Next Article in Journal
Changes in Soil Quality and Hydrological Connectivity Caused by the Abandonment of Terraces in a Mediterranean Burned Catchment
Next Article in Special Issue
Characterizing Rigging Crew Proximity to Hazards on Cable Logging Operations Using GNSS-RF: Effect of GNSS Positioning Error on Worker Safety Status
Previous Article in Journal
Allometric Models to Predict Aboveground Woody Biomass of Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) in Short Rotation Coppice in Previous Mining and Agricultural Areas in Germany
Previous Article in Special Issue
Can Biomass Quality Be Preserved through Tarping Comminuted Roadside Biomass Piles?
Article Menu
Issue 9 (September) cover image

Export Article

Forests 2017, 8(9), 331; doi:10.3390/f8090331

Article
Forestry Best Management Practices Relationships with Aquatic and Riparian Fauna: A Review
1
Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Tech, 228 Cheatham Hall, 310 West Campus Dr., Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
2
U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
3
USDA Forest Service, Southern Research, Station Forest Watershed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
4
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., 104 East Bruce St., Aubrey, TX 76227, USA
5
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., PO Box 340317, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 17 August 2017 / Accepted: 1 September 2017 / Published: 7 September 2017

Abstract

:
Forestry best management practices (BMPs) were developed to minimize water pollution from forestry operations by primarily addressing sediment and sediment transport, which is the leading source of pollution from silviculture. Implementation of water quality BMPs may also benefit riparian and aquatic wildlife, although wildlife benefits were not driving forces for BMP development. Therefore, we reviewed literature regarding potential contributions of sediment-reducing BMPs to conservation of riparian and aquatic wildlife, while realizing that BMPs also minimize thermal, nutrient, and chemical pollution. We reached five important conclusions: (1) a significant body of research confirms that forestry BMPs contribute to the protection of water quality and riparian forest structure; (2) data-specific relationships between forestry BMPs and reviewed species are limited; (3) forestry BMPs for forest road construction and maintenance, skid trails, stream crossings, and streamside management zones (SMZs) are important particularly for protection of water quality and aquatic species; (4) stream crossings should be carefully selected and installed to minimize sediment inputs and stream channel alterations; and (5) SMZs promote retention of older-age riparian habitat with benefits extending from water bodies to surrounding uplands. Overall, BMPs developed for protection of water quality should benefit a variety of riparian and aquatic species that are sensitive to changes in water quality or forest structure.
Keywords:
best management practices; forest operations; riparian species; silviculture; wildlife

1. Introduction

Forestry best management practices (BMPs) were developed and implemented to protect physical and chemical aspects of water quality relative to the Clean Water Act of 1972 [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Prior to development and implementation of forestry BMPs, adverse impacts from forest operations to aquatic environments included increases in water temperature, deposition of fine sediment and increases in concentrations of nutrients and other chemicals, altered loading of coarse and fine organic matter in streams as well as disruption in stream channel form [7,8]. BMP guidelines were developed in the 1970s and refined over time as new information and practices were developed [1,5]. Today forestry BMPs are widely adopted, implemented, and studied [9]. Furthermore, reviews of forestry BMP research conclude that properly applied forestry BMPs protect water quality and critical habitat [1,2,10,11]. Specifically, forestry BMPs address potential impacts of sedimentation, temperature change, and changes in chemical regimes by significantly reducing or eliminating sediment, nutrient, and other pollution inputs [1,2,3,6,8,10,11,12]. Following widespread BMP implementation in the United States, water quality impacts from forestry operations have been reduced by over 90% from operations in the pre-BMP era [2].
The water quality protections that forestry BMPs afford are believed to have positive effects on riparian and aquatic species, yet information about the specific effects that forestry BMPs have on wildlife, biodiversity, and other ecological functions have not been fully examined or synthesized. Over the past two decades, forest management research projects have incorporated surveys of species abundance, biological diversity, and measures of nutrient cycling/food chain interactions into monitoring protocols to more fully assess BMP effectiveness [13,14,15]. Overall, such projects have concluded that forestry BMPs conserve portions of affected forested ecosystems and provide protection for a variety of species. For example, Lockaby et al. [13] examined forest harvesting in Southern bottomland hardwoods and concluded that there would be few lasting effects on ecosystem processes “as long as best management practices are followed.” The overall goal of our review is to document how forestry BMP implementation affects aquatic and riparian species.

2. Materials and Methods

Because the numbers of species that might be affected by sediment reductions due to BMP implementation are too numerous to summarize concisely, we focused our literature search on 322 faunal species included in a recent multi-species status assessment conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [16]. This list included all categories of vertebrate (fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) in the region as well as a broad cross-section of invertebrates (Table 1) that are potentially affected by sediment. These riparian and aquatic species were being considered for potential classification as threatened/endangered status in the southeastern United States. Throughout this manuscript, we elected to use the phrase “riparian and aquatic species,” as some of these species migrate between the riparian and aquatic environments during different periods of the life cycle, with different activities, or as the riparian zones experience overbank flooding. Our initial search revealed that specific information relating the impact of BMPs on targeted individual species was limited due to the lack of natural history information and species-specific knowledge of habitat associations. Thus, we developed this review of BMP effect literature on information from species in the same genus or with similar ecologies, rather than restricting our search to individual species. In effect, this expanded the scope of the search to an evaluation of potential sediment effects on aquatic and riparian species in the region, not just those originally considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We examined research data regarding assessments of BMP effectiveness for protecting riparian and aquatic fauna during forest operations and supplemented this information with information regarding habitat relations, life histories, and home ranges. We used Google Scholar to access information and used combinations of keywords including species names, species groupings, species life histories, forestry best management practices, riparian forests, forest operations, water quality, and silviculture. We generally restricted the geographical setting to the southeastern U.S. However, we often expanded the locations of the search to fill gaps. Articles produced after the introduction of BMPs were targeted. The search provided over 300 peer-reviewed journal articles, theses/dissertations, and government publications, although we are reporting on only the most relevant and non-duplicative for the sake of brevity.
Peer-reviewed articles were given precedence, but other sources of information (theses, dissertations, government/technical publications) were used to help fill information gaps. We focused on studies performed in the southeastern United States and published after the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. We summarized information on the effects of BMPs by geographic location on faunal species (or genera) with the specific intent of developing overarching, comprehensive conclusions.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. BMP Implementation and Benefits to Riparian Ecosystems

The overwhelming consensus of the literature was that forestry BMP acceptance and implementation levels have increased dramatically since the 1970’s, reaching over 90% in 2015, and that forestry BMPs are effective for reduction of nonpoint source pollution. Numerous reviews from regions across the U.S. have been conducted on forestry BMP effectiveness, and all have concluded that forestry BMPs are effective, e.g., [1,2,3,4,6,10,11,17]. Recently, Cristan et al. [9] conducted a survey of forestry BMP implementation across the United States and found that overall BMP implementation levels in the Southeast were slightly over 92%, which was an increase of approximately 8% since a previous study by the Southern Group of State Foresters in 2012. The combination of BMP effectiveness with widespread BMP acceptance and implementation levels provides compelling evidence that BMP programs protect water quality.

3.2. Sediment

Sediment is the most commonly identified nonpoint source pollutant associated with most designations of stream impairment in the United States [11,18]. Although forest operations are relatively minor contributors of sediment, accounting for about 7% of stream sediment impairment [18], sedimentation is the primary water quality concern associated with forest operations [1,4,5,19,20]. Unfortunately, studies of the specific relationships between the ameliorating effects of forest BMPs for sediment reduction on aquatic/riparian species are very limited. However, there is a significant body of work demonstrating the deleterious impacts of excess sediment on aquatic species.
Species that depend on aquatic respiration may experience lethal or sub-lethal respiratory impairment from the precipitation of suspended sediment on gills [21,22,23,24]. Sub-lethal effects of elevated sediment potentially include reduced immunity to disease, depressed growth rates, and impaired feeding and reproduction [22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33].
Sedimentation also has the potential to transform benthic substrate by homogenizing benthic environments, reducing habitat complexity and structural diversity and eliminating important microhabitats [21,30,32,33,34,35,36]. Dissolved oxygen levels also can be reduced by sediment loading [32,35,36,37,38]. Ultimately, high fine sediment loads can alter community composition and disrupt trophic level interactions [21,24,27,33,39,40,41,42,43]. Much of this information was developed from studies of sediment derived from land uses other than forestry or from sites without BMPs. These worst-case examples nonetheless emphasize the negative effects of sediment and suggest that any reduction in the rate or amount of sediment delivered to water bodies, as is the purpose of forestry BMPs, should be beneficial to aquatic species [1,2,13,15,44,45,46,47].

3.3. BMP Effectiveness

The literature also indicates that BMPs developed for forest roads, skid trails, stream crossings, and streamside management zones (SMZs) have greater potential to reduce sedimentation and also benefit riparian and aquatic species. Of all silvicultural activities, roads and skid trails have the largest potential to contribute excess sediment [48,49]; poorly designed and maintained roads and skid trails have been shown to increase soil erosion, regardless of harvest intensity [44,45,47]. Forestry BMPs for road and skid trails have consistently been shown to be effective for limiting sediment inputs [49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Effective sediment control from forest roads involves appropriate design and template selection, minimization of road grade (particularly at stream crossing approaches), use of water control and retention structures, and achieving adequate cover or surfacing for travel surfaces [48].
Road and skid trail stream crossing approaches surfaced with grass, slash, or gravel are examples of highly effective BMPs that can slow or prevent sediment inputs to aquatic environments [59,60,61,62,63]. Changes in macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups and assemblages in streams associated with harvest treatments and forest road construction and maintenance activities implemented with BMPs are often indistinguishable from natural variations [64].
Forestry BMPs also include a number of water control and diversion methods to prevent sedimentation, particularly on roads and skid trails. Water turnouts and water bars can reduce stream water sedimentation by diverting water flow away from streams and into riparian filter strips, thereby reducing runoff velocity and allowing sediment to be deposited on land [11,58,61]. While stream crossings with a greater area will have greater erosion potential, water turnout and wing ditch BMPs will decrease the stream crossing approach length, thereby reducing the amount of potential sediment inputs [62]. In the Virginia Piedmont, Brown et al. [61] found that appropriate spacing of water control structures can reduce sediment loss. A continuous berm along the edge of a forest road in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina reduced sediment loss by an average of 99% [65]. Maximizing water bar surface roughness and increasing water bar frequency are also effective measures in reducing sediment delivery to streams [66]. Lang et al. [58] found that ditch BMPs can be used to effectively reduce sediment contributions from road ditches.
Streamside management zones and riparian buffers have consistently been shown to reduce sedimentation in aquatic environments [53,54,67]. On the Appalachian Plateau region of eastern Kentucky, Arthur et al. [68] found that in watersheds where BMPs (including riparian buffers) were applied, water yield, sediment flux, and nutrient inputs were similar to non-harvested watershed sites. Lakel et al. [53] found that SMZs trapped approximately 89–97% of watershed erosion before reaching streams. In the Georgia Piedmont, Ward and Jackson [69] found that SMZs were effective for trapping sediment from overland flow, averaging 81% efficiency [11]. Although SMZs applied to harvest units in the highly erodible bluff hills of the Gulf Coastal Plain in Mississippi were not effective in reducing overland flow, they reduced total suspended solid (TSS) concentrations due to the preservation of riparian characteristics [70]. Variability in results among studies may be attributed to differences in topography, geology/soils, and hydrology, but the results of this particular study were attributed to the formation of gullies that breached the SMZ [70]. BMP efficacy is dependent on site-specific characteristics (i.e., site history, disturbance or logging history, topography, slope, climate, etc.); studies consistently have shown the capacity for forestry BMPs to effectively prevent excessive sedimentation of aquatic environments [1,2,3,4,10,11,17].

3.4. Stream Crossings

In the absence of BMPs, both permanent [71] and temporary stream crossings have the potential to cause long-lasting effects on aquatic and riparian environments and organisms if not properly designed or maintained [72,73,74,75]. However, application of BMP technology at stream crossings can help substrate heterogeneity and stream flow regimes, and retain streambank integrity [72,76,77,78], all of which are important environmental characteristics for maintaining and conserving healthy aquatic and terrestrial riparian wildlife [71,79].
Stream crossing location and design are important aspects of forestry BMPs. Improper selection of stream crossings can cause changes in hydrology and sediment inputs, which in turn may influence population dynamics and in-stream and terrestrial habitat [72]. Maintaining stream channel morphology helps maintain ecological communities and populations of riparian species [72]. To safeguard aerial, terrestrial, and aquatic riparian wildlife, stream crossing designs need to consider river morphology, depth, velocity, stream flow, and scouring potential [80,81,82,83]. These considerations are vital to maintaining healthy wildlife populations; poorly designed stream crossings increase sedimentation, cause issues with aquatic organism passage, influence population dynamics, and contribute to loss of suitable habitat [72,76]. Legacy stream crossings installed prior to the era of BMPs may require replacement or remediation [57]. Although bridges, which usually can be installed to preserve natural channel shape, are a preferred stream crossing type, particularly over larger streams, other factors such as traffic requirements, structural loading capabilities, site features, and economic feasibility often favor use of other stream crossing types [48,83,84].
Culverts typically are the structure of choice for crossings in smaller streams. Culverts that are improperly sized for the watershed can have reduced capacity to pass water and sediment or accommodate fish passage [83]. Water velocity at the exit from culverts that are undersized for the watershed can exceed the capacity of the channel and cause greater downstream scour [85]. Increased velocity and potential culvert suspension could result in habitat and population fragmentation of aquatic species by creating a barrier to aquatic organism movement upstream [73,76,83,86]. Proper culvert size selection is a very basic BMP application [48]. By considering the benefits and potential impacts of stream crossing selection options at a particular site, land managers can select an appropriate stream crossing that will minimize potential ecological and environmental impacts [76,84].
Potentially negative effects of culverts are also contingent on other design parameters. With careful planning and knowledge of local options, selection of stream crossing types that allow adequate organism passage can be both cost-effective and ecologically compatible. Some designs, such as open-bottom culverts, can mimic natural channel shape and substrate and preserve natural hydrological attributes [76,77,78,83]. Although research on the effects of stream crossings on riparian and aquatic wildlife other than fish [86,87] are relatively limited [71,77,78], culvert BMPs and culvert design have been shown to influence mussels [88], crayfish [77,78], snails [89,90,91,92], and aquatic insects [93,94,95,96]. The complexity of culvert material, design, and placement and potential effects on a variety of aquatic organisms warrants further investigation. Current BMP effectiveness research suggests that minimizing the numbers of crossings, placement of stream crossings at sites that minimize channel disturbances, use of appropriately sized and installed culverts, and disconnecting sources of erosion from stream crossing approaches will benefit sediment-sensitive aquatic organisms [48,72,83].

3.5. Streamside Management Zones

SMZs, also known as riparian buffers, forest buffers, and filter strips, are a particularly important type of BMP because they provide a zone for water quality protection between managed lands and the stream [97,98,99]. For example, SMZs promote sediment and nutrient trapping by slowing and often preventing entry into aquatic systems [53,100]. Appropriately managed and designed SMZs moderate light infiltration, dampen or minimize aquatic and terrestrial temperature gradients, slow nutrient flow, maintain hypoheic and hydrologic function, and preserve riparian vegetative composition and structure [2,15,101,102,103,104,105,106].
However, SMZs also provide forest habitat for a variety of species and maintain structures important to faunal communities in the presence of forestry operations [27,40,47,107,108]. SMZs provide coarse woody debris and detritus inputs that serve as food and habitat structure for aquatic species [109,110,111,112] and critical microhabitat for riparian organisms for nesting, roosting, feeding, or breeding. Implementation requirements and subsequent success of an SMZ depends on the aquatic species of concern, and to what extent managers need to protect riparian and aquatic ecosystems from disturbance [47].
As different species of wildlife have different sensitivities to environmental changes, they also have differing requirements for optimal environments, including canopy composition, width of the riparian buffer, and patch length along the stream [34]. SMZs can be designed to address these habitat requirements. Alterations to aquatic and terrestrial temperature gradients could impact aquatic biota, restricting movement, limiting biological functions, and altering habitat suitability [20,47,113,114]. SMZs provide shade and relatively stable canopy composition and streambank stability; therefore, these riparian buffers help preserve terrestrial and aquatic temperature regimes in riparian areas, safeguarding and maintaining wildlife populations [2,15,102,114,115,116,117,118].
Canopy cover influences light and temperature regimes, which are important to many vertebrate species but also to other sensitive fauna such as dragonflies (Odonata) and moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera) [116,119,120,121]. Species preferences for light infiltration, solar radiation, and temperature regimes differ [47,122]. Although some species are sensitive to changes in these parameters, others may benefit from the manipulation and alteration of riparian vegetation [123]. Riparian zones can be managed to favor the life history for a particular species, but specific information for many threatened and endangered species is lacking and some species have conflicting life history needs. Thus, additional research is needed to ascertain how forestry riparian zones can be managed to best address various species’ habitat requirements.
SMZs also provide a source for coarse woody debris, snags, tree cavities, and rotting logs [39,112]. These structures create diverse habitat and microtopography, benefiting a variety of riparian species [112,124] and species within the surrounding landscapes where these structures may be less abundant. The benefits of coarse woody debris in aquatic ecosystems depend on the amount and size of such debris [2,39,112]. Because coarse woody debris can increase habitat diversity, it is an essential component of eastern stream ecosystems, and is required by fish populations [39] and some turtles [124].
Woody debris is typically generated during harvesting operations, and riparian buffers can be managed to provide woody debris input into aquatic ecosystems [39,110,111,112,125,126]. Although additional nutrient inputs sometimes can enhance fish habitat in headwater streams, in some cases, these inputs could stimulate downstream eutrophication [2]. Fresh slash and debris inputs may elevate water temperatures and decrease dissolved oxygen in still or very slow-flowing water [2], although predictions are challenging due to complexity in natural ecosystems [2,127]. However, natural input of woody debris provided by SMZs should benefit aquatic and riparian wildlife by providing microhabitat and providing allochthonous organic matter to aquatic ecosystems [39,112].
States developed recommendations for SMZ widths primarily to address the goal of water quality protection, and most studies have found that these widths were adequate for protection against thermal, sediment, and nutrient pollution [53]. However, recommendations for SMZ widths typically were not designed specifically to meet objectives related to terrestrial wildlife species associated with riparian ecosystems. Appropriate riparian buffer characteristics for meeting objectives related to these species likely vary depending on site-specific vegetative, hydrologic, and geographic characteristics, adjacent forest structural conditions, and harvesting practices used in adjacent stands [128,129]. However, the literature generally indicates that habitat conditions for many riparian and aquatic species are positively affected by implementation of SMZs.

3.6. Macroinvertebrate Community Response to BMPs

Because BMPs protect water quality and in-stream structure, and provide heterogeneity of vegetation structure in riparian zones, implementation of BMPs has been shown to benefit aquatic biota and their habitat [130]. For example, from 2006 to 2010, DaSilva et al. [131] studied stream metabolic rates upstream and downstream from a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stand that was harvested with Louisiana’s current BMPs. They quantified rates of net ecosystem productivity (NEP), gross primary productivity (GPP), community respiration (CR), and the GPP/CR ratio. No calculated metabolic rate was significantly changed by the timber harvest. Thus, the authors concluded that “timber harvests of similar intensity with Louisiana’s current BMPs may not significantly impact stream biological conditions”.
Bioassessment is a common technique for assessing biological integrity of streams [132] and has been used to characterize macroinvertebrates’ response to timber harvests with forestry BMPs. Harvesting practices without properly implemented BMPs can negatively influence stream macroinvertebrate populations [133]; however, multiple studies in the Southeast have reported little to no change in aquatic macroinvertebrate community diversity following timber harvesting with BMPs [100,134,135,136,137,138,139,140]. Changes in invertebrate communities, when they do occur, generally reflect a shift from allochthonous to autochthonous food resources in streams draining harvested watersheds that is relatively short-lived (<5 years) due to rapid vegetation regrowth [7]. We briefly summarize results from several studies in the Southeast that have used bioassessment methods to study macroinvertebrate responses to BMPs.
Adams et al. [134] studied whether forestry BMPs effectively reduced harvesting impacts on stream habitat and macroinvertebrates in five physiographic regions in South Carolina. They found that most sites with BMPs scored high on rapid bioassessment protocols III (RBPs) established by the Environmental Protection Agency to assess stream health. Thus, the authors concluded that BMPs were effective in protecting macroinvertebrate assemblages.
Kedzierski and Smock [135] examined macroinvertebrate production and macrophyte growth in harvested and non-harvested sections of a low-gradient, sand-bottomed blackwater stream in the Virginia Coastal Plain. A section of the catchment had been clearcut three years prior to sampling and no additional harvesting occurred in the upstream area of the catchment. Macroinvertebrate production was higher in the stream reach of the harvested tract (103 g m−2) than in the reach of the non-harvested tract stream (41 g m−2). Production in the stream of the harvested tract was dominated by collector-filterers living on macrophytes as well as collector-gatherers. Other macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups showed little response to harvesting.
Vowell [136] evaluated Florida’s BMPs for protecting aquatic ecosystems during intensive forestry operations that included clearcutting, mechanical site preparation, and machine planting. Sample streams were selected across Florida’s major ecoregions. Stream condition index (SCI) bioassessments were conducted at points along each stream, above and below the treatment area. No significant difference in the SCI was observed between the reference and treatment stream segments. Vowell concluded that the proper implementation of forestry BMPs provides effective protection of aquatic resources.
Williams et al. [137] used stream survey data to evaluate timber harvesting influences on physical stream features and macroinvertebrate assemblages in three drainage basins in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Variability in macroinvertebrate assemblages was largely explained by drainage basin differences and year of sampling. The interaction between timber harvesting and drainage basins suggested that differences in physical stream features were important for determining the effects of logging within individual basins. Furthermore, harvesting did not influence diversity of macroinvertebrates in these small headwater streams. The authors suggest that natural variability in hydrology and in-stream physical features were the primary drivers of assemblage differences and not the effects of harvesting.
Carroll et al. [100] evaluated effectiveness of SMZs to protect water quality, aquatic habitat, and macroinvertebrate communities in low-order streams in north central Mississippi. Three replications of three SMZ treatments (clearcutting with no SMZ, clearcutting with an SMZ, and unharvested reference) were evaluated using response variables that included water quality, mineral soil exposure, and net soil deposition or erosion. One year following harvest, no differences in response variables between harvested sites with stream SMZs and reference streams were observed. Streams in harvested sites without SMZs had significantly higher stream temperatures and declining habitat stability ratings, but increased macroinvertebrate density compared to reference streams.
Vowell and Frydenborg [138] evaluated effectiveness of Florida’s forestry BMPs for herbicide applications using methods similar to those used by Vowell [136]. Following a pretreatment assessment, study streams were re-sampled one and two years following herbicide applications to forests adjacent to streams. No significant differences in the Stream Condition Index were observed between reference and test portions of the streams that could be attributed to practices that included chemical applications.
Grippo and McCord [141] used bioassessment of benthic macroinvertebrates to evaluate effectiveness of Arkansas’ silvicultural BMPs in protecting the water quality and biological integrity of streams adjacent to harvest areas. They found few significant differences in water quality or biological variables that could be associated with silviculture. Differences between upstream and downstream sites, when noted, were present before as well as after timber harvest. Differences in relative abundance variables (e.g., percent EPT) were typically location-specific and unrelated to silviculture activities.
Griswold et al. [139] conducted pre- and post-harvest sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates from four first-order streams draining the Dry Creek watershed in southwestern Georgia. They found differences in community structure between pre- and post-harvest periods, but responses of macroinvertebrates to harvest treatment and SMZ thinning were subtle. Relative abundance and total taxa all increased in the control and treatment sites after harvest, suggesting communities may have responded to increased streamflow due to increased rainfall during the study period. Overall, the macroinvertebrate communities appear to have been more strongly influenced by environmental factors (e.g., stream flow, water chemistry, and canopy cover) than by SMZ thinning and harvesting of adjacent stands.
McCord et al. [140] examined macroinvertebrate assemblages in six Arkansas low-order streams following harvesting with implementation of BMPs. Stream samples were collected above and below harvested tracts. BMP implementation rates on the harvested tracts ranged between 89% and 100%. Deficiencies in BMPs were generally limited to poorly designed erosion controls; however, no evidence of sedimentation was observed in any of the study stream reaches. Harvesting did not reduce taxonomic richness but did significantly influence several relative abundance metrics. Overall, Arkansas’ forestry BMPs were effective in protecting water quality and biological integrity in five of the six study stream reaches examined.
Simpson et al. [142] used a Before-After-Control-Impact study design to assess effectiveness of Texas forestry BMPs for protecting water quality and biological integrity of four streams on intensively managed silvicultural sites in east Texas. Biological and physiochemical monitoring (both grab samples and stormwater samples) was conducted above and below treatment areas. The physiochemical data showed no statistically significant difference as a result of treatment. Following treatment, the biological data showed a shift in habitat quality at two sites and for fish at another site compared to the reference. Although change was detected, the treatment sites generally showed improved conditions for Aquatic Life Use Index (fish) and the Habitat Quality Index. Treatment had no negative effect on water quality and biology.
In addition to protecting water quality and biological integrity of aquatic ecosystems, BMPs also benefit riparian ecosystems. For example, SMZs in the southeastern U.S. provide habitat for species associated with mature deciduous forests and may provide travel corridors for some species, e.g., [123,143,144,145,146]. In intensively managed forest landscapes, SMZs promote spatial heterogeneity and enhance landscape conservation value, e.g., [147,148].

4. Conclusions

This literature review indicates that forestry operations in the pre-BMP era had the potential to negatively affect water quality and aquatic and riparian species, and that current forestry BMPs can help protect water quality and habitat conditions for a variety of riparian and aquatic wildlife during forestry operations. Although there are relatively few direct evaluations of the specific effects of forestry BMPs on individual aquatic or riparian species, the effects of forestry BMPs are likely beneficial for the following reasons.
Riparian and aquatic species in general benefit from reduction of anthropogenic pollutants. Forestry BMPs, which were specifically designed to limit sediment, nutrient, and other pollutant entry into streams, help protect habitat for many riparian and aquatic species. State forestry agencies report that forestry BMP implementation levels across the United States are above 90%, and within the Southeastern region overall implementation rates are about 92% [11]. Forestry BMPs specifically target roads, skid trails, and stream crossings, as these forest operations have greater potential to cause water quality problems if BMPs are not applied. Forestry BMPs have been shown in numerous research investigations and comprehensive reviews to protect water quality from sediment, nutrient, and chemical pollution. Thus, a wide variety of species that are negatively influenced by such pollutants should benefit from BMPs that protect water quality. The BMPs recommended by several of the southeastern states have been shown to protect water quality, and multiple studies have reported little to no change in aquatic macroinvertebrate community diversity following timber harvesting with BMPs. Therefore, BMPs should benefit individual aquatic and riparian species that are negatively influenced by sediment and other pollutants.
Stream crossings receive particular attention in forestry BMP guidelines in the southeastern United States for several reasons. Research indicates that stream crossings with inadequate or no BMPs are likely to provide direct connectivity of sediment generated from road systems to hydrologic networks. As a result, BMPs for stream crossings were developed to minimize effects on stream water quality and stream dependent organisms. Therefore, appropriate stream crossings, adherence to installation recommendations, and other properly implemented water quality BMPs will help protect aquatic and riparian species.
SMZs are an especially important type of BMP because managed riparian buffers provide habitat and water quality benefits for both riparian and aquatic organisms. Riparian buffers protect the stream from thermal pollution, which can negatively affect a host of species. Riparian buffers also provide leaf litter and woody debris, both of which are critically important to aquatic food chains, stream habitat, and stream structure and morphology. Riparian forests are zones where sediment, nutrients, and chemicals can be trapped and transformed by physical, soil and plant processes. Finally, SMZs provide habitats for species associated with riparian forests and potentially provide refugia for species affected by adjacent forest management activities. Current state SMZ recommendations or requirements maintain water quality and greatly reduce potential risks to aquatic and riparian species during forest management.
Although implementation of BMPs has been shown to benefit aquatic macroinvertebrate communities, information about the direct effects of forestry BMPs for forest operations on many individual aquatic and riparian faunal species is limited. Therefore, additional research investigating the responses of aquatic and riparian species and communities to modern forestry practices that include implementation of BMPs, is warranted.

Acknowledgments

This project received financial and logistical support from the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), the Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation (FREC) at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, the Virginia SHARP Logger Program, and the McIntire-Stennis Program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture.

Author Contributions

Brooke M. Warrington conducted the literature review and drafted the original document as part of her Master of Forestry program at Virginia Tech. W. Michael Aust was a co-principal investigator on the grant, served as the co-chair of the graduate committee, and served as the collaborator and editor for various versions of the document. Scott M. Barrett served as the co-chair of the graduate committee, and edited various versions of the document. W. Mark Ford was a co-principal investigator on the grant, served as a member of the graduate committee, and edited various versions of the document. C. Andrew Dolloff was a co-principal investigator on the grant, served as a member of the graduate committee, and edited various versions of the document. Erik B. Schilling was an NCASI collaborator, contributed additional literature to the document, and edited various versions of the document. T. Bently Wigley was an NCASI collaborator, contributed additional literature to the document, and edited various versions of the document. M. Chad Bolding was a co-principal investigator on the grant and served as an editor for various versions of the document.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aust, W.M.; Blinn, C.R. Forestry best management practices for timber harvesting and site preparation in the eastern United States: An overview of water quality and productivity research during the past 20 years (1982–2002). Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus 2004, 4, 5–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ice, G. History of innovative best management practice development and its role in addressing water quality limited waterbodies. J. Environ. Eng. 2004, 130, 684–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shepard, J.P. Water quality protection in bioenergy production: The US system of forestry Best Management Practices. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 378–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Edwards, P.J.; Williard, K.W.J. Efficiencies of forestry best management practices for reducing sediment and nutrient losses in the eastern United States. J. For. 2010, 108, 245–249. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cristan, R.; Aust, W.M.; Bolding, M.C.; Barrett, S.M. Status of state forestry best management practices for the southeastern United States. In Proceedings of the 18th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2–5 March 2015; South. Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-212; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Asheville, NC, USA.
  6. Edwards, P.J.; Wood, F.; Quinlivan, R.L. Effectiveness of Best Management Practices that Have Application to Forest Roads: A Literature Synthesis; North. Res. Sta.: Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-163; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2016; 171p.
  7. Webster, J.R.; Golladay, S.W.; Benfield, E.F.; Meyer, J.L.; Swank, W.T.; Wallace, J.B. Catchment disturbance and stream response: An overview of stream research at Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory. River Conserv. Manag. 1992, 15, 232–253. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fortino, K.; Hershey, A.E.; Goodman, K.J. Utility of biological monitoring for detection of timber harvest effects on streams and evaluation of best management practices: A review. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2004, 23, 634–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cristan, R.; Aust, W.M.; Bolding, M.C.; Barrett, S.M.; Munsell, J.F.; Schilling, E. National status of state developed and implemented forestry best management practices in the United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Anderson, C.J.; Lockaby, B.G. The effectiveness of forestry best management practices for sediment control in the southeastern United States: A literature review. South. J. Appl. For. 2011, 35, 170–177. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cristan, R.; Aust, W.M.; Bolding, M.C.; Barrett, S.M.; Munsell, J.F.; Schilling, E. Effectiveness of forestry best management practices in the United States: Literature review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 360, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lakel, W.A.; Aust, W.M.; Dolloff, C.A. Seeing the trees along the streamside: Forested streamside management zones are one of the more commonly recommended forestry best management practices for the protection of water quality. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2006, 61, 22A–29A. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lockaby, B.G.; Jones, R.H.; Clawson, R.G.; Meadows, J.S.; Stanturf, J.A.; Thornton, F.C. Influences of harvesting on functions of floodplain forests associated with low-order, blackwater streams. For. Ecol. Manag. 1997, 90, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wigley, T.B.; Roberts, T.H. Landscape-level effects of forest management on faunal diversity in bottomland hardwoods. For. Ecol. Manag. 1997, 90, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Quinn, J.M.; Boothroyd, I.K.G.; Smith, B.J. Riparian buffers mitigate effects of pine plantation logging on New Zealand streams: 2. Invertebrate communities. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 191, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 404 Species in the Southeastern United States as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat, Proposed Rule; Federal Register No. 187; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA, 27 September 2011; pp. 59836–59862.
  17. Schilling, E.; Ice, G. Assessing the Effectiveness of Contemporary Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs): Focus on Roads; Special Report No. 12-01; National Council for Air and Stream Improvement: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality List: 2000 Report to Congress; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
  19. Binkley, D.; Brown, T.C. Management Impacts on Water Quality of Forests and Rangelands; Rocky Mtn. For. & Range Exp. Sta.; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1993.
  20. Beschta, R.L. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road construction and logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resour. Res. 1978, 14, 1011–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Newcombe, C.P.; Macdonald, D.D. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 1991, 11, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sutherland, A.; Meyer, J. Effects of increased suspended sediment on growth rate and gill condition of two southern Appalachian minnows. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2007, 80, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kefford, B.J.; Zalizniak, L.; Dunlop, J.E.; Nugegoda, D.; Choy, S.C. How are macroinvertebrates of slow flowing lotic systems directly affected by suspended and deposited sediments? Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 543–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wood, S.L.; Richardson, J.S. Impact of sediment and nutrient inputs on growth and survival of tadpoles of the western toad. Freshw. Biol. 2009, 54, 1120–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nalepa, T.F. Status and trends of the Lake Ontario macrobenthos. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1991, 48, 1558–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Needham, J.G.; Minter, J.; Westfall, J.; May, M.L. Dragonflies of North America; Scientific Publishers: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  27. St-Onge, I.; Magnan, P. Impact of logging and natural fires on fish communities of Laurentian Shield lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2000, 57, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Anthony, J.L.; Downing, J.A. Exploitation trajectory of a declining fauna: A century of freshwater mussel fisheries in North America. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2001, 58, 2071–2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Broekhuizen, N.; Parkyn, S.; Miller, D. Fine sediment effects on feeding and growth in the invertebrate grazers Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Gastropoda, Hydrobiidae) and Deleatidium spp. (Ephemeroptera, Leptophlebiidae). Hydrobiologia 2001, 457, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Herrig, J.; Shute, P. Aquatic Animals and their Hhabitats. In Southern Forest Resource Assessment; Wear, D.N., Carter, D.R., Prestemon, J., Eds.; South. Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Asheville, NC, USA, 2002; pp. 537–580. [Google Scholar]
  31. Berger, C. Wild Guide: Dragonflies; Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, PA, USA, 2004; ISBN 0-8117-2971-0. [Google Scholar]
  32. Watters, T.G.; Hoggarth, M.A.; Stansbery, D.H. The Freshwater Mussels of Ohio; The Ohio University Press: Columbus, OH, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-8142-1105-2. [Google Scholar]
  33. Thorp, J.H.; Rogers, C.D. Field Guide to Freshwater Invertebrates of North America; Elsevier: San Diego, CA, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-12-381426-5. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jones, E.B.D.; Helfman, G.S.; Harper, J.O.; Bolstad, P.V. Effects of riparian forest removal on fish assemblages in Southern Appalachian streams. Conserv. Biol. 1999, 13, 1454–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ames, T., Jr. Caddisflies: A Guide to Eastern Species for Anglers and Other Naturalists; Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, PA, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-1-5718-8210-3. [Google Scholar]
  36. Johnson, P.D. Sustaining America’s Aquatic Biodiversity: Freshwater Snail Biodiversity and Conservation; VCE Pub. 420-530; Virginia Cooperative Extension: Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kreutzweiser, D.; Capell, S.; Good, K. Effects of fine sediment inputs from a logging road on stream insect communities: A large-scale experimental approach in a Canadian headwater stream. Aquat. Ecol. 2005, 39, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kondratieff, B.C. Smokies Needlefly; South Carolina Department of Natural Resources: Columbia, SC, USA, 2005.
  39. Richards, C.; Hollingsworth, B. Managing Riparian Areas for Fish. In Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States; Verry, E.S., Hornbeck, J.W., Dolloff, C.A., Eds.; Lewis Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 157–168. ISBN 978-1-56-670501-1. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nislow, K.H.; Lowe, W.H. Influences of logging history and riparian forest characteristics on macroinvertebrates and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in headwater streams (New Hampshire, USA). Freshw. Biol. 2006, 51, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Moseley, K.R.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W.; Schuler, T.M. Long-term partial cutting impacts on Desmognathus salamander abundance in West Virginia headwater streams. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 254, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Moseley, K.R.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W. Local and landscape scale factors influencing edge effects on woodland salamanders. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2009, 151, 425–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Williams, J.D.; Bogan, A.E.; Garner, J.T. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee; The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-8173-1613-6. [Google Scholar]
  44. Patric, J.H. Soil erosion in the eastern forest. J. For. 1976, 74, 671–677. [Google Scholar]
  45. Patric, J.H. Harvesting effects on soil and water in the eastern hardwood forest. South. J. Appl. For. 1978, 2, 66–73. [Google Scholar]
  46. Newbold, J.D.; Erman, D.C.; Roby, K.B. Effects of logging on macroinvertebrates in streams with and without buffer strip. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1980, 37, 1076–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Crow, T.R.; Baker, M.E.; Barnes, B.V. Diversity in Riparian Landscapes. In Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States; Verry, E.S., Hornbeck, J.W., Dolloff, C.A., Eds.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999; p. 402. ISBN 978-1-5667-0501-1. [Google Scholar]
  48. Aust, W.M.; Bolding, M.C.; Barrett, S.B. Best management practices for low-volume roads in the Piedmont region: Summary and implications of research. J. Transp. Rev. Board 2015, 2472, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sosa-Perez, G.; MacDonald, L.H. Reductions in road sediment production and road-stream connectivity from two decommissioning treatments. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 398, 116–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Swift, L.W. Forest road design to minimize erosion in the Southern Appalachians. In Proceedings of Forestry and Water Quality: A Mid-South Symposium; Blackman, B.G., Ed.; University of Arkansas: Monticello, Little Rock, AR, USA, 1985; pp. 141–151. [Google Scholar]
  51. Grace, J.M., III. Control of sediment export from the forest road prism. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2002, 45, 1127–1132. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. Southern forest resource assessment: Summary of findings. J. For. 2002, 100, 6–14. [Google Scholar]
  53. Lakel, W.A.; Aust, W.M.; Bolding, M.C.; Dolloff, C.A.; Keyser, P.; Feldt, R. Sediment trapping by streamside management zones of various widths after forest harvest and site preparation. For. Sci. 2010, 56, 541–551. [Google Scholar]
  54. Clinton, B. Stream water responses to timber harvest: Riparian buffer width effectiveness. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261, 979–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sawyers, B.C.; Bolding, M.C.; Aust, W.M.; Lakel, W.A. Effectiveness and implementation costs of overland skid trail closure techniques in the Virginia Piedmont. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2012, 67, 300–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wade, C.R.; Bolding, M.C.; Aust, W.M.; Lakel, W.A. Comparison of five erosion control techniques for bladed skid trails in Virginia. South. J. Appl. For. 2012, 36, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Brown, K.R.; McGuire, K.J.; Aust, W.M.; Hession, W.C.; Dolloff, C.A. The effect of increasing gravel cover on forest roads for reduced sediment delivery to stream crossings. Hydrol. Proc. 2015, 29, 1129–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lang, A.J.; Aust, W.M.; Bolding, M.C.; McGuire, K.; Schilling, E.B. Comparing sediment trap data with erosion models for evaluation of haul road stream crossing approaches. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2017, 60, 393–408. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kochenderfer, J.N.; Helvey, J.D. Using gravel to reduce soil losses from minimum-standard forest roads. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1987, 42, 46–50. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wade, C.R.; Bolding, M.C.; Aust, W.M.; Lakel, W.A.; Schilling, E.B. Comparing sediment trap data with the USLE-Forest, RUSLE2, and WEPP-road erosion models for evaluation of bladed skid trail BMPs. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Brown, K.R.; Aust, W.M.; McGuire, K.J. Sediment delivery from bare and graveled forest road stream crossing approaches in the Virginia Piedmont. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 310, 836–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wear, L.R.; Aust, W.M.; Bolding, M.C.; Strahm, B.D.; Dolloff, C.A. Effectiveness of best management practices for sediment reduction at operational forest stream crossings. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 289, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vinson, J.A.; Barrett, S.M.; Aust, W.M.; Bolding, M.C. Evaluation of bladed skid trail closure methods in the ridge and valley region. For. Sci. 2017, 63, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gravelle, J.A.; Link, T.E.; Broglio, J.R.; Braatnte, J.H. Effects of timber harvest on aquatic macroinvertebrate community composition in a northern Idaho watershed. For. Sci. 2009, 55, 352–366. [Google Scholar]
  65. Appelboom, T.; Chescheir, G.; Skaggs, R.; Hesterberg, D. Management practices for sediment reduction from forest roads in the coastal plains. Trans. ASAE 2002, 45, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Litschert, S.E.; MacDonald, L.H. Frequency and characteristics of sediment delivery pathways from forest harvest units to streams. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 259, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Clayton, J.L.; Stihler, C.W.; Wallace, J.L. Status of and potential impacts to the freshwater bivalves (Unionidae) in Patterson Creek, West Virginia. Northeast. Nat. 2001, 8, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Arthur, M.A.; Coltharp, G.B.; Brown, D.L. Effects of best management practices on forest streamwater quality in eastern Kentucky. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1998, 34, 481–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ward, J.M.; Jackson, C.R. Sediment trapping within forestry streamside management zones: Georgia Piedmont, USA. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2004, 40, 1421–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Keim, R.F.; Schoenholtz, S.H. Functions and effectiveness of silvicultural streamside management zones in loessial bluff forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 118, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Levine, J.F.; Bogan, A.E.; Pollock, K.H.; Devine, H.A.; Gustafson, L.L.; Eads, C.B.; Russell, P.P.; Anderson, E.F. Final Report: Distribution of Freshwater Mussel Populations in Relationship to Crossing Structures; North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  72. Gibson, R.J.; Haedrich, R.L.; Wernerheim, C.M. Loss of fish habitat as a consequence of inappropriately constructed stream crossings. Fisheries 2005, 30, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Park, D.; Sullivan, M.; Bayne, E.; Scrimgeour, G. Landscape-level stream fragmentation caused by hanging culverts along roads in Alberta’s boreal forest. Can. J. For. Res. 2008, 38, 566–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Aust, W.M.; Carroll, M.B.; Bolding, M.C.; Dolloff, C.A. Operational forest stream crossings effects on water quality in the Virginia Piedmont. South. J. Appl. For. 2011, 35, 123–130. [Google Scholar]
