine. Fort Lauderdale: Nova Southeastern University.Google Scholar
  28. Larinier M, 2000. Dams and Fish Migration: World Commission on Dams. Roma: The Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
  29. Lehner B, Liermann C R, Revenga C et al., 2011. High-resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and dams for sustainable river-flow management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(9): 494–502. doi: 10.1890/100125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lejon A G C, Renöfält B M, Nilsson C, 2009. Conflicts associated with dam removal in Sweden. Ecology and Society, 14(2): 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu F L, Lin A W, Wang H H et al., 2016. Global research trends of geographical information system from 1961 to 2010: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 106(2): 751–768. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1789-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu X J, Zhang L, Hong S, 2011. Global biodiversity research during 1900–2009: a bibliometric analysis. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(4): 807–826. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9981-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Magilligan F J, Nislow K H, Kynard B E et al., 2016. Immediate changes in stream channel geomorphology, aquatic habitat, and fish assemblages following dam removal in a small upland catchment. Geomorphology, 252: 158–170. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.07.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mane K K, Börner K, 2004. Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(S1): 5287–5290. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0307626100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marchese C, 2015. Biodiversity hotspots: a shortcut for a more complicated concept. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3: 297–309. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2014.12.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McLaughlin J F, 2013. Engaging birds in vegetation restoration after elwha dam removal. Ecological Restoration, 31(1): 46–56. doi: 10.3368/er.31.1.46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mullens J B, Wanstreet V, 2010. Using willingness-to-pay surveys when assessing dam removal: a new hampshire case study. The Geographical Bulletin, 51(2): 97–110.Google Scholar
  38. Myers N, Mittermeier R A, Mittermeier C G et al., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772): 853–858. doi: 10.1038/35002501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neeson T M, Ferris M C, Diebel M W et al., 2015. Enhancing ecosystem restoration efficiency through spatial and temporal coordination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(19): 6236–6241. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423812112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nilsson C, Reidy C A, Dynesius M et al., 2005. Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science, 308(5720): 405–408. doi: 10.1126/science.1107887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Connor J E, Duda J J, Grant G E, 2015. 1000 dams down and counting. Science, 348(6234): 496–497. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa9204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poff N L, Hart D D, 2002. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal: an ecological classification of dams is needed to characterize how the tremendous variation in the size, operational mode, age, and number of dams in a river basin influences the potential for restoring regulated rivers via dam removal. Bioscience, 52(8): 659–668. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0659:HDVAWI]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pohl M M, 2002. Bringing down our dams: trends in american dam removal rationales. Jawra Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38(6): 1511–1519. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb04361.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raghavan R, Das S, Nameer P O et al., 2016. Protected areas and imperilled endemic freshwater biodiversity in the Western Ghats Hotspot. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(S1): 78–90. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richter B, Baumgartner J, Wigington R et al., 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology, 37(1): 231–249. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1997.00153.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rollet A J, 2014. Geomorphological and river management issues of dam removal: lessons from low order and low gradient streams. SAO/NASA ADS. Avilable at: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014EGUGA.16.3344R Google Scholar
  47. Schneider S, 2007. Macrophyte trophic indicator values from a European perspective. Limnologica, 37(4): 281–289. doi: 10.1016/j.limno.2007.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Service R F, 2011. Will busting dams boost salmon? Science, 334(6058): 888–892. doi: 10.1126/science.334.6058.888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shafroth P B, Friedman J M, Auble G T et al., 2002. Potential responses of riparian vegetation to dam removal: dam removal generally causes changes to aspects of the physical environment that influence the establishment and growth of riparian vegetation. Bioscience, 52(8): 703–712. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0703:PRORVT]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shuman J R, 1995. Environmental considerations for assessing dam removal alternatives for river restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 11(3–4): 249–261. doi: 10.1002/rrr.3450110302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith M G, 2006. Dam removal: a taxonomy with implications for economic analysis. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 134(1): 34–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-704X.2006.mp134001007.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stanley E H, Doyle M W, 2003. Trading off: the ecological effects of dam removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(1): 15–22. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0015:TOTEEO]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tao J, Che R X, He D K et al., 2015. Trends and potential cautions in food web research from a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(1): 435–447. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1679-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. The H John Heinz III Center, 2002. Dam Removal: Science and Decision Making. Washington: Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.Google Scholar
  55. Vannote R L, Minshall G W, Cummins K W et al., 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37(1): 130–137. doi: 10.1139/f80-017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vörösmarty C J, Mcintyre P B, Gessner M O et al., 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 468(7321): 334. doi: 10.1038/nature09549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang P, Dong S K, Lassoie J P, 2014. The Large Dam Dilemma: An Exploration of the Impacts of Hydro Projects on People and the Environment in China. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7630-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang Ruonan, Wu Wenqiang, Peng Wenqi et al., 2015. An analysis of the reasons of dam removal in the united states. China Rural Water and Hydropower, (9): 135–138, 143. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  59. Wickham H, 2016. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wohl E E, Cenderelli D A, 2000. Sediment deposition and transport patterns following a reservoir sediment release. Water Resources Research, 36(1): 319–333. doi: 10.1029/1999WR900272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. World Commission on Dams, 2000. Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-making-the Report of the World Commission on Dams. United Kingdom: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
  62. Wu J G, Huang J H, Han X G et al., 2003. Three-gorges damexperiment in habitat fragmentation? Science, 300(5623): 1239–1240. doi: 10.1126/science.1083312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. York S N, 2014. Science of science (sci2) tool. In: Alhajj R, Rokne J (eds). Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Zarfl C, Lumsdon A E, Berlekamp J et al., 2015. A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquatic Sciences, 77(1): 161–170. doi: 10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhang C, Ding L Y, Ding C Z et al., 2018. Responses of species and phylogenetic diversity of fish communities in the Lancang River to hydropower development and exotic invasions. Ecological Indicators, 90: 261–279. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhang Yuan, Chen Libin, Qu Xiaodong et al., 2011. Environmental factors and community characteristics of aquatic macrophytes in Taizi river tributaries of Liaoning Province. Plant Science Journal, 29(5): 552–560. (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agricultural Ecology, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yunnan Key Laboratory of International Rivers and Transboundary Eco-securityYunnan UniversityKunmingChina
  2. 2.Institute of International Rivers and Eco-securityYunnan UniversityKunmingChina

Personalised recommendations