Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements—A Review

Castelle, Andrew J.; Johnson, A. W.; Conolly, Catherine

doi:10.2134/jeq1994.00472425002300050004x

Cited by 312 publications

(261 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

249

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results provide a geographical framework for conserving turtle populations by identifying the spatial extent of area required to protect the most vulnerable population segments: nesting females, eggs, and hatchlings. More specifically, our data indicate that aquatic turtles in aggregate use considerably more terrestrial habitat for nesting than typically included in the wetland protection zones generally delineated as 30-120 m from wetland boundaries in the United States and Canada (Houlahan and Findlay, 2004;Lee et al, 2004; see also Castelle et al,1994). For example, a 93 m zone surrounding wetlands encompasses just 50% of nests (Table 4).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Terrestrial habitat requirements of nesting freshwater turtles

Steen

Gibbs

Buhlmann

et al. 2012

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because particular life history traits affect species vulnerability to development pressures, cross-species summaries of life history traits are useful for generating management guidelines. Conservation of aquatic turtles, many members of which are regionally or globally imperiled, requires knowing the extent of upland habitat used for nesting. Therefore, we compiled distances that nests and gravid females had been observed from wetlands. Based on records of > 8000 nests and gravid female records compiled for 31 species in the United States and Canada, the distances that encompass 95% of nests vary dramatically among genera and populations, from just 8 m forMalaclemys to nearly 1400 m for Trachemys. Widths of core areas to encompass varying fractions of nesting populations (based on mean maxima across all genera) were estimated as: 50% coverage = 93 m, 75% = 154 m, 90% = 198 m, 95% = 232 m, 100% = 942 m. Approximately 6-98 m is required to encompass each consecutive 10% segment of a nesting population up to 90% coverage; thereafter, ca. 424 m is required to encompass the remaining 10%. Many genera require modest terrestrial areas (zones) for 95% nest coverage (Actinemys, Apalone, Chelydra, Chrysemys, Clemmys,Glyptemys, Graptemys, Macrochelys, Malaclemys, Pseudemys, Sternotherus), whereas other genera require larger zones (Deirochelys, Emydoidea, Kinosternon, Trachemys). Our results represent planning targets for conserving sufficient areas of uplands around wetlands to ensure protection of turtle nesting sites, migrating adult female turtles, and dispersing turtle hatchlings. Our results represent planning targets for conserving sufficient areas of uplands around wetlands to ensure protection of turtle nesting sites, migrating adult female turtles, and dispersing turtle hatchlings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Terrestrial habitat requirements of nesting freshwater turtles

Steen

Gibbs

Buhlmann

et al. 2012

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thoughtful planning can be used to help reduce the impacts of future urbanization. Examples of potential tools and techniques for reducing stormwater runoff and increasing infiltration include well-designed retention ponds (Booth and Jackson 1997), setting targets for tree cover (Pauleit and Duhme 2000), use of adequate vegetated riparian buffers (Castelle et al 1994), and porous pavements (Bratteboro and Booth 2003). Successful implementation of these techniques could prevent or reduce the alteration of hydrological regimes and help prevent the degradation of natural habitats and the human uses of these habitats.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Has urbanization changed ecological streamflow characteristics in Maine (USA)?

Martin

Kelleher

Wagener

2012

Hydrological Sciences Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the potential effects of urbanization on streamflow in Maine, USA, from 1950 to 2000. The study contrasts nine watersheds in southern Maine, which has seen steady urban growth over the study period, with nine rural watersheds from northern Maine. Historical population data and current land cover data are used to develop an urbanization score for each watershed. Trends in watershed urbanization over the study period are compared to trends in ecologically relevant streamflow characteristics. The results indicate that trends in northern, rural watersheds are much more consistent than the trends in the southern watersheds. Additionally, trends in the southern watersheds are inconsistent with the hydrological characteristics observed in urban watersheds elsewhere, likely due to the comparatively low level of current urban development in Maine's urban watersheds. Our study suggests that urban areas in Maine have not yet reached an urbanization threshold where streamflow impacts become consistently detectable.Key words urbanization; streamflow; land use; land cover; hydrology; Maine L'urbanisation a-t-elle changé les caractéristiques des débits écologiques dans le Maine (USA)?Résumé Cet article présente une étude des effets potentiels de l'urbanisation sur les écoulements dans le Maine, aux États-Unis, de 1950 à 2000. La comparaison concerne neuf bassins versants du sud du Maine, qui ont connu une urbanisation continue au cours de la période d'étude, et neuf bassins versants ruraux du nord de Maine. Des données démographiques historiques et des données actuelles d'occupation du sol ont été utilisées pour définir un indice d'urbanisation pour chaque bassin versant. Les tendances de l'urbanisation des bassins versants au cours de la période d'étude ont été comparées à l'évolution des caractéristiques des débits écologiquement pertinents. Les résultats indiquent que les tendances dans les bassins versants ruraux du Nord sont beaucoup plus cohérentes que les tendances dans les bassins versants du Sud. En outre, les tendances dans les bassins versants du Sud sont incompatibles avec les caractéristiques hydrologiques observées dans d'autres bassins versants urbains, probablement en raison du niveau relativement faible de développement urbain en cours dans les bassins versants urbains du Maine. Notre étude suggère que les zones urbaines dans le Maine n'ont pas encore atteint un seuil d'urbanisation où les impacts sur les débits deviennent significativement détectables.

