ArticlePloS one2024
Same streams in a different forest? Investigations of forest harvest legacies and future trajectories across 30 years of stream habitat monitoring on the Tongass National Forest, Alaska.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of timber harvest practices and climate change have altered forest ecosystems in southeast Alaska. However, quantification of patterns and trends in stream habitats associated with these forests is limited owing to a paucity of data available in remote watersheds. Here, we analyzed a 30-year dataset from southeast Alaska's Tongass National Forest to understand how these factors shape stream habitats. First, we examined differences between broad management classes (i.e., harvested and non-harvested) that have been used to guide stream channel restoration goals. Second, we assessed associations between intrinsic landscape characteristics, watershed management, and timber harvest legacies on aquatic habitat metrics. And third, we examined trends in stream habitat metrics over the duration of the dataset to anticipate future management challenges for these systems. Small effect sizes for some harvest-related predictors suggest that some stream habitat metrics, such as pool densities, are less responsive than others, and management practices such as protecting riparian buffers as well as post-harvest restoration may help conserve fish habitats. Large wood densities increased with time since harvest at sites harvested >50 years ago, indicating that multiple decades of post-harvest forest regrowth may contribute large wood to streams (possibly alder), but that it is not enough time for old-growth trees (e.g., spruce, Picea, or hemlock, Tsuga,), classified as key wood, to develop and be delivered to streams. The declining trend in key wood (i.e., the largest size class of wood) regardless of management history may reflect that pre-harvest legacy old-growth trees are declining along streams, with low replacement. The introduction of wood to maintain complex stream habitats may fill this gap until riparian stands again contribute structural key wood to streams. Trend analyses indicate an increasing spatial extent of undercut banks that may also be influenced by shifting hydrologic regimes under climate change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.