Literature DB >> 15160742

Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States.

Philip Lee1, Cheryl Smyth, Stan Boutin.   

Abstract

This paper reviewed the provincial, territorial, and state guidelines for the retention of treed riparian buffers after timber harvest in Canada and the United States. Comparisons amongst jurisdictions were facilitated through the use of a standardized template for the classification of waterbodies. Mean buffer widths varied from 15.1 to 29.0 m for different waterbody types when both countries were combined. However, Canadian jurisdictions had wider buffers (except for intermittent streams). In part, this was due to the high percentage of Boreal jurisdictions in Canada and Southeast jurisdictions in the United States. The Boreal region had the widest buffers while Southeastern jurisdictions had the narrowest buffers. Just under half (approximately 44%) of the jurisdictions investigated had three or more modifying factors in the guidelines. Of these, waterbody type, shoreline slope, waterbody size, and presence of fish were the most common. Boreal and Pacific jurisdictions tended to have a more diverse set of waterbody size classes, waterbody types, and other modifying factors. Jurisdictions from the Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast maintained relatively simple 'one-size-fits-all' guidelines. Jurisdictions without modifying factors for slope or presence of fish applied wider baseline buffers than jurisdictions with these factors. A large percentage of jurisdictions (approximately 80%) allowed some selective harvest in buffers. However, these were often accompanied by relatively restrictive prescriptions. In comparison to the ecological recommendations, buffer widths for most jurisdictions were adequate to protect the aquatic biota and habitats but were, generally, less than recommended widths for terrestrial communities. In the future, two management trends are likely to continue, the shift towards more complicated guidelines and the expansion to larger-scale, watershed planning of riparian areas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15160742     DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.11.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Manage        ISSN: 0301-4797            Impact factor:   6.789


  17 in total

1.  Using aerial photography to estimate riparian zone impacts in a rapidly developing river corridor.

Authors:  Katharine A Owers; Brett Albanese; Thomas Litts
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Fish assemblage responses to forest cover.

Authors:  Chris L Burcher; Matthew E McTammany; E Fred Benfield; Gene S Helfman
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Reduced riparian zone width compromises aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in streams of southern Brazil.

Authors:  Aline Bianca Moraes; Andréia Emília Wilhelm; Thaíse Boelter; Cristina Stenert; Uwe H Schulz; Leonardo Maltchik
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 2.513

4.  Is environmental legislation conserving tropical stream faunas? A large-scale assessment of local, riparian and catchment-scale influences on Amazonian fish.

Authors:  Cecília G Leal; Jos Barlow; Toby A Gardner; Robert M Hughes; Rafael P Leitão; Ralph Mac Nally; Philip R Kaufmann; Silvio F B Ferraz; Jansen Zuanon; Felipe R de Paula; Joice Ferreira; James R Thomson; Gareth D Lennox; Eurizângela P Dary; Cristhiana P Röpke; Paulo S Pompeu
Journal:  J Appl Ecol       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 6.528

5.  Importance of riparian forests in urban catchments contingent on sediment and hydrologic regimes.

Authors:  Allison H Roy; Mary C Freeman; Byron J Freeman; Seth J Wenger; William E Ensign; Judith L Meyer
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.266

6.  Riparian proper functioning condition assessment to improve watershed management for water quality.

Authors:  S Swanson; D Kozlowski; R Hall; D Heggem; J Lin
Journal:  J Soil Water Conserv       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 3.180

7.  Guiding riparian management in a transboundary watershed through high resolution spatial statistical network models.

Authors:  Stephanie Figary; Naomi Detenbeck; Cara O'Donnell
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 6.789

8.  An Experimental Test of Buffer Utility as a Technique for Managing Pool-Breeding Amphibians.

Authors:  Jessica S Veysey Powell; Kimberly J Babbitt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Despite Buffers, Experimental Forest Clearcuts Impact Amphibian Body Size and Biomass.

Authors:  Jessica S Veysey Powell; Kimberly J Babbitt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Do riparian reserves support dung beetle biodiversity and ecosystem services in oil palm-dominated tropical landscapes?

Authors:  Claudia L Gray; Eleanor M Slade; Darren J Mann; Owen T Lewis
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.