Effects of Flow Restoration and Exotic Species Removal on Recovery of Native Fish: Lessons from a Dam Decommissioning

Jane C Marks, George A. Haden, Matthew O'Neill, Cinnamon Pace

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Flow diversion and invasive species are two major threats to freshwater ecosystems, threats that restoration efforts attempt to redress. Yet, few restoration projects monitor whether removal of these threats improve target characteristics of the ecosystem. Fewer still have an appropriate experimental design from which causal inferences can be drawn as to the relative merits of removing exotic fish, restoring flow, or both. We used a dam decommissioning in Fossil Creek, Arizona, to compare responses of native fish to exotic fish removal and flow restoration, using a before-after-control-impact design with three impact treatments: flow restoration alone where exotics had not been present, flow restoration and exotic fish removal, and flow restoration where exotics remain and a control reach that was unaffected by restoration actions. We show that removal of exotic fish dramatically increased native fish abundance. Flow restoration also increased native fish abundance, but the effect was smaller than that from removing exotics. Flow restoration had no effect where exotic fish remained, although it may have had other benefits to the ecosystem. The cost to restore flow ($12 million) was considerably higher than that to eradicate exotics ($1.1 million). The long-term influence of flow restoration could increase, as travertine dams grow and re-shape the creek increasing habitat for native fish. But in the 2-year period considered here, the return on investment for extirpating exotics far exceeded that from flow restoration. Projects aimed to restore native fish by restoring flow should also consider the additional investment required to eradicate exotic fish.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)934-943
Number of pages10
JournalRestoration Ecology
Volume18
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2010

Fingerprint

dams (hydrology)
decommissioning
dam
fish
removal
restoration
exotic species
effect
travertine
ecosystems
ecological restoration
ecosystem
freshwater ecosystem
invasive species
experimental design
fossils

Keywords

  • Dam decommissioning
  • Exotic fish removal
  • Invasive species
  • Native fish
  • Stream restoration
  • Water diversion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Effects of Flow Restoration and Exotic Species Removal on Recovery of Native Fish : Lessons from a Dam Decommissioning. / Marks, Jane C; Haden, George A.; O'Neill, Matthew; Pace, Cinnamon.

In: Restoration Ecology, Vol. 18, No. 6, 11.2010, p. 934-943.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Marks, Jane C ; Haden, George A. ; O'Neill, Matthew ; Pace, Cinnamon. / Effects of Flow Restoration and Exotic Species Removal on Recovery of Native Fish : Lessons from a Dam Decommissioning. In: Restoration Ecology. 2010 ; Vol. 18, No. 6. pp. 934-943.
@article{24438f2868a84a5ca4f914a4b13006bb,
title = "Effects of Flow Restoration and Exotic Species Removal on Recovery of Native Fish: Lessons from a Dam Decommissioning",
abstract = "Flow diversion and invasive species are two major threats to freshwater ecosystems, threats that restoration efforts attempt to redress. Yet, few restoration projects monitor whether removal of these threats improve target characteristics of the ecosystem. Fewer still have an appropriate experimental design from which causal inferences can be drawn as to the relative merits of removing exotic fish, restoring flow, or both. We used a dam decommissioning in Fossil Creek, Arizona, to compare responses of native fish to exotic fish removal and flow restoration, using a before-after-control-impact design with three impact treatments: flow restoration alone where exotics had not been present, flow restoration and exotic fish removal, and flow restoration where exotics remain and a control reach that was unaffected by restoration actions. We show that removal of exotic fish dramatically increased native fish abundance. Flow restoration also increased native fish abundance, but the effect was smaller than that from removing exotics. Flow restoration had no effect where exotic fish remained, although it may have had other benefits to the ecosystem. The cost to restore flow ($12 million) was considerably higher than that to eradicate exotics ($1.1 million). The long-term influence of flow restoration could increase, as travertine dams grow and re-shape the creek increasing habitat for native fish. But in the 2-year period considered here, the return on investment for extirpating exotics far exceeded that from flow restoration. Projects aimed to restore native fish by restoring flow should also consider the additional investment required to eradicate exotic fish.",
keywords = "Dam decommissioning, Exotic fish removal, Invasive species, Native fish, Stream restoration, Water diversion",
author = "Marks, {Jane C} and Haden, {George A.} and Matthew O'Neill and Cinnamon Pace",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00574.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "934--943",
journal = "Restoration Ecology",
issn = "1061-2971",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of Flow Restoration and Exotic Species Removal on Recovery of Native Fish

T2 - Lessons from a Dam Decommissioning

AU - Marks, Jane C

AU - Haden, George A.

AU - O'Neill, Matthew

AU - Pace, Cinnamon

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - Flow diversion and invasive species are two major threats to freshwater ecosystems, threats that restoration efforts attempt to redress. Yet, few restoration projects monitor whether removal of these threats improve target characteristics of the ecosystem. Fewer still have an appropriate experimental design from which causal inferences can be drawn as to the relative merits of removing exotic fish, restoring flow, or both. We used a dam decommissioning in Fossil Creek, Arizona, to compare responses of native fish to exotic fish removal and flow restoration, using a before-after-control-impact design with three impact treatments: flow restoration alone where exotics had not been present, flow restoration and exotic fish removal, and flow restoration where exotics remain and a control reach that was unaffected by restoration actions. We show that removal of exotic fish dramatically increased native fish abundance. Flow restoration also increased native fish abundance, but the effect was smaller than that from removing exotics. Flow restoration had no effect where exotic fish remained, although it may have had other benefits to the ecosystem. The cost to restore flow ($12 million) was considerably higher than that to eradicate exotics ($1.1 million). The long-term influence of flow restoration could increase, as travertine dams grow and re-shape the creek increasing habitat for native fish. But in the 2-year period considered here, the return on investment for extirpating exotics far exceeded that from flow restoration. Projects aimed to restore native fish by restoring flow should also consider the additional investment required to eradicate exotic fish.

AB - Flow diversion and invasive species are two major threats to freshwater ecosystems, threats that restoration efforts attempt to redress. Yet, few restoration projects monitor whether removal of these threats improve target characteristics of the ecosystem. Fewer still have an appropriate experimental design from which causal inferences can be drawn as to the relative merits of removing exotic fish, restoring flow, or both. We used a dam decommissioning in Fossil Creek, Arizona, to compare responses of native fish to exotic fish removal and flow restoration, using a before-after-control-impact design with three impact treatments: flow restoration alone where exotics had not been present, flow restoration and exotic fish removal, and flow restoration where exotics remain and a control reach that was unaffected by restoration actions. We show that removal of exotic fish dramatically increased native fish abundance. Flow restoration also increased native fish abundance, but the effect was smaller than that from removing exotics. Flow restoration had no effect where exotic fish remained, although it may have had other benefits to the ecosystem. The cost to restore flow ($12 million) was considerably higher than that to eradicate exotics ($1.1 million). The long-term influence of flow restoration could increase, as travertine dams grow and re-shape the creek increasing habitat for native fish. But in the 2-year period considered here, the return on investment for extirpating exotics far exceeded that from flow restoration. Projects aimed to restore native fish by restoring flow should also consider the additional investment required to eradicate exotic fish.

KW - Dam decommissioning

KW - Exotic fish removal

KW - Invasive species

KW - Native fish

KW - Stream restoration

KW - Water diversion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78049465256&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78049465256&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00574.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00574.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:78049465256

VL - 18

SP - 934

EP - 943

JO - Restoration Ecology

JF - Restoration Ecology

SN - 1061-2971

IS - 6

ER -