Back to top

SFS Annual Meeting

Tuesday, May 21, 2019
09:00 - 10:30

<< Back to Schedule

09:00 - 09:15: / 150 G LACK OF LONG-TERM EFFECT OF COARSE WOODY DEBRIS DAM RESTORATION ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING AND WATER QUALITY IN COASTAL PLAIN STREAMS

5/21/2019  |   09:00 - 09:15   |  150 G

LACK OF LONG-TERM EFFECT OF COARSE WOODY DEBRIS DAM RESTORATION ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING AND WATER QUALITY IN COASTAL PLAIN STREAMS Coarse woody debris (CWD) additions are a simple restoration technique used to mitigate the effects of landscape disturbance on in-stream habitat. Long-term monitoring assessing restoration efficacy is rare. Here, we evaluated the long-term efficacy of stream restorations at Fort Benning Military Installation, GA, 14y after implementation. In 2003, 4 coastal-plain streams were restored with CWD additions, and 3 streams were left unrestored. Post-restoration evaluation continued for 3y and found nutrient uptake and stream metabolism rates initially increased, then decreased over time, and water-quality metrics remained unchanged. In 2017 and 2018, we again measured nutrient uptake, stream metabolism, and water-quality metrics. Nutrient uptake, stream metabolism, and water-quality did not differ between treatment groups, suggesting that CWD dams did not increase ecosystem functioning metrics or improve water-quality after 14y. Watershed-level disturbance (i.e., % bare ground, unpaved roads on steep slopes) in these streams correlates to both ecosystem function metrics, though the relationship appears to have changed over the period of record, suggesting that watershed-level changes influence any observed effect of in-stream restoration . Our dataset is one of the few that have assessed the long-term efficacy of restoration on stream ecosystem function.

Sam Bickley (Primary Presenter/Author), Auburn University, slb0035@auburn.edu;


Daniel Isenberg (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Troy University, djisenberg94@gmail.com;


Natalie Griffiths (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, griffithsna@ornl.gov;


Brian Helms (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Troy University, helmsb@troy.edu;


Jack Feminella (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Auburn University, feminjw@auburn.edu;


Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

09:15 - 09:30: / 150 G STREAM DAYLIGHTING: LOOKS GOOD, FEELS GOOD, BUT IS IT DOING ANY GOOD?

5/21/2019  |   09:15 - 09:30   |  150 G

STREAM DAYLIGHTING: LOOKS GOOD, FEELS GOOD, BUT IS IT DOING ANY GOOD? Modern urbanisation makes use of increasingly decentralised management approaches and natural drainage features, reducing the impacts of new urbanisation. However, legacy issues exist in urban areas, with few examples of significant recovery of urban streams from restoration efforts. Stream burial is the most severe form of stream modification because most interactions with the surrounding environment are removed. Stream daylighting is a radical form of restoration that recreates open channel from a buried channel. Daylighting is promoted as a restoration tool and can theoretically restore stream structure and natural processes, but effectiveness assessments are lacking. The daylighting of two stream reaches in Auckland, New Zealand’s largest city, in 2013 allowed the assessment the effects of daylighting using a paired assessment approach, where one reach had a large area of intact native forest in the headwaters. The macroinvertebrate community changed significantly with the improved habitat; the reach with native forest in its headwaters showed a greater change. The differential response indicates the outcomes of daylighting projects are context specific, hence it’s use should be tailored to the local setting, rather than used as a ‘one size fits all’ restoration tool.

Martin Neale (Primary Presenter/Author), Puhoi Stour Limited, martin.neale@puhoistour.co.nz;


Emma Moffett (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), The University of Auckland, emma.moffett@auckland.ac.nz;


Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

09:30 - 09:45: / 150 G WHAT ARE THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF HABITAT AUGMENTATION ON BIOTIC COMPOSITION OF STREAMS DRAINING LONGLEAF PINE FORESTS?

5/21/2019  |   09:30 - 09:45   |  150 G

WHAT ARE THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF HABITAT AUGMENTATION ON BIOTIC COMPOSITION OF STREAMS DRAINING LONGLEAF PINE FORESTS? Low-gradient, sandy-bottom streams are typical of longleaf pine forests in the Coastal Plain of the Southeastern US. Contemporary and historical landscape disturbance in this area can alter hydrologic regimes, increase sedimentation and ultimately reduce habitat quality for associated organisms. In-stream coarse woody debris (CWD) additions are a common restoration approach for these systems; however, little research has examined long-term (>10y) effects of such restoration. In 2003, CWD was experimentally added as z-shaped debris dams to 4 streams within the Fort Benning Military Installation, GA (FBMI) and compared to 3 unrestored FBMI streams to evaluate benthic organic matter, macroinvertebrate, and fish response to restoration as CWD addition. Preliminary analyses of 2017 data suggest seasonal variability with benthic organic matter but no strong treatment effect. Further, there are no strong differences between restored and unrestored streams in terms of macroinvertebrate diversity or composition structure, however richness is slightly higher in restored streams, and fish abundance is significantly higher in restored (v. unrestored) streams. These results suggest CWD additions may be effective but there are strong site-specific responses and beneficial effects may require extended time frame to manifest.

Samuel Bickley (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Auburn University, slb0035@tigermail.auburn.edu;


Jack Feminella (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Auburn University, feminjw@auburn.edu;


Natalie Griffiths (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, griffithsna@ornl.gov;


Brian Helms (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Troy University, helmsb@troy.edu;


Daniel Isenberg (Primary Presenter/Author), Troy University, djisenberg94@gmail.com;


Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

09:45 - 10:00: / 150 G PAST RESTORATION: SUCCESS OR FAILURE? AND WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA?

