Cutting edge : A comparison of contemporary practices of riparian buffer retention around small streams in Canada, Finland, and Sweden

Show full item record



Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/337203

Citation

Kuglerová, L., Jyväsjärvi, J., Ruffing, C., Muotka, T., Jonsson, A., Andersson, E., Richardson, J. S. (2020). Cutting edge: A comparison of contemporary practices of riparian buffer retention around small streams in Canada, Finland, and Sweden. Water Resources Research, 56, e2019WR026381. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026381

Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
Kuglerova et al. 2020 Cutting edge.pdf 1.828Mb PDF View/Open
Title: Cutting edge : A comparison of contemporary practices of riparian buffer retention around small streams in Canada, Finland, and Sweden
Author: Kuglerová, Lenka; Jyväsjärvi, Jussi; Ruffing, Claire; Muotka, Timo; Jonsson, Anna; Andersson, Elisabet; Richardson, John S.
Publisher: American Geophysical Union
Date: 2020
Language: en
Belongs to series: Water Resources Research 56 9 (2020)
ISSN: 0043-1397
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026381
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/337203
Abstract: Forested riparian buffers are recommended to mitigate negative effects of forest harvesting on recipient freshwater ecosystems. Most of the current best practices of riparian buffer retention aim at larger streams. Riparian protection along small streams is thought to be lacking; however, it is not well documented. We surveyed 286 small streams flowing through recent clearcuts in three timber-producing jurisdictions—British Columbia, Canada (BC), Finland, and Sweden. The three jurisdictions differed in riparian buffer implementation. In BC, forested buffers are not required on the smallest streams, and 45% of the sites in BC had no buffer. The average (±SE) width of voluntarily retained buffers was 15.9 m (±2.1) on each side of the stream. An operation-free zone is mandatory around the smallest streams in BC, and 90% of the sites fulfilled these criteria. Finland and Sweden had buffers allocated to most of the surveyed streams, with average buffer width of 15.3 m (±1.4) in Finland and 4 m (±0.4) in Sweden. Most of the streams in the two Nordic countries had additional forestry-associated impairments such as machine tracks, or soil preparation within the riparian zone. Riparian buffer width somewhat increased with stream size and slope of the riparian area, however, not in all investigated regions. We concluded that the majority of the streams surveyed in this study are insufficiently protected. We suggest that a monitoring of forestry practices and revising present forestry guidelines is needed in order to increase the protection of our smallest water courses.
Subject: water protection
environmental assessment
small stream
forestry
management
boreal forest
1181 Ecology, evolutionary biology
Canada
Finland
Sweden
rivers
forests
water protection
effects on waterways
best practices
safety zones
forest ecosystems
ecology
silviculture
protection (activity)
Nordic countries
Subject (ysa): vesien suojelu
ympäristöarviointi
pienet virrat
metsätalous
johtaminen
boreaalinen metsä
Kanada
Suomi
Ruotsi
joet
metsät
vesiensuojelu
vesistövaikutukset
hyvät käytännöt
suojavyöhykkeet
metsäekosysteemit
ekologia
metsänhoito
suojelu
Pohjoismaat
Rights: CC BY-NC 4.0


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record