Riparian forest structure and bottom-up drivers of fish production in headwater streams Michael...

Riparian forest structure and bottom-up drivers of fish production in headwater streams

Michael Nelson(FES)

Dana Warren(F&W)

Ivan Arismendi(F&W)

Study Question:

How does changing forest structure in the riparian zone influence fish in headwater streams?

Why would forest structure matter?

Because forest structure controls light, and the light environment of the stream influences

stream food webs and stream temperatures

Study Objectives:

• Understand how riparian forest structure influences bottom-up drivers of fish abundance and growth in headwater streams

• Set up preliminary data set for experiments exploring whether selective thinning in the riparian zone to create a more complex canopy structure influences fish in headwater streams

H1: Light in headwater streams will be high early in stand initiation, light will decline through the stem-exclusion phase and light will increase again late in stand development

Premise behind this study: Changes in light with stand development

> 200

% o

pen

cano

py

Meta-analysis of % canopy openness versus stand age across the Pacific Northwest

Stand Age

Kiffney et al. 2007

Includes:Cutthroat troutSculpinsalamanders

Premise behind this study: Light can influence biomass of stream biota

Fish

Bio

mas

sFi

sh B

iom

ass

Active management

Sedell and Swanson (1984)

“A strategy for managing streamside areas for long-term fisheries values would be to keep the large woody materials in the stream during harvest, leave large coniferous trees to serve as a future source of instream debris, and selectively thin dense second-growth stands along the stream to provide a mix of food resources, including algae”

This is not a new idea. . .

HJ AndrewsOld growth vs Early mature .

Green MountainEarly mature – reference vs

Early mature for future thinning

Study Design – 12 reaches

Pre-treatment data for an experimental assessment of thinning effect on fish, their food, and stream temperatures.

Evaluate fish, their food, and stream temperatures at established reach pairs

Provides more sites for comparative study

HJ AndrewsOld growth vs Early mature . In-stream measurements

Riparian Forest



Study Design – Sampling

Basal area

(every 20 m)


Periphyton Chl a(scraping rocks every 5 m)

Macroinvertebrate biomass(Hess sampler 5 samples per reach)

Total fish biomassSalmonid biomass

All fish batch marked by reachFish that are big enough get individual tags

(electrofishing, fin clips, and PIT tags)

Light on the streambed (every 5 m)

canopy cover (every 20 m)

Temperature (data logged every 5 minutes at the upstream

and downstream end of each reach

Basal area

(every 20 m)

In-stream measurementsRiparian Forest



Study Design – Sampling 2 x per year – June/July and August/Sept

Stream Habitat (LW, pool area, cover, substrate, gradient, etc.)


Periphyton Chl a(tiles)

Macroinvertebrate biomass(surber sampler - 5 samples per reach)

Total fish biomassSalamander biomass

Fish batch marked by reach




and downstream end of each reach)

Basal area (5 20 m

radius plots)






MCT_W STR MCT_E LOON CHUCK0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2GOGCONTROLMANIP

Basa

l Are

a (m

2 /ha

)

Site

Basal Area










Basal area (5 20 m radius plots)






Light exposure on the stream benthos was quantified using vials of photo-degrading dye

Dye photodegradation is then used to estimate Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) base on a strong relationship between decay and measured PAR

Measuring stream light

Methods details in: Bechtold et al. 2013 Warren et al. 2014 Warren et al. in review

24 h

our a

ccum

ulat

ed P

AR

(um

ol

m-2

)

McRae Trib – West (4.4 m bankfull)

McRae Creek (STREON) (6.6 m bankfull)

150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

24 h

our a

ccum

ulat

ed P

AR x

1000

(uE

m-2

s-1)

Distance (m)(Upstream) (Downstream)

Old Growth OG-2G mix Second growth (~60 yrs)

McRae Trib – East (3.1 m bankfull)
















Buffer

0 100 200 300 400 500 6000

100

200

300

400

500McRae Creek

2nd-GrowthOld-Growth

Transect Distance (m)

Fluo

resc

ein

deca

y (p

pb)

Incr

ease

d Li

ght -

----->

Is periphyton accrual affect by local light?

