Watershed Restoration Publications

Frequently Requested Publications

Click on a publication title to view a summary and access a link to request a copy.

Streamside forests and the physical, chemical, and trophic characteristics of piedmont streams in Eastern North America

Additional Restoration-Related Publications by Stroud Center Scientists

River conservation, restoration, and preservation: rewarding private behavior to enhance the commons

Sweeney, B.W., and J.G. Blaine. 2016. Freshwater Science 35:755–763.

Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: a literature review

Sweeney, B.W., and J.D. Newbold. 2014. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 50:560–584.

Water quality functions of a 15-year-old riparian forest buffer system

Newbold, J.D., S. Herbert, B.W. Sweeney, P. Kiry, and S.J. Alberts. 2010. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 46(2):299–310.

Mitigation of nonpoint pollution by a riparian forest buffer in an agricultural watershed of the Mid-Atlantic Piedmont

Newbold, J.D., S. Herbert, and B.W. Sweeney. 2009. Stroud Preserve Watersheds National Monitoring Project Final Report.

Influence of tree shelters on seedling success in an afforested riparian zone

Andrews, D.M., C.D. Barton, S. J. Czapka, R.K. Kolka, and B.W. Sweeney. 2010. New Forests 39:157–167.

Publications From Other Organizations and Individuals

Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways. Bentrup, G. 2008. General Technical Report SRS-109. Asheville, North Carolina: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
A review of the efficiency of buffer strips for the maintenance and enhancement of riparian ecosystems. Hickey, M.B.C., and B. Doran. 2004. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 39:311–317.
Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests: A qualitative analysis. 2004. Dutcher, D., J.C. Finley, A.E. Luloff, and J. Johnson. Society and Natural Resources 17:319.
Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. Lee, P., C. Smyth, and S. Boutin. 2004. Journal of Environmental Management 70:165–180.
Effects of solar ultraviolet radiation on stream benthic communities: an intersite comparison. Kelly, D.J., M.L. Bothwell, and D.W. Schindler. 2003. Ecology 84(10):2724–2740.
Nutrient transport in a restored riparian wetland. Vellidis, G., R. Lowrance, P. Gay, and R.K. Hubbard. 2003. Journal of Environmental Quality 32:711–726.
Vegetated stream riparian zones: their effects on stream nutrients, sediments, and toxic substances. An annotated and indexed bibliography of the world literature, including buffer strips and interactions with hyporheic zones and floodplains. Correll, D. 2003.
Effect of riparian buffer width and vegetation type on shallow groundwater quality in the Middle Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Dukes, M.D., R.O. Evans, J.W. Gilliam, and S.H. Kunickis. 2002. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 45:327–336.
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Public Law 107–171, USA
Evaluation of coastal plain conservation buffers using the riparian ecosystem management model. Lowrance, R., R.G. Williams, S.R. Inamdar, D.D. Bosch, and J.M. Sheridan. 2001. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:1445–1455.
Influences of watershed, riparian-corridor, and reach-scale characteristics on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Stewart, J.S., L.Z. Wang, J. Lyons, J.A. Horwatich, and R. Bannerman. 2001. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:1475–1487.
Near-stream landuse effects on streamwater nutrient distribution in an urbanizing watershed. Sonoda, K., J.A. Yeakley, and C.E. Walker. 2001. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:1517–1532.
Relation between fish communities and riparian zone conditions at two spatial scales. Lee, K.E., R.M. Goldstein, and P.E. Hanson. 2001. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:1465–1473.
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
Stream temperature responses to forest harvest and debris flows in western Cascades, Oregon. Johnson, S.L., and J.A. Jones. 2000. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:30–39.
Filter strip performance for different vegetation, widths, and contaminants. Schmitt, T.J., M.G. Dosskey, and K.D. Hoagland. 1999. Journal of Environmental Quality 28:1479–1489.
A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent, and vegetation. Wenger, S. 1999. Publication of the Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Stream shade: towards a restoration strategy. Rutherford, J.C., R.J. Davies-Colley, J.M. Quinn, M.J. Stroud, and A.B. Cooper. 1997. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd., Hamilton, New Zealand.
Assessment of minimum stream corridor width for biological conservation: species richness and distribution along mid-order streams in Vermont, USA. Spackman, S., and J.W. Hughes. 1995. Biological Conservation 71:325–332.
Relationships between riparian buffer widths and the effects of logging on stream habitat, invertebrate community composition and fish abundance. Davies, P.E., and M. Nelson. 1994. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45:1289–1305.
Nonpoint source pollution control effectiveness of riparian forests along a coastal plain river. Phillips, J.D. 1989. Journal of Hydrology 110:221-237.