  75. Nolan, L.; Aust, W.M.; Barrett, S.M.; Bolding, M.C.; Brown, K.; McGuire, K. Estimating costs and effectiveness of upgrades in forestry best management practices for stream crossings. Water 2015, 7, 6946–6966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Warren, M.L.; Pardew, M.G. Road crossings as barriers to small-stream fish movement. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 1998, 127, 637–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Foster, H.R.; Keller, T.A. Flow in culverts as a potential mechanism of stream fragmentation for native and nonindigenous crayfish species. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2011, 30, 1129–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Louca, V.; Ream, H.M.; Findlay, J.D.; Latham, D.; Lucas, M.C. Do culverts impact the movements of the endangered white-clawed crayfish? Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2014, 414, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Poole, K.E.; Downing, J.A. Relationship of declining mussel biodiversity to stream-reach and watershed characteristics in an agricultural landscape. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2004, 23, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Diamond, J.M.; Bressler, D.W.; Serveiss, V.B. Assessing relationships between human land uses and the decline of native mussels, fish, and macroinvertebrates in the Clinch and Powell River watershed, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2002, 21, 1147–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Merrill, M.A. The Effects of Culverts and Bridges on Stream Geomorphology. Master’s Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  82. Bambarger, A.R. Freshwater Mussel Communities of the Florida Parishes, Louisiana: The Importance of Spatial Scale. Master’s Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  83. Diebel, M.W.; Fedora, M.; Cogswell, S.; O'Hanley, J.R. Effects of road crossings on habitat connectivity for stream-resident fish. River Res. Appl. 2015, 31, 1251–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Levine, J.F.; Eads, C.B.; Cope, W.G.; Humphries, L.F.; Bringolf, R.B.; Lazaro, P.R.; Shea, D.; Pluym, J.V.; Eggleston, D.; Merril, M.A.; et al. Final Report: A Comparison of the Impacts of Culverts Versus Bridges on Stream Habitat and Aquatic Fauna; North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  85. Jensen, K.M. Velocity Reduction Factors in Near Boundary Flow and the Effect on Fish Passage through Culverts. Master’s Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  86. Kemp, P.S.; O’Hanley, J.R. Procedures for evaluating and prioritising the removal of fish passage barriers: A synthesis. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2010, 17, 297–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hotchkiss, R.H.; Frei, C.M. Design for Fish Passage at Roadway-Stream Crossings: Synthesis Report; Federal Highway Administration: McLean, VA, USA, 2007.
  88. Vaughan, D.M. Potential Impact of Road-Stream Crossings (Culverts) on the Upstream Passage of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates; Report to the USDA Forest Service; The Xerces Society: Portland, OR, USA, 2002.
  89. Rivera, C.J.R. Obstruction of the Upstream Migration of the Invasive Snail Cipangopaludina chinensis by High Water Currents; Summer UNDERC Project (BIOS 35502: Practicum in Field Biology); University of Notre Dame: Notre Dame, IN, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  90. Jackson, S.D. Ecological considerations in the design of river and stream crossings. In International Conference on Ecology and Transportation; University of Massachusetts Amherst: Amherst, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  91. Resh, V.H. Stream crossings and the conservation of diadromous invertebrates in South Pacific island streams. Aquat. Conserv. 2005, 15, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Clennon, J.A.; King, C.H.; Muchiri, E.M.; Kitron, U. Hydrological modelling of snail dispersal patterns in Msambweni, Kenya, and potential resurgence of Schistosoma haematobium transmission. Parasitology 2007, 134, 683–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Blakely, T.; Harding, J.; McIntosh, A. Impacts of Urbanisation in Okeover Stream, Christchurch (Report); Freshwater Ecology Research Group, University of Canterbury: Christchurch, New Zealand, 2003; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
  94. Harding, J.; Neumegen, R.; van den Braak, I. Where have all the caddis gone? The role of culverts, and spiders. In Proceedings of the American Geophysical Union Spring Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 23–27 May 2005. Abstract Number NB14C-01. [Google Scholar]
  95. Blakely, T.J.; Harding, J.S.; McIntosh, A.R.; Winterbourn, M.J. Barriers to the recovery of aquatic insect communities in urban streams. Freshw. Biol. 2006, 51, 1634–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Smith, R.F.; Alexander, L.C.; Lamp, W.O. Dispersal by terrestrial stages of stream insects in urban watersheds: A synthesis of current knowledge. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2009, 28, 1022–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lowrance, R.; Altier, L.S.; Williams, R.G.; Inamdar, S.P.; Sheridan, J.M.; Bosch, D.D.; Hubbard, R.K.; Thomas, D.L. REMM: The riparian ecosystem management model. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2000, 55, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  98. Lee, K.H.; Isenhart, T.M.; Schultz, R.C. Sediment and nutrient removal in an established multi-species riparian buffer. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2003, 58, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  99. Newbold, J.D.; Herbert, S.; Sweeney, B.W.; Kiry, P.; Alberts, S.J. Water quality functions of a 15-year-old riparian forest buffer system. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2010, 46, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Carroll, G.D.; Schoenholtz, S.H.; Young, B.W.; Dibble, E.D. Effectiveness of forestry streamside management zones in the sand-clay hills of Mississippi: Early indications. Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus 2004, 4, 275–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zokaites, C. Living on Karst: A Reference Guide for Landowners in Limestone Regions; Cave Conservancy of the Virginias, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation: Richmond, VA, USA, 1997.
  102. Kiffney, P.M.; Richardson, J.S.; Bull, J.P. Responses of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 1060–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Summerville, K.S.; Dupont, M.M.; Johnson, A.V.; Krehbiel, R.L. Spatial structure of forest lepidopteran communities in oak hickory forests of Indiana. Environ. Entomol. 2008, 37, 1224–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Summerville, K.S.; Courard-Hauri, D.; Dupont, M.M. The legacy of timber harvest: Do patterns of species dominance suggest recovery of lepidopteran communities in managed hardwood stands? For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 259, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Fong, D.W. Management of subterranean fauna in karst. In Karst Management; van Beynen, P.E., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 201–224. ISBN 978-94-007-1206-5. [Google Scholar]
  106. Summerville, K.S.; Saunders, M.R.; Lane, J.L. The Lepidoptera as predictable communities of herbivores: A test of niche assembly using the moth communities of Morgan-Monroe State Forest. In The Hardwood Ecosystem Experiment: A Framework for Studying Responses to Forest Management; Swihart, R.K., Saunders, M.R., Kalb, R.A., Haulton, G.S., Michler, C.H., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2013; pp. 237–252. [Google Scholar]
  107. Dickson, J.G.; Williamson, J.H. Small Mammals in Streamside Management Zones in Pine Plantations. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Management of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America, Flagstaff, AZ, USA, 19–21 July 1988; Rocky Mtn. For. & Range Exp. Sta.: Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Fort Collins, CO, USA; pp. 375–378.
  108. Miller, D.A.; Thill, R.E.; Melchiors, M.A.; Wigley, T.B.; Tappe, P.A. Small mammal communities of streamside management zones in intensively managed pine forests of Arkansas. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 203, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Sweeney, B.W. Effects of Streamside Vegetation on Macroinvertebrate Communities of White Clay Creek in Eastern North America. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1993, 144, 291–340. [Google Scholar]
  110. Flebbe, P.A.; Dolloff, C.A. Trout use of woody debris and habitat in Appalachian wilderness streams of North Carolina. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 1995, 15, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hilderbrand, R.H.; Lemly, A.D.; Dolloff, C.A.; Harpster, K.L. Effects of large woody debris placement on stream channels and benthic macroinvertebrates. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1997, 54, 931–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Dolloff, C.A.; Webster, J.R. Particulate organic contributions from forests and streams: Debris isn’t so bad. In Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States; Verry, E.S., Hornbeck, J.W., Dolloff, C.A., Eds.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; pp. 125–138. ISBN 978-1-5667-0501-1. [Google Scholar]
  113. Holtby, L.B. Effects of logging on stream temperatures in Carnation Creek, British Columbia, and associated impacts on the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1988, 45, 502–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Hickey, M.B.C.; Doran, B. A review of the efficiency of buffer strips for the maintenance and enhancement of riparian ecosystems. Water Qual. Res. J. Can. 2004, 39, 311–317. [Google Scholar]
  115. Verry, E.S.; Dolloff, C.A.; Manning, M.E. Riparian ecotone: A functional definition and delineation for resource assessment. Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus 2004, 4, 67–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Hamer, K.C.; Hill, J.K.; Benedick, S.; Mustaffa, N.; Sherratt, T.N.; Maryati, M.; Chey, V.K. Ecology of butterflies in natural and selectively logged forests of northern Borneo: The importance of habitat heterogeneity. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Remsburg, A.J.; Olson, A.C.; Samways, M.J. Shade alone reduces adult dragonfly (Odonata: Libellulidae) abundance. J. Insect Behav. 2008, 21, 460–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Myers, J.H.; Cory, J.S. Population cycles in forest lepidoptera revisited. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2013, 44, 565–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Swift, L.W.; Messer, J.B. Forest cuttings raise temperatures of small streams in the southern Appalachians. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1971, 26, 111–116. [Google Scholar]
  120. Samways, M.J.; Taylor, S. Impacts of invasive alien plants on Red-Listed South African dragonflies (Odonata). S. Afr. J. Sci. 2004, 100, 78–80. [Google Scholar]
  121. Janisch, J.E.; Wondzell, S.M.; Ehinger, W.J. Headwater stream temperature: Interpreting response after logging, with and without riparian buffers, Washington, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 270, 302–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ford, W.M.; Chapman, B.R.; Menzel, M.A.; Odum, R.H. Stand age and habitat influences on salamanders in Appalachian cover hardwood forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 155, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Rudolph, D.C.; Dickson, J.G. Streamside zone width and amphibian and reptile abundance. Southwest. Nat. 1990, 35, 472–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Sterrett, S.C.; Smith, L.L.; Schweitzer, S.H.; Maerz, J.C. An assessment of two methods for sampling river turtle assemblages. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 5, 490. [Google Scholar]
  125. Bisson, P.A.; Bilby, R.E.; Bryant, M.D.; Dolloff, C.A.; Grette, G.; House, R.A.; Murphy, M.L.; Koski, K.V.; Sedell, J.R. Large Woody Debris in Forested Streams in the Pacific Northwest: Past, Present, and Future. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions, Seattle, DC, USA, 1987; University of Washington: Seattle, DC, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  126. Hairston-Strang, A.B.; Adams, P.W. Potential large woody debris sources in riparian buffers after harvesting in Oregon, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 1998, 112, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hartman, G.; Scrivener, J.; Miles, M. Impacts of logging in Carnation Creek, a high-energy coastal stream in British Columbia, and their implication for restoring fish habitat. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1996, 53, 237–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Foley, D.H. Short-Term Response of Herpetofauna to Timber Harvesting in Conjunction with Streamside-Management Zones in Seasonally-Flooded Bottomland-Hardwood Forests of Southeast Texas. Master’s Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  129. DeMaynadier, P.G.; Hunter, M.L., Jr. The relationship between forest management and amphibian ecology: A review of the North American literature. Environ. Rev. 1995, 3, 230–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Broadmeadow, S.; Nisbet, T.R. The effects of riparian forest management on the freshwater environment: A literature review of best management practice. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Dis. 2004, 8, 286–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. DaSilva, A.; Xu, Y.J.; Ice, G.; Beebe, J.; Stich, R. Effects of timber harvesting with best management practices on ecosystem metabolism of a low gradient stream on the United States Gulf Coastal Plain. Water 2013, 5, 747–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Hutchens, J.J.; Batzer, D.P.; Reese, E. Bioassessment of silvicultural impacts in streams and wetlands of the eastern United States. Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus 2004, 4, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Gurtz, M.E.; Wallace, J.B. Substrate-mediated response of stream invertebrates to disturbance. Ecology 1984, 65, 1556–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Adams, T.O.; Hook, D.D.; Floyd, M.A. Effectiveness monitoring of silvicultural best management practices in South Carolina. South. J. Appl. For. 1995, 19, 170–176. [Google Scholar]
  135. Kedzierski, W.M.; Smock, L.A. Effects of logging on macroinvertebrate production in a sand-bottomed, low-gradient stream. Freshw. Biol. 2001, 46, 821–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Vowell, J.L. Using stream bioassessment to monitor best management practice effectiveness. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 143, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Williams, L.R.; Taylor, C.M.; Warren, M.L., Jr.; Clingenpeel, J.A. Large-scale effects of timber harvesting on stream systems in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas, USA. Environ. Manag. 2002, 29, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Vowell, J.L.; Frydenborg, R.B. A biological assessment of best management practice effectiveness during intensive silviculture and forest chemical application. Water Air Soil Pollut. Focus 2004, 4, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Griswold, M.W.; Winn, R.T.; Crisman, T.L.; White, W.R. Dry Creek Long-Term Watershed Study: Assessment of Immediate Response of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates to Watershed Level Harvesting and Thinning of Streamside Management Zones; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2006; pp. 392–395.
  140. McCord, S.B.; Grippo, R.S.; Eagle, D.M. Effects of silviculture using best management practices on stream macroinvertebrate communities in three ecoregions of Arkansas, USA. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2007, 184, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Grippo, R.S.; McCord, S.B. Bioassessment of Silviculture Best Management Practices in Arkansas; Arkansas State University College of Science and Mathematics: Jonesboro, AR, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  142. Simpson, H.; Work, D.; Harrington, S. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Texas Forestry Best Management Practices: Results from the Texas Silvicultural BMP Effectiveness Monitoring Project 2003–2007; Texas Forest Service: Lufkin, TX, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  143. Machtans, C.S.; Villard, M.A.; Hannon, S.J. Use of riparian buffer strips as movement corridors by forest birds. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10, 1366–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Hobbs, R.J. Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests–A review. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 119, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Shirley, S.M.; Smith, J.N. Bird community structure across riparian buffer strips of varying width in a coastal temperate forest. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 125, 475–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Perkins, D.W.; Hunter, M.L., Jr. Effects of riparian timber management on amphibians in Maine. J. Wildl. Manag. 2006, 70, 657–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Manning, A.D.; Smith, P.L.; Possingham, H.P.; Fischer, J.; Oliver, I.; McCarthy, M.A. The focal-species approach and landscape restoration: A critique. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Fischer, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Manning, A.D. Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: Ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2006, 4, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Taxonomic groups and the number of species listed in the recent status assessment and the focus of the literature review.
Table 1. Taxonomic groups and the number of species listed in the recent status assessment and the focus of the literature review.
Taxonomic GroupNumber of Species
Crayfish83
Fish48
Mussels48
Snails44
Beetles18
Amphibians15
Dragonflies14
Reptiles13
Caddisflies9
Stoneflies8
Amphipods6
Mammals4
Butterflies4
Birds3
Isopods2
Fairy shrimp1
Moths1
Springfly1
Forests EISSN 1999-4907 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top