130 likes | 334 Views
Sonoma County Riparian Vegetation: Selected Aspects Related to S almonid Habitat Restoration in Gravel Mining Pits . Peter Baye Coastal Plant Ecologist Annapolis, California baye@earthlink.net. Hanson Russian River Restoration Project Feasibility Study
E N D
Sonoma County Riparian Vegetation: Selected Aspects Related to Salmonid Habitat Restoration in Gravel Mining Pits Peter BayeCoastal Plant EcologistAnnapolis, California baye@earthlink.net Hanson Russian River Restoration Project Feasibility Study National Marine Fisheries Service – Santa Rosa, California Scientific Working Group Meeting #1 March 5, 2013
Reciprocal influence of fluvial landforms and riparian vegetation • Landform evolution influences riparian vegetation • Local geomorphic controls: sediment load, disturbance intensity gradients, disturbance frequency & recovery intervals (Lennox & al. 2007, Harris 1987, McBride & Strahan 1984) • Sediment texture (% fines) • Sediment surface relative to groundwater (hyperhoeic flow) during low-flow/dry season: aquatic-wetland-mesic vegetation gradient • Riparian vegetation influences landform evolution • Sediment trapping, off-channel sediment storage, floodplain accretion: vegetation roughness and stabilization on bar crests, floodplains • Lateral sedimentation gradients (bank margin-backwater; levee pattern) • Large woody debris trapping (reciprocal influence: LWD nucleation of pioneer vegetation, riparian woodland trapping of LWD) • Backwater marsh and pond/laguna formation (historical)
Riparian vegetation formations • Riparian woodland, scrub (bank, floodplain) • Floodplain marsh, wet meadow, & alluvial grassland (bank, floodplain) Pioneer fluvial shoreline & marsh vegetation (bar, bank, ridge/swale) Aquatic Vascular Plant communities
Riparian vegetation formations • RIPARIAN WOODLAND, SCRUB • Most studied phase of riparian vegetation; most emphasis in restoration • Mature monitoring methodology • example: UC Extension • Lennox et al. 2009. Development of vegetation and aquatic habitat in restored riparian sites of California’s North Coast rangelands. Restoration Ecology 19: 225-233 • Dominant (over-represented?) riparian vegetation type • Ecological services: • Canopy shade (temperature regulation), • Trophic support (leaf litter, invertebrate productivity) • Refuge (predator escape; root and shoot structure) • LWD recruitment (production, trapping) – root, branch, trunk structure
Riparian vegetation formations • Emergent marsh, wet meadow, alluvial grassland • Rhizomatous sod-forming vegetation; geomorphic agent (perennial regeneration of surface roughness: vertical accretion, sink for fines) • Leaf litter mat, duff: invertebrate production • Historic decline: grazing, aggradation, mining, cessation of annual burning (Pomo) • Aquatic Vascular Plant communities • Least studied; mostly historic (native) or nuisance (invasive non-native) • Submerged (SAV), floating (FAV) • Low-velocity or lotic off-channel, deep channel pool margin • Historic decline • Pioneer fluvial shoreline vegetation (gravel, sand bar) • Herbaceous, graminoid, ruderal, mesic vegetation (weedy) • Includes disturbance-dependent woodland/scrub element (Salix, Populus, Alnus) - colonization of moist mineral sediment, organic debris • Sorting by sediment texture, groundwater elevation (capillary fringe)
Linear-leaf v. floating broadleaf pondweeds Linear-leaf (Stuckeniapectinata; most common) Floating broad-leaf (Potamogetonnodosus; most common native pondweed)
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) • Potamogetonaceae (pondweeds) prevalent • Mostly 19th /early 20th century records within Russian River – least studied riparian (aquatic) vegetation type • Perennial, colonial in shallow to deep clear water • Intolerant of high turbidity, high sedimentation, summer drawdown or sediment dewatering, unstable bed • Linear-leaf and floating broadleaf taxa • Heteromorphic: plastic pond and flowing water forms, submersed and emergent leaf forms • Structure contrasts with exotic SAV: slender elongated sub-canopy shoots
Russian River Riparian Landscape positions SAV subhabitats • “lagunas” – backwater floodplain marsh ponds, choked floodplain drainage (mostly historic) • relict or side channels, oxbows; low-velocity stable side channel banks, high groundwater • Resistant clay outcrops in high-velocity channel banks (rhizome refugia) • backbarrier coastal lagoon near Jenner (modern core populations of SAV) • depth tolerance proportional with water clarity
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) potential salmonid habitat interactions, comparison with Chesapeake SAV • Potential juvenile salmonid prey base • Invertebratetrophic support (SAV herbivores): • Zooplankton consume detritus (low lignin) • Daytime water oxygen diffusion (linear-leaf) • Nocturnal local hypoxia • Potential canopy epiphytic filamentous algal blooms • Canopy shade inhibition of water column phytoplankton production • Temperature stratification: warmer surface, shaded bottom (leaf canopy at surface) • Predator refuge for juveniles? – complex canopy edge
Potential SAV metrics in riparian settings • Riparian landscape distribution (in-channel, backwater) • Size-class distribution: mid-summer colonies emergent at water surface • Canopy (water surface) cover • Fine-scale (within canopy) • Coarse-scale (colony polygon) • Canopy structure (shoot density colony margin line-intercept) • Canopy invertebrate prey base (biomass or productivity) • Primary production (biomass)
Floodplain marsh, wet meadow (Cyperaceae spp. dominance) ecological services • high organic productivity: SOM and litter mat invertebrates (salmonid prey – overbank flows) • fine sediment trap (stratified rhizome/sediment)- ungrazed tall canopy • High soil shear strength: erosion resistance (bank, floodplain surface) • Shallow groundwater, clonal Cyperaceae swards: inhibition of invasive shrub & Arundo recruitment; rapid recovery after sedimentation events • Less common restoration: floodplain grassland (Central Valley)
Selected literature Baltz, D.M. and P.B. Moyle. 1984. The influence of riparian vegetation on stream fish communities of California. In: Warner, R.E. and K.M. Hendrix, eds. California Riparian Systems – Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. University of California Press. Harris, R.R. 1987. Occurrence of vegetation on geomorphic surfaces in the active floodplain of a California alluvial stream. American Midland Naturalist 118:393-405 Lennox et al. 2009. Development of vegetation and aquatic habitat in restored riparian sites of California’s North Coast rangelands. Restoration Ecology 19: 225-233 McBride, J.R. and J. Strahan. 1984. Fluvial processes and woodland succession along Dry Creek, Sonoma County, California. In: Warner, R.E. and K.M. Hendrix, eds. California Riparian Systems – Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. University of California Press.