2000
DOI: 10.1080/03680770.1998.11901458
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Small wood dynamics in a headwater stream

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
(10 reference statements)
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Differences between leaf standing crop in the treatment and reference streams remained significantly different until the reintroduction of mixed leaf species in the last year of the study. We observed a very rapid response of ecosystem processes to the loss of leaf standing crop, which demonstrated the critical role of leaf litter in regulating ecosystem function in headwater streams draining forested watersheds (e.g., Wallace et al 1997b, Meyer et al 1998, Eggert and Wallace 2003a, 2003b Although the initial standing crop of leaf litter was reduced rapidly, a large standing crop (.5 kg AFDM/m 2 ) of wood remained in the treatment stream prior to SWR and LWR (Wallace et al 2000. We conducted the wood removal in a two-step process over four years to compare differences in ecosystem response to the removal of small and large wood separately.…”
Section: Cpom and Fpom Standing Cropmentioning
confidence: 79%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Differences between leaf standing crop in the treatment and reference streams remained significantly different until the reintroduction of mixed leaf species in the last year of the study. We observed a very rapid response of ecosystem processes to the loss of leaf standing crop, which demonstrated the critical role of leaf litter in regulating ecosystem function in headwater streams draining forested watersheds (e.g., Wallace et al 1997b, Meyer et al 1998, Eggert and Wallace 2003a, 2003b Although the initial standing crop of leaf litter was reduced rapidly, a large standing crop (.5 kg AFDM/m 2 ) of wood remained in the treatment stream prior to SWR and LWR (Wallace et al 2000. We conducted the wood removal in a two-step process over four years to compare differences in ecosystem response to the removal of small and large wood separately.…”
Section: Cpom and Fpom Standing Cropmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Small wood (,10 cm diameter) was manually removed from the exclusion stream in August 1996 (see Wallace et al 2000) (Small Wood Removal; SWR) and large wood (.10 cm diameter) was manually removed from the stream in August 1998 ) (Large Wood Removal; LWR). During August 2000, we added artificial retention structures to provide the physical complexity previously provided by large and small wood, in the form of PVC pipe and plastic tubing equivalent to the numbers, lengths, diameters, and surface area of all wood pieces removed from the stream wetted area (PVC addition; PVC).…”
Section: Treatmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Nineteen transects (lengths equal to wetted stream widths) were set up in each stream, and the diameters of all intersected fully submerged or wetted wood pieces were measured. The volume of wood per m 2 of stream bottom for three size classes (Ͻ11, 11 to 25, and 25 to 40 mm in diameter) was calculated according to the method in reference 52, and ultimately ash-free dry mass (AFDM) per m 2 was determined based on a specific gravity estimate of wood from a Coweeta stream (53). We also sampled wood quarterly for microbial analyses.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Small wood pieces (SW) are defined as woody particles (such as logs, branches and roots) that are ≤ 0.1 m in diameter. Wallace et al (2000Wallace et al ( , 2001 and Burrows et al (2012) documented that SW can have an important effect on channel processes in narrow headwaters with lower discharges.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%