No abstract

No abstract

Understanding of the effects of wildland fire and fire management on aquatic and riparian ecosystems is an evolving field, with many questions still to be resolved. Limitations of current knowledge, and the certainty that fire management will continue, underscore the need to summarize available information. Integrating fire and fuels management with aquatic ecosystem conservation begins with recognizing that terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are linked and dynamic, and that fire can play a critical role in maintaining aquatic ecological diversity. To protect aquatic ecosystems we argue that it will be important to: (1) accommodate fire-related and other ecological processes that maintain aquatic habitats and biodiversity, and not simply control fires or fuels; (2) prioritize projects according to risks and opportunities for fire control and the protection of aquatic ecosystems; and (3) develop new consistency in the management and regulatory process. Ultimately, all natural resource management is uncertain; the role of science is to apply experimental design and hypothesis testing to management applications that affect fire and aquatic ecosystems. Policy-makers and the public will benefit from an expanded appreciation of fire ecology that enables them to implement watershed management projects as experiments with hypothesized outcomes, adequate controls, and replication. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

We examined the prognosis for long‐term persistence of isolated populations of cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki and the feasibility of using barriers to protect them from nonnative salmonids. In so doing, we estimated minimum stream lengths (MSL) required by cutthroat trout populations of varying abundances and rates of population loss to emigration and mortality. Using 2,500 individuals (>75 mm) as the target population size—corresponding to an effective population size, Ne, of 500—we estimated that more than 8 km of stream were required to maintain a population with high fish abundances (0.3 fish/m), and 25 km of stream were required to maintain a population of low abundance (0.1 fish/m). Incorporating a population loss rate of 10% increased MSL to 9.3 km for the high and 27.8 km for the low abundances. Our results suggest that many isolated populations may not persist over the long term because insufficient space exists to maintain the required Ne. Barrier construction to protect cutthroat trout from nonnative salmonids may be a necessary short‐term solution, but it involves a long‐term risk for maintaining viable cutthroat trout populations. We propose a watershed‐based framework for cutthroat trout conservation in the central and southern Rocky Mountains that emphasizes protection of strong core populations.