Demonstrates divergent low-flow behavior in forested catchments, highlighting management impacts on hydrology.
Disentangling the effects of climate variability and forest management on catchment hydrology remains a major challenge in temperate plantation landscapes. We analyzed 21 hydrological years (1997/98–2017/18) of precipitation and runoff records from two experimental catchments in the Chilean Coastal Range with contrasting silvicultural histories to characterize changes in low-flow behavior. Hydroclimatic and low-flow indices were evaluated using the monotonic trends test, Sen’s slope estimates, change point detection, and standardized inter-catchment anomaly differences. Annual and seasonal precipitation indices, rainfall frequency, and maximum dry-spell duration showed no significant monotonic trends, whereas maximum 5-day precipitation declined at LP. The two catchments nevertheless exhibited divergent low-flow trajectories. Los Pinos, managed through partial harvesting and thinning within a forest mosaic, showed decreasing normalized low-flow availability and longer low-flow exposure during the latter part of the record. La Reina, clearcut in 1999/2000 and subsequently reforested, showed a progressive increase in low-flow magnitude and normalized low-flow availability, together with declining flow variability and fewer below-threshold events. Standardized inter-catchment comparisons confirmed a temporal divergence in low-flow behavior. They also revealed a concurrent shift in inter-catchment precipitation anomalies. These results indicate contrasting long-term hydrological trajectories that are consistent with differences in forest management histories; however, the non-paired study design, limited pre-harvest observations at La Reina, and differential precipitation forcing preclude formal attribution to silvicultural effects alone. This study highlights the value of long-term experimental catchments for evaluating low-flow dynamics under interacting climatic and land-management influences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balocchi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: