Long-term fish community response to a reach-scale stream restoration

At a global scale, aquatic ecosystems are being altered by human activities at a greater rate than at any other time in history. In recent years, grassroots efforts have generated interest in the restoration of degraded or destroyed aquatic habitats, especially small wetlands and streams where such projects are feasible with local resources. We present ecological management lessons learned from 17 years of monitoring the fish community response to the channel relocation and reach-level restoration of Juday Creek, a 3rd-order tributary of the St. Joseph River in Indiana, USA. The project was designed to increase habitat complexity, reverse the effects of accumulated fine sediment (< 2 mm diameter), and mitigate for the impacts of a new golf course development. The 1997 restoration consisted of new channel construction within two reaches of a 1.2-km section of Juday Creek that also contained two control reaches. A primary social goal of the golf course development and stream restoration was to avoid harm to the non-native brown trout fishery, as symbolic of community concerns for the watershed. Our long-term monitoring effort revealed that, although fine sediment increased over time in the restored reaches, habitat conditions have promoted the resurgence of native fish species. Since restoration, the fish assemblage has shifted from non-native Salmonidae (brown trout, rainbow trout) to native Centrarchidae (rock bass, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass). In addition, native, nongame species have remained stable or have increased in population abundance (e.g., Johnny darter, mottled sculpin). The results of this study demonstrate the value of learning from a restoration project to adjust management decisions that enhance environmental quality.

Resilience and development: mobilizing for transformation

In 2014, the Third International Conference on the resilience of social-ecological systems chose the theme “resilience and development: mobilizing for transformation.” The conference aimed specifically at fostering an encounter between the experiences and thinking focused on the issue of resilience through a social and ecological system perspective, and the experiences focused on the issue of resilience through a development perspective. In this perspectives piece, we reflect on the outcomes of the meeting and document the differences and similarities between the two perspectives as discussed during the conference, and identify bridging questions designed to guide future interactions. After the conference, we read the documents (abstracts, PowerPoints) that were prepared and left in the conference database by the participants (about 600 contributions), and searched the web for associated items, such as videos, blogs, and tweets from the conference participants. All of these documents were assessed through one lens: what do they say about resilience and development? Once the perspectives were established, we examined different themes that were significantly addressed during the conference. Our analysis paves the way for new collective developments on a set of issues: (1) Who declares/assign/cares for the resilience of what, of whom? (2) What are the models of transformations and how do they combine the respective role of agency and structure? (3) What are the combinations of measurement and assessment processes? (4) At what scale should resilience be studied? Social transformations and scientific approaches are coconstructed. For the last decades, development has been conceived as a modernization process supported by scientific rationality and technical expertise. The definition of a new perspective on development goes with a negotiation on a new scientific approach. Resilience is presently at the center of this negotiation on a new science for development.