Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53 – 73

www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

Influence of large woody debris on morphological evolution

of incised, sand-bed channels
N.P. Wallerstein*, C.R. Thorne
School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
Received 24 April 2002; received in revised form 25 November 2002; accepted 21 January 2003

Abstract

This paper documents the influence of Large Woody Debris (LWD) on the morphological evolution of unstable, degrading,
sand-bed rivers in the Yazoo Basin, North Mississippi, USA. The study was performed as part of the Demonstration Erosion
Control (DEC) project. Twenty-three river reaches were studied, with the aim of determining whether the presence of LWD was
beneficial or detrimental to the recovery of stability in degrading, sand-bed river systems and to provide the geomorphic
understanding necessary to underpin enhanced LWD management strategies. The results demonstrate that locations of LWD
inputs, volumes of LWD stored in different reaches and number of jams per unit channel length are causally related to the
morphological processes occurring during different stages of adjustment in these unstable, incised fluvial systems and may be
explained using a Channel Evolution Model (CEM). The net impact of LWD jams on reach-scale sediment budgets was found,
in general, to be positive: that is, jams trap more sediment than they mobilise. This suggests that LWD probably accelerates
rather than retards recovery of a stable longitudinal profile and channel configuration following incision. Field typing of LWD
jams, based on their impacts on the flow pattern, reveals that jam type is a function of the size of large, key elements in the jam
in relation to the channel width. A Debris Jam Classification Scheme is proposed on this basis, with the spatial relationship
between jam type and drainage basin area expressed using a dimensionless function of the ratio between channel width and
average riparian tree height. The scheme features four jam types, Underflow, Dam, Deflector and Flow Parallel/Bar Head, each
of which has a different morphological impact on local channel geometry. These jam types may be used to classify LWD jams
as an aid in determining appropriate management strategies, according to their location within the drainage basin.
D 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Large Woody Debris (LWD); Debris jam; Channel Evolution Model; Degradation; Incised channels

1. Introduction

There has been increasing interest in the role of

* Corresponding author. Present address: 71 Sheldon Road,
Nether Edge, Sheffield, S71GU, UK. Tel.: +44-114-258-2643
(home).
E-mail address: nickwallerstein@hotmail.com
(N.P. Wallerstein).
vegetation in fluvial geomorphology in recent years
(e.g., Gregory, 1993) because it has been recognised
that river dynamics cannot be fully understood with-
out taking into account the impact that vegetation,
both on the banks and within the channel, has on bank
stability (Zimmerman et al., 1967; Gray, 1974;

0169-555X/03/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0169-555X(03)00083-7
54 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73
Thorne, 1982, 1990), flow velocity (Petryk and Bos-
majian, 1975; Young, 1991; Dunkerley, 1992; Shields
and Gippel, 1995; Abbe and Montgomery, 1996),
riverine habitat (Bilby and Likens, 1980; Benke et
al., 1985; O’Connor, 1991; Smith and Shields, 1992;
Gurnell et al., 1995) and channel geomorphology
(Robinson and Beschta, 1990; Smith et al., 1993a;
Keller and MacDonald, 1995; Thompson, 1995) As a
consequence, the study of in-channel Large Woody
Debris (LWD) (sometimes referred to as coarse
woody debris (CWD)) and its accumulation into jams
has become a topic of considerable research interest
over the past 5 –10 years (e.g., Nakamura and Swan-
son, 1993; Fetherston et al., 1995; Wallerstein et al.,
2001; Gurnell et al., 2002).
Large woody debris is defined here as trees,
branches and other larger organic matter, with lengths
greater than 1 m and diameters greater than 0.1 m.
LWD jams are defined as collections of two or more
pieces of debris enmeshed together and fixed in the
channel cross-section by their own weight, by sedi-
ment cover or by attachment to the banks.
In a review of relevant literature undertaken by
Wallerstein and Thorne (1995), it was established that
there are significant gaps in the knowledge concerning
LWD. First, most studies have been carried out in
relatively stable, gravel-bed rivers most commonly in
the US and Canadian Pacific Northwest, upland UK
and New Zealand (Mosley, 1981; Bryant, 1983;
Murgatroyd and Ternan, 1983; Robinson and Beschta,
1990; Nakamura and Swanson, 1993; Smith et al.,
1993a; Fetherston et al., 1995; Hogan et al., 1995;
Gurnell et al., 2000). Conversely, very little is known
about the impact of LWD in sand-bed rivers (with the
exception of studies by Shields and Smith, 1992;
Diehl, 1994; Downs and Simon, 2001). Second, little
is known about LWD processes in channels with
instability caused by system-wide degradation
through knick point migration processes although
there have been studies concerning the input of
LWD and LWD – channel interaction caused by land-
sliding events (Lisle, 1995). Third, most studies have
been conducted in upland areas (Robinson and
Beschta, 1990; Nakamura and Swanson, 1993)
although there are exceptions (Piégay, 1993; Thevenet
et al., 1998). Finally, most studies have been under-
taken in isolated reaches, and only a few investiga-
tions such as those by Gregory et al. (1993) and
Piégay et al. (1999) have covered basin-wide debris
processes. These gaps in the knowledge of LWD –
channel interaction led the authors to the conclusion
that significant new research could be undertaken
through the study of LWD in unstable, sand-bed
rivers, over a range of catchment sizes which would
thus enable channel management in such environ-
ments to be undertaken upon a sound scientific basis.
Channels were therefore examined over a wide range
of catchment sizes in the Bluff-Line Hills of North
Mississippi that are being studied by the US Army
Corps of Engineers under their Demonstration Ero-
sion Control (DEC) program (Thorne, 1999). These
lowland channels have sand, clay and loess beds and
banks which are unstable and rapidly evolving due to
catchment land-use changes and past engineering
interventions (Darby and Simon, 1999). The instabil-
ity in these channels is causing bank failure and rapid
widening, and in wooded areas, this inputs large
quantities of trees and other organic debris to the
channels. While the Corps of Engineers has for some
time been aware that LWD is a significant geomorphic
agent, they have not been able to determine whether it
is beneficial or detrimental to post-incision channel
recovery. As a consequence, there is no policy within
the DEC program for dealing with LWD jams in
degrading channels and this gap in knowledge led to
the funding of the current research.
2. Study area and context
North Mississippi is part of the Gulf Coast Plain
Physiographic Province of North America. It com-
prises (from west to east) the Mississippi Valley, the
Loess Hills and the North-central Plateau (Fig. 1). In
this area, the Mississippi Valley is a low-lying area of
alluvial deposits, drained by the Yazoo River. This
river is the type-site for ‘Yazoo Streams’, which are
defined as floodplain streams that flow subparallel to
very large alluvial rivers, being unable to drain into
the trunk stream due to their lower elevation and the
presence of natural levees separating the floodplain
from the main river. The North-central Plateau is a
heavily dissected plain underlain by Eocene clays and
Eocene Wilcox and Claiborne sands. Between these
two large physiographic areas lie the Loess Hills—a
narrow band of rolling country formed in highly
 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73 55

Fig. 1. Lithological map of Northern Mississippi showing the DEC survey area (modified from Dockery, 1997).

erodible, wind-blown sediments, and with about 30 m west along valleys incised into the Loess Hills, and
of relief. The western edge of the Loess Hills is traverse the Bluff-line within well-defined valleys
marked by a relatively steep scarp termed the before crossing wide alluvial fans and entering the
‘Bluff-line’. Streams draining North Mississippi flow Yazoo River. (Fig. 2).
56 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73

Fig. 2. Demonstration Erosion Control creek study sites (modified from Raphelt et al., 1995).

The catchments receive approximately 1400 mm of depressions) and late summer (due to convective
rainfall per year, falling mostly in storms and intense thunderstorms). The intense rainfall and high porosity
precipitation events during spring (due to frontal of the catchment silts and sands produce flow regimes
 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73
in the Bluff-line streams that are naturally flashy. For
example, Abiaca Creek, site 4 (used in this study)
with a drainage basin area of 113 km2 has a 2-year
flood discharge of 107 m3 s 1 but a bankfull capacity
of only 25 m3 s 1, which is only 25% of the 2-year
discharge (Raphelt et al., 1995). Coupled with the
highly erodible nature of the catchment sands and
silts, the catchment hydrology and flow regimes
generate very high sediment transport rates. For
example, the Abiaca Creek site mentioned above has
a sediment discharge of 150 tons day 1 m 1 at the
bankfull discharge (Raphelt et al., 1995).
Streams in North Mississippi have received con-
siderable attention from geomorphologists and engi-
neers, with most academic studies being concerned
with documenting and understanding morphological
processes and evolution in systems destablised by
system-response to historical land-use changes,
reservoir construction for flood control, artificial
straightening and dredging (e.g., Happ et al., 1940;
DeCoursey, 1981; Schumm et al., 1984; Watson et
al., 1997; Thorne, 1999). A large number of ad hoc
engineering projects were undertaken during the
1960s and 1970s with the aim of restoring stability
and protecting infrastructure and farmland along
these streams (US Army Corps of Engineers,
1981), but in 1985, the Demonstration Erosion
Control project was initiated to formulate and im-
plement a co-ordinated, basin-scale programme to
Fig. 3. Schematic longitudinal profile of a degrading channel showing identifiable features of each CEM Stage (modified from Schumm et al.,
1984).
57
rehabilitate unstable channel systems and develop
new and innovative engineering solutions to insta-
bility problems (US Government Printing Office,
1996).
The DEC project included provision for monitor-
ing morphological change and response to channel
rehabilitation measures (Watson et al., 1997), includ-
ing the role of woody debris in aiding or delaying the
recovery of channel stability in incised Bluff-line
streams (Wallerstein et al., 1997).
3. Morphological evolution of unstable channels in
the study area
The sequence of channel morphologies displayed
by incising streams in North Mississippi has been
conceptualised by Schumm et al. (1984) and Simon
and Hupp (1986), in the form of Channel Evolution
Models (CEMs). While there are significant differences
between the CEMs of Schumm et al. and Simon and
Hupp (see Thorne, 1999 for a direct comparison), they
are sufficiently similar that one CEM may be used to
illustrate the idealised downstream sequence of chan-
nel forms associated with instability due to base level
lowering for the purposes of this paper. Hence, the
CEM of Schumm et al. (1984) is shown schematically
in Fig. 3. Using time for space substitution (the ergodic
hypothesis, (Thorn, 1988)), the same sequence of
58 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73
Stages 1 –5 may be assumed to occur through time at a
given location as a head-cut or over-steepened zone
migrates upstream (Paine, 1985).
The morphological attributes displayed by chan-
nels at each stage in the Channel Evolution Model
have been detailed by Watson et al. (1993a), and are:
Stage 1 Dynamic equilibrium—reach characterised
by sediment transport capacity that is equal
to sediment supply, bank height that is less
than the critical height, a parabolic channel
cross-section and limited deposits of sedi-
ment in the bed. Width – depth ratios are
highly variable and small precursor knick
points may be present.
Stage 2 Degrading reach—located immediately
downstream of a knick point or in an
over-steepened reach and characterised by
a sediment transport capacity that exceeds
sediment supply, bank height that is less
than or equal to the critical bank height, a
rectangular cross-section and little or no
deposited sediment in the bed. Width –
depth ratio is lower than for Stage 1.
Stage 3 Widening reach—located downstream of a
Stage 2 reach and characterised by a
sediment transport capacity that is highly
variable with respect to sediment supply,
bank height that is greater than the critical
height, a rectangular cross-section and
accumulation of fresh sediment in the bed
channel. Width – depth ratio is somewhat
higher than that in the Stage 2 reach
upstream.
Stage 4 Aggrading and narrowing reach—located
downstream of a Stage 3 reach and
characterised by sediment supply that
exceeds transport capacity, bank height
approaching critical with mass failures less
common than in Stage 3 reaches, sediment
accumulation in the bed and formation of
berms along the channel margins, leading
to a compound cross-section. Width – depth
ratio is higher than that in Stage 3 reaches.
Stage 5 Equilibrium reach—located downstream of
a Stage 4 reach and characterised by
balance between sediment transport ca-
pacity and sediment supply for the active
cross-section defined by the top of the
berms, bank height less than critical and
reduced bank angles due to incorporation
of failed bank material into berms, colo-
nisation of berms by riparian vegetation
abundant sediment depth in the bed of the
channel and a compound cross-section.
Stability is attained when a new floodplain
develops within the incised channel.
Width –depth ratio is higher than that for
a Stage 4 reach.
The CEM is based on channel response to a single
base-level lowering event and assumes that the chan-
nel is readily adjustable both vertically and laterally.
The model is also applicable only at a system scale, as
local adjustments driven by bend erosion or local
scour at structures can override morphological im-
pacts of system adjustment to distort the sequence.
Nevertheless, the sequence provides a framework
whereby the complex adjustments in a channel can
be explained and the morphology of individual rea-
ches related to processes operating both upstream and
downstream in the network.
4. Data collection
Between June 1994 and August 1996, field
research was conducted along 23 channel reaches
within the DEC study area that had been subject to
monitoring under an existing field programme per-
formed by Colorado State University as part of DEC-
related research (Watson et al., 1993b). These reaches
were selected because of the availability of detailed
information on morphology and morphological
adjustments during the years immediately prior to
the initiation of this LWD study. The study reaches
were further chosen to cover a wide range of drainage
basin areas and provide data from different fluvial and
environmental conditions in terms of debris loadings,
riparian zone vegetation (natural-wooded or agricul-
tural-row cropped), planform (straight or meandering)
and channel evolution stage (Stages 1 –5). The rea-
ches surveyed were between 1.2 and 4.0 km in length
and their upstream basin areas ranged from 9.5 to 256
km2. Study stream locations are shown in Fig. 2.
Table 1 lists selected hydraulic and geomorphic var-
Table 1
Hydraulic and geomorphic parameters for study reaches in Northern Mississippi
DEC site Creek Drainage Average Average Reach- Study Q2 Stream Riparian Sediment Sediment Total CEM
number basin area Bankfull Bankfull averaged reach dischargeb power per vegetation transport median sinuositye Stage
(see Fig. 2) (km2) width (m) deptha bed slope length (m3 s 1) unit width at capacity at grain size
(m) (mm 1) (km) Q2 discharge Q2 discharge (D50) (mm)d
(W m 2) (tons day 1)c
1 Harland: site 1 69.93 25.9 1.7 0.0008 1.22 105.8 32.3 mature trees 34.5 0.50 1.7 2
2 Fannegusha 46.62 22.5 2.2 0.0020 1.22 94.1 82.0 mature trees 28,181.7 0.30 1.0 2
3 Abiaca: site 3 68.64 17.0 1.9 0.0009 1.22 94.4 51.1 mature trees 7480.3 0.25 1.7 4

N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73

4 Abiaca: site 4 113.96 21.3 0.9 0.0016 1.22 106.9 78.6 agriculture 1894.2 0.49 1.7 5
5 Coila 108.78 17.3 0.9 0.0019 1.22 135.2 145.0 riparian mature trees 33.4 10.00 1.4 4
6 Abiaca: site 6 256.41 31.7 1.7 0.0006 1.22 200.7 38.5 mature trees 1801.7 0.37 1.4 5
7 Nolehoe 9.58 11.1 1.2 0.0070 1.22 27.6 170.0 mature trees 1036.1 10.00 1.0 2
8 Lick 22.02 14.9 1.6 0.0027 1.22 unknown unknown mature/young trees 11,380.9 sand 1.2 2
9 Red Banks 72.00 32.9 1.9 0.0016 4.02 111.8 54.9 agricultural 2477.7 0.50 1.2 5
10 Lee 19.43 32.7 1.9 0.0016 1.22 38.9 19.2 agricultural 24,782.0 0.40 1.3 1
11 Hickahala 23.31 13.5 1.6 0.0020 2.01 61.0 88.2 mature trees 10,287.7 sand/clay 1.3 3
12 Burney Branch 25.90 31.8 2.1 0.0008 1.61 unknown unknown scrub/mature trees 3992.0 0.36 1.3 4
13 Lower Hotopha 44.29 19.7 3.8 0.0018 3.22 95.8 85.7 mature trees 44,438.4 sand 1.1 3
14 Otaucalofa 106.00 22.3 1.8 0.0017 1.22 61.9 47.6 agricultural 9026.2 sand 1.2 2
15 Sarter 16.58 11.8 1.5 0.0024 4.00 39.3 78.3 agricultural 26,841.5 sand 1.1 5
16 Perry 20.98 21.3 1.9 0.0026 3.22 50.6 60.5 scrub/mature trees 7981.2 sand 1.5 1–5
17 Sykes 31.60 24.6 1.6 0.0015 1.22 71.9 42.9 mature trees 10,917.4 0.37 1.2 1
18 East Worsham 24.61 17.2 1.8 0.0023 5.63 54.7 71.4 mature trees 23,809.8 0.32 1.3 2
total
18 Middle Worsham 13.47 13.6 1.5 0.0013 32.6 30.5 mature trees 19,684.9 0.34 1.4 2
18 West Worsham 10.36 11.4 1.6 0.0022 31.0 58.3 mature trees 9582.1 0.31 1.2 2
19 James Wolf 27.97 17.3 1.9 0.0023 1.22 62.0 47.6 agricultural 19,684.9 0.35 1.2 5
20 Long 28.75 18.0 1.1 0.0019 3.22 62.5 67.4 mature trees 10,514.0 0.38 1.3 3
21 Upper Hotopha 13.99 21.6 1.6 0.0005 1.22 33.3 8.7 riparian mature trees 1229.0 0.40 1.2 3
22 Harland: site 22 129.19 27.2 2.6 0.0011 1.22 130.6 51.7 riparian mature trees 19,275.5 sand 1.2 2
23 Marcum 12.17 13.8 1.34 0.0029 1.22 33.7 78.3 riparian mature trees 19,275.4 sand 1.0 2
a
Bankfull depth may be less than total channel depth due to incision.
b
Q2 discharge represents a flow which occurs, on average, once every 2 years (Richards, 1982). Q2 discharge determined by Raphelt et al. (1995) using the US Army Corps of
Engineers HEC-2 discharge simulation model (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1990).
c
Sediment transport capacity determined by Raphelt et al. (1995) using the Brownlie (1981) equation within the US Army Corps of Engineers SAM channel analysis package
(developed by Thomas et al., 1994).
d
Sediment D50 determined from sieve analysis of bed-material samples (Raphelt et al., 1995). Where no quantitative analysis was undertaken a sediment size description is given.
e
Total sinuosity is defined as active channel length divided by ‘air distance’ along the valley (Richards, 1982).

59
60 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73
iables (measured or calculated) for each of the reaches
obtained from Watson et al. (1993b). At each study
reach, the channel long profile was surveyed, with
survey points spaced at about 3-m intervals. Each
debris jam encountered in the reach was surveyed into
the long profile and subjected to a detailed geomor-
phic investigation involving:
1. Recording riparian vegetation type with a qual-
itative classification of wooded, urban or agricul-
tural;
2. Visual classification of the channel condition in
terms of the CEM. Determination of stage of
channel evolution can be made by observing and
measuring several key indicators. The main differ-
ences in morphology between aggrading (Stages 4
and 5) and degrading (Stages 2 and 3) reaches are
shown in Fig. 4;
3. Identification of the mechanism by which ‘key
debris’ in the jam had entered the channel.
Categories and indicators were:
3.1. Windthrow (trees/branches snapped sharply or
whole trees uprooted at the root wad);
3.2. Bank mass failure (whole trees attached to
blocks of failed bank sediment that had fallen
perpendicularly to the channel);
Fig. 4. Indicators of degradation and aggradation.
3.3. Outer bank erosion at a bend (similar to (ii) but
located at the outer margin of a bend in a
meandering reach);
3.4. Beaver dams (readily identifiable by their
structure);
3.5. Palaeodebris: old LWD, which was buried in
the floodplain alluvium, and subsequently
reeroded (usually well preserved but easily
identified by its black colour and partially
fossilised appearance);
3.6. Transport from upstream (large elements
lodged against downstream jams and banks
and wedged against in situ bank vegetation).
4. Measurement of the debris volume in each jam,
using a tape measure to obtain mean diameter and
length of each piece of LWD over 1 m in length
and 0.1 m in diameter;
5. Measurement of the volume of sediment scoured
and deposited around each jam. To determine
scour, a measuring staff was used to obtain scour
pool depth up to mean channel bed elevation, and a
tape measure was used to determine pool area. The
same approach was used for determining bar and
backwater sediment wedge dimensions, using a
sediment probe (a steel spike, 2 m long) to obtain
sediment depths;
 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73
Fig. 5. (a) Underflow Jam on Worsham Creek. Drainage basin area: 10.3 km2. Flow is towards the camera. (b) Dam Jam on Lick Creek. Drainage basin area: 22 km2. Flow is away
from the camera. (c) Deflector Jam on Fannegusha Creek. Drainage basin area: 46 km2. Flow is from left to right. (d) Flow Parallel Jam on Harland Creek, Site 1. Drainage basin area:
69 km2. Flow is from right to left.

61
62 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73

6. Classification of the jam type based on jam form
and impact on the channel morphology, according
to a scheme modified from a pool classification
scheme presented by Robinson and Beschta (1990):
6.1. Underflow Jam: key debris elements span the
channel at the bank top level (Fig. 5a).
6.2. Dam Jam: key debris elements lie in the
channel but are similar in length to the channel
width and completely block the flow (Fig. 5b).
6.3. Deflector Jam: key debris elements are shorter
than the channel width so that flow is deflected
against one or both banks (Fig. 5c).
6.4. Flow Parallel/Bar Head Jam: channel width is
significantly greater than key debris element
length and debris is predominantly aligned
parallel to the flow or deposited against
incipient bars (Fig. 5d).
7. Tallying of the number of jams of each type in each
reach.
5. Results and discussion
Debris jams were found in 17 of the 23 study
reaches. All six reaches that did not contain debris
jams had agricultural riparian zones that had been
cleared of natural vegetation up to the channel margin.
All the reaches containing jams had wooded riparian
zones, which were often backed by agricultural land
but which were fenced off and left untouched by the
landowners. The pattern of LWD location is as might
be expected, given that debris jams will occur close to
their source riparian material. However, this ignores
the fact that, in large channels at least, woody material
may be transported downstream by high flows and
deposited downstream in the drainage network,
including in locations where woody riparian material
is not present. Such transportation requires, however,
that the material is not waterlogged, is not enmeshed
in bank vegetation or partially buried by sediment. It
was observed that at many of the jam sites on creeks
with wooded riparian zones the key debris elements
were often attached firmly to the channel bed or bank
usually by the root wad. Because the root wad was
generally coated in bank material making that part of
the debris denser than the wood alone, downstream
transport by floatation and/or through fluid drag was
unlikely (see Braudrick and Grant, 2000 for a com-
prehensive analysis of LWD transport mechanics).
The input mechanisms identified for the jams during

Table 2
Key debris input mechanisms
Creek Drainage Jam key debris input mechanism: number of jams
basin area Bank Bend outer Windthrow Beaver dam Paleodebris Floated
(km2) failure bank erosion from
upstream
Nolehoe 9.5 10 0 0 0 0 0
Worsham West 10.3 7 2 1 3 0 0
Lee 19.4 2 0 2 0 0 0
Perry 20.9 3 2 2 0 0 0
Lick 22.0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Hickahala 23.0 2 1 0 0 0 0
Burney Branch 25.0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Long 28.0 4 3 0 1 4 0
Sykes 31.0 0 6 0 0 0 1
Fannegusha 46.0 2 0 0 0 0 1
Abiaca: site 3 68.0 1 5 0 1 0 0
Harland: site 1 69.0 3 1 0 1 0 0
Otoucalofa 106.0 3 3 0 0 3 0
Coila 108.0 0 4 0 1 0 2
Abiaca: site 4 113.9 0 1 0 0 0 1
Harland: site 21 129.5 0 7 0 0 0 0
Abiaca: site 6 256.4 0 0 0 2 0 0
Total (%) 36 37 6 9 7 5
 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73
the field study are listed in Table 2. Over a third (37%)
of jams were formed where key debris entered the
channel directly due to outer bank erosion at bends. A
further third (36%) of jams formed where wood was
recruited by mass failure of banks associated with
bank destabilisation and rapid widening in Stages 2
and 3 of Schumm et al.’s (1984) CEM. The remaining
jams were made up of key debris input by windthrow
(6%), erosion of palaeodebris (7%), LWD transport
from upstream (5%) and beaver dam construction
(9%). Trees felled by bank erosion were distinguished
from those which must have entered by other pro-
cesses using the observation of asymmetrical root
mass which, as indicated by Diehl and Bryan
(1993), suggests the progressive slipping of the tree
from the bank into the channel. Two other distinguish-
ing factors were that (a) windblown trees tend to fall
at random orientations, whereas debris associated with
bank failure tends to topple either forward into and
across the channel or slump backward against the
channel bank if the failure mechanism is rotational,
and (b) debris associated with bank collapse is quite
often still attached to the block of material which
failed. These results demonstrate that the most impor-
tant LWD input mechanism in unstable channels is
bank retreat, accounting for over two thirds of the
debris-forming jams. This process has elements that
are both spatially predictable and chronic (Fetherston
et al., 1995). Secondary input mechanisms together
only account for between a quarter and a third of jams.
These processes are spatially random and episodic
(Fetherston et al., 1995). The relative importance of
input mechanisms found in these creeks is similar to
that found by Pearce and Watson (1983) in mountain
catchments but contrast with those found by Gregory
et al. (1993) in lowland British streams.
The spatial distribution of the secondary input
mechanisms is largely random, but bank retreat
through lateral erosion and mass instability should be
related to the channel evolution sequence as defined by
the CEM. Specifically, inputs should be high during
Stages 2 and 3 (due to mass instability and rapid
widening). Hence, the possibility exists of developing
a geomorphic tool to predict the distribution of debris
inputs and jams within a catchment on the basis of the
CEM. This theory is consistent with Diehl and Bryan’s
(1993) observations. They examined input mecha-
nisms in unstable rivers, in Tennessee, north of those
63
in the present study and concluded that channel insta-
bility could be a good indicator of in-channel debris
abundance. To investigate whether the field data sup-
ported this possibility, jam frequency (number of jams
per 100 m sub-reach) and the volume of material in
jams per 100 m sub-reach were related to channel
evolution stage (note that data from Perry Creek were
not used as this reach encompassed Stages 1 through
5). It was expected that there would be low debris
loadings in Stage 1 channels because banks are stable
with respect to gravity and meander activity is sub-
dued. Debris loading and jam frequency should
increase in Stage 2 reaches due to local mass failures
associated with banks rendered marginally stable by
degradation, especially where stability is further
reduced by the presence of large trees through sur-
charging and wind loading. The highest debris load-
ings and jam frequencies would be expected in Stage 3
reaches due to bank retreat associated with mass fail-
ures of unstable banks and rapid widening. Debris
loading and jam frequency should decline in Stage 4
reaches in line with improved bank stability, although
the development of sinuosity in the stabilising inner
channel may continue to recruit debris through outer
bank erosion at developing bends. Finally, in Stage 5
reaches, debris loadings and jam frequency were
expected to decrease, possibly to values less than those
for Stage 1 channels due to the effect of wide berms and
proto-floodplains in protecting the banks from erosion.
Table 3 shows the average volume of LWD and
frequency of jams per 100 m sub-reach encountered in
reaches associated with each CEM Stage. The trends
in both debris volume and jam frequency follow the
expected distributions. A visual representation of the
relationship between CEM Stage and average debris
volumes per 100 reach is shown in Fig. 6. Open
circles in this figure represent the average values for
each stage, which are connected together by a trend
line. The error bars represent 1 S.D. in each data-set
data. The standard deviation bars for CEM Stages 1, 3
and 4 are small, indicating consistent data values
between stream sites. However, standard deviations
for Stages 2 and 4 are quite large, which calls into
question the validity of the trend line. The only way to
determine whether the trend line accurately represents
nature or not would be to collect a much larger data
set and this was not possible in the present study.
However, on the basis of the data that have been
64 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73

Table 3
Channel Evolution Model Stage as an indicator of in-channel debris volume and frequency of debris jams
CEM No. of Reach length Vol. of debris: Percentage No. of jams: Percentage
stage reaches surveyed (m) ave. per 100 m of difference ave. per 100 m of difference
surveyed sub-reach (m3) from Stage 1 (%) sub-reach from stage 1 (%)
1 2 2592 0.84 – 0.36 –
2 6 9760 5.37 + 639 0.42 + 117
3 3 5947 6.12 + 729 0.47 + 130
4 3 4575 3.16 + 379 0.36 + 100
5 2 2745 2.07 + 246 0.15 + 41

obtained, it can be tentatively concluded that debris
loading and jam frequency in degrading streams are
related to the morphological evolution of the channel
and that CEM Stage can represent this. It should be
noted that the locations of heavy debris loadings
cannot be attributed to features which might retain
LWD, such as bridges and culverts, etc., as few
artificial structures are located in the reaches. Also,
reaches with low debris loadings cannot be associated
with external factors such as, for example, debris
removal, as there is no programme of debris manage-
ment in these catchments. The volume of debris in the
study creeks averages 45.5 m3 km 1 (standard devia-
tion: 36.9 m3 km 1). This loading is significantly
lower than debris loadings in Pacific Northwest
creeks. For example, Keller and MacDonald (1995)
report a loading of 0.13 m3 m 2 for Prairie Creek near
Orick, CA, which is two orders of magnitude higher
than the average value of 0.0029 m3 m 2 (standard
deviation: 0.0032 m3 m 2) measured for the study
reaches in Mississippi. This difference is probably due
to the fact that the average tree dimensions in the
Pacific Northwest are significantly greater than those
of the Mississippi tree species. The predominant tree
species found along creeks in the Pacific Northwest
(for example, in Oregon) is the Redwood, which,
when mature, is much greater in height and girth than
the trees typically found along disturbed creeks in
Mississippi (River Birch, Black Willow, Silver Maple,
Box Elder and Eastern Cottonwood) (Hupp and
Osterkamp, 1996).
The Debris Jam Classification Scheme outlined
previously was applied to type each debris jam
according to its impacts on flow disturbance and
channel morphology. The numbers of jams in each
category for each creek are shown in Table 4. The
creeks are listed according to drainage basin area. A
faint trend can be detected in this table, with a
progression from predominantly Underflow jams in
small catchments through Dam and Deflector jams in

