Investigating riparian margins for vegetation patterns and plant-environment relationships in northeast Scotland

Journal of Environmental Quality

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 364-372

  Stockan, Jenni A ^a,b   Langan, Simon J ^a   Young, Mark R ^b  

^a SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; BUFFER STRIP; CANOPY COVER; CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY; ECOLOGICAL STATUS; INDICATOR VALUES; LIGHT AVAILABILITY; MULTI VARIATE ANALYSIS; PLANT SPECIES; REFERENCE SITES; RIPARIAN HABITATS; SCOTLAND; SOIL CONDITIONS; SOIL DATA; SOIL PARAMETERS; SPECIES ASSEMBLAGE; TREE CANOPY; VASCULAR PLANT; VEGETATION PATTERN;

ANOXIC SEDIMENTS; CATCHMENTS; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; SOILS; WATER QUALITY;

VEGETATION;

BUFFER;

ARTICLE; CANOPY; CATCHMENT; LIGHT; MOSS; NONHUMAN; PH; PLANT; RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEM; SOIL; SPECIES; SPECIES DIVERSITY; UNITED KINGDOM; VEGETATION; WATER QUALITY;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; PLANTS; SCOTLAND; TIME FACTORS;

ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; PLANTS; SCOTLAND; SEDIMENTS; SOIL; WATER QUALITY;

BRYOPHYTES; TRACHEOPHYTA;

EID: 84858603554     PISSN: 00472425     EISSN: 15372537     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2010.0518     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Alexander, K., G. Foster, and N. Sanderson. 2010. Good ecological status of inland water bodies: fencing of riverbanks is not good for biodiversity. Br. Wildlife 21:326-332.
2. Baattrup-Pedersen, A., N. Friberg, S.E. Larsen, and T. Riis. 2005. The influence of channelisation on riparian plant assemblages. Freshwater Biol. 50:1248-1261. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01383.x
3. Binkley, D., and C. Giardina. 1998. Why do tree species affect soils? The warp and woof of tree-soil interactions. Biogeochemistry 42:89-106. doi:10.1023/A:1005948126251
4. Bjerring, R., E.G. Bradshaw, S.L. Amsinck, L.S. Johansson, B.V. Odgaard, A.B. Nielsen, and E. Jeppesen. 2008. Inferring recent changes in the ecological state of 21 Danish candidate reference lakes (EU Water Framework Directive) using palaeolimnology. J. Appl. Ecol. 45:1566-1575. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01557.x
5. Borin, M., M. Passoni, M. Thiene, and T. Tempesta. 2010. Multiple functions of buffer strips in farming areas. Eur. J. Agron. 32:103-111. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2009.05.003
6. Bowers, K., and C. Boutin. 2008. Evaluating the relationships between floristic quality and measures of plant biodiversity along stream bank habitats. Ecol. Indic. 8:466-475. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.05.001
7. 2-fixing red alder. Biogeochemistry 53:225-257. doi:10.1023/A:1010646709944
8. Corbacho, C., J.M. Sanchez, and E. Costillo. 2003. Patterns of structural complexity and human disturbance of riparian vegetation in agricultural landscapes of a Mediterranean area. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95:495-507. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00218-9
9. Correll, D.L. 2005. Principles of planning and establishment of buffer zones. Ecol. Eng. 24:433-439. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.01.007
10. Decamps, H., M.E. McClain, and R.J. Naiman. 2001. Riparia: Ecology, conservation, and management of streamside communities: Aquatic ecology. Academic Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
11. Dennis, P., K. Beaton, S.J. Langan, and J.A. Stockan. 2006. Accumulated landscape ecological effects of riparian management in river catchments used for agriculture. In Proceedings of the IALE (UK) Annual conference Water and the Landscape: The Landscape Ecology of Freshwater Ecosystems, 5-8 Sept. 2006, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
12. Ertsen, A.C.D., J.R.M. Alkemade, and M.J. Wassen. 1998. Calibrating Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, acidity, nutrient availability and salinity in the Netherlands. Plant Ecol. 135:113-124. doi:10.1023/A:1009765529310
13. European Commission. 1992. Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive). Official Journal of the European Communities, 21 May 1992.
14. European Commission. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Communities, 22 Dec. 2000.
15. Finzi, A.C., C.D. Canham, and N. Van Breemen. 1998. Canopy tree-soil interactions within temperate forests: Species effects on pH and cations. Ecol. Appl. 8:447-454.
16. Frego, K.A. 2007. Bryophytes as potential indicators of forest integrity. For. Ecol. Manage. 242:65-75. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.030
17. Fritch, R.A., H. Sheridan, J.A. Finn, L. Kirwan, and D.Ó. Huallacháin. 2011. Methods of enhancing botanical diversity within field margins of intensively managed grassland: A 7-year field experiment. J. Appl. Ecol. 48:551-560 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01951.x
18. Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41:540-551. doi:10.2307/1311607
19. Grime, J.P. 1974. Vegetation classification by reference to strategies. Nature 242:344-347. doi:10.1038/242344a0
20. Gurnell, A.M., and G.E. Petts. 2006. Trees as riparian engineers: The Tagliamento River, Italy. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 31:1558-1574. doi:10.1002/esp.1342
21. Gurnell, A.M., and G.E. Petts. 2002. Island-dominated landscapes of large floodplain rivers, a European perspective. Freshwater Biol. 47:581-600. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00923.x
22. Harmon, M.E., J.F. Franklin, F.J. Swanson, P. Sollins, S.V. Gregory, J.D. Lattin, N.H. Anderson, C.P. Cline, N.G. Aumen, J.R. Sedell, G.W. Lienkaempeer, K. Cromack, and K.W. Cummins. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv. Ecol. Res. 15:133-302. doi:10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60121-X
23. Hill, M.O., J.O. Mountford, D.B. Roy, and R.G.H. Bunce. 1999. Ellenberg's indicator values for British Plants. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Huntingdon, UK.
24. Hulme, P.E., and E.T. Bremner. 2006. Assessing the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats: Partitioning diversity components following species removal. J. Appl. Ecol. 43:43-50. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01102.x
25. Huston, M., and T. Smith. 1987. Plant succession: Life-history and competition. Am. Nat. 130:168-198. doi:10.1086/284704
26. Jähnig, S.C., S. Brunzel, S. Gacek, A.W. Lorenz, and D. Hering. 2009. Effects of re-braiding measures on hydromorphology, floodplain vegetation, ground beetles and benthic invertebrates in mountain rivers. J. Appl. Ecol. 46:406-416. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01611.x
27. Lawes Agricultural Trust. 2009. Genstat release version 12. Rothamstead Experimental Station, Harpenden, UK.
28. Le Coeur, D., J. Baudrey, and F. Burel. 1997. Field margin plant assemblages: Variation partitioning between local and landscape factors. Landsc. Urban Plan. 37:57-71. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00370-2
29. Lyon, J., and N.M. Gross. 2005. Patterns of plant diversity and plant-environmental relationships across three riparian corridors. For. Ecol. Manage. 204:267-278. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.09.019
30. Ma, M., S. Tarmi, and J. Helenius. 2002. Revisiting the species-area relationship in a semi-natural habitat: Floral richness in agricultural buffer zones in Finland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 89:137-148. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00325-5
31. Nelder, J.A., and R.W.M. Wedderburn. 1972. Generalized linear models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc. 135:370-384.
32. Paine, L.K., and C.A. Ribic. 2002. Comparison of riparian plant communities under four land management systems in southwestern Wisconsin. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 92:93-105. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00269-9
33. Parkyn, S.M., R.J. Davis-Colley, N.J. Halliday, K.J. Costley, and G.F. Croker. 2003. Planted riparian buffer zones in New Zealand: Do they live up to expectations? Restor. Ecol. 11:436-447. doi:10.1046/j.1526-100X.2003.rec0260.x
34. SEPA. 2010. River basin management plan for Tarland Burn. Available at http://apps.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/pdf/23338.pdf (verified 3 Aug. 2011).
35. Sinokrot, B.A., and H.G. Stefan. 1993. Stream temperature dynamics: Measurements and modelling. Water Resour. Res. 29:2299-2312. doi:10.1029/93WR00540
36. Soudzilovskaia, N.A., B.J. Graae, J.C. Douma, O. Grau, A. Milbau, A. Shevtsova, L. Wolters, and J.H. Cornelissen. 2011. How do bryophytes govern generative recruitment of vascular plants? New Phytol. 190(Feb.):1019-1031. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03644.
37. Stutter, M.I., A.J.A. Vinten, S.J. Langan, and J.A. Stockan. 2010. Managing stream riparian areas for multiple environmental benefits: The role of buffer strips. p. 374-379. In Proceedings of the SAC and SEPA Biennial Conference, Agriculture and the Environment VIII Climate, Water and Soil: Science, Policy and Practice. 31 Mar.-1 Apr. 2010, Edinburgh, UK.
38. Sweeney, B.W., and S.J. Czapka. 2004. Riparian forest restoration: Why each site needs an ecological prescription. For. Ecol. Manage. 192:361-373. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.02.005
39. Syversen, N. 2005. Effect and design of buffer zones in the Nordic climate: The influence of width, amount of surface runoff, seasonal variation and vegetation type on retention efficiency for nutrient and particle runoff. Ecol. Eng. 24:483-490. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.01.016
40. Tabacchi, E., and A.M. Planty-Tabacchi. 2005. Exotic and native plant community distributions within complex riparian landscapes: A positive correlation. Ecoscience 12:412-423. doi:10.2980/i1195-6860-12-3-412.1
41. Tattari, S., T. Schultz, and M. Kuussaari. 2003. Use of belief network modelling to asses the impact of buffer zones on water protection and biodiversity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 96:119-132.
42. ter Braak, C.J.F., and P. Šmilauer. 2002. CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows. User's guide: Software for Canonical community coordination. Version 4.5. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY.