Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 211–222 | Cite as

Ecological Benefits of Riparian Reforestation in Urban Watersheds: Study Design and Preliminary Results

  • W.C. Hession
  • T.E. Johnson
  • D.F. Charles
  • D.D. Hart
  • R.J. Horwitz
  • D.A. Kreeger
  • J.E. Pizzuto
  • D.J. Velinsky
  • J.D. Newbold
  • C. Cianfrani
  • T. Clason
  • A.M. Compton
  • N. Coulter
  • L. Fuselier
  • B.D. Marshall
  • J. Reed
Article

Abstract

Riparian forest restoration has become a major focus of watershed initiatives to improve degraded stream ecosystems. In urban watersheds, however, the ability of riparian forests to improve stream ecosystems may be diminished due to widespread, upland disturbance. This paper presents the methodology and some preliminary results from the first year of fieldwork on a 3-year project designed to assess the ecological benefits of riparian reforestation in urban watersheds. The study is based on an integrated, multidisciplinary sampling of physical, chemical, and biological attributes at forested and non-forested sections of 12 streams with different amounts of urban developement within their watersheds. Restored sections of three streams are also being monitored over the 3-year duration of the project. Sampling and analysis will continue through December 2000.

Keywords

Environmental Management Biological Attribute Major Focus Riparian Forest Stream Ecosystem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Borchardt, M.A.: 1996, ‘Nutrients’, in: Algal ecology: freshwater benthic ecosystems, Stevenson, J.R., Bothwell, M.L. and Lowe, R.L. (eds.), Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 184-227.Google Scholar
  2. Ciolkosz, E.J., Waltman, W.J., Simpson, T.W. and Dobos, R.R.: 1989, ‘Distribution and genesis of soils of the northeast United States’, Geomorphology 2, 285-302.Google Scholar
  3. Davies-Colley, R.J.: 1997, ‘Stream channels are narrower in pasture than forest’, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 31, 599-608.Google Scholar
  4. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission: 1994, Land-use in the Delaware Valley 1970–1990, Analytical Report No. 2, Philadelphia, 126 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Everitt, B.L.: 1968, ‘Use of the Cottonwood in an investigation of the recent history of a flood plain’, American Journal of Science 266, 417-439.Google Scholar
  6. Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A. and Cummings, K.W.: 1991, ‘An ecosystern perspective of riparian zones’, Bioscience 41, 540-551.Google Scholar
  7. Hession, W.C., Newbold, J.D., Sweeney, B.W., Horowitz, R.J., Bott, T.L., Jackson, J.K., Kaplan, L.A. and Standley, L.J.: 1998, ‘Streamside reforestation: an analysis of stream geomorphology and ecological benefits’, Abstract: American Geophysical Union Spring Meeting, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Hilsenhoff, W.L.: 1987, ‘An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution’, Great Lakes Entomologist 20, 31-39.Google Scholar
  9. Horwitz, R.J., Bernstein, M., Hession, C., Lieb, D. and Jackson, J.: 1998, ‘Fish communities in wooded and meadow reaches of streams in the mid-Atlantic piedmont’, Abstract: American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Hartford, CT.Google Scholar
  10. Kutka, F.J. and Richards, C.: 1996, ‘Relating diatom assemblage structure to stream habitat quality’, Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15(4), 469-480.Google Scholar
  11. Lajtha, K. and Michener, R.H.: 1994, Methods in ecology: stable isotopes in ecology and environmental science, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Merritt, R.W. and Cummins, K.W. (eds): 1996, An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America: third edition, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA.Google Scholar
  13. Nanson, G.C.: 1980, ‘Point bar and floodplain formation of the meandering Beatton River, northeastern British Columbia, Canada’, Sedimentology 27, 3-29.Google Scholar
  14. Porter, S.D., Cuffney, T.F., Gurtz, M.E. and Meador, M.R.: 1993, Methods for collecting algal samples as part of the National Water Quality Assessment Program, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-409, U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
  15. Rice, S.R. and Church, M.: 1996, ‘Sampling surficial fluvial gravels: the precision of size distribution percentile estimates’, Journal of Sedimentary Research 66(3), 654-665.Google Scholar
  16. Schueler, T.R.: 1987, Controlling urban runoff: a practical manual for planning and designing urban best management practices, Metro. Washington Council of Governments, DC.Google Scholar
  17. Sweeney, B.W.: 1992, ‘Streamside forests and the physical, chemical and trophic characteristics of Piedmont streams in eastern North America’, Water Science Tech 26, 2653-2673.Google Scholar
  18. Trimble, S.W.: 1997, ‘Stream channel erosion and change resulting from riparian forests’, Geology 25(5), 467-469.Google Scholar
  19. Wolman, M.G.: 1954, ‘A method of sampling coarse river-bed material’, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 35(6), 951-956.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • W.C. Hession
    • 1
  • T.E. Johnson
    • 1
  • D.F. Charles
    • 1
  • D.D. Hart
    • 1
  • R.J. Horwitz
    • 1
  • D.A. Kreeger
    • 1
  • J.E. Pizzuto
    • 2
  • D.J. Velinsky
    • 1
  • J.D. Newbold
    • 3
  • C. Cianfrani
    • 1
  • T. Clason
    • 1
  • A.M. Compton
    • 1
  • N. Coulter
    • 1
  • L. Fuselier
    • 1
  • B.D. Marshall
    • 1
  • J. Reed
    • 2
  1. 1.Patrick Center for Environmental ResearchThe Academy of Natural SciencesPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeologyUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Stroud Water Research CenterAvondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations