Читать книгу River Restoration - Группа авторов - Страница 14

Faced with the ever‐increasing impact of human activities on the environment, the biologist E.O. Wilson (1992) announced, probably with much hope, the opening of an era of ecological restoration in the 21st century. Although its scope and consequences may be a matter of debate (Choi 2007; Sudding 2011), the realization of this hope seems to be currently confirmed. In response to the observed degradation of ecosystems (Palmer et al. 2004; Steffen et al. 2007; Cardinale et al. 2012), ecological restoration measures have become a structuring element of environmental management policies in both developed and developing countries (Aronson et al. 2006; Wortley et al. 2013). In the field of river management, they have been actively deployed since the 1970s (Gore 1985; Boon et al. 1992) because of particularly significant degradation resulting from the use of water and hydraulic installations, both old and increasingly numerous (e.g. Dudgeon et al. 2005; Vörösmarty et al. 2010; Grizzetti et al. 2017). Faced with significant water pollution and profound physical modifications of river ecosystems, many countries, particularly Western ones, have taken legislative and regulatory measures to preserve or restore a certain environmental quality to rivers. These measures consider, often in an integrated manner, physicochemical, biological, and hydromorphological issues (e.g. the US Clean Water Act, 1972; UK Water Act, 1973; French Water Laws, 1992, 2006; EU Water Framework Directive, 2000; Australian Water Act, 2007). These legislative frameworks have provided a fertile ground for the multiplication of restoration projects, as shown by several reviews conducted around the world (e.g. Bernhardt et al. 2005; Nakamura et al. 2006; Brooks and Lake 2007; Morandi et al. 2017; Szałkiewicz et al. 2018).

River restoration policies, whether at the legislative or technical level, are supported by substantial interdisciplinary research efforts. Scientific work focused on the dynamics of restoration research has shown a major increase in productivity, starting in the 1990s (Shields et al. 2003; Ormerod 2004; Bennett et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2014; Wohl et al. 2015). This increase in scientific research accompanies an increase in the number of projects implemented (Bernhardt et al. 2005) and reflects the strength of science–management links in the field. Applied work in ecology, hydrology, and hydromorphology (Palmer and Bernhardt 2006; Vaughan et al. 2009; Wohl et al. 2015) has been carried out to better understand the functioning of river systems and to assess their responses to restoration actions. As these actions are often innovative, it is difficult to predict their effects, and adaptive approaches based on monitoring are therefore generally preferred (Downs and Kondolf 2002). The current thinking in the natural sciences, notably on the links between hydromorphological structures and processes (Kondolf 2000), or between habitats and biodiversity (Palmer et al. 2010), has been nourished by as much as it has nourished ecological restoration practices (Smith et al. 2014). Bradshaw (2002, p. 7) introduced “restoration as an acid test for ecology” and thus emphasized the links between ecological restoration (practice) and restoration ecology (science). While these special links have long led to the association of river restoration with natural sciences, they have not prevented calls to broaden the spectrum of disciplines involved in restoration approaches (Cairns 1995; Ormerod 2004; Palmer and Bernhardt 2006; Wohl et al. 2015).