Understanding Marsh Dynamics

doi:10.1017/9781316888933.014

12 - Understanding Marsh Dynamics

Laboratory Approaches

from Part II - Marsh Dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 June 2021

Charlie E. L. Thompson ,

Martin Solan and

Edited by

Duncan M. FitzGerald and

Zoe J. Hughes

Show author details

Duncan M. FitzGerald: Affiliation:
Boston University
Zoe J. Hughes: Affiliation:
Boston University

Book contents

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 roughness fluid flow flume experiments bed stability biologic factors scaling

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Salt Marshes
Function, Dynamics, and Stresses
, pp. 300 - 334

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316888933.014 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Reed, DJ. Sediment dynamics and deposition in a retreating coastal salt marsh. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 1988;26: 67–79.CrossRef 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 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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Neumeier, U. Quantification of vertical density variations of salt-marsh vegetation. Estuarine, Coast Shelf Sci 2005;63: 489–496.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, ME, Smith, JM. Wave attenuation by flexible, idealized salt marsh vegetation. Coast Eng 2014;83: 82–92.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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/10.1029/2006WR005229 CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.