LARGE WOODY DEBRIS IN URBAN STREAM CHANNELS: REDEFINING THE PROBLEM
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS IN URBAN STREAM CHANNELS: REDEFINING THE PROBLEM
复制标题
城市河道中的大型木质碎片：重新定义问题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Kondolf
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. S. Lassettre;G. Kondolf
大型木质废弃物(LWD)是河流和溪流中的重要生态元素。尽管LWD很重要，但出于防洪或道路维护的目的，它经常被从城市河道中移除，这一方法具有高昂的经济和生态成本，而且基本上不成功。我们建议一种方法，通过修改基础设施(涵洞和桥梁)来保护河道中的LWD，以允许LWD通过，维持水生生物栖息地，并减少洪水和道路维护成本。在有随钻测井相关洪水历史的美国加利福尼亚州索克尔克里克，我们比较了历史、当前和随钻测井通过方法的长期随钻测井管理成本，即扩大基础设施以适应下游的随钻测井通道。我们估计了基础设施更换、程序性防洪(LWD清除)、与LWD相关的洪水破坏和水生生物栖息地丧失的成本。通过比较索克尔溪(0.007条 m−1)和附近未受管理的溪流(0.054至0.106 Pieces m−1)的随体重变化负荷(Pieces Mm−1)来确定水生栖息地的损失量。能够通过LWD的基础设施的估计成本几乎是历史成本的两倍，但与当前成本相当。在短期内(1至50 年)，随钻取水方法与清除方法相当，但在长期内(51至100年 年)要小得多，因为为适应随钻取水而进行的基础设施更换支出减少了洪灾成本和栖息地损失。鉴于维护和恢复水生生物栖息地的紧迫性，拟议的办法可能广泛适用。版权所有©2011 John Wiley&Sons，Ltd.
Large woody debris (LWD) is an important ecological element in rivers and streams. Despite its importance, LWD is often removed from urban stream channels for flood control or road maintenance purposes, an approach with high economic and ecological costs and one that is largely unsuccessful. We propose an approach to conserve LWD in channels by modifying infrastructure (culverts and bridges) to allow LWD passage, maintaining aquatic habitat and reducing flooding and road maintenance costs. In Soquel Creek (California, USA), which has a history of LWD‐related flooding, we compared long‐term LWD management costs of historical, current and a LWD‐passing approach whereby infrastructure is enlarged to accommodate LWD passage downstream. We estimated costs of infrastructure replacement, programmatic flood control (LWD removal), LWD‐related flood damage and lost aquatic habitat. The amount of lost aquatic habitat was determined by comparing LWD loading (pieces m−1) in Soquel Creek (0.007 pieces m−1) to nearby unmanaged streams (0.054 to 0.106 pieces m−1). Estimated costs of infrastructure able to pass LWD were nearly double that of historical costs but comparable to current costs. The LWD‐passing approach was comparable to removal approaches in the short term (1 to 50 years) but much less in the long term (51 to 100 years), as expenditures in infrastructure replacement to accommodate LWD yielded reductions in flooding costs and habitat loss. Given the urgency to maintain and restore aquatic habitat, the proposed approach may be broadly applicable. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.