Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 671–682 | Cite as

Application of the diminishing returns concept in the hydroecologic restoration of riverscapes

  • Heida L. DiefenderferEmail author
  • Gary E. Johnson
  • John R. Skalski
  • Stephen A. Breithaupt
  • André M. Coleman
Research Article


Increasing our knowledge of unplanned anthropogenic synergies, which have affected ecosystems since prehistory, may facilitate ecological restoration. Predictive relationships between spatial pattern and ecosystem processes and functions in riverscapes have the potential to inform applied ecosystem restoration planning and design, where principles are needed for large-scale river reconnections. Although synergistic, additive, and antagonistic interactions affect ecosystems, the role of such interactions in restoration rarely has been evaluated. Using hydrodynamic modeling, we experimentally examine the aggregate effects of reestablishing hydrologic connections in a tidal freshwater tributary on the floodplain of the Columbia River, USA, which is currently undergoing dike breaching to restore juvenile salmon habitat. Sets of dike breaches yielded average wetted floodplain areas conforming to a two-parameter hyperbola (r 2 = 0.93). These findings demonstrate that the yield of inundated floodplain habitat area from dike breaching can conform to the well-established “law of the diminishing increment,” developed in the study of agriculture and economics. Furthermore, the influence of spatial configuration on yield was strong, with midstream breaches yielding 63% and upstream breaches 2% of the wetted area produced by downstream breaches, although conditions of extreme high river flow were not studied. Opening the dike at 26% of the historically present channel outlets provided the maximum return on investment for the study riverscape. Verification of this relationship elsewhere in tidal areas of the Columbia River and on other large river floodplains would contribute to cost-benefit analyses in ecological restoration program planning and have implications for effects on biota.


Cumulative effects Dike breach Law of the diminishing increment Law of diminishing returns Fish Hydrodynamics Nonlinear dynamics Planning Restoration Juvenile salmon Spatial scale 



This research was partially supported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program. The authors thank Dr. R.M. Thom, who to the best of our knowledge first envisioned applying cumulative effects assessment methods to the study of large-scale ecological restoration, and B. Ebberts, who supported the vision. We are grateful for comments received from H. Allen, V. Cullinan, R. Ecker, and anonymous reviewers.


  1. Agostinho A, Gomes L, Pelicice F, Souza-Filho E, Tomanik E (2008) Application of the ecohydrological concept for sustainable development of tropical floodplains: the case of the upper Paraná River basin. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 8:205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker JP, Esselink P, Kijkema KS, van Duin WE, de Jong DJ (2002) Restoration of salt marshes in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 478:29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernhardt ES, Sudduth EB, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Meyer JL, Alexander G, Follstad-Shah J, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Lave R, Rumps J, Pagano L (2007) Restoring rivers one reach at a time: results from a survey of U.S. river restoration practitioners. Restor Ecol 15:482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bottom DL, Simenstad CA, Burke J, Baptista AM, Jay DA, Jones KK, Casillas E, Schiewe MH (2005) Salmon at river’s end: the role of the estuary in the decline and recovery of Columbia River salmon. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-68, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  6. Bottom DL, Anderson G, Baptista A, Burke J, Burla M, Bhuthimethee M, Campbell L, Casillas E, Hinton S, Jacobson K, Jay D, McNatt R, Moran P, Roegner GC, Simenstad CA, Stamatiou V, Teel D, Zamon JE (2008) Salmon life histories, habitat, and food webs in the Columbia River estuary: an overview of research results, 2002–2006. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breithaupt SA, Khangaonkar T (2011) Effects of wetland restoration on floodplain hydrodynamics under extreme flooding conditions. Ecol Restor 29:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunn S, Arthington A (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manage 30:492–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callaway JC (2001) Hydrology and substrate. In: Zedler JB (ed) Handbook for restoring tidal wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 89–117Google Scholar
  10. Christy JA, Putera JA (1993) Lower Columbia River natural area inventory: 1992. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowx IG, Welcomme RL (1998) Rehabilitation of rivers for fish: a study undertaken by the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Fishing News Books, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Darling ES, Côté IM (2008) Quantifying the evidence for ecological synergies. Ecol Lett 11:1278–1286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diefenderfer HL, Montgomery DR (2009) Pool spacing, channel morphology, and the restoration of tidal forested wetlands of the Columbia River, U.S.A. Restor Ecol 17:158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diefenderfer HL, Coleman AM, Borde AB, Sinks IA (2008) Hydraulic geometry and microtopography of tidal freshwater forested wetlands and implications for restoration, Columbia River, U.S.A. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 8:339–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diefenderfer HL, Thom RM, Johnson GE, Skalski JR, Vogt KA, Ebberts BD, Roegner GC, Dawley EM (2011) Assessing cumulative ecosystem response to estuary and river restoration programs using a levels-of-evidence approach. Ecol Restor 29:111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI, Knowler DJ, Leveque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status, and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fausch KD, Torgersen CE, Baxter CV, Li HW (2002) Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. Bioscience 52:483–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flater D (1996) A brief introduction to XTide. Linux J 32:51–57Google Scholar
  19. Folt CL, Chen CY, Moore MV, Burnaford J (1999) Synergism and antagonism among multiple stressors. Limnol Oceanogr 44:864–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halpern BS, Silliman BR, Olden JD, Bruno JP, Bertness MD (2007) Incorporating positive interactions in aquatic restoration and conservation. Front Ecol Environ 5:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, D’Agrosa C, Bruno JF, Casey KS, Ebert C, Fox HE, Fujita R, Heinemann D, Lenihan HS, Madin EMP, Perry MT, Selig ER, Spalding M, Steneck R, Watson R (2008) A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319:948–952Google Scholar
  22. Hannah DM, Wood PJ, Sadler JP (2004) Ecohydrology and hydroecology: a new paradigm? Hydrol Process 18:3439–3445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haslam SM (2008) The riverscape and the river. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Healey MC (1980) Utilization of the Nanaimo River estuary by juvenile Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Fish Bull 77:653–668Google Scholar
  25. Hutchinson MF (1989) A new procedure for gridding elevation and stream line data with automatic removal of spurious pits. J Hydrol 106:211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE (1989) The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Can Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 106:110–127Google Scholar
  27. Kareiva P, Marvier M, McClure M (2000) Recovery and management options for spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Columbia River basin. Science 290:977–979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. King IP (2005) Update documentation, RMA2: a two-dimensional finite-element model for flow in estuaries and streams, version 7.4g. Resource Modelling Associates, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  29. Levings CD (1994) Feeding behavior of juvenile salmon and significance of habitat during estuary and early sea phase. Nordic J Freshw Res 69:7–16Google Scholar
  30. Levings CD, Conlin K, Raymond B (1991) Intertidal habitats used by juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) rearing in the North Arm of the Fraser River estuary. Mar Pollut Bull 22:20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levy DA, Northcote TG (1982) Juvenile salmon residency in a marsh area of the Fraser River estuary. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 39:270–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lotze HK, Lenihan HS, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke RG, Kay MC, Kidwell SM, Kirby MX, Peterson CH, Jackson JBC (2006) Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312:1806–1809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malard F, Tockner K, Ward JV (2000) Physicochemical heterogeneity in a glacial riverscape. Landscape Ecol 15:679–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mullan Crain C, Kroeker K, Halpern BS (2008) Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol Lett 11:1304–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Naiman RJ, Latterell JJ (2005) Principles for linking fish habitat to fisheries management and conservation. J Fish Biol 67:166–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (2008) Biological opinion—consultation on remand for operation of the federal Columbia River power system, 11 Bureau of Reclamation projects in the Columbia Basin and ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for juvenile fish transportation program. National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)—Northwest Region, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  37. Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C (2005) Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308:405–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Opperman JJ, Galloway GE, Fargione J, Mount JF, Richter BD, Secchi S (2009) Sustainable floodplains through large-scale reconnection to rivers. Science 326:1487–1488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Palmer MA (2009) Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of application and applications in need of science. Estuaries Coasts 32:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47:769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Redden JA (2009) Letter from Redden JA, U.S. District Judge, to Counsel of Record, Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv. Case 3:01-cv-00640-RE, Document 1682. Filed February 18, 2009Google Scholar
  42. Reid LM (2004) Turning stumbling blocks into stepping stones in the analysis of cumulative impacts. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-193. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CAGoogle Scholar
  43. Reimers PE, Loeffel RE (1967) The length of residence of juvenile fall Chinook salmon in selected Columbia River tributaries. Oreg Fish Comm Res Briefs 13:5–19Google Scholar
  44. Ritter AF, Wasson K, Lonhart SI, Preisler RK, Woolfolk A, Griffith KA, Connors S, Heiman KW (2008) Ecological signatures of anthropogenically altered tidal exchange in estuarine ecosystems. Estuaries Coasts 31:554–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roegner GC, Dawley EW, Russell M, Whiting AH, Teel DJ (2010) Juvenile salmonid use of reconnected tidal freshwater wetlands in Grays River, lower Columbia River basin. Trans Am Fish Soc 139:1211–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shreffler DK, Simenstad CA, Thom RM (1990) Temporary residence of juvenile salmon in a restored estuarine wetland. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47:2079–2084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shreffler DK, Simenstad CA, Thom RM (1992) Foraging by juvenile salmon in a restored estuarine wetland. Estuaries 15:204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simenstad CA, Warren RS (eds) (2002) Dike/levee breach restoration of coastal marshes. Restor Ecol 10 (special issue)Google Scholar
  49. Sommer TR, Nobriga ML, Harrell WC, Batham W, Kimmerer WJ (2001) Floodplain rearing of juvenile Chinook salmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spillman WJ, Lang E (1924) The law of diminishing returns. Yonkers-on-Hudson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Stanford JA, Hauer FR, Gregory SV, Snyder EB (2005) Columbia River basin. In: Benke AC, Cushing CE (eds) Rivers of North America. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 591–653Google Scholar
  52. Tabor JE (1976) Inventory of riparian habitats and associated wildlife along the Columbia and Snake rivers, vol 2A. Lower Columbia River. Oregon Cooperative Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis, ORGoogle Scholar
  53. Tanner CD, Cordell JR, Rubey J, Tear LM (2002) Restoration of freshwater intertidal habitat functions at Spencer Island, Everett, Washington. Restor Ecol 10:564–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thom RM, Williams G, Diefenderfer HL (2005) Balancing the need to develop coastal areas with the desire for an ecologically functioning coastal environment: is net ecosystem improvement possible? Restor Ecol 13:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thom RM, Diefenderfer HL, Adkins JE, Judd C, Anderson MG, Buenau KE, Borde AB, Johnson GE (2010) Guidelines, processes, and tools for coastal ecosystem restoration, with examples from the United States. Plankton Benthos Res 5(Suppl.):185–201Google Scholar
  56. Thomas DW (1983) Changes in Columbia River estuary habitat types over the past century. Report of the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce, Astoria, ORGoogle Scholar
  57. Thorpe J (2008) Influence of restricted access to floodplains on life-history patterns in fish: implications for conservation. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 8:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tockner K, Stanford JA (2002) Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Environ Conser 29:308–330Google Scholar
  59. Toth LA (1995) Principles and guidelines for restoration of river/floodplain ecosystems—Kissimmee River, Florida. In: Cairns J Jr (ed) Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems, 2nd edn. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 49–73Google Scholar
  60. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1999) Consideration of cumulative impacts in EPA review of NEPA documents. EPA 315-R-99-002/May 1999. USEPA, Office of Federal Activities, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  61. Welcomme RL (1979) Fisheries ecology of floodplain rivers. Longman Group Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  62. Welcomme RL (2008) World prospects for floodplain fisheries. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 8:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiens JA (2002) Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshw Biol 47:777–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wu J (2006) Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability science. Landscape Ecol 21:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heida L. Diefenderfer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gary E. Johnson
    • 2
  • John R. Skalski
    • 3
  • Stephen A. Breithaupt
    • 4
  • André M. Coleman
    • 5
  1. 1.Marine Sciences LaboratoryPacific Northwest National LaboratorySequimUSA
  2. 2.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Columbia Basin Research, School of Aquatic and Fisheries SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Pacific Northwest National LaboratorySeattleUSA
  5. 5.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations