Large versus small wood in streams: the effect of wood dimension on macroinvertebrate communities

Lester, Rebecca E.; Wright, Wendy; Jones-Lennon, Michelle; Rayment, Philip Robert

doi:10.1127/1863-9135/2009/0174-0339

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Large wood was positively associated with macroinvertebrate density in network streams, but was negatively associated with macroinvertebrate density in headwater streams (Figures 3A and 3B). Large wood has been shown to support diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates through increases in habitat heterogeneity and quality (Piegay and Gurnell, 1997; Lester et al. , 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geomorphic‐Ecological Relationships Highly Variable between Headwater and Network Mountain Streams of Northern Idaho, United States¹

Sullivan

2012

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Headwater streams are critical repositories of biodiversity and are important sources of water, nutrients, and energy to downstream rivers. I investigated relationships between stream geomorphology and habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish assemblages between headwater and network streams (n = 18) of mountain drainages in northern Idaho, United States. I found that a stream geomorphic condition assessment (rapid geomorphic assessment, RGA) designed to evaluate channel adjustment explained more variation in habitat assessment scores in headwater (R2 = 0.79) than in larger streams (R2 = 0.51). Results from redundancy analysis indicated that geomorphic‐biotic relationships were stronger in headwater than in network streams. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, relationships in headwaters were largely related to sediment size and slope. Fish‐geomorphic associations in both headwater and network streams were quite variable, although the RGA was correlated with fish diversity in both systems. Large wood was related to macroinvertebrate and fish descriptors in both headwater and network streams, but in distinct ways. This work supports an ecogeomorphic approach to the conservation of headwater streams including the use of tailored stream geomorphic assessment protocols.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geomorphic‐Ecological Relationships Highly Variable between Headwater and Network Mountain Streams of Northern Idaho, United States¹

Sullivan

2012

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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). Abbe and Montgomery (2003) found that wood longer than half the bankfull width tends to form key pieces in logjams.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Vaz

Warren

Pinto

et al. 2011

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition to creating physical habitats for fishes, wood has a number of biological functions in channels, including increasing nutrient retention (Bilby 1981), creation of surfaces that facilitate primary and secondary production (Benke et al 1985;Coe et al 2009;Lester et al 2009), and providing hiding cover or altering depth and substrate to provide spawning areas for fishes (e.g., Beechie et al 2005;Montgomery et al 1999). Although much early research was focused on wood and salmonid fishes, subsequent studies have documented functions of wood for a variety of non-salmonid fish and invertebrate species (e.g., Angermeier and Karr 1984;Growns et al 2004;Lester et al 2009;Warren et al 2000;Wright and Flecker 2004). Most of these studies indicate that periphyton and invertebrate production is increased with the presence of wood in streams and that wood provides cover for darters (Percina spp.…”

Section: Wood Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Large versus small wood in streams: the effect of wood dimension on macroinvertebrate communities

Cited by 11 publications

References 42 publications

Geomorphic‐Ecological Relationships Highly Variable between Headwater and Network Mountain Streams of Northern Idaho, United States¹

Geomorphic‐Ecological Relationships Highly Variable between Headwater and Network Mountain Streams of Northern Idaho, United States¹

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Large versus small wood in streams: the effect of wood dimension on macroinvertebrate communities

Cited by 11 publications

References 42 publications

Geomorphic‐Ecological Relationships Highly Variable between Headwater and Network Mountain Streams of Northern Idaho, United States1

Geomorphic‐Ecological Relationships Highly Variable between Headwater and Network Mountain Streams of Northern Idaho, United States1

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Geomorphic‐Ecological Relationships Highly Variable between Headwater and Network Mountain Streams of Northern Idaho, United States¹

Geomorphic‐Ecological Relationships Highly Variable between Headwater and Network Mountain Streams of Northern Idaho, United States¹