Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T02:05:26.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhancing Riparian Habitat for Fish, Wildlife, and Timber in Managed Forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Michael Newton ,
Ruth Willis ,
Jennifer Walsh ,
Elizabeth Cole  and
Samuel Chan
Michael Newton
Affiliation:
Dep. For. Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Ruth Willis
Affiliation:
Dep. For. Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Jennifer Walsh
Affiliation:
Dep. For. Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Elizabeth Cole
Affiliation:
Dep. For. Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Samuel Chan
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Research Station, Corvallis, OR 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The productivity of riparian sites in managed forests can be focused to provide productive fish and wildlife habitat while yielding most of its productive capacity for other than amenity values. Establishment of habitat protection goals and measures of achievement permit flexible approaches for meeting them. Once the protection standards are set, intensive management of the woody cover is logically dependent on minimum disturbance methods, in general, for both vegetation management and harvest. Several currently registered chemical products and non-chemical methods are helpful and safe in achieving both yield and protection goals.

Keywords

Aquatic habitatbuffersconifer regenerationherbicidesriparianstream flowtranspirationand woody debris
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 429 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Belt, G. H., and O'Laughlin, J. 1994. Buffer strip design for protecting water quality and fish habitat. West. J. Appl. For. 9:41–45.Google Scholar
2. Beschta, R. L., 1991. Stream habitat management for fish in the northwestern United States: the role of riparian vegetation. Am. Fish Soc. Symp. 10:53–58.Google Scholar
3. Bilby, R. E., and Ward, J. W. 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old-growth, clearcut and second-growth forests in southwest Washington. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 48:2499–2508.Google Scholar
4. Brazier, J. R., and Brown, G. W. 1973. Buffer strips for stream temperature control. Oregon State Univ. For. Res. Lab. Res. Pap. 15. 9 p.Google Scholar
5. Bury, R. B., 1988. Habitat relationships and ecological importance of amphibians and reptiles. p. 61–76 in Raedeke, K. J., ed. Streamside Management: Riparian Wildlife and Forestry Interactions. Univ. of Washington Inst. For. Res. Contrib. 59.Google Scholar
6. Chan, S. S., Hibbs, D. E., and Giordano, P. 1993. Regeneration of coastal riparian areas: Second year performance. Oregon State University, COPE Rep. 6:4–6.Google Scholar
7. Chan, S. S., 1990. Effects of light and soil limitations on Douglas fir and red alder carbon allocation and physiological patterns. p. 33–36 in Hamilton, E., ed. Vegetation management: an integrated approach. Proc. 4th Annu. Vegetation Manage. Workshop, Vancouver, B.C. FRDA Rep. 109.Google Scholar
8. Cole, E. C., and Newton, M. 1990. Glyphosate and imazapyr site preparation trials. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep. p. 136–189.Google Scholar
9. Cole, E. C., and Newton, M. 1988. Evaluation of herbicides for forest site preparation in coastal Oregon. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep. 89–91.Google Scholar
10. Cole, E. C., Newton, M., and White, D. E. 1986. Response of northwestern hardwoods, shrubs and Douglas-fir to Arsenal and Escort. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 34:93–101.Google Scholar
11. Cole, E. C., Newton, M., and Newton, D. 1989. Imazapyr stem injection trials. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep. p. 145–146.Google Scholar
12. Elmore, W., and Beschta, R. L. 1987. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. Rangelands 9:260–265.Google Scholar
13. Frederickson, E., and Newton, M. 1996. Maximizing efficiency of forest herbicide use. Oregon State Univ. For. Res. Lab, Res. Contrib. (In press).Google Scholar
14. Gibbons, D. R., Meehan, W. R., Bryant, M. D., Murphy, M. L., and Elliot, S. T. 1986. Fish in the forest: large woody debris in streams: a new management approach to fish habitat. USDA Forest Service, Alaska region, Juneau. Rep. R10-FR-1. 20 p.Google Scholar
15. Gourley, M. G., Vomocil, M., and Newton, M. 1990. Forest weeding reduces the effect of deer browsing on Douglas-fir. For. Ecol. Manage. 36:177–185.Google Scholar
16. Gregory, S. V., Lamberti, G. A., Erman, D. C., Koski, K. V., Murphy, M. L., and Sedell, J. R. 1987. Influences of forest practices on aquatic production. p. 233–255 In Salo, E. O. and Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. College of For. Resources, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
17. Hawkins, C. P., Murphy, M. L., and Anderson, N. 1982. Effects of canopy, substrate composition and gradient on the structure of macroinvertebrate communities in the Cascade Range of Oregon. Ecology 63:1840–1856.Google Scholar
18. Henderson, J., 1970. Biomass and composition of the understory vegetation in some Alnus rubra stands in western Oregon. . Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 64 p.Google Scholar
19. Hibbs, D. E., Giordano, P., and Chan, S. 1991. Vegetation dynamics in managed coastal riparian areas. Oregon State University, COPE Rep. 4:3–5.Google Scholar
20. Libby, W. J., 1993. Mitigating some consequences of giant sequoia management. In Symposium Proc., Giant Sequoia: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society. Visalia, CA. Aune, P., ed. USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
21. Maas, K., and Emmingham, W. E. 1995. Third-year survival and growth of conifers planted in red alder-dominated riparian areas. Oregon State University, COPE Rep. 8:5–7.Google Scholar
22. Mathews, F. S., 1915. Field Guide of American Trees and Shrubs. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 465 p.Google Scholar
23. McDade, M. H., 1987. The source area for coarse woody debris in small streams in western Oregon and Washington. . Oregon Stale Univ., Corvallis. 63 p.Google Scholar
24. Meehan, W. R., Swanson, F. J., and Sedell, J. R. 1977. Influences of riparian vegetation on aquatic ecosystems with particular reference to salmonid fishes and their food supply. p. 137–145 in Johnson, R. R. and Jones, D. A., eds. Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43.Google Scholar
25. Minore, D., and Weatherly, H. G. 1994. Riparian trees, shrubs and forest regeneration in the coastal mountains of Oregon. New For. 8:249–264.Google Scholar
26. Murphy, M. L., and Koski, K. V. 1989. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams and implications for streamside management. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 9:427–436.Google Scholar
27. Neary, D. G., Bush, P. B., and Douglass, J. E. 1981. Subsurface movement of hexazinone in small forest watersheds. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 21:45–46.Google Scholar
28. Newton, M., and Knight, F. B. 1981. Handbook of Weed and Insect Control Chemicals for Forest Resource Managers. Timber Press, Beaverton, OR. 214 p.Google Scholar
29. Newton, M., and Dost, F. N. 1984. Biological and Physical Effects of Forest Vegetation Management, Final Report. State of Washington Dep. of Natural Resources. Olympia. 424 p.Google Scholar
30. Newton, M., and Norgren, J. A. 1977. Silvicultural Chemicals and Protection of Water Quality. USEPA Non-point Sources Rep. 910/9-77–036. Seattle. 224 p.Google Scholar
31. Newton, M., El Hassan, B. A., and Zavitkovski, J. 1968. The role of red alder in western Oregon forest succession. p. 73–84 in Trappe, J. M., Franklin, J. F., Tarrant, R. F., and Hansen, F. M., eds. Biology of Alder. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, and Northwest Scientific Assoc., Portland, OR.Google Scholar
32. Newton, M., Cole, E. C., Lautenschlager, R. A., White, D. E., and McCormack, M. L. Jr., 1989. Browse availability after conifer release in Maine's spruce-fir forests. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:643–649.Google Scholar
33. Newton, M., Cole, E. C., and White, D. E. 1986. What influences control of deciduous brush with glyphosate. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. p. 86–92.Google Scholar
34. Newton, M., Cole, E. C., and White, D. E. 1993. Tall planting stock for enhanced growth and domination of brush in the Douglas-fir Region. New For. 7:107–121.Google Scholar
35. Newton, M., Howard, K. M., Kelpsas, B. R., Danhaus, R., Dubelman, S., and Lottman, M. 1984. Fate of glyphosate in an Oregon forest ecosystem. J. Agric. Food Chem. 32:1144–1151.Google Scholar
36. Newton, M., Horner, L. M., Cowell, J. E., White, D. E., and Cole, E. C. 1994. Dissipation of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in North American forests. J. Agric. Food Chem. 42:1795–1802.Google Scholar
37. Oregon Department of Forestry. 1994. Forest Practices Act Administrative Rules. Ch. 629. Div. 620–660. Salem, OR. 47 p.Google Scholar
38. Ralph, S. C., Poole, G. C., Conquest, L. L., and Naiman, R. J. 1995. Stream channel morphology and woody debris in logged and unlogged basins 01 western Washington. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. (In press).Google Scholar
39. Rhoades, C., and Binkley, D. 1992. Spatial extent of impact of red alder on soil chemistry of adjacent conifer stands. Can. J. For. Res. 22:1434–1437.Google Scholar
40. Robison, E. G., Runyon, J. R., and Andrus, C. A. 1995. Cooperative stream temperature monitoring: project completion report for 1994–1995. Report to the Oregon Dep. of Environ. Qual. 25 p.Google Scholar
41. Runyon, J. R., Waring, H., Goward, S. N., and Welles, J. M. 1994. Environmental limits on net primary production and light-use efficiency across the Oregon Transect. Ecol. Appl. 4:226–237.Google Scholar
42. Spurr, S. H., and Barnes, B. V. 1974. Forest Ecology, 2nd ed. Ronald Press, New York. 571 p.Google Scholar
43. Swanson, F. J., Gregory, S. V., Sedell, J. R., and Campbell, A. G. 1982. Land-water interactions: the riparian zone. p. 267–291 in Analysis of Coniferous Ecosystems in the Western United States. U.S. International Biological Program Synthesis Series 14. Hutchingson Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.Google Scholar
44. Thomas, J. W., ed. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological. economic and social assessment. USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Portland, OR. 1001 p.Google Scholar
45. Waddell, K. L., Oswald, D. D., and Powell, D. S. 1989. Forest statistics of the United States, 1987. The condition and trends of United States forests. USDA Forest Service. Res. Bull. PNW-RB-168. 106 p.Google Scholar
46. Walsh, J., 1996. Effects of streamside riparian forest management on Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera community structure in four western Oregon streams. . Oregon State Univ. 150 p.Google Scholar
47. Warren, L. E., Vomocil, M., Newton, M., and Belz, D. 1984. Control of bigleaf maple and associated hardwoods in conifer forests with Garlon 3A. Down Earth 40(2):8–12.Google Scholar