Environmental Management

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 185–194 | Cite as

Riparian vegetation instream flow requirements: A case study from a diverted stream in the Eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA

  • Julie C. Stromberg
  • Duncan T. Patten
Profile

Abstract

A methodology is described that allows determination of instream flow requirements for maintenance of riparian trees. Tree-ring data revealed strong relationships between tree growth and stream flow volume for riparian species at Rush Creek, an alluvial stream within an arid setting; these relationships allowed development of models that predict growth rates from hydrologic variables. The models can be used to assess instream flow requirements under the assumption that certain levels of growth are necessary to maintain the population. There is a critical need for development and use of instream flow methodologies for riparian vegetation, since present methodologies focus on needs of aquatic animals (e.g., fish) and may underestimate needs of the entire riparian ecosystem.

Key words

Instream flow Riparian vegetation Stream diversion Computer model Rush Creek 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Arizona State Parks. 1989. Arizona rivers, streams and wetlands study. SCORP (Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan), Arizona State Parks, Phoenix.Google Scholar
  2. Baltz, D. M., and P. B. Moyle, 1984. The influence of riparian vegetation on stream fish communities of California. Pages 183–187in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.), California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation and productive management. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  3. Bazzaz, F. A., N. R. Chiariello, P. D. Coley, and L. F. Pitelka. 1987. Allocating resources to reproduction and defense.BioScience 37:58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleed, A. S. 1987. Limitations of concepts used to determine instream flow requirements for habitat maintenance.Water Resources Bulletin 23:1173–1178.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, S. 1987. A new method of examining cottonwood cores. Pages 695–698in Proceedings of the international symposium on ecological aspects of tree-ring analysis. US Department of Energy, Tarrytown, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Cummins, K. W. 1988. The study of stream ecosystems: a functional view. Pages 247–262in L. R. Pomeroy and J. J. Alberts (eds.), Concepts of ecosystem ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, G. E. 1989. Design of a long-term ecological monitoring program for Channel Islands National Park, California,Natural Areas Journal 9:80–89.Google Scholar
  8. Doyle, T. W. 1987. White alder growth and development: The effect of small hydroelectric projects in the Sierra Nevada of California. Pages 234–242in Proceedings of the international symposium on ecological aspects of tree-ring analysis. US Department of Energy, Tarrytown, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Fenner, P., W. W. Brady, and D. R. Patton. 1985. Effects of regulated water flows on regeneration of Fremont cottonwood.Journal of Range Management 38:135–138.Google Scholar
  10. Fritts, H. C. 1976. Tree rings and climate. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Gelt, J. 1988. Flow of rivers and streams provides rich benefits, raises varied concerns.Arroyo 2:1–8.Google Scholar
  12. Gustard, A. 1982. The characterization of flow regimes for assessing the impact of water resource management on river ecology. Pages 53–60in A. Lillehammer and S. J. Saltveit (eds.), Regulated rivers. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, R. R. 1988. Associations between stream valley geomorphology and riparian vegetation as a basis for landscape analysis in the eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA.Environmental Management 12:219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harris, R. R., C. A. Fox, and R. Risser. 1987. Impacts of hydroelectric development on riparian vegetation in the Sierra Nevada region, California, USA.Environmental Management 11:519–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hubbard, J. P. 1977. Importance of riparian ecosystems: Biotic considerations. Pages 14–18in R. R. Johnson and D. A. Jones (tech. coords.), Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
  16. Katibah, E. F. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in the Central Valley of California. Pages 23–29in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.), California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation and productive management. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  17. Knight, A. W., and R. L. Bottorff. 1984. The importance of riparian vegetation to stream ecosystems. Pages 160–167in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.), California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation and productive management. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  18. Kondolf, G. M., J. W. Webb, M. J. Sale, and T. Felando. 1987. Basic hydrologic studies for assessing impacts of flow diversions on riparian vegetation: examples from streams of the Eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA.Environmental Management 11:757–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leighton, J. P., and R. R. Risser. 1990. A riparian vegetation ecophysiological response model.In California riparian systems conference: Protection, management and restoration for the 1990s.Google Scholar
  20. Morhardt, J. E. 1986. Instream flow methodologies. Report to EPRI, EA-4819, by EA Engineering and Science and Technology, Lafayette, California.Google Scholar
  21. National Research Council. 1987. The Mono Basin ecosystem: Effects of changing lake level. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Nilsson, C. 1982. Effects of stream regulation on riparian vegetation. Pages 93–106in A. Lillehammer and S. J. Saltveit (eds.), Regulated rivers. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Petts, G. E. 1985. Time scales for ecological concern in regulated rivers. Pages 257–266in J. F. Craig and J. B. Kemper (eds.), Regulated streams: Advances in ecology. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Reichenbacher, F. W. 1984. Ecology and evolution of southwestern riparian communities.Desert Plants 6:15–22.Google Scholar
  25. Reily, P. W., and W. C. Johnson. 1982. The effects of altered hydrological regime on tree growth along the Missouri River in North Dakota.Canadian Journal of Botany 60:2410–2423.Google Scholar
  26. Rosgen, D. L. 1988. A stream classification system. Pages 10–19in K. M. Mutz, D. J. Cooper, M. L. Scott, and L. K. Miller (tech. coords.), Restoration, creation and management of wetland and riparianecosystems in the American West. Society of Wetland Scientists, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  27. SPSS, Inc. 1987. SPSS/PC. SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  28. Stine, S., D. Gaines, and P. Vorster. 1984. Destruction of riparian systems due to water development in the Mono Lake watershed. Pages 528–533in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.), California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation and productive management. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  29. Strahan, J. 1990. Regeneration of riparian forests of the Central Valley: The effects of regulation of streamflow regulation on seedling establishment.In California riparian systems conference: Protection, management and restoration for the 1990s.Google Scholar
  30. Stromberg, J. C., and D. T. Patten. 1988. Total protection: One management option. Pages 61–62in K. M. Mutz, D. J. Cooper, M. L. Scott, and L. K. Miller (tech. coords.), Restoration, creation and management of wetland and riparian ecosystems in the American West. Society of Wetland Scientists, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  31. Stromberg, J. C., and D. T. Patten. 1989. Instream flow requirements of riparian vegetation. Pages 123–130in G. R. Baumli (ed.), Legal, institutional, financial and environmental aspects of water issues. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Stromberg, J. C., and D. T. Patten. 1990. Early recovery of an eastern Sierra riparian system following forty years of stream diversion.In California riparian systems conference: Protection, management and restoration for the 1990s.Google Scholar
  33. Taylor, D. W. 1982. Eastern Sierra riparian vegetation: ecological effects of stream diversion. Contribution no. 6, Mono Basin Research Group, Report to Inyo National Forest.Google Scholar
  34. Ward, J. V., and J. A. Stanford. 1985. The ecology of regulated streams: Past accomplishments and direction for future research. Pages 391–409in J. F. Craig and J. B. Kemper (eds.), Regulated streams: Advances in ecology. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie C. Stromberg
    • 1
  • Duncan T. Patten
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Environmental StudiesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations