My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09221
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09221
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:52:03 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:32:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
7630.425
Description
Wild and Scenic - Piedra River
State
CO
Basin
Western Slope
Water Division
7
Date
1/1/1991
Author
Julie Stromberg Dunc
Title
Instream Flow Requirements for Cottonwoods at Bishop Creek - Inyo County - California
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />oonORfl <br /> <br />TABLE 2 <br />Mortallt.1I (dt'ad Iru!" as a rerant of the /ota/), canol'.1I t'lgor rank (scatt /rol/1 I 1(5), anl/ual <br />ring width, and mtan Soens/tipit}' of tree rlllg chr(mofoglt's (a mt'Q$llrt' of the amruall'ar/ati(m <br />m grou.'th raId for cottonwoods a/ Bishop Crerk" <br /> <br />(.) 3.0 <br /> <br />iB <br />~ Z-O <br />. <br />Q 1,$ <br />w <br />" <br />1,.0 <br />!;;iO's <br /> <br /> MONali!)" Ring width Mean <br />Reach Sill.' S~cies (%) Canopy vigor (mm) sensilivit\" <br />, I POTR J6 2.3:t 1.9 1.8:,; 0.5 38:t 18 <br /> 2 POTR 26 3.3::!: l.i 1.8 ::!: 0.9 34 ::!: 18 <br /> 3 porR 32 2..,1 ::!: 1.9 2.2::!: 0.8 34 -z.. 7 <br />. I rOFR 33 2.0::!: 1.2 2.1:,; 0.3 49 ::!: 29 <br /> 2 porR I4 1.9::!: 18 1.8.!: 0.6 36::!: 8 <br /> 3 POIR IS 2.0::!: 1.4 ).2::!: 2.3 47 := 9 <br />5 I POFR 0 4.2::!: 0.8 3.7:';1.4 29::!: 6 <br /> , POFR 0 4.3:!: 11 5.2::!: 2.7 -19:,; 10 <br /> 3 POFR 18 1.7:!:11 2.3::!: 1.0 35 :!: 8 <br />6 I POFR 38 2.1 -= 1.8 ".I:!:I.) 39::!: 15 <br /> <br />\~~ <br />-:",,- , <br />'-.-- <br /> <br />" <br />6~707'7213H <br /> <br />(B) 3.0 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />j; 2!i <br />i <br />~ 2.0 <br />. <br />." I.!i <br />I " <br />:;; o.!; <br /> <br />., <br />'rI 0, <br /> <br />"Value-s sho"..n are mt'ans fotlowt'd by standard dt'viation. <br /> <br />related between trees within a reach. and <br />betwt'en the three diverted reaches (Table <br />3). In all diverted reaches. effluent and in- <br />fluent ali~e, growth was high in most high- <br />flow years (1969,1978, 1980. 1986).and low <br />during dry periods (most of the 1970's, 1987 <br />and 1988) (Figure 3). However. trees <br />showed disparate patterns during and after <br />the record high flows in 1982, \<"'ith many <br />showing marked post-1982 growth de- <br />cline. <br />Streamflow was strongly related to an- <br />nual growth of trees in all of the diverted <br />reaches (Figure 4), allowing the de\'elop- <br />ment of significant instream models (Table <br />4). The models explained from 74~ to 86% <br /> <br />of the annual variance. \<"'ith \'olume of flow <br />during the growing season explaining most <br />of the variance (39% and 40~ for the influ- <br />ent reaches, 47% and 70% for the two col- <br />tonwood species in the effluent reach). An- <br />nual volume of flow explained as much <br />variance as did growing season flow, be- <br />cause most flow occurred during the grow- <br />ing season. The best-fit models for reach 2 <br />blac~ cottonwoods and reach 4 Fremont <br />cottonwoods were based on three vari- <br />ables: flow during the growing season, pri- <br />or-year ring width, and avt"tage ma....imum <br />temperature during the growing season. <br />Best.tit models for reach 4 black cotton- <br />woods and reach 5 Fremont cottonwoods <br /> <br />" <br />&117071721374 <br /> <br />FIGURE 3. RinS <br />ulus frcmontii (p <br />di~~rled r~ilchcs I <br />rCilch (B} on Bish <br /> <br />wert. based, resF <br />growing season <br />mum May temp <br />son flow and pril <br />based exclusivel <br />excluding prior. <br />able) explained <br />variance in gro\' <br />significance (P <br />Although in <br />somewhat betv.'l <br />verification stat <br />significance (r \ <br />< 0.001). Withi <br />tics also had hi~ <br />< 0.001 for reac <br />reach 5). The <br />tracked actual v <br />riod (Figure 5). <br />5uppf~m~tlt~d-flo <br />ton wood trees <br />reach fluctuated <br />correspondence <br />diverted. reache! <br />chronology for 1 <br />highly correlat, <br />nologies for tI <br />chronologies w <br />related between <br /> <br />TABLE 3 <br />Correlation c(l~ffici~nt5 betwun tret: rmg ,hrotlo!ogies for Populus trees at Bishop Creek" <br /> <br /> Diverted reache~ <br /> Reach 2 Reach 4 Reach 5 Reach b <br /> (POTR) (POFR) (POTR) (POFR) (POFR) <br /> Betwecn rCilch <br />Reach 2 (POTR) O_B~ 0.6B~ 0.70" 0.33< <br />Reach 4 (POFRl 0.65" 0.74~ 0.15 <br />Reach 4 (POTR) O.glt 0.57( <br />RNCh 5 (POFR) 0.29 <br />Rf'ach 6 (POFR) <br /> Between trcc <br /> 0.28 0.30 0.'5' 0.61fo -0.03 <br /> <br />. Valuf'S are corTC'lations bet.....een reachf'S. and betwecn trees within a reach. <br />fop < 0.001. <br />(P < 0.01. <br /> <br />.,., 6 <br />...<l <br /> <br />January 1991 <br /> <br />I J. C. Strombe <br /> <br />RiveTS' Volume 2, l\:umber 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.