Cutthroat trout responses to increased light via conventional and alternative riparian buffers

Forested headwaters, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, USA, are typically heavily shaded by dense stands of riparian vegetation. Reduced riparian cover can occur from natural or anthropogenic events, resulting in increased light which can increase fish biomass by promoting in-stream food resources. We conducted a 5 y before-after-control-impact (BACI) study on 10 small streams in the Oregon Coast Range, USA, and investigated how changes to the magnitude of stream light, mediated by conventional and alternative riparian buffer configurations adjacent to upland timber harvest, changed Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii) abundance, biomass, bioenergetics, diet composition, and the availability of aquatic food resources. Riparian buffer treatments reduced canopy cover as much as 34 % cover (98–99 % pre; 64–98 % post-treatment) and enhanced total available sunlight reaching the stream surface by 8–31 % relative to unharvested references that only changed by 3–4 %. In the first year following the treatments, young-of-year trout (YOY, age 0) densities changed by between +0.1 and +0.78 #/m² in treatment streams while densities changed by –0.001 and +0.02 #/m² at reference streams. Although change in YOY densities was positively correlated with change in stream light (r_s=0.81, p=0.02), changes in basal resources (periphyton and macroinvertebrates) were both positive and negative and did not increase with change in stream light. Adult (age 1+) trout responses were mixed in the first year post-treatment, but changed by –0.14 to +0.24 #/m² at treatment sites (–0.02 to –0.05 at reference sites) in the second year post-treatment, likely due to increased recruitment from the strong cohort of YOY in the first year. Bioenergetics analysis in one post-treatment year showed that adult trout did not experience greater summer growth (–0.003 to +0.0005 g g⁻¹ d⁻¹) or proportions of maximum consumption (0.18–0.25) in streams with more light than at reference streams (–0.001 and +0.001 g g⁻¹ d⁻¹, 0.19 and 0.23). Overall, while standing stock assessments suggest that fish showed some increases after experimental treatments that increased light, our data did not provide the clear mechanistic evidence for bottom-up drivers that was expected. The relationship between canopy removal and fish production is not always predictable in small headwater streams, and even though fish populations were generally resilient to riparian manipulation, evaluations of terrestrial food resources, the dynamic between canopy cover and light reaching the stream, and changes to temperature may lend valuable insight on the impacts to fish populations.