Simulated Fine Woody Debris Accumulations in a Stream Increase Rainbow Trout Fry Abundance

Culp, Joseph M.; Scrimgeour, Garry J.; Townsend, G. D.

doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1996)125<0472:sfwdai>2.3.co;2

Cited by 41 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The addition of bundles of small trees enhanced winter habitat within pools for coho salmon through an increase in cover (Nickelson et al 1992) (Table 1). Log deflectors (Näslund 1989), half-log structures (Van Zyll de Jong et al 1997), and structures made of thin wooden louver boards (Culp et al 1996) also provided covers for salmonids and were associated with increased salmonid abundance (Table 1).…”

Section: Wood Installation Measures and Fish Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish habitat rehabilitation using wood in the world

Nagayama

Nakamura

2009

Landscape Ecol Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To provide river managers and researchers with practical knowledge about fish rehabilitation, various studies of fish habitat rehabilitation that used wood were reviewed. The review focuses on fish responses, wood installation methods, and geomorphic features of the rehabilitation sites. Most studies were conducted in moderately sized (small and medium) streams with relatively high bed gradients and aimed to improve the habitats of salmonid species. In this stream type, structures spanning the full (log dam) and partial (log deflector) width of the river were most common, and wood structures that created pools and covers were successful in improving fish habitat. Some projects were conducted in moderately sized lowgradient streams, in which wooden devices used to create instream cover were effective for fish assemblages. There were few studies in other aquatic ecosystems. However, well-designed large wood structures, known as engineered log jams, were used in rehabilitation projects for large rivers. In slack-water or lentic systems such as sidechannels, estuaries, and reservoirs, small and large wood structures that created cover were used to improve habitat for many fish species. For successful fish habitat rehabilitation projects, the hydrogeomorphic conditions of rehabilitation sites should be carefully examined to avoid physical failure of wood structures. Although artificial wood structures can be used to improve fish habitat in various aquatic ecosystems, they should be considered to be a complementary or interim habitat enhancement technique. The recovery of natural dynamic processes at the watershed scale is the ultimate target of restoration programs.

show abstract

Section: Wood Installation Measures and Fish Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish habitat rehabilitation using wood in the world

Nagayama

Nakamura

2009

Landscape Ecol Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Addition of LWD also created sites where leaf pack and fine woody debris accumulated. Culp et al (1996) found the addition of fine woody debris increased the density of YOY rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykis) in a Canadian stream. Also, Nislow et al (1999) showed early season age-0 Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) preferred slower current velocities associated with areas where LWD and boulders were added in Connecticut River tributaries (VT, U.S.A.).…”

Section: Brook Trout Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Large Woody Debris Addition on Stream Habitat and Brook Trout Populations in Appalachian Streams

Sweka

Hartman

2006

Hydrobiologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large woody debris (LWD) was added to eight streams in the central Appalachians of West Virginia to determine if stream habitat could be enhanced and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations increased. Brook trout populations were assessed one year prior to habitat manipulation and 3 years post-habitat manipulation. LWD was added by felling approximately 15 trees per 300 m stream reach. Four of the streams had LWD added to one 300 m reach with 300 m unmanipulated reaches upstream and downstream of the manipulated reach to observe within-stream effects of LWD additions on brook trout density. The remaining four streams had LWD added to three 300 m reaches and these streams were compared to those with only a single 300 m manipulated reach to observe the effects of the extent of habitat manipulation on brook trout density. New pools were formed by the addition of LWD, but overall pool area did not increase significantly in reaches where LWD was added. The relatively high gradient and coarse substrate of these streams may have precluded the added LWD from having a significant influence on stream channel morphology and habitat complexity. No pools were formed in the highest gradient stream, while the stream with the most pools formed had the lowest gradient. Brook trout populations fluctuated following habitat manipulations, and there was no overall effect of the LWD additions on within-stream variability in brook trout density. When there were significant differences among-streams with different extents of LWD additions, those streams receiving LWD additions over a large extent had the greatest brook trout densities. The full potential of added LWD to change stream habitat and influence on brook trout populations may take more time to develop than the 3 years post-manipulation period of this study.

show abstract

“…The addition of woody debris to streams has often enhanced habitat and increased fish populations (e.g., Everett & Ruiz, 1993;Culp et al, 1996;Roni & Quinn, 2001;Zika & Peter, 2002;Shields et al, 2006) and its removal reduced populations (Angermeier & Karr, 1984;Dolloff, 1986;Elliott, 1986;Fausch & Northcote, 1992), although these effects have not always occurred (Spalding et al, 1995;Keith et al, 1998;Warren & Kraft, 2003;Sweka & Hartman, 2006). The basis for these differences in response has not been explained at the population level (Spalding et al, 1995), and been questioned at the community level (Lepori et al, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of floating overhead cover by warmwater stream fishes

Gatz

2007

Hydrobiologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing the amount of woody debris in streams has often increased population size of one or more focal species whereas clearing a stream of woody debris has often reduced populations. Alterations of the amount of woody debris change multiple aspects of the habitat simultaneously, so it is very difficult to know what particular stimulus or combination of stimuli evoked the changes in the fish populations. The purpose of this research was to alter habitat by the addition of overhead cover alone, and to see whether or not that single change would affect the distribution of stream-dwelling fishes. The addition of solid, floating cover objects 1.8 m by 2.4 m resulted in increased local populations of bluntnose minnow (Pimphales notatus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), and longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) five to six weeks later, but did not change the distribution of four other species: white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). These results showed that for some species at least, changes in channel morphology, visual isolation, and amelioration of flow produced by adding three-dimensional complex woody debris were not essential for making locally attractive habitat changes in a warmwater stream. The effectiveness of overhead cover as used here would be expected to vary for different species and depend on such things as predation threat, flow, and food levels.Keywords Overhead cover Á Warmwater fishes Á Habitat preferencesThe addition of woody debris to streams has often enhanced habitat and increased fish populations

show abstract

Simulated Fine Woody Debris Accumulations in a Stream Increase Rainbow Trout Fry Abundance

Cited by 41 publications

References 27 publications

Fish habitat rehabilitation using wood in the world

Fish habitat rehabilitation using wood in the world

Effects of Large Woody Debris Addition on Stream Habitat and Brook Trout Populations in Appalachian Streams

The use of floating overhead cover by warmwater stream fishes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About