Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

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

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • 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 

  • Andersen T, Carstensen J, Hernández-García E, Duarte CM. 2009. Ecological thresholds and regime shifts: approaches to identification. Trends Ecol Evol 24:49–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • APHA. 1995. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 2nd edn. New York: American Public Health Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer S, Schimel D, Holland E. 1995. Mechanisms of shrubland expansion: land use, climate, or CO2? Clim Change 29:91–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beisner B, Haydon D, Cuddington K. 2003. Alternative stable states in ecology. Front Ecol Environ Ecol Environ 1:376–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bragg T, Hulbert L. 1976. Woody plant invasion of unburned Kansas bluestem prairie. J Range Manag 29:19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter S, Brock W. 2006. Rising variance: a leading indicator of ecological transition. Ecol Lett 9:311–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castelle A, Johnson A, Conolly C. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements—a review. J Environ Qual 23:878–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J. 1977. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. revised edn. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels R, Gilliam J. 1996. Sediment and chemical load reduction by grass and riparian filters. Soil Sci Soc Am 60:246–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds W, Oakes R. 2008. Headwater influences on downstream water quality. Environ Manag 41:367–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds W, Robinson C, Gaiser E, Hansen G. 2012. Surprises and insights from long-term aquatic data sets and experiments. Bioscience 62:709–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds WK, Oakes RM. 2004. A technique for establishing reference nutrient concentrations across watersheds impacted by humans. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 2:333–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes B, Barmuta L, Fairweather P, Faith D. 2002. Monitoring ecological impacts: concepts and practice in flowing waters. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41:540–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton L, King P. 1983. Tropical forested watersheds: hydrologic and soils response to major uses or conversions. Boulder: West View Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewlett J, Lull H, Reinhart K. 1969. In defense of experimental watersheds. Water Resour Res 5:306–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp M, Dodds W. 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns of nitrogen concentrations in pristine and agriculturally-influenced prairie streams. Biogeochemistry 53:125–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim T, Edwards D, Workman S. 1998. Vegetated filter strip removal of cattle manure constituents in runoff. Trans ASAE 41:1375–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marschner H, Dell B. 1994. Nutrient uptake in mycorrhizal symbiosis. Plant Soil 159:89–102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Murtaugh P. 2002. On rejection rates of paired intervention analysis. Ecology 83:1752–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne L, Kovacic D. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water quality restoration and stream management. Freshw Biol 29:243–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisinger AJ, Blair JM, Rice CW, Dodds WK. 2013. Woody vegetation removal stimulates riparian and benthic denitrification in tallgrass prairie. Ecosystems 16:547–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe P. 1963. Streamflow increases after removing woodland-riparian vegetation from a southern California watershed. J For 61:365–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stednick JD. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. J Hydrol 176:79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Chen B, Chow S. 2003. Sample size determination based on rank sum tests in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 13:735–751.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox BP, Owens MK, Knight RW, Lyons RK. 2005. Do woody plants affect streamflow on semiarid karst rangelands? Ecol Appl 15:127–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wine M, Hendrickx J. 2013. Biohydrologic effects of eastern redcedar encroachment into grassland, Oklahoma, USA. Biologia (Bratisl) 68:1132–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zimnierman RJ, Goodlett GC. 1967. The influence of vegetation on channel form of small streams. In: Symposium on River Morphology. pp 255–75.

Download references

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.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Allison M. Veach

    Present address: Biosciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 37831, USA

  2. Danelle M. Larson

    Present address: Division of Fish and Wildlife, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 102 23rd Street NE, Bemidji, Minnesota, 56601, USA

  3. DML performed research, analyzed datasets, and wrote paper. WKD designed and performed research, analyzed datasets, and wrote paper. AMV performed research, analyzed datasets, and wrote paper.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biology, Kansas State University, 104 Ackert Hall, Manhattan, Kansas, 66506, USA

    Danelle M. Larson, Walter K. Dodds & Allison M. Veach

Authors
  1. Danelle M. Larson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Walter K. Dodds
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allison M. Veach
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danelle M. Larson.

Additional information

The data for this manuscript are permanently archived at http://lter.konza.ksu.edu/data.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1708 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Larson, D.M., Dodds, W.K. & Veach, A.M. Removal of Woody Riparian Vegetation Substantially Altered a Stream Ecosystem in an Otherwise Undisturbed Grassland Watershed. Ecosystems 22, 64–76 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-018-0252-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-018-0252-2

Keywords