Leaf-litter decomposition and macroinvertebrate communities in boreal forest streams linked to upland logging disturbance

Kreutzweiser, David P.; Good, Kevin P.; Capell, Scott S.; Holmes, Stephen B.

doi:10.1899/07-034r.1

Cited by 55 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It seems that even moderate levels of forest disturbance sometimes cause detectable changes in litter breakdown rates as also evident from a few previous studies (Kreutzweiser et al, 2008;Lecerf and Richardson, 2010). Alder litter breakdown rate was > 2-fold higher in some harvested reaches (H2 and H3) than in corresponding control mature forest reaches (M2 and M3), hinting at a major alteration of stream functioning (Gessner and Chauvet, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…The major impact of large-scale forest harvesting on stream ecosystems has encouraged forest managers to adopt alternative harvest practices such as selective logging, small-scale harvesting or the preservation of riparian buffer strips (Broadmeadow and Nisbet, 2004;Kreutzweiser et al, 2008;Reid et al, 2010). Our study provides some evidence that even small-scale forest harvesting is not without consequences for important structural and functional components of stream ecosystems.…”

Section: Implication For Stream Ecosystem Managementmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…In addition, forest canopy regulates water temperature and solar radiation while terrestrial arthropods that fall into streams are a crucial food source for salmonids (Wipfli, 1997). There is now consistent evidence that large-scale forest harvesting profoundly alters several key components of stream ecosystems such as channel morphology, hydrology, temperature, water chemistry, biodiversity, productivity, paths of energy flow and rates of material processing (e.g., England and Rosemond, 2003;Sweeney et al, 2004;Moore et al, 2005;Kreutzweiser et al, 2008;Zhang et al, 2009;Ely and Wallace, 2010). Overall, evidence indicates that impacts on streambed morphology or hydrology can be reduced by maintaining riparian forest strips along streams (Broadmeadow and Nisbet, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, evidence indicates that impacts on streambed morphology or hydrology can be reduced by maintaining riparian forest strips along streams (Broadmeadow and Nisbet, 2004). However, riparian forest buffers have proven inefficient in maintaining invertebrate diversity and litter breakdown rate, a vital ecological process in headwater streams (Kreutzweiser et al, 2008;Lecerf and Richardson, 2010). To reduce impacts on stream ecosystems, researchers and managers have considered alternative forest management strategies, such as limiting the proportion of catchment area harvested.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, stream functional integrity is not assessed routinely, although functional metrics such as litter breakdown rates have proved to be very sensitive to forest disturbances (Gessner and Chauvet, 2002;Kreutzweiser et al, 2008;Lecerf and Richardson, 2010). In this study, we used structural and functional indicators to compare stream reaches running through a mature deciduous forest with stream reaches affected by small forest harvests (catchment area harvested < 5%).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Is smaller necessarily better? Effects of small-scale forest harvesting on stream ecosystems

Lecerf

Baudoin

Besson

et al. 2012

Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Knowledge on ecological impacts of forestry practices on aquatic ecosystems relies almost exclusively on data from large-scale forest harvesting, often involving clearfelling of whole stream catchments. To determine effects associated with less intensive and widespread forest management, we examined the responses of headwater streams to small-scale forest harvesting, including riparian zones adjacent to study reaches but corresponding to less than 5% of the catchment areas. Stream reaches running through recently (2-4 years) harvested forest patches were paired with and compared with adjacent reaches bordered by mature broadleaf forest. We determined abiotic stream characteristics, invertebrate community structures and abundances, trout size and population densities, and leaf litter breakdown rates in each of these pairs. Harvested reaches were found to have different channel cross-section morphology and greater invertebrate abundances in leaf packs than mature forest reaches. Shifts in the abundance of common invertebrate predators were also attributed to riparian forest harvesting. Litter breakdown rates and brown trout densities did not show any significant difference between harvested and mature forest reaches across the four site pairs, possibly because of nonlinear responses to post-harvest riparian canopy openness. Managers must be aware that small-scale forest harvesting in stream riparian areas is not without consequences for aquatic ecosystems. Whether natural riparian forest openings, such as caused by tree death and blow-down, have similar effects on stream ecosystems is an important question to address if we are to confirm the usefulness of small-scale forestry and improve forest and stream management schemes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Implication For Stream Ecosystem Managementmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Is smaller necessarily better? Effects of small-scale forest harvesting on stream ecosystems

Lecerf

Baudoin

Besson

et al. 2012

Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Linking stream ecosystem integrity to catchment and reach conditions in an intensively managed forest landscape

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forests are vital to maintaining headwater stream integrity in forested biomes, which ensures the delivery of aquatic ecosystem services downstream. Forest harvesting, however, can alter land–water linkages and compromise stream integrity. Historically, the main effects of forestry on streams have been documented by studies that used relatively few (mainly abiotic) indicators and which focused on single harvesting events. However, forest management is expected to intensify in the future to meet increasing global wood demand and it is likely that our present understanding does not adequately capture the cumulative effects that streams will be subjected to under intensive forest management. To address this, we assessed the effects of varying forest management intensities on the integrity of 15 forest headwater streams in northwestern New Brunswick, Canada. We used a comprehensive approach to link multiple biotic and abiotic indicators of stream ecosystem integrity to reach‐ and catchment‐level characteristics including forest management (e.g., cumulative harvesting over time, road density, forest condition). Most indicators detected the gradient in forest management intensity with abiotic indicators responding most strongly. Streams in catchments with highest management intensity (especially road density) tended to have higher fine inorganic sediment deposition and entrainment, water cations and carbon, dissolved organic matter humification, and water temperature. These abiotic differences were associated with higher biofilm biomass and shredder densities, but lower leaf decomposition. Evidence from our multi‐indicator approach elucidated a potential effects pathway of higher inorganic sediment content in biofilms of organic matter potentially limiting or altering its use by microbial and benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) communities and resulting in reduced leaf decomposition rates. Overall, this study shows that current best management practices in an intensively managed watershed (and legacy effects from past management such as older road systems) do not fully protect against an increased delivery of terrestrial materials to streams with resulting habitat and biotic changes, but that they are mostly effective at preventing the impairment of BMI communities.

show abstract

Relations of interannual differences in stream litter breakdown with discharge: bioassessment implications

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem‐level processes are increasingly used by researchers and managers as indicators of ecological integrity for bioassessment, particularly in streams. However, processes like litter breakdown integrate multiple mechanistic pathways, which can vary differentially even under natural, unimpacted conditions. In particular, weather‐driven hydrologic variations may strongly influence invertebrate shredder feeding and physical abrasion, inducing high natural variability of litter breakdown rates, which may obscure the effects of anthropogenic disturbances. Yet, such variability is rarely assessed to refine benchmarks of ecological status. Here, we quantified how interannual hydrologic differences contributed to the spatio‐temporal variability of litter breakdown rate and its components (fragmentation, λF; and dissolution and microbial decomposition, λm), in low‐order unimpacted, perennial streams across three climatically similar regions in temperate Canada. We measured litter breakdown rates in coarse (5 or 10 mm; kc)‐ and fine‐mesh (0.5 mm; kf) leaf bags during fall for 2–4 yr and used variance partitioning to disentangle the variation of kc, λF, and λm, as explained by hydrologic indices (during and prior to leaf bag incubation), decomposer‐related variables, and water chemistry. Contrary to our hypotheses, interannual hydrologic variability was unrelated to λF, and poorly predicted λm and kc within regions. Within‐region spatial (i.e., across sites in a year) and temporal (across years at a site) differences in kc approximated or exceeded the range of natural variability suggested to characterize reference conditions by a popular bioassessment framework. Accordingly, we recommend site‐ and region‐specific modifications of benchmarks for reference conditions that account for interannual variability, while cautioning about their potential non‐stationarity under climate change. Composite parameters such as kc/kf and λF/λm were substantially more variable across sites, and hence are not robust assessment parameters. As the range of natural variability of litter breakdown revealed in this study can overlap with the average impacts of certain anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., nutrient enrichment) on this parameter reported by previous research, we emphasize the need to include other structural and functional indicators to ensure comprehensive stream bioassessments.

show abstract

Leaf-litter decomposition and macroinvertebrate communities in boreal forest streams linked to upland logging disturbance

Cited by 55 publications

References 46 publications

Is smaller necessarily better? Effects of small-scale forest harvesting on stream ecosystems

Is smaller necessarily better? Effects of small-scale forest harvesting on stream ecosystems

Linking stream ecosystem integrity to catchment and reach conditions in an intensively managed forest landscape

Relations of interannual differences in stream litter breakdown with discharge: bioassessment implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About