原地实验,以确定引入的人工栖息地能否为危险的人为建筑提供替代避难所

IF 2.8 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY
Josh Norman, Dan Clark, Alan Henshaw, Rosalind M. Wright, Marco E. G. V. Cattaneo, Jonathan D. Bolland
{"title":"原地实验,以确定引入的人工栖息地能否为危险的人为建筑提供替代避难所","authors":"Josh Norman, Dan Clark, Alan Henshaw, Rosalind M. Wright, Marco E. G. V. Cattaneo, Jonathan D. Bolland","doi":"10.1111/rec.14157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Highly degraded lowland river ecosystems are of global concern to restoration practitioners. Hazardous anthropogenic structures, such as those used for water level management (i.e. pumping stations), present a mortality risk to fish and associated channelization, dredging, and removal of in-channel and riparian vegetation during winter dramatically reduces habitat availability. Paradoxically, fish seeking habitat for predator refuge in these systems can lead to ecological traps, that is, the undesired occupation of pumping stations. Artificial habitats installed upstream could provide safe alternative refuge, but the effectiveness of this restoration technique is poorly understood. Here, we uniquely quantified habitat occupancy and preference of a ubiquitous European freshwater fish (<i>Rutilus rutilus</i>) between an artificial reed bed and pumping station habitat, with access to open water in a tank experiment. Generalized linear mixed models revealed that fish preferred the pumping station when the artificial habitat was absent (baseline) and when it was introduced (pre-exclusion). Habitat management (exclusion from pumping station) was performed, during which artificial habitat occupancy was highest. When the pumping station was reintroduced (post-exclusion), pumping station occupancy probability decreased from 87.5% (pre-exclusion) to 3.7%, while artificial habitat occupancy probability increased from 18.4 to 87.9%. Therefore, our results demonstrate a preferential change in habitat occupancy of <i>R. rutilus</i> and suggest introducing artificial habitat alone may lead to restoration failures and ecological traps, stressing the need for habitat management to accompany artificial habitat restoration plans which aim to provide a safe alternative refuge for fish which occupy hazardous anthropogenic structures.","PeriodicalId":54487,"journal":{"name":"Restoration Ecology","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ex situ experimentation to determine if introduced artificial habitat can provide alternative refuge to hazardous anthropogenic structures\",\"authors\":\"Josh Norman, Dan Clark, Alan Henshaw, Rosalind M. Wright, Marco E. G. V. Cattaneo, Jonathan D. Bolland\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/rec.14157\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Highly degraded lowland river ecosystems are of global concern to restoration practitioners. Hazardous anthropogenic structures, such as those used for water level management (i.e. pumping stations), present a mortality risk to fish and associated channelization, dredging, and removal of in-channel and riparian vegetation during winter dramatically reduces habitat availability. Paradoxically, fish seeking habitat for predator refuge in these systems can lead to ecological traps, that is, the undesired occupation of pumping stations. Artificial habitats installed upstream could provide safe alternative refuge, but the effectiveness of this restoration technique is poorly understood. Here, we uniquely quantified habitat occupancy and preference of a ubiquitous European freshwater fish (<i>Rutilus rutilus</i>) between an artificial reed bed and pumping station habitat, with access to open water in a tank experiment. Generalized linear mixed models revealed that fish preferred the pumping station when the artificial habitat was absent (baseline) and when it was introduced (pre-exclusion). Habitat management (exclusion from pumping station) was performed, during which artificial habitat occupancy was highest. When the pumping station was reintroduced (post-exclusion), pumping station occupancy probability decreased from 87.5% (pre-exclusion) to 3.7%, while artificial habitat occupancy probability increased from 18.4 to 87.9%. Therefore, our results demonstrate a preferential change in habitat occupancy of <i>R. rutilus</i> and suggest introducing artificial habitat alone may lead to restoration failures and ecological traps, stressing the need for habitat management to accompany artificial habitat restoration plans which aim to provide a safe alternative refuge for fish which occupy hazardous anthropogenic structures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Restoration Ecology\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Restoration Ecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14157\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restoration Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14157","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

严重退化的低地河流生态系统是全球修复工作者关注的问题。危险的人为结构,如用于水位管理的结构(即泵站),给鱼类带来了死亡风险,相关的渠化、疏浚以及冬季河道内和河岸植被的清除,都大大降低了栖息地的可用性。矛盾的是,鱼类在这些系统中寻找栖息地以躲避捕食者,可能会导致生态陷阱,即不希望占用的泵站。上游安装的人工栖息地可以提供安全的替代避难所,但这种修复技术的有效性却鲜为人知。在此,我们通过水槽实验,对欧洲无处不在的淡水鱼(Rutilus rutilus)在人工芦苇床和泵站栖息地之间的栖息地占用率和偏好进行了独特的量化。广义线性混合模型显示,在没有人工栖息地(基线)和引入人工栖息地(排除前)时,鱼类更喜欢泵站。在进行栖息地管理(排除泵站)期间,人工栖息地的占用率最高。当重新引入泵站时(排除后),泵站占用概率从 87.5%(排除前)降至 3.7%,而人工栖息地占用概率则从 18.4%增至 87.9%。因此,我们的研究结果表明,胭脂鱼对栖息地的占用发生了偏好性变化,并表明仅引入人工栖息地可能会导致修复失败和生态陷阱,这强调了在实施人工栖息地修复计划的同时进行栖息地管理的必要性,该计划旨在为占用危险人为结构的鱼类提供一个安全的替代避难所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ex situ experimentation to determine if introduced artificial habitat can provide alternative refuge to hazardous anthropogenic structures
Highly degraded lowland river ecosystems are of global concern to restoration practitioners. Hazardous anthropogenic structures, such as those used for water level management (i.e. pumping stations), present a mortality risk to fish and associated channelization, dredging, and removal of in-channel and riparian vegetation during winter dramatically reduces habitat availability. Paradoxically, fish seeking habitat for predator refuge in these systems can lead to ecological traps, that is, the undesired occupation of pumping stations. Artificial habitats installed upstream could provide safe alternative refuge, but the effectiveness of this restoration technique is poorly understood. Here, we uniquely quantified habitat occupancy and preference of a ubiquitous European freshwater fish (Rutilus rutilus) between an artificial reed bed and pumping station habitat, with access to open water in a tank experiment. Generalized linear mixed models revealed that fish preferred the pumping station when the artificial habitat was absent (baseline) and when it was introduced (pre-exclusion). Habitat management (exclusion from pumping station) was performed, during which artificial habitat occupancy was highest. When the pumping station was reintroduced (post-exclusion), pumping station occupancy probability decreased from 87.5% (pre-exclusion) to 3.7%, while artificial habitat occupancy probability increased from 18.4 to 87.9%. Therefore, our results demonstrate a preferential change in habitat occupancy of R. rutilus and suggest introducing artificial habitat alone may lead to restoration failures and ecological traps, stressing the need for habitat management to accompany artificial habitat restoration plans which aim to provide a safe alternative refuge for fish which occupy hazardous anthropogenic structures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Restoration Ecology
Restoration Ecology 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
15.60%
发文量
226
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Restoration Ecology fosters the exchange of ideas among the many disciplines involved with ecological restoration. Addressing global concerns and communicating them to the international research community and restoration practitioners, the journal is at the forefront of a vital new direction in science, ecology, and policy. Original papers describe experimental, observational, and theoretical studies on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater systems, and are considered without taxonomic bias. Contributions span the natural sciences, including ecological and biological aspects, as well as the restoration of soil, air and water when set in an ecological context; and the social sciences, including cultural, philosophical, political, educational, economic and historical aspects. Edited by a distinguished panel, the journal continues to be a major conduit for researchers to publish their findings in the fight to not only halt ecological damage, but also to ultimately reverse it.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信