Determination of optimal riparian forest buffer dimensions for stream biota–landscape association models using multimetric and multivariate responses

2005 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel A Frimpong ◽  
Trent M Sutton ◽  
Kyoung J Lim ◽  
Peter J Hrodey ◽  
Bernard A Engel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Correlation ◽  
Riparian Forest ◽  
Community Response ◽  
Association Models ◽  
Model Interpretation ◽  
Landscape Models ◽  
Digital Format ◽  
Riparian Forest Buffer ◽  
Stream Biota ◽  
Forest Buffer

The dimensions of riparian buffers selected for stream biota–landscape association models determine correlation strength and subsequent model interpretation. Efforts have been made to optimize buffer dimensions incorporated into models, but none has explicitly determined a single optimum based on both longitudinal and lateral buffer dimensions. We applied partial correlation and multivariate linear regression on functional fish community response attributes and the index of biotic integrity using stream samples (N = 107) from the Eastern Corn Belt Plain Ecoregion of Indiana, USA. Land-cover data in digital format were processed in geographic information systems for an area covering 300 m on either side of selected streams and within 2000 m longitudinally. The optimal buffer dimension for the study area was 30 m laterally and 600 m longitudinally, with a partial correlation of 0.29 (P = 0.002), and there was agreement in the partial correlation and multiple regression models. The longitudinal dimension was more conclusively determined, but the lateral dimension was optimum only with respect to the resolution of the land-use data used. Based on these results, we propose the use of this approach to optimize the riparian buffer parameter in landscape models.

HERBICIDE TRANSPORT IN A RESTORED RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER SYSTEM

2002 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Vellidis ◽  
R. Lowrance ◽  
P. Gay ◽  
R. D. Wauchope
Keyword(s):  
Riparian Forest ◽  
Buffer System ◽  
Herbicide Transport ◽  
Riparian Forest Buffer ◽  
Forest Buffer

scholarly journals Evaluating Concentrated Flowpaths in Riparian Forest Buffer Contributing Areas Using LiDAR Imagery and Topographic Metrics

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlington Wallace ◽  
Gregory McCarty ◽  
Sangchul Lee ◽  
Robert Brooks ◽  
Tamie Veith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Riparian Forest ◽  
Riparian Forest Buffer ◽  
Forest Buffer

Water Quality Functions of a 15-Year-Old Riparian Forest Buffer System1

2010 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Denis Newbold ◽  
Susan Herbert ◽  
Bernard W. Sweeney ◽  
Paul Kiry ◽  
Stephen J. Alberts
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Riparian Forest ◽  
Riparian Forest Buffer ◽  
Forest Buffer

scholarly journals Costs and benefits of seven alternatives for riparian forest buffer management

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Johan Sonesson ◽  
Eva Ring ◽  
Lars Högbom ◽  
Tomas Lämås ◽  
Olof Widenfalk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Riparian Forest ◽  
Buffer Management ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Riparian Forest Buffer ◽  
Forest Buffer

Riparian forest buffer system research at the coastal plain experiment station, Tifton, GA

1994 ◽  
Vol 77 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 409-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. K. Hubbard ◽  
R. R. Lowrance
Keyword(s):  
Coastal Plain ◽  
Riparian Forest ◽  
Buffer System ◽  
System Research ◽  
Experiment Station ◽  
Riparian Forest Buffer ◽  
Forest Buffer

HERBICIDE TRANSPORT IN A MANAGED RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER SYSTEM

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 1047-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Lowrance ◽  
G. Vellidis ◽  
R. D. Wauchope ◽  
P. Gay ◽  
D. D. Bosch
Keyword(s):  
Riparian Forest ◽  
Buffer System ◽  
Herbicide Transport ◽  
Riparian Forest Buffer ◽  
Forest Buffer

Playing with Asimina triloba (pawpaw): a species to consider when enhancing riparian forest buffer systems with non-timber products

1998 ◽  
Vol 112 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 169-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luisa Fernanda Robles-Diaz-de-León ◽  
Alfredo Nava-Tudela
Keyword(s):  
Riparian Forest ◽  
Asimina Triloba ◽  
Timber Products ◽  
Riparian Forest Buffer ◽  
Forest Buffer

Unknown and Under-Researched: The Anatomy of Drinking Under Control Programs

2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 277-288
Author(s):  
Harald Klingemann ◽  
Justyna Klingemann
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Mission Statements ◽  
Community Response ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Admission Criteria ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Institutional Order

Abstract. Introduction: While alcohol treatment predominantly focuses on abstinence, drug treatment objectives include a variety of outcomes related to consumption and quality of life. Consequently harm reduction programs tackling psychoactive substances are well documented and accepted by practitioners, whereas harm reduction programs tackling alcohol are under-researched and met with resistance. Method: The paper is mainly based on key-person interviews with eight program providers conducted in Switzerland in 2009 and up-dated in 2015, and the analysis of reports and mission statements to establish an inventory and description of drinking under control programs (DUCPs). A recent twin program in Amsterdam and Essen was included to exemplify conditions impeding their implementation. Firstly, a typology based on the type of alcohol management, the provided support and admission criteria is developed, complemented by a detailed description of their functioning in practice. Secondly, the case studies are analyzed in terms of factors promoting and impeding the implementation of DUCPs and efforts of legitimize them and assess their success. Results: Residential and non-residential DUCPs show high diversity and pursue individualized approaches as the detailed case descriptions exemplify. Different modalities of proactively providing and including alcohol consumption are conceptualized in a wider framework of program objectives, including among others, quality of life and harm reduction. Typically DUCPs represent an effort to achieve public or institutional order. Their implementation and success are contingent upon their location, media response, type of alcohol management and the response of other substance-oriented stake holders in the treatment system. The legitimization of DUCPs is hampered by the lack of evaluation studies. DUCPs rely mostly – also because of limited resources – on rudimentary self-evaluations and attribute little importance to data collection exercises. Conclusions: Challenges for participants are underestimated and standard evaluation methodologies tend to be incompatible with the rationale and operational objectives of DUCPs. Program-sensitive multimethod approaches enabled by sufficient financing for monitoring and accompanying research is needed to improve the practice-oriented implementation of DUCPs. Barriers for these programs include assumptions that ‘alcohol-assisted’ help abandons hope for recovery and community response to DUCPs as locally unwanted institutions (‘not in my backyard’) fuelled by stigmatization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document