Response of Juvenile Coho Salmon and Steelhead to Placement of Large Woody Debris in a Coastal Washington Stream

Cederholm, Carl J.; Bilby, Robert E.; Bisson, Peter A.; Bumstead, Thomas W.; Fransen, Brian R.; Scarlett, W. J.; Ward, James W.

doi:10.1577/1548-8675(1997)017<0947:rojcsa>2.3.co;2

Cited by 145 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, many studies report large (>50%) and significant increases in pool frequency, pool depth, woody debris, habitat heterogeneity, complexity, spawning gravel, or sediment and organic matter retention following placement of instream structures, particularly in mountain streams and rivers (e.g., Binns 1999; Brooks et al 2004;Cederholm et al 1997;Gerhard and Reich 2000;Pierce et al 2013;Reeves et al 1997;Roni and Quinn 2001a). Studies in low-gradient (<1.5%) streams such as those in the US Midwest or western Europe have demonstrated physical habitat changes, including increased depth, cover, narrower channels, and increased organic matter retention, as a result of wood placement projects (e.g., Gerhard and Reich 2000;Hunt 1988;Laitung et al 2002;Zika and Peter 2002).…”

Section: Physical Response To Wood Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others have argued that placed wood has relatively little effect on physical habitat (Chapman 1996;Frissell and Nawa 1992;Miller and Kochel 2010). Even more importantly, several authors have argued that placement of wood leads to little or no biological benefit (Doyle and Shields 2012;Stewart et al 2009), whereas others have documented significant improvements in fish abundance (Cederholm et al 1997;Hunt 1976;Solazzi et al 2000; for a review, see Roni et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction

Roni

Beechie

Pess

et al. 2015

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

191

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of research on wood in rivers, the addition of wood as a river restoration technique remains controversial. We reviewed the literature on natural and placed wood to shed light on areas of continued debate. Research on river ecology demonstrates that large woody debris has always been a natural part of most rivers systems. Although a few studies have reported high structural failure rates (>50%) of placed instream wood structures, most studies have shown relatively low failure rates (<20%) and that placed wood remains stable for several years, though long-term evaluations of placed wood are rare. The vast majority of studies on wood placement have reported improvements in physical habitat (e.g., increased pool frequency, cover, habitat diversity). Studies that have not reported improvements in physical habitat often found that watershed processes (e.g., sediment, hydrology, water quality) had not been addressed. Finally, most evaluations of fish response to wood placement have shown positive responses for salmonids, though few studies have looked at long-term watershed-scale responses or studied a wide range of species.Résumé : Malgré des décennies de recherche sur le bois dans les rivières, l'ajout de bois comme technique de restauration demeure controversé. Nous avons passé en revue la documentation sur le bois naturel et mis en place pour faire la lumière sur les enjeux qui font toujours l'objet de débat. La recherche en écologie fluviale démontre que les grands débris ligneux ont toujours constitué une composante naturelle de la plupart des réseaux fluviaux. Si quelques études ont signalé des taux élevés de défaillance structurale (>50 %) des structures en bois mises en place dans des cours d'eau, la plupart des études ont noté des taux de défaillance assez faibles (<20 %) et montré que le bois mis en place dans les cours d'eau demeurait stable pendant plusieurs années, les évaluations à long terme du bois mis en place étant toutefois rares. La grande majorité des études sur la mise en place de bois font état d'améliorations de l'habitat physique (p. ex. fréquences accrues de mouilles, couvert, diversité des habitats). Bon nombre des études n'ayant pas constaté d'amélioration de l'habitat physique notaient que les processus hydrographiques (p. ex. sédiments, hydrologie, qualité de l'eau) n'avaient pas été pris en considération. Enfin, si la plupart des évaluations de la réaction des poissons à la mise en place de bois ont relevé des réactions positives en ce qui concerne les salmonidés, peu d'études ont examiné les réactions à long terme à l'échelle du bassin versant ou étudié un grand éventail d'espèces. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

show abstract

Section: Physical Response To Wood Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction

Roni

Beechie

Pess

et al. 2015

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

191

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beechie et al (2005) found densities of juvenile salmonids were highest in backwater areas with low water velocity, but patterns differed among species and seasons. Habitat complexity offered by in-stream structures such as large woody debris has also been correlated with the abundance, size, and survival of juvenile salmonids in streams and rivers (Cederholm et al 1997;Rosenfeld et al 2000;Solazzi et al 2000;Whiteway et al 2010). …”

Section: Prepared By Nikki Sather Gary Johnson and John Skalskimentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecology of Juvenile Salmon in Shallow Tidal Freshwater Habitats of the Lower Columbia River, 2007?2010

Johnson¹,

Storch²,

Skalski³

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Large wood (LW) (41 m length Â 10 cm diameter) increases habitat heterogeneity by facilitating pool formation, altering stream flow, stabilizing banks, and retaining sediment and coarse organic matter (Gippel 1995;Kail 2002;Cordova et al 2007). Increased habitat complexity can increase fish species richness, density and biomass (Faush and Northcote 1992;Cederholm et al 1997;Harvey et al 1999). Several studies have shown that fish abundance and biomass increased with increased levels of in-stream LW (Probst et al 1984;Warren et al 2000) or as pools formed by LW increased (Faush and Northcote 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structure and function of large wood in Ozark headwater streams and its relationship to fish community structure

Mitchell

Entrekin

Adams

2012

Journal of Freshwater Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fish community structure in headwater streams is often influenced by a suite of abiotic variables, such as water depth and flood frequency, channel substrate composition, and in-stream large wood (LW). Wood retained in streams and rivers performs a variety functions; for example, it alters flow, stores sediments, and provides habitat for aquatic biota. The objectives of this study were to (1) quantify and characterize LW, (2) quantify the geomorphic functions of LW, and (3) identify the relationship between LW and fish community structure in Ozark headwater streams. Ten stream reaches with a gradient of LW were sampled in the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest, AR, USA. Single LW pieces, organic accumulations, and root wads were quantified and the geomorphic function of all LW recorded. Fish were identified, enumerated, and massed. LW density in our 10-study streams ranged from 51 to 12 per 100 m 2 and 450% functioned to store sediments, stabilize banks, or retain organic matter. Larger diameter wood was associated with altered flow (r ¼ 0.64, p ¼ 0.04) and LW storing sediments tended to also stabilize banks (r ¼ 0.73, p ¼ 0.02). There was no relationship between LW metrics and total fish abundance or biomass; however, stream reaches with higher volumes of organic accumulations supported higher creek chub (r 2 ¼ 0.75, p ¼ 0.005) and southern redbelly dace biomass (r 2 ¼ 0.62, p 5 0.02). Although LW densities were among the lowest recorded for US streams, LW still played an integral role in structuring stream geomorphology and providing habitat to some dominant headwater fish species.

show abstract

Response of Juvenile Coho Salmon and Steelhead to Placement of Large Woody Debris in a Coastal Washington Stream

Cited by 145 publications

References 22 publications

Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction

Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction

Ecology of Juvenile Salmon in Shallow Tidal Freshwater Habitats of the Lower Columbia River, 2007?2010

Structure and function of large wood in Ozark headwater streams and its relationship to fish community structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About