Advertisement

Ecosystems

pp 1–13 | Cite as

Removal of Woody Riparian Vegetation Substantially Altered a Stream Ecosystem in an Otherwise Undisturbed Grassland Watershed

  • Danelle M. Larson
  • Walter K. Dodds
  • Allison M. Veach
Article
  • 192 Downloads

Abstract

Riparian zones are key interfaces between stream and terrestrial ecosystems. Yet, we know of no whole-watershed experiments that cut only woody vegetation in the riparian zone in an otherwise intact watershed to isolate the role of riparian zones on stream ecology. We removed all of the woody riparian vegetation (from 10- and 30-m-wide buffers in headwaters and main channels, respectively) for 5 km of stream in a single watershed while leaving the remainder of the grassland watershed un-impacted. We assessed water chemistry changes 3 years before and 3 years after riparian wood removal and in two neighboring control watersheds with a before–after, control-impact design and analysis. Riparian woody removal caused 10–100-fold increases in mean stream water nitrate concentrations and pulses of high nitrate for 3 years thereafter. Other nutrients and total suspended solids increased 2–25 times for the 3 years of post-removal. In-stream rates of gross primary production, ecosystem respiration, and net ecosystem production had large treatment effect sizes but also high variance among samples. Past studies of whole-watershed deforestations showed similar water quality responses to our riparian deforestation. Riparian zones of grassland streams are sensitive to disturbance and likely impart relatively greater influence on stream structure and function than the upslope of the watershed. Our results further emphasize the role of riparian zones in biogeochemically linking aquatic and terrestrial habitats.

Keywords

disturbance prairie restoration prairie stream riparian buffer water chemistry whole-stream metabolism woody encroachment woody removal 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the National Science Foundation (DEB-0218210, DEB-0823341) and Kansas State University for funding. We are very grateful for the numerous staff and volunteers that assisted with the back-breaking woody removal. Thanks to A. Kuhl and students who collected water samples and R. Ramundo for running analyses. This is publication no. 18-396-J from the Kansas Agricultural Station.

Supplementary material

10021_2018_252_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1708 kb)

