Habitat restoration
River wood restoration boosted native fish numbers
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Reintroducing thousands of large wood pieces into a Murray River reach increased Murray cod and golden perch by drawing immigrants from connected source populations.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Other — BACI mark–recapture/telemetry comparing wood-restored Murray River reach vs controls
- N
- N=11055 · 7,312 Murray cod and 3,743 golden perch captured 2007–2013; 4,450 large wood pieces restored
- Population
- Murray cod and golden perch in Murray River restoration and control reaches
- Outcome
- Population size and immigration after structural habitat restoration
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Murray cod abundance rose in the restored reach after wood addition while a hydrologically similar isolated control fell 40%. Movement data showed net immigration into the restored reach from nearby source populations rather than local production alone.
Methodology
Authors restored 4,450 large wood pieces in a Murray River intervention reach (2007–2010) and used a seven-year mark–recapture and telemetry program on Murray cod and golden perch, comparing the restored reach with three control populations in a BACI design.
Limitations
The design is unreplicated (one restored reach); it does not prove that wood restoration would work in disconnected rivers or that local recruitment, rather than immigration, rebuilt the population.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
This library holds 7 empirical papers on habitat restoration with measured outcomes rather than reviews.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Reintroducing thousands of large wood pieces into a Murray River reach increased Murray cod and golden perch by drawing immigrants from connected source populations.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
A protected-area correlation or a prairie plot is not proof that designation caused the recovery.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
A protected-area correlation or a prairie plot is not proof that designation caused the recovery.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.