1 / 43

What about riparian systems: who benefits from an early seral forest condition

What about riparian systems: who benefits from an early seral forest condition. Dr. Stan Gregory Department of Fisheries & Wildlife Oregon State University. Vannote et al. 1980. 24 hr NO 3 dynamics. Frady 2005. Banks 2005. Gregory et al. 1991. Large Wood Input to Streams.

bracha
Download Presentation

What about riparian systems: who benefits from an early seral forest condition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What about riparian systems: who benefits from an early seral forest condition Dr. Stan Gregory Department of Fisheries & Wildlife Oregon State University

  2. Vannote et al. 1980

  3. 24 hr NO3 dynamics

  4. Frady 2005

  5. Banks 2005

  6. Gregory et al. 1991

  7. Large Wood Input to Streams OG VanSickle & Gregory 1990 OG McDade et al.1990 OG Murphy and Koski 1989 CC VanSickle & Gregory 1990

  8. Hypothesis Aquatic • Slow • Physical • Surface Terrestrial • Fast • Biological • Deep

  9. Aquatic Placement

  10. Terrestrial Placement

  11. Alnusrubra Decay Progression Year 2 Year 6 Year 14 Aquatic Terrestrial

  12. Pseudotsugamenziesii Decay Progression Year 2 Year 6 Year 14 Aquatic Terrestrial

  13. Interannual Variation in Salmonid Populations • Resident trout populations (Mack Creek) • CV = 26% • Anadromous salmon populations (Coast Range) • CV = 60%

  14. Interannual Variation in Trout Populations • Flynn Creek • Before logging CV = 39% • After logging CV = 42% • Needle Branch • Before logging CV = 39% • After logging CV = 130%

  15. Cutthroat Responses to Floods

  16. Cutthroat Responses to Floods

  17. Flynn Creek

  18. Deer Creek

  19. Needle Branch

  20. Coho Salmon (g/m2) • Stream Flynn Deer Needle • 1959-65 2.24 3.01 2.34 • 1966-74 1.58 3.73 3.13 • 1988-96 1.75 2.20 3.24 • CV (standard deviation/mean) • 1959-65 23.7 17.2 33.5 • 1966-74 55.0 39.7 67.6 • 1988-96 28.6 39.1 55.7

  21. Cutthroat Trout (g/m2) • Stream Flynn Deer Needle • 1959-65 3.65 2.74 3.34 • 1966-74 3.42 2.80 1.71 • 1988-96 2.16 2.10 1.79 • CV (standard deviation/mean) • 1959-65 47.9 40.3 16.6 • 1966-74 14.5 22.7 45.3 • 1988-96 35.3 24.8 66.5

  22. Arkle and Pilliod 2010

  23. Arkle and Pilliod 2010

  24. Arkle and Pilliod 2010

  25. Potential Positive Effects of Early Seral Riparian Forests • Increased aquatic primary production • Increased nutrient uptake by algae • Increased quality of allochthonous inputs • Increased temperature can increase growth and rates of biological processes

  26. Potential Negative Effects of Early Seral Riparian Forests • Increased temperature can decrease growth, increase disease, increase competition, and cause mortality • Decreased uptake of nutrients by riparian plants

  27. Potential Negative Effects of Early Seral Riparian Forests • Decreased inputs of large wood • Decreased habitat complexity • Decreased refuge during floods • Decreased channel stability • Decreased food and nutrient retention

  28. Landscape Perspective • Proportion of landscape and river network in early seral forests • Proportion of riparian areas in early seral stages • Network patterns of environmental factors, nutrients, and physical structure • Network pattern of aquatic ecosystems

More Related