Relief From Rhododendron

T

troutbert

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
11,041
The recent Trout magazine has an article titled Relief From Rhododenddron on pages 48 and 49. It describes removal of rhododendon in a stream in the National Forest in TE as a form of stream improvement.

What do you think? If removing rhododendron really improves streams, there would be a lot of potential projects in PA.

I've seen many stream sections in PA that are nearly inpenetratable because rhododendron has grown the whole way across them.

But is removing the rhododendron a great idea? Would there be possible negative side-effects?

Isn't rhododendron the normal vegetation on those streams? Hasn't it always been there, and the brook trout somehow managed?

Or did some past alteration to the landcape cause all that pesky rhodendron to grow so thick?
 
Haven't seen the article. So what is the purpose of removing the rhododendron as stream improvement?
 
Troutbert,

My view is that typically rhododendren is a partial shade plant growing in an understory so the effects of removing the "canopy" of rhodos would have minimal impact. I would however not recomend removal of the plants root system because of bank stabilization encroachment. But rather to prune them back to allow for improved fishing lanes while maintaining the stabilizing features of the root systems.

Of course they would grow back requiring more pruning later on.

On the other hand, these choked lanes provide terrific predaory obstructions and allow for year class protection and probably improve the dynamic of the biomass. Remove them adn you will probably allow for reductions in biomass.

Maurice
 
Do you have a pick i'm not familiar with the name , and can you find a way to posty the article ? :-D
 
I don't think the article is available online. I Googled and couldn't find it. Trout magazine is published by Trout Unlimited and is sent out to members.
 
Beneath this lies the largest trout in the stream:

rhododendron_maximum06.jpg


Happy casting! 😎
 
I went backand re-read the article and the problem that was emphasized was that the bushes had overgrown the the point that they were "damming" the creek creating a build up of silt that was choking the creek. They surveyed the stream before cutting the bushes back and found 7 fish. A year after cutting them back they found 30 or something like that. The more recent picks still show bushes on the banks, just cut back considerably. The only thing I found troubling was that it was a 1.3 MILE stretch they did this to and my personal feeling was that perhaps some of the Rhodo. maybe should have been left to provide cover and shade. Of course as Mo mentioned...It'll grow back.
 
There are plenty of streams in PA that could be listed to remove Rhodadendrons, the problem is where does it stop. Do you then go back and remove the plants that grow in their place? And then go back again a few years later when more plants grow back.
My thinking is that when ever vegation is removed from stream banks it's because anglers are 1) lazy and don't want to learn to cast properly and 2) they want to warm streams up to make them more suitable for alien species like brown trout because of some perverted sense that browns are more suitable prey. I think that in part is the reason for removing vegetation in Wisconson streams, the anglers prefer alien trout above natives. Maybe I'm wrong.
 
Instead of removing vegetation from stream banks, why don't we replace understory growth with saplings? Our forests have been disrupted for so long that proper succession isn't even occurring where they are growing back. Why can't we line our streams with native secondary growth trees that will grow and provide the appropriate environment for the rebirth of our old growth forests? Then allow whatever fish enjoy those dark cool forest environs to thrive there, be it brookie or brown.
 
> I think that in part is the reason for removing vegetation in Wisconson streams, the anglers prefer alien trout above natives. Maybe I'm wrong.>

Well, you're right about being wrong...🙂

They do it to discourage beavers. They also do it (in a process I don't fully understand) to open the water to more sunlight to allow certain processes to occur that enhance the forage base. Many Wisconsin streams have a low diversity of invertebrates despite usually having stong pops. of the ones that are there. And, on occasion, they also do it to allow better angler access.

As I understand it, the reason they can do this (and mind you, it isn't done much at all. Out of about 100 streams I've fished there, I've seen brushing take place on maybe 6 or 8) and get away with it is that by and large, by virtue of their smaller size and larger number of spring inputs compared to PA limestones, the thermal effects of this brushing are pretty minimal.

In any event, none of this is done to blaspheme brook trout. Actually, there is a big push on right now to restore brook trout in a lot of the streams of the Driftless Region.
 
Dear RLeeP,

The real reason they remove the trees from the streams in the Wisconsin Driftless area is because they are invasive species. Box elder and willows are not supposed to be there. The land never was historically wooded, it was covered in prairie grasses and that is what they want growing on their streams.

The native grasses are deeply rooted and do a much better job of stabilizing a stream bank. Even in a flood the grass offers no impediment to water flow, the creek merely rises out of it's banks and returns to them once the water subsides.

As it stands now wood and woody debris builds up along trees during high water events and it scours and gouges the soil out of the opposite banks collapsing the banks and dumping more topsoil into the stream. Those streams are not supposed to be flowing through 6 to 6 feet of deposited topsoil. The trees are the problem in The Driftless.

I'm not making this up, this is directly from a friend of mine who is an active TU Chapter President in Wisconsin.

Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
 
Well, I'll certainly defer to your friend, Tim...

That's one I had not heard, but it certainly makes sense. The other reasons I cited were all told to me by a retired WI-DNR supervisor I met on the creek up there. But based on what you've said, these other things could be additional or side benefits and perhaps that was what he was saying.

On a side issue, I hope they don't go too crazy with this brook trout restoration thing, at least in the SW limestones. In terms of potential for growth and for the agricultural conflicts so many of the streams have, they are in practical terms, IMO at least, markedly inferior to the resident browns as the best candidate to provide the backbone of the fishery.
 
Dear RLeeP,

Believe it or not, there is also considerable debate as to whether the Driftless area streams ever contained a native brook trout population to begin with.

Some people, and not just wingnuts, hold to the theory that the brook trout in the Driftless were introduced from NE Iowa or SE Minnesota. There is an active debate about poisoning the streams to remove the browns, and many people seem to have evidence that the brook trout were also introduced to the region.

Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
 
>>There is an active debate about poisoning the streams to remove the browns, and many people seem to have evidence that the brook trout were also introduced to the region.>>

Thanks, Tim. I've seen the differing maps regarding original brook trout distribution and a lot of them do exclude most of the driftless region.

I would hope that the debate you speak of is mostly among anglers and not within WI-DNR to any measurable extent. And to date, nothing I've seen from the agency indicates they are considering doing this on a widespread basis (I'm aware they have done it in a limited number of places).

I just think it would be one of the stupidest things I could imagine, regardless of whether brook trout were the indigenous resident of record in the region or not.
 
RLeeP wrote:


I just think it would be one of the stupidest things I could imagine, regardless of whether brook trout were the indigenous resident of record in the region or not.
Click to expand...

Dear RLeeP,

I agree wholeheartedly. It would be just as stupid to that here in PA as well.

Right now in Wisconsin the debate about brown trout removal is pretty much limited to a few passionate defenders of the brook trout and the State has no inclination to do it according to my buddy. Those beautiful browns are safe for now!

Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
 
TimMurphy wrote:
Dear RLeeP,

The real reason they remove the trees from the streams in the Wisconsin Driftless area is because they are invasive species. Box elder and willows are not supposed to be there. The land never was historically wooded, it was covered in prairie grasses and that is what they want growing on their streams.
Click to expand...

This what some people believe but I don't think its safe to consider it established fact. Does your friend have references to scientific journal articles that support the idea that trees did not exist in these areas?

I'm a skeptic that there were no trees in those valleys originally. I know a lot of people say that, but I've dug around in the literature some and haven't found verification for that point of view. It's quite possible I just didn't find it, so I really would like to read the literature, if it exists. And I don't just mean opinions from DNR people who favor grass-lined banks, I mean a real deep analysis of the historical vegetation from someone in that field, in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I've been out there, so I'm familiar with the area you're talking about. It's a very interesting question. I think that there probably were trees there originally.

Aldo Leopold talked about the inter-play between trees and grasslands in that region and the role that fire played in the whole thing. From his descriptions it sounded like a patchwork, a mosaic, of grasslands and trees, shaped by fire.

And those coulee streams are down in valleys where the wind and fire intensity would not have been nearly as great as up on top of the plateau.

Even further west, in the Dakotas and Montana, where it is much drier, and the land very open, and the fires very intense, there were cottonwoods lining the streams and rivers in many places. Gallery forests is the term commonly used. It's likely fires blew through and created gaps in the gallery forests from time to time, then they grew back.

Probably the same situation existed in that part of Wisconsin. I think it's likely that neither the All Tree or All Grass theories are correct. It was probably a patchwork, a mosaic, just like old Aldo said. Aldo knew stuff. :-D
 
Well, it would be interesting to find out for sure. I sort of suspect, as troutbert notes that there may have been a patchwork of vegetation the charateristics of which were dependent upon prevailing land types and elevation differences.

So far as Leopold and his writings on Wisconsin, it's been a long while since I read him, but as I recall, his work dealt mostly with the sand country of central Wisconsin, an area which geographically has more in common with the the middle to northern half of the lower peninsula of Michigan than with the so-called Ocooch Mountains region of SW Wisconsin where the majority of the spring creeks are. Just instictively, it would seem to me that the region, with all its variations in elevation with actually be more likely to have mixed trees and prairies than the much flatter central porion of the state.
 
RLP,

Are these grassland streams maintained? In other words, are they mowed, grazed or cleared regularly? I ask because it is likely that if hardwoods and other woody (deciduous) vegatation were there previously, they would return sporadically on their own through birds and floods.

If they are being cleared while juvenile then thats another story.

Maurice
 
Tim that's bull crap, right across the Mississippi River in MN you can see it while on your approach to the Twin Cities, all of the creeks have trees along them. Lewis and Clark mentioned the good cover along many river bottoms on their trip to the Pacific Ocean in 1803 to 1805. Why wouldn't trees grow along those streams? Box Elders are native unless they have some unusual species there. I've seen the soils along those streams in the driftless area and if it isn't held there by vegetation it is soon washed away. Grasslands along streams, I have serious doubts.
 
>RLP,

Are these grassland streams maintained? In other words, are they mowed, grazed or cleared regularly? >

Hi Maurice..

They're a number of types. The three I encounter most frequently (with an off the cuff estimate of prevalence among the 100 or so streams I've fished) in the Driftless Region are working pastures-40%, abandoned, high-grass meadows - 30% and mixed woodlot and high grass meadow - 30%. With a few exceptions, the only manicuring done on any of these streams is bovine in origin.

At any rate, here is an interesting link from WI-DNR on the ecological landscapes of the state:

http://dnr.wi.gov/landscapes/

The vast majority of the spring creeks are located in the Western Coulee and Ridges province on the clickable map, with a much smaller number in the Southwest Savannas province. There are a series of maps to be found on the page for each province, including one that shows what is believed to be the original (pre-settlement) vegetation. I'm reluctant to say that this disproves what Tim had earlier asserted. I don't live there and I know how I'd feel if somebody from 600 miles away told me they knew better than I did about say, southern Erie County.

Still though, something doesn't quite add up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top