show abstract

“…The focus has traditionally been on the aquatic biota (Swanson and Franklin 1992), and streams with fish have yielded most attention (Dupuis and Steventon 1999). Buffer strips are effective in reducing sediment and nutrient loads and for maintaining low water temperatures in streams in forest ecosystems (Clinnick 1985, Castelle et al 1994, Clausen et al 2000. The width of an effective buffer (a buffer in this case is defined as the distance between the edge of the watercourse and the logged area) may vary (Castelle et al 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Buffer strips are effective in reducing sediment and nutrient loads and for maintaining low water temperatures in streams in forest ecosystems (Clinnick 1985, Castelle et al 1994, Clausen et al 2000. The width of an effective buffer (a buffer in this case is defined as the distance between the edge of the watercourse and the logged area) may vary (Castelle et al 1994). For example, among small mammals and birds, different species have different preferences for buffer width (Darveau et al 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So far, the effectiveness of buffer strips in protecting the biodiversity of terrestrial organisms in riparian forests has received very little attention (Castelle et al 1994). However, studies on bird assemblages show that bird densities are often higher in buffer strips than in comparable unlogged areas, but forest-dependent bird species are less abundant (Darveau et al 1995, 1997, Hagar 1999, Meiklejohn and Hughes 1999, Pearson and Manuwal 2001.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Buffer Strips along Boreal Streams Using Bryophytes as Indicators

Hylander

Jonsson

2002

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Buffer strips have recently become the main management practice for reducing logging impact on stream habitats in boreal and temperate regions. The habitat value of buffer strips, however, has not received much attention, although riparian forests belong to the systems with the highest biodiversity in these regions. We used plants as indicators of the ability of buffer strips to maintain an environment similar to intact riparian forests in a boreal forest landscape in northern Sweden. We measured the growth of three common bryophyte species (Hylocomiastrum umbratum, Calypogeia integristipula, and Tritomaria quinquedentata) transplanted to riparian habitat close to a stream in clear-cut logged sites, 10-15 m wide buffer strips on each side of the stream, and intact (reference) sites. Each of the three site categories included six wet and six moist-mesic sites and the experiment was followed over three months in 1999.The species remained vital in the reference sites and grew substantially during the 3-mo-long experiment, but in the logged sites almost no growth was registered, and many shoots died (except for T. quinquedentata). The pattern was consistent irrespective of the ground moisture class. The performance of bryophytes in the moist-mesic buffer strips was almost as bad as in the logged sites, whereas in the wet buffer strips it was either intermediate between that in logged and reference sites (H. umbratum) or very similar to that in reference sites (C. integristipula and T. quinquedentata). The edge effect has previously been shown to vary depending on edge orientation, edge physiognomy, and weather conditions. We found that ground moisture can be of major importance as well. Although many buffer strips function better than no strips, 20-30 m wide strips (with a stream in the middle) through a logged area consist entirely of edge habitat. Increasing the buffer width and avoiding clear-cut logging on both sides of a watercourse would be the first steps to take for improving biodiversity conservation in riparian habitats. Our results also show that bryophytes are good indicators of habitat quality and efficient tools for assessing the ecological function of buffer strips.

show abstract

Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements—A Review

Cited by 312 publications

References 0 publications

Terrestrial habitat requirements of nesting freshwater turtles

Terrestrial habitat requirements of nesting freshwater turtles

Has urbanization changed ecological streamflow characteristics in Maine (USA)?

Evaluating Buffer Strips along Boreal Streams Using Bryophytes as Indicators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About