How bottom-up and top-down controls shape dune topographic variability along the U.S. Virginia barrier island coast and the inference of dune dynamical properties

Stallins, J. Anthony; Hsu, Li-Chih; Zinnert, Julie C.; Brown, Joe K.

doi:10.1007/s11852-020-00747-7

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Between‐site variations in the beach‐dune profiles, from the previously published data and the remotely sensed data from WA, PI, and PEI, are the result of contingent (or local) controls on dune development. In the literature, a range of boundary conditions have been identified in controlling the exchange of sediment between the nearshore, beach, and dune, with examples including the nearshore state (Short and Hesp 1982), sediment supply (Psuty 1992), surface moisture (Davidson‐Arnott et al 2008) and texture (Van der Wal, 1998), wind speed (Costas et al 2020) and direction (Bauer et al 2012), storm frequency and magnitude (e.g., Houser et al 2015; Stallins et al 2020), storm‐tide synchronization (Pye and Blott 2008), shoreline orientation (Cooper et al 2004), ice or snow coverage (Delgado‐Fernandez and Davidson‐Arnott 2011), vegetation type (Ruggiero et al 2018) and density (Hesp 1988), framework geology (Wernette et al 2018), washover frequency (Stallins and Parker 2003), human activity (Gares et al 2006), and blowouts (Hesp 2002) or “notches” (Ruessink et al 2018), among others. The importance of site‐specific contingencies that control dune development are often highlighted in the conceptual models presented in reference books and textbooks (Figure 7).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Textbook dune: Is there a representative and scale‐invariant beach‐dune profile?

Houser

Smith²,

Lunardi³

et al. 2022

Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Coastal Dune Model, used to examine controls on dune development and evolution, includes negative feedback between the wind and the evolving topography that results in a scale‐invariant beach‐dune profile. While a limited number of reference profiles appear to support the Coastal Dune Model assumption of scale‐invariance, previously published studies and conceptual models suggest that the beach‐dune profile is not scale‐invariant. Using a combination of journal articles, textbooks, and remotely sensed data from Prince Edward Island, Washington state, and Texas, this short communication finds that there is no evidence for a scale‐invariant beach‐dune profile within and between field sites. Variability in the beach‐dune profile is due to site‐specific and scale‐dependent controls on the beach and the dune that are often highlighted in the conceptual models that authors use to depict the controls on sediment supply and transport from the beach to the dune. Results highlight a need to critically evaluate the assumptions and applications of models such as the Coastal Dune Model, and to explore how and when sites can be considered representative and in support of model results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Textbook dune: Is there a representative and scale‐invariant beach‐dune profile?

Houser

Smith²,

Lunardi³

et al. 2022

Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although dune building processes on the two islands are impacted by similar environmental factors, sediment accretion was highest on Hog compared to Metompkin, where several plots transitioned from dune face to open beach or were submerged at high tide as the shoreline has moved landward 8 , 42 . This is related to a variety of external conditions, including sediment supply and geological processes with Hog having abundant sediment and Metompkin being sediment limited 9 , 11 . As island-scale changes occur, these factors can determine overall landscape stability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike Hog, Metompkin is on average 1.75 m above the NAVD88 datum 6 , and experiences parallel retreat, moving closer to the mainland over time 49 . Further contributing to the disturbance response of Metompkin is downdrift sediment starvation caused by development on islands to the north 11 . This interrupts southward longshore sediment movement, preventing Metompkin from accreting new sediment naturally.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers of dune formation control ecosystem function and response to disturbance in a barrier island system

Sabo,

Cornish,

Castorani

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Barrier islands are landscape features that protect coastlines by reducing wave energy and erosion. Quantifying vegetation-topographic interactions between adjacent habitats are essential for predicting long-term island response and resilience to sea-level rise and disturbance. To understand the effects of dune dynamics on adjacent interior island ecosystem processes, we quantified how sediment availability and previous disturbance regime interact with vegetation to influence dune building and ease of seawater and sediment movement into the island interior on two US mid-Atlantic coast barrier islands. We conducted field surveys of sediment accretion, vegetative cover, and soil characteristics in dune and swale habitats. Digital elevation models provided assessment of water flow resistance from the mean high water mark into the island interior. We found that geographic location impacted sediment accretion rates and Panicum amarum (a species increasing in abundance over time in the Virginia barrier islands) accreted sediment at a significantly lower rate compared to other dune grasses. Dune elevation impacted the ease of seawater flow into the island interior, altering soil chlorides, annual net primary productivity, and soil carbon and nitrogen. Our work demonstrates the importance of incorporating biological processes and cross-island connectivity into future scenario modeling and predictions of rising sea-levels and increased disturbance.

show abstract

“…1). It is low-lying (mean elevation around 1.0 m asl), with a flat topography that is frequently overwashed (Stallins et al 2020). As a result, the vegetative community on Metompkin Island is dominated by species such as Salt-meadow Cordgrass ( Spartina patens ) that exhibit rapid growth following frequent disturbances (Brantley et al 2014; Brown and Zinnert 2020).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sandy beach used by breeding shorebirds varies around the mid-point of the island. The northern half of Metompkin Island has sparsely vegetated beach habitat and overwash areas backed by a salt marsh; in contrast, the southern half is dominated by a less erosional dune structure (Stallins et al 2020) and a denser vegetative community composed of grasses and shrubs that terminates abruptly at the edge of the coastal bay.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing In-Person Versus Camera Monitoring of Shorebird Reproductive Success

Call,

Wilke,

Poulton

et al. 2023

Waterbirds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shorebird reproductive success monitoring often relies on surveys of nest and brood survival. However, conclusions may be inaccurate due to the challenges of gathering and interpreting evidence of nest and brood fate. We tested the efficacy of in-person versus camera-based monitoring to quantify productivity and evaluate threats to reproductive success of American Oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus) and Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) at Metompkin Island, Virginia. We deployed 73 cameras using three set-ups: at nests, at brood sites, and along a transect. The same areas were also surveyed in-person approximately once per week. Camera monitoring confirmed nest fate where in-person monitors could not determine fate from field evidence and provided insight to the effectiveness of mammalian predator removal. However, cameras failed to capture causes of mortality for mobile chicks and did not consistently document chicks where in-person monitoring confirmed successful broods. Cameras produced large quantities of data requiring 63.5-315 hours to review, depending on camera set-up. We found cameras were useful for validating conclusions from in-person monitoring, highlighting threats that surveys missed, and characterizing the predator community. Managers should consider the tradeoff between potential benefits and required effort of camera monitoring when deciding which method would be effective for meeting management goals.

show abstract

How bottom-up and top-down controls shape dune topographic variability along the U.S. Virginia barrier island coast and the inference of dune dynamical properties

Cited by 7 publications

References 45 publications

Textbook dune: Is there a representative and scale‐invariant beach‐dune profile?

Textbook dune: Is there a representative and scale‐invariant beach‐dune profile?

Drivers of dune formation control ecosystem function and response to disturbance in a barrier island system

Comparing In-Person Versus Camera Monitoring of Shorebird Reproductive Success

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About