Advertisement

Technical assessment and decision making for the environmental recovery of waterways and their banks: a science-based protocol

  • R. A. Silva
  • A. A. de Oliveira Afonso
  • W. Francescony
  • A. M. da SilvaEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The poor management of aquatic ecosystems often results in environmental degradation, which requires actions for its recovery. A field protocol was elaborated to guide users (restorationists) to assess degraded areas and provide site- and situation-specific interventionist actions. The protocol was developed following the plant or animal taxonomy framework by Linnaeus, considering that the first character has two mutually exclusive possibilities. It was elaborated in three parts: (1) a technical glossary, (2) a hierarchical key, and (3) a set of intervention actions that are indicated according to the case. Complementarily, ten degraded sites (lentic or lotic ecosystem), all located in continental regions of the Brazilian territory, were evaluated using this key. The protocol was thought to be applied to continental and superficial water bodies. It starts separating the lotic and lentic ecosystems, and after each part goes for specific ways, all of them finishing in one or more interventionist action(s). The set of actions presented is composed of fourteen scenarios, seven of them to be implemented on-site, five to be implemented off-site, and two to be implemented on- and/or off-site. The intervention actions range from simply monitoring, to revegetation of the riparian zone, to activities that target the reoxygenation of hypolimnion. The study cases exemplify the use of the key and provide insight into the required adjustments for the implementation of intervention actions. The protocol and guidelines presented here will allow in a systematic manner, assess and compare the outcomes and efficiency of river restoration projects, locally, regionally and internationally.

Keywords

Aquatic ecosystems reclamation Ecological restoration Ecosystems repair River ecotechnology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank CAPES (Federal Brazilian Agency for Betterment of Human Resources of Higher Education) for providing a scholarship for the first author (Grant Number not provided).

Supplementary material

13762_2018_1873_MOESM1_ESM.doc (10.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 11033 kb)

