Modelling the time course of shade, temperature, and wood recovery in streams with riparian forest restoration

Davies‐Colley, Robert J.; Meleason, Mark A.; Hall, Raeme M.J.; Rutherford, James

doi:10.1080/00288330909510033

Cited by 39 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fallen timber, which provides habitat and food for many freshwater animals, may take a century to accumulate in streams following reforestation (Davies-Colley et al, 2009) and needs to be supplemented. Clearance of forests for agriculture generally increases sedimentation, clogging stream channels and crevices, which are used by many freshwater animals (Burcher et al, 2008).…”

Section: Diversity Of Freshwater Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plant litter is an important structural component of forests and thick layers can accumulate within two decades when taxa such as Eucalyptus are planted . Reforestation may take >30 year to increase fallen timber on forest floors, which is a key resource for many taxa (Harmon et al, 1986), and centuries to attain levels in streams similar to those within mature forests (Davies-Colley et al, 2009).…”

Section: Development Of Forest Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Balancing the environmental benefits of reforestation in agricultural regions

Cunningham

Nally

Baker

et al. 2015

Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tReforestation is an important tool for reducing or reversing biodiversity loss and mitigating climate change. However, there are many potential compromises between the structural (biodiversity) and functional (carbon sequestration and water yield) effects of reforestation, which can be affected by decisions on spatial design and establishment of plantings. We review the environmental responses to reforestation and show that manipulating the configuration of plantings (location, size, species mix and tree density) increases a range of environmental benefits. More extensive tree plantings (>10 ha) provide more habitat, and greater improvements to carbon and water cycling. Planting a mixture of native trees and shrubs is best for biodiversity, while traditional plantation species, generally non-native species, sequester C faster. Tree density can be manipulated at planting or during early development to accelerate structural maturity and to manage water yields. A diversity of habitats will be created by planting in a variety of landscape positions and by emulating the patchy distribution of forest types, which characterized many regions prior to extensive landscape transformation. Areas with shallow aquifers can be planted to reduce water pollution or avoided to maintain water yields. Reforestation should be used to build forest networks that are surrounded by low-intensity land use and that provide links within regions and between biomes. While there are adequate models for C sequestration and changes in water yields after reforestation, the quantitative understanding of changes in habitat resources and species composition is more limited. Development of spatial and temporal modelling platforms based on empirical models of structural and functional outcomes of reforestation is essential for deciding how to reconfigure agricultural regions. To build such platforms, we must quantify: (a) the influence of previous land uses, establishment methods, species mixes and interactions with adjacent land uses on environmental (particularly biodiversity) outcomes of reforestation and (b) the ways in which responses measured at the level of individual plantings scale up to watersheds and regions. Models based on this information will help widespread reforestation for carbon sequestration to improve native biodiversity, nutrient cycling and water balance at regional scales.

show abstract

Section: Diversity Of Freshwater Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Development Of Forest Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing the environmental benefits of reforestation in agricultural regions

Cunningham

Nally

Baker

et al. 2015

Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Buffer height generally is not considered, but DeWalle (2008a,b) and Davies‐Colley and Rutherford (2005) showed that buffer height and height to stream width ratios were major parameters controlling shading. Davies‐Colley et al. (2009) combined forest, stream shade, and stream temperature models to compare likely effects of different strategies for restoring riparian zones in New Zealand.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Stream Shade: Riparian Buffer Height and Density as Important as Buffer Width¹

DeWalle

2010

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DeWalle, David R., 2010. Modeling Stream Shade: Riparian Buffer Height and Density as Important as Buffer Width. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 46(2):323‐333. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2010.00423.x Abstract: A theoretical model was developed to explore impacts of varying buffer zone characteristics on shading of small streams using a path‐length form of Beer’s law to represent the transmission of direct beam solar radiation through vegetation. Impacts of varying buffer zone height, width, and radiation extinction coefficients (surrogate for buffer density) on shading were determined for E‐W and N‐S stream azimuths in infinitely long stream sections at 40°N on the summer solstice. Increases in buffer width produced little additional shading beyond buffer widths of 6‐7 m for E‐W streams due to shifts in solar beam pathway from the sides to the tops of the buffers. Buffers on the north bank of E‐W streams produced 30% of daily shade, while the south‐bank buffer produced 70% of total daily shade. For N‐S streams an optimum buffer width was less‐clearly defined, but a buffer width of about 18‐20 m produced about 85‐90% of total predicted shade. The model results supported past field studies showing buffer widths of 9‐11 m were sufficient for stream temperature control. Regardless of stream azimuth, increases in buffer height and extinction coefficient (buffer density) were found to substantially increase shading up to the maximum tree height and stand density likely encountered in the field. Model results suggest that at least 80% shade on small streams up to 6‐m wide can be achieved in mid‐latitudes with relatively narrow 12‐m wide buffers, regardless of stream azimuth, as long as buffers are tall (≈30 m) and dense (leaf area index ≈6). Although wide buffers may be preferred to provide other benefits, results suggest that increasing buffer widths beyond about 12 m will have a limited effect on stream shade at mid‐latitudes and that greater emphasis should be placed on the creation of dense, tall buffers to maximize stream shading.

show abstract

“…McClurg, Petty, Mazik, & Clatyton, ). As pointed out by Davies‐Colley, Meleason, Hall, and Rutherford (), if the recovery of large trees providing wood to structure the channel is included, it may take centuries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance of landscape context for post‐restoration recovery of riparian vegetation

Polvi

Lind

et al. 2019

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested whether the recovery of riparian vegetation along rapids that have been restored after channelisation for timber floating can be predicted based on floristic and geomorphic characteristics of surrounding landscape units. Our study was located along tributary stream networks, naturally fragmented in rapids, slow‐flowing reaches, and lakes (i.e. process domains), in the Vindel River catchment in northern Sweden. We tested whether landscape characteristics, specifically to what extent the geomorphology (affecting local abiotic conditions), species richness, and species composition (representing the species pool for recolonisation), as well as the proximity to various upstream process domains (determining the dispersal potential), can predict post‐restoration recovery of riparian vegetation. Our results indicate that post‐restoration recovery of riparian vegetation richness or composition is not strongly related to landscape‐scale species pools in these streams. The restored rapids were most similar to upstream rapids, geomorphically and floristically, including plant traits. Species richness of adjacent landscape units (upstream process domains or lateral upland zone) did not correlate with that of restored rapids, and proximity of upstream rapids or other process domains was only weakly influential, thus diminishing support for the hypothesis that hydrochory or other means of propagule dispersal plays a strong role in riparian vegetation community organisation after restoration in this fragmented stream network. We conclude that, in these naturally fragmented stream systems with three discrete process domains (rapids, slow‐flowing reaches and lakes), hydrochory is probably not the main predictor for short‐term riparian vegetation recovery. Therefore, other factors than landscape context can serve in prioritising restoration and, in these systems, local factors are likely to outweigh landscape connectivity in the recovery of riparian vegetation.

show abstract

Modelling the time course of shade, temperature, and wood recovery in streams with riparian forest restoration

Cited by 39 publications

References 34 publications

Balancing the environmental benefits of reforestation in agricultural regions

Balancing the environmental benefits of reforestation in agricultural regions

Modeling Stream Shade: Riparian Buffer Height and Density as Important as Buffer Width¹

Importance of landscape context for post‐restoration recovery of riparian vegetation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Modelling the time course of shade, temperature, and wood recovery in streams with riparian forest restoration

Cited by 39 publications

References 34 publications

Balancing the environmental benefits of reforestation in agricultural regions

Balancing the environmental benefits of reforestation in agricultural regions

Modeling Stream Shade: Riparian Buffer Height and Density as Important as Buffer Width1

Importance of landscape context for post‐restoration recovery of riparian vegetation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Modeling Stream Shade: Riparian Buffer Height and Density as Important as Buffer Width¹