Impact of timber harvesting and production on streams: A review

Abstract

Timber harvesting operations have significant effects on both water quantity and water quality. The effects on water quantity have been well documented both in Australia and elsewhere. The effects on water quality are less widely appreciated, and include elevated concentrations of dissolved salts, suspended solids and nutrients, especially during peak flow periods. Several Australian studies have failed to measure peak flow transport of suspended solids, or have measured it inadequately, thus severely underestimating transport. The major short-term effects of timber harvesting on the aquatic biota result from increased sediment input into streams or increased light through damage to, or removal of, the riparian vegetation. Sediment which settles on, or penetrates into, the stream bed is of more concern than suspended sediment, and can lead to long-term deleterious changes to fish and invertebrate populations. Increased light causes an increase in stream primary production which may increase invertebrate densities, and alter community composition. These biological consequences have not yet been adequately investigated in Australia. Longer-term effects, as yet not investigated in Australia, include changes to stream structure as the regrowth forest has fewer large logs to fall into the stream. These large logs play a major role as habitat and retention structures in streams. There has been no attempt to evaluate the effects of timber production activities, including pesticide use and fuel reduction burning, on the Australian stream biota. Likewise, although buffer zones are widely advocated as a protection measure for streams in Australia, there have been no studies to evaluate their effectiveness.

Forest clearfelling effects on dissolved oxygen and metabolism in peatland streams

“…The decrease observed in NEP indicates an increase in the net rate of organic carbon consumed (Young et al, 2008). Forest clearfelling can cause inputs of fresh brash into receiving waters (Campbell and Doeg, 1989;Lockaby et al, 1997), stimulating heterotrophic processes (Clapcottt and Barmuta, 2010), and Drinan et al (2013) reported elevated BOD in the GS following clearfelling supporting this theory. Ponce (1974) reported on the high demand for oxygen exerted by microbes associated with fresh brash and mentioned it can rapidly deplete DO concentrations in receiving water.…”

Relationships between riparian buffer widths and the effects of logging on stream habitat, invertebrate community composition and fish abundance

“…1993). Despite this, little work has been reported specifically examining the efficacy of these management methods in mitigating impacts on streams (Campbell and Doeg 1989).…”

“…Similarly, little has been published on the effects of Australian forestry operations on stream habitat quality or fauna (Campbell and Doeg 1989;Doeg and Koehn 1990b). Richardson (1985) reported impacts of road sedimentation associated with logging on stream macroinvertebrates.…”

“…The multiple effects of logging on stream habitat, water quality and biota have been the subject of a substantial literature (Blackie et al 1980;Campbell and Doeg 1989;Koehn 1990a, 1990b). Forestry operations have frequently been associated with increases in stream sediment load, changes in channel form, changes in stream hydrology and a variety of changes in stream faunal populations and communities.…”

Effects of Catchment Activities on Macrofaunal Assemblages in Tasmanian Estuaries

“…Given the large number of studies that identify direct causal relationships between human activities in catchments and increased sediment loads (e.g. Campbell & Doeg, 1989), the most likely hypothesis relating these factors is that anthropogenic activity in catchments and around estuary margins causes large inputs of fine suspended sediments that are transported to and Estuary group F 4. Scatterplots showing relationships between the faunal disturbance index DI n for sites located in estuaries grouped by morphological and hydrological similarities, human population density in catchments, and the silt/clay content of sediments.…”