4.5 Article

Effects of forest stand age on the characteristics of logjams in mountainous forest streams

期刊

EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS
卷 39, 期 11, 页码 1421-1431

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/esp.3531

关键词

in-stream wood; logjams; mountain stream; forest stand age; LWD

资金

  1. The Geological Society of America
  2. Colorado Mountain Club
  3. American Water Resources Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We measured longitudinal spacing and wood volume of channel-spanning logjams along 30 1-km reaches of forest streams in the Colorado Front Range, USA. Study streams flow through old-growth (> 200 year stand age) or younger subalpine conifer forest. Evaluating correlations between the volume and longitudinal spacing of logjams in relation to channel and forest characteristics, we find that old-growth forest streams have greater in-stream wood loads and more jams per kilometer than streams in younger forest. Old-growth forests have a larger basal area close to the stream and correlate with larger piece diameters of in-stream wood. Jam volume correlates inversely with the downstream spacing for ramp and bridge pieces that can act as key pieces in jams. Most importantly, old-growth streams have shorter downstream spacing for ramp and bridge pieces (< 20 m). Our results suggest that management of in-stream wood and associated stream characteristics can be focused most effectively at the reach scale, with an emphasis on preserving old-growth riparian stands along lower gradient stream reaches or mimicking the effects of old growth by manipulating the spacing of ramp and bridge pieces. Our finding that average downstream spacing between jams declines as wood load increases suggests that the most effective way to create and retain jams is to ensure abundant sources of wood recruitment, with a particular emphasis on larger pieces that are less mobile because they have at least one anchor point outside the active channel. Copyright (C) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据