e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 2 8 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 71–78

avai lab le at www.sc iencedi rec t .com

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /eco leng

Determining target loads of large and small wood forstream rehabilitation in high-rainfall agriculturalregions of Victoria, Australia

Rebecca Lestera,b,c,∗, Wendy Wrighta,c, Michelle Jones-Lennonb

a School of Applied Sciences and Engineering, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Churchill, Vic. 3842, Australiab Department of Primary Industries, Hazeldean Road, Ellinbank, Vic. 3821, Australiac Institute for Regional Studies, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Churchill, Vic. 3842, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 17 November 2005

Received in revised form

30 March 2006

Accepted 23 April 2006

Keywords:

Stream rehabilitation

Stream restoration

Large woody debris

Small woody debris

a b s t r a c t

Wood is an important structural component of many streams, and its reinstatement is

increasingly part of river rehabilitation efforts. Determining how much wood to reintroduce,

and of what size, can be difficult. A census of the natural wood load was undertaken in two

high-rainfall regions of southeastern Australia, to develop a benchmark for use in rehabil-

itation projects in agricultural landscapes. The contributions of small and large wood and

the use of stream characteristics to predict pre-disturbance loading are investigated. Over a

50 m reach, an average wood load of 70.5 pieces was recorded, with a volume of 0.021 m3/m2

and surface area of 0.386 m2/m2. Load was relatively consistent within and between regions

and was comparable to loads reported elsewhere, supporting the use of local average loads

as a benchmark. Small wood contributed significantly to the number of pieces and surface

area of wood within study reaches, but volume was dominated by the contribution of large

wood. Correlations between load and stream characteristics are complex and have not been

Small wood load

High rainfall regions

demonstrated to be predictive. Thus, we argue that it is preferable to determine a benchmark

from nearby streams in reference condition.

wood have focused on large, forested river systems (e.g. Marsh

Agricultural landscapes

1. Introduction

Wood is an important structural component of many aquaticecosystems (Hortle and Lake, 1983; Harmon et al., 1986;Wallace et al., 1996). By creating variability in the depth andvelocity profiles of a stream (Keller and Swanson, 1979; Bilby,1984), wood increases the complexity of in-stream habitats,and therefore aquatic biodiversity and biomass (Benke et al.,1985). Wood is also a direct source of food and shelter for

aquatic organisms, trapping sediment and particulate organicmatter and providing a hard substrate for colonisation (e.g.by algae) (Benke et al., 1985; Harmon et al., 1986). In streams

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9902 6410; fax: +61 3 9902 6738.E-mail address: rebecca.lester@sci.monash.edu.au (R. Lester).

0925-8574/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.04.010

© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

with soft substrates, it is often the only hard surface availablefor colonisation by aquatic organisms such as macroinverte-brates (Wallace and Benke, 1984; Wallace et al., 1995; O’Connor,1991).

For these reasons, the re-introduction of wood has becomea common component of stream rehabilitation (e.g. Bisson etal., 1987; Gippel et al., 1996; Roni et al., 2002). To date, manyof the studies and restoration projects involving in-stream

et al., 1999b; Brooks et al., 2001; Dudgeon, 2001; Koehn etal., 2004), with little emphasis on small stream systems oragricultural landscapes. Furthermore, most previous investi-

e r i n

intersect technique (Wallace and Benke, 1984), and debrismapping (Lienkaemper and Swanson, 1987). None of thesetechniques have been assessed for accuracy in determininga load for smaller size classes of wood. A full census was con-

72 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e

gations discount small wood and concentrate on wood greaterthan 0.1 m in diameter (e.g. Gippel et al., 1996; Hilderbrand etal., 1997; Marsh et al., 1999b). In large river systems, wheresmaller wood is less hydrologically significant (Gippel, 1995),this may be justified, but the lack of information pertainingto the ecological role of small wood in smaller stream sys-tems, particularly in agricultural landscapes, does not supportits exclusion from rehabilitation projects. Indeed, it may pro-vide significant ecological benefits (e.g. for fish (Angermeierand Karr, 1984; Neumann and Wildman, 2002; Bond and Lake,2003)) and smaller wood is certainly easier, both logisticallyand financially, to introduce artificially into streams.

In Australia, many streams in agricultural environmentsare small and often have histories of extensive riparian clear-ing to maximize the amount of productive land, and de-snagging for flood mitigation and erosion control (Gippel et al.,1996). This has resulted in substantial reductions in the woodloads of agricultural streams compared with those expectedunder natural, pre-disturbance conditions (Gippel et al., 1996;Hilderbrand et al., 1997). In agricultural landscapes, rehabili-tation work has focused on fencing and re-vegetation of ripar-ian zones (e.g. Boutin et al., 2003; Anbumozhi et al., 2005;Correll, 2005; Hefting et al., 2005) with little attention to thelinks between riparian vegetation and in-stream habitat re-creation. While fencing and re-vegetation works will even-tually restore natural inputs, this process takes significantamounts of time (>100 years) (Erskine and Webb, 2003) andartificial re-introduction of wood could be a useful rehabilita-tion tool.

To date, most stream restoration work has used ‘rules ofthumb’ or expert opinion to determine the amount of woodto re-introduce (Marsh et al., 2001a). Studies across Australiahave reported natural wood loads in undisturbed systemsvarying over four orders of magnitude (Gippel et al., 1992;Marsh et al., 2001a). This variability means the concept ofan average wood load as a rehabilitation target for Australianstreams is problematic over broad geographic scales (Marshet al., 2001a). Individual restoration projects therefore requireassessment of an appropriate target wood load at a local scale,prior to rehabilitation.

Few studies report techniques that can be used to setappropriate target wood loads for streams undergoing rehabil-itation (Gippel and White, 2000). Notwithstanding this, Marshet al. (2001a) applied a correlation between wood load andriparian vegetation density to predict natural wood loadsfor de-snagged streams and Gippel and White (2000) sug-gest estimating wood loads from historical records or naturalreaches of similar rivers. Furthermore Marsh et al. (2001b)argue that rather than mimicking natural loadings, rehabilita-tion projects should aim to maximize the diversity of hydraulicconditions in the stream. However, Erskine and Webb (2003)opine against replacing more wood than the natural loading.There is a need for a standard approach to determine an appro-priate target load.

In typical agricultural landscapes where substantial clear-ing and de-snagging have occurred, it is often not possible to

use riparian vegetation density to predict target loads. Intactnatural riparian vegetation may be absent from the streamtargeted for rehabilitation (Gippel and White, 2000), leavingmanagers without an appropriate benchmark.

g 2 8 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 71–78

We aim to determine a target wood load for use in streamrehabilitation projects in high-rainfall agricultural landscapesin Victoria by using an average wood load from nearby undis-turbed streams; to investigate the relative importance of smallwood in small stream systems; and to establish whetherstream characteristics can be used to determine wood loads.

2. Methods

2.1. Site selection

Eight reference sites were selected to characterize the natu-ral wood load in streams in the two high-rainfall (>750 mmannual rainfall) regions of Victoria, Australia: Gippsland andsouthwest Victoria. Sites were determined to be in referencecondition with respect to in-stream habitat complexity wherethere was no stock access to the stream and no history of ripar-ian clearing or active de-snagging of the channel (Fig. 1). Assuch, remnant riparian vegetation was present (except in onecase, where riparian vegetation was rehabilitated in 1981 butstructurally resembles remnant vegetations due to excellentgrowth conditions (R. Howell, personal communication)) andnatural input processes were in evidence at each site.

Sufficient numbers of sites in reference condition werenot available in agricultural landscapes, so sites were locatedwithin a range of contexts, including national and state parks,and in roadside reserves and on private property.

Streams were chosen with a range of channel widths, sub-strate types, flow regimes, and catchment areas, in order tobest represent agricultural streams in the two regions (Table 1).

2.2. Survey methods

Various techniques for measuring the load present in a partic-ular system have been proposed (Marsh et al., 1999a). Theseinclude a debris census (Ward and Aumen, 1986), a line-

Fig. 1 – Typical load of in-stream wood at Parker River, CapeOtway National Park, southwest Victoria.

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 2 8 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 71–78 73

Table 1 – Study site locations and characteristics

Site Associated reserve Location Catchmentarea (km2)

Average activechannel width (m)

Latitude Longitude

GippslandBass River Roadside reserve −38◦21′32′′ 145◦46′05′′ 12.1 4.60Moonlight Creek Mt Worth State Park −38◦16′44′′ 146◦00′29′′ 5.6 2.50Tarra River Tarra Bulga National Park −38◦26′40′′ 146◦32′30′′ 3.8 7.68Unnamed Moondarra State Park −38◦06′04′′ 146◦18′20′′ 6.3 1.70

Southwest VictoriaParker River Cape Otway National Park −38◦50′29′′ 143◦32′28′′ 22.8 3.40

21′′

08′′

07′′

slte

aa1wtwe

traottss

t1v

V

wss

S

wms

cfdoH

Brucknell Creek Ralph Illidge sanctuary −38◦23′

Tomahawk Creek Roadside reserve −38◦28′

Unnamed Private property −38◦26′

idered most appropriate for this study because, despite theimitations that this more time-consuming method placed onhe number of reaches that could be surveyed, it was consid-red the most thorough measurement technique.

All surveys were conducted in March 2004. At each site,full census of the wood present in the channel was made

long a 50 m reach. This distance represented a minimum of0 times the width of the active channel (in all but one casehere the active channel width was substantially wider than

he stream width). All wood greater than 0.05 m in diameteras included in the census, and the diameter and length of

ach piece was recorded.The position of the wood in the channel was also recorded

o provide a benchmark for future rehabilitation works in theegions. The arrangement of each piece was recorded as eithersingle piece or part of a clump. A clump was defined as twor more pieces of wood, at least one of which must have beenransported to its current location (Marsh et al., 2001a). Pieceshat were buried in the stream bank or bed, or that extendedignificantly beyond the channel (and so could not be mea-ured in their entirety) were also recorded.

Wood volume and surface area were calculated based onhe assumption that wood pieces were cylindrical (de Vries,974; Harmon et al., 1986). The formula used to calculate woodolume was

=∑

1/4�D2L

A(1)

here V = volume per unit stream area, D = diameter of mea-ured wood, L = length of measured wood, and A = area oftream surveyed.

To calculate surface area, the following formula was used:

A =∑

�DL

A(2)

here SA = surface area per unit stream area, D = diameter ofeasured wood, L = length of measured wood, and A = area of

tream surveyed.The total load of all wood per unit area of stream bed was

alculated for each stream, and then divided into subtotals

or small wood (0.05–0.1 m diameter) and large wood (>0.1 miameter). These categories were chosen to allow comparisonf large wood load with other authors (e.g. Gippel et al., 1996;ilderbrand et al., 1997; Marsh et al., 1999b) as well as the

142◦49′60′′ 54.4 3.40143◦20′27′′ 90.4 2.60143◦31′19′′ 3.6 1.65

identification of the contribution of small wood to the totalwood load.

2.3. Analysis of data

All analyses were performed using GenStat 7.2. Differencesin the total wood load between regions, and between thesmall and large wood components at each site and betweenregions, were calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA).Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) were calculated to deter-mine the strength of relationships between wood load andactive channel width or catchment area. Regressions werethen performed for those relationships that were statisticallysignificant (˛ = 0.05).

Prior to the ANOVA, all data were tested for normalityby inspecting residual plots. Where appropriate, data werelog-transformed to meet assumptions of heteroscedasticity ofvariance. The ANOVA testing the dependence of wood load onregion was constructed with site categorized by wood size asthe blocking factor and region by wood size for the treatmentstructure. When testing the dependence of wood position onwood size, the ANOVA was constructed using site as the block-ing factor and wood size as the treatment variable.

3. Results

3.1. Wood load

The mean wood load was calculated for each region and thencompared between regions to determine whether a significantdifference was apparent. This analysis was then repeated forlarge wood load and small wood load.

In Gippsland, the mean total load of wood found in a streamwas 56.8 pieces, with a volume of 0.015 m3/m2 and a surfacearea of 0.323 m2/m2 (Table 2). The mean total load for all Gipp-sland sites was not significantly different from that found atthe southwest Victorian sites, which was 84.3 pieces, a vol-ume of 0.027 m3/m2 and surface area of 0.449 m2/m2. Therewere also no significant differences between regions for largewood only and small wood only. The average wood load across

both geographical regions was 70.5 pieces with a volume of0.021 m3/m2 and surface area of 0.386 m2/m2.

The total volume of large wood present in streams(0.019 m3/m2) was significantly higher than the total volume of

74 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n

Table 2 – Average wood load detected at survey sites

Number ofpieces

Volume(m3/m2)

SA (m2/m2)

Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E.

Total loadGippsland 56.8 5.3 0.015 0.008 0.32 0.14SW 84.3 10.5 0.027 0.008 0.45 0.07Overall 70.5 7.5 0.021 0.005 0.39 0.07

Large woodGippsland 24.0 6.7 0.013 0.008 0.21 0.13SW 33.8 10.2 0.025 0.008 0.33 0.08Overall 28.9 5.9 0.019* 0.005 0.27 0.07

Small woodGippsland 32.8 5.0 0.002 0.001 0.11 0.06SW 50.5 4.0 0.002 0.000 0.11 0.01Overall 41.6 4.5 0.002* 0.000 0.11 0.03

For Gippsland and southwest Victoria (SW), n = 4; for overall, n = 8.S.E. is the standard error of the mean.

∗ Overall, the total volume of large wood in streams was sig-

nificantly higher than the total volume of small wood (d.f. = 1,p = 0.02). Significance was tested using one-way ANOVA.

small wood (0.002 m3/m2, d.f. = 1, p = 0.02) (Table 2). There wasno significant difference between either the number of piecesof small wood (41.6) versus large wood (28.9, d.f. = 1, p = 0.17) orin the average surface area of large wood (0.269 m2/m2) com-pared to small wood (0.110 m2/m2, d.f. = 1, p = 0.10).

3.2. Distribution of wood

Across the study area, 62% of wood in the channel was posi-tioned as a part of a clump (Table 3). The arrangement of woodeither as a part of a clump (p = 0.79) or a single piece (p = 1.00),or in the proportion of wood that extended beyond the chan-nel (p = 0.46) was not significantly different between regions orlarge and small wood. However, large wood was significantlymore likely to be buried in the bed or bank of a stream thansmall wood (d.f. = 1, p = 0.03).

3.3. Relationship between stream characteristics andwood

No correlation was observed between the width of the activechannel and either the total number of pieces of wood in thechannel, or the surface area of the wood.

Table 3 – Average distribution of pieces detected at survey sites

Percent arrangedin a clump

Pe

Mean S.E. Mean

Total load 0.62 0.04 0.20Large wood 0.62 0.07 0.27*

Small wood 0.63 0.03 0.15*

For total load, large wood and small wood, n = 8. S.E. is the standard error o∗ Large wood was significantly more likely to be buried in the bed or ba

one-way ANOVA.

g 2 8 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 71–78

A significant negative relationship was detected betweenthe total volume of wood and the active channel width(p < 0.05, r > 0.707) (Fig. 2a). There was also a significant nega-tive correlation between the volume (Fig. 2b) and surface areaof small wood (Fig. 2c) and the channel width.

These relationships were explored to find the optimalexplanatory curve. The relationships linking active channelwidth with total volume, small wood volume, and small woodsurface area were found to be best represented by powercurves (equations shown in Fig. 2a–c, respectively).

The same relationships with wood load were exploredusing catchment area as an explanatory variable. No signif-icant relationship was found between the amount of wood inthe channel and the size of the catchment for that stream.The lack of relationship was consistent for total load and forthe load of large wood. When considering small wood only,the number of pieces was significantly correlated with catch-ment size (p < 0.05, r > 0.707) (Fig. 3), and was also described asa power curve.

4. Discussion

4.1. Wood load

The natural volumes of wood detected in this study (Table 2)were within the ranges reported by other studies, includingthose carried out in Australia (see Wallace and Benke, 1984;O’Connor, 1992; Marsh et al., 1999b). In these other studies,authors found large variation in wood loads between streams(more than an order of magnitude (Marsh et al., 2001a)) andin their review, Gippel et al. (1992) report variation acrossfour orders of magnitude. This level of variability was notobserved in our study, where wood loads were found to be rel-atively similar between streams within geographical regions(Table 2). Therefore, at a regional scale, calculation of an aver-age wood load from streams in reference condition as a targetcould be a useful management tool. Additionally, the rela-tive similarity in wood loads between streams across the tworegions suggests that such a target could also be applied atsites located where similar land use and climatic conditionsprevail.

The use of such a target wood load would be particularlyrelevant in agricultural landscapes where the current load ofwood is substantially below the observed natural load (Gippelet al., 1996; Hilderbrand et al., 1997).

rcent buried inbed or bank

Percent extendingbeyond channel

S.E. Mean S.E.

0.05 0.20 0.050.07 0.22 0.060.04 0.17 0.06

f the mean.

nk than small wood (d.f. = 1, p = 0.03). Significance was tested using

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 2 8 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 71–78 75

Fig. 2 – Significant relationships between width of channel and wood load. (a) The relationship between channel width andlog(e) volume for total wood load. (b) The relationship between channel width and log(e) volume for small wood load based.(c) The relationship between channel width and log(e) surface area for small wood load. *For (a–c), Pearson’s r is statisticallys eighi

bstavuisa

plmittw

ignificant at p = 0.05 (d.f. = 6). All relationships are based onn March, 2004.

This study did detect a significant difference (Table 2)etween the average volume of large and small wood intreams. Such a result may be considered intuitive; however,here was no corresponding significant difference between theverage surface area, or the average number of pieces, of largeersus small wood. This finding suggests that while the vol-me of wood may be dominated by larger pieces, small wood

ncreases the available surface area, and may contribute sub-tantially to the complexity of the in-stream habitat (Triskand Cromack, 1980).

Given the high surface area attributable to small wood, it isossible that, in small streams, it may play an important eco-

ogical role. Therefore, we suggest that utilizing small wooday be of value when rehabilitating small stream systems,

ncluding those typical of agricultural landscapes. Anchoringhe wood may assist in improving natural retention times ofhe pieces. Management of streams in agricultural landscapesould therefore benefit from additional investigation of the

t sites across Gippsland and southwest Victoria, surveyed

ecological importance of small wood in Australian stream,especially the transience of the load of small wood and theuse of small wood by in-stream organisms.

4.2. Distribution of wood

When undertaking stream rehabilitation, the position ofwood in the channel is important as it can impact on themorphology and habitat value of the resource (Gippel etal., 1996; Webb and Erskine, 2005). Distribution and orien-tation directly influence the type of scour and local sedi-ment movement that will occur around a piece or clumpof wood (Cherry and Beschta, 1989; Lemly and Hilderbrand,2000). This in turn affects local habitat characteristics and

complexity. Replicating the natural distribution of wood inrehabilitation works provides habitat for organisms compa-rable to that found in the reference condition (Koehn et al.,2004).

76 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n

Fig. 3 – Significant relationship between log(e) catchmentsize and number of pieces for small wood load. *Pearson’s ris statistically significant at p = 0.05 (d.f. = 6). Thisrelationship is based on eight sites across Gippsland and

r

western Washington. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 118, 368–378.

southwest Victoria, surveyed in Marc, 2004.

Table 3 shows that the majority of wood was arranged asclumps, or debris dams. Clumps are often anchored by oneor more large pieces of wood that then trap smaller piecesand particulate organic matter behind them (Lienkaemper andSwanson, 1987; Gippel et al., 1992). The degree of burial ofwood is also important for interpreting the retention of woodin a stream. Here, significantly more large wood was observedburied in the bank or bed than small wood.

4.3. Relationship between stream characteristics andwood load

Previous studies have shown that the load of large wood ina reach of stream can be correlated with either the catch-ment area above the reach (Gippel et al., 1992) or the widthof the channel (Keller and Swanson, 1979; Lienkaemper andSwanson, 1987; Bilby and Ward, 1989).

Gippel et al. (1992) compiled observations from severalstudies and found a negative relationship between catchmentarea and the amount of large wood in a channel. In the cur-rent study, no such relationship between catchment area andlarge wood load was observed, although a positive relationshipbetween small wood load and catchment area was detected.

Active channel width was not significantly correlated withthe amount of large wood in a stream in this study either,suggesting that the power of the streams surveyed was insuffi-cient to transport large pieces of wood downstream. However,there was a strong correlation between the amount of smallwood and the width of the channel. The strength of this rela-tionship suggests that active channel width may be useful inpredicting targets of small wood loads in the absence of other

information on natural load.

Overall, the lack of relationships involving large wood load,together with inconsistencies between the findings of thisstudy and others, suggest that predictions of pre-disturbance

g 2 8 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 71–78

wood loads based on stream characteristics may be problem-atic. These relationships are less useful for determining a tar-get wood load for rehabilitation than the measurement of alocal reference wood load.

5. Conclusions

The relatively low variability in wood load detected betweenstreams supports the use of a benchmark to determine tar-get wood loads for rehabilitation projects within a region. Theconsistency in wood load between the two regions indicatesthat a combined average wood load may be a useful tool forregions with similar climatic and geographic characteristics,such as those in high rainfall regions in southern Victoria.

The disproportionate contribution of small wood to theoverall surface area and number of pieces of wood suggestsfurther studies should be undertaken to identify its ecologicalrole and whether it would be a useful inclusion in the rehabil-itation of small streams.

The observed load of large wood appeared to be unre-lated to stream characteristics in this study. Relationshipsbetween stream characteristics and small wood load werestrong, but have yet to be demonstrated as predictive. Overall,in instances where a target wood load cannot be approximatedfrom historical records or inferred from riparian vegetationdensity, it is preferable to determine a local reference woodload, rather than attempt to correlate active channel width orcatchment area with natural wood load.

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted as a part of RL’s PhD studies, sup-ported by a scholarship from the School of Applied Sciencesand Engineering, Monash University and in-kind support fromthe Department of Primary Industries, Ellinbank.

Fieldwork was conducted under Research Permit number10002869 (National Parks Act 1975). We thank M. Hannah andJ. Larkins and an anonymous reviewer for their constructivecomments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

e f e r e n c e s

Anbumozhi, V., Radhakrishnan, J., Yamaji, E., 2005. Impact ofriparian buffer zones on water quality. Ecol. Eng. 24 (5),517–523.

Angermeier, P.L., Karr, J.R., 1984. Relationships between woodydebris and fish habitat in a small warmwater stream. Trans.Am. Fish. Soc. 113 (6), 716–726.

Benke, A.C., Henry, R.L., Gillespie, D.M., Hunter, R.J., 1985.Importance of snag habitat for animal production insoutheastern streams. Fisheries 10 (5), 8–13.

Bilby, R.E., 1984. Removal of woody debris may affect streamchannel stability. J. For. 82, 609–613.

Bilby, R.E., Ward, J.W., 1989. Changes in characteristics andfunction of woody debris with increasing size of streams in

Bisson, P., Bilby, R.E., Bryant, C., Dolloff, C.A., Grette, G., House, R.,Murphy, M., Koski, K., Sedell, J.R., 1987. Large woody debris inforested streams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present,future. In: Salo, E., Cundy, T. (Eds.), Streamside management:

r i n g

B

B

B

C

C

d

D

E

G

G

G

G

H

H

H

H

K

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e

forestry and fisheries interactions. University of Washington,College of Forest Resources, Seattle, USA, pp. 143–190(contribution 57).

ond, N.R., Lake, P.S., 2003. Characterizing fish-habitatassociations in streams as the first step in ecologicalrestoration. Aust. Ecol. 28 (6), 611–621.

outin, C., Jobin, B., Belanger, L., 2003. Importance of riparianhabitats to flora conservation in farming landscapes ofsouthern Quebec, Canada. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 94 (1),73–87.

rooks, A.P., Abbe, T.B., Jansen, J.D., Taylor, M., Gippel, C.J., 2001.Putting the wood back into our rivers: an experiment in riverrehabilitation. In: Rutherfurd, I.D., Sheldon, F., Brierley, G.,Kenyon, C. (Eds.), Third Australian Stream ManagementConference Proceedings: the Value of Healthy Streams.Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology,Brisbane, Queensland, pp. 73–80.

herry, J., Beschta, R.L., 1989. Coarse woody debris and channelmorphology: a flume study. Water Resour. Bull. 25 (5),1031–1306.

orrell, D.L., 2005. Principles of planning and establishment ofbuffer zones. Ecol. Eng. 24 (5), 433–439.

e Vries, P.G., 1974. Multi-stage line intersect sampling. For. Sci.20 (2), 129–133.

udgeon, S., 2001. Obi Obi Creek large woody debris habitatrestoration project. In: Rutherfurd, I.D., Sheldon, I., Brierley, G.,Kenyon, C. (Eds.), Third Australian Stream ManagementConference Proceedings: the Value of Healthy Streams.Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology,Clayton, Vic., Brisbane, Queensland, pp.187–190.

rskine, W.D., Webb, A.A., 2003. Desnagging to resnagging: newdirections in river rehabilitation in southeastern Australia.River Res. App. 19, 233–249.

ippel, C.J., 1995. Environmental hydraulics of large woody debrisin streams and rivers. J. Environ. Eng. 121 (5),388–395.

ippel, C.J., Finlayson, B.L., O’Neill, I.C., 1996. Distribution andhydraulic significance of large woody debris in a lowlandAustralian river. Hydrobiologia 318 (3), 179–194.

ippel, C.J., O’Neill, I.C., Finlayson, B.L., 1992. The Hydraulic Basisof Snag Management. Centre for Environmental AppliedHydrology, Melbourne, pp. 116.

ippel, C.J., White, K., 2000. Re-introduction techniques forinstream large woody debris. In: Rutherfurd, I.D., Jerie, K.,Marsh, N. (Eds.), A Rehabilitation Manual for AustralianStreams, vol. 2. Land and Water Resources Research andDevelopment Corporation and Cooperative Research Centrefor Catchment Hydrology, Canberra, pp. 313–321.

armon, M.E., Franklin, J.F., Swanson, F.J., Sollins, P., Gregory, S.V.,Lattin, J.D., Anderson, N.H., Cline, S.P., Aumen, N.G., Sedell,J.R., Lienkaemper, G.W., Cromack Jr., K., Cummins, K.W., 1986.Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv.Ecol. Res. 15, 133–302.

efting, M.M., Clement, J.-C., Bienkowski, P., Dowrick, D., Guenat,C., Butturini, A., Topa, S., Pinay, G., Verhoeven, J.T.A., 2005. Therole of vegetation and litter in the nitrogen dynamics ofriparian buffer zones in Europe. Ecol. Eng. 24, 465–482.

ilderbrand, R.H., Lemly, A.D., Dolloff, C.A., Harpster, K.L., 1997.Effects of large woody debris placement on stream channelsand benthic macroinvertebrates. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54 (4),931–939.

ortle, K.G., Lake, P.S., 1983. Fish of channelized andunchannelized sections of the Bunyip River Victoria Australia.

Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 34 (3), 441–450.

eller, E.A., Swanson, F.J., 1979. Effects of large organic materialon channel form and fluvial processes. Earth Surf. Process.Landfor. 4 (4), 361–380.

2 8 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 71–78 77

Koehn, J.D., Nicol, S.J., Fairbrother, P.S., 2004. Spatial arrangementand physical characteristics of structural woody habitat in alowland river in south-eastern Australia. Aquat. Conserv. 14(5), 457–464.

Lemly, A.D., Hilderbrand, R.H., 2000. Influence of large woodydebris on stream insect communities and benthic detritus.Hydrobiologia. 421 (1), 179–185.

Lienkaemper, G.W., Swanson, F.J., 1987. Dynamics of large woodydebris in streams in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Can. J. For.Res. 17 (2), 150–156.

Marsh, N., Jerie, K., Gippel, C.J., 1999a. Sampling large woodydebris loading in streams: a comparison of theline-intersect and census methods. In: Rutherfurd, I.D.,Bartley, R., Cooperative Research Centre for CatchmentHydrology (Eds.), Second Australian Stream ManagementConference Proceedings: the Challenge of RehabilitatingAustralia’s Streams, February 8–11 1999. Cooperative ResearchCentre for Catchment Hydrology, Adelaide, SouthAustralia.

Marsh, N., Rutherfurd, I.D., Jerie, K., 1999b. Large woody debris insome Australian streams: natural loadings, distribution andmorphological effects. In: Rutherfurd, I.D., Bartley, R. (Eds.),Second Australian Stream Management ConferenceProceedings: the Challenge of Rehabilitating Australia’sStreams, February 8–11 1999, vol. 2. Cooperative ResearchCentre for Catchment Hydrology, Adelaide, South Australia,pp. 427–432.

Marsh, N., Rutherfurd, I.D., Jerie, K., 2001a. Predictingpre-disturbance loading and distribution of large woodydebris. In: Rutherfurd, I.D., Sheldon, F., Brierley, G., Kenyon, C.(Eds.), Third Australian Stream Management ConferenceProceedings: the Value of Healthy Streams. CooperativeResearch Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Brisbane,Queensland, pp. 391–396.

Marsh, N., Western, A., Grayson, R., Rutherfurd, I.D., Finlayson,B.L., 2001b. Enhancing instream habitat with large woodydebris: a flume experiment. In: Rutherfurd, I.D., Sheldon, F.,Brierley, G., Kenyon, C. (Eds.), Third Australian StreamManagement Conference Proceedings: the Value of HealthyStreams. Cooperative Research Centre for CatchmentHydrology, Brisbane, Queensland, pp. 397–402.

Neumann, R.M., Wildman, T.L., 2002. Relationships between trouthabitat use and woody debris in two southernNew England streams. Ecol. Freshwater Fish. 11 (4),240–250.

O’Connor, N.A., 1991. The effects of habitat complexity on themacroinvertebrates colonizing wood substrates in a lowlandstream. Oecologia 85 (4), 504–512.

O’Connor, N.A., 1992. Quantification of submerged wood in alowland Australian stream system. Freshwater Biol. 27 (3),387–395.

Roni, P., Beechie, T.J., Bilby, R.E., Leonetti, F.E., Pollock, M.M., Pess,G.R., 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and ahierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in PacificNorthwest watersheds. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 22 (1),1–20.

Triska, F.J., Cromack Jr., K., 1980. The role of wood debris in forestsand streams. In: R.H., Waring (Ed.), Forests: Fresh Perspectivesfrom Ecosystem Analysis. Proceedings of the 40th AnnualBiology Colloquium. Oregon State University Press, OregonState University, pp. 171–190.

Wallace, J., Benke, A., 1984. Quantification of wood habitat insubtropical coastal plain streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41(11), 1643–1652.

Wallace, J.B., Grubaugh, J.W., Whiles, M.R., 1996. Influences ofCoarse Woody Debris on Stream Habitats and InvertebrateBiodiversity. General Technical Report. United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Forest Service, pp. 119–129.

e r i n

78 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e

Wallace, J.B., Webster, J.R., Meyer, J.L., 1995. Influence of log

additions on physical and biotic characteristics of a mountainstream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52 (10),2120–2137.

Ward, G.M., Aumen, N.G., 1986. Woody debris as a source of fineparticulate organic-matter in coniferous forest stream

g 2 8 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 71–78

ecosystems. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43 (8), 1635–

1642.

Webb, A.A., Erskine, W.D., 2005. Natural variability in thedistribution, loading and induced scour of large wood insand-bed forest streams. River Res. Appl. 21 (2–3),169–185.