Large in‐stream wood studies: a call for common metrics

Abstract

During the past decade, research on large in-stream wood has expanded beyond North America's Pacifi c Northwest to diverse environments and has shifted toward increasingly holistic perspectives that incorporate processes of wood recruitment, retention, and loss at scales from channel segments to entire watersheds. Syntheses of this rapidly expanding literature can be facilitated by agreement on primary variables and methods of measurement. In this paper we address these issues by listing the variables that we consider fundamental to studies of in-stream wood, discussing the sources of variability in their measurement, and suggesting more consistency in future studies. We recommend 23 variables for all studies of in-stream wood, as well as another 12 variables that we suggest for studies with more specifi c objectives. Each of these variables relates either to the size and characteristics of in-stream wood, to the geomorphic features of the channel and valley, or to the ecological characteristics of the riparian zone adjacent to the study reach. The variables were derived from an overview of those cited in the literature and from our collective fi eld experiences.

Tree type and forest management effects on the structure of stream wood following wildfires

“…Among the structural characteristics of DWP in streams, there is a set of core variables that can be easily measured for comparative purposes and that interact with the stream to influence the function and transport potential of a given piece of wood (Bocchiola et al, 2006;Gregory et al, 2003;Wohl et al, 2010). Wood size can influence the degree to which wood affects biological diversity and biota abundance (Lester et al, 2009), and wood size in relation to the channel width and depth is a primary control on wood stability in streams (Cadol and Wohl, 2010;Haga et al, 2002;Merten et al, 2010Merten et al, , 2011, which, in turn, influences channel morphology (Andreoli et al, 2007;Comiti et al, 2008;Jackson and Sturm, 2002).…”

Which stream wood becomes functional following wildfires?

“…SW quality depends on critical functional factors such as its physical structure , its local position relative to the stream channel, its interaction with other wood, its distance along the stream, and its location throughout the river network (Martin and Benda, 2001;Jones et al, 2011). Among the structural characteristics of SW, there is a set of core variables that interact with the stream to influence wood function Bocchiola et al, 2006;Wohl et al, 2010). Major structural factors that may influence SW function are piece diameter, presence of rootwads and branches, decay state, form, and piece species.…”

A critical review of field techniques employed in the survey of large woody debris in river corridors: a central European perspective

“…However, generalisation and stronger inferences are hampered by inconsistencies-in the variables measured, in the methods of measurement and reporting, and errors of measurement. It is hardly surprising that calls for standardisation of recorded variables and measuring/reporting methods appear repeatedly (Barker et al 2002;Wohl et al 2010). This paper arose out of our own field experience of mapping and measuring LWD in river corridors in central Europe exhibiting a range of geomorphic conditions and states of vegetation, in the years 2004-2010.…”

“…Nevertheless, it is advisable to identify a set of core LWD metrics and standardize the methods by which they are measured and recorded in order to make regional comparisons feasible (Barker et al 2002;Wohl et al 2010). Herein, we present a field procedure for mapping and measurement of LWD that could be applied to any stream or river.…”