Testing the Efficacy of River Restoration Across Multiple Levels of Biological Organisation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Testing the efficacy of river restoration across multiple levels of biological organisation Joseph Edward Anson Huddart September 2017 Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London & Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum Doctor of Philosophy i Statement of originality I, Joseph Huddart, confirm that the research presented within this thesis is my own, with the following acknowledgement: Chapter 6: This chapter was published in Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water in 2016, and appears here with appropriate permissions from the publisher. I organised the structure, researched the literature and wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed towards the final text. The full list of co-authors is: Joseph Huddart, Murray Thompson, Guy Woodward and Stephen Brooks. Full permission to reproduce the figures here has been received. Signature: The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Unless otherwise indicated, its contents are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC). Under this licence, you may copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. You may also create and distribute modified versions of the work. This is on the condition that: you credit the author and do not use it, or any derivative works, for a commercial purpose. When reusing or sharing this work, ensure you make the licence terms clear to others by naming the licence and linking to the licence text. Where a work has been adapted, you should indicate that the work has been changed and describe those changes. Please seek permission from the copyright holder for uses of this work that are not included in this licence or permitted under UK Copyright Law. i Abstract As we start to count the cost of unprecedented biodiversity loss in terms of impaired provisional, supporting and cultural ecosystem goods and services, so to are we increasingly implementing measures to halt and reverse these impacts. A major focus of these efforts has been the restoration river habitats, which rank among the most degraded globally. However, while river restoration has become a global enterprise, biomonitoring to test the ecological effectiveness of these activities remains exceptional and even then typically lacking the rigour necessary for detecting and tracking ecological responses across space and time. Here I use standardised and quantitative biomonitoring techniques to measure the ecological response to replicated, experimental, reach-scale large wood installations in heavily modified calcareous system. In Chapters 3-5, I used biannual biomonitoring to investigate the response of a target fish species and the wider fish assemblage to restoration and found strong, rapid responses in the target species’ predators (Chapter 3). In Chapter 4, I build food webs revealing changes to the food web structure that indicate enhanced energy transfer between predators and prey following restoration. In Chapter 5 I investigate the effect of restoration on ecosystem functioning, by comparing leaf-litter breakdown rates and colonisation in restored and unrestored reaches. In Chapter 6, I discuss how engaging river users as citizen scientists could advance the ecological success of their interventions and restoration science. The findings presented here highlight the importance of robust biomonitoring methods for revealing, measuring and characterising the response of ecological communities to habitat interventions. Repairing degraded ecosystems is among the most necessary and exciting challenges we have undertaken as a species, and only by advancing our understanding the factors that influence restoration success and failure will we be able to advance the practice of restoration towards an ever more efficient and ecologically effective management practice. ii Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors, Steve Brooks and Guy Woodward for giving me the opportunity to take on this project, and for their continued support and guidance throughout. I would also like to thank Murray Thompson for his invaluable contribution and discussion concerning fieldwork methods and analysis, and Clare Gray and Eoin O’Gorman for helping me to crack R as well as food webs. The Swire Foundation deserves a special mention for not only facilitating the project through funding my PhD, but also providing the perfect setting for the experiment on the River Great Stour, and financing and granting permission as principle landowners for the restorations. This leads me on to thanking Nigel Cox and co managing the Swire Estate in Chilham, without their hands on approach to implementing the restorations and vehicular support for every fish survey this project would never have been possible. I would also like to thank Neil Jones and the members of the Stour Fisheries Association for being so supportive of the restorations and the project in general, even when fishing was obstructed as a consequence. I would like to thank the smorgasbord of students and volunteers who donated their time monitoring and processing invertebrates in the laboratory. A special mention to Liam Nash, Sarah Mayor, Clio Hall, Eric Wo, Emily Morgan, Anna Jernstedt, Tom Bell, Isabelle Barratt, Jane Courtnell, Dominique Chavalier, Diego Morata, Jacob Birkenhead, Benjamin Gautier, Pauline Chaillot and particularly Hugh Carter Chironomid taxonomist extraordinaire. Lastly to John Harrison and Guy Burger and the other electrofishing volunteers who provided crucial electrofishing assistance. I would also like to thank John Foster, Nick Brain, David Powell and others from the Environmental Agency who helped to ensure the project could be implemented by meeting the strict flood consent conditions and so keeping the flood alleviation wolves at bay and providing necessary equipment. iii Lastly I would like to thank Katharine Kaufman and my parents Arabella and Harry and siblings the ‘Huddle of Huddarts’: Georgiana, Augusta, Flora, Johnnie and Eddie for being so encouraging and patient. iv Table of Contents !"#$%&'()(*(+&,&'#-(.,%'/012%3/,(444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444()! "#"#"! $%&'(!)'*(+)+,%-.!####################################################################################################################!"! "#"#/! 0+1%,+,!('2,-(+,%-.!%.!,3'!/"2,!4'.,5(6!##########################################################################!/! "#"#7! 0+1%,+,!('2,-(+,%-.!,3'-(6!###################################################################################################!8! "#"#9! $'2,-(%.*!:%,3!;+(*'!:--)!###################################################################################################!<! "#"#8! =%->-.%,-(%.*!+.)!&+;%)+,%-.?!,3'!@'6!,-!+)&+.A%.*!(%&'(!('2,-(+,%-.! 2A%'.A'!+.)!B(+A,%A'!###############################################################################################################################!C! "#"#<! D--)!:'1!,3'-(6?!;%.@%.*!('2,-(+,%-.!,-!'A-262,'>!E5.A,%-.%.*!#####################!"/! )45! 6378(#,0(%"&838(8%'12%1'&(444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444()9! Chapter 2 | General methods and hydromorphological response ......................... 17 2.1 General methods ...................................................................................................... 17 2.1.1 The Chalkstream Environment ........................................................................... 17 2.1.2 Study site ............................................................................................................ 19 2.1.3 Invertebrate sampling ......................................................................................... 23 2.1.4 Fish ..................................................................................................................... 24 2.1.5 Statistical analysis .............................................................................................. 25 2.1.6 LWD restoration ................................................................................................. 26 2.1.7 Hydromorphological profiling ............................................................................ 27 2.2 Hydromorphological response ............................................................................... 28 !"#$%&'()(*(+,%(%"&(,-./(012"(1-(%"&('13&'4(1-%&'2$&51015('&2$,-2&2(%,(#( 2$&51&26.&7(5,-2&'3#%1,-(8'&(:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(;<! 3.1 Abstract(:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::()=! 3.2 Introduction(::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::()>! 3.3 Methods(:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::()?! 3.4 Results(::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::()<! 3.5 Discussion(::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(@=! 3.6 Conclusion(:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(@)! v !"#$%&'()(*(+&,%-'#%.-/(-0(,%'(/&%2-'3,4(./5&,%.6#%./6(%"&(&00&7%(-0(8#'6&( 2--9(#99.%.-/(-/(0#:/#8(0--9(2&;(,%':7%:'&(<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<(=>(