Abstract

Hydrodynamic differences among shorelines with no vegetation, reference vegetation (mature mangrove), and vegetation planted on restored shoreline (marsh grass and young mangrove) were compared based on field observations 6.5 years after living shoreline restoration. Mean current velocities and waves were more strongly attenuated in vegetation (from channel to shoreline: 80–98% velocity decrease and 35–36% wave height reduction) than in bare shoreline (36–72% velocity decrease, 7% wave height reduction, ANOVA: p < 0.001). Normalized turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rates were significantly higher in reference vegetation (0.16 ± 0.03 m−1) than in restored (0.08 ± 0.02 m−1) or bare shoreline (0.02 ± 