No abstract

R iparian zones are the interfaces between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. As ecotones, they encompass sharp gradients of environmental factors, ecological processes, and plant communities. Riparian zones are not easily delineated but are comprised of mosaics of landforms, communities, and environments within the larger landscape. We propose a conceptual model of riparian tones that integrates the physical processes that shape valleyfloor landscapes, the succession of terrestrial plant communities on these geomorphic surfaces, the formation of habitat, and the production of nutritional resources for aquatic ecosys-Riparian zones have been investiing a diverse and often confusing array of definitions based on hydrologic, topographic, edaphic, and vegetative criteria (see reviews in Karr and Schlosser 1978, Swanson et al. 1982). Most riparian classification system focus on a few selected at-tems.

S tudies of the effects of climate change on forests have focused on the ability of species to tolerate temperature and moisture changes and to disperse, but they have ignored the effects of disturbances caused by climate change (e.g., Ojima et al. 1991). Yet modeling studies indicate the importance of climate effects on disturbance regimes (He et al. 1999). Local, regional, and global changes in temperature and precipitation can influence the occurrence, timing, frequency, duration, extent, and intensity of disturbances (Baker 1995, Turner et al. 1998). Because trees can survive from decades to centuries and take years to become established, climate-change impacts are expressed in forests, in part, through alterations in disturbance regimes (Franklin et al. 1992, Dale et al. 2000). Disturbances, both human-induced and natural, shape forest systems by influencing their composition, structure, and functional processes. Indeed, the forests of the United States are molded by their land-use and disturbance history. Within the United States, natural disturbances having the greatest effects on forests include fire, drought, introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, and landslides (Figure 1). Each disturbance affects forests differently. Some cause large-scale tree mortality, whereas others affect community structure and organization without causing massive mortality (e.g., ground fires). Forest disturbances influence how much carbon is stored in trees or dead wood. All these natural disturbances interact with human-induced effects on the environment, such as air pollution and land-use change resulting from resource extraction, agriculture, urban and suburban expansion, and recreation. Some disturbances can be functions of both natural and human conditions (e.g., forest fire ignition and spread) (Figure 2).

No abstract

Early‐successional forest ecosystems that develop after stand‐replacing or partial disturbances are diverse in species, processes, and structure. Post‐disturbance ecosystems are also often rich in biological legacies, including surviving organisms and organically derived structures, such as woody debris. These legacies and post‐disturbance plant communities provide resources that attract and sustain high species diversity, including numerous early‐successional obligates, such as certain woodpeckers and arthropods. Early succession is the only period when tree canopies do not dominate the forest site, and so this stage can be characterized by high productivity of plant species (including herbs and shrubs), complex food webs, large nutrient fluxes, and high structural and spatial complexity. Different disturbances contrast markedly in terms of biological legacies, and this will influence the resultant physical and biological conditions, thus affecting successional pathways. Management activities, such as post‐disturbance logging and dense tree planting, can reduce the richness within and the duration of early‐successional ecosystems. Where maintenance of biodiversity is an objective, the importance and value of these natural early‐successional ecosystems are underappreciated.

SUMMARYStream channel development in forested areas is profoundly influenced by large organic debris (logs, limbs and rootwads greater than 10 cm in diameter) in the channels.In low gradient meandering streams large organic debris enters the channel through bank erosion, mass wasting, blowdown, and collapse of trees due to ice loading. In small streams large organic debris may locally influence channel morphology and sediment transport processes because the stream may not have the competency to redistribute the debris. In larger streams flowing water may move large organic debris, concentrating it into distinct accumulations (debris jams). Organic debris may greatly affect channel form and process by: increasing or decreasing stability of stream banks; influencing development of midchannel bars and short braided reaches; and facilitating, with other favourable circumstances, development of meander cutoffs.In steep gradient mountain streams organic debris may enter the channel by all the processes mentioned for low gradient streams. In addition, considerable debris may also enter the channel by way of debris avalanches or debris torrents. In small to intermediate size mountain streams with steep valley walls and little or no floodplain or flat valley floor, the effects of large organic debris on the fluvial processes and channel form may be very significant. Debris jams may locally accelerate or retard channel bed and bank erosion and/or deposition; create sites for significant sediment storage; and produce a stepped channel profile, herein referred to as 'organic stepping', which provides for variable channel morphology and flow conditions. The effect of live or dead trees anchored by rootwads into the stream bank may not only greatly retard bank erosion but also influence channel width and the development of small scour holes along the channel beneath tree roots. Once trees fall into the stream, their influence on the channel form and process may be quite different than when they were defending the banks, and, depending on the size of the debris, size of the stream, and many other factors, their effects range from insignificant to very important.

1. Large wood forms an important component of woodland river ecosystems. The relationship between large wood and the physical characteristics of river systems varies greatly with changes in the tree species of the marginal woodland, the climatic and hydrological regime, the fluvial geomorphological setting and the river and woodland management context. 2. Research on large wood and fluvial processes over the last 25 years has focussed on three main themes: the effects of wood on flow hydraulics; on the transfer of mineral and organic sediment; and on the geomorphology of river channels. 3. Analogies between wood and mineral sediment transfer processes (supply, mobility and river characteristics that affect retention) are found useful as a framework for synthesising current knowledge on large wood in rivers. 4. An important property of wood is its size when scaled to the size of the river channel. ′Small′ channels are defined as those whose width is less than the majority of wood pieces (e.g. width < median wood piece length). `Medium' channels have widths greater than the size of most wood pieces (e.g. width < upper quartile wood piece length), and `Large' channels are wider than the length of all of the wood pieces delivered to them. 5. A conceptual framework defined here for evaluating the storage and dynamics of wood in rivers ranks the relative importance of hydrological characteristics (flow regime, sediment transport regime), wood characteristics (piece size, buoyancy, morphological complexity) and geomorphological characteristics (channel width, geomorphological style) in `Small', `Medium' and `Large' rivers. 6. Wood pieces are large in comparison with river size in `small' rivers, therefore they tend to remain close to where they are delivered to the river and provide important structures in the stream, controlling rather than responding to the hydrological and sediment transfer characteristics of the river. 7. For `Medium' rivers, the combination of wood length and form becomes critical to the stability of wood within the channel. Wood accumulations form as a result of smaller or more mobile wood pieces accumulating behind key pieces. Wood transport is governed mainly by the flow regime and the buoyancy of the wood. Even quite large wood pieces may require partial burial to give them stability, so enhancing the importance of the sediment transport regime. 8. Wood dynamics in `Large' rivers vary with the geometry of the channel (slope and channel pattern), which controls the delivery, mobility and breakage of wood, and also the characteristics of the riparian zone, from where the greatest volume of wood is introduced. Wood retention depends on the channel pattern and the distribution of flow velocity. A large amount is stored at the channel margins. The greater the contact between the active channel and the forested floodplain and islands, the greater the quantity of wood that is stored.

Natural resource managers have used natural variability concepts since the early 1960s and are increasingly relying on these concepts to maintain biological diversity, to restore ecosystems that have been severely altered, and as benchmarks for assessing anthropogenic change. Management use of natural variability relies on two concepts: that past conditions and processes provide context and guidance for managing ecological systems today, and that disturbance-driven spatial and temporal variability is a vital attribute of nearly all ecological systems. We review the use of these concepts for managing ecological systems and landscapes.We conclude that natural variability concepts provide a framework for improved understanding of ecological systems and the changes occurring in these systems, as well as for evaluating the consequences of proposed management actions. Understanding the history of ecological systems (their past composition and structure, their spatial and temporal variability, and the principal processes that influenced them) helps managers set goals that are more likely to maintain and protect ecological systems and meet the social values desired for an area. Until we significantly improve our understanding of ecological systems, this knowledge of past ecosystem functioning is also one of the best means for predicting impacts to ecological systems today.These concepts can also be misused. No a priori time period or spatial extent should be used in defining natural variability. Specific goals, site-specific field data, inferences derived from data collected elsewhere, simulation models, and explicitly stated value judgment all must drive selection of the relevant time period and spatial extent used in defining natural variability. Natural variability concepts offer an opportunity and a challenge for ecologists to provide relevant information and to collaborate with managers to improve the management of ecological systems.