4.7 Article

Sources and interpretation of channel complexity in forested subalpine streams of the Southern Rocky Mountains

Journal

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
Volume 52, Issue 5, Pages 3910-3929

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015WR018306

Keywords

channel complexity; instream wood; valley confinement; mountain streams

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-1145616]
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1145616] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We evaluate correlations between stream geomorphic complexity and characteristics of the adjacent riparian forest, valley geometry, and land use history in forested subalpine streams of the Colorado Front Range. Measures of geomorphic complexity focus on cross-sectional, planform, and instream wood piece and logjam variables. We categorize adjacent riparian forests as old-growth unmanaged forest (OU), younger unmanaged forest (YU), and younger managed forest (YM), and valley geometry as laterally confined, partly confined, or unconfined. Significant differences in geomorphic stream complexity between OU, YU, and YM result primarily from differences in wood pieces and logjams, and these differences correlate strongly with pool volume and organic matter storage. Significant differences in planform and cross-sectional complexity correlate more strongly with valley geometry, but do not explain as much of the observed variability in complexity between streams as do the wood variables. Unconfined OU streams have the largest wood loads and the greatest complexity, whereas legacy effects of logging, tie-drives, and channel simplification create lower complexity in YM streams, even relative to YU streams flowing through similarly aged forest. We find that management history of riparian forests exerts the strongest control on reduced functional stream channel complexity, regardless of riparian forest stand age.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available