riparian forest structure and bottom-up drivers of fish production in headwater streams michael...
Post on 14-Dec-2015
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
Green MountainEarly mature – reference vs
Early mature for future thinning
Study Design – Sampling
Basal area
(every 20 m)
HJ AndrewsOld growth vs Early mature .
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
Green MountainEarly mature – reference vs
Early mature for future thinning
Study Design – Sampling 2 x per year – June/July and August/Sept
Stream Habitat (LW, pool area, cover, substrate, gradient, etc.)
HJ AndrewsOld growth vs Early mature .
Periphyton Chl a(tiles)
Macroinvertebrate biomass(surber sampler - 5 samples per reach)
Total fish biomassSalamander biomass
Fish batch marked by reach
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 (5 20 m
radius plots)
In-stream measurementsRiparian Forest
Green MountainEarly mature – reference vs
Early mature for future thinning
Study Design – Sampling 2 x per year – June/July and August/Sept
Stream Habitat (LW, pool area, cover, substrate, gradient, etc.)
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
HJ AndrewsOld growth vs Early mature .
Periphyton Chl a(tiles)
Macroinvertebrate biomass(surber sampler - 5 samples per reach)
Total fish biomassSalamander biomass
Fish batch marked by reach
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 (5 20 m radius plots)
In-stream measurementsRiparian Forest
Green MountainEarly mature – reference vs
Early mature for future thinning
Study Design – Sampling 2 x per year – June/July and August/Sept
Stream Habitat (LW, pool area, cover, substrate, gradient, etc.)
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)
HJ AndrewsOld growth vs Early mature .
Periphyton Chl a(tiles)
Macroinvertebrate biomass(surber sampler - 5 samples per reach)
Total fish biomassSalamander biomass
Fish batch marked by reach
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 (5 20 m radius plots)
In-stream measurementsRiparian Forest
Green MountainEarly mature – reference vs
Early mature for future thinning
Study Design – Sampling 2 x per year – June/July and August/Sept
Stream Habitat (LW, pool area, cover, substrate, gradient, etc.)
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?
HJ AndrewsOld growth vs Early mature .
Periphyton Chl a(tiles)
Macroinvertebrate biomass(surber sampler - 5 samples per reach)
Total fish biomassSalamander biomass
Fish batch marked by reach
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 (5 20 m radius plots)
In-stream measurementsRiparian Forest
Green MountainEarly mature – reference vs
Early mature for future thinning
Study Design – Sampling 2 x per year – June/July and August/Sept
Stream Habitat (LW, pool area, cover, substrate, gradient, etc.)
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)
HJ AndrewsOld growth vs Early mature .
Periphyton Chl a(tiles)
Macroinvertebrate biomass(surber sampler - 5 samples per reach)
Total fish biomassSalamander biomass
Fish batch marked by reach
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 (5 20 m radius plots)
In-stream measurementsRiparian Forest
Green MountainEarly mature – reference vs
Early mature for future thinning
Study Design – Sampling 2 x per year – June/July and August/Sept
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
HJ AndrewsOld growth vs Early mature .
Periphyton Chl a(tiles)
Macroinvertebrate biomass(surber sampler - 5 samples per reach)
Total fish biomassSalamander biomass
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 (5 20 m radius plots)
In-stream measurementsRiparian Forest
Green MountainEarly mature – reference vs
Early mature for future thinning
Study Design – Sampling 2 x per year – June/July and August/Sept
Stream Habitat (LW, pool area, cover, substrate, gradient, etc.)
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)
Old-growth Second-growth
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
Old-growth Second-growth
Chucksney
Control Manip
Loon
Control Manip
McRae (STREON)
Old-growth Second-growth
-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
Difference in LW volume (m3/100m2)
Diffe
renc
e in
Ver
t Bio
mas
s (g/
m2)
Relationships between habitat and stream biota
-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
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
-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)
-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
more wood but less vert. biomass
Less wood and less vert. biomass
Less wood and 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
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
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Difference in Pool Area (m2)
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
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
-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
Difference in Pool Area (m2)
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
top related