Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:02:03.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Understanding Marsh Dynamics

Laboratory Approaches

from Part II - Marsh Dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2021

By
Charlie E. L. Thompson ,
Sarah Farron ,
James Tempest ,
Iris Möller ,
Martin Solan  and
Jasmin Godbold
Edited by
Duncan M. FitzGerald  and
Zoe J. Hughes
Duncan M. FitzGerald
Affiliation:
Boston University
Zoe J. Hughes
Affiliation:
Boston University
Get access

Summary

Salt marshes are valuable but complex biophysical systems with associated ecosystems. This presents numerous challenges when trying to understand and predict their behaviour and evolution, which is essential to facilitate their continued and sustainable use, conservation and management1. Detailed understanding of the hydrodynamics, sediment dynamics, and ecology that control the system is required, as well as their numerous interactions2,3, but is complicated by spatial and temporal heterogeneity at a range of scales4,5. These complex interactions and feedbacks between the physical, biological, and chemical processes can be investigated in situ following natural, unintentional, or intentional manipulation6, but the mechanistic basis of any observations are confounded by the presence of collinear variables. Hence, laboratory investigations can be beneficial, as they provide the opportunity for systematic testing of subsets of coastal processes, mechanisms, or conditions typical of salt marsh systems, in the absence of confounding variables. With appropriate scaling, this allows a better understanding of the overall function of the salt marsh, and better predictions of their evolution.

Keywords

biogenic roughnessfluid flowflume experimentsbed stabilitybiologic factorsscaling
Type
Chapter
Information
Salt Marshes
Function, Dynamics, and Stresses
 , pp. 300 - 334
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

JNCC. An Overview of Coastal Saltmarshes, Their Dynamic and Sensitivity Characteristics for Conservation and Management. UK: JNCC, 2003.Google Scholar
Tempest, JA, Möller, I, Spencer, T. A review of plant-flow interactions on salt marshes: The importance of vegetation structure and plant mechanical characteristics: Salt marsh plant-flow interactions. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 2015;2: 669–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townend, I, Fletcher, C, Knappen, M et al. A review of salt marsh dynamics: A review of salt marsh dynamics. Water Environ J 2011;25: 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Wesenbeeck, BK, van de Koppel, J, Herman, PMJ et al. Does scale-dependent feedback explain spatial complexity in salt-marsh ecosystems? Oikos 2008;117: 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H, van der Wal, D, Li, X et al. Zooming in and out: Scale dependence of extrinsic and intrinsic factors affecting salt marsh erosion: Factors on salt marsh edge erosion. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 2017;122: 1455–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reise, K. Sediment mediated species interactions in coastal waters. J Sea Res 2002;48: 127–141.Google Scholar
Shi, Z, Pethick, JS, Pye, K. Flow structure in and above the various heights of a saltmarsh canopy: a laboratory flume study. J Coast Res 1995: 1204–1209.Google Scholar
Temmerman, S, Bouma, TJ, Govers, G et al. Impact of vegetation on flow routing and sedimentation patterns: Three-dimensional modeling for a tidal marsh: Vegetation impact on flow routing. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 2005;110, DOI: 10.1029/2005JF000301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y, Li, Y, Cai, T et al. A comparison of biohydrodynamic interaction within mangrove and saltmarsh boundaries: Bio-hydrodynamics within mangrove and saltmarsh boundaries. Earth Surf Process Landforms 2016;41: 1967–1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möller, I, Spencer, T, French, JR et al. Wave transformation over salt marshes: A field and numerical modelling study from North Norfolk, England. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 1999;49: 411–426.Google Scholar
Neumeier, U. Velocity and turbulence variations at the edge of saltmarshes. Continental Shelf Res 2007;27: 1046–1059.Google Scholar
Shi, B, Wang, YP, Yang, Y et al. Determination of critical shear stresses for erosion and deposition based on in situ measurements of currents and waves over an intertidal mudflat. J Coast Res 2015;316: 1344–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lo, V, Bouma, T, van Colen, C, Airoldi, L. Interactive effects of vegetation and grain size on erosion rates in salt marshes of the Northern Adriatic Sea. ESCA Local Meeting report. 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, DJ. Sediment dynamics and deposition in a retreating coastal salt marsh. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 1988;26: 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, Y, Jiang, B, Nepf, HM. Influence of particle size and density, and channel velocity on the deposition patterns around a circular patch of model emergent vegetation patch on deposition patterns. Water Resour Res 2016;52: 1044–1055.Google Scholar
Alben, S, Shelley, M, Zhang, J. Drag reduction through self-similar bending of a flexible body. Nature 2002;420: 479–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folkard, AM. Hydrodynamics of model Posidonia oceanica patches in shallow water. Limnol Oceanogr 2005;50: 1592–1600.Google Scholar
Cowell, PJ, Thom, BG. Morphodynamics of coastal evolution. In: Carter, W, Woodroffe, CD. (eds.). Coastal Evolution : Late Quaternary Shoreline Morphodynamics Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994, 33–86.Google Scholar
Yang, SL, Shi, BW, Bouma, TJ et al. Wave attenuation at a salt marsh margin: A Case study of an exposed coast on the Yangtze Estuary. Estuaries Coasts 2012;35: 169–182.Google Scholar
Ysebaert, T, Yang, S-L, Zhang, L et al. Wave attenuation by two contrasting ecosystem engineering salt marsh macrophytes in the intertidal pioneer zone. Wetlands 2011;31: 1043–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, Z, Pethick, JS, Burd, F et al. Velocity profiles in a salt marsh canopy. Geo-Marine Lett 1996;16: 319–323.Google Scholar
Neumeier, U, Amos, CL. The influence of vegetation on turbulence and flow velocities in European salt-marshes. Sedimentology 2006;53: 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, LA, Croft, AL. The effect of standing biomass on flow velocity and turbulence in Spartina alterniflora canopies. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 2006;69: 325–336.Google Scholar
Leonard, LA and Reed, DJ. Hydrodynamics and sediment transport through tidal marsh canopies. Journal of Coastal Research 2017; SI36: 459–469.Google Scholar
Neumeier, U, Ciavola, P. Flow resistance and associated sedimentary processes in a Spartina maritima salt-marsh. J Coast Res 2004;202: 435–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumeier, U. Quantification of vertical density variations of salt-marsh vegetation. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 2005;63: 489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pethick, J, Leggett, D, Husain, L. Boundary layers under salt marsh vegetation developed in tidal currents. In: Thornes, J. (ed.). Vegetation and Erosion. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1990, 113–124.Google Scholar
Tollner, E., Barfield, B., Hayes, J. Sedimentology of erect vegetal filters. J. Hydraulics Division 1982;108: 1518–1531.Google Scholar
Möller, I, Kudella, M, Rupprecht, F et al. Wave attenuation over coastal salt marshes under storm surge conditions. Nat Geosci 2014;7: 727–731.Google Scholar
Bouma, TJ, De Vries, MB, Herman, PMJ. Comparing ecosystem engineering efficiency of two plant species with contrasting growth strategies. Ecology 2010;91: 2696–2704.Google Scholar
Tempest, J. Hydrodynamic effects of salt marsh canopies and their prediction using remote sensing techniques. 2017. PhD Thesis. Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Horn, R, Richards, K. Flow–vegetation interactions in restored floodplain environments. Hydroecology and Ecohydrology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, 2008, 269–294.Google Scholar
Nepf, HM, Vivoni, ER. Flow structure in depth‐limited, vegetated flow. J Geophys Res Ocean 2000;105: 28547–28557.Google Scholar
Lopez, F, Garcia, M. Open-channel flow through simulated vegetation: Suspended sediment transport modeling. Water Resour Res 1998;34: 2341–2352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, ME, Smith, JM. Wave attenuation by flexible, idealized salt marsh vegetation. Coast Eng 2014;83: 82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapleton, KR, Huntley, DA. Seabed stress determinations using the inertial dissipation method and the turbulent kinetic energy method. Earth Surf Process Landforms, 20: 807–815.Google Scholar
Wilson, CAME, Stoesser, T, Bates, PD. Modelling of open channel flow through vegetation. Computational Fluid Dynamics: Applications in Environmental Hydraulics. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2005, 395–428.Google Scholar
Leonard, LA, Luther, ME. Flow hydrodynamics in tidal marsh canopies. Limnol Oceanogr 1995;40: 1474–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, T, Wiberg, PL, Milligan, TG. Flow and sediment transport on a tidal salt marsh surface. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 2000;50: 315–331.Google Scholar
Lightbody, AF, Nepf, HM. Prediction of velocity profiles and longitudinal dispersion in salt marsh vegetation. Limnol Oceanogr 2006;51: 218–228.Google Scholar
Paulus, S, Schumann, H, Kuhlmann, H, Léon, J. High-precision laser scanning system for capturing 3D plant architecture and analysing growth of cereal plants. Biosyst Eng 2014;121: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhar, M, Nepf, HM. Flow-induced reconfiguration of buoyant and flexible aquatic vegetation. Limnol Oceanogr 2011;56: 2003–2017.Google Scholar
Bradley, K, Houser, C. Relative velocity of seagrass blades: Implications for wave attenuation in low-energy environments. J Geophys Res 2009;114, DOI: 10.1029/2007JF000951.Google Scholar
Albayrak, I, Nikora, V, Miler, O, O’Hare, M. Flow-plant interactions at a leaf scale: Effects of leaf shape, serration, roughness and flexural rigidity. Aquat Sci 2012;74: 267–286.Google Scholar
Feagin, RA, Irish, JL, Möller, I et al. Short communication: Engineering properties of wetland plants with application to wave attenuation. Coast Eng 2011;58: 251–255.Google Scholar
Rupprecht, F, Möller, I, Evans, B et al. Biophysical properties of salt marsh canopies — Quantifying plant stem flexibility and above ground biomass. Coast Eng 2015;100: 48–57.Google Scholar
Lagerspetz, KY. Thermal acclimation without heat shock, and motor responses to a sudden temperature change in Asellus aquaticus. J Therm Biol 2003;28: 421–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S, Symstad, AJ, Stuart Chapin, F et al. Functional diversity revealed by removal experiments. Trends Ecol & Evol 2003;18: 140–146.Google Scholar
Paul, M, Bouma, T, Amos, C. Wave attenuation by submerged vegetation: Combining the effect of organism traits and tidal current. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2012;444: 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, TJ, van Duren, LA, Temmerman, S et al. Spatial flow and sedimentation patterns within patches of epibenthic structures: Combining field, flume and modelling experiments. Cont Shelf Res 2007;27: 1020–1045.Google Scholar
Panigrahi, K, Khatua, KK. Prediction of velocity distribution in straight channel with rigid vegetation. Aquat Procedia 2015;4: 819–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, N, Raichle, AW, Asano, T. Wave attenuation by vegetation. J Waterw Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng 1993;119: 30–48.Google Scholar
John, BM, Shirlal, KG, Rao, S. Effect of artificial sea grass on wave attenuation- an experimental investigation. Aquat Procedia 2015;4: 221–226.Google Scholar
John, BM, Shirlal, KG, Rao, S et al. Effect of artificial seagrass on wave attenuation and wave run-up. Int J Ocean Clim Syst 2016;7, DOI: 10.1177/1759313115623163.Google Scholar
Stratigaki, V, Manca, E, Prinos, P et al. Large-scale experiments on wave propagation over Posidonia oceanica. J Hydraul Res 2011;49: 31–43.Google Scholar
Hu, Z, Suzuki, T, Zitman, T et al. Laboratory study on wave dissipation by vegetation in combined current–wave flow. Coast Eng 2014;88: 131–142.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T-A, Nezu, I. Turbulence structure and “Monami” phenomena in flexible vegetated open-channel flows. J Hydraul Res 2009;47: 798–810.Google Scholar
Murphy, E, Ghisalberti, M, Nepf, H. Model and laboratory study of dispersion in flows with submerged vegetation. Water Resour Res 2007;43. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, F-C, Shen, HW, Chou, Y-J. Variation of roughness coefficients for unsubmerged and submerged vegetation. J Hydraul Eng 1999;125: 934–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, BM, Shen, HT. Hydraulic resistance of flow in channels with cylindrical roughness. J Hydraul Eng 2002;128: 500–506.Google Scholar
Augustin, LN, Irish, JL, Lynett, P. Laboratory and numerical studies of wave damping by emergent and near-emergent wetland vegetation. Coast Eng 2009;56: 332–340.Google Scholar
Fonseca, MS, Koehl, MAR. Flow in seagrass canopies: The influence of patch width. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 2006;67: 1–9.Google Scholar
Folkard, AM. Flow regimes in gaps within stands of flexible vegetation:Laboratory flume simulations. Environ Fluid Mech 2011;11: 289–306.Google Scholar
Wilson, CAME, Stoesser, T, Bates, PD, Stoesser, T. Open channel flow through different forms of submerged flexible vegetation. J Hydraul Eng 2003;129: 847–853.Google Scholar
Ghisalberti, M, Nepf, H. The structure of the shear layer in flows over rigid and flexible canopies. Environ Fluid Mech 2006;6: 277–301.Google Scholar
Elliott, AH. Settling of fine sediment in a channel with emergent vegetation. J Hydraul Eng 2000;126: 570–577.Google Scholar
Shi, Y, Jiang, B, Nepf, HM. Influence of particle size and density, and channel velocity on the deposition patterns around a circular patch of model emergent vegetation. Water Resour Res 2016; 52: 1044–1055.Google Scholar
Bouma, TJ, De Vries, MB, Low, E et al. Trade‐offs related to ecosystem engineering: A case study on stiffness of emerging macrophytes. Ecology 2005;86: 2187–2199.Google Scholar
Eckman, JE, Nowell, ARM. Boundary skin friction and sediment transport about an animal-tube mimic. Sedimentology 1984;31: 851–862.Google Scholar
Eckman, JE. Flow disruption by an animal-tube mimic affects sediment bacterial colonization. J Mar Res 1985;43: 419–435.Google Scholar
Wilson, CAME, Yagci, O, Rauch, H ‐P, Stoesser, T. Application of the drag force approach to model the flow‐interaction of natural vegetation. Int J River Basin Manag 2006;4: 137–46.Google Scholar
Paul, M, Henry, P-YT, Thomas, RE. Geometrical and mechanical properties of four species of northern European brown macroalgae. Coast Eng 2014;84: 73–80.Google Scholar
Anderson, ME, Smith, JM. Wave attenuation by flexible, idealized salt marsh vegetation. Coast Eng 2014;83: 82–92.Google Scholar
John, BM, Shirlal, KG, Rao, S. Effect of artificial vegetation on wave attenuation – an experimental investigation. Procedia Eng 2015;116: 600–606.Google Scholar
Loder, NM, Irish, JL, Cialone, MA, Wamsley, TV. Sensitivity of hurricane surge to morphological parameters of coastal wetlands. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 2009;84: 625–636.Google Scholar
Spencer, T, Brooks, SM, Evans, BR et al. Southern North Sea storm surge event of 5 December 2013: Water levels, waves and coastal impacts. Earth-Science Rev 2015;146: 120–145.Google Scholar
Spencer, T, Möller, I, Rupprecht, F et al. Salt marsh surface survives true-to-scale simulated storm surges. Earth Surf Process Landforms 2016;41: 543–552.Google Scholar
Maza, M, Lara, JL, Losada, IJ et al. Large-scale 3-D experiments of wave and current interaction with real vegetation. Part 2: Experimental analysis. Coast Eng 2015;106: 73–86.Google Scholar
van Duren, LA, Herman, PMJ, Sandee, AJJ, Heip, CHR. Effects of mussel filtering activity on boundary layer structure. J Sea Res 2006;55: 3–14.Google Scholar
Carey, DA. Particle resuspension in the benthic boundary layer induced by flow around polychaete tubes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1983;40: s301–s308.Google Scholar
Gerbersdorf, SU, Wieprecht, S. Biostabilization of cohesive sediments: Revisiting the role of abiotic conditions, physiology and diversity of microbes, polymeric secretion, and biofilm architecture. Geobiology 2015;13: 68–97.Google Scholar
Decho, A. Microbial exopolymer secretions in ocean environments: Their role(s) in food webs and marine processes. In: Barnes, M (ed.). Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review. Aberdeen University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Andersen, TJ. Seasonal variation in erodibility of two temperate, microtidal mudflats. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 2001;53: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, G, Rosenberg, R. Bioresuspension and biodeposition: A review. J Mar Syst 1997;11: 269–278.Google Scholar
Passarelli, C, Olivier, F, Paterson, DM et al. Organisms as cooperative ecosystem engineers in intertidal flats. J Sea Res 2014;92: 92–101.Google Scholar
Grant, J, Daborn, G. The effects of bioturbation on sediment transport on an intertidal mudflat. Neth J Sea Res 1994;32: 63–72.Google Scholar
Tolhurst, T., Riethmüller, R, Paterson, D. In situ versus laboratory analysis of sediment stability from intertidal mudflats. Cont Shelf Res 2000;20: 1317–1334.Google Scholar
Droppo, IG, Lau, YL, Mitchell, C. The effect of depositional history on contaminated bed sediment stability. Sci Total Environ 2001;266: 7–13.Google Scholar
Droppo, IG, Ross, N, Skafel, M, Liss, SN. Biostabilization of cohesive sediment beds in a freshwater wave-dominated environment. Limnol Oceanogr 2007;52: 577–589.Google Scholar
Van Colen, C, Underwood, GJC, Serôdio, J, Paterson, DM. Ecology of intertidal microbial biofilms: Mechanisms, patterns and future research needs. J Sea Res 2014;92: 2–5.Google Scholar
Ubertini, M, Lefebvre, S, Rakotomalala, C, Orvain, F. Impact of sediment grain-size and biofilm age on epipelic microphytobenthos resuspension. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2015;467: 52–64.Google Scholar
Widdows, J, Brown, S, Brinsley, M. et al. Temporal changes in intertidal sediment erodability: influence of biological and climatic factors. Cont Shelf Res 2000;20: 1275–1289.Google Scholar
Lundkvist, M, Grue, M, Friend, PL, Flindt, MR. The relative contributions of physical and microbiological factors to cohesive sediment stability. Cont Shelf Res 2007;27: 1143–1152.Google Scholar
Widdows, J, Friend, PL, Bale, AJ et al. Inter-comparison between five devices for determining erodability of intertidal sediments. Cont Shelf Res 2007;27: 1174–1189.Google Scholar
Black, KS, Sun, H, Craig, G et al. Incipient erosion of biostabilized sediments examined using particle-field optical holography. Environ Sci & Technol 2001;35: 2275–2281.Google Scholar
Neumeier, U, Lucas, CH, Collins, M. Erodibility and erosion patterns of mudflat sediments investigated using an annular flume. Aquat Ecol 2006;40: 543–554.Google Scholar
da S. Quaresma, V, Amos, CL, Flindt, M. The influences of biological activity and consolidation time on laboratory cohesive beds. J Sediment Res 2004;74: 1527–1404.Google Scholar
Madsen, KN, Nilsson, P, Sundbäck, K. The influence of benthic microalgae on the stability of a subtidal sediment. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 1993;170: 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, G, Picioreanu, C, van Loosdrecht, MCM. Kinetic modeling of phototrophic biofilms: the PHOBIA model. Biotechnol Bioeng 2007;97: 1064–1079.Google Scholar
Stone, M, Emelko, MB, Droppo, IG, Silins, U. Biostabilization and erodibility of cohesive sediment deposits in wildfire-affected streams. Water Res 2011;45: 521–534.Google Scholar
Pacepavicius, G, Lau, YL, Liu, D et al. A rapid biochemical method for estimating biofilm mass. Environ Toxicol Water Qual 1997;12: 97–100.Google Scholar
DuBois, M, Gilles, KA, Hamilton, JK et al. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 1956;28, DOI: 10.1021/ac60111a017.Google Scholar
Kochert, AG. Carbohydrate determination by the phenol–sulfuric acid method. In: Hellebust, JA, Craigie, JS (eds.), Handbook of Phycological Methods: Physiological and Biochemical Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, 95–97.Google Scholar
Bradford, MM. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 1975;72: 248–54.Google Scholar
Lorenzen, CJ. Determination of chlorophyll and pheo-pigments: Spectrophotometric equations. Limnol Oceanogr 1967;12: 343–346.Google Scholar
White, DC, Davis, WM, Nickels, JS et al. Determination of the sedimentary microbial biomass by extractible lipid phosphate. Oecologia 1979;40: 51–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eaton, J W., Moss, B. The estimation of numbers and pigment content in epipelic algal populations: Estimation of epipelic algal populations. Limnol Oceanogr 1966;11: 584–595.Google Scholar
