Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-jtg5s Total loading time: 0.283 Render date: 2021-09-21T21:11:55.424Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Aquatic arthropods and forestry: effects of large-scale land use on aquatic systems in Nearctic temperate regions1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

John S. Richardson
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia, 3041 – 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4 (e-mail: John.Richardson@ubc.ca)

Abstract

Aquatic arthropods can be affected by forest management through increased amounts of light, discharge, and sediment runoff, alteration of the supply of basal resources, changes in the supply of large wood, temperature modifications, and food-web effects. This syndrome of alterations varies geographically in magnitude, and the specific details depend on initial biotic and abiotic conditions, local topography, climate, and the particular management practices used. Impacts on standing water appear to be subtle, and most attention has focussed on streams, where changes are often more obvious. The intensity of any changes in processes affecting aquatic arthropods depends, in part, on the proximity of logging to the shoreline and the proportion of watershed harvested, and also on the condition and frequency of forest access roads crossing or near water bodies. Some groups of species are particularly vulnerable, but others, particularly generalist species such as some Baetis Leach (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) and some Chironomidae (Diptera), appear to benefit from harvesting. In general, outcomes of harvesting near streams are temporary increases in production and abundance but reductions in diversity. Impacts on all trophic levels, especially in streams, can occur from forest harvesting. The primary tool for mitigating these impacts is the use of riparian buffers, but there are still major uncertainties about the effectiveness of specific widths and configurations of buffers and their use for additional types of disturbance.

Résumé

L’aménagement forestier peut affecter les arthropodes aquatiques. Les effets peuvent résulter des accroissements de la lumière, du débit et des charges de sédiment, de la modification des provisions de ressources de base, des changements dans l’apport de bois de grande taille, des variations de température et des effets reliés au réseau alimentaire. Le syndrome de ces modifications varie en importance en fonction de la géographie et les détails spécifiques dépendent des conditions biotiques et abiotiques initiales, de la topographie locale, des conditions climatiques et des pratiques particulières d’aménagement forestier. Les impacts sur les eaux stagnantes semblent être subtils; ils sont plus évidents dans les eaux courantes sur lesquelles la plupart des travaux ont été réalisés. L’intensité d’une modification dans les processus qui affectent les arthropodes aquatiques dépend, en partie, de la proximité de la coupe par rapport à la rive et de la proportion du bassin versant déboisée, mais aussi de l’état et de la densité des routes d’accès qui traversent les milieux aquatiques ou qui s’en approchent. Certains groupes d’espèces sont particulièrement vulnérables, mais d’autres, particulièrement les espèces généralistes, telles que certains Baetis Leach (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) et quelques Chironomidae (Diptera), semblent profiter de la coupe forestière. En général, les conséquences des coupes forestières près des cours d’eau sont des accroissements passagers de la production et de l’abondance et des réductions de la diversité. La coupe forestière peut affecter tous les niveaux trophiques, particulièrement en eau courante. L’outil principal pour mitiger ces impacts reste l’utilization de bandes-tampons riveraines, mais il demeure de grandes incertitudes au sujet de l’efficacité des différentes largeurs et configurations de ces bandes et de leur utilization pour d’autres types de perturbations.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allan, J.D., Wipfli, M.S., Caouette, J.P., Prussian, A., and Rodgers, J. 2003. Influence of streamside vegetation on terrestrial invertebrate inputs to salmonid food webs. Canadian Journal of Fish-eries and Aquatic Sciences, 60: 309320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N.H., Sedell, J.R., Roberts, L.M., and Triska, F.J. 1978. Role of aquatic invertebrates in processing of wood debris in coniferous forest streams. American Midland Naturalist, 100: 6482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benfield, E.F., Webster, J.R., Tank, J.L., and Hutchens, J.J. 2001. Long-term patterns in leaf breakdown in streams in response to watershed logging. International Review of Hydrobiology, 86: 467474.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benke, A.C., Wallace, J.B., Harrison, J.W., and Koebel, J.W. 2001. Food web quantification using secondary production analysis: predaceous invertebrates of the snag habitat in a subtropical river. Freshwater Biology, 46: 329346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilby, R.E. 1985. Contributions of road surface sediment to a western Washington stream. Forest Science, 31: 827838.Google Scholar
Blinn, C.R., and Kilgore, M.A. 2001. Riparian management practices: a summary of state guidelines. Journal of Forestry, 99(8): 1117.Google Scholar
Bothwell, M.L., Sherbot, D.M.J., and Pollock, C.M. 1994. Ecosystem response to solar ultraviolet-B radiation: influence of trophic-level interactions. Science (Washington, D.C.), 265: 97100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, Y., Larsen, D.P., and Thorne, R. St.-J. 2001. Rare species in multivariate analysis for bioassessment: some considerations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 20: 144153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carignan, R., and Steedman, R.J. 2000. Impacts of major watershed perturbations on aquatic ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57(Suppl. 2): 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castelle, A.J., Johnson, A.W., and Conolly, C. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements: a review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23: 878882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, T.L., and Anderson, N.H. 1982. A survey of invertebrates associated with wood debris in aquatic habitats. Melanderia, 39: 121.Google Scholar
Feller, M.C. 2005. Forest harvesting and streamwater inorganic chemistry in western North America: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41: 785811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of the Interior, United States Department of Commerce, and Environmental Protection Agency, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
France, R. 1997. Land–water linkages: influences of riparian deforestation on lake thermocline depth and possible consequences for cold stenotherms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54: 12991305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
France, R., Peters, R., and McCabe, L. 1998. Spatial relationships among boreal riparian trees, litterfall and soil erosion potential with reference to buffer strip management and coldwater fisheries. Annales Botanici Fennici, 35: 19.Google Scholar
Giller, P.S., and Malmqvist, B. 1998. The biology of streams and rivers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Haggerty, S.M., Batzer, D.P., and Jackson, C.R. 2004. Macroinvertebrate response to logging in coastal headwater streams of Washington, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 61: 529537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, J.S., Benfield, E.F., Bolstad, P.V., Helfman, G.S., and Jones, E.B.D. III, 1998. Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95: 1484314847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, S.S.C., and Harris, I.T. 2002. The effects of bankside management on chalk stream invertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology, 47: 22332245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S.S.C., and Hildrew, A.G. 1998. Distribution dynamics of epilithic insects in a lake littoral. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 143: 275293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, M.A., Hogan, D.L., Bird, S.A., May, C.L., Gomi, T., and Campbell, D. 2005. Spatial and temporal dynamics of wood in headwater streams of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41: 899919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heard, S.B., and Richardson, J.S. 1995. Shredder– collector facilitation in stream detrital food webs: is there enough evidence? Oikos, 72: 359366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetrick, N.J., Brusven, M.A., Meehan, W.R., and Bjornn, T.C. 1998. Changes in solar input, water temperature, periphyton accumulation, and allochthonous input and storage after canopy removal along two small salmon streams in southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 127: 859875.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W.R., Mulholland, P.J., and Marzolf, E.R. 2001. Stream ecosystem responses to forest leaf emergence in spring. Ecology, 82: 23062319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchens, J.J., Batzer, D.P., and Reese, E. 2004. Assessment of silvicultural impacts in streams and wetlands of the eastern United States. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus, 4: 3753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, D.J., Bothwell, M.L., and Schindler, D.W. 2003. Effects of solar ultraviolet radiation on stream benthic communities: an intersite comparison. Ecology, 84: 27242740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiffney, P.M., Bull, J.P., and Feller, M.C. 2002. Climatic and hydrologic variability in a coastal watershed of southwestern British Columbia. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38: 14371451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiffney, P.M., Richardson, J.S., and Bull, J.P. 2003. Responses of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40: 10601076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiffney, P.M., Richardson, J.S., and Bull, J.P. 2004. Establishing light as a causal mechanism structuring stream communities in response to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 23: 542556.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreutzweiser, D.P., Capell, S.S., and Good, K.P. 2005 a. Effects of fine sediment inputs from a logging road on stream insect communities: a large-scale experimental approach in a Canadian head-water stream. Aquatic Ecology, 39: 5566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreutzweiser, D.R., Capell, S.S., and Good, K.P. 2005 b. Macroinvertebrate community responses to selection logging in riparian and upland areas of headwater catchments in a northern hardwood forest. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24: 208222.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamberti, G.A., Gregory, S.V., Askenas, L.R., Wildman, R.C., and Moore, K.M.S. 1991. Stream ecosystem recovery following a catastrophic debris flow. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48: 196208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledger, M.E., and Hildrew, A.G. 2001. Growth of an acid-tolerant stonefly on epilithic biofilms from streams of contrasting pH. Freshwater Biology, 46: 14571470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, P., Smyth, C., and Boutin, S. 2004. Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. Journal of Environmental Management, 70: 165180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenat, D.R., and Resh, V.H. 2001. Taxonomy and stream ecology — the benefits of genus- and species-level identifications. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 20: 287298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macneale, K.H., Peckarsky, B.L., and Likens, G.E. 2005. Stable isotopes identify dispersal patterns of stonefly populations living along stream corridors. Freshwater Biology, 50: 11171130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmqvist, B., and Wotton, R.S. 2002. Do tributary streams contribute significantly to the transport of faecal pellets in large rivers? Aquatic Sciences, 64: 156162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, R. 2002. Do rare species have any place in multivariate analysis for bioassessment? Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 21: 311313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C.W., Hornbeck, J.W., Likens, G.E., and Buso, D.C. 2000. Impacts of intensive harvesting on hydrology and nutrient dynamics of northern hardwood forests. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57(Suppl. 2): 1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, M.D., and Richardson, J.S. 2002. Microbial utilization of dissolved organic carbon leached from riparian litterfall. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59: 16681676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellina, E., Moore, R.D., Hinch, S.G., Macdonald, J.S., and Pearson, G. 2002. Stream temperature responses to clearcut logging in British Columbia: the moderating influences of groundwater and headwater lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59: 18861900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, R.W., and Cummins, K.W. (Editors). 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 3rd edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa.Google Scholar
Meyer, J.L., Wallace, J.B., and Eggert, S.L. 1998. Leaf litter as a source of dissolved organic carbon in streams. Ecosystems, 1: 240249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R.D. 2005. Small stream channels and their riparian zones in forested catchments of the Pacific Northwest: introduction. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41: 759761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R.D., and Richardson, J.S. 2003. Progress towards understanding the structure, function, and ecological significance of small stream channels and their riparian zones. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33: 13491351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R.D., Spittlehouse, D.L., and Story, A. 2005 a. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature response to forest harvesting: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41: 813834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R.D., Sutherland, P., Gomi, T., and Dhakal, A. 2005 b. Thermal regime of a headwater stream within a clear-cut, coastal British Columbia, Canada. Hydrological Processes, 19: 25912608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M.L., and Hall, J.D. 1981. Varied effects of clear-cut logging on predators and their habitat in small streams of the Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38: 137145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naiman, R.J., Décamps, H., and McClain, M.E. 2005. Riparia: ecology, conservation, and management of streamside communities. Elsevier Science/Academic Press, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
Neal, C., Ormerod, S.J., Langan, S.J., Nisbet, T.R., and Roberts, J. 2004. Sustainability of UK forestry: contemporary issues for the protection of freshwaters, a conclusion. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 8: 589595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbold, J.D., Erman, D.C., and Roby, K.B. 1980. Effects of logging on macroinvertebrates in streams with and without buffer strips. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37: 10761085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitschke, C.R. 2005. Does forest harvesting emulate fire disturbance? A comparison of effects on selected attributes in coniferous-dominated headwater systems. Forest Ecology and Management, 214: 305319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormerod, S.J., Rundle, S.D., Lloyd, E.C., and Douglas, A.A. 1993. The influence of riparian management on the habitat structure and the macroinvertebrate communities of upland streams draining plantation forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, 30: 1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patoine, A., Pinel-Alloul, B., Prepas, E.E., and Carignan, R. 2000. Do logging and forest fires influence zooplankton biomass in Canadian Boreal Shield lakes? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57(Suppl. 2): 155164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, I., Winterbottom, J.H., Orton, S., Friberg, N., Hildrew, A.G., Spiers, D.C., and Gurnsey, W.S.C. 1999. Emergence and lateral dispersal of adult Plecoptera and Trichoptera from Broadstone Stream, UK. Freshwater Biology, 42: 401416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, I., Masters, Z., Hildrew, A.G., and Ormerod, S.J. 2004. Dispersal of adult aquatic insects in catchments of differing land use. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41: 934950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinel-Alloul, B., Prepas, E., Planas, D., Steedman, R., and Charette, T. 2002. Watershed impacts of logging and wildfire: case studies in Canada. Lake and Reservoir Management, 18: 307318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reece, P.F., Reynoldson, T.B., Richardson, J.S., and Rosenberg, D.M. 2001. Implications of seasonal variation for biomonitoring with predictive models in the Fraser River catchment, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58: 14111418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rempel, R.S., and Carter, J.C.H. 1987. Temperature influences on adult size, development, and reproductive potential of aquatic Diptera. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 44: 17431752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resh, V.H., Bêche, L.A., and McElravy, E.P. 2005. How common are rare taxa in long-term benthic macroinvertebrate surveys? Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24: 976989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J.S. 1984. Effects of seston quality on the growth of a lake-outlet filter feeder. Oikos, 43: 386390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J.S. 1991. Seasonal food limitation of detritivores in a montane stream: an experimental test. Ecology, 72: 873887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J.S. 1992. Coarse particulate detritus dynamics in small, montane streams of southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 49: 337346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J.S. 2004. Meeting the conflicting objectives of stream conservation and land use through riparian management: another balancing act. In Ecosystem Stewardship Through Collaboration: Proceedings of the Forest–Land–Fish Conference II, Edmonton, Alberta, 26–28 April 2004. Edited by Scrimgeour, G.J., Eisler, G., McCulloch, B., Silins, U., and Monita, M.. Trout Unlimited Canada, Edmonton, Alberta. pp. 16.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.S., and Mackay, R.J. 1991. Lake outlets and the distribution of filter feeders: an assessment of hypotheses. Oikos, 62: 370380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J.S., and Neill, W.E. 1991. Indirect effects of detritus manipulations in a montane stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48: 776783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J.S., Bilby, R.E., and Bondar, C.A. 2005 a. Organic matter dynamics in small streams of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41: 921934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J.S., Naiman, R.J., Swanson, F.J., and Hibbs, D.E. 2005 b. Riparian communities associated with Pacific Northwest headwater streams: assemblages, processes, and uniqueness. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41: 935947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, D.M., and Wiens, A.P. 1980. Responses of Chironomidae (Diptera) to short-term experimental sediment additions in the Harris River, Northwest Territories, Canada. Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Biologica, 1978: 181192.Google Scholar
Roy, A.H., Rosemond, A.D., Paul, M.J., Leigh, D.S., and Wallace, J.B. 2003. Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia, USA). Freshwater Biology, 48: 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, E.A., and Richardson, J.S. 2001. Effects of fine inorganic sediment on stream invertebrate assemblages and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) growth and survival: implications of exposure duration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58: 22132221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, M.K., and Wallace, J.B. 1998. Long-term recovery of a mountain stream from clear-cut logging: the effects of forest succession on benthic invertebrate community structure. Freshwater Biology, 39: 151169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, B.W. 1978. Bioenergetic and developmental response of a mayfly to thermal variation. Limnology and Oceanography, 23: 461477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, B.W., and Vannote, R.L. 1986. Growth and production of a stream stonefly influences of diet and temperature. Ecology, 67: 13961410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, B.W., Vannote, R.L., and Dodds, P.J. 1986 a. Effects of temperature and food quality on growth and development of a mayfly, Leptophlebia intermedia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 43: 1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, B.W., Vannote, R.L., and Dodds, P.J. 1986 b. The relative importance of temperature and diet to larval development and adult size of the winter stonefly, Soyedina carolinensis (Plecoptera: Nemouridae). Freshwater Biology, 16: 3948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanDusen, P.J., Huckins, C.J.E., and Flaspohler, D.J. 2005. Associations among selection logging history, brook trout, macroinvertebrates, and habitat in northern Michigan headwater streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 134: 762774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R. 2005. The influence of stream water temperature on size and weight of caddisflies (Insecta, Trichoptera) along the Breitenbach 1983–1991. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 163: 6579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, J.B., and Gurtz, M.E. 1986. Response of Baetis mayflies (Ephemeroptera) to catchment logging. American Midland Naturalist, 115: 2541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, J.B., Whiles, M.R., Eggert, S., Cuffney, T.F., Lugthart, G.H., and Chung, K. 1995. Long-term dynamics of coarse particulate organic matter in three Appalachian Mountain streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 14: 217232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, J.B., Eggert, S.L., Meyer, J.L., and Webster, J.R. 1999. Effects of resource limitation on a detrital-based ecosystem. Ecological Monographs, 69: 409442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
Whiles, M.R., and Wallace, J.B. 1995. Macroinvertebrate production in a headwater stream during recovery from anthropogenic disturbance and hydrologic extremes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 52: 24022422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wipfli, M.S., and Musslewhite, J. 2004. Density of red alder (Alnus rubra) in headwaters influences invertebrate and detritus subsidies to downstream fish habitats in Alaska. Hydrobiologia, 520: 153163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Aquatic arthropods and forestry: effects of large-scale land use on aquatic systems in Nearctic temperate regions1
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Aquatic arthropods and forestry: effects of large-scale land use on aquatic systems in Nearctic temperate regions1
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Aquatic arthropods and forestry: effects of large-scale land use on aquatic systems in Nearctic temperate regions1
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *