Influence of academic education on the perception of wood in watercourses

Wyżga‬‬, Bartłomiej; Zawiejska, Joanna; Lay, Yves-François Le

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.013

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, the processes by which wood becomes buried and unburied in streams merit further study [Hassan et al, 2005;Latterell and Naiman, 2007]. Perhaps the most important area for study is the sociological reasons for intentional wood removal by humans [Gregory and Davis, 1993;Piegay et al, 2005;Chin et al, 2008;Wyzga et al, 2009;Merten and Decker-Fritz, 2010].…”

Section: Applications To Stream Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing wood mobilization in streams

Merten

Finlay

Johnson³

et al. 2010

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Natural pieces of wood provide a variety of ecosystem functions in streams including habitat, organic matter retention, increased hyporheic exchange and transient storage, and enhanced hydraulic and geomorphic heterogeneity. Wood mobilization is a critical process in determining the residence time of wood. We documented the characteristics and locations of 865 natural wood pieces (>0.05 m in diameter for a portion >1 m in length) in nine streams along the north shore of Lake Superior in Minnesota. We determined the locations of the pieces again after an overbank stormflow event to determine the factors that influenced mobilization of stationary wood pieces in natural streams. Seven of 11 potential predictor variables were identified with multiple logistic regression as significant to mobilization: burial, effective depth, ratio of piece length to effective stream width (length ratio), bracing, rootwad presence, downstream force ratio, and draft ratio. The final model (P < 0.001, r 2 = 0.39) indicated that wood mobilization under natural conditions is a complex function of both mechanical factors (burial, length ratio, bracing, rootwad presence, draft ratio) and hydraulic factors (effective depth, downstream force ratio). If stable pieces are a goal for stream management then features such as partial burial, low effective depth, high length relative to channel width, bracing against other objects (e.g., stream banks, trees, rocks, or larger wood pieces), and rootwads are desirable. Using the model equation from this study, stewards of natural resources can better manage in-stream wood for the benefit of stream ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Applications To Stream Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing wood mobilization in streams

Merten

Finlay

Johnson³

et al. 2010

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In practice, however, this process is typically accelerated by the installation of instream wood structures in order to satisfy shorter-term habitat goals (Erskine & Webb, 2003;Gippel et al, 1996). Restoration design must seek to balance hydrogeomorphological and ecological goals with concerns over flood and erosion risks, as well as public perceptions around naturalness, safety and aesthetics (Chin et al, 2008;Piégay et al, 2005;Wohl, 2015;Wyzga, Zawiejska, & Lay, 2009). Thus, the use of wood in river restoration remains somewhat controversial (Roni et al, 2015), highlighting a pressing need for further research to generate an improved evidence base.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Re‐introduction of structurally complex wood jams promotes channel and habitat recovery from overwidening: Implications for river conservation

Harvey

Henshaw

Parker

et al. 2017

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large wood is a powerful geomorphic agent in rivers, providing important habitat functions for a range of aquatic organisms, but has been subject to a long history of removal. Internationally, approaches to river restoration are increasingly incorporating large wood features, but generally favour simple flow deflectors (e.g. single logs, stripped of branches and anchored in place) over more complex structures that more accurately mimic natural wood jams. This paper explores channel response to wood‐based restoration of an overwidened lowland chalk stream that incorporated whole felled trees. Hydraulics, sediment, topography and vegetation data were assessed for a 3 year period for two restored reaches: an upstream reach where pre‐restoration baseline data were obtained, and a downstream reach restored before data collection. Where pre‐restoration data were available, the introduction of wood jams generated sediment deposition within jams leading to the development of vegetated marginal ‘benches’ and bed scour in adjacent areas of flow convergence. Patterns were less clear in the downstream reach, where restoration design was less ambitious and outcomes may have been affected by subsequent restoration work upstream. The results indicate that reintroduction of large wood (whole trees), can promote channel and habitat recovery from overwidening in lowland rivers, creating important ecological benefits through the provision of structurally complex marginal habitat and associated food resources. Longer‐term assessments are required to establish whether the trajectories of change are persistent. The work emphasizes the effectiveness of restoration approaches that aim to ‘work with nature’. The ambitious design, incorporating structurally complex wood jams, was also low‐cost, using materials available from the river corridor (existing riparian trees). Furthermore, ecosystem engineering effects were amplified by the colonization of wood jams by aquatic vegetation. The approach should, therefore, be transferable to other lowland rivers, subject to wider catchment constraints.

show abstract

“…Differing values are placed on wood by various riparian stakeholders, so developing management plans around large wood can became contentious, and the success of any practice will be limited by the sociocultural framework, legislation, and historical context. Large wood is beneficial for ecological functions, but riverscapes with wood are sometimes perceived as less aesthetically pleasing, more dangerous for recreation, and in need of more improvement than riverscapes without wood (Piégay et al 2005, Gregory 2006, Wyzga et al 2009). In some cases, public concerns regarding wood may be warranted, especially in situations where infrastructure, such as bridges or culverts, may be threatened and human life put at risk by transported wood.…”

Section: Management and Conservation Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%