Nowell, A. Flow environments of aquatic benthos. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1984;15: 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerdol, V, Hughes, R. Effect of Corophium volutator on the abundance of benthic diatoms, bacteria and sediment stability in two estuaries in southeastern England. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1994;114: 109–115.Google Scholar
Mazik, K, Elliott, M. The effects of chemical pollution on the bioturbation potential of estuarine intertidal mudflats. Helgol Mar Res 2000;54: 99–109.Google Scholar
Le Hir, P, Monbet, Y, Orvain, F. Sediment erodability in sediment transport modelling: Can we account for biota effects? Cont Shelf Res 2007;27: 1116–1142.Google Scholar
Fernandes, S, Sobral, P, Costa, MH. Nereis diversicolor effect on the stability of cohesive intertidal sediments. Aquat Ecol 2006;40: 567–579.Google Scholar
Widdows, J, Brinsley, M, Pope, N. Effect of Nereis diversicolor density on the erodability of estuarine sediment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2009;378: 135–143.Google Scholar
Grabowski, RC, Droppo, IG, Wharton, G. Erodibility of cohesive sediment: The importance of sediment properties. Earth-Science Rev 2011;105, 101–120.Google Scholar
Tolhurst, TJ, Chapman, MG, Underwood, AJ et al. Technical Note: The effects of five different defaunation methods on biogeochemical properties of intertidal sediment. Biogeosciences 2012;9: 3647–3661.Google Scholar
Hale, R, Jacques, RO, Tolhurst, TJ. Cryogenic defaunation of sediments in the field. J Coast Res 2015;316: 1537–1540.Google Scholar
Gamenick, I, Jahn, A, Vopel, K et al. Hypoxia and sulphide as structuring factors in a macrozoobenthic community on the Baltic Sea shore: colonisation studies and tolerance experiments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1996;144, 73–85.Google Scholar
Thrush, SF, Whitlatch, RB, Pridmore, RD et al. Scale-dependent recolonization: The role of sediment stability in a dynamic sandflat habitat. Ecology 1996;77: 2472–2487.Google Scholar
Kristensen, E, Blackburn, TH. The fate of organic carbon and nitrogen in experimental marine sediment systems: Influence of bioturbation and anoxia. J Mar Res 1987;45: 231–257.Google Scholar
Gilbert, F, Rivet, L, Bertrand, J-C. The in vitro influence of the burrowing polychaete Nereis diversicolor on the fate of petroleum hydrocarbons in marine sediments. Chemosphere 1994;29: 1–12.Google Scholar
Nowell, AR., Jumars, PA, Eckman, JE. Effects of biological activity on the entrainment of marine sediments. Mar Geol 1981;42: 133–153.Google Scholar
Orvain, F, Sauriau, P, Sygut, A et al. Interacting effects of Hydrobia ulvae bioturbation and microphytobenthos on the erodibility of mudflat sediments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2004;278: 205–223.Google Scholar
Needham, HR, Pilditch, CA, Lohrer, AM et al. Density and habitat dependent effects of crab burrows on sediment erodibility. J Sea Res 2013;76: 94–104.Google Scholar
Thompson, CEL, Williams, JJ, Metje, N et al. Turbulence based measurements of wave friction factors under irregular waves on a gravel bed. Coast Eng 2012;63: 39–47.Google Scholar
Wheatcroft, RA. Temporal variation in bed configuration and one-dimensional bottom roughness at the mid-shelf STRESS site. Cont Shelf Res 1994;14: 1167–1190.Google Scholar
Lyons, AP, Fox, WLJ, Hasiotis, T et al. Characterization of the two-dimensional roughness of wave-rippled sea floors using digital photogrammetry. IEEE J Ocean Eng 2002;27: 515–524.Google Scholar
Briggs, KB. Microtopographical roughness of shallow-water continental shelves. IEEE J Ocean Eng 1989;14: 360–367.Google Scholar
Jackson, DR, Briggs, KB. High‐frequency bottom backscattering: Roughness versus sediment volume scattering. J Acoust Soc Am 1992;92, DOI: 10.1121/1.403966.Google Scholar
Widdows, J, Brinsley, M. Impact of biotic and abiotic processes on sediment dynamics and the consequences to the structure and functioning of the intertidal zone. J Sea Res 2002;48: 143–156.Google Scholar
Widdows, J, Brinsley, M, Salkeld, P, Lucas, CH. Influence of biota on spatial and temporal variation in sediment erodability and material flux on a tidal flat (Westerschelde, The Netherlands). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2000;194: 23–37.Google Scholar
Escapa, M, Perillo, GME, Iribarne, O. Sediment dynamics modulated by burrowing crab activities in contrasting SW Atlantic intertidal habitats. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 2008;80: 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdows, J, Brinsley, MD, Bowley, N, Barrett, C. A benthic annular flume for in situ measurement of suspension feeding/biodeposition rates and erosion potential of intertidal cohesive sediments. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 1998;46: 27–38.Google Scholar
Grant, J, Gust, G. Prediction of coastal sediment stability from photopigment content of mats of purple sulphur bacteria. Nature 1987;330: 244–246.Google Scholar
Gust, G. Skin friction probes for field applications. J Geophys Res 1988;93: 14121–14132.Google Scholar
Blanchard, G, Sauriau, P, Cariou-Le Gall, V et al. Kinetics of tidal resuspension of microbiota: Testing the effects of sediment cohesiveness and bioturbation using flume experiments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1997;151: 17–25.Google Scholar
Thompson, CEL, Couceiro, F, Fones, GR et al. In situ flume measurements of resuspension in the North Sea. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 2011;94: 77–88.Google Scholar
Ringold, P. Burrowing, root mat density, and the distribution of fiddler crabs in the eastern United States. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 1979;36: 11–21.Google Scholar
Teal, L, Bulling, M, Parker, E, Solan, M. Global patterns of bioturbation intensity and mixed depth of marine soft sediments. Aquat Biol 2010;2: 207–218.Google Scholar
Solan, M, Kennedy, R. Observation and quantification of in situ animal-sediment relations using time-lapse sediment profile imagery (t-SPI). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2002;228: 179–191.Google Scholar
Solan, M, Wigham, B, Hudson, I et al. In situ quantification of bioturbation using time-lapse fluorescent sediment profile imaging (f-SPI), luminophore tracers and model simulation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2004;271: 1–12.Google Scholar
Murray, F, Solan, M, Douglas, A. Effects of algal enrichment and salinity on sediment particle reworking activity and associated nutrient generation mediated by the intertidal polychaete Hediste diversicolor. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2017;495: 75–82.Google Scholar
Germano, J, Rhoads, D, Valente, R et al. The use of sediment profile imaging (SPI) for environmental impact assessments and monitoring studies: Lessons learned from the past four decades. Ocn. and Mar. Biol.: An Annual Rev. 2011;49: 235–298.Google Scholar
Schiffers, K, Teal, LR, Travis, JMJ Solan, M. An open source simulation model for soil and sediment bioturbation. PloS one 2011;6: e28028.Google Scholar
Wood, C., Hawkins, S., Godbold, J. et al. Coastal Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Sustainability (CBESS) Macrofaunal Community Metrics - Total Abundance (TA), Total Biomass (TB), Species Richness (SR), Evenness (J) and Community Bioturbation Potential (BPc) in Mudflat and Saltmarsh Habitats. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre, 2015.Google Scholar
Bishop, C, Skafel, M, Nairn, R. Cohesive profile erosion by waves. Coastal Engineering 1992. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780872629332.227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skafel, MG. Laboratory measurement of nearshore velocities and erosion of cohesive sediment (till) shorelines. Coast Eng 1995;24: 343–349.Google Scholar
Skafel, MG, Bishop, CT. Flume experiments on the erosion of till shores by waves. Coast Eng 1994;23: 329–348.Google Scholar
Allen, J. R. L.. Mixing at turbidity current heads, and its geological implications: ERRATUM. SEPM J Sediment Res 1971;41: 889.Google Scholar
Thompson, CEL, Amos, CL. The impact of mobile disarticulated shells of Cerastoderma edulis on the abrasion of a cohesive substrate. Estuaries 2002;25: 204–214.Google Scholar
Amos, CL, Daborn, G., Christian, H. et al. In situ erosion measurements on fine-grained sediments from the Bay of Fundy. Mar Geol 1992;108: 175–196.Google Scholar
Bagnold, RA. The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes. Methuen, New York.Google Scholar
Amos, C., Sutherland, T, Cloutier, D, Patterson, S. Corrasion of a remoulded cohesive bed by saltating littorinid shells. Cont Shelf Res 2000;20: 1291–1315.Google Scholar
Thompson, CEL, Amos, CL. Effect of sand movement on a cohesive substrate. J Hydraul Eng 2004;130: 1123–1125.Google Scholar
Quaresma, V da S, Amos, CL, Bastos, AC. The influence of articulated and disarticulated cockle shells on the erosion of a cohesive bed. J Coast Res 2007;236: 1443–1451.Google Scholar
Ford, H, Garbutt, A, Ladd, C et al. Soil stabilization linked to plant diversity and environmental context in coastal wetlands. J Veg Sci: Off Organ Int Assoc Veg Sci 2016;27: 259–268.Google Scholar
Chen, XD, Zhang, CK, Paterson, DM et al. Hindered erosion: The biological mediation of noncohesive sediment behavior: eps mediating sediment erosion. Water Resour Res 2017;53: 4787–4801.Google Scholar
Huettel, M, Rusch, A. Advective particle transport into permeable sediments-evidence from experiments in an intertidal sandflat. Limnol Oceanogr 2000;45: 525–533.Google Scholar
Howes, BL, Howarth, RW, Teal, JM Valiela, I. Oxidation-reduction potentials in a salt marsh: Spatial patterns and interactions with primary production1: Salt marsh redox potentials. Limnol Oceanogr 1981;26: 350–360.Google Scholar
Kristensen, E. Organic matter diagenesis at the oxic/anoxic interface in coastal marine sediments, with emphasis on the role of burrowing animals. Hydrobiologia 2000; 426: 1–24.Google Scholar
Gerwing, TG, Gerwing, AM, Hamilton, DJ et al. Apparent redox potential discontinuity (aRPD) depth as a relative measure of sediment oxygen content and habitat quality. Int J Sediment Res 2015;30: 74–80.Google Scholar
Fanjul, E, Escapa, M, Montemayor, D et al. Effect of crab bioturbation on organic matter processing in South West Atlantic intertidal sediments. J Sea Res 2015;95: 206–216.Google Scholar
Kostka, JE, Gribsholt, B, Petrie, E et al. The rates and pathways of carbon oxidation in bioturbated saltmarsh sediments. Limnol Oceanogr 2002;47: 230–240.Google Scholar
Negrin, VL, Spetter, CV, Asteasuain, RO et al. Influence of flooding and vegetation on carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dynamics in the pore water of a Spartina alterniflora salt marsh. J Environ Sci 2011;23: 212–221.Google Scholar
Patrick, WH, Delaune, RD. Nitrogen and phosphorus utilization by Spartina alterniflora in a salt marsh in Barataria Bay, Louisiana. Estuar Coast Mar Sci 1976;4: 59–64.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, JL, Jones, CG, Groffman, PM et al. The contribution of crab burrow excavation to carbon availability in surficial salt-marsh sediments. Ecosystems 2006;9: 647–658.Google Scholar
Kristensen, E, Kostka, JE. Macrofaunal burrows and irrigation in marine sediment: Microbiological and biogeochemical interactions. Interactions between Macro‐ and Microorganisms in Marine Sediments. American Geophysical Union, 0, 125–157.Google Scholar
Luckenbach, MW. Sediment stability around animal tubes: The roles of hydrodynamic processes and biotic activity1: Stability around tubes. Limnol Oceanogr 1986;31: 779–787.Google Scholar
Talley, TS, Crooks, JA, Levin, LA. Habitat utilization and alteration by the invasive burrowing isopod, Sphaeroma quoyanum, in California salt marshes. Mar Biol 2001;138: 561–573.Google Scholar
Hale, R, Mavrogordato, MN, Tolhurst, TJ et al. Characterizations of how species mediate ecosystem properties require more comprehensive functional effect descriptors. Sci Reports 2014;4: 6463.Google Scholar
Hale, R, Boardman, R, Mavrogordato, MN et al. High-resolution computed tomography reconstructions of invertebrate burrow systems. Sci Data 2015;2: 150052.Google Scholar
Coelho, V, Cooper, R, de Almeida Rodrigues, S. Burrow morphology and behavior of the mud shrimp Upogebia omissa (Decapoda: Thalassinidea: Upogebiidae). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2000;200: 229–240.Google Scholar
Yunusa, IAM, Braun, M, Lawrie, R. Amendment of soil with coal fly ash modified the burrowing habits of two earthworm species. Appl Soil Ecol 2009;42: 63–68.Google Scholar
Salvo, F, Dufour, SC, Archambault, P et al. Spatial distribution of Alitta virens burrows in intertidal sediments studied by axial tomodensitometry. J Mar Biol Assoc United Kingd 2013;93: 1543–1552.Google Scholar
Rhoads, DC, Cande, S. Sediment profile camera for in situstudy of organism-sediment relations. Limnol Oceanogr 1971;16: 110–114.Google Scholar
Rhoads, D, Germano, J. Characterization of organism-sediment relations using sediment profile imaging: An efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the seafloor (Remots™ System). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1982;8: 115–128.Google Scholar
Nickell, L, Atkinson, R. Functional morphology of burrows and trophic modes of three thalassinidean shrimp species, and a new approach to the classification of thalassinidean burrow morphology. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1995;128: 181–197.Google Scholar
Koo, BJ, Kwon, KK, Hyun, J-H. The sediment-water interface increment due to the complex burrows of macrofauna in a tidal flat. Ocean Sci J 2005;40, DOI: 10.1007/BF03023522.Google Scholar
Seike, K, Goto, R. Combining in situ burrow casting and computed tomography scanning reveals burrow morphology and symbiotic associations in a burrow. Mar Biol 2017;164, DOI: 10.1007/s00227-017-3096-y.Google Scholar
Oug, E, Høisœter, T. Soft-bottom macrofauna in the high-latitude ecosystem of Balsfjord, northern Norway: Species composition, community structure and temporal variability. Sarsia 2000;85: 1–13.Google Scholar
Downie, H, Holden, N, Otten, W et al. Transparent soil for imaging the rhizosphere. PloS one 2012;7: 44276.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, R, Davey, E, Gunnarsson, J et al. Application of computer-aided tomography to visualize and quantify biogenic structures in marine sediments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2007;331: 23–34.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, R, Grémare, A, Duchêne, J et al. 3D visualization and quantification of marine benthic biogenic structures and particle transport utilizing computer-aided tomography. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2008;363: 171–182.Google Scholar
Delefosse, M, Kristensen, E, Crunelle, D et al. Seeing the unseen--bioturbation in 4D: Tracing bioirrigation in marine sediment using positron emission tomography and computed tomography. PloS One 2015;10: e0122201.Google Scholar
Perez, KT, Davey, EW, Moore, RH et al. Application of computer-aided tomography (CT) to the study of estuarine benthic communities. Ecol Appl 1999;9: 1050–1058.Google Scholar
Mermillod-Blondin, F, Marie, S, Desrosiers, G et al. Assessment of the spatial variability of intertidal benthic communities by axial tomodensitometry: Importance of fine-scale heterogeneity. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2003;287: 193–208.Google Scholar
Michaud, E, Desrosiers, G, Long, B et al. Use of axial tomography to follow temporal changes of benthic communities in an unstable sedimentary environment (Baie des Ha! Ha!, Saguenay Fjord). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2003;285–286: 265–282.Google Scholar
Dufour, SC, Desrosiers, G, Long, B et al. A new method for three-dimensional visualization and quantification of biogenic structures in aquatic sediments using axial tomodensitometry: CT scan of biogenic structures. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 2005;3: 372–380.Google Scholar
Feagin, RA, Lozada-Bernard, SM, Ravens, TM et al. Does vegetation prevent wave erosion of salt marsh edges? Proc Natl Acad Sci United States Am 2009;106: 10109–10113.Google Scholar
Tengbeh, GT. The effect of grass roots on shear strength variations with moisture content. Soil Technol 1993;6: 287–295.Google Scholar
Mamo, M., Bubenzer, G. D.. Detachment rate, soil erodibility, and soil strength as influenced by living plant roots part i: Laboratory study. Trans ASAE 2001;44: 1167–1174.Google Scholar
Chen, Y, Thompson, CEL, Collins, MB. Saltmarsh creek bank stability: Biostabilisation and consolidation with depth. Cont Shelf Res 2012;35: 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Baets, S, Poesen, J, Gyssels, G Knapen, A. Effects of grass roots on the erodibility of topsoils during concentrated flow. Geomorphology 2006;76: 54–67.Google Scholar
Khanal, A, Fox, GA. Detachment characteristics of root-permeated soils from laboratory jet erosion tests. Ecol Eng 2017;100: 335–343.Google Scholar
Katuwal, S, Vermang, J, Cornelis, WM et al. Effect of root density on erosion and erodibility of a loamy soil under simulated rain. Soil Sci 2013;178: 29–36.Google Scholar
Ghidey, F., Alberts, E. E.. Plant root effects on soil erodibility, splash detachment, soil strength, and aggregate stability. Trans ASAE 1997;40: 129–135.Google Scholar
Painting, SJ, van der Molen, J, Parker, ER et al. Development of indicators of ecosystem functioning in a temperate shelf sea: A combined fieldwork and modelling approach. Biogeochemistry 2013;113: 237–257.Google Scholar
Queirós, AM, Birchenough, SNR, Bremner, J et al. A bioturbation classification of European marine infaunal invertebrates. Ecol Evol 2013;3: 3958–3985.Google Scholar
Steiner, N, Deal, C, Lannuzel, D et al. What sea-ice biogeochemical modellers need from observers. Elem Sci Anthr 2016;4, p.000084. DOI: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000084.Google Scholar
Morrisey, D, Howitt, L, Underwood, A et al. Spatial variation in soft-sediment benthos. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1992;81: 197–204.Google Scholar
Savchuk, OP. Nutrient biogeochemical cycles in the Gulf of Riga: Scaling up field studies with a mathematical model. J Mar Syst 2002;32: 253–280.Google Scholar
Thompson, CEL, Silburn, B, Williams, ME et al. An approach for the identification of exemplar sites for scaling up targeted field observations of benthic biogeochemistry in heterogeneous environments. Biogeochemistry 2017;135: 1–34.Google Scholar
Kirwan, ML, Mudd, SM. Response of salt-marsh carbon accumulation to climate change. Nature 2012;489: 550–553.Google Scholar
Morris, JT, Sundareshwar, PV, Nietch, CT et al. Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 2002;83: 2869–2877.Google Scholar
Langley, JA, McKee, KL, Cahoon, DR et al. Elevated CO2 stimulates marsh elevation gain, counterbalancing sea-level rise. Proc Natl Acad Sci United States Am 2009;106: 6182–6186.Google Scholar
Cherry, JA, McKee, KL, Grace, JB. Elevated CO2 enhances biological contributions to elevation change in coastal wetlands by offsetting stressors associated with sea-level rise. J Ecol 2009;97: 67–77.Google Scholar
Kirwan, ML, Guntenspergen, GR, Morris, JT. Latitudinal trends in Spartina alterniflora productivity and the response of coastal marshes to global change. Glob Chang Biol 2009;15: 1982–1989.Google Scholar
Charles, H, Dukes, JS. Effects of warming and altered precipitation on plant and nutrient dynamics of a New England salt marsh. Ecol Appl: Publ Ecol Soc Am 2009;19: 1758–1773.Google Scholar
Mudd, SM, Howell, SM, Morris, JT. Impact of dynamic feedbacks between sedimentation, sea-level rise, and biomass production on near-surface marsh stratigraphy and carbon accumulation. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 2009;82: 377–389.Google Scholar
Kirwan, ML, Guntenspergen, GR. Feedbacks between inundation, root production, and shoot growth in a rapidly submerging brackish marsh: Marsh root growth under sea level rise. J Ecol 2012;100: 764–770.Google Scholar
Duarte, CM, Losada, IJ, Hendriks, IE et al. The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat Clim Chang 2013;3: 961–968.Google Scholar
Donnelly, JP, Bertness, MD. Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marsh cordgrass in response to accelerated sea-level rise. Proc Natl Acad Sci United States Am 2001;98: 14218–14223.Google Scholar
Hartig, EK, Gornitz, V, Kolker, A et al. Anthropogenic and climate-change impacts on salt marshes of Jamaica Bay, New York City. Wetlands 2002;22: 71–89.Google Scholar
Scavia, D, Field, JC, Boesch, DF et al. Climate change impacts on U.S. Coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries 2002;25: 149–164.Google Scholar
Farron, SJ, Hughes, Z, FitzGerald, DM, and Storm, KB. The impacts of bioturbation by common marsh crabs on sediment erodibility: A laboratory flume investigation. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 2020;238: 1–11.Google Scholar
Asano, T, Tsutsui, S, and Sakai, T. 1988. Wave damping characteristics due to seaweed. Proceedings of the 35th Coastal Engineering Conference in Japan. JSCE. 138–142.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×