Impacts of beaver dams on channel hydraulics and substrate characteristics in a mountain stream

Stout, Trinity; Majerova, M.; Neilson, Bethany T.

doi:10.1002/eco.1767

Cited by 15 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two habitat types were sampled within each of the streams: (1) lotic segments directly upstream of sampled beaver ponds, which were characterised by shallow depths, cobble substrate, and fast to moderate water flow (Stout et al, 2017;Wheaton et al, 2015); and…”

Section: Study Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As water pools behind a beaver dam, the stream's shape forms a wide pond, characterised by slower, deeper water that might benefit swimming taxa that are excluded from fast-moving lotic reaches (Mackay, 1992;Stout, Majerova & Neilson, 2017). mobility group; MGs).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…mobility group; MGs). As water pools behind a beaver dam, the stream's shape forms a wide pond, characterised by slower, deeper water that might benefit swimming taxa that are excluded from fast-moving lotic reaches (Mackay, 1992;Stout, Majerova & Neilson, 2017). Additionally, the substrate size shifts from gravel or cobble in undammed sections to fine sediments within the beaver ponds (Levine & Meyer, 2014;Strzelec et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Beavers alter stream macroinvertebrate communities in north‐eastern Utah

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Understanding changes in macroinvertebrate communities is important because they play a large role in stream ecosystem functioning, and they are an important food resource for fish. Beaver-induced changes to stream morphology could alter macroinvertebrate communities, which in turn could affect food webs and ecosystem function. However, studies investigating the effects of North American beaver activities on macroinvertebrates are rare in the inter-mountain west, an area with high potential for beaver-assisted restoration.2. The aim of this study was to quantify differences in the macroinvertebrate community between unaltered segments of streams and within beaver ponds in northeastern Utah, U.S.A. We assessed macroinvertebrate species richness, biomass, density, functional feeding group composition, mobility group composition, and macroinvertebrate habitat characteristics to test the hypothesis that macroinvertebrate communities will differ among habitat types (undammed stream segments and beaver ponds) in beaver-occupied streams.3. Beaver pond communities significantly differed from lotic reach communities in many ways. Beaver ponds were less diverse with 25% fewer species. Although there was variability among streams, in general, beaver ponds had 75% fewer individuals and 90% lower total macroinvertebrate biomass compared to lotic reaches.4. Regarding functional feeding groups, beaver ponds contained more engulfers, while lotic reaches contained more scrapers, filterers, and gatherers. For mobility groups, beaver ponds had more sprawlers, while lotic reaches had more clingers.Swimmers were also more prevalent in lotic reaches, although this is probably due to the abundance of Baetis within lotic reaches. More beaver pond taxa were classified as lentic-dwelling insects, while more lotic reach taxa were categorised as preferring lotic habitats.5. The creation of ponds by beavers fundamentally altered the macroinvertebrate community in north-eastern Utah streams. Such changes to stream macroinvertebrate communities suggest that recolonisation of beavers across North America may be altering stream functioning and food webs. Our study highlights the need to further investigate the effects of beaver recolonisation on stream communities.

show abstract

Section: Study Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beavers alter stream macroinvertebrate communities in north‐eastern Utah

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beaver are ecosystem engineers and a keystone species, meaning they have a disproportionately large ecologic, geomorphic, and hydrologic effect on their environment compared with their abundance (Baker & Hill, ; Rosell, Bozser, & Parker, ). In low‐order streams, beaver build channel‐spanning dams that obstruct flow, cause backwater ponding, and decrease stream power and velocity (Naiman, Melillo, & Hobbie, ; Stout, Majerova, & Neilson, ). Decreased velocities allow for the aggradation of sediment and particulate organic matter behind dams, which raises the stream bed and reconnects incised channels with floodplains (Butler & Malanson, ; Pollock, Beechie, & Jordan, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sediment storage and shallow groundwater response to beaver dam analogues in the Colorado Front Range, USA

Scamardo

Wohl

2020

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enthusiasm for using beaver dam analogues (BDAs) to restore incised channels and riparian corridors has been increasing. BDAs are expected to create a similar channel response to natural beaver dams by causing channel bed aggradation and overbank flow, which subsequently raise water tables and support vegetation growth. However, lack of funding for monitoring projects post‐restoration has limited research on whether BDAs actually cause expected channel change in the Front Range and elsewhere. Geomorphic and hydrologic response to BDAs was monitored in two watersheds 1 year post‐restoration. BDAs were studied at Fish Creek, a steep mountainous catchment, and Campbell Creek, a lower gradient piedmont catchment from May to October 2018. At each restoration site, the upstream‐ and downstream‐most BDAs were chosen for intensive study in comparison with unrestored reference reaches. Monitoring focused on quantifying sediment volumes in BDA ponds and recording changes to stream stage and riparian groundwater. Despite differences in physical basin characteristics, BDA pools at both sites stored similar volumes of sediment and stored more sediment than reference pools. Sediment storage is positively correlated to BDA height and pool surface area. However, BDAs did not have a significant influence on shallow groundwater. The lack of groundwater response proximal to BDAs could indicate that local watershed factors have a stronger influence on groundwater response than restoration design 1 year post‐restoration. Systematic, long‐term studies of channel and floodplain response to BDAs are needed to better understand how BDAs will influence geomorphology and hydrology.

show abstract

“…Both, pools and backwaters cover deep and low velocity areas of the channel and were mainly a result of beaver dam construction. Stout et al (2016) made a comparison of the same study reach both with and without beaver dams. They concluded that there was a 50 % increase in depths and 31 % decrease in velocities for this reach when the beaver dams are present.…”

Section: Flow Depth and Velocity Frequency Distributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beaver dam influences on streamflow hydraulic properties and thermal regimes

Majerova

Neilson

Roper

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Beaver dams alter channel hydraulics which in turn change the geomorphic templates of streams. Variability 13 in geomorphic units, the building blocks of stream systems, and water temperature, critical to stream ecological 14 function, define habitat heterogeneity and availability. While prior research has shown the impact of beaver dams on 15 stream hydraulics, geomorphic template, or temperature, the connections or feedbacks between these habitat measures 16are not well understood. This has left questions regarding relationships between temperature variability at different 17 spatial scales to hydraulic properties such as flow depth and velocity that are dependent on the geomorphology. We 18 combine detailed predicted hydraulic properties, field based maps with an additional classification scheme of 19 geomorphic units, and detailed water temperature observations throughout a study reach to demonstrate the 20 relationship between these factors at different spatial scales (reach, beaver dam complexes, and geomorphic units). 21Over a three week, low flow period we found temperature to vary 2 °C between the upstream and downstream extents 22 of the reach with a net warming of 1 °C during the day and a net cooling of 0.5 °C at night. At the beaver dam complex 23 scale, net warming of 1.15 °C occurred during the day with variable cooling at night. Regardless of limited temperature 24 changes at these larger scales, the temperaure variability in a beaver dam complex reached up to 10.5 °C due to the 25 diversity of geomorphic units within the complex. At the geomorphic unit scale, the highly altered flow velocity and 26 depth distributions within primary units provide an explanation of the temperature variability within the dam complex. 27Riffles, with the greatest velocity variability and least depth variability, have the smallest temperature variability and 28 range. The lowest velocity variability occurred within margins, pools, and backwaters which exhibit the widest 29 temperature ranges, but range from shallow to deep. Overall, the predicted flow hydraulic properties for different 30 geomorphic units suggest that velocity is the primary factor in determining the variability of water temperature. 31However, water depth can also play a role as it impacts warming patterns and can dictate thermal stratification. These 32 findings begin to link key attributes of different geomorphic units to thermal variability and illustrates the value of the 33 geomorphic variability associated with the development of beaver dam complexes.

show abstract

Impacts of beaver dams on channel hydraulics and substrate characteristics in a mountain stream

Cited by 15 publications

References 47 publications

Beavers alter stream macroinvertebrate communities in north‐eastern Utah

Beavers alter stream macroinvertebrate communities in north‐eastern Utah

Sediment storage and shallow groundwater response to beaver dam analogues in the Colorado Front Range, USA

Beaver dam influences on streamflow hydraulic properties and thermal regimes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About