Hi Frank,

Interesting question as I'm working in this field at the moment too. As with the rest of our group's research, such as the Sundermann et al. paper you refer to, I've found that dispersal and species pool influences completely override any local-scale habitat improvement measures on invertebrate colonisation (currently under review). Other colleagues have found the same for fish also. More specifically regarding your question, I can't think of any particular cases off the top of my head but I'm sure they exist. However, like you say, most cases report little effect on invertebrates.

Cheers,

Jono

Hi Francis,

There are some for AMD reclamation - see e.g., Babb Creek in PA:

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/upload/2009_12_14_NPS_Success319_state_pa_babb.pdf

I also have a paper where we found a response of invertebrates following a breach of a low head dam in the Fox River, IL. I have it upload to ResearchGate but not sure how to link it.

But these might be at too large a scale?

Hi Francis,

Check to see if you can find any of the work on South Boulder Creek in Boulder County, Colorado (smaller scale and done in reaches).

I know we saw an invertebrate response, as did all of the birds and fish that started showing up to chow down, but I don't know if there was anyone specifically monitoring invertebrates. You can also check with the restoration project on the South Platte River in Denver (larger scale). This reclamation project focused on an urban river that was terribly degraded, and now serves as a recreational, commuter and wildlife corridor. The beaver even came back in the middle of the city. South Platte might stil be featured on the EPA website. I don't know that I have a copy of the "Instream Issues Report" anymore, but you might be able to find something by contacting the City and County of Denver.

I would definitely expect that the riffle/pool ratio and sequence would be a primary influences, but also a development of the riparian zone, including vegetation to help control temperature and increase DO. My advisor at CU-Boulder always said to think about designing a stream reclamation as though you were a big fat fish looking for a new home.

Desiree Tullos' dissertation while at NC State Univ comes to mind:

http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/4391/1/etd.pdf

This one should be a useful example of local scale improvements to abundance and diversity: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-007-9058-2#page-1

Ongoing work at the site is attempting to link in-stream processes to birds and the diversity of other organisms in the riparian forest, but I'm not sure how far along this work is yet.

This one will be a helpful review: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x/full

Cheers!

Hi Francis,

I have a student writing up a paper about an installed or "engineered" logjam we did a couple of years back looking at effects on benthic macroinvertebrates. Below are some of the references we've cited regarding the effects of wood addition in general and logjams in particular on stream invertebrate communities. Good luck with this.

-Todd

Abbe, T. B., G. Pess, D. R. Montgomery, and K. L. Fetherston. 2003. Integrating engineered log jam technology into river rehabilitation. Pages 443-482 in D. R. Montgomery, S. Bolton, D. B. Booth, and L. Wall, editors. Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Benke, A. C., and J. B. Wallace. 2003. Influence of wood on invertebrate communities in streams and rivers. Pages 149-177 in The Ecology and Management of Wood in World Rivers. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland.

Bond, N. R., S. Sabater, A. Glaister, S. Roberts, and K. Vanderkruk. 2006. Colonisation of introduced timber by algae and invertebrates, and its potential role in aquatic ecosystem restoration. Hydrobiologia 556:303-316.

Coe, H. J., P. M. Kiffney, G. R. Pess, K. K. Kloehn, and M. L. McHenry. 2009. Periphyton and invertebrate response to wood placement in large Pacific coastal rivers. River Research and Applications 25:1025-1035.

Entrekin, S. A., J. L. Tank, E. J. Rosi-Marshall, T. J. Hoellein, and G. A. Lamberti. 2009. Response of secondary production by macroinvertebrates to large wood addition in three Michigan streams. Freshwater Biology 54:1741-1758.

Flores, L., A. Larranaga, J. Diez, and A. Elosegi. 2011. Experimental wood addition in streams: effects on organic matter storage and breakdown. Freshwater Biology 56:2156-2167.

Gurnell, A., K. Tockner, P. Edwards, and G. Petts. 2005. Effects of deposited wood on biocomplexity of river corridors. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3:377-382.

Larson, M. G., D. B. Booth, and S. A. Morley. 2001. Effectiveness of large woody debris in stream rehabilitation projects in urban basins. Ecological Engineering 18:211-226.

Nagayama, S., and F. Nakamura. 2010. Fish habitat rehabilitation using wood in the world. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 6:289-305.

Nichols, R. A., and G. L. Ketcheson. 2013. A two-decade watershed approach to stream restoration log jam design and stream recovery monitoring: Finney Creek, Washington. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 49:1367-1384.

Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollock, and G. R. Pess. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1–20.

Scealy, J. A., S. J. Mika, and A. J. Boulton. 2007. Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities on wood in an Australian lowland river: experimental assessment of the interactions of habitat, substrate complexity and retained organic matter. Marine and Freshwater Research 58:153-165.

Dear Fransis John,

I know that in the laboratory of Dr. Juergen Giest several project on stream  restoration are carried out. You could contact them http://fisch.wzw.tum.de/index.php?id=37

Best wishes,

Tatiana