Effectiveness of Instream Wood Treatments to Restore Stream Complexity and Winter Rearing Habitat for Juvenile Coho Salmon

Jones, Kim K.; Anlauf-Dunn, Kara; Jacobsen, Paul S.; Strickland, M. Dale; Tennant, Lora B.; Tippery, Sharon E.

doi:10.1080/00028487.2013.852623

Cited by 37 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…() and Jones et al . () review some of these restoration projects and the success of the projects in achieving desired restoration of fish habitat and the return of stream channels to a more natural state.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Management of Large Wood in Streams: An Overview and Proposed Framework for Hazard Evaluation

Wohl

Bledsoe

Fausch

et al. 2016

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Instream and floodplain wood can provide many benefits to river ecosystems, but can also create hazards for inhabitants, infrastructure, property, and recreational users in the river corridor. We propose a decision process for managing large wood, and particularly for assessing the relative benefits and hazards associated with individual wood pieces and with accumulations of wood. This process can be applied at varying levels of effort, from a relatively cursory visual assessment to more detailed numerical modeling. Decisions to retain, remove, or modify wood in a channel or on a floodplain are highly dependent on the specific context: the same piece of wood that might require removal in a highly urbanized setting may provide sufficient benefits to justify retention in a natural area or lower-risk urban setting. The proposed decision process outlined here can be used by individuals with diverse technical backgrounds and in a range of urban to natural river reaches so that opportunities for wood retention or enhancement are increased.(KEY TERMS: instream wood; large woody debris; hazard; river restoration; recreation; floodplain management; habitat.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Management of Large Wood in Streams: An Overview and Proposed Framework for Hazard Evaluation

Wohl

Bledsoe

Fausch

et al. 2016

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A major goal of wood placement in streams and rivers is to improve physical habitat such as increasing pool area, habitat complexity, instream cover, and other metrics of fish-habitat quality. These changes are also linked to the amount or intensity of treatment, as there is a strong positive correlation between amount of wood and both physical habitat quality and fish numbers for both natural (Beechie et al 2005;Murphy et al 1984;Naiman et al 2002) and placed wood (Jones et al 2014;Roni and Quinn 2001a). Thus, if the placed wood or wood structures remain on site or function as designed, there typically are significant improvements in habitat.…”

Section: Physical Response To Wood Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Improvements in physical habitat following wood placement, including increased pool area, cover, and habitat complexity (number and diversity of habitats), have been well documented (Jones et al 2014;Roni et al 2008). In fact, many studies report large (>50%) and significant increases in pool frequency, pool depth, woody debris, habitat heterogeneity, complexity, spawning gravel, or sediment and organic matter retention following placement of instream structures, particularly in mountain streams and rivers (e.g., Binns 1999; Brooks et al 2004;Cederholm et al 1997;Gerhard and Reich 2000;Pierce et al 2013;Reeves et al 1997;Roni and Quinn 2001a).…”

Section: Physical Response To Wood Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We know of only five studies that examined watershed-scale response to wood placement either individually or coupled with other restoration treatments (Johnson et al 2005;Jones et al 2014;Reeves et al 1997;Solazzi et al 2000;White et al 2011). Both Solazzi et al (2000) and White et al (2011) found large and significant increases in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) or trout numbers following wood placement.…”

Section: Biological Response To Wood Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction

Roni

Beechie

Pess

et al. 2015

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

194

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of research on wood in rivers, the addition of wood as a river restoration technique remains controversial. We reviewed the literature on natural and placed wood to shed light on areas of continued debate. Research on river ecology demonstrates that large woody debris has always been a natural part of most rivers systems. Although a few studies have reported high structural failure rates (>50%) of placed instream wood structures, most studies have shown relatively low failure rates (<20%) and that placed wood remains stable for several years, though long-term evaluations of placed wood are rare. The vast majority of studies on wood placement have reported improvements in physical habitat (e.g., increased pool frequency, cover, habitat diversity). Studies that have not reported improvements in physical habitat often found that watershed processes (e.g., sediment, hydrology, water quality) had not been addressed. Finally, most evaluations of fish response to wood placement have shown positive responses for salmonids, though few studies have looked at long-term watershed-scale responses or studied a wide range of species.Résumé : Malgré des décennies de recherche sur le bois dans les rivières, l'ajout de bois comme technique de restauration demeure controversé. Nous avons passé en revue la documentation sur le bois naturel et mis en place pour faire la lumière sur les enjeux qui font toujours l'objet de débat. La recherche en écologie fluviale démontre que les grands débris ligneux ont toujours constitué une composante naturelle de la plupart des réseaux fluviaux. Si quelques études ont signalé des taux élevés de défaillance structurale (>50 %) des structures en bois mises en place dans des cours d'eau, la plupart des études ont noté des taux de défaillance assez faibles (<20 %) et montré que le bois mis en place dans les cours d'eau demeurait stable pendant plusieurs années, les évaluations à long terme du bois mis en place étant toutefois rares. La grande majorité des études sur la mise en place de bois font état d'améliorations de l'habitat physique (p. ex. fréquences accrues de mouilles, couvert, diversité des habitats). Bon nombre des études n'ayant pas constaté d'amélioration de l'habitat physique notaient que les processus hydrographiques (p. ex. sédiments, hydrologie, qualité de l'eau) n'avaient pas été pris en considération. Enfin, si la plupart des évaluations de la réaction des poissons à la mise en place de bois ont relevé des réactions positives en ce qui concerne les salmonidés, peu d'études ont examiné les réactions à long terme à l'échelle du bassin versant ou étudié un grand éventail d'espèces. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

show abstract

“…A few meta-analysis studies have compared compendiums of past projects and results from monitoring individual habitat enhancement projects to help determine effectiveness (Avery 2004;Binns 2004;Whiteway et al 2010), but these studies primarily focused on instream structures, and in some (e.g., Stewart et al 2009) the results were equivocal. While several agencies fund large state or federal restoration programs, few studies have reported on a comprehensive programmatic evaluation of any large restoration program (e.g., Jones et al 2014); specifically lacking are studies across a large area, monitoring multiple project types, and using consistent protocols. Many of these agencies have only recently implemented or are currently trying to implement comprehensive monitoring programs on restoration effectiveness so evaluation of this type of work is timely.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Stream Restoration Project Effectiveness Using a Programmatic Evaluation of Salmonid Habitat and Fish Response

O’Neal

Roni

Crawford

et al. 2016

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on stream restoration projects to benefit salmonids and other aquatic species across the Pacific Northwest, though only a small percentage of these projects are monitored to evaluate effectiveness and far fewer are tracked for more than 1 or 2 years. The Washington State Salmon Recovery Board and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board have spent more than US$500 million on salmonid habitat restoration projects since 1999. We used a multiple before-after-control-impact design to programmatically evaluate the reach-scale physical and biological effectiveness of a subset of restoration actions. A total of 65 projects in six project categories (fish passage, instream habitat, riparian planting, livestock exclusion, floodplain enhancement, and habitat protection) were monitored over an 8-year period. We conducted habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrate surveys to calculate the following indicators: longitudinal pool cross section and depth, riparian shade and cover, large woody debris volumes, fish density, macroinvertebrate indices, and upland vegetation condition class. Results indicate that four categories (instream habitat, livestock exclusions, floodplain enhancements, and riparian plantings) have shown significant improvements in physical habitat after 5 years. Abundance of juvenile Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch increased significantly at fish passage projects and floodplain enhancement projects, but significant results were not detected for other fish species. Moreover, the biological response indicators of juvenile salmonid abundance and macroinvertebrate indices showed declines at instream habitat and habitat protection projects, respectively. Our results indicate that a subset of projects can be effectively evaluated programmatically, but power and sample size estimates indicate that two or more years of preproject data are necessary to adequately determine the effectiveness of many project types, particularly for fish. Programmatic evaluations of project effectiveness should include adequate preproject sampling and multiseason monitoring for fish species to address issues of variability that are likely to be encountered in large-scale monitoring programs.

show abstract

Effectiveness of Instream Wood Treatments to Restore Stream Complexity and Winter Rearing Habitat for Juvenile Coho Salmon

Cited by 37 publications

References 36 publications

Management of Large Wood in Streams: An Overview and Proposed Framework for Hazard Evaluation

Management of Large Wood in Streams: An Overview and Proposed Framework for Hazard Evaluation

Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction

Comparing Stream Restoration Project Effectiveness Using a Programmatic Evaluation of Salmonid Habitat and Fish Response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About