Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T01:33:58.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is smaller necessarily better? Effects of small-scale forest harvesting on stream ecosystems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2012

Antoine Lecerf ,
Jean-Marc Baudoin ,
Anne A. Besson ,
Sylvain Lamothe  and
Clément Lagrue
Antoine Lecerf*
Affiliation:
CNRS, INP, UPS, EcoLab – Université de Toulouse, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse, France
Jean-Marc Baudoin
Affiliation:
The French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environments (ONEMA), Research and Development Department, avenue du Petit Parc – Le Nadar Hall C, 94300 Vincennes, France
Anne A. Besson
Affiliation:
CNRS, INP, UPS, EcoLab – Université de Toulouse, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse, France Present address: Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Sylvain Lamothe
Affiliation:
CNRS, INP, UPS, EcoLab – Université de Toulouse, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse, France
Clément Lagrue
Affiliation:
CNRS, INP, UPS, EcoLab – Université de Toulouse, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse, France Present address: Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Knowledge on ecological impacts of forestry practices on aquatic ecosystems relies almost exclusively on data from large-scale forest harvesting, often involving clearfelling of whole stream catchments. To determine effects associated with less intensive and widespread forest management, we examined the responses of headwater streams to small-scale forest harvesting, including riparian zones adjacent to study reaches but corresponding to less than 5% of the catchment areas. Stream reaches running through recently (2–4 years) harvested forest patches were paired with and compared with adjacent reaches bordered by mature broadleaf forest. We determined abiotic stream characteristics, invertebrate community structures and abundances, trout size and population densities, and leaf litter breakdown rates in each of these pairs. Harvested reaches were found to have different channel cross-section morphology and greater invertebrate abundances in leaf packs than mature forest reaches. Shifts in the abundance of common invertebrate predators were also attributed to riparian forest harvesting. Litter breakdown rates and brown trout densities did not show any significant difference between harvested and mature forest reaches across the four site pairs, possibly because of nonlinear responses to post-harvest riparian canopy openness. Managers must be aware that small-scale forest harvesting in stream riparian areas is not without consequences for aquatic ecosystems. Whether natural riparian forest openings, such as caused by tree death and blow-down, have similar effects on stream ecosystems is an important question to address if we are to confirm the usefulness of small-scale forestry and improve forest and stream management schemes.

Keywords

Fishforest managementleaf litter breakdowninvertebratesriparian canopy
Type
Research Article
Information
Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , 2012 , pp. 401 - 409
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, 2012

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Blott, S.J. and Pye, K., 2001. Gradistat: a grain size distribution and statistics package for the analysis of unconsolidated sediments. Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 26, 1237–1248.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. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 8, 286–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carle, F.L. and Strub, M.R., 1978. A new method for estimating population size from removal data. Biometrics, 34, 621–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cone, R.S., 1989. The need to reconsider the use of condition indices in fishery science. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 118, 510–514.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ely, D.T. and Wallace, J.B., 2010. Long-term functional group recovery of lotic macroinvertebrates from logging disturbance. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 67, 1126–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, L.E. and Rosemond, A.D., 2003. Small reductions in forest cover weaken terrestrial-aquatic linkages in headwater streams. Freshwater Biol., 49, 721–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO, 2011. State of the World's Forests, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Gessner, M.O. and Chauvet, E., 2002. A case for using litter breakdown to assess functional stream integrity. Ecol. Appl., 12, 498–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggerty, S.M., Batzer, D.P. and Jackson, C.R., 2004. Macroinvertebrate response to logging in coastal headwater streams of Washington, U.S.A. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 61, 529–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S., Herbohn, J. and Niskanen, A., 2002. Non-industrial, smallholder, small-scale and family forestry: what's in a name? Small-Scale Forestry, 1, 1–11.Google Scholar
Hladyz, S., Tiegs, S.D., Gessner, M.O., Giller, P.S., Risnoveanu, G., Preda, E., Nistorescu, M., Schindler, M. and Woodward, G., 2010. Leaf-litter breakdown in pasture and deciduous woodland streams: a comparison among three European regions. Freshwater Biol., 55, 1916–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiffney, P.M., Richardson, J.S. and Bull, J., 2003. Responses of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams. J. Appl. Ecol., 40, 1060–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreutzweiser, D.P., Good, K.P., Capell, S.S. and Holmes, S.B., 2008. Leaf-litter decomposition and macroinvertebrate communities in boreal forest streams linked to upland logging disturbance. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 27, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagrue, C., Kominoski, J.S., Danger, M., Baudoin, J.M., Lamothe, S., Lambrigot, D. and Lecerf, A., 2011. Experimental shading alters litter breakdown in streams of contrasting riparian canopy cover. Freshwater Biol., 56, 2059–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecerf, A. and Richardson, J.S., 2010. Litter decomposition can detect effects of high and moderate levels of forest disturbance on stream condition. Forest Ecol. Manage., 259, 2433–2443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, P. and Legendre, L., 1998. Numerical Ecology. 2nd English edition, Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
McKie, B.G. and Malmqvist, B., 2009. Assessing ecosystem functioning in streams affected by forest management: increased leaf decomposition occurs without changes to the composition of benthic assemblages. Freshwater Biol., 54, 2086–2100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellina, E. and Hinch, S.G., 2009. Influences of riparian logging and in-stream large wood removal on pool habitat and salmonid density and biomass: a meta-analysis. Can. J. Forest Res., 39, 1280–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, D.R., 1997. What's best on the banks? Nature, 388, 328–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R.D., Spittlehouse, D.L. and Story, A., 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature response to forest harvesting—a review. J. Am. Water Res. Assoc., 41, 813–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northcote, T.G. and Hartman, G.F., 2007. Fishes and Forestry: Worldwide Watershed Interactions and Management, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team, 2011. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/.
Reid, D.J., Quinn, J.M. and Wright-Stow, A.E., 2010. Responses of stream macroinvertebrate communities to progressive forest harvesting: influences of harvest intensity, stream size and riparian buffers. Forest Ecol. Manage., 260, 1804–1815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J.S. and Thompson, R.M., 2009. Setting conservation targets for freshwater ecosystems in forested catchments. In: Villard, M.-A. and Jonsson, B.G. (eds.), Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 244–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinman, A.D., Lamberti, G.A. and Leavitt, P.R., 2007. Biomass and pigments of benthic algae. In: Hauer, F.R. and Lamberti, G.A. (eds.), Methods in Stream Ecology, 2nd edn, Academic Press, Burlington, USA, 357–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, M.K. and Wallace, J.B., 1998. Long-term recovery of a mountain stream from clear-cut logging: the effects of forest succession on benthic invertebrate community structure. Freshwater Biol., 39, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, B.W., Bott, T.L., Jackson, J.K., Kaplan, L.A., Newbold, J.D., Standley, L.J., Hession, W.C. and Horwitz, R.J., 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 101, 14132–14137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tachet, H., Bournaud, M., Richoux, P., Dessaix, P. and Pattee, E., 2009. Initiation aux invertébrés des eaux douces, Association Française de Limnologie, Thonon-les-Bains, France.Google Scholar
Wallace, J.B. and Gurtz, M.E., 1986. Response of Baetis Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) to catchment logging. Am. Midl. Nat., 115, 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, J.B., Eggert, S.L., Meyer, J.L. and Webster, J.R., 1997. Multiple trophic levels of forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science, 277, 102–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wipfli, M.S., 1997. Terrestrial invertebrates as salmonid prey and nitrogen sources in streams: contrasting old-growth and young-growth riparian forests in southeastern Alaska, USA. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 54, 1259–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J.H., 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Richardson, J.S. and Pinto, X., 2009. Catchment-scale effects of forestry practices on benthic invertebrate communities in Pacific coastal streams. J. Appl. Ecol., 46, 1292–1303.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

OLM - LIMN 48 p401--409 (2012) - Is smaller necessarily...

Appendixes

Download OLM - LIMN 48 p401--409 (2012) - Is smaller necessarily...(PDF)
PDF 51.2 KB