References

  1. Ameel J, Axler R, Owen C. 1993. Persulfate digestion for determination of total nitrogen and phosphorus in low-nutrient waters. Am Environ Lab 10:1–11.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen T, Carstensen J, Hernández-García E, Duarte CM. 2009. Ecological thresholds and regime shifts: approaches to identification. Trends Ecol Evol 24:49–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA. 1995. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 2nd edn. New York: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  4. Archer S, Schimel D, Holland E. 1995. Mechanisms of shrubland expansion: land use, climate, or CO2? Clim Change 29:91–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beisner B, Haydon D, Cuddington K. 2003. Alternative stable states in ecology. Front Ecol Environ Ecol Environ 1:376–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernhardt E, Likens G, Buso D. 2003. In-stream uptake dampens effects of major forest disturbance on watershed nitrogen export. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:10304–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernhardt E, Likens G, Hall R, Buso D. 2005. Can’t see the forest for the stream? In-stream processing and terrestrial nitrogen exports. Bioscience 55:219–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bosch J, Hewlett J. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J Hydrol 55:3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bragg T, Hulbert L. 1976. Woody plant invasion of unburned Kansas bluestem prairie. J Range Manag 29:19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Briggs JM, Blair JM, Mccarron J. 2005. An ecosystem in transition: cause and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland. Bioscience 55:561–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter S, Brock W. 2006. Rising variance: a leading indicator of ecological transition. Ecol Lett 9:311–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Castelle A, Johnson A, Conolly C. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements—a review. J Environ Qual 23:878–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen J. 1977. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. revised edn. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dalgren R, Driscoll C. 1991. The effects of whole-tree clear-cutting on soil processes at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, USA. Plant Soil 158:239–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daniels R, Gilliam J. 1996. Sediment and chemical load reduction by grass and riparian filters. Soil Sci Soc Am 60:246–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dodds W, Oakes R. 2008. Headwater influences on downstream water quality. Environ Manag 41:367–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dodds W, Robinson C, Gaiser E, Hansen G. 2012. Surprises and insights from long-term aquatic data sets and experiments. Bioscience 62:709–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dodds WK, Oakes RM. 2004. A technique for establishing reference nutrient concentrations across watersheds impacted by humans. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 2:333–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dodds WK, Veach AM, Ruffing CM, Larson DM, Fischer JL, Costigan KH. 2013. Abiotic controls and temporal variability of river metabolism: multiyear analyses of Mississippi and Chattahoochee River data. Freshw Sci 32:1073–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Downes B, Barmuta L, Fairweather P, Faith D. 2002. Monitoring ecological impacts: concepts and practice in flowing waters. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41:540–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton L, King P. 1983. Tropical forested watersheds: hydrologic and soils response to major uses or conversions. Boulder: West View Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hewlett J, Lull H, Reinhart K. 1969. In defense of experimental watersheds. Water Resour Res 5:306–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huxman TE, Wilcox BP, Breshears DD, Scott RL, Snyder A, Small EE, Hultine K, Pockman WT, Jackson RB. 2010. Ecohydrological implications of woody plant encroachment. Ecology 86:308–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kemp M, Dodds W. 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns of nitrogen concentrations in pristine and agriculturally-influenced prairie streams. Biogeochemistry 53:125–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knight C, Briggs J, Nellis M. 1994. Expansion of gallery forest on Konza Prairie research natural area, Kansas, USA. Landsc Ecol 9:117–25.Google Scholar
  27. Larson DM, Dodds WK, Jackson KE, Whiles MR, Winders KR. 2013a. Ecosystem characteristics of remnant, headwater tallgrass prairie streams. J Environ Qual 42:239–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Larson DM, Grudzinski BP, Dodds WK, Daniels MD, Skibbe A, Joern A. 2013b. Blazing and grazing: influences of fire and bison on tallgrass prairie stream water quality. Freshw Sci 32:779–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee P, Smyth C, Boutin S. 2004. Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. J Environ Manage 70:165–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Likens G, Bormann F, Johnson N, Fisher D, Pierce R. 1970. Effects of forest cutting and herbicide treatment on nutrient budgets in the Hubbard Brook watershed ecosystem. Ecol Monogr 40:23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lim T, Edwards D, Workman S. 1998. Vegetated filter strip removal of cattle manure constituents in runoff. Trans ASAE 41:1375–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lyons J, Thimble SW, Paine LK. 2000. Grass versus trees: managing riparian areas to benefit streams of Central North America. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36:919–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marschner H, Dell B. 1994. Nutrient uptake in mycorrhizal symbiosis. Plant Soil 159:89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murtaugh P. 2002. On rejection rates of paired intervention analysis. Ecology 83:1752–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Neill C, Piccolo MC, Cerri CC, Steudler PA, Melillo JM. 2006. Soil solution nitrogen losses during clearing of lowland Amazon forest for pasture. Plant Soil 281:233–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Osborne L, Kovacic D. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water quality restoration and stream management. Freshw Biol 29:243–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ponette-Gonzalez AG, Martin-Spiotta E, Brauman KA, Farley KA, Weathers KC, Young KR. 2014. Hydrologic connectivity in the high-elevation tropics: heterogeneous responses to land change. Bioscience 64:92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pusey BJ, Arthington AH. 2003. Importance of the riparian zone to the conservation and management of freshwater fish: a review. Mar Freshw Res 54:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reisinger AJ, Blair JM, Rice CW, Dodds WK. 2013. Woody vegetation removal stimulates riparian and benthic denitrification in tallgrass prairie. Ecosystems 16:547–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rhoades CC, McCutchan JH, Cooper LA, Clow D, Detmer TM, Briggs JS, Stednick JD, Veblen TT, Ertz RM, Likens GE, Lewis WM. 2013. Biogeochemistry of beetle-killed forests: explaining a weak nitrate response. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:1756–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Riley AJ, Dodds WK. 2012. The expansion of woody riparian vegetation, and subsequent stream restoration, influences the metabolism of prairie streams. Freshw Biol 57:1138–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rowe P. 1963. Streamflow increases after removing woodland-riparian vegetation from a southern California watershed. J For 61:365–70.Google Scholar
  43. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Shafroth P, Cleverly J, Dudley T, Taylor J. 2005. Control of Tamarix in the western United States: implications for water salvage, wildlife use, and riparian restoration. Environ Manage 35:231–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Stednick JD. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. J Hydrol 176:79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sweeney BW, Bott TL, Jackson JK, Kaplan LA, Newbold JD, Standley LJ, Hession WC, Horwitz RJ. 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:14132–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Sweeney BW, Newbold JD. 2014. Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: a literature review. J Am Water Resour Assoc 50:560–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vandermyde J, Whiles M. 2015. Effects of experimental forest removal on macroinvertebrate production and functional structure in tallgrass prairie streams. Freshw Sci 34:519–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Veach A, Dodds W, Skibbe A. 2014. Fire and grazing influences on rates of riparian woody plant expansion along grassland streams. PLoS ONE 9:e106922.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Veach A, Dodds W, Skibbe A. 2015. Correction: fire and grazing influences on rates of riparian woody plant expansion along grassland streams. PLoS ONE 10:e0129409.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang H, Chen B, Chow S. 2003. Sample size determination based on rank sum tests in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 13:735–751.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Webster J, Tank J, Wallace J, Meyer J, Eggert S, Ehrman T, Ward B, Bennett B, Wagner P, McTammany M. 2000. Effects of litter exclusion and wood removal on phosphorus and nitrogen retention in a forest stream. Verhandlungen des Int Verein Limnol 27:1337–40.Google Scholar
  53. Weihs B, Bergstrom R, Ruffing C, McLauchlan K. 2016. Woody encroachment of a riparian corridor in a tallgrass prairie: dendrochronological evidence from Kansas. Pap Appl Geogr 2:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilcox BP, Owens MK, Knight RW, Lyons RK. 2005. Do woody plants affect streamflow on semiarid karst rangelands? Ecol Appl 15:127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wine M, Hendrickx J. 2013. Biohydrologic effects of eastern redcedar encroachment into grassland, Oklahoma, USA. Biologia (Bratisl) 68:1132–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yeakley JA, Coleman DC, Haines BL, Kloeppel BD, Meyer JL, Swank WT, Argo BW, Deal JM, Taylor SF. 2003. Hillslope nutrient dynamics following upland riparian vegetation disturbance. Ecosystems 6:154–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zimnierman RJ, Goodlett GC. 1967. The influence of vegetation on channel form of small streams. In: Symposium on River Morphology. pp 255–75.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danelle M. Larson
    • 1
    • 3
  • Walter K. Dodds
    • 1
  • Allison M. Veach
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of BiologyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Biosciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  3. 3.Division of Fish and WildlifeMinnesota Department of Natural ResourcesBemidjiUSA

Personalised recommendations