Reach-scale effects of riparian forest cover on urban stream ecosystems

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Volumn 62, Issue 10, 2005, Pages 2312-2329

  Roy, Allison H ^a,c   Faust, Christina L ^b   Freeman, Mary C ^a   Meyer, Judith L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b Cedar Shoals High School   (United States)

^c U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTA; FOREST COVER; HABITAT QUALITY; RIPARIAN FOREST; STREAM;

GEORGIA; NORTH AMERICA; PIEDMONT [UNITED STATES]; UNITED STATES;

ALGAE; AMPHIUMA MEANS; CAMPOSTOMA OLIGOLEPIS; CAUDATA; INVERTEBRATA; PISCES;

EID: 32644446062     PISSN: 0706652X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/f05-135     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Allan, J.D., Erickson, D.L., and Fay, J. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshw. Biol. 37: 149-161.
2. Allmendinger, N.E., Pizzuto, J.E., Potter, N., Johnson, T.E., and Hession, W.C. 2005. The influence of riparian vegetation on stream width, eastern Pennsylvania, USA. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 117: 229-243.
3. American Public Heath Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. 1989. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 17th ed. American Public Heath Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington, D.C.
4. Barton, D.R., Taylor, W.D., and Biette, R.M. 1985. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 5: 364-378.
5. Benke, A.C., Henry, R.L., III, Gillespie, D.M., and Hunter, R.J. 1988. Importance of snag habitat for animal production in southeastern streams. Fisheries, 10(5): 8-13.
6. Beschta, R.L., and Taylor, R.L. 1988. Stream temperature increases and landuse in a forested Oregon watershed. Water Resour. Bull. 24: 19-25.
7. Burkhead, N.M., Walsh, S.J., Freeman, B.J., and Williams, J.D. 1997. Status and restoration of the Etowah River, an imperiled southern Appalachian ecosystem. In Aquatic fauna in peril, the southeastern perspective. Edited by G.W. Benz and D.G. Collins. Southern Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, Ga. pp. 375-444.
8. Correll, D.L. 2000. The current status of our knowledge of riparian buffer water quality functions. In Riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds. Edited by P.J. Wigington and R.L. Beschta. American Water Resources Association, Portland, Oreg. pp. 5-10.
9. Cummins, K.W. 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. Bioscience, 24: 631-641.
10. Davies, P.E., and Nelson, M. 1994. Relationships between riparian buffer widths and the effects of logging on stream habitat, invertebrate community composition and fish abundance. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 45: 1289-1305.
11. Davies-Colley, R.J. 1997. Stream channels are narrower in pasture than forest. N.Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 31: 599-608.
12. Edwards, E.D., and Huryn, A.D. 1996. Effect of riparian land use on contributions of terrestrial invertebrates to streams. Hydrobiologia, 337: 151-159.
13. Elliot, K.L., Boring, L.R., Swank, W.T., and Haines, B.R. 1997. Successional changes in plant species diversity and composition after clearcutting in a southern Appalachian watershed. For. Ecol. Manag. 92: 67-85.
14. England, L.E., and Rosemond, A.D. 2004. Small reductions in forest cover weaken terrestrial-aquatic linkages in headwater streams. Freshw. Biol. 49: 1-14.
15. Etnier, D.A., and Starnes, W.C. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tenn.
16. Feminella, J.W., Power, M.E., and Resh, V.H. 1989. Periphyton responses to invertebrate grazing and riparian canopy cover in three northern California coastal streams. Freshw. Biol. 22: 445-457.
17. Gotelli, N.J., and Taylor, C.M. 1999. Testing metapopulation models with stream fish assemblages. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1: 835-845.
18. Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A., and Cummins, K.W. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience, 41: 540-551.
19. Groffman, P.M., Bain, D.J., Band, L.E., Belt, K.T., Brush, G.S., Grove, J.M., Pouyat, R.V., Yesilonis, I.C., and Zipperer, W.C. 2003. Down by the riverside: urban riparian ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1: 315-321.
20. Hawkins, C.P., Murphy, M.L., Anderson, N.H., and Wilzbach, M.A. 1983. Density of fish and salamanders in relation to riparian canopy and physical habitat in streams of the northwestern United States. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 1173-1185.
21. Hession, W.C., Johnson, T.E., Charles, D.F., Horowitz, R.J., Kreeger, D.A., Velinsky, D.J., Pizzuto, J.E., Marshall, B.D., and Newbold, J.D. 2003. Ecological benefits of riparian reforestation in urban watersheds. In Protection and restoration of urban and rural streams. Edited by M.L. Clar, D.D. Carpenter, J.N. Gracie, and L.O. Slate. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va. pp. 373-382.
22. Hicks, B.J. 1997. Food webs in forest and pasture streams in the Waikato region, New Zealand: a study based on analyses of stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen, and fish gut contents. N.Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 31: 651-664.
23. Jones, E.B.D., III, Helfman, G.S., Harper, J.O., and Bolstad, P.V. 1999. Effects of riparian forest removal on fish assemblages in southern Appalachian streams. Conserv. Biol. 13: 1454-1465.
24. Karr, J.R., and Schlosser, I.J. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface. Science (Wash., D.C.), 201: 229-234.
25. Kawaguchi, Y., and Nakano, S. 2001. Contribution of terrestrial invertebrates to the annual resource budget for salmonids in forest and grassland reaches of a headwater stream. Freshw. Biol. 46: 303-316.
26. Lowrance, R.R. 1998. Riparian forest ecosystems as filters for nonpoint-source pollution. In Successes, limitations and frontiers in ecosystem science. Edited by M.L. Pace and P.M. Groffman. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp. 113-141.
27. Mason, C.F., and MacDonald, S.M. 1982. The input of terrestrial invertebrates from tree canopies to a stream. Freshw. Biol. 12: 305-311.
28. McIntyre, C.D., and Phinney, H.K. 1965. Laboratory studies of periphyton production and community metabolism in lotic environments. Ecol. Monogr. 35: 237-258.
29. Merritt, R.W., and Cummins, K.W. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 3rd ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
30. Mettee, M.F., O'Neil, P.E., and Pierson, J.M. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmore House Inc., Birmingham, Ala.
31. Murphy, M.L, Hawkins, C.P., and Anderson, N.H. 1981. Effects of canopy modification and accumulated sediment on stream communities. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 100: 469-478.
32. Noel, D.S., Martin, C.W., and Federer, C.A. 1986. Effects of forest clearcutting in New England on stream macroinvertebrates and periphyton. Environ. Manag. 10: 661-670.
33. Osborne, L.L., and Kovacic, D.A. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshw. Biol. 29: 243-258.
34. Paul, M.J., and Meyer, J.L. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32: 333-365.
35. Peterjohn, W.T., and Correll, D.L. 1984. Nutrient dynamic in an agricultural watershed: observations of the role of riparian forest. Ecology, 65: 1466-1475.
36. Richards, C., Johnson, L.B., and Host, G.E. 1996. Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 295-311.
37. Romaniszyn, E.D. 2000. Drift and terrestrial invertebrate inputs in southern Appalachian mountain streams: implications for trout food resources and production. M.S. thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.
38. Rosenfeld, J.S., and Roff, J.C. 1992. Examination of the carbon base in southern Ontario streams using stable isotopes. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 11: 1-10.
39. Roth, N.E., Allan, J.D., and Erickson, D.L. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecol. 11: 141-156.
40. Roy, A.H. 2004. Can riparian forests mediate impacts of urbanization on stream fish assemblages? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.
41. Roy, A.H., Freeman, M.C., Meyer, J.L., and Leigh, D.S. 2003a. Patterns of land use change in upland and riparian areas in the Etowah River basin. In Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources Conference. Edited by K.J. Hatcher. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. pp. 331-334.
42. Roy, A.H., Rosemond, A.D., Paul, M.J., Leigh, D.S., and Wallace, J.B. 2003b. Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanization (Georgia, U.S.A.). Freshw. Biol. 48: 329-346.
43. Scarsbrook, M.R., and Halliday, J. 1999. Transition from pasture to native forest land-use along stream continua: effects of stream ecosystems and implications for restoration. N.Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 33: 293-310.
44. Schueler, T.R. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Prot. Technol. 1: 100-111.
45. Scott, M.C., and Helfman, G.S. 2001. Native invasions, homogenization, and the mismeasure of integrity of fish assemblages. Fisheries, 26(11): 6-15.
46. Sweeney, B.W. 1992. Streamside forests and the physical, chemical, and trophic characteristics of Piedmont streams in eastern North America. Water Sci. Technol. 26: 2653-2673.
47. Sweeney, B.W., Bott, T.L., Jackson, J.K., Kaplan, L.A., Newbold, J.D., Standley, L.J., Hession, W.C., and Horowitz, R.J. 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101: 14 132-14 137.
48. Trotter, E.H. 1990. Woody debris, forest-stream succession, and catchment geomorphology. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 9: 141-156.
49. Wallace, J.B., Eggert, S.L., Meyer, J.L., and Webster, J.R. 1999. Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science (Wash., D.C.), 277: 102-104.
50. Walsh, C.J. 2004. Protection of in-stream biota from urban impacts: minimize catchment imperviousness or improve drainage design? Mar. Freshw. Res. 55: 317-326.
51. Walters, D.M., Leigh, D.S., and Bearden, A.B. 2003. Urbanization, sedimentation, and the homogenization of fish assemblages in the Etowah River Basin, USA. Hydrobiologia, 494: 5-10.
52. Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P., Bannerman, R., and Emmons, E. 2000. Watershed urbanization and changes in fish communities in southeastern Wisconsin streams. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 36: 1173-1189.
53. Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects and control. Am. Fish. Soc. Monogr. No. 7. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md.
54. Weaver, L.A., and Garman, G.C. 1994. Urbanization of a watershed and historical changes in a stream fish assemblage. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 123: 162-172.
55. Webster, J.R., and Waide, J.B. 1982. Effects of forest clearcutting on leaf breakdown in a southern Appalachian stream. Freshw. Biol. 12: 331-344.
56. Wetzel, R.G., and Likens, G.E. 1991. Limnological analyses. 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.
57. Whiles, M.R., Brock, B.L., Franzen, A.C., and Dinsmore, S.C., II. 2000. Stream invertebrate communities, water quality, and land-use patterns in an agricultural drainage basin of northeastern Nebraska, USA. Environ. Manag. 26: 563-576.
58. Wilson, J.D., and Dorcas, M.E. 2003. Effects of habitat disturbance on stream salamanders: implications for buffer zones and watershed management. Conserv. Biol. 17: 763-771.
59. Zar, J.H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J..
60. Zaret, T.Z. 1980. Predation and freshwater communities. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.