ESPM 290: Forests & Water

Last taught: Spring 2006

Next offered: Fall 2007

 

Instructor: Elizabeth W. Boyer, 327 Hilgard Hall.  E-mail: boyer@nature.berkeley.edu, Phone: 510-643-6679, Web: http://nature.berkeley.edu/boyerlab/.

 

Course description.  Forests are vital for rural and urban populations all over the world.  They are an essential natural resource providing multiple benefits to society, and play a key role in the supply of fresh water and the regulation of climate.  Changes in forested landscapes raise concerns about the volume of water flowing to streams, timing of those flows, and water quality.   This seminar explores hydrology in forested watersheds and its relevance to contemporary issues.  A first emphasis is hydrological processes, introducing factors that affect water budgets, flow paths, runoff generation, and water yield.  A second emphasis is impacts of forest management activities on water quality and sustainability of forest resources.

 

Enrollment & learning objectives.  This seminar is intended for graduate students who are broadly interested in environmental sciences or natural resources.  No specific background in hydrology is assumed or required.  All special topics seminar courses (290s) are intended for graduate students at a time when they are actively working on their thesis and laboratory research, designed to hone communication skills and to provide an overview of a specific area that is perhaps outside of their thesis research and thereby to broaden their training.  Our discussions will largely be based on readings of reports & journal articles providing overviews of forest issues and detailing process studies conducted in experimental watersheds, showing how we gain understanding through research and observation.  Students will: 

·          Participate in intellectual exchange with peers, lead classroom discussion, and interpret professional-level journal articles and reports. 

·          Develop a basic understanding of factors affecting hydrology and water quality in forested watersheds, and gain exposure to current issues related to management of forests (e.g., environmental problems, the provision of forest products and ecosystem services, and sustainability of forest resources).  This encompasses a familiarity with vocabulary & concepts, and awareness of how measurements & observations are used to address a variety of problems.  (A primary goal is exposure; a comprehensive understanding of forest hydrological processes or forest management issues cannot be expected from any seminar-style course).  

 

Work load & grading.   We will meet once weekly for ~2 hours.  Our discussions will be based on readings detailing watershed process studies providing overviews of forest issues.  The instructor will typically provide introductory lecture material or a guest presentation, drawing from both the required & optional readings.  Each week all students are expected to read one assigned paper prior to class and attend class prepared to participate in the discussion (Participation and intellectual exchange is 50% of the grade, and attendance is important).  Once during the semester each student will lead or co-lead the classroom discussion of a topic (35% of the grade), providing a few thoughtful discussion questions in advance, and a brief introductory presentation during class.  Once during the semester (not from the same topic/week for which you are discussion leader) each student will write a short summary of one of the optional related papers that accompany the week’s topic (15% of the grade).  As in all classes, I expect students to follow Berkeley’s policies on student conduct and academic honesty; and to be familiar with what constitutes plagiarism & avoid it in their writings.

 

Course schedule:

The schedule will evolve over the course of the semester and is subject to change.  Materials will be distributed electronically and can be viewed with free Acrobat Reader software.  Lecture notes below are the intellectual property of Dr. Boyer and should not be distributed or reproduced.  PDF documents of lecture notes and supplemental materials are available to enrolled students only.  Materials below are distributed exclusively for educational use in accordance with the "fair use" principle expressed in U.S. copyright law. Students should print no more than one copy and should use this material only within the context of this course or their own research.

 

Week 1. Hydrological processes in forested watersheds

[PDF] Beth’s lecture notes

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] Likens GE & FH Bormann, Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem, Chapters 1 and 2.

[PDF] Syllabus and course overview

[PDF] Assignments for discussion leader & written summary

Optional:

[PDF] Hewlett JD, 1969 & reprinted 1982.  Principles of Forest Hydrology, a classic general reference text.

[PDF] Satterlund DR & PW Adams, Wildland Watershed Management, Chapter 1.

[PDF] Stephenson NL, 1990. Climatic Control of Vegetation Distribution - the Role of the Water-Balance. American Naturalist 135:649-670.

 

Week 2. Precipitation & interception

[PDF] Beth’s lecture notes

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] Dawson TE, 1998. Fog in the California redwood forest: ecosystem inputs and use by plants, Oecologia, 117:4, 476-485. 

Optional:

[PDF] Herwitz SR, 1985. Interception storage capacities of tropical rainforest canopy trees. Journal of Hydrology 77:237-252.

[PDF] Burgess, SSO & TE Dawson, 2004. The contribution of fog to the water relations of Sequoia sempervirens: foliar uptake and prevention of dehydration. Plant, Cell & Environment , 27:1023-1034.

[PDF] Levia DF Jr. & Frost EE, 2003. A review and evaluation of stemflow literature in the hydrologic and biogeochemical cycles of forested and agricultural ecosystems. Journal of Hydrology, 274:1-29. 

[PDF] Lewis J, 2003.  Stemflow estimation in a redwood forest using model-based stratified random sampling.  Envirometrics, 14: 559–571 (DOI: 10.1002/env.603)

[PDF] Crockford RH & DP Richardson, 2000.  Partitioning of rainfall into throughfall, stemflow and interception: effect of forest type, ground cover and climate.  Hydrological Processes, 14: 2903-2920.

[LINK] River stage and precipitation forecasts for CA & links to other meteorological information

 

Week 3.  Infiltration & evapotranspiration

[PDF] Beth’s lecture notes

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] Wilson et al., 2001.  A comparison of methods for determining forest evapotranspiration and its components: sap-flow, soil water budget, eddy covariance and catchment water balance.  Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 106:153-168.

Optional:

[PDF] Beven K & P Germann, 1982.  Macropores and water flow in soils.  Water Resources Research, 18(3):1311-1325

[PDF] Dunne T. and RD Black, 1970.  An experimental investigation of runoff production in permeable soils.  Water Resources Research, 6(2):478-490. 

[PDF] Beven K, 2004. Robert E Horton’s perceptual model of infiltration processes. Hydrological Processes, 18: 3447-3460.

[PDF] Fisher JB, TA DeBiase, Y Qi, M Xu and AH Goldstein, 2005.  Evapotranspiration models compared on a Sierra Nevada forest ecosystem. Environmental Modelling & Software 20: 783-796.

[PDF] Stephenson NL, 1998. Actual evapotranspiration and deficit: biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution across spatial scales. Journal of Biogeography 25:855-870.

[PDF] Roberts J., 2000.  The influence of physical and physiological characteristics of vegetation on their hydrological response Hydrological Processes, 14: 2885-2901.
[PDF] Calder IR, 1998.  Water use by forests: limits and controls. Tree Physiology, 18:625–631

 

Week 4.  Variable source areas & concentration-discharge relationships

[PDF] Beth’s lecture notes

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] Hewlett JD and AR Hibbert. 1967. Factors affecting the response of small watersheds to precipitation in humid areas. In Forest Hydrology, edited by WE Sopper and HW Lull, Pergamon, New York, pp. 275-290.

Optional:

[PDF] Beven K, 1978.  The hydrological response of headwater and sideslope areas.  Hydrological Sciences

Bulletin, 23(4):419-437. 

[PDF] Buttle, JM. 1994.   Isotope hydrograph separations and rapid delivery of pre-event water from drainage basins. Progress  in Physical Geogaphy, 18(1): 16-41.

[PDF] Dunne T, TR Moore, and CH Taylor, 1975.  Recognition and prediction of runoff-producing zones in humid regions.  Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 3(9): 305-327. 

[PDF] McDonnell JJ, 2003. Where does water go when it rains? Moving beyond the variable source area concept of rainfall-runoff response. Hydrological Processes 17:1869-1875.

[PDF] Montgomery DR & WE Dietrich, 2002, Runoff generation in a steep, soil-mantled landscape, Water Resources Research, 38:1168, doi:10.1029/2001WR000822.

[PDF] Mulholland P, 1993.  Hydrometric and stream chemistry evidence of three storm flowpaths in Walker Branch watershed.  Journal of Hydrology 151:291-316. 

[PDF] Pinder GF & JF Jones. 1969. Determination of the groundwater component of peak discharge from the chemistry of total runoff. Water Resources Research. 5(2): 438-445.

[PDF] Sklash, MG & RN Farvolden. 1979. The role of groundwater in storm runoff. Journal of Hydrology, 43: 45-65.

[Link] Resources on isotopes

 [PDF] Rice KC & GM Hornberger, 1998.  Comparison of hydrochemical tracers to estimate source contributions to peak flow in a small, forested, headwater catchment.  Water Resources Research, 34(7): 1755-1766.

 

Week 5.  Forest streamflow & climate change

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] Hayhoe, K., DC Cayan, CB Field, PC Frumhoff, EP Mauer, NL Miller, SC Moser, SH Schneider, and others, 2004.  Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of the National Acad. Sciences, 101(34):12422-12427.

Optional:

[PDF] Dettinger M, 2005.  Changes in streamflow timing in the western United States in recent decades.  US Geological Survey, National Streamflow Information Program, Fact Sheet -2005-3018

[PDF] Maurer, E.P., S. Gibbard, and P.B. Duffy, 2006.  Amplification of streamflow impacts of El Niño by increased atmospheric greenhouse gases, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 2, L02707 10.1029/2005GL025100.

 

Week 6.  Introduction to forest management & environmental impacts

Guest presentations: Greg Biging, Associate Dean for Forestry; and ESPM forestry faculty TBA.

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] Binkley D and T Brown, 1993.  Forest practices as nonpoint sources of pollution in North America.  Water Resources Bulletin 29:729-740.

Optional:

[PDF] Young KA, 2000. Riparian zone management in the Pacific Northwest: Who's cutting what? Environmental Management, 26(2), 131-144.

[LINK] “State of Denial” report from The Sacramento Bee, regarding conservation in California

 

Week 7.  Impacts of atmospheric deposition on forests & water

[PDF] Beth’s lecture notes

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] Driscoll CT, D Whitall, JD Aber, EW Boyer, M Castro, C Cronan, C Goodale, P Groffman, C Hopkinson, K Lambert, G Lawrence and SV Ollinger, 2003.  Nitrogen Pollution in the Northeastern United States: Sources, Effects and Management Options, BioScience 53, 357-374.

Optional:

[PDF] Aber JD, WH McDowell, KJ Nadelhoffer, AH Magill, G Berntson, M Kamekea, SG McNulty, W Currie, L Rustad & I Fernandez, 1998. Nitrogen saturation in temperate forest ecosystems: hypotheses revisited. BioScience 48: 921-934

[PDF] Aber, JD, CL Goodale, SV Ollinger, M-L Smith, AH Magill, ME Martin, RA Hallett, and JL Stoddard. 2003. Is nitrogen deposition altering the nitrogen status of Northeastern Forests? BioScience 23(4):375-390.

[PDF] Fenn ME, Baron JS, Allen EB, Rueth HM, Nydick KR, Geiser L, Bowman WD, Sickman JO, Meixner T, Johnson DW, Neitlich P 2003 Ecological effects of nitrogen deposition in the western United States. BioScience 53:391-403.

[PDF] Takemoto BK, Bytnerowicz A, Fenn ME. 2001. Current and future effects of ozone and atmospheric nitrogen deposition on California’s mixed conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 144::159–173.

[PDF] Ohte N, SD Sebestyen, JB Shanley, DH Doctor, C Kendall, SD Wankel, and EW Boyer (2004).  Tracing sources of nitrate in snowmelt runoff using a high-resolution isotopic technique.  Geophysical Research Letters, 31(L21506), doi:10.1029/2004GL020908.

 

Week 8.  Impacts of forest management on streams & riparian zones

[PDF] Beth’s lecture notes

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] Naiman RJ, RE Bilby, & PA Bisson. 2000.  Riparian ecology and management in the pacific coastal rain forest.  Bioscience 50(11): 996-1011

Optional:

[PDF] Harvey & Bencala 1993. The effect of streambed topography on surface-subsurface water exchange in mountain catchments.  Water Resources Research 29(1):89-98.

[PDF] Gomi T, RC Sidle, & JS Richardson, 2002.  Understanding processes and downstream linkages of headwater systems.  Bioscience 52(10): 905-916.

[PDF] Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, and Cummins KW. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41:540-551.
[PDF] Lytle DA, and Poff NL. 2004. Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:94-100.

 

Week 9.  Impacts of forest management on peak flows & floods

[PDF] Beth’s lecture notes

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] FAO & CIFOR 2005.  Forests and floods: Drowning in fiction or thriving on facts? Center for International Forestry Research, and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Forest Perspectives Series.

Optional:

[PDF] Ziemer RR, 1981.  Storm flow response to road building and partial cutting in small streams of northern California.  Water Resources Research, 17(4): 907-917.

[PDF] Wright KA, KH Sendek, RM Rice, & RB Thomas, 1990.  Logging effects on streamflow: storm runoff at Caspar Creek in northwestern California.  Water Resources Research 26(7): 1657-1667.

[PDF] Genereux DP, 2003. Comparison of methods for estimation of 50-year peak discharge from a small rural watershed in North Carolina. Environmental Geology 44(1): 53-58. DOI 10.1007/s00254-002-0734-5.

Spotlight on scientific debate on peakflow responses to forest practices in the western Cascades of Oregon:

[PDF] Rothacher J, Dyrness CT, & Fredriksen RL, 1967. Hydrologic and related characteristics of three small watersheds in the Oregon Cascades. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest & Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.    Note: you’ll need to get this article from the library.

[PDF] Rothacher J, 1973. Does harvest in west slope Douglas-fir increase peak flow in small forest streams? USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest & Range Experiment Station, Research Paper PNW-163, 13.

[PDF] RL Beschta, MR Pyles, AE Skaugset, CG Surfleet, 2000.  Peakflow responses to forest practices in the western cascades of Oregon, USA.  Journal of Hydrology 233: 102-120.

[PDF] Jones JA and GE Grant, 1996.  Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon, Water Resources Research, 32(4), 959–974.

[PDF] Thomas RB & WF Megahan, 1998.  Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon: A second opinion.  Water Resources Research, 37(1): 181-183.

[PDF] Jones JA & GE Grant, 2001. Comment on “Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon: A second opinion” by RB Thomas & WF Megahan. Includes Thomas RB & WF Megahan, Reply.  Water Resources Research, 37(1).

 

Week 10.  Impacts of land management on stream temperature

 [PDF] Beth’s lecture notes

To read for our discussion:

Bartholow, J.M., S.G. Campbell, and M. Flug. 2004. Predicting the thermal effects of dam removal on the Klamath River. Environmental Management 34(6): 856-874.

Optional:

[PDF] Brown GW & JT Krygier, 1970.  Effects of clearcutting on stream temperature.  Water Resources Research, 6(4):1133-1140. 

[LINK] National Research Council, 2002.  Scientific Evaluation of Biological Opinions on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Interim Report.

[LINK] National Research Council, 2004.  Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Causes of Decline and Strategies for Recovery.

 

Week 11.  Impacts of forest management on erosion & sediment

[PDF] Beth’s lecture notes

Guest presentation: Yana Valachovic, Forest Advisor, UC Cooperative Extension.

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] Suttle, K.B., M.E. Power, J.M. Levine, and C. McNeely. 2004. How fine sediment in riverbeds impairs growth and survival of juvenile salmonids. Ecological Applications 14: 969- 974.  

Optional:

[PDF] Harr RD, A Levno & R Mersereua, 1982. Streamflow changes after logging 130-year-old Douglas fir in two small watersheds. Water Resources Research, 18(3), 637-644. 

[PDF] McCashion JD & RM Rice, 1983.  Erosion on logging roads in northwestern California: How much is avoidable? Journal of Forestry 81(1): 23-26.

[PDF] Brown GW, 1979.  The impact of timber harvesting on soil and water resources.  Oregon State University extension publication.

[PDF] Keppeler ET, J Lewis, TE Lisle, 2003.  Effects of forest management on streamflow, sediment yield, and erosion, Caspar Creek Experimental Watersheds.  In: Renard, Kenneth G.; McElroy, Stephen A.; Gburek, William J.; Canfield, H. Evan; Scott, Russell L., eds. First Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds, October 27-30, 2003. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; 77-82.

[PDF] Lewis J, Mori SR, Keppeler ET, Ziemer RR. 2001. Impacts of logging on storm peak flows, flow volumes and suspended sediment loads in Caspar Creek, California. In Land Use and Watersheds: Human Influence on Hydrology and Geomorphology in Urban and Forest Areas: Water Science and Application, Vol. 2, Wigmosta MS, Burges SJ (eds). American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC; 85–125.

[PDF] Gucinski H, MJ Hermann, RR Ziemer, and MH Brookes, 2001.  Forest roads: A synthesis of scientific information.  General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 103 p.

[PDF] Luce CE, 2002.  Hydrological processes and pathways affected by forest roads: what do we still need to learn?  Hydrological Processes 16: 2901-2904.

 

Week 12.  Impacts of fire on forests & water

[PDF] Beth’s lecture notes

Guest presentation: Scott Stephens, Associate Professor of fire science

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] Stephens SL, T Meixner, M Poth, B McGurk, D Payne. 2004. Prescribed fire, soils, and stream water chemistry in a watershed in the Lake Tahoe Basin. International Journal of Wildland Fire 13: 27-35.

Optional:

[PDF] Murphy JD, DW Johnson, WW Miller, RF Walker, EF Carrol, and RR Blank. 2006. Wildfire effects on soil nutrients and leaching in a Tahoe Basin watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 35: 479-489.

[PDF] Beche LA, SL Stephens, and VH Resh. 2005. Prescribed fire effects on a riparian and stream community in the Sierra Nevada: Dark Canyon Creek, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 218:37-59

[PDF] Chorover J, PM Vitousek, D Everson, A Esperanza and D Turner, 1994. Solution chemistry profiles of mixed-conifer forests before and after fire. Biogeochemistry 26:115-144

 

Week 13. Cumulative watershed effects

To read for our discussion:

[PDF] Reid L. 1998.  Cumulative watershed effects and watershed analysis.  Chapter 19 in: Naiman, Robert J., and Robert E. Bilby, eds. River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, N.Y. p. 476-501.

Optional:

[PDF] Dunne T, J Agee, S Beissinger, WE Dietrich, D Gray, ME Power, VH Resh, and K Rodrigues. 2001. A scientific basis for the prediction of cumulative watershed effects.  University of California Wildland Resource Center Report No. 46, 103 pp.

[PDF] Montgomery, D.R., Grant, G.E., and Sullivan, K. 1995. Watershed analysis as a framework for implementing ecosystem management. Water Resources Bulletin. 31(3): 369-386. 

 

Week 14.  Forest ecosystem goods & services

To read for our discussion:

 [PDF] Aber J, N Christensen, I Fernandez, J Franklin, L Hidinger, M Hunter, J MacMahon, D Mladenoff, J Pastor, D Perry, R Slangen, H van Miegroet, 2000. Applying ecological principles to management of the U.S. national forests, Ecological Society of America, Issues in Ecology, No. 6.

Optional:

[PDF] Black PE, 1997.  Watershed functions.  Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 33(1):1-11.

[PDF] Daily GC, S Alexander, PR Ehrlich, L Goulder, J Lubchenco, PA Matson, HA Mooney, S Postel, SH Schneider, D Tilman, and GM Woodwell, 1997.  Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems.  Ecological Society of America, Issues in Ecology, No. 2.

 

Week 15.  Future forests

To read for our discussion

Course wrap-up

Guest presentation:

Dr. John Helms, professor emeritus ESPM, and past president of the Society of American Foresters. 

 

 

General questions to think about when reading papers

(in addition to the thoughtful discussion questions our leaders will provide)

·          Is the paper a description of an experiment or concept, or a synthesis of previous work on the topic?

·          What are the hypotheses, objectives or goals put forth? 

·          What methods are used?  Are they appropriate for the research questions being addressed? 

·          What are the results of the study?  How do they relate to the research questions?

·          Are the interpretations of data & results justified?

·          What are the major conclusions made?  Are they significant?  Are they interesting?  What remains unanswered?

·          What relevance does this paper have to issues or topics covered in class? 

·          Are such questions and/or methods relevant to your own research?  How would you do things differently?