Terrestrial and Longitudinal Linkages of Headwater Streams

Wallace, J. Bruce; Eggert, Susan L.

doi:10.1656/058.014.sp709

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 127 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are however, no requirements for leaving forested buffers on smaller, non fish‐bearing streams (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, 1995). The differences in the degree of prescriptiveness is remarkable, given that small streams provide similar ecosystem services and have similar hydroecological functions across forested regions (Gundersen et al, 2010; Wallace & Eggert, 2015; Wipfli et al, 2007). Moreover, although many instructions for how to design riparian buffers are available, there is limited information on their implementation over regional scales and across jurisdictions, especially for the smallest streams.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, headwater streams (the smallest streams in the network) usually differ from higher order streams into which they flow in topographical, hydrological, and ecological aspects, including gradient, discharge, and/or dominant sources of water, and riparian vegetation (Benda et al, 2004; Kuglerová et al, 2015; Montgomery, 1999). Importantly, the smaller the streams, the more directly coupled they are to their surrounding contributing areas (Church, 2002; Wallace & Eggert, 2015). As such, small streams might be the most sensitive parts of the stream network to any changes in the riparian areas associated with forestry operations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies have documented that retention of riparian buffers can also provide suitable habitat and corridors for species movement and dispersal (Marczak et al, 2010;Spackman & Hughes, 1995). they are to their surrounding contributing areas (Church, 2002;Wallace & Eggert, 2015). As such, small streams might be the most sensitive parts of the stream network to any changes in the riparian areas associated with forestry operations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. they are to their surrounding contributing areas (Church, 2002;Wallace & Eggert, 2015). As such, small streams might be the most sensitive parts of the stream network to any changes in the riparian areas associated with forestry operations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cutting Edge: A Comparison of Contemporary Practices of Riparian Buffer Retention Around Small Streams in Canada, Finland, and Sweden

Kuglerová

Jyväsjärvi

Ruffing

et al. 2020

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forested riparian buffers are recommended to mitigate negative effects of forest harvesting on recipient freshwater ecosystems. Most of the current best practices of riparian buffer retention aim at larger streams. Riparian protection along small streams is thought to be lacking; however, it is not well documented. We surveyed 286 small streams flowing through recent clearcuts in three timber-producing jurisdictions-British Columbia, Canada (BC), Finland, and Sweden. The three jurisdictions differed in riparian buffer implementation. In BC, forested buffers are not required on the smallest streams, and 45% of the sites in BC had no buffer. The average (±SE) width of voluntarily retained buffers was 15.9 m (±2.1) on each side of the stream. An operation-free zone is mandatory around the smallest streams in BC, and 90% of the sites fulfilled these criteria. Finland and Sweden had buffers allocated to most of the surveyed streams, with average buffer width of 15.3 m (±1.4) in Finland and 4 m (±0.4) in Sweden. Most of the streams in the two Nordic countries had additional forestry-associated impairments such as machine tracks, or soil preparation within the riparian zone. Riparian buffer width somewhat increased with stream size and slope of the riparian area, however, not in all investigated regions. We concluded that the majority of the streams surveyed in this study are insufficiently protected. We suggest that a monitoring of forestry practices and revising present forestry guidelines is needed in order to increase the protection of our smallest water courses. The effectiveness of riparian buffers depends on a number of factors such as the conditions of the buffer (e.g., width, forest structure and composition, and level of tree retention), the properties of adjacent harvested areas, and the properties of the streams themselves (Kreutzweiser et al., 2010; Lidman et al., 2017; Richardson et al., 2012). Stream properties vary across the fluvial network as they are related to stream size and network position. For example, headwater streams (the smallest streams in the network) usually differ from higher order streams into which they flow in topographical, hydrological, and ecological aspects, including gradient, discharge, and/or dominant sources of water, and riparian vegetation (

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%