References

  1. Afonso AAO, Henry R, Rodella RCSM (2000) Allochthonous matter input in two different stretches of a headstream (Itatinga, São Paulo, Brazil). Braz Arch Biol Technol 43:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angrill S, Petit-Boix A, Morales-Pinzón T, Josa A, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X (2017) Urban rainwater runoff quantity and quality—a potential endogenous resource in cities? J Environ Manag 189:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthington AH (2015) Environmental flows: a scientific resource and policy framework for river conservation and restoration. Aquat Conserv 25:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker K (2012) Water security: research challenges and opportunities. Science 337:914–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbosa MC, de Almeida MDSS (2001) Dredging and disposal of fine sediments in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J Hazard Mater 85:15–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrella W, Smith WS (2000) The ichthyofauna of the marginal lagoons of the Sorocaba River, SP, Brazil: composition, abundance, and effect of the anthropogenic actions. Rev Bras de Biol 60:627–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beechie TJ, Sear DA, Olden JD, Pess GR, Buffington JM, Moir H, Roni P, Pollock MM (2010) Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. Bioscience 60:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernhardt ES, Palmer M, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D (2005) Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth DB, Roy AH, Smith B, Capps KA (2016) Global perspectives on the urban stream syndrome. Freshw Sci 35:412–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Britney A (2015) Stream order—a classification of the rank of streams and rivers. http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/streamorder.htm. Accessed Nov 2015
  11. Cooke GD, Welch EB, Peterson S, Nichols AS (2016) Restoration and management of lakes and reservoirs, 3rd edn. CRC Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbin JD, Holl KD (2012) Applied nucleation as a forest restoration strategy. For Ecol Manag 265:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowx IG, Welcomme RL (1998) Rehabilitation of rivers for fish. Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO Books, DocklandsGoogle Scholar
  14. Esteves FA (2011) Fundamentos de limnologia, 3rd edn. Interciência, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  15. Haan CT, Barfield BJ, Hayes JC (1994) Design hydrology and sedimentology for small catchments. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. James AB (2013) A review of the ecological effects of macrophyte management in soft-bottomed waterways. Waikato Regional Council Technical Report 2013/03. EOS Ecology, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  17. Jelte A, Aronson J (2006) Restoration ecology: the new frontier. Blackwell Publishing, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  18. Kauffman JB, Beschta RL, Otting N, Lytjen D (1997) An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 22:12–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lange C, Schneider M, Mutz M, Haustein M, Halle M, Seidel M, Hinkelmann R (2015) Model-based design for restoration of a small urban river. J Hydro Environ Res 9:226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Le AH, Tokai A, Nakakubo T (2014) Applying value of information methods to prioritize elements for water quality management with an example of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate in the Yodo River, Japan. Environ Syst Decis 34:110–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lorenz AW, Feld CK (2013) Upstream river morphology and riparian land use overrule local restoration effects on ecological status assessment. Hydrobiologia 704:489–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDonald T, Jonson J, Dixon KW (2016) National standards for the practice of ecological restoration in Australia. Restor Ecol 24:S4–S32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mohan R, Doody JP, Patmont C, Gardner R, Shellenberger A (2016) Review of environmental dredging in North America: current practice and lessons learned. J Dredg 15:29–50Google Scholar
  24. Moore RD, Richardson JS (2003) Progress towards understanding the structure, function, and ecological significance of small stream channels and their riparian zones. Can J For Res 33:1349–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morandi B, Piégay H, Lamouroux N, Vaudor L (2014) How is success or failure in river restoration projects evaluated? feedback from French restoration projects. J Environ Manag 137:178–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. NRC (National Research Council) (1992) Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Paillex A, Schuwirth N, Lorenz AW, Januschke K, Peter A, Reichert P (2017) Integrating and extending ecological river assessment: concept and test with two restoration projects. Ecol Indic 72:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palmer MA, Hondula KL, Koch BJ (2014) Ecological restoration of streams and rivers: shifting strategies and shifting goals. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 45:247–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perrow MR, Davy AJ (eds) (2002) Handbook of ecological restoration, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Poff N et al (2016) Sustainable water management under future uncertainty with eco-engineering decision scaling. Nat Clim Change 6(1):25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roni P, Beechie TJ, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR (2002) A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. N Am J Fish Manag 22:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schiemer F, Zalewski M, Thorpe JE (eds) (2013) The importance of aquatic-terrestrial ecotones for freshwater fish (V. 105). Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. Silva RA (2015) Criação e desenvolvimento de uma chave para apoio no diagnóstico e na tomada de decisão de ações de restauração ecológica de cursos d´água e adjacências. Master Science Dissertation. Sao Paulo State University, http://www2.feb.unesp.br/pos/bibliotecavirtual/documento.php?COD=2421fcb1263b9530df88f7f002e78ea5. Accessed Sept 2016
  34. Summerfield MA (2014) Global Geomorphology. Routledge, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walsh CJ et al (2016) Principles for urban storm water management to protect stream ecosystems. Freshw Sci 35:398–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ward JV, Tockner K, Arscott DB, Claret C (2002) Riverine landscape diversity. Freshw Biol 47(517):539Google Scholar
  37. Wohl E, Lane SN, Wilcox AC (2015) The science and practice of river restoration. Water Resour Res 51:5974–5997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Woolsey S, Capelli F, Gonser TOM, Hoehn E, Hostmann M, Junker B, Paetzold A, Roulier C, Schweizer S, Tiegs SD, Tockner K (2007) A strategy to assess river restoration success. Freshw Biol 52:752–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. A. Silva
    • 1
  • A. A. de Oliveira Afonso
    • 2
  • W. Francescony
    • 3
  • A. M. da Silva
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Engineering, Institute for Science and Technology of Sorocaba, Campus SorocabaSao Paulo State UniversitySorocabaBrazil
  2. 2.Sao Paulo State Company for Environmental Technology (CETESB)SorocabaBrazil
  3. 3.International Center for Tropical Agricultural (CIAT)LimaPeru

Personalised recommendations