1965
DOI: 10.1126/science.147.3653.50
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ontogeny of a Salt Marsh Estuary

Abstract: The development of a typical New England salt marsh, and the growth of the sand spit which shelters it, during the past 4000 years has been reconstructed from soundings and borings of the peat. The results have been interpreted with the aid of observations on the structure of the marsh and estimates of the rate of its vertical accretion based on carbon-14 determinations.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
107
0

Year Published

1969
1969
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 161 publications
(109 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
2
107
0
Order By: Relevance
“…): samples supplement those reported (Radiocarbon, 1963, v. 5, p. 315-316), which showed minimal age of intertidal salt marsh which formed in protection of Sandy Neck as this spit increased in length (Redfield, 1965). Age of samples is 500 to 700 yr less than samples of high marsh peat from same depths in Barnstable Marsh and using Barnstable marsh sea levels, these samples lay 0.5 to 2 m below est.…”
Section: Investigations Of Samples Of Manufactured Ironmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…): samples supplement those reported (Radiocarbon, 1963, v. 5, p. 315-316), which showed minimal age of intertidal salt marsh which formed in protection of Sandy Neck as this spit increased in length (Redfield, 1965). Age of samples is 500 to 700 yr less than samples of high marsh peat from same depths in Barnstable Marsh and using Barnstable marsh sea levels, these samples lay 0.5 to 2 m below est.…”
Section: Investigations Of Samples Of Manufactured Ironmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…Some studies suggest tidalchannel development to be the result of depositional rather then erosional processes [e.g., Redfield, 1965;Hood, 2006], whereas others consider erosion as the dominant process [e.g., Fagherazzi and Sun, 2004;Perillo et al, 2005;D'Alpaos et al, 2005D'Alpaos et al, , 2007bVlaswinkel and Cantelli, 2011]. In the erosional scenario, differential erosion drives the evolution: Network configuration is driven by local excess in the bed shear stress compared to the critical threshold for sediment motion, as modelled in this experimental context.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[13] Most models, both conceptual and numerical, describing the morphodynamic evolution of tidal channels cutting through vegetated or unvegetated platforms [e.g., Redfield, 1965;Allen, 1997;Hood, 2006;Kirwan and Murray, 2007;Temmerman et al, 2007;Hughes et al, 2009], account for the possible supply of sediments (e.g., from rivers or from the sea) whereas our experimental apparatus can reproduce only purely erosive settings. Some studies suggest tidalchannel development to be the result of depositional rather then erosional processes [e.g., Redfield, 1965;Hood, 2006], whereas others consider erosion as the dominant process [e.g., Fagherazzi and Sun, 2004;Perillo et al, 2005;D'Alpaos et al, 2005D'Alpaos et al, , 2007bVlaswinkel and Cantelli, 2011].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Here, vegetation plays a direct role in sustaining the ecosystem. In tidal marshes, the presence of vegetation allows the ecosystem to maintain an equilibrium elevation relative to sea level (Redfield 1965;Morris 2006) by two primary mechanisms: (1) accumulation of organic soil by deposition of mostly endogenous organic matter (Turner 2004;Nyman et al 2006;Mitsch and Gosselink 2007) and (2) trapping of exogenous sediments during tidal inundation (Morris et al 2002;Mudd et al 2010). Shifts in biomass allocation under an altered resource environment may alter these processes, and hence alter the viability of the marshes (Reed 1995;Morris et al 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%