Operational and economic feasibility of logging within forested riparian zones

Forestry Chronicle

Volumn 86, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 601-607

  Holmes, Stephen B ^a   Kreutzweiser, David P ^a   Hamilton, Peter S ^b  

^a LAURENTIAN FORESTRY CENTRE   (Canada)

^b FPINNOVATIONS   (Canada)

Author keywords

Machine productivity; Partial harvest; Residual stand structure; Riparian zone

Indexed keywords

AQUATIC ORGANISMS; HARVESTING; PRODUCTIVITY; RIVERS;

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITIES; ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES; MACHINE PRODUCTIVITY; NATURAL DISTURBANCE; PARTIAL HARVEST; PARTIAL HARVESTING; RESIDUAL STANDS; RIPARIAN ZONES;

FORESTRY;

BASAL AREA; BOREAL FOREST; CLEARCUTTING; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; DISTURBANCE; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY; HETEROGENEITY; LANDSCAPE; LINEARITY; LOGGING (TIMBER); RIPARIAN ZONE; VOLUME; WOOD;

BUNCHERS; CAPACITY; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; FORESTRY; HARVESTING; LOGGING; PRODUCTIVITY;

EID: 77957818222     PISSN: 00157546     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5558/tfc86601-5     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Andison, D.W. and K. McCleary. 2002. Disturbance in riparian zones on foothills and mountain landscapes of Alberta. Alberta Foothills Disturbance Ecology Research Series Report No. 3, Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, Alberta. 40 p.
2. Barling, R.W. and I.D. Moore. 1994. Role of buffer strips in management of waterway pollution: a review. Environmental Management 18: 543-558.
3. Beier, P. and R.F. Noss. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology 12: 1241-1252.
4. Broadmeadow, S. and T.R. Nisbet. 2004. The effects of riparian forest management on the freshwater environment: a literature review of best management practices. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 8: 286-305.
5. Bub, B.R., D.J. Flaspohler and C.J.F. Huckins. 2004. Riparian and upland breeding bird assemblages along headwater streams in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 383-392.
6. Burns, G.A., R.M. Whiting, Jr., G.M. LeGrande and J.G. Dickson. 1999. Wildlife linkages: volumes and values of residual timber in riparian zones in eastern Texas. Forest Ecology and Management 114: 321-327.
7. Buttle, J.M. 2002. Rethinking the donut: the case for hydrologically relevant buffer zones. Hydrological Processes 16: 3093-3096.
8. Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements: a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 878-882.
9. Desrochers, L. 2007.Mechanized harvesting in riparian zones using a long-reach single-grip harvester. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC), Advantage Report, Vol.9, No.1, Pointe Claire, QC. 8 p.
10. Ellefson, P.V. and P.D. Miles. 1985. Protecting water quality in the Midwest: impact on timber harvesting costs. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 2: 57-61.
11. Fortino, K., A.E. Hershey and K.J. Goodman. 2004. Utility of biological monitoring for detection of timber harvest effects on streams and evaluation of best management practices: a review. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 634-646.
12. Hamilton, P. and R. Ewing. 2004. The impact of riparian zone width on machine productivity: a brief study on Cape Breton Island. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC), Contract Report CR-0263-2. 10 p.
13. Hanowski, J., N. Danz, J. Lind and G. Niemi. 2003. Breeding bird response to riparian forest harvest and harvest equipment. Forest Ecology and Management 174: 315-328.
14. Harrington, C.A., S.D. Roberts and L.C. Brodie. 2005. Tree and understory responses to variable-density thinning in western Washington. In C.E. Peterson and D.A. Maguire (eds.). Balancing ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. pp. 97-106. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-635.
15. Hickey B. and B. Doran. 2004. A review of the efficiency of buffer strips for the maintenance and enhancement of riparian ecosystems. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 39: 311-317.
16. Hunter, M.L. 1993. Natural disturbance regimes as spatial models for managing boreal forests. Biological Conservation 65: 115-120.
17. Ice, G.G., A. Skaugset and A. Simmons. 2006. Estimating areas and timber values of riparian management on forest lands. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42: 115-124.
18. Johnson, E.A. 1992. Fire and Vegetation Dynamics - Studies from the North American Boreal Forest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
19. Kardynal, K.J., K.A. Hobson, S.L. Van Wilgenburg and J.L. Morissette. 2009.Moving riparian management guidelines towards a natural disturbance model: an example using boreal riparian and shoreline forest bird communities. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 54-65.
20. Keeton, W.S., C.E. Kraft and D.R. Warren. 2007. Mature and oldgrowth riparian forests: structure, dynamics, and effects on Adirondack stream habitats. Ecological Applications 17: 852-868.
21. Kreutzweiser, D., S. Capell, K. Good and S. Holmes. 2009. Sediment deposition in streams adjacent to upland clearcuts and partially- harvested riparian buffers in boreal forest catchments. Forest Ecology and Management 258:1578-1585.
22. Kreutzweiser, D.P., S.S. Capell and S.B. Holmes. 2008a. Stream temperature responses to partial-harvest logging in riparian buffers of boreal mixedwood forest watersheds. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39: 497-506.
23. Kreutzweiser, D.P., K.P. Good, S.S. Capell and S.B. Holmes. 2008b. Leaf litter decomposition and invertebrate communities in boreal forest streams linked to upland logging disturbance. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 1-15.
24. Lassau, S.A., D.F. Hochuli, G. Cassis and C.A.M. Reid. 2005. Effects of habitat complexity on forest beetle diversity: do functional groups respond consistently? Diversity and Distributions 11: 73-82.
25. Lee, P., C. Smyth and S. Boutin. 2004. Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. Journal of Environmental Management 70: 165-180.
26. Lickwar, P., C. Hickman and F.W. Cubbage. 1992. Costs of protecting water quality during harvesting on private forestlands in the southeast. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 16: 13-20.
27. MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 224 p.
28. Macdonald, E., C.J. Burgess, G.J. Scrimgeour, S. Boutin, S. Reedyk and B. Kotak. 2004. Should riparian buffers be part of forest management based on emulation of natural disturbances? Forest Ecology and Management 187: 185-196.
29. McCarthy, J. 2001. Gap dynamics of forest trees: a review with particular attention to boreal forests. Environmental Reviews 9: 1-59. (Pubitemid 32420205)
30. McCord, S.B., R.S. Grippo and D.M. Eagle. 2007. Effects of silviculture using best management practices on stream macroinvertebrate communities in three ecoregions of Arkansas, USA. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 184: 299-311.
31. Means, J.E., R.R. Harris, T.E. Sabin and C.N. McCain. 1996. Spatial variation in productivity of Douglas-fir stands on a valley floor in the western Cascades Range, Oregon. Northwest Science 70: 201-212.
32. Nitschke, C.R. 2005. Does forest harvesting emulate fire disturbance? A comparison of effects on selected attributes in coniferousdominated headwater systems. Forest Ecology and Management 214: 305-319.
33. Norris, V. 1993. The use of buffer zones to protect water quality: a review. Water Resources Management 7: 257-272.
34. Prepas, E.E., B. Pinel-Alloul, D. Planas, G. Methot, S. Paquet and S. Reedyk. 2001. Forest harvest impacts on water quality and aquatic biota on the Boreal Plain: introduction to the TROLS lake program. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 421-436.
35. Scrimgeour, G.J., W.M. Tonn, C.A. Paszkowski and P.M.K. Aku. 2000. Evaluating the effects of forest harvesting in littoral benthic communities within a natural disturbance-based management model. Forest Ecology and Management 126: 77-86.
36. Steedman, R.J., C.J. Allan, R.L. France and R.S. Kushneriuk. 2004. Land, water, and human activity in boreal watersheds. In J.M. Gunn, R.J. Steedman and R.A. Ryder (eds.). pp. 59-86. Boreal shield watersheds: lake trout ecosystems in a changing environment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
37. Tews, J., U. Brose, V. Grimm, K. Tielbörger, M.C. Wichmann, M. Schwager and F. Jeltsch. 2004. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography 31: 79-92.
38. USDA Forest Service. 2009. Let's mix it up! The benefits of variabledensity thinning. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Science Findings, Issue 112. 6 p.
39. Vowell, J.L. and R.B. Frydenborg. 2004. A biological assessment of best management practice effectiveness during intensive silvicultural and forest chemical application. Water, Air and Soil Pollution Focus 4: 297-307.
40. Wedeles, C. and M. Donnelly. 2004. Bird-forestry relationships in Canada: literature review and synthesis of management recommendations. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Technical Bulletin No. 892, Research Triangle Park, NC. 85 p.
41. Whitaker, D.M. and W.A. Montevecchi. 1999. Breeding bird assemblages inhabiting riparian buffer strips in Newfoundland, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 167-179.
42. Zobrist, K. and B.R. Lippke. 2003. Case studies examining the economic impacts of new forest practices regulations on NIPF landowners. In L. Teeter, B. Cashore and D. Zhang (eds.). pp. 203-210. Forest policy for private forestry: global and regional challenges. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.