Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology

Weinstein, Michael P.; Kreeger, Daniel A.

doi:10.1007/0-306-47534-0

Cited by 122 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 638 publications

(1,103 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Salt marshes are among the most productive coastal ecosystems and valued for the ecosystem services they provide ( Barbier et al, 2011 ), such as coastline protection via wave attenuation and sediment stabilization ( Koch et al, 2009 ), enhancement of commercial and recreational fisheries through the provision of food and habitat ( Deegan et al, 2002 ), and their role in alleviating coastal eutrophication as sites of increased nutrient sequestration and removal ( Velinsky et al, 2017 ). In addition, tidal marshes store significant volumes of carbon in their soils, and thus play an important role in climate change mitigation ( Duarte et al, 2004 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improved mapping of coastal salt marsh habitat change at Barnegat Bay (NJ, USA) using object-based image analysis of high-resolution aerial imagery

Krause

Oczkowski

Watson

2023

Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improved mapping of coastal salt marsh habitat change at Barnegat Bay (NJ, USA) using object-based image analysis of high-resolution aerial imagery

Krause

Oczkowski

Watson

2023

Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Shoreline hardening is of particular interest in Chesapeake Bay. The dearth of information on the ecological effects of shoreline structures (Weinstein and Kreeger 2000) can limit managers' understanding of habitat degradation, reducing their ability to make environmentally sound decisions. In Chesapeake Bay, it remains unknown whether there are thresholds of shoreline and upland development that, if exceeded, lead to loss of ecosystem services, but thresholds of development have been identified in other systems (Dethier et al 2016).…”

Section: Shoreline Alterationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Influence at the Coast: Upland and Shoreline Stressors Affect Coastal Macrofauna and Are Mediated by Salinity

Seitz

Knick

Davenport

et al. 2017

Estuaries and Coasts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic stressors can affect subtidal communities within the land-water interface. Increasing anthropogenic activities, including upland and shoreline development, threaten ecologically important species in these habitats. In this study, we examined the consequences of anthropogenic stressors on benthic macrofaunal communities in 14 subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay. We investigated how subestuary upland use (forested, agricultural, developed land) and shoreline development (riprap and bulkhead compared to marsh and beach) affected density, biomass, and diversity of benthic infauna. Upland and shoreline development were parameters included in the most plausible models among a candidate set compared using corrected Akaike's Information Criterion. For benthic macrofauna, density tended to be lower in subestuaries with developed or mixed compared to forested or agricultural upland use. Benthic biomass was significantly lower in subestuaries with developed compared to forested upland use, and biomass declined exponentially with proportion of near-shore developed land. Benthic density did not differ significantly among natural marsh, beach, and riprap habitats, but tended to be lower adjacent to bulkhead shorelines. Including all subestuaries, there were no differences in diversity by shoreline type. In low salinities, benthic Shannon (H′) diversity tended to be higher adjacent to natural marshes compared to the other habitats, and lower adjacent to bulkheads, but the pattern was reversed in high salinities. Sediment characteristics varied by shoreline type and contributed to differences in benthic community structure. Given the changes in the infaunal community with anthropogenic stressors, subestuary upland and shoreline development should be minimized to increase benthic production and subsequent trophic transfer within the food web.

show abstract

“…The lack of information on the impact of shoreline structures on the habitats they replace or modify (Weinstein and Kreeger 2000) makes it difficult for managers to evaluate the effects of such habitat alterations on key ecological species and, consequently, consider ecological impacts in shoreline development regulations. To inform coastal and resource management decisions, more information is needed on the effects of alternative erosion-protection structures such as Bliving shorelines^(shorelines incorporating natural elements) on living resources and their ecosystem functions (Sutton-Grier et al 2015; The White House 2015; Narayan et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living Shorelines Support Nearshore Benthic Communities in Upper and Lower Chesapeake Bay

Davenport

Seitz

Knick

et al. 2017

Estuaries and Coasts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human population growth and sea-level rise are increasing the demand for protection of coastal property against shoreline erosion. Living shorelines are designed to provide shoreline protection and are constructed or reinforced using natural elements. While living shorelines are gaining popularity with homeowners, their ability to provide ecological services (e.g., habitat provision and trophic transfer) is not well understood, and information is needed to improve coastal and resource management decision-making. We examined benthic community responses to living shorelines in two case-study subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay using a before-after control-impact study design. At Windy Hill, a bulkhead was removed and replaced by three tombolos, sand fill, and native marsh vegetation. At Lynnhaven, 25 m of eroding marsh shoreline was stabilized with coir logs, sand fill, and native marsh vegetation. Communities of large (> 3 mm) infauna adjacent to living shorelines at both locations tended to increase in biomass by the end of the study period. Community compositions changed significantly following living shoreline construction at Windy Hill, reflecting a trend toward higher density and biomass of large bivalves at living shorelines compared to pre-construction. Increasing trends in density and biomass of clams and simultaneously decreasing density and decreasing trends in biomass of polychaetes suggest a transition toward stable infaunal communities at living shorelines over time, though longer-term studies are warranted.

show abstract

Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology

Cited by 122 publications

References 638 publications

Improved mapping of coastal salt marsh habitat change at Barnegat Bay (NJ, USA) using object-based image analysis of high-resolution aerial imagery

Improved mapping of coastal salt marsh habitat change at Barnegat Bay (NJ, USA) using object-based image analysis of high-resolution aerial imagery

Human Influence at the Coast: Upland and Shoreline Stressors Affect Coastal Macrofauna and Are Mediated by Salinity

Living Shorelines Support Nearshore Benthic Communities in Upper and Lower Chesapeake Bay

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About