Forest cover lessens hurricane impacts on peak streamflow

Abstract Cyclonic storms (i.e., hurricanes) are powerful disturbance events that often cause widespread forest damage. Storm‐related canopy damage reduces rainfall interception and evapotranspiration, but impacts on streamflow regimes are poorly understood. We quantify streamflow changes in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria in September 2017, and evaluate whether forest cover and storm‐related canopy damage account for the differences. Streams are particularly vulnerable to flooding in early post‐disturbance stages during hurricane season, so we focus on 3 months (Oct–Dec) following the hurricane. To discern changes in rainfall responses, we partitioned streamflow into baseflow and quickflow using a digital filter. We collected 2010–2017 streamflow and rainfall data from 18 watersheds and compared the relative magnitude of post‐ to pre‐hurricane double mass curve slopes of baseflow and quickflow volumes against rainfall. Several watersheds displayed higher post‐hurricane quickflow and baseflow, however, the response was variable. The magnitude of quickflow increase was greater in watersheds with high forest damage. Under the same level of relative damage, watersheds with low initial forest cover had greater quickflow increases than highly forested ones. Conversely, baseflow generally increased, but increases were greater in highly forested watersheds and smaller in highly damaged watersheds. These results suggest that post‐storm baseflow increases were due to recharge of hurricane‐related rainfall, as well as forest transpiration interruption and soil disturbance enhancing recharge of post‐hurricane rainfall, while increases to quickflow are related to loss of canopy rainfall interception and higher soil saturation decreasing infiltration. Our research demonstrates that forest damage from disturbance lowers quickflow and elevates baseflow in highly forested watersheds, and elevates quickflow and lowers baseflow in less‐forested watersheds. Less‐forested watersheds may be closer to the forest cover loss threshold needed to elicit a streamflow response following disturbance, suggesting higher flooding potential downstream, and a lower storm‐related forest disturbance threshold than in heavily forested watersheds.