Hydromorphological Restoration of Streams Does Not Ensure the Recovery of Ecosystem Functioning.
14 affiliations
- 1Institute of Hydrobiology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
- 2Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
- 3RPTU University Kaiserslautern-Landau, Landau, Germany.
- 4Department of Geosciences, Federal University of São João del-Rei, São João del-Rei, MG, Brazil.
- 5Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
- 6Department of Hydrogeology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
- 7São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo, São Carlos, Brazil.
- 8Institute of Zoology, University of Cologne, Köln, Germany.
- 9Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.
- 10Department of River Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Magdeburg, Germany.
- 11Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA.
- 12Stroud Water Research Center, Avondale, Pennsylvania, USA.
- 13Department of Ecology, Environment and Geoscience, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
- 14Departament de Biologia Evolutiva, Ecologia i Ciències Ambientals/Institut de Recerca de L'aigua, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
Ecological restoration is widely expected to recover multiple ecosystem attributes, yet biological structure and ecosystem functioning may respond differently to hydromorphological restoration. Interpreting functional change is further complicated because higher or lower process rates do not inherently indicate recovery; their ecological meaning depends on how degraded and restored conditions compare with an appropriate reference state. We synthesised 582 effect sizes from 66 studies to quantify responses of nine ecosystem functions to hydromorphological restoration of streams and to assess whether changes in biological structure coincided with functional responses. Ecosystem-function responses varied substantially among processes and baselines. Gross primary production was significantly higher in degraded than in reference streams, illustrating that elevated functional rates do not necessarily indicate reference-like ecological conditions. Restoration did not consistently reverse degradation-associated functional differences: denitrification was significantly lower in restored than in degraded streams, whereas nitrate uptake remained significantly lower in restored than in reference streams. Other restored-reference differences were generally weak or uncertain. Functional responses did not differ systematically among broad restoration-measure categories. Restoration age was associated with changes in gross primary production and denitrification relative to degraded conditions, but none of the functions showed detectable convergence towards or divergence from reference conditions through time. In studies measuring both biological structure and ecosystem functioning, biological responses to restoration were generally positive relative to degraded conditions, whereas functional responses were more variable. However, the available evidence was too uncertain to conclude that biological and functional responses systematically differed. Our synthesis shows that functional recovery cannot be inferred either from restoration-associated change alone or from concurrent biological recovery. Assessing restoration success therefore requires direct measurements of ecosystem processes and ecologically meaningful reference conditions that reveal whether functional change represents movement towards a process-specific restoration target.
Related
- Food web complexity underlies biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning
- Indigenous communities' perceptions of ecosystem services of a montane forest ecosystem in Nigeria: Implications for restoration planning
- Marine Functional Connectivity Contributes to Ecosystem Functioning Across Multiple Scales
- Warming and predation drive rapid evolution of ecosystem functioning but not functional traits
- Trait-Based Selection of Annual Plant Species for Enhancing Ecosystem Functioning in Extensive Green Roof Systems: A Systematic Review
BibTeX
@article{haase2026hydromorphological,
title = {{Hydromorphological Restoration of Streams Does Not Ensure the Recovery of Ecosystem Functioning.}},
author = {Ulrike Haase and Daniel C Allen and Christine Anlanger and Iola G Boëchat and Clara Mendoza-Lera and Wyatt F Cross and Pia Ebeling and Davi G Fernandes Cunha and Patrick Fink and Nicolas Finkler and Björn Gücker and Andreas Lorke and Julia Pasqualini and Christopher J Patrick and Marc Peipoch and Oskar Schröder and Ryan Sponseller and Daniel von Schiller and Markus Weitere and Mario Brauns},
journal = {Global change biology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1111/gcb.71126},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42908477},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Hydromorphological Restoration of Streams Does Not Ensure the Recovery of Ecosystem Functioning.
AU - Ulrike Haase
AU - Daniel C Allen
AU - Christine Anlanger
AU - Iola G Boëchat
AU - Clara Mendoza-Lera
AU - Wyatt F Cross
AU - Pia Ebeling
AU - Davi G Fernandes Cunha
AU - Patrick Fink
AU - Nicolas Finkler
AU - Björn Gücker
AU - Andreas Lorke
AU - Julia Pasqualini
AU - Christopher J Patrick
AU - Marc Peipoch
AU - Oskar Schröder
AU - Ryan Sponseller
AU - Daniel von Schiller
AU - Markus Weitere
AU - Mario Brauns
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Global change biology
DO - 10.1111/gcb.71126
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42908477
AB - Ecological restoration is widely expected to recover multiple ecosystem attributes, yet biological structure and ecosystem functioning may respond differently to hydromorphological restoration. Interpreting functional change is further complicated because higher or lower process rates do not inherently indicate recovery; their ecological meaning depends on how degraded and restored conditions compare with an appropriate reference state. We synthesised 582 effect sizes from 66 studies to quantify responses of nine ecosystem functions to hydromorphological restoration of streams and to assess whether changes in biological structure coincided with functional responses. Ecosystem-function responses varied substantially among processes and baselines. Gross primary production was significantly higher in degraded than in reference streams, illustrating that elevated functional rates do not necessarily indicate reference-like ecological conditions. Restoration did not consistently reverse degradation-associated functional differences: denitrification was significantly lower in restored than in degraded streams, whereas nitrate uptake remained significantly lower in restored than in reference streams. Other restored-reference differences were generally weak or uncertain. Functional responses did not differ systematically among broad restoration-measure categories. Restoration age was associated with changes in gross primary production and denitrification relative to degraded conditions, but none of the functions showed detectable convergence towards or divergence from reference conditions through time. In studies measuring both biological structure and ecosystem functioning, biological responses to restoration were generally positive relative to degraded conditions, whereas functional responses were more variable. However, the available evidence was too uncertain to conclude that biological and functional responses systematically differed. Our synthesis shows that functional recovery cannot be inferred either from restoration-associated change alone or from concurrent biological recovery. Assessing restoration success therefore requires direct measurements of ecosystem processes and ecologically meaningful reference conditions that reveal whether functional change represents movement towards a process-specific restoration target.
SN - 1354-1013
SN - 1365-2486
ER -