Fluo

resc

ein

deca

y (p

pb)

Incr

ease

d Li

ght -

----

->

Distance (m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

100

200

300

400

500Fluoroscein decay (Δppb)

(more loss = more light)μg

chl

. a/c

m2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4500.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

R² = 0.658563243984356

Old-GrowthSecond-Growth

Is periphyton accrual affect by local light?








Temperature (data logged every 5 minutes at the upstream and downstream end of

each reach)







upstream downstream

FL lo

ss

X XT1 T2

7/15/14 0:00 7/16/14 0:00 7/17/14 0:00 7/18/14 0:00 7/19/14 0:00 7/20/14 0:00 7/21/14 0:00 7/22/14 0:00

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

2.77555756156289E-17

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Chucksney

upstream downstream

FL lo

ss

X XT1 T2

Cooling through the reach

Diff

eren

ce in

stre

am te

mpe

ratu

re (C

)

Warming through the reach

7/15/14 0:00 7/16/14 0:00 7/17/14 0:00 7/18/14 0:00 7/19/14 0:00 7/20/14 0:00 7/21/14 0:00 7/22/14 0:00

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

2.77555756156289E-17

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

ChucksneyDiff - CTRL

upstream downstream

FL lo

ss

X XT1 T2

Diff

eren

ce in

stre

am te

mpe

ratu

re (C

)

Warming through the reach

Cooling through the reach

upstream downstream

FL lo

ss

X XT1 T2

X

X

T1

T2

Diff

eren

ce in

stre

am te

mpe

ratu

re (C

)

XX

T1

T2

8/14/14 0:00 8/14/14 12:00 8/15/14 0:00 8/15/14 12:00 8/16/14 0:00 8/16/14 12:00 8/17/14 0:00 8/17/14 12:00 8/18/14 0:00

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

1.11022302462516E-16

0.2

0.4

0.6

STREON Difference

Diff

eren

ce in

stre

am te

mpe

ratu

re (C

) (o

ld g

row

th –

sec

ond

grow

th) Warmer at the end of the old-growth reach

Warmer at the end of the second-growth reach

XX

T1

T2

Warmer at the end of the old-growth reach

Warmer at the end of the second-growth reach

Diff

eren

ce in

stre

am te

mpe

ratu

re (C

) (o

ld g

row

th –

sec

ond

grow

th)

X

X

T1

T2

X XT1 T2

Diff

eren

ce in

stre

am te

mpe

ratu

re (C

) (o

ld g

row

th –

sec

ond

grow

th)















Stream Habitat (LW, pool area, cover, substrate,

gradient, etc.)

STR - OG STR - 2G MCT_W - OG

MCT_W - 2G

CHUCK - Ctrl

CHUCK - Manip

LOON - Ctrl

LOON - Manip

05

101520253035404550

% o

f rea

ch a

rea

as p

ools

MCT-W

Old-growth

Second-growth

Chucksney

Control Manip

Loon

Control Manip

McRae (STREON)

Old-growth

Second-growth

% Pool Area

STR STR MCT_W MCT_W CHUCK CHUCK LOON LOON0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

MCT-W

Old-growth

Second-growth

Chucksney

Control Manip

Loon

Control Manip

McRae (STREON)

Old-growth

Second-growth

LW v

olum

e (m

3 *10

0m-1

)Large Wood (LW) volume















Biom

ass

(g/m

2 )

MCT_W OG

MCT_W 2G

STR OG STR 2G LOON CONTROL

LOON MANIP

CHUCK CONTROL

CHUCK MANIP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Cutthroat

Vertebrate Biomass

Chucksney

Control Manip

Loon

Control Manip

MCT-W

Old-growth Second-growth

McRae (STREON)


Biom

ass

(g/m

2 )

MCT_W OG

MCT_W 2G

STR OG STR 2G LOON CONTROL

LOON MANIP

CHUCK CONTROL

CHUCK MANIP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Salamanders

Cutthroat

Vertebrate Biomass

MCT-W


Chucksney

Control Manip

Loon

Control Manip

McRae (STREON)


-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

Difference in LW volume (m3/100m2)

Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/

m2) more wood & more

vert. biomass

more wood but less vert. biomass

Less wood and less vert. biomass

Less wood and more vert. biomass

Relationships between habitat and stream biota

Analysis conducted on the DIFFERENCES in each metric between reaches within a stream

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6


Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/

m2)


-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

f(x) = − 0.759685161276017 x + 8.71718791982629R² = 0.612588205726242

Difference in Pool Area (%)

Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/

m2)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6


Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/


vert. biomass





-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6


Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/

m2)

-5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

f(x) = 0.533815746272257 x − 2.85628463878894R² = 0.856830733178747

Difference % canopy openness

Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/

m2)more wood & more

vert. biomass




-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

f(x) = − 0.759685161276017 x + 8.71718791982629R² = 0.612588205726242

Difference in Pool Area (%)

Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/

m2)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-1.1

-0.9

-0.7

-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

Difference in LW (m3/100m2)

Diffe

renc

e in

CT

Biom

ass (

g/m

2)Relationships between habitat and stream biota

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-1.1

-0.9

-0.7

-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

Difference in LW (m3/100m2)

Diffe

renc

e in

CT

Biom

ass (

g/m

2)

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

f(x) = − 0.0478761313990347 x + 0.219133500824917R² = 0.155166295724287

Difference in Pool Area (m2)

Diffe

renc

e in

CT

Biom

ass (

g/m

2)Relationships between habitat and stream biota

MCT Early MCT Late STR Early STR Late25

30

35

40

45

50

YoY Mean Length (2013 data) Second-Growth

Old-Growth

YoY

Leng

h (m

m)

* Error bars indicate 2 standard errors of the mean

(n=9, 12) (n=11, 14) (n=27, 21) (n=24, 41)

P-Value: 0.088

P-Value: 0.0004

P-Value: 0.613

P-Value: 0.011

0 50 100 150 200 2500

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200 Manip

Control

Loss

of F

luor

esce

in o

ver 2

4 hr

s

Distance (m)(Upstream) (Downstream)

Next Steps - Creating Canopy Gaps

0 50 100 150 200 2500

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200ControlManip

Loss

of F

luor

esce

in o

ver 2

4 hr

s

Next Steps - Creating Canopy Gaps

Next Steps - Filling out data set for paired reach study

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6


Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/


vert. biomass




-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6


Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/

m2)

Kaylor et al. in Prep.

Next Steps - Filling out data set for paired reach study

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6


Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/


vert. biomass




-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

f(x) = 0.352500685022196 x − 2.46975395978326R² = 0.822175948589268

Difference % canopy openness

Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/

m2)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

f(x) = 0.0434625775072146 x − 1.76262557090755R² = 0.0196320933076577


Diffe

renc

e in

Ver

t Bio

mas

s (g/

m2)

Kaylor et al. in Prep.

Thank you AcknowledgementsFunding: • CoF Forestry’s Fish and Wildlife

Habitat in Managed Forests Research Program

• OSU’s Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife

Fieldwork and data collection:• Matt Kaylor• Brian VerWay

Other intellectual contributions:• Lina DeGrigorio• Cheryl Friesen• Stan Gregory• Kathy Keable• Julie Pett-Ridge• Mark Shultz• USFS/BLM fisheries research team• Theresa Vallentine• Randy Wildman

Date post:	14-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dale-chase
View:	217 times
Download:	1 times

Riparian forest structure and bottom-up drivers of fish production in headwater streams Michael...

Documents