Fig. 6. Variation in average debris volume with CEM stage. Error bars indicate F 1 S.D.
 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73 65

Table 4
Debris Jam Classification scheme related to drainage basin area

slightly larger catchments to a predominance of Flow
Parallel/Bar Head jams in the largest catchments
surveyed. This trend is illustrated in Fig. 7 by a
graph of cumulative jam frequency as a function of
drainage basin area. The presence of a trend in jam
type against drainage basin area is explained by the
fact that the progression from Underflow, to Dam, to
Deflector, to Flow Parallel/Bar Head jam types
implies that channel width is becoming gradually
greater as compared to key debris length (Nakamura
and Swanson, 1993) as one moves downstream. The
fact that LWD processes are scale-dependent has
been recognised by several authors (Abbe and Mont-
gomery, 1993; Nakamura and Swanson, 1993). Sig-
nificantly, Gregory et al. (1985) suggested that their
‘Active/Complete/Partial’ classification scheme had a
downstream trend, which anticipated the scheme
proposed here. If we assume, therefore, that in a
given catchment, average key debris tree height is
fairly uniform, we might expect distinct jam-type
zones to exist downstream through the catchment as
the channel width to tree height ratio favours suc-

Fig. 7. Cumulative jam frequency as a function of drainage basin area.

66 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73
cessively different types of jam. The trend in the data
indicates the possibility of a process-form model
relating key debris length to the increasing channel
width found as one moves downstream. This Debris
Jam Classification Scheme (DJCS) is outlined in Fig.
8, and is a modification of the Robinson and Beschta
(1990) pool morphology classification scheme. The
ratios between tree height (l) and channel width (B),
which define the boundaries between each jam type,
are derived from the authors’ observational field data
collected in North Mississippi between 1994 and
1996. The crucial point to make here is that there
is a sequence of differing morphological adjustments
associated with debris jams as a function of distance
downstream through the catchment. Debris therefore
does not produce a single morphological response in
the river environment, but instead a suite of adjust-
ments, which can be linked and interpreted as having
a spatial relationship. The model is idealised in that
channel width does not vary solely as a function of
drainage basin area in the way suggested by hy-
draulic geometry relationships (Richards, 1982). This
is especially the case in degrading channel systems,
where top widths are often controlled to a large
extent by the channel evolution processes occurring
in a particular reach. In this respect, the model may
therefore be more applicable to fluvial systems
which are in dynamic equilibrium than those in
North Mississippi. The model does have some val-
idity though, as it is based on field data and it may
serve as a tool to type debris jams according to
easily measured catchment variables. Fig. 5a – d
shows pictures of Underflow, Dam, Deflector and
Flow Parallel/Bar Head type jams in creeks in North
Mississippi. However, it is recognised that accurate
prediction of jam type through the drainage network
can only be achieved through knowledge of both
location of the site of interest in the network (i.e.,
potential average channel width as predicted by
hydraulic geometry relationships) and the CEM
Stage processes operating at that location.
Given that there is a weak spatial relationship
between jam type and drainage basin area, it might
also be reasonable to hypothesise that volumes of
sediment scour and storage associated with jams may
also vary downstream in a predictable manner. For
example, Keller and Swanson (1979) suggested a
progression of type of interaction between debris jams
and the scour/deposition forms they create when
moving downstream. The DJCS suggests the follow-
ing morphological features and processes associated
with each jam type. Underflow jams interfere only
slightly with the flow and therefore do not have a high
scour and sedimentation potential. Dam type jams,
found further downstream, cause large volumes of
sediment to be stored in backwater areas, but also
cause plunge pool scour downstream of the dam.
Further downstream again, Deflector jams cause sedi-
ment to be trapped on their lee side as bar deposits, but
also cause flow to impinge on one or both banks
resulting in scour and bank failure. In large channels,
Flow Parallel/Bar Head debris blocks the flow to a
lesser extent so that sediment retention and scour are
much reduced. On this basis, we might expect to see a
peak in both scour and storage at intermediate drainage
basin areas, in the zone of Dam and Deflector type
jams. This proposal was tested by plotting the total
volume of sediment scoured and stored at jams for
each reach averaged per 100 m sub-reach as a function
of drainage basin area (Fig. 9). A third-order poly-
nomial regression line fitted to the data has the
expected form and is significant at the 95% level
(see table at the base of Fig. 9) although the relation-
ship is weak. This is due, in part, to the lack of data
points for larger drainage basin sizes. The weak
relationship may also be explained, in part, because
scour and deposition processes associated with wider
channel evolution impose their own spatial patterns,
and as a consequence, it was difficult, in the field, to
differentiate between scour and deposition caused by
LWD jams and those generated by reach-scale degra-
dational and aggradational adjustments. An attempt to
disaggregate these two geomorphic agents into their
component parts using a flume model has been made
by Wallerstein et al. (2001). In other physiographic
regions, especially in mountain streams, the predom-
inant impact of LWD jams has been observed to be the
creation of log steps. These steps cause backwater
deposition, plunge pools and energy dissipation which
stabilise the channel (MacDonald et al., 1982). Log
steps were not observed in the North Mississippi
Creeks for three reasons. First, the bed and bank
material is so mobile that once an obstruction forms
it is quickly bypassed by bed scour beneath it and/or
bank erosion around the ends. Second, bed slopes are
much lower is these creeks (average slope of 0.0018
 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73 67

Fig. 8. A Debris Jam Classification Scheme (l = average tree height, B = average channel top width) (modified from Wallerstein et al., 1997).
68 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73

Fig. 9. Reach-averaged volume of sediment stored and scoured at LWD jams as a function of drainage basin area.

mm 1 for the 23 creeks surveyed) than those reported
where log steps have been found in mountain streams
(0.006 – 0.40 mm 1 for a range of stream orders,
Thompson, 1995; 0.08 mm 1 for a second-order
stream, Keller and MacDonald, 1995). Third, tree
diameters in the Mississippi creeks (average 0.55 m;
Downs and Simon, 2001) are generally smaller than
those found in Pacific Northwest streams. Although,
log-step heights are reported in the literature base for
Pacific Northwest streams, percentage elevation drops
along study reaches caused by log steps in this region
are in the range: 0 – 9% (Marston, 1982); 8 – 59%
(Keller and Tally, 1979); 30 – 80% (Swanson and
Lienkaemper, 1978). Conversely, bed elevation was
seen to be controlled at only one or two of the dam-
type jams in the Mississippi study reaches and also at
the nine beaver dams encountered which had heights
ranging between 0.5 and 1.8 m. Energy dissipation in
the study creeks therefore appears to derive from
lateral flow deflection and flow resistance caused by
the LWD itself rather than through log steps creating
local hydraulic drop-and-jump features. Consequently,
most stored sediment was found downstream of jams
because log-step-type backwater pools were rare.
An important question, which comes from the above
observations, is whether the net sediment budget at
jams is positive or negative, and therefore, whether
LWD aids channel stability or reduces it. The opinion
 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73
of previous authors varies; Klein et al. (1988) and
Thompson (1995) argued that LWD removal from
stream would be detrimental to stability, while Smith
et al. (1993a,b) suggested that debris removal from
gravel-bed rivers would reduce turbulence and sedi-
ment mobility. Significantly, if sediment stored is
subtracted from sediment scoured for each creek in
Fig. 9, there are only three creeks with negative sedi-
ment balances, one creek has a 0 sediment balance and
13 creeks have positive sediment balances. This find-
ing supports Thompson’s (1995) and Klein et al.’s
(1988) opinions. It appears therefore that LWD in
degrading systems is involved in a negative feedback
mechanism whereby bank instability in Stage 3 of the
CEM causes large volumes of LWD input, which, in
turn, causes energy dissipation, net sediment storage
and therefore an accelerated recovery rate.
It may be the case that trends in Fig. 9 are weak
because debris-related scour and sedimentation
depend more upon channel morphological processes.
Possibly, it is channel evolution in the study creeks,
rather than drainage basin area, that is the main
determinant of channel dimensions in unstable river
systems. To investigate this possibility, the data have
been analysed by plotting net sediment balance (sedi-
ment deposition minus bed and bank scour) for each
creek averaged over 100 m sub-reaches against CEM
Stage (Fig. 10). The open circles and continuous black
line in this figure indicate the average value for each
Fig. 10. Net sediment budget for LWD jams in each CEM Stage. Average values are denoted by open circles, which are connected by a trend
line. Individual values for each creek in a particular CEM Stage are denoted by black dots.
69
CEM Stage. The dots mark individual values for each
creek that had LWD jams. It can be seen that the
actual values are closely grouped about the mean for
Stages 1, 2 and 5 channels, but are more widely
spaced for Stages 3 and 4 channels. The wider spread
of observed sediment balances in Stages 3 and 4 is
consistent with the greater variability in morphology
and sediment features encountered in unstable chan-
nels. The data suggest that the sediment storage
associated with jams increases from Stages 1 to 3
and then remains about constant. This indicates that
LWD in unstable (Stages 2 and 3) and initially
stabilising (Stage 4) reaches tends to assist the evolu-
tion process by retaining sediment within the reach. If
validated by further studies, this finding would have
important management implications for LWD in
degrading systems. It suggests that debris should be
left in place as, on balance, jams retain more sediment
than they scour, thus, accelerating the progression of
unstable reaches through Stages 2, 3 and 4 of the
channel evolution sequence.
6. Conclusions
This research has attempted to link channel evolu-
tion processes in degradational river systems to the
distribution and impact of Large Woody Debris. It has
also been the aim to understand the changing interac-
70 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73

tion between LWD and channel processes and mor- of channel CEM Stage than of overall downstream
phology when moving through the drainage network. width trends. Second, jams are not all generated by key
It has been found that, while spatially unpredict- debris of a uniform size, and debris in larger channels
able debris input processes such as windthrow and can be reorientated and transported by the flow, reduc-
beaver activity cause a small percentage of jams, the ing the l to B ratio. The relationship suggested here is
majority of woody material enters these unstable then only an indicative tool for interpreting LWD in a
channels through bank erosion, much of which results spatial context.
from mass failure in degraded reaches. Most LWD The impact of a particular jam may also vary widely
input is therefore chronic in nature and can be directly depending upon location time at a particular point in the
linked to channel evolution stage, as defined by the channel, which, in turn, is likely to have a strong
Schumm et al. (1984) Channel Evolution Model. As a relationship with drainage basin discharge regime.
direct consequence of this relationship, the number of Unfortunately, the investigation documented here only
jams in a reach and volume of material in them is also spanned a short period of time, so that the temporal
a function of CEM Stage. Thus, for management aspect of the geomorphological impact of jams, as a
purposes, the spatial density of debris jams in degrad- function of their persistence, could not be studied.
ing rivers may be qualitatively predicted on the basis The results of this study indicate that debris causes
of the location and migration of headcuts and degra- both scour of the bed and banks through flow deflection
dational processes. Therefore, if LWD loads are and sediment storage due to flow blockage and energy
considered problematical (from the perspective of dissipation. Our results seem to suggest that, while both
interference with run of river structures such as sets of processes occur, the net sediment budget at most
bridges, sluices, weirs and dams, etc.), sound manage- jams is positive, i.e., there is a net retention of sediment.
ment calls for the primary cause of debris input to the
channel network—the channel degradation process
and bank instability to be addressed, rather than Table 5
simply the piecemeal removal of LWD from problem Determinants for management strategies for LWD in unstable sand-
sites. bed rivers
A jam classification scheme has been generated Impact Jam type
based upon the pool formation model created by Ro- Underflow Dam Deflector Flow-parallel
binson and Beschta (1990). This classification scheme Debris blockage low high high low
types LWD jams as Underflow, Dam, Deflector and Increased bank low moderate high low
Flow Parallel/Bar Head Jams. The formation of differ- erosion
ent jam types was found to depend mostly on the ratio Increased bed high moderate low low
erosion
between key debris length and channel top width.
Increased low high high moderate
Channel width is, in turn, mainly a function of drainage sediment
basin area although the stage of channel evolution is storage
also a factor. Thus, it was found that, in general, jam Increased bed high high high moderate
type changes in a predictable way, from Underflow, to topography
variability
Dam, to Deflector and finally to Flow Parallel/Bar
Aid to local high high high high
Head when moving downstream through the drainage channel
network. However, this relation is complicated by two stability
important factors. First, in incising channel networks, Increase in moderate high moderate low
as in Northern Mississippi, downstream hydraulic frequency and
duration of
relationships are distorted by the passage of knick
overbank
points which cause channel width to become a function flooding
of incision and bank failure processes in Stages 3 and 4 Increased fish high high high high
channels rather than a simple function of discharge habitat diversity
(and therefore, drainage basin area). This means that, Blockage to fish low high moderate low
migration
locally, jam type is more likely to be a stepped function
 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73
In the light of this finding, it is suggested that LWD
management in unstable river systems should, on the
basis of geomorphology alone, (the beneficial impact
of LWD on the aquatic ecosystem is not considered
here) involve leaving jams in place.
However, in more specific terms, LWD manage-
ment is a complex issue and depends on jam type,
which is, in turn, a function of channel width. A
tentative set of determinants for detailed LWD man-
agement in unstable river systems is outlined in Table
5, based upon the relationship between jam type as
defined by the Debris Jam Classification Scheme and
the impact which each jam type has upon channel
morphology. The table is not prescriptive in terms of
management decisions (an approach adopted by other
authors such as Gregory and Davis (1992) and Gur-
nell et al. (1995)) because the authors recognise that
appropriate strategies are dependent on the objectives
set out by the authority managing a particular river
environment. Rather, the table outlines whether the
impact had by a particular jam type is ‘low’, ‘moder-
ate’ or ‘high’ depending on the selected geomorphic
and aquatic habitat criteria.
As this study was conducted in unstable, sand-bed
rivers, these findings may only be applicable to that
type of fluvial landscape as it has been shown that
geomorphic processes and morphological forms asso-
ciated with LWD in this type of environment may be
quite different to those found in gravel-bed rivers. It is
also important to recognise that the results presented
here are indicative only of the interaction between the
channel and LWD jams in unstable river systems
because it is difficult to disaggregate the morpholog-
ical impacts generated by jams from the impacts
created by the more dominant channel evolution
process.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the US Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (Hydraul-
ics Branch), Vicksburg, MS, USA for funding this
research project. The paper benefited from thorough
and constructive peer reviews provided by Angela
Gurnell and Hervé Piégay. Also, to Chris Lewis and
Elaine Watts, Department of Geography, University
of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK for drafting the
71
diagrams and tables. The assistance of Stephen L.
Ingram, Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute, 220
Old Chemistry Building, University, MS 38677,
USA, and Roger E. Van Cleef, Curator of Education,
Emeritus, and Ronald C. Brister, Chief Curator of
Collections, Memphis Museum, 4683 Aloha, Mem-
phis, Tennessee, 38118-3218, USA in providing
geological information is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Abbe, T.B., Montgomery, D.R., 1993. A process-based classifica-
tion system of woody debris in a fluvial network: preliminary
analysis of the Queets River, WA. USA., poster abstract. 1993
Fall Meeting of American Geophysical Union.
Abbe, T.B., Montgomery, D.R., 1996. Large woody debris jams,
channel hydraulics and habitat formation in large rivers. Regu-
lated Rivers: Research and Management 12, 201 – 221.
Benke, A.C., Henry III, R.L., Gillespie, D.M., Hunter, R.J., 1985.
Importance of snag habitat for animal production in Southeast-
ern Streams. Fisheries 10 (5), 8 – 13.
Bilby, R.E., Likens, G.E., 1980. Importance of organic debris dams
in the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology 61
(5), 1107 – 1113.
Braudrick, C.A., Grant, G.E., 2000. When do logs move in rivers?
Water Resources Research 36 (2), 571 – 583.
Brownlie, W.R., 1981. Prediction of flow depth and sediment dis-
charge in open channels. California Institute of Technology,
W.M. Keck Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, USA, Report no. KH-
R-43A.
Bryant, M.D., 1983. The role and management of woody debris in
West Coast salmonid nursery streams. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management 3, 330.
Darby, S.E., Simon, A., 1999. Incised River Channels. Wiley, Chi-
chester. 442 pp.
DeCoursey, D.G., 1981. Channel stability: report to the Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg District under Section 32 Program, Work
Unit 7, USDA-ARS Sedimentation Laboratory, Box 1157, Ox-
ford, MS, USA.
Diehl, T.H., 1994. Causes and effects of valley plugs in West
Tennessee. In: Sale, M.J., Wadlington, R.O. (Eds.), Symposium
on Responses to Changing Multiple-Use Demands: New Di-
rections for Water Resources Planning and Management, Nash-
ville, Tenn., April 17 – 20, Proceedings of Extended Abstracts.
American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, VA,
pp. 97 – 100.
Diehl, T.H., Bryan, B.A., 1993. Supply of large woody debris in a
stream channel. In: Shen, H.W., Su, S.T., Wen, Feng (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Hydraulic Engineering ’93 Conference,
San Francisco, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 1,
pp. 1055 – 1060.
Dockery, D.T., 1997. Windows into Mississippi’s past. Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality Circular 6.
Downs, P.W., Simon, A., 2001. Fluvial geomorphological analysis
72 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73
of the recruitment of large woody debris in the Yalobusha
River network, Central Mississippi, USA. Geomorphology
37, 65 – 91.
Dunkerley, D.L., 1992. Channel geometry, bed material, and inferred
flow conditions in ephemeral stream systems, Barrier Range,
Western NSW, Australia. Hydrological Processes 6, 417 – 433.
Fetherston, K.L., Naiman, R.J., Bilby, R.E., 1995. Large woody
debris, physical process and riparian forest development in mon-
tane river networks of the Pacific Northwest. Geomorphology
13, 133 – 144.
Gray, D.H., 1974. Reinforcement and stabilization of soil by
vegetation. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 100,
695 – 699.
Gregory, K.J., 1993. Vegetation and river channel process interac-
tions. In: Boon, P.J., Calow, P., Petts, G.E. (Eds.), River Con-
servation and Management. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 255 – 269.
Gregory, K.J., Davis, R.J., 1992. Coarse woody debris in stream
channels in relation to river channel management in wood-
land areas. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 7,
117 – 136.
Gregory, K.J., Gurnell, A.M., Hill, C.T., 1985. The permanence of
debris dams related to river channel processes. Hydrological
Sciences Journal 30, 3 – 9.
Gregory, K.J., Davis, R.J., Tooth, S., 1993. Spatial distribution of
coarse woody debris dams in the Lymington basin, Hampshire.
Geomorphology 6, 207 – 224.
Gurnell, A.M., Gregory, K.J., Petts, G.E., 1995. The role of coarse
woody debris in forest aquatic habitats: implications for man-
agement. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosys-
tems 5, 143 – 166.
Gurnell, A.M., Petts, G.E., Hannah, D.M., Smith, B.P.G., Edwards,
P.J., Kollmann, J., Ward, J.V., Tockner, K., 2000. Wood storage
within the active zone of a large European gravel-bed river.
Geomorphology 34, 55 – 72.
Gurnell, A.M., Piégay, H., Swanson, F.J., Gregory, S.V., 2002. Large
wood and fluvial processes. Freshwater Biology 47, 601 – 619.
Happ, S.C., Rittenhouse, G., Dobson, G.C., 1940. Some principles
of accelerated stream and valley sedimentation. US Department
of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin 695 (134 pp.).
Hogan, D.L., Bird, S.A., Hassan, M., 1995. Spatial and temporal
evolution of small coastal gravel-bed streams: the influence of
forest management on channel morphology and fish habitats
Paper Prepared for. IV Gravel-Bed Rivers Conference, August
20 – 26, 1995, Gold Bar, Washington, USA.
Hupp, C.R., Osterkamp, W.R., 1996. Riparian vegetation and
fluvial geomorphic processes. Geomorphology 14, 277 – 295.
Keller, E.A., MacDonald, A., 1995. River channel change: the role
of large woody debris. In: Gurnell, A., Petts, G. (Eds.), Chang-
ing River Channels. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 217 – 235.
Keller, E.A., Swanson, F.J., 1979. Effects of large organic material
on channel form and fluvial processes. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 4, 361 – 381.
Keller, E.A., Tally, T., 1979. Effects of large organic debris on chan-
nel form and fluvial process in the coastal redwood environment.
In: Rhodes, D.D., Williams, G.P. (Eds.), Adjustments of the Flu-
vial System. Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, IA, pp. 167 – 197.
Klein, R., Sonnevil, R., Short, D., 1988. Effects of woody debris
removal on sediment storage in Northwest California streams.
Erosion and Sedimentation in the Pacific Rim. IAHS Publica-
tion, vol. 165, pp. 403 – 405.
Lisle, T.E., 1995. Effects of coarse woody debris and its removal on
a channel affected by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens,
Washington. Water Resources Research 31 (7), 1797 – 1808.
MacDonald, A., Keller, E.A., Talley, T., 1982. The role of large
organic debris on stream channels draining redwood forests in
northwestern California. In: Harden, D.R., Marran, D.C., Mac-
Donald, A. (Convenors), Friends of the Pleistocene 1982, Pacif-
ic Cell Fieldtrip Guidebook, late Cenozoic history and forest
geomorphology of Humbold, California. San Francisco: Friends
of the Pleistocene, pp. 226 – 245.
Marston, R.A., 1982. The geomorphic significance of log steps in
forested streams. Annals of the Association of American Geog-
raphers 72, 99 – 108.
Mosley, M.P., 1981. The influence of organic debris on channel
morphology and bedload transport in a New Zealand forest
stream. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 6, 571 – 579.
Murgatroyd, A.L., Ternan, J.L., 1983. The impact of afforestation
on stream bank erosion and channel form. Earth Surface Pro-
cesses and Landforms 8, 357 – 369.
Nakamura, F., Swanson, F., 1993. Effects of coarse woody debris
on morphology and sediment storage of a mountain stream
system in Western Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Land-
forms 18, 43 – 61.
O’Connor, N.A., 1991. The effects of habitat complexity on the
macroinvertebrates colonising wood substrates in lowland
stream. Oecologia 85, 504 – 512.
Paine, A.D.M., 1985. Erogodic reasoning in geomorphology: time
for a revision of the term? Progress in Physical Geography 9,
1 – 15.
Pearce, A.J., Watson, A., 1983. Medium-term effects of two land-
sliding episodes on channel storage of sediment. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 8, 29 – 39.
Petryk, A.M., Bosmajian III, G., 1975. Analysis of flow through
vegetation. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of
the American Society of Civil Engineers 101 (HY7), 871 – 884.
Piégay, H., 1993. Nature, mass and preferential sites of coarse
woody debris deposits in the lower Ain valley, France. Regu-
lated Rivers: Research and Management 8, 359 – 372.
Piégay, H., Thévenet, A., Citterio, A., 1999. Input, storage and
distribution of large woody debris along a mountain river con-
tinuum, the Drôme River, France. Catena 35, 19 – 39.
Raphelt, N.K., Thomas, W.A., Brown, B.J., Abraham, D.D., Der-
rick, D.L., Johnson, B.E., Martin, B.L., Hubbard, L.C., Trawle,
M.J., Watson, C.C., Abt, S.R., Thorne, C.R., 1995. Demonstra-
tion erosion control project monitoring program: Fiscal year
1993 report: Volume I: Main Text, US Army Corps of Engi-
neers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
Technical Report HL-94-1. 191 pp.
Richards, K.R., 1982. Form and Process in Alluvial Channels. Me-
thuen and Co., London. Chaps. 2, 3 and 7.
Robinson, E., Beschta, R.L., 1990. Coarse woody debris and chan-
nel morphology interactions for undisturbed streams in South-
east Alaska, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 15,
149 – 156.
 N.P. Wallerstein, C.R. Thorne / Geomorphology 57 (2004) 53–73
Schumm, S.A., Harvey, M.D., Watson, C.C., 1984. Incised Chan-
nels: Morphology, Dynamics and Control. Water Resources
Publication, Littleton, CO, pp. 111 – 159.
Shields Jr., F.D., Gippel, C.J., 1995. Prediction of effects of woody
debris removal on flow resistance. Journal of Hydraulic Engi-
neering, ASCE 121 (4), 341 – 354.
Shields Jr., F.D., Smith, R.H., 1992. Effects of large woody debris
removal on physical characteristics of a sand-bed river. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2, 145 – 165.
Simon, A., Hupp, C.R., 1986. Channel evolution in modified Ten-
nessee channels. Proceedings of the Fourth Federal Interagency
Sedimentation Conference, March 24 – 27, Las Vegas, vol. 2,
pp. 5 – 82.
Smith, R.H., Shields, F.D., 1992. Incremental effects of large
woody debris removal on physical aquatic habitat. Department
of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental
Impact Research Program. Technical Report EL-92-35.
Smith, R.D., Sidle, R.C., Porter, P.E., 1993a. Effects on bedload
transport of experimental removal of woody debris from a forest
gravel-bed stream. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 18,
455 – 498.
Smith, R.D., Sidle, R.C., Porter, P.E., Noel, J.R., 1993b. Effects of
experimental removal of woody debris on the channel morphol-
ogy of a forest gravel-bed stream. Journal of Hydrology 152,
153 – 178.
Swanson, F.J., Leinkaemper, G.W., 1978. Physical consequence of
large organic debris in Pacific Northwest streams. Pacific Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR, USA. USDA FS
General Technical Report PNW-69. 12 pp.
Thevenet, A., Citterio, A., Piegay, H., 1998. A new methodology for
the assessment of large woody debris accumulation on highly
modified rivers (examples of two French piedmont rivers). Regu-
lated Rivers: Research and Management 14, 467 – 483.
Thomas, W.A., Copeland, R.R., Raphelt, N.K., McComas, D.N.,
1994. Users manual for the hydraulic design package for chan-
nels (SAM), US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experi-
ment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 140 pp.
Thompson, D.M., 1995. The effect of large organic debris on sedi-
ment processes and stream morphology in Vermont. Geomor-
phology 11, 235 – 244.
Thorn, C.E., 1988. Introduction to Theoretical Geomorphology.
Unwin Hyman, Boston.
Thorne, C.R., 1982. Processes and mechanisms of river bank ero-
sion. In: Hey, R.D., Bathurst, J.C., Thorne, C.R. (Eds.), Gravel-
Bed Rivers. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 227 – 271.
Thorne, C.R., 1990. In: Thornes, J.B. (Ed.), Effects of Vegeta-
tion on Riverbank Erosion and Stability. Wiley, Chichester,
pp. 125 – 144.
73
Thorne, C.R., 1999. Bank processes and channel evolution in
incised rivers of North-Central Mississippi. In: Darby, S.E.,
Simon, A. (Eds.), Incised River Channels. Wiley, Chichester,
pp. 99 – 121.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 1981. Final Report to Congress—
The Streambank Erosion Control Evaluation and Demonstration
Act of 1974, Section 32 Public Law 93-251 Main Report, Sup-
plemented by Appendices A – H in separate volumes, Washing-
ton, DC.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 1990. HEC-2: Water Surface Pro-
files: User’s Manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA,
USA. Variable pagination.
US Government Printing Office, 1996. Demonstration Erosion
Control Project. Proceedings of the 1996 US Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, DC, 1996-717-180/82558, II-1 to II-105.
Wallerstein, N.P., Thorne, C.R., 1995. Impact of woody debris on
fluvial processes and channel morphology in stable and unstable
streams. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, Program 331,
Flood Control Structures, Work Unit no. 32873. 104 pp.
Wallerstein, N.P., Thorne, C.R., Doyle, M.W., 1997. Spatial distri-
bution and impact of large woody debris in Northern Mississip-
pi. In: Wang, S.S.Y., Langendoen, E.J., Shields Jr., F.D. (Eds.),
Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision.
University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, pp. 145 – 150.
Wallerstein, N.P., Alonso, C.V., Bennett, S.J., Thorne, C.R., 2001.
Distorted Froude-scaled flume analysis of large woody debris.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26, 1265 – 1283.
Watson, C.C., Abt, S.R., Thorne, C.R., Gessler, D., March, D.E.,
1993a. Monitoring and Analysis of Incised Streams: Progress
Report, presented to USACE Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, Contract #ACW39-92-K-003. 200 pp.
Watson, C.C., Abt, S.R., Thorne, C.R., Gessler, D., Van Zanten,
B.L., Hendon, S.L., 1993b. Demonstration Erosion Control
Project, 1993 Monitoring Sites Evaluation, Colorado State Uni-
versity, US Army Corps Of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. 186 pp.
Watson, C.C., Dubler, D., Abt, S.R., 1997. Demonstration Erosion
Control Project Report. Design Hydrology Investigation, Fort
Collins, CO, submitted to US Army Engineers, Waterways Ex-
periment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
Young, W.J., 1991. Flume study of the hydraulic effects of large
woody debris in lowland rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 6, 203 – 211.
Zimmerman, R.C., Goodlet, J.C., Comar, G.H., 1967. The influence
of vegetation on channel form of small streams. International
Association of Scientific Hydrology Publications 75, 255 – 275.