1988
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-3732-7_22
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Streamflow Changes Associated with Forest Cutting, Species Conversions, and Natural Disturbances

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
80
1
8

Year Published

2005
2005
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 128 publications
(93 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
80
1
8
Order By: Relevance
“…Such thresholds tend to be variable due to differences in topography, vegetation, geology, hydrological regime, and climate. For example, in the Appalachian Mountains of the United States, only 10 % reduction in forest cover can produce a detectable response in annual mean flow (Swank et al, 1988), while in the Central Plains of the United States, 50 % harvest might be required for a significant change in flow (Stednick, 1996). Generally, it is believed that more than 20 % of the watershed area must be changed or disturbed to detect a significant change in streamflow in small watersheds (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982;Hetherington, 1987).…”
Section: Thresholds Of Forest Disturbance For Significant Hydrologicamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such thresholds tend to be variable due to differences in topography, vegetation, geology, hydrological regime, and climate. For example, in the Appalachian Mountains of the United States, only 10 % reduction in forest cover can produce a detectable response in annual mean flow (Swank et al, 1988), while in the Central Plains of the United States, 50 % harvest might be required for a significant change in flow (Stednick, 1996). Generally, it is believed that more than 20 % of the watershed area must be changed or disturbed to detect a significant change in streamflow in small watersheds (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982;Hetherington, 1987).…”
Section: Thresholds Of Forest Disturbance For Significant Hydrologicamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15.4 (Swank and Vose 1994;Swank et al 1988Swank et al , 2001. Below is a synopsis of key findings in terms of forest influences on water and micrometeorology at a small watersheds scale.…”
Section: Case Study 1: Effects Of Forest Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar research work was done in the United States in the Coweeta catchment in the 1930s and the Hubbard Brook catchment in the 1960s. Each research team proceeded by cutting down trees using a variety of methods followed by an observation of changes in water chemistry in surface water and groundwater (Swank et al 1988). Similar research was conducted in the western Sudety Mountains and the Silesian Beskid Range in southern Poland in catchments with tree stands decaying due to the effects of industrial pollution generated in Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic (Černy and Pačes 1995, Pierzgalski et al 2007, Kosmowska et al 2015.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%