5/21/2019  |   09:45 - 10:00   |  150 G

PAST RESTORATION: SUCCESS OR FAILURE? AND WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA? Stream restoration has become commonplace for managing watersheds such as the Delaware Basin. Collaboration between managers, practitioners, and researchers is key; from identifying priority areas, to planning and implementing appropriate management actions, and monitoring conditions surrounding the work. We assessed paired sites at 18 stream and bank restorations that had been implemented in the Delaware and Chesapeake Watersheds in Pennsylvania in the last 7-20 years. Our aim was to use bioindicators and habitat to determine whether these projects had the desired effects of improving ecosystem integrity. Across all sites sampled for diatoms, macroinvertebrates and fish communities, we did not find statistically significant differences in the assemblages (biological communities) between pairs of restored and unrestored reaches, but we see more value in the site-by-site observations of change than the statistical analyses of the whole dataset. Our team worked closely with county conservation districts in southeast PA to identify priorities for what types of projects to study and specific site selection to ensure the utility of study findings to managers. Certain environmental variables indicate improvement, but it is difficult to decide which indicators must show improvement to label a project as "successful."

Stefanie Kroll (Primary Presenter/Author), Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, sak345@drexel.edu;


Hayley Oakland (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, hco23@drexel.edu;


Meghan O'Donnell (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, mjo63@drexel.edu;


Laura Aycock (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, lla32@drexel.edu;


David Keller (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, dhk44@drexel.edu;


Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

10:00 - 10:15: / 150 G DELAYED BIOLOGICAL RECOVERY AFTER RESTORATION – A RESULT OF NEGATIVE RESISTANCE AND RESILIENCE?

5/21/2019  |   10:00 - 10:15   |  150 G

DELAYED BIOLOGICAL RECOVERY AFTER RESTORATION – A RESULT OF NEGATIVE RESISTANCE AND RESILIENCE? Resistance and resilience (R&R) are terms used to describe the capacity of an ecosystem to withstand and recover from a perturbation. R&R are commonly associated with healthy communities able to tolerate and recuperate from perturbations (positive R&R). However, degraded ecosystems can also be resistant and resilient to perturbations (negative R&R) making them restoration-resistant. We hypothesize that this resistance to restoration is a consequence of communities becoming dominated by species with traits such as trophic generalism which enhance food-web stability. To identify properties of restoration-resistant communities, we conducted a literature synthesis focusing on studies reporting delayed biological recovery after restoration actions. We found a paucity of studies testing or reporting biotic mechanisms that likely contribute to delayed biological recovery. Moreover, most studies focused on recovery in a single trophic level, with very few considering interactions among species or across trophic levels. Nonetheless, many authors acknowledged that communities became dominated by species with traits which likely enhanced food-web stability. Despite this, tools to overcome negative R&R have not been widely developed or tested. These findings suggest we should implement restoration differently or at the very least reframe our expectations for biological recovery.

Helen Warburton (Primary Presenter/Author), University of Canterbury, helen.warburton@canterbury.ac.nz;


Kristy Hogsden (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), NIWA, kristy.hogsden@niwa .co.nz;


Catherine Febria (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of Windsor, Catherine.Febria@uwindsor.ca;


Elizabeth Graham (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), NIWA, Elizabeth.Graham@niwa.co.nz;


Isabelle Barrett (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of Canterbury, isabelle.barrett@pg.canterbury.ac.nz;


Jon Harding (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University Canterbury, jon.harding@canterbry.ac.nz;


Angus McIntosh (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of Canterbury, angus.mcintosh@canterbury.ac.nz;


Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

10:15 - 10:30: / 150 G ASSESSING MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO RESTORATION OF BIG SPRING RUN: EXPANDED ANALYSIS OF BACI SAMPLING DESIGNS

5/21/2019  |   10:15 - 10:30   |  150 G

ASSESSING MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO RESTORATION OF BIG SPRING RUN: EXPANDED ANALYSIS OF BACI SAMPLING DESIGNS Benthic macroinvertebrates are commonly used to determine the success of stream restoration projects. The Big Spring Run (BSR) restoration project achieved its hydrogeomorphic (abiotic) goals, but macroinvertebrate community recovery was not a primary goal of the project. We examined the effect this novel restoration project had on the macroinvertebrate community, which included an assessment of potential aerial migrants and an analysis of different approaches using a BACI design to assess restoration success. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected each year for two years prior to and three years after restoration. Adult stream insects were collected in the final year of monitoring. Subsets of the macroinvertebrate data were analyzed to supplement conclusions made from the full dataset and to characterize differing conclusions from common sample designs. Results using the overall dataset suggested that restoration had no effect on the macroinvertebrate community. The “wet meadow” created for this restoration successfully increased sediment retention and likely retained poor benthic habitat condition. Immigration was likely constrained by a lack of regional source populations and dispersal barriers, but constrained immigration was not a primary deterrent to community recovery.

Robert Smith (Primary Presenter/Author), Lycoming College, smithr@lycoming.edu;


Emily Neidiegh (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), York County Conservation District, enydig@embarqmail.com;


Alex Rittle (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of Maryland, Baltimore County, arittle1@umbc.edu;


John Wallace (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Millersville University, john.wallace@millersville.edu;


Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.