Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T05:08:38.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Setting conservation targets for freshwater ecosystems in forested catchments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

John S. Richardson
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Canada
Ross M. Thompson
Affiliation:
Monash University, Australia
Marc-André Villard
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton, Canada
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Affiliation:
Mid-Sweden University, Sweden
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Surface waters are the receiving environment for all activities within a catchment, and integrate processes across temporal and spatial scales. Estimates suggest that the rate of loss of freshwater species is five times that of species in temperate terrestrial environments, and rivals the rate found in tropical forests (Revenga et al. 2005). Threats to aquatic ecosystems come from a wide variety of land uses, including agriculture, urbanization, mining, forestry, impoundment, and others. Efforts to protect important characteristics of freshwater environments focus on physical and chemical aspects, such as water quality, temperature, channel bedforms, and instream flow needs. The conservation of fish (with a predominant focus on salmonids in northern temperate regions) and protection of aquatic biodiversity in general are often assumed to be served by this focus on the abiotic subsystem.

In forested ecosystems, sustainability of aquatic ecosystem values has been the subject of an enormous effort to determine what land-use practices most affect these systems, and how those impacts might be mitigated (Bormann et al. 1974; McEachern et al. 2006; Prepas et al. 2006; Richardson 2008). The specific mechanisms by which land uses, such as forestry, affect catchments often interact with each other along multiple pathways, for instance concomitant changes in light regimes, temperature, wood and organic matter inputs, etc. (Richardson and Danehy 2007; Thompson et al. 2008). Measures to conserve biodiversity and other ecosystem services need to consider the non-independence of these multiple processes.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANZECC. 2000. Australian Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. Available online at www.ea.gov.au/water/quality/nwqms/#quality.
Armitage, P. D. 1989. The application of a classification and prediction technique based on macroinvertebrates to assess the effects of river regulation. Pp. 267–93 in Gore, J. A. and Petts, G. E. (eds.) Alternatives in Regulated River Management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Inc.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. C., Norris, R. H. and Reynoldson, T. B.. 2004. Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems – Using the Reference Condition Approach. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, C. V., Fausch, K. D. and Saunders, W. C.. 2005. Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology 50:201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benfield, E. F., Webster, J. R., Tank, J. L. and Hutchens, J. J.. 2001. Long-term patterns in leaf breakdown in streams in response to watershed logging. Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie 86:467–74.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benke, A. C. and Wallace, J. B.. 1997. Trophic basis of production among riverine caddisflies: implications for food web analysis. Ecology 78:1132–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J. O., Dawid, A. P. and Heckerman, D. (authors), Bernardo, J. M. and Bayarri, M. J. (eds.) 2007. Bayesian Statistics 8. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, E. S., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D.et al. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beschta, R. L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road construction and logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 14:1011–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilby, R. E. and Ward, J. W.. 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and 2nd-growth forests in southwestern Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:2499–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boothroyd, I. K. G., Quinn, J. M., Langer, E. R., Costley, K. J. and Steward, G.. 2004. Riparian buffers mitigate effects of pine plantation logging on New Zealand streams – 1. Riparian vegetation structure, stream geomorphology and periphyton. Forest Ecology and Management 194:199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bormann, F. H., Likens, G. E., Siccama, T. G., Pierce, R. S. and Eaton, J. S.. 1974. Export of nutrients and recovery of stable conditions following deforestation at Hubbard Brook. Ecological Monographs 44:255–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovee, K., Lamb, B., Bartholow, J. M.et al. 1998. Stream Habitat Analysis using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. USGS Information technology report 1998–2004.Google Scholar
Brinson, M. M. and Rheinhardt, R.. 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadmeadow, S. and Nisbet, T. R.. 2004. The effects of riparian forest management on the freshwater environment: a literature review of best management practice. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 8:286–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, S. S., Palmer, M. A., Cardinale, B. J., Swan, C. M. and Ribblett, S.. 2002. Assessing stream ecosystem rehabilitation: limitations of community structure data. Restoration Ecology 10:156–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunn, S. E. 1995. Biological monitoring of water quality in Australia: workshop summary and future directions. Australian Journal of Ecology 20:220–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunn, S. E. and Arthington, A. H.. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30:492–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunn, S. E., Davies, P. M. and Mosisch, T. D.. 1999. Ecosystem measures of river health and their response to riparian and catchment degradation. Freshwater Biology 41:333–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies-Colley, R. J. 1997. Stream channels are narrower in pasture than in forest. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 31:599–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudgeon, D. 2006. The impacts of human disturbance on stream benthic invertebrates and their drift in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Freshwater Biology 51:1710–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudgeon, D. and Smith, R. E. W.. 2006. Exotic species, fisheries and conservation of freshwater biodiversity in tropical Asia: the case of the Sepik River, Papua New Guinea. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16:203–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,FAO. 2005. State of the World's Forests. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Flecker, A. S., Taylor, B. W., Bernhardt, E. S.et al. 2002. Interactions between herbivorous fishes and limiting nutrients in a tropical stream ecosystem. Ecology 83:1831–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsberg, B. R., Araujolima, C., Martinelli, L. A., Victoria, R. L. and Bonassi, J. A.. 1993. Autotrophic carbon-sources for fish of the Central Amazon. Ecology 74:643–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gessner, M. O. and Chauvet, E.. 2002. A case for using litter breakdown to assess functional stream integrity. Ecological Applications 12:498–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomi, T., Sidle, R. C. and Richardson, J. S.. 2002. Headwater and channel network – understanding processes and downstream linkages of headwater systems. BioScience 52:905–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, S. V., Swanson, F. J., McKee, W. A. and Cummins, K. W.. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41:540–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, M. B. and Perry, S. A.. 1991. Leaf pack processing in two Appalachian mountain streams draining catchments with different management histories. Hydrobiologia 220:247–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchens, J. J. and Benfield, E. F.. 2000. Effects of forest defoliation by the gypsy moth on detritus processing in southern Appalachian streams. American Midland Naturalist 143:397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, D. J. and Quigley, J. T.. 2005. No net loss of fish habitat: a review and analysis of habitat compensation in Canada. Environmental Management 36:343–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hynes, H. B. N. 1960. The Biology of Polluted Waters. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21–7.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiffney, P. M., Richardson, J. S. and Bull, J. P.. 2003. Responses of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:1060–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecerf, A., Usseglio-Polatera, P., Charcosset, J. Y.et al. 2006. Assessment of functional integrity of eutrophic streams using litter breakdown and benthic macroinvertebrates. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 165:105–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, P., Smyth, C. and Boutin, S.. 2004. Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. Journal of Environmental Management 70:165–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Likens, G. E., Bormann, F. H. and Johnson, N. M.. 1969. Nitrification – importance to nutrient losses from a cutover forested ecosystem. Science 163:1205–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant, R., Norris, R. H. and Milligan, A.. 2006. Evaluation and application of methods for biological assessment of streams: summary of papers. Hydrobiologia 572:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marczak, L. B., Thompson, R. M. and Richardson, J. S.. 2007. A meta-analysis of the role of trophic position, habitat type and habitat productivity in determining the food web effects of resource subsidies. Ecology 88:140–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEachern, P., Prepas, E. E. and Chanasyk, D. S.. 2006. Landscape control of water chemistry in northern boreal streams of Alberta. Journal of Hydrology 323:303–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minns, C. K. and Moore, J. E.. 2003. Assessment of net change of productive capacity of fish habitats: the role of uncertainty and complexity in decision making. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:100–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. D. and Wondzell, S. M.. 2005. Physical hydrology and the effects of forest harvesting in the Pacific Northwest: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:753–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. D., Spittlehouse, D. L. and Story, A.. 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature response to forest harvesting – a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:813–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, R. O. 1996. Basic Principles of Structural Equation Modelling. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, C., Ormerod, S. J., Langan, S. J., Nisbet, T. R. and Roberts, J.. 2004. Sustainability of UK forestry: contemporary issues for the protection of freshwaters, a conclusion. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 8:589–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neill, C., Deegan, L. A. and Thomas, S. M.. 2001. Deforestation for pasture alters nitrogen and phosphorus in small Amazonian streams. Ecological Applications 11:1817–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormerod, S. J., Donald, A. P. and Brown, S. J.. 1989. The influence of plantation forestry on the pH and aluminum concentration of upland Welsh streams – a reexamination. Environmental Pollution 62:47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormerod, S. J., Lewis, B. R., Kowalik, R. A., Murphy, J. F. and Davy-Bowker, J.. 2006. Field testing the AWIC index for detecting acidification in British streams. Archiv Für Hydrobiologie 166:99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Allan, J. D.et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:208–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prepas, E. E., Burke, J. M., Whitson, I. R., Putz, G. and Smith, D. W.. 2006. Associations between watershed characteristics, runoff, and stream water quality: hypothesis development for watershed disturbance experiments and modelling in the Forest Watershed and Riparian Disturbance (FORWARD) project. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 5:S27–S37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quigley, J. T. and Harper, D. J.. 2006a. Compliance with Canada's Fisheries Act: a field audit of habitat compensation projects. Environmental Management 37:336–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quigley, J. T. and Harper, D. J.. 2006b. Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada in achieving no net loss. Environmental Management 37:351–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Revenga, C., Campbell, I., Abell, R., Villers, P. and Bryer, M.. 2005. Prospects for monitoring freshwater ecosystems towards the 2010 targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360:397–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynoldson, T. B., Bailey, R. C., Day, K. E. and Norris, R. H.. 1995. Biological guidelines for freshwater sediment based on BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT (the BEAST) using a multivariate approach for predicting biological state. Australian Journal of Ecology 20:198–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J. S. 2004. Meeting the conflicting objectives of stream conservation and land use through riparian management: another balancing act. Pp. 1–6 in Scrimgeour, G. J., Eisler, G., McCulloch, B., Silins, U. and Monita, M. (eds.) Forest-Land-Fish Conference II – Ecosystem Stewardship Through Collaboration. Proceedings of the Forest-Land-Fish Conference II, April 26–28, 2004, Edmonton, Alberta.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. S. 2008. Aquatic arthropods and forestry: effects of large-scale land use on aquatic systems in Nearctic temperate regions. Canadian Entomologist 140:495–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J. S. and Danehy, R. J.. 2007. A synthesis of the ecology of headwater streams and their riparian zones in temperate forests. Forest Science 53:131–47.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. S., Bilby, R. E. and Bondar, C. A.. 2005a. Organic matter dynamics in small streams of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:921–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J. S., Naiman, R. J., Swanson, F. J. and Hibbs, D. E.. 2005b. Riparian communities associated with Pacific Northwest headwater streams: assemblages, processes, and uniqueness. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:935–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, A. D. and Fausch, K. D.. 1995. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in sub-alpine Rocky-Mountain streams in northern Colorado. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:1789–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roni, P., Beechie, T. J., Bilby, R. E.et al. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1–20.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabo, J. L., Sponseller, R., Dixon, M.et al. 2005. Riparian zones increase regional species richness by harboring different, not more, species. Ecology 86:56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, E. A. and Richardson, J. S.. 2001. Effects of fine inorganic sediment on stream invertebrate assemblages and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) growth and survival: implications of exposure duration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:2213–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoddard, M. A. and Hayes, J. P.. 2005. The influence of forest management on headwater stream amphibians at multiple spatial scales. Ecological Applications 15:811–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, M. K. and Wallace, J. B.. 1998. Long-term recovery of a mountain stream from clearcut logging: the effects of forest succession on benthic invertebrate community structure. Freshwater Biology 39:151–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stott, T. and Mount, N.. 2004. Plantation forestry impacts on sediment yields and downstream channel dynamics in the UK: a review. Progress in Physical Geography 28:197–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swank, W. T., Vose, J. M. and Elliott, K. J.. 2001. Long-term hydrologic and water quality responses following commercial clearcutting of mixed hardwoods on a southern Appalachian catchment. Forest Ecology and Management 143:163–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tank, J. L. and Dodds, W. K.. 2003. Nutrient limitation of epilithic and epixylic biofilms in ten North American streams. Freshwater Biology 48:1031–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. M. and Townsend, C. R.. 2004. Landuse influences on New Zealand stream communities: effects on species composition, functional organisation, and food-web structure. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38:595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. M., Phillips, N. R. and Townsend, C. R.. 2008. Biological consequences of clear-cut logging around streams – moderating effects of management. Forest Ecology and Management. (In press.)Google Scholar
Townsend, C. R., Arbuckle, C. J., Crowl, T. A. and Scarsbrook, M. R.. 1997. The relationship between land use and physicochemistry, food resources and macroinvertebrate communities in tributaries of the Taieri River, New Zealand: a hierarchically scaled approach. Freshwater Biology 37:177–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turak, E., Flack, L. K., Norris, R. H., Simpson, J. and Waddell, N.. 1999. Assessment of river condition at a large spatial scale using predictive models. Freshwater Biology 41:283–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherley, N. S., Lloyd, E. C., Rundle, S. D. and Ormerod, S. J.. 1993. Management of conifer plantations for the conservation of stream macroinvertebrates. Biological Conservation 63:171–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J. R. and Waide, J. B.. 1982. Effects of forest clearcutting on leaf breakdown in a southern Appalachian stream. Freshwater Biology 12:331–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wipfli, M. S., Richardson, J. S. and Naiman, R. J.. 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters and downstream ecosystems: transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, G., Jones, J. I. and Hildrew, A. G.. 2002. Community persistence in Broadstone Stream (UK) over three decades. Freshwater Biology 47:1419–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×