Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Ecological Restoration
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Ecological Restoration

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Visit uwp on Facebook
Research ArticleResearch Article

Testing Ecological Tradeoffs of a New Tool for Removing Fine Sediment in a Spring-fed Stream

Adam J. Sepulveda, Juddson Sechrist and Laurie B. Marczak
Ecological Restoration, March 2014, 32 (1) 68-77; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/er.32.1.68
Adam J. Sepulveda
Juddson Sechrist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Technical Service Center, Denver, CO, 80225.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Juddson Sechrist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laurie B. Marczak
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

References

    1. Allan J.D.
    2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:257–284.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Beschta R.L.
    1997. Pacific Salmon & Their Ecosystems. Restoration of riparian and aquatic systems for improved aquatic habitats in the upper Columbia River basin. New York, NY: Springer.
    1. Budy P.,
    2. Wood S.,
    3. Roper B.
    2012. A study of the spawning ecology and early life history survival of Bonneville cutthroat trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32:436–449.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Chase J.M.
    2003. Community assembly: When should history matter? Oecologia 136:489–498.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Clarke K.R.,
    2. Warwick R.M.
    1994. Change in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. 1st ed. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Natural Environment Research Council, Plymouth, UK.
    1. Dietrich W.E.,
    2. Kirchner J.W.,
    3. Ikeda H.,
    4. Iseya F.
    1989. Sediment supply and the development of the coarse surface layer in gravel-bedded rivers. Nature 340:215–217.
    OpenUrlCrossRefGeoRefWeb of Science
    1. Dufrene M.,
    2. Legendre P.
    1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: The need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67:345–366.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Environmental Protection Agency
    . 2004. National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress, 2004.
    1. Gjerløv C.,
    2. Hildrew A.G.,
    3. Jones J.I.
    2003. Mobility of stream invertebrates in relation to disturbance and refugia: A test of habitat templet theory. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22:207–223.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Hilsenhoff W.L.
    1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist 20:31–40.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
    1. House R.,
    2. Crispin V.,
    3. Monthey R.
    1989. Evaluation of stream rehabilitation projects—Salem district (1981– 1988). Technical Note, US Bureau of Land Management, Salem, Oregon.
    1. Kauffman J.B.,
    2. Beschta R.L.,
    3. Otting N.,
    4. Lytjen D.
    1997. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 22:12–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Kondolf G.M.
    1998. Lessons learned from river restoration projects in California. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:39–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Leopold A.
    1970. A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.
    1. Lowe W.H.,
    2. Bolger D.T.
    2002. Local and landscape-scale predictors of salamander abundance in New Hampshire headwater streams. Conservation Biology 16:183–193.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. McCune B,
    2. Mefford M.J.
    1999. PC-ORD: Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data; Version 4 for Windows;[user’S Guide]. MjM Software Design.
    1. Mebane C.A.
    2001. Testing bioassessment metrics: Macroinvertebrate, sculpin, and salmonid responses to stream habitat, sediment, and metals. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 67:293–322.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Merz J.E.,
    2. Ochikubo Chan L.K.
    2005. Effects of gravel augmentation on macroinvertebrate assemblages in a regulated California river. River Research and Applications 21:61–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Minshall G.W.
    1978. Autotrophy in stream ecosystems. BioScience 28:767–771.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Montgomery D.R.,
    2. Buffington J.M.
    1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin 109:596.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Muotka T.,
    2. Paavola R.,
    3. Haapala A.,
    4. Novikmec M.,
    5. Laasonen P.
    2002. Long-term recovery of stream habitat structure and benthic invertebrate communities from in-stream restoration. Biological Conservation 105:243–253.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Poff N.L.R.,
    2. Allan J.D.,
    3. Bain M.B.,
    4. Karr J.R.,
    5. Prestegaard K.L.,
    6. Richter B.D.,
    7. Sparks R.E.,
    8. Stromberg J.C.
    1997. The natural flow regime. BioScience 47:769–784.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Rowe M.,
    2. Essig D.,
    3. Jessup B.
    2003. Guide to Selection of Sediment Targets for Use in Idaho TMDLs.in Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise, Id. www.deq.idaho.gov/media/528694-sediment_targets_guide.pdf
    1. Schreiber E.S.G.,
    2. Quinn G.P.,
    3. Lake P.S.
    2003. Distribution of an alien aquatic snail in relation to flow variability, human activities and water quality. Freshwater Biology 48:951–961.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Smith E.P.,
    2. Voshell J.R.
    1997. Studies of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish in streams within EPA Region 3 for development of Biological Indicators of Ecological Condition. Part 1, Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Report to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cooperative Agreement CF821462010. Washington, D.C.: EPA.
    1. Sutherland A.B.,
    2. Culp J.M.,
    3. Benoy G.A.
    2010. Characterizing deposited sediment for stream habitat assessment. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 8:30–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Trombulak S.C.,
    2. Frissell C.A.
    2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Vieira N.K.,
    2. Clements W.H.,
    3. Guevara L.S.,
    4. Jacobs B.F.
    2004. Resistance and resilience of stream insect communities to repeated hydrologic disturbances after a wildfire. Freshwater Biology 49:1243–1259.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Wesche T.A.,
    2. Goertler C.M.,
    3. Frye C.B.
    1987. Contribution of riparian vegetation to trout cover in small streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:151–153.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Whiles M.,
    2. Wallace J.B.
    1992. Firstyear benthic recovery of a headwater stream following a 3-year insecticide induced disturbance. Freshwater Biology 28:81–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Wolman M.G.
    1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 35:951–956.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Wood P.J.,
    2. Armitage P.D.
    1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environmental Management 21:203–217.
    OpenUrlGeoRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Yount J.D.,
    2. Niemi G.J.
    1990. Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from disturbance—a narrative review of case studies. Environmental Management 14:547–569.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Zar J.H.
    1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    1. Zimmerman G.M.,
    2. Goetz H.,
    3. Mielke P. W. Jr.
    . 1985. Use of an improved statistical method for group comparisons to study effects of prairie fire. Ecology 66:606–611.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ecological Restoration: 32 (1)
Ecological Restoration
Vol. 32, Issue 1
1 Mar 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ecological Restoration.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Testing Ecological Tradeoffs of a New Tool for Removing Fine Sediment in a Spring-fed Stream
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ecological Restoration
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ecological Restoration web site.
Citation Tools
Testing Ecological Tradeoffs of a New Tool for Removing Fine Sediment in a Spring-fed Stream
Adam J. Sepulveda, Juddson Sechrist, Laurie B. Marczak
Ecological Restoration Mar 2014, 32 (1) 68-77; DOI: 10.3368/er.32.1.68

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Testing Ecological Tradeoffs of a New Tool for Removing Fine Sediment in a Spring-fed Stream
Adam J. Sepulveda, Juddson Sechrist, Laurie B. Marczak
Ecological Restoration Mar 2014, 32 (1) 68-77; DOI: 10.3368/er.32.1.68
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Evaluation of a Fine Sediment Removal Tool in Spring-fed and Snowmelt Driven Streams
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Container Type but not Substrate or Hydrogel affects Establishment of Sandhill Milkweed (Asclepias humistrata)
  • Effects of Restoration on Small Headwater Stream Quality
  • Natural Regeneration Dynamics of Himalayan Forests
Show more Research Article

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • macroinvertebrate
  • particle size
  • New Zealand mudsnail (Potamoprygus antipodarum)
  • Sand Wand system
UW Press logo

© 2025 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire