Restoration of riparian vegetation : a global review of implementation and evaluation approaches in the international, peer-reviewed literature

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGonzález, Eduardo-
dc.contributor.authorSher, Anna A.-
dc.contributor.authorTabacchi, Eric-
dc.contributor.authorMasip, Adrià-
dc.contributor.authorPoulin, Monique-
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-04T12:41:50Z-
dc.date.available2017-08-01T04:00:00Z-
dc.date.issued2015-08-01-
dc.identifier.issn0301-4797fr_CA
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11794/8828-
dc.description.abstractWe examined how restoration of riparian vegetation has been implemented and evaluated in the scientific literature during the past 25 years. A total of 169 papers were read systematically to extract information about the following: 1) restoration strategies applied, 2) scale of monitoring and use of reference sites, 3) metrics used for evaluation, and 4) drivers of success. Hydro-geomorphic approaches (e.g., dam operations, controlled floods, landform reconfiguration) were the most frequent, followed by active plant introduction, exotic species control, natural floodplain conversion and grazing and herbivory control. Our review revealed noteworthy limitations in the spatio-temporal approaches chosen for evaluation. Evaluations were mostly from one single project and frequently ignored the multi-dimensional nature of rivers: landscape spatial patterns were rarely assessed, and most projects were assessed locally (i.e., <meander scale). Monitoring rarely lasted for more than six years and the projects evaluated were usually not more than six years old. The impact of the restoration was most often (43%) assessed by tracking change over time rather than by comparing restored sites to unrestored and reference sites (12%), and few projects (30%) did both. Among the ways which restoration success was evaluated, vegetation structure (e.g., abundance, density, etc.) was assessed more often (152 papers) than vegetation processes (e.g., biomass accumulation, survival, etc.) (112 papers) and vegetation diversity (78 papers). Success was attributed to hydro-geomorphic factors in 63% of the projects. Future evaluations would benefit from incorporating emerging concepts in ecology such as functional traits to assess recovery of functionality, more rigorous experimental designs, enhanced comparisons among projects, longer term monitoring and reporting failure.fr_CA
dc.languageengfr_CA
dc.publisherAcademic Press.fr_CA
dc.subjectAssessment; riparian vegetationfr_CA
dc.subjectEvaluationfr_CA
dc.subjectFloodplainfr_CA
dc.subjectMonitoringfr_CA
dc.subjectRestorationfr_CA
dc.subjectRiparian vegetationfr_CA
dc.titleRestoration of riparian vegetation : a global review of implementation and evaluation approaches in the international, peer-reviewed literaturefr_CA
dc.typeCOAR1_1::Texte::Périodique::Revue::Contribution à un journal::Article::Article de recherche-
dcterms.bibliographicCitationJournal of environmental management, Vol. 158 , 85-94 (2015)fr_CA
dc.audienceBiologistesfr_CA
dc.audienceDoctorantsfr_CA
dc.audienceProfesseurs (Enseignement supérieur)fr_CA
dc.audienceÉtudiantsfr_CA
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.033fr_CA
dc.identifier.pubmed25974311fr_CA
dc.subject.rvmZones riveraines -- Réhabilitationfr_CA
dc.subject.rvmFlore ripicolefr_CA
dc.subject.rvmForêts ripicolesfr_CA
rioxxterms.versionVersion of Recordfr_CA
rioxxterms.version_of_recordhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.033fr_CA
rioxxterms.project.funder_nameautrefr_CA
bul.rights.periodeEmbargo24 moisfr_CA
Collection:Articles publiés dans des revues avec comité de lecture

Files in this item:
Description SizeFormat 
ms_13apr15.docx895.12 kBMicrosoft Word XMLView/Open
new Appendix S1.docx170.22 kBMicrosoft Word XMLView/Open
All documents in CorpusUL are protected by Copyright Act of Canada.