# Forestry Best Management Practices Relationships with Aquatic and Riparian Fauna: A Review
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Macroinvertebrate Community Response to BMPs  
Because BMPs protect water quality and in-stream structure, and provide heterogeneity of vegetation structure in riparian zones, implementation of BMPs has been shown to benefit aquatic biota and their habitat [130]. For example, from 2006 to 2010, [PERSON] et al. [131] studied stream metabolic rates upstream and downstream from a loblolly pine (_Pinus taeda_) stand that was harvested with Louisiana's current BMPs. They quantified rates of net ecosystem productivity (NEP), gross primary productivity (GPP), community respiration (CR), and the GPP/CR ratio. No calculated metabolic rate was significantly changed by the timber harvest. Thus, the authors concluded that \"timber harvests of similar intensity with Louisiana's current BMPs may not significantly impact stream biological conditions\". Bioassessment is a common technique for assessing biological integrity of streams [132] and has been used to characterize macroinvertebrates' response to timber harvests with forestry BMPs. Harvesting practices without properly implemented BMPs can negatively influence stream macroinvertebrate populations [133]; however, multiple studies in the Southeast have reported little to no change in aquatic macroinvertebrate community diversity following timber harvesting with BMPs [100; 134; 135; 136; 137; 138; 139; 140]. Changes in invertebrate communities, when they do occur, generally reflect a shift from allochthonous to autochthonous food resources in streams draining harvested watersheds that is relatively short-lived (<5 years) due to rapid vegetation regrowth [7]. We briefly summarize results from several studies in the Southeast that have used bioassessment methods to study macroinvertebrate responses to BMPs. [PERSON] et al. [134] studied whether forestry BMPs effectively reduced harvesting impacts on stream habitat and macroinvertebrates in five physiographic regions in South Carolina. They found that most sites with BMPs scored high on rapid bioassessment protocols III (RBPs) established by the Environmental Protection Agency to assess stream health. Thus, the authors concluded that BMPs were effective in protecting macroinvertebrate assemblages. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [135] examined macroinvertebrate production and macrophyte growth in harvested and non-harvested sections of a low-gradient, sand-bottomed blackwater stream in the Virginia Coastal Plain. A section of the catchment had been clearcut three years prior to sampling and no additional harvesting occurred in the upstream area of the catchment. Macroinvertebrate production was higher in the stream reach of the harvested tract (103 g m\({}^{-2}\)) than in the reach of the non-harvested tract stream (41 g m\({}^{-2}\)). Production in the stream of the harvested tract was dominated by collector-filters living on macrophytes as well as collector-gatherers. Other macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups showed little response to harvesting. [PERSON] [136] evaluated Florida's BMPs for protecting aquatic ecosystems during intensive forestry operations that included clearcutting, mechanical site preparation, and machine planting. Sample streams were selected across Florida's major ecoregions. Stream condition index (SCI) bioassessments were conducted at points along each stream, above and below the treatment area. No significant difference in the SCI was observed between the reference and treatment stream segments. [PERSON] concluded that the proper implementation of forestry BMPs provides effective protection of aquatic resources. [PERSON] et al. [137] used stream survey data to evaluate timber harvesting influences on physical stream features and macroinvertebrate assemblages in three drainage basins in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Variability in macroinvertebrate assemblages was largely explained by drainage basin differences and year of sampling.