River restoration responses

The Lippe River in Germany has been subjected to many decades of channelization, deepening, floodplain drainage, straightening and consequent shortening, with one result being that the modern Lippe is 20% shorter than it was two centuries ago. Beginning in 1996, conservation managers began reversing this trend by widening the river, raising the level of the river bed, constructing small islands within the river and terminating floodplain drainage operations over a stretch of 3.3 km. As a result of these activities, a small portion of the river looks much like it did 200 years ago.


A section of the Lippe River before (left) and after (right) restoration.

Over a 21-year period, researchers from Arbeitsgemeinschaft Biologischer Umweltschutz have conducted systematic surveys of fish communities at the restored and unrestored sections of the river. Researchers sampled the fish community with electrofishing – inputting a direct electrical current into the river – which causes the fish to swim towards the boat where they are easily collected with nets, identified by species, and returned unharmed into the river. A data set over this length of time in association with a restoration project is very unusual; oftentimes (in part due to funding issues) only one survey is conducted to assess the fish community response to river restoration.

About eight years ago, while a postdoctoral researcher at Senckenberg Research Institute in Frankfurt, Germany, Stephan Stoll was asked to analyze some river restoration outcomes, and, as he describes, “became hooked to the topic.” To evaluate the response of the Lippe River fish community to restoration, a group of researchers headed by Stephanie Höckendorff, a Master’s student with Stoll, first asked a very simple question – how did fish abundance and species richness (the number of fish species) compare in the restored and unrestored regions of the river.

The graph below shows several striking trends. Abundance peaked about 2-3 years after restoration, declined sharply the next year, and recovered in subsequent years to about three times the abundance found in unrestored sections. Importantly, abundance varied extensively year-to-year. For example, if you had done only one survey in 2000, you would have erroneously concluded that restoration had no effect, which is why the researchers emphasize the importance of collecting data over a long stretch of time.


Abundance of fish in restored (Rest-gray curve) and unrestored (Cont-black curve) sections of the Lippe River.  The gray vertical bar indicates the start of the restoration project in 1997.

Species richness increased sharply, but did not reach its peak until nine years after restoration. Again, there was extensive year-to-year variation in species richness.


Fish species richness in restored (Rest-gray curve) and unrestored (Cont-black curve) sections of the Lippe River.  The gray vertical bar indicates the start of the restoration project in 1997.

Höckendorff and her colleagues were intrigued by this delay in species richness, and turned their attention to understanding what types of species benefited most from the restoration. Their analyses indicated that colonizing species, such as common minnows and three-spined sticklebacks, tended to have short life spans, early female maturity, several spawning events per year and a fusiform body shape – a body that is roughly cylindrical and tapers at both ends. Interestingly, some of the most successful colonizers took quite a long time to get well-established within the community.


Common minnows, Phoxinus phoxinus. Credit: Carlo Morelli (Etrusko25)


The three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Credit: Ron Offermans

The restored habitat was highly dynamic, experiencing periodic flooding and the formation of temporary shallow bays and shifting sandbanks. These types of habitats tend to select for minnows, sticklebacks and other opportunistic species that are attracted to periodic disturbances. These opportunistic species were quick to move in, and continued to increase in abundance over time. Importantly, several rare and endangered species also colonized the restored habitat. However, large, deep-bodied, slow maturing and long-lived species did not benefit (at least over the 17 years of the survey), as these types of species are generally favored in less dynamic habitats, which are more stable and uniform.

Overall, these findings demonstrate the benefits of river restoration to the fish communities they harbor. But some species are more likely to benefit than others, and the time-scale over which recolonization occurs is highly variable. Surveys must be repeated over a long time-scale to tell conservation managers whether their restoration efforts are successful, and how they might change their future river restoration efforts.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Conservation Biology. The reference is Höckendorff, S., Tonkin, J. D., Haase, P., Bunzel-Drüke, M., Zimball, O., Scharf, M. and Stoll, S. (2017), Characterizing fish responses to a river restoration over 21 years based on species’ traits. Conservation Biology, 31: 1098–1108. doi:10.1111/cobi.12908. Thanks to the Society for Conservation Biology for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2017 by the Society for Conservation Biology. All rights reserved.

Biological control: birds vs. (insects vs. insects)

We all know that birds eat crop-destroying bugs, so we might think that farmers would welcome insectivorous birds to their fields with radiant rakes or happy hoes. But not so fast! Research by Ingo Grass and his colleagues alerts us to the reality that not all insects are created equal. Some insects eat crops, but some insects eat insects that eat crops.

Aphids are one of the worst scourges of the agricultural world. They suck the phloem sap from many plant species; this action can kill the plant directly, and also cause infections by plant pathogens and viruses. Fortunately for farmers, many animals enjoy eating aphids, including birds such as the Eurasian Tree Sparrow, Passer montanus, and insects such as ladybird beetles and hoverfly larvae.


Hoverfly larva consumes an aphid while a second aphid looks on. Credit: Beatriz Moisset.

Grass and his colleagues knew that sparrows eat both aphids and hoverflies, but they did not know how the effects of bird predation on these insects cascaded down to the oats and wheat crops grown near Gottingen, Germany. Their research tested the hypothesis that sparrows eat so many hoverflies that aphid abundance actually increases (despite also being eaten by sparrows), and oat and wheat abundance decreases (top food web in the diagram below). If so, they reasoned that removing the birds would increase hoverfly abundance, thereby decreasing aphids and increasing grain abundance (bottom food web).


Agricultural food web with (top) and without (bottom) sparrows. Arrows show consumption, with dashed arrows indicating weak effects, and solid arrows and doubled organisms indicating strong effects.

The researchers set up an experiment with 11 nest boxes strategically placed between an oat field and a wheat field. Each box was equipped with a camera, so the researchers could see what the parents fed to their nestlings. In addition, Grass and his colleagues set up eight 4 X 5 meter plastic mesh exclosures which excluded birds, but allowed insects free access. They periodically surveyed 50 plants in each exclosure and in equal-sized control plots for hoverflies and aphids over the course of the sparrow breeding season. Because these birds can have three broods, this project kept them (the sparrows and the researchers) busy from early May to late July.


The birds fed very little on the two grain fields during the first brood, but towards the end of their second brood, they turned their attention to feeding on insects from the two grain fields, and later to eating the ripening grain. One important finding is that bird predation severely reduced hoverfly abundance. By early July hoverfly abundance was about 1 per 50 shoots when birds were present, and more than 3 per 50 shoots when birds were excluded (top graph below).



How did hoverfly consumption translate to aphid abundance? As you can see from the bottom graph, by early July, aphid abundance without birds was considerably lower than aphid abundance in the presence of birds. Taken together, these findings indicate that European Tree Sparrows consume hoverflies, which ultimately leads to an increase in aphid abundance.

Grass and his colleagues conclude that insectivorous birds can interfere with natural pest control of cereal production in central Europe. When birds were experimentally excluded, aphid densities declined 24% in wheat and 26% in oat crops. European Tree Sparrows were doubly bad for the crops, as they also harvested substantial quantities of grain from these fields to feed their third brood. The researchers argue that management of biological control systems for agriculture requires a broad food-web perspective that accounts for trophic cascades, such as the interactions that occur among sparrows, hoverflies, aphids and various types of economically important grain crops.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Ecology. The reference is Grass, Ingo, Katrin Lehmann, Carsten Thies, and Teja Tscharntke. 2017. Insectivorous birds disrupt biological control of cereal aphids. Ecology 98 (6): 1583-1590Thanks to the Ecological Society of America for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2017 by the Ecological Society of America. All rights reserved.