Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Forest Harvesting on Water and Sediment Yields: a Review Toward Better Mitigation and Rehabilitation Strategies

  • Forest Engineering (M WATT, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Forestry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purposeof Review

Paired catchment studies have documented the extent to which forest harvesting impairs forested watersheds. Adverse effects on stream water quality and aquatic ecosystems following ground-based harvesting operations that open forest canopies and compact soils have spurred the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that are intended to limit runoff volumes (i.e., water yield increase, WYI) and total sediment yields (TSY) into streams. The purpose of this review is to highlight recent insights from water and sediment yield studies, ranging in scale from hillslope plots to catchments, that reveal the sources and mechanisms of hydrological impairment and recovery, and point to specific strategies for developing more targeted BMPs that help prevent, mitigate, and rehabilitate forested watersheds.

Recent Findings

In the context of forested watersheds, contemporary BMPs have successfully lowered runoff (WYI) and total sediment yields (TSY) relative to previously reported values. Recent research strongly indicates that the delivery of WYIs and TSYs to streams following forest harvesting is still high. Because many factors such as the intensity and extent of management activities and headwater catchment activities interact, improving the effectiveness of generic, inflexible BMPs will be challenging. Recent findings indicate that a site-specific, highly tailored application of a combination of BMP measures before, during, and after the harvesting operation is needed if a further reduction of runoff and sediment delivery to streams is to be achieved.

Summary

Analyses of 155 paired catchment studies and 39 hillslope plots revealed that forest harvesting resulted in average increases of WYI by 180 mm (+ 46%) and TSY by 477 t km−2 year−1 (+ 700%). Smaller hillslope plots established on forest roads, skid trails, and harvested areas underestimate these values (WYI of 8.2 mm, TSY was 42.2 t km−2 year−1). In extreme circumstances such as clearcutting, enhanced WYI and TSY may persist up to several decades before returning to pre-harvest levels. WY increased with increasing precipitation and with, and proportional to, the catchment area harvested, regardless of climatic zone or tree species composition; TSY increased with increasing rainfall and catchment area. Both the impact of harvesting and the time required for natural recovery of hydrologic responses depended on the response but can be shortened when applying contemporary forestry BMPs.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Bosch JM, Hewlett JD. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J Hydrol. 1982;55(1/4):3–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(82)90117-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Moore RD, Wondzell SM. Physical hydrology and the effects of forest harvesting in the Pacific Northwest: a review. J Am Water Resour As. 2005;41(4):763–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03770.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goeking SA, Tarboton DG. Forests and water yield: a synthesis of disturbance effects on streamflow and snowpack in western coniferous forests. J Forest 2020;118:172–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvz069. This paper provides a comprehensive review of hydrologic responses to standing-replacing (severe wildfire, harvest) or non-stand-replacing (drought, insects, low-severity wildfire) disturbances. This review concluded that removal of forest coverage leads to increases in WY due to decreases in evapotranspiration and is able to explain most streamflow responses to forest disturbance. However, some conditions such as watersheds with rapid post-disturbance growth and areas that received greater net radiation may result in some contradictive responses.

  4. Andréassian V. Waters and forests: from historical controversy to scientific debate. J Hydrol. 2004;291:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.12.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hawthorne SND, Lane PNJ, Bren LJ, Sims NC. The long term effects of thinning treatments on vegetation structure and water yield. For Ecol Manage. 2013;310:983–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.09.046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stednick JD. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. J Hydrol. 1996;176(1/4):79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(95)02780-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown AE, Zhang L, McMahon TA, Western AW, Vertessy RA. A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation. J Hydrol. 2005;310(1):28–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.12.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jourgholami M, Labelle ER, Feghhi J. Efficacy of leaf litter mulch to mitigate runoff and sediment yield following mechanized operations in the Hyrcanian mixed forests. J Soils Sediments. 2019;19:2076–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2194-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jourgholami M, Ghassemi T, Labelle ER. Soil physio-chemical and biological indicators to evaluate the restoration of compacted soil following reforestation. Ecol Indic. 2019;101:102–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.009.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Schweier J, Blagojević B, Venanzi R, Latterini F, Picchio R. Sustainability assessment of alternative strip clear cutting operations for wood chip production in renaturalization management of pine stands. Energies. 2019;12(17):3306. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12173306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Picchio R, Mercurio R, Venanzi R, Gratani L, Giallonardo T, Monaco AL, Frattaroli AR. Strip clear-cutting application and logging typologies for renaturalization of pine afforestation-A case study. Forests. 2018;9(6):366. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9060366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Picchio R, Neri F, Petrini E, Verani S, Marchi E, Certini G. Machinery-induced soil compaction in thinning two pine stands in central Italy. For Ecol Manag. 2012;285:38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.08.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Picchio R, Mederski PS, Tavankar F. How and how much, do harvesting activities affect forest soil, regeneration and stands? Curr For Rep. 2020;6:115–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-020-00113-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jourgholami M, Labelle ER. Effects of plot length and soil texture on runoff and sediment yield occurring on machine-trafficked soils in a mixed deciduous forest. Ann For Sci. 2020;77:19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-020-00938-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lopez-Vicente M, Sun X, Onda Y, Kato H, Gomi T, Hiraoka M. Effect of tree thinning and skidding trails on hydrological connectivity in two Japanese forest catchments. Geomorphology. 2017;292:104–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.05.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bathurst JC, Iroume A. Quantitative generalizations for catchment sediment yield following forest logging, Water Resour Res 2014;50:8383–8402. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015711. This paper provides a comprehensive review of quantitative changes in catchment sediment yields after harvesting temperate forests based on data of paired catchment studies (51 catchments including 16 controls). The authors concluded that the maximum post-logging sediment yield occurred within the first 2 years after harvest. Furthermore, residual burning, road traffic and high-precipitation events were the main drivers that contributed to the greatest levels of total sediment yields. Another general finding is that no apparent conclusion can be derived for the time needed to return to pre-logging conditions.

  17. García-Ruiz JM, Beguería S, Lana-Renault N, Nadal-Romero E, Cerdà A. Ongoing and emerging questions in water erosion studies. Land Degrad Dev. 2017;28:5–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Segura C, Bladon KD, Hatten JA, Jones JA, Cody Hale V, Ice GG. Long-term effects of forest harvesting on summer low flow deficits in the Coast Range of Oregon. J Hydrol. 2020;585: 124749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schelker J, Kuglerová L, Eklöf K, Bishop K, Laudon H. Hydrological effects of clear-cutting in a boreal forest - snowpack dynamics, snowmelt and streamflow responses. J Hydrol. 2013;484:105–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.01.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Du E, Link TE, Wei L, Marshall JD. Evaluating hydrologic effects of spatial and temporal patterns of forest canopy change using numerical modelling. Hydrol Process. 2016;30:217–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nam S, Hiraoka M, Gomi T, Dung BX, Onda Y, Kato H. Suspended-sediment responses after strip thinning in headwater catchments. Landsc Ecol Engin. 2016;12(2):197–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-015-0284-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Safari A, Kavian A, Parsakhoo A, Saleh I, Jordán A. Impact of different parts of skid trails on runoff and soil erosion in the Hyrcanian forest (northern Iran). Geoderma. 2016;263:161–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.09.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sosa-Pérez G, MacDonald LH. Effects of closed roads, traffic, and road decommissioning on infiltration and sediment production: a comparative study using rainfall simulations. CATENA. 2017;159:93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sosa-Pérez G, MacDonald LH. Reductions in road sediment production and road-stream connectivity from two decommissioning treatments. For Ecol Manag. 2017;398:116–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.04.031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McEachran ZP, Karwan DL, Slesak RA. Direct and indirect effects of forest harvesting on sediment yield in forested watersheds of the United States. J Am Water Resour As 2020:1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12895. This paper provides a comprehensive review of direct and indirect effects of forest harvesting on sediment yield. By defining potential direct and indirect effects of forest harvesting, the paper attempts to distinguish which processes are key drivers of increased sediment yield after forest harvesting.

  26. Puntenney-Desmond KC, Bladon KD, Silins U. Runoff and sediment production from harvested hillslopes and the riparian area during high intensity rainfall events. J Hydrol. 2020;582: 124452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rachels AA, Bladon KD, Bywater-Reyes S, Hatten JA. Quantifying effects of forest harvesting on sources of suspended sediment to an Oregon Coast Range headwater stream. For Ecol Manage 2020;466:118123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118123. The paper provides a detailed investigation of the contribution of different non-point sources (i.e., hillslope, roads, skid trail) to the amounts of sediment delivery to streams in order to prescribe BMPs for mitigating suspended sediments. One of the key conclusions is that streambank sediment shows the highest level in the harvested catchment followed by hillslope area. Furthermore, the proportions of in-stream sediment in the harvested and control catchments were similar.

  28. Srivastava A, Brooks ES, Dobre M, Elliot WJ, Link TE. Modeling forest management effects on water and sediment yield from nested, paired watersheds in the interior Pacific Northwest. USA using WEPP Sci Total Environ. 2020;701: 134877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134877.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Buttle JM, Beall FD, Webster KL, Hazlett PW, Creed IF, Semkin RG, et al. Hydrologic response to and recovery from differing silvicultural systems in a deciduous forest landscape with seasonal snow cover. J Hydrol. 2018;557:805–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yu XJ, Alila Y. Nonstationary frequency pairing reveals a highly sensitive peak flow regime to harvesting across a wide range of return periods. For Ecol Manag. 2019;444:187–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.04.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Safeeq M, Grant GE, Lewis SL, Hayes SK. Disentangling effects of forest harvest on long-term hydrologic and sediment dynamics, western Cascades, Oregon. J Hydrol 2020;580:124259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124259. The paper provides a novel approach to isolate the streamflow effect from the forest harvesting effect on sediment dynamics and supplies using long-term data from two paired catchments. One key finding was that streamflow increases can result in an increase in sediment yield, which is dwarfed by increase in sediment supply caused by timber harvest.

  32. Bywater-Reyes S, Segura C, Bladon KD. Geology and geomorphology control suspended sediment yield and modulate increases following timber harvest in temperate headwater streams. J Hydrol. 2017;548:754–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cristan R, Aust WM, Bolding MC, Barrett SM, Munsell JF, Schilling E. Effectiveness of forestry best management practices in the United States: literature review. For Ecol Manage. 2016;360:133–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.10.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ramantswana M, Guerra SPS, Ersson BT. Advances in the mechanization of regenerating plantation forests: a review. Curr For Rep. 2020;6(2):143–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-020-00114-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McEachran ZP, Slesak RA, Karwan DL. From skid trails to landscapes: vegetation is the dominant factor influencing erosion after forest harvest in a low relief glaciated landscape. For Ecol Manag. 2018;430:299–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.08.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. EtehadiAbari M, Majnounian B, Malekian A, Jourgholami M. Effects of forest harvesting on runoff and sediment characteristics in the Hyrcanian forests, northern Iran. Eur J Forest Res. 2017;136:375–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-017-1038-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rubel F, Brugger K, Haslinger K, Auer I. The climate of the European Alps: shift of very high resolution Köppen-Geiger climate zones 1800–2100. Meteorol Z. 2017;26:115–25. https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/2016/0816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dung BX, Gomi T, Miyata S, Sidle RC, Kosugi K, Onda Y. Runoff responses to forest thinning at plot and catchment scales in a headwater catchment draining Japanese cypress forest. J Hydrol. 2012;444–445:51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hancock GR, Hugo J, Webb AA, Turner L. Sediment transport in steep forested catchments –an assessment of scale and disturbance. J Hydrol 2017;547:613–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.02.022. This paper provides valuable data on the contribution of suspended and bedload sediments to total sediment yield resulting from forest harvesting operations. The key finding is that the bedload sediment contributes 7–20% of the total sediment load and the ratio of suspended to bedload sediment was catchment specific.

  40. Almeida AC, Smethurst PJ, Siggins A, Cavalcante RBL, Borges N. Quantifying the effects of Eucalyptus plantations and management on water resources at plot and catchment scales. Hydrol Process. 2016;30:4687–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Suryatmojo H, Fujimoto M, Kosugi K, Mizuyama T. Runoff and soil erosion characteristics in different periods of an intensive forest management system in a tropical Indonesian rainforest. Int J Sustain Dev Plan. 2014;9:830–46. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V9-N6-830-846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Buttle JM, Webster KL, Hazlett PW, Jeffries DS. Quickflow response to forest harvesting and recovery in a northern hardwood forest landscape. Hydrol Process. 2019;33:47–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ide J, Finér L, Laurén A, Piirainen S, Launiainen S. Effects of clear-cutting on annual and seasonal runoff from a boreal forest catchment in eastern Finland. For Ecol Manage. 2013;304:482–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.05.051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dung BX, Hiraoka M, Gomi T, Onda Y, Kato H. Peak flow responses to strip thinning in a nested, forested headwater catchment. Hydrol Process. 2015;29:5098–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gökbulak F, Þengönül K, Serengil Y, Özhan S, Yurtseven Ý, Uygur B, Özçelik MS. Effect of forest thinning on water yield in a sub-humid Mediterranean oak-beech mixed forested watershed. Water Resour Manag. 2016;30:5039–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1467-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yurtseven I, Serengil Y, Gökbulak F,¸Sengönül K, Ozhan S, Kılıç U. et al. Results of a paired catchment analysis of forest thinning in Turkey in relation to forest management options. Sci Total Environ 2018l;618:785–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.190.

  47. Cassiano CC, Salemi LF, Garcia LG, Ferraz SFB. 2020. Harvesting strategies to reduce suspended sediments in streams in fast-growing forest plantations. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 2021;21(1):96–105 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2020.06.008.

  48. Kabeya N, Chappell NA, Tych W, Shimizu A, Asano S. Quantification of the effect of forest harvesting versus climate on streamflow cycles and trends in an evergreen broadleaf catchment. Hydrol Sci J. 2016;61(9):1716–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2015.1027707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bathurst JC, Fahey B, Iroumé A, Jones J. Forests and floods: using field evidence to reconcile analysis methods. Hydrol Process. 2020;34:3295–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Jourgholami M, Fathi K, Labelle ER. Effects of foliage and traffic intensity on runoff and sediment in skid trails after trafficking in a deciduous forest. Eur J Forest Res. 2018;137:223–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-018-1102-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Inkiläinen ENM, McHale MR, Blank GB, James AL, Nikinmaa E. The role of the residential urban forest in regulating throughfall: a case study in Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Lanscape Urban Plan. 2013;119:91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sahin V, Hall MJ. The effects of afforestation and deforestation on water yields. J Hydrol. 1996;178(1/4):293–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(95)02825-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Cotel S, Viville D, Benarioumlil S, Ackerer P, Pierret MC. Impact of the hydrological regime and forestry operations on the fluxes of suspended sediment and bedload of a small middle-mountain catchment. Sci Total Environ. 2020;743: 140228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140228.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Yang H, Choi HT, Lim H. Effects of forest thinning on the long-term runoff changes of coniferous forest plantation. Water. 2019;11(11):2301. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hatten JA, Segura C, Bladon KD, Hale VC, Ice GG, Stednick JD. Effects of contemporary forest harvesting on suspended sediment in the Oregon Coast Range: Alsea Watershed Study Revisited. For Ecol Manage 2018;408:238–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.10.049. The authors compare effects of historical practices with improved contemporary harvesting practices on suspended sediment concentrations and yields. The key finding is that the application of BMPs that include leaving a riparian buffer next to a clearcut significantly can effectively reduce suspended sediment concentrations and yields.

  56. Winkler R, Spittlehouse D, Boon S. Streamflow response to clear-cut logging on British Columbia’s Okanagan Plateau. Eco-Hydrol. 2017;10:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Boggs J, Sun G, McNulty S. Effects of timber harvest on water quantity and quality in small watersheds in the Piedmont of North Carolina. J Forest. 2015;114:27–40. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kara F, Kalin L, Loewenstein EF. Short-term hydrological responses to silvicultural treatments within a stream buffer zone: a case study. Turk J Agric For. 2015;39:764–74. https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-1408-115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. McDonnell JJ, Evaristo J, Bladon KD, Buttle JM, Creed IF, Dymond SF, et al. Water sustainability and watershed storage. Nat Sustainability. 2018;1(8):378–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0099-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Masumian A, Naghdi R, Zenner EK. Effectiveness of water diversion and erosion control structures on skid trails following timber harvesting. Ecol Eng. 2017;105:370–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.05.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Jourgholami M, Ahmadi M, Tavankar F, Picchio R. Effectiveness of three post-harvest rehabilitation treatments for runoff and sediment reduction on skid trails in the Hyrcanian forests. Croat J For Eng 2020:41. https://doi.org/10.5552/crojfe.2020.732.

  62. Arismendi I, Groom JD, Reiter M, Johnson SL, Dent L, Meleason M, et al. Suspended sediment and turbidity after road construction/improvement and forest harvest in streams of the Trask River Watershed Study. Oregon Water Resour Res. 2017;53:6763–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Zemke JJ. Runoff and soil erosion assessment on forest roads using a small scale rainfall simulator. Hydrology. 2016;3(3):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology3030025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Kinnell PIA. A review of the design and operation of runoff and soil loss plots. CATENA. 2016;145:257–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.06.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. IPCC. 2014. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 151.

  66. Corona P, Ascoli D, Barbati A, Bovio G, Colangelo G, Elia M, et al. Integrated forest management to prevent wildfires under Mediterranean environments. Ann Sil Res 2015;39(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.12899/asr-946.

  67. Olsen WH, Wagenbrenner JW, Robichaud PR. Factors affecting connectivity and sediment yields following wildfire and post-fire salvage logging in California’s Sierra Nevada. Hydrol Process 2020:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13984.

  68. Fernandez C, Vega JA. Effects of mulching and post-fire salvage logging on soil erosion and vegetative regrowth in NW Spain. For Ecol Manag. 2016;375:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.05.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Malvar MC, Silva FC, Prats SA, Vieira DCS, Coelho COA, Keizer JJ. Short-term effects of post-fire salvage logging on runoff and soil erosion. For Ecol Manag. 2017;400:555–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.06.031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Prats SA, Malvar MC, Coelho COA, Wagenbrenner JW. Hydrologic and erosion responses to compaction and added surface cover in post-fire logged areas: Isolating splash, interrill and rill erosion. J Hydrol. 2019;575:408–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Robichaud PR, Bone ED, Lewis SA, Brooks ES, Brown RE. Effectiveness of post-fire salvage logging stream buffer management for hillslope erosion in the U.S. inland northwest mountains. Hydrol Process 2020;35(1):e13943. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13943.

  72. Wagenbrenner JW, Robichaud PR, Brown RE. Rill erosion in burned and salvage logged western montane forests: effects of logging equipment type, traffic level, and slash treatment. J Hydrol. 2016;541:889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.07.049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Cole RP, Bladon KD, Wagenbrenner JW, Coe DBR. Hillslope sediment production after wildfire and post-fire forest management in northern California. Hydrol Process 2020:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13932.

  74. Robichaud PR, Lewis SA, Brown RE, Bone ED, Brooks ES. Evaluating post-wildfire logging-slash cover treatment to reduce hillslope erosion after salvage logging using ground measurements and remote sensing. Hydrol Process 2020:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13882.

  75. Zenner EK, Fauskee JT, Berger AL, Puettmann KJ. Impacts of skidding traffic intensity on soil disturbance, soil recovery, and aspen regeneration in north central Minnesota. North J Appl For. 2007;24:177–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/njaf/24.3.177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Jourgholami M, Majnounian B, Etehadi AM. Effects of tree-length timber skidding on soil compaction in the skid trail in Hyrcanian forests. For Syst. 2014;23:288–93. https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2014232-03766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Marchi E, Chung W, Visser R, Abbas D, Nordfjell T, Mederski PS, et al. Sustainable Forest Operations (SFO): a new paradigm in a changing world and climate. Sci Total Environ. 2018;634:1385–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.084.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Jourgholami M, Khajavi S, Labelle ER. Mulching and water diversion structures on skid trails: Response of soil physical properties six years after harvesting. Ecol Eng. 2018;123:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.08.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Bravo-Linares C, Schuller P, Castillo A, Ovando-Fuentealba L, Munoz-Arcos E, Alarcon O, et al. First use of a compound-specific stable isotope (CSSI) technique to trace sediment transport in upland forest catchments of Chile. Sci Total Environ. 2018;618:1114–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.163.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Jourgholami M, Etehadi AM. Effectiveness of sawdust and straw mulching on postharvest runoff and soil erosion of a skid trail in a mixed forest. Ecol Eng. 2017;109:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.09.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. McCarter CPR, Sebestyen SD, Eggert SL, Kolka RK, Mitchell CPJ. Changes in hillslope hydrology in a perched, shallow soil system due to clearcutting and residual biomass removal. Hydrol Process. 2020;34:5354–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Jourgholami M, Labelle ER, Feghhi J. Response of runoff and sediment on skid trails of varying gradient and traffic intensity over a two-year period. Forests. 2017;8(12):472. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8120472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Haas J, Schack-Kirchner H, Lang F. Modeling soil erosion after mechanized logging operations on steep terrain in the Northern Black Forest. Germany Eur J Forest Res. 2020;139:549–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01269-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Jourgholami M, Khajavi S, Labelle ER. Recovery of forest soil chemical properties following soil rehabilitation treatments: an assessment six years after machine impact. Croat J For Eng. 2020;41:163–75. https://doi.org/10.5552/crojfe.2020.620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Vinson JA, Barrett SM, Aust WM, Bolding MC. Evaluation of bladed skid trail closure methods in the ridge and valley region. For Sci. 2017;63:432–40. https://doi.org/10.5849/FS.2016-030R1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the constructive and insightful comments provided by the Editor-in-Chief and two anonymous reviewers that remarkably helped us to improve our manuscript. Also, the authors would like to thank Mr. Hamid Soofi Mariv for his help to prepare the map of the catchment location.

Funding

EKZ’s time was partially supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Appropriations (No. PEN04639, Accession No. 1015105, E.Z.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences of the University of Tuscia, Via San Camillo de Lellis, 01100, Viterbo, Italy

    Rodolfo Picchio

  2. Department of Forestry and Forest Economics, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 31585-4314, Karaj, Alborz, Iran

    Meghdad Jourgholami

  3. Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Forest Resources Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Eric K. Zenner

Authors
  1. Rodolfo Picchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meghdad Jourgholami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric K. Zenner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meghdad Jourgholami.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Rodolfo Picchio, Meghdad Jourgholami, Eric K. Zenner declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Forest Engineering

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Picchio, R., Jourgholami, M. & Zenner, E.K. Effects of Forest Harvesting on Water and Sediment Yields: a Review Toward Better Mitigation and Rehabilitation Strategies. Curr Forestry Rep 7, 214–229 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-021-00146-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-021-00146-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation