CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 295Fish Ecology and Management StudiesFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyFish biology, ecology, and behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effects of Riparian Forest Removal on Fish Assemblages in Southern Appalachian Streams

Jones, E. B. Dale, Helfman, Gene S., Harper, Joshua O., Bolstad, Paul V.·1999·Conservation Biology
DOI 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98172.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract: Deforestation of riparian zones is known to influence the numbers and kinds of organisms that inhabit adjoining streams, but little quantitative information is available on how much deforestation must occur before the biota isaffected. We sampled fishes and stream habitats in 12 stream segments downstream from deforested but vegetated riparian patches 0–5.3 km long, all downslope from watersheds with at least 95% forest cover. We found an overall decrease in fish abundance with increasing length of nonforested riparian patch; sculpins, benthic minnows, and darters decreased, and sunfishes and water‐column minnows increased in numbers. Introduced species were more common downstream from longer riparian patches. Habitat diversity decreased and riffles became filled with fine sediments as upstream patch length increased. Length of upstream nonforested patch and substrate particle size were much stronger predictors of fish occurrence than riparian patch width. Faunal characteristics and physical features of the stream changed in direct proportion to the gradient of riparian disturbance, but the abundance of several species underwent pronounced change at particular threshold patch lengths. These results suggest that riparian forest removal leads to shifts in the structure of stream fish assemblages due to (1) decreases in fish species that do not guard hidden eggs or that are dependent on swift, shallow water that flows over relatively sediment‐free substrates, or (2) increases in fishes that guard their young in pebble or pit nests or that live in slower, deeper water. When watershed development is anticipated or planned, limited clearing of riparian trees may cause minor disturbance to the fish assemblage, but streams in even a heavily forested watershed with vegetated riparian buffers cannot tolerate disruption of riparian‐zone trees over much more than 1 km in length. Riparian buffer length and area should be given stronger consideration in stream protection and restoration plans.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98172.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Jones et al. (1999) found the abundance of fine sediment to increase with the length of deforested reaches upstream of the sampling sites.

    “and Jones et al. (1999) found the abundance of fine sediment to increase with the length of deforested reaches upstream of the sampling sites.”

    From Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams (2002) · cites this paper as Jones et al. (1999)

  • Jones et al. (1999) found that total fish abundance decreased with deforestation upstream of their sampling sites in the little Tennessee River drainage in North Carolina and Georgia.

    “In contrast, Jones et al. (1999) found that total fish abundance decreased with deforestation upstream of their sampling sites in the little Tennessee River drainage in North Carolina and Georgia”

    From Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams (2002) · cites this paper as Jones et al. (1999)

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. 10.1577/1548-8675(1993)013<0790:SHTTFA>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  2. Armour C. L., 1991, The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems., Fisheries, 16, 7
  3. Avery T. E., 1992, Fundamentals of remote sensing and image interpretation
  4. 10.1139/f75-110 · DOI
  5. Bartram W., 1794, Travels through North & South Carolina, Georgia, East & West Florida, the Cherokee country, the extensive territories of the Muscogulges, or Creek confederacy, and the country of the Chactaws; containing an account of the soil and natural productions of those regions, together with observations on the manners of the Indians, 10.5962/bhl.title.109458 · DOI
  6. 10.1007/BF00004881 · DOI
  7. 10.1023/A:1008060508762 · DOI
  8. Burkhead N. M., 1997, Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective, 375
  9. Castelle A. J., 1994, Wetland and stream buffer size requirements: a review., Journal of Environmental Quality, 23, 878, 10.2134/jeq1994.00472425002300050004x · DOI
  10. 10.1007/BF02393907 · DOI
  11. Environmental Systems Research Institute, 1997, Arc/Info. Version 7.1.1
  12. Etnier D. A., 1994, Our southeastern fishes: what have we lost and what are we likely to lose., Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings, 29, 5
  13. Gordon N. P., 1992, Stream hydrology: an introduction for ecologists
  14. 10.2307/1936581 · DOI
  15. 10.1073/pnas.95.25.14843 · DOI
  16. Helfman G. S., 1997, The diversity of fishes
  17. Hermann K. A., 1996, The Southern Appalachian assessment GIS data base CD ROM set
  18. Hudson C., 1976, The southeastern Indians
  19. 10.1577/1548-8446(1992)017<0011:BAMONR>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  20. 10.1023/A:1007576502479 · DOI
  21. 10.2307/1309729 · DOI
  22. Lyons J., 1990, A review of fisheries habitat improvement projects in warmwater streams, with recommendations for Wisconsin
  23. Menhinick E. F., 1991, The freshwater fishes of North Carolina
  24. 10.1007/978-1-4684-6426-9_6 · DOI
  25. 10.2307/2265770 · DOI
  26. Muncy R. J., 1979, Effects of suspended solids and sediment on reproduction and early life history of warmwater fishes: a review
  27. 10.1007/BF02394710 · DOI
  28. Redfearn A., 1987, Insect outbreaks, 99, 10.1016/B978-0-12-078148-5.50009-9 · DOI
  29. 10.1007/BF02447513 · DOI
  30. 10.2307/1311765 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Stanford J. A., 1996, Methods in stream ecology, 3
  32. 10.1577/1548-8446(1997)022<0006:IOWLUO>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  33. 10.1577/1548-8446(1994)019<0006:SOFFOT>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  34. Waters T. F., 1995, Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects and control
  35. 10.1577/1548-8659(1994)123<0162:UOAWAH>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  36. Williams M., 1989, Americans and their forests: a historical geography
  37. 10.1007/s002679900019 · DOI
  38. Zar J. H. G., 1974, Biostatistical analysis

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jones, E. B. D., Helfman, G. S., Harper, J. O., & Bolstad, P. V.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-12
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
1454-1465
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
DOI
10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98172.x
OpenAlex
W2045180823
Cited by
295
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 13
FWCI
5.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 754 d)
Locations
Conservation Biology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • University of Georgia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish biology, ecology, and behavior
Keywords
riparian deforestation, stream fish assemblages, habitat disturbance, habitat diversity, substrate particle size, introduced species, watershed development, stream restoration, southern Appalachian streams

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review