Habitat restoration to recover fish populations takes place worldwide, yet studies of its efficacy are fraught with challenges. One difficulty comes from studies of fish responses that are too focused on whether abundance has increased in the restored habitat, limiting the methodology to observational data of fish density. However, many other tools are available for evaluation of restoration. I review a set of conceptually based methods that colleagues and I used to assess restoration efficacy in a model river system to show the strength of considering alternative approaches. Although it was relatively easy to determine that fish are attracted to instream restoration structures (engineered log jams), spatial and temporal variability in the results requires approaches that more closely examine the distinction between increases in density and increases in habitat capacity. Furthermore, I show that efficacy research should be augmented with consideration of behavior, the spatial scale of the post-restoration studies, the response of life history traits (e.g., growth), and the applicability of habitat selection theory. These detailed studies often, but not always, identify benefits of restoration that go beyond simple observations of fish abundance. They are therefore methods that are worth considering by researchers involved in postrestoration fish monitoring.

中文翻译：

---

“如果你建造它……”：检测河流鱼类恢复后响应的方法论

世界各地都在进行栖息地恢复以恢复鱼类种群，但对其功效的研究充满挑战。一个困难来自对鱼类反应的研究，这些研究过于关注恢复的栖息地的丰度是否增加，从而将方法限制在鱼类密度的观测数据上。然而，许多其他工具可用于评估修复。我回顾了一组基于概念的方法，我和同事用来评估模型河流系统中的恢复效果，以显示考虑替代方法的强度。虽然确定鱼被河流恢复结构（工程原木堵塞）吸引相对容易，结果中的空间和时间可变性需要更仔细地检查密度增加和生境容量增加之间的区别的方法。此外，我表明功效研究应该通过考虑行为、恢复后研究的空间尺度、生活史特征（例如生长）的反应以及栖息地选择理论的适用性来增强。这些详细的研究经常（但并非总是）确定恢复的好处，而不仅仅是对鱼类丰度的简单观察。因此，它们是值得参与修复后鱼类监测的研究人员考虑的方法。生活史特征（如生长）的反应，以及栖息地选择理论的适用性。这些详细的研究经常（但并非总是）确定恢复的好处，而不仅仅是对鱼类丰度的简单观察。因此，它们是值得参与修复后鱼类监测的研究人员考虑的方法。生活史特征（如生长）的反应，以及栖息地选择理论的适用性。这些详细的研究经常（但并非总是）确定恢复的好处，而不仅仅是对鱼类丰度的简单观察。因此，它们是值得参与修复后鱼类监测的研究人员考虑的方法。