Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study

Ferhat KARA, (School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA)
Latif KALIN, (Architecture and Civil Engineering Faculty, Canik Başarı University, Canik, Samsun, Turkey)
Edward Francis LOEWENSTEI (School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA)
Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
2 0
Yıl: 2015 Cilt: 39 Sayı: 5 Sayfa Aralığı: 764 - 774 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study

Öz:
The thinning of stream buffer zones (SBZs) is gaining popularity as a silvicultural management practice in order to reducethe risk of wildfire and insect hazard, provide economic return, and improve the effectiveness of SBZs. In this study, streamflow over a1-year period was monitored at 2 small paired watersheds (treated vs. reference). The short-term impacts of a partial cutting within aSBZ as well as the relative effects of pastoral, forested, and clearcut areas on changes in downstream hydrology were examined. Upstreampastoral areas had a higher water yield than downstream forested sections during the no-harvest (calibration) period of 6 months. Thepartial cut (about 50% of the basal area) within the SBZ changed the hydrologic pattern by remarkably increasing the water yield onthe treated downstream sections during the 6-month-long postharvest period. The harvest operation also caused an increase in directrunoff at 2 downstream sections, WT2 and WT3 (~200% and ~100%, respectively). No significant changes were observed in the wateryield pattern of the control watershed. Because harvested areas within the SBZs constitute a fraction of the monitored sub-watershedsand only partial harvesting (~50% of the basal area) was implemented, the observed increase in flow at the treated downstreamsections (100% and 250%, respectively) is unprecedented. The partial harvesting within the SBZs also resulted in a significantly flashierhydrological system. Because silvicultural treatments are part of regular, repeated management operations, these short term (in thisstudy, 6-month-long) but substantial changes in water yield, direct runoff, and flashiness could have important implications for waterquality, water resources, and downstream biota.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Orman Mühendisliği
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Alabama Forestry Commission (1999). Alabama’s Best Management Practices for Forestry Publication. Montgomery, Alabama, USA: Alabama Forestry Commission.
  • Anderson CJ, Lockaby BG (2011). Research gaps related to forest management and stream sediment in the United States. Environ Manag 47: 303–313.
  • Arthur MA, Coltharp GB, Brown DL (1998). Effects of best management practices on forest streamwater quality in eastern Kentucky. J Am Water Res Assoc 34: 481–495.
  • Baker DB, Richards P, Loftus TL, Kramer JW (2004). A new flashiness index: characteristics and applications to midwestern rivers and streams. J Am Water Res Assoc 40: 503–522.
  • Beven KJ (2004). Rainfall–Runoff Modeling: The Primer. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
  • Brockway DG, Loewenstein EF, Outcalt KW (2014). Proportional basal area method for implementing selection silviculture systems in longleaf pine forests. Can J For Res 44: 977–985.
  • Douglass JE (1979). Silviculture for water yield. In: Town Meeting Forestry: Issues for the 1980’s. Proceedings of the Convention of the Society of American Foresters, pp. 90–96.
  • Fongers D, Manning K, Rathbun J (2004). Application of the Richard–Baker Flashiness Index to Gaged Michigan Rivers and Streams. Lansing, MI, USA: Michigan’s Nonpoint Source Program, Publication ID: MI/DEQ/WRD-12/028.
  • Ganatsios HP, Tsioras PA, Pavlidis T (2010). Water yield changes as a result of silvicultural treatments in an oak ecosystem. For Ecol Manage 260: 1367–1374.
  • Grace JM 3rd (2005). Forest operations and water quality in the south. Trans ASAE 48: 871–880.
  • Grace JM 3rd, Skaggs RW, Chescheir GM (2006). Hydrologic and water quality effects of thinning loblolly pine. Trans ASABE 49: 645–654.
  • Grace JM 3rd, Skaggs RW, Malcom HR, Chescheir GM, Cassel DK (2003). Increased water yields following harvesting operations on a drained coastal watershed. In: ASAE Annual International Meeting, Paper no: 03-2039, July 2003, Las Vegas, NV, USA: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
  • Hewlett JD (1969). Principles of Forest Hydrology. Athena, GA, USA: University of Georgia Press.
  • Hodges CL (2009). Logging in the streamside management zone: effects of harvesting system and intensity on visual soil disturbance. Masters, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, USA.
  • Hubbart JA, Link TE, Gravelle JA, Elliot WJ (2007). Timber harvest impacts on water yield in the continental/maritime hydroclimatic region of the United States. For Sci 53: 169–180.
  • Iroume A, Mayen O, Huber A (2006). Runoff and peak flow responses to timber harvest and forest age in southern Chile. Hydrol Process 20: 37–50.
  • Johnson, EA, Kovner JL (1954). Increasing water yield by cutting forest vegetation. Bull Georgia Acad Sci 764: 145–148.
  • Johnson, EA, Kovner JL (1956). Effect on streamflow of cutting a forest understory. For Sci 2: 82–91.
  • Kara F, Kalin L, Loewenstein EF (2014). Sediment dynamics following active management of a stream buffer zone: a case study. J Soil Water Conserv 69: 87–94.
  • Keim RF, Schoenholtz SH (1999). Functions and effectiveness of silvicultural streamside management zones in loessial bluff forests. For Ecol Manage 118: 197–209.
  • Lakel WA 3rd, Aust WM, Bolding MC, Dolloff CA, Patrick K, Feldt R (2010). Sediment trapping by streamside management zones of various widths after forest harvest and site preparation. For Sci 56: 541–551.
  • Loewenstein EF (2005). Conversion of uniform broadleaved stands to an uneven-aged structure. For Ecol Manage 215: 103–112.
  • Loewenstein EF (2009). Proportional-B: a simple but logical approach to marking single-tree selection. In: Proceedings of the SAF 2009 National Convention: Opportunities in a Forested World, 30 September–4 October; Orlando, FL, USA.
  • Marsh-McBirney Inc. (1990). Flo-Mate Model 2000 instruction and operations manual. Frederick, MD, USA: Marsh-McBirney Inc.
  • McBroom MW, Beasley RS, Chang M, Gowin B, Ice GG (2007). Sediment losses associated with degree of watershed disturbance resulting from clearcut harvesting with best management practices. In: Proceedings of the Meeting on Watershed Management to Meet Water Quality Standards and TMDLS (Total Maximum Daily Load), 10–14 March, 2007; San Antonio, TX, USA: The American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
  • McNutt RB, Tuck M, Hoyum RA (1981). Soil Survey of Lee County, AL. Alabama, USA: USDA Soil Conservation Service.
  • Muthukrishnan S, Lim KJ, Harbor J, Engel BA (2005). iSep: A simple GIS enabled, internet-based hydrograph separation tool. GSA Abstracts 35, 156.
  • Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2005). Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation. Version 2000. TWRI TR-191. College Station, TX. USA: Texas Water Resources Institute.
  • Norris V (1993). The use of buffer zones to protect water quality. Water Res Manage 7: 257–272.
  • Prud’homme BA, Greis JG (2002). Best management practices in the South. In: Wear DN, Greis JG, editors. Southern Forest Resource Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC, USA: USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station.
  • Reinhart KG, Eschner AR, Trimble Jr GR (1963). Effect of streamflow of four forest practices in the mountains of West Virginia. Res. Paper NE-1. Upper Darby, PA, USA: USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.
  • Rosen K (1984). Effect of clear-felling on runoff in two small watersheds in Central Sweden. For Ecol Manage 9: 267–281.
  • Rothacher J (1970). Increases in water yield following clear-cut logging in the Pacific Northwest. Water Resour Res 6: 653–658.
  • Solinst Canada Ltd. (2013). Solinst Levelogger Gold Transducer User Guide. Georgiatown, Ontario, Canada: Solinst Canada Ltd.
  • Sorensen R, Ring E, Meili M, Hogbom L, Siebert J, Grabs T, Laudon H, Bishop K (2009). Forest harvest increases runoff most during low flows in two boreal streams. AMBIO 38: 357–363.
  • Stednick JD (1996). Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. J Hydrol 176: 79–95.
  • Studinski JM, Hartman KJ, Niles JM, Keyser P (2012). The effects of riparian forest disturbance on stream temperature, sedimentation, and morphology. Hydrobiologia 686: 107–117.
  • Swank WT, DeBano LF, Nelson D (1989). Effects of timber management practices on soil and water. In: Burns RL, editor. The Scientific Basis for Silvicultural and Management Decisions in the National Forest System. Washington, DC, USA: USDA Forest Service.
  • Troendle CA, Olsen WK  (1993). Potential effects of timber harvest and water management on streamflow dynamics and sediment transport. In:  Sustainable Ecological Systems Proceedings. GTR RM-247, Fort Collins, CO, USA: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, pp. 34–41.
  • Ziemer RR (1986). Water yields from forests: an agnostic view. In: Proceedings of the California Watershed Management Conference, November 18–20, 1986, West Sacramento, CA, USA. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Wildlife Resources Center, pp. 74–78.
APA KARA F, KALIN L, LOEWENSTEI E (2015). Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study. , 764 - 774.
Chicago KARA Ferhat,KALIN Latif,LOEWENSTEI Edward Francis Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study. (2015): 764 - 774.
MLA KARA Ferhat,KALIN Latif,LOEWENSTEI Edward Francis Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study. , 2015, ss.764 - 774.
AMA KARA F,KALIN L,LOEWENSTEI E Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study. . 2015; 764 - 774.
Vancouver KARA F,KALIN L,LOEWENSTEI E Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study. . 2015; 764 - 774.
IEEE KARA F,KALIN L,LOEWENSTEI E "Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study." , ss.764 - 774, 2015.
ISNAD KARA, Ferhat vd. "Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study". (2015), 764-774.
APA KARA F, KALIN L, LOEWENSTEI E (2015). Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 39(5), 764 - 774.
Chicago KARA Ferhat,KALIN Latif,LOEWENSTEI Edward Francis Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 39, no.5 (2015): 764 - 774.
MLA KARA Ferhat,KALIN Latif,LOEWENSTEI Edward Francis Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, vol.39, no.5, 2015, ss.764 - 774.
AMA KARA F,KALIN L,LOEWENSTEI E Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2015; 39(5): 764 - 774.
Vancouver KARA F,KALIN L,LOEWENSTEI E Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2015; 39(5): 764 - 774.
IEEE KARA F,KALIN L,LOEWENSTEI E "Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study." Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 39, ss.764 - 774, 2015.
ISNAD KARA, Ferhat vd. "Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study". Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 39/5 (2015), 764-774.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
22-04-2024 21:48

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları