Managing Plantation Forests to Provide Short- to Long-Term Supplies of Wood to Streams: A Simulation Study Using New Zealand’s Pine Plantations

Abstract

Riparian functions such as the recruitment of wood to streams take decades to recover after a clear-fell harvest to the stream edge. The implications of two sets of riparian management scenarios on the short- and long-term recruitment of wood to a hypothetical stream (central North Island, New Zealand) were compared through simulation modeling. In the first set (native forest buffer), a designated tree-less riparian buffer was colonized by native forest species after a pine crop (Pinus radiata) had been harvested to the stream bank. In the second set (pine to native forest buffer), native forest species were allowed to establish under the pine canopy in a designated riparian buffer. In general, the volume of wood was greater in streams with wider buffers (5-m to 50-m) and this effect increased with forest age (800 years). The pine to native forest buffer supplied more wood to the stream more quickly, and matched the long-term supply to the stream from the native forest buffer. For the native forest buffer, total wood volume was minimal for the first 70 years and then increased uniformly for the remainder of the simulation. In contrast, the pine to native forest buffer produced a bimodal response in total wood volume with the initial sharp peak at year 100 attributed to pine recruitment and a second more gradual peak lasting for the rest of the simulation, which was similar to levels in the native forest simulations. These results suggest that existing plantations could be an important source of wood to the stream during the first 100+ years of native forest development.

A mechanistic model of woody debris jam evolution and its application to wood‐based restoration and management

“…For example, Evans and Townsend (1993) found that ancient native and 120-year-old native forests had 1-2 orders of magnitude greater volumes of wood than forests 10-12 years old. Wood loading from clear-cut forests depend on the stage of species succession (Murphy and Koski, 1989;Sturtevant et al, 1997;Meleason and Hall, 2005) and can be fairly high immediately post-disturbance as left-over debris remains (Swanson et al, 1984). Additionally, those forests dominated by coniferous trees provide more wood than do hardwood forests (Harmon et al, 1986).…”

Riparian management: A restoration tool for New Zealand streams

“…Wood input is most stable where the channel width is less than the typical wood piece length and in low gradient streams that lack the power during floods to transport wood downstream (Meleason & Hall 2005). Meleason and Hall (2005) predict that the wood input from a 5-m-wide native riparian forest is around 40% of that from a 20 m wide one. Litterfall can be re-established over a short period of time; however, natural restoration of wood is a much longer process taking several decades to centuries (Meleason & Hall 2005;Davies-Colley et al 2009).…”

“…Native and exotic species leaves vary in 'toughness' and associated habitat and food quality and dissolved nutrient uptake (Quinn et al 2000). Wood input is most stable where the channel width is less than the typical wood piece length and in low gradient streams that lack the power during floods to transport wood downstream (Meleason & Hall 2005). Meleason and Hall (2005) predict that the wood input from a 5-m-wide native riparian forest is around 40% of that from a 20 m wide one.…”

“…Meleason and Hall (2005) predict that the wood input from a 5-m-wide native riparian forest is around 40% of that from a 20 m wide one. Litterfall can be re-established over a short period of time; however, natural restoration of wood is a much longer process taking several decades to centuries (Meleason & Hall 2005;Davies-Colley et al 2009).…”

“…,Rutherford et al (1997),Storey & Cowley (1997),Davies-Colley & Quinn (1998),Quinn et al (2000),Parkyn et al (2003),Boothroyd et al (2004),Collier et al (2004),Collins et al (2004),Parkyn & Collier (2004),Quinn et al (2004),Meleason & Hall (2005), Parkyn et al 2005 Quinn & Wright-Stow (2008), Davies-Colley et al (2009), Parkyn et al (2009), Wilcock et al (2009), Hickford and Schiel (2011), Hickford and Schiel (2014), Hughes et al (2012), Greenwood et al (2012), Baillie et al (2013), Collins et al (2013), Wilcock et al (2013), Hughes & Quinn (2014), Franklin et al (2015a) Seepage wetland Nitrogen removal Organic riparian soils have high nitrate removal potential; presence of plants increases denitrification and reduces conversion of nitrate to ammonium. Benefit from livestock exclusion Cooper (1990), Nguyen et al (1999), Burns & Nguyen (2002), Matheson et al (2002), Rutherford & Nguyen (2004), Collins (2004), McKergow et al (2012) In-stream processing Nutrient removal Aquatic macrophytes and periphyton can reduce stream nutrient concentrations, particularly during summer; uptake is reduced by heavy shade Vincent & Downes (1980), Quinn et al (1997), Howard-Williams & Pickmere (1999, 2010), Niyogi et al (2004), Simon et al (2005), Sukias & McKergow (2010), Matheson et al (2011, 2012), O'Brien et al (2014) An expansion of this table, giving design features and findings from individual studies, is provided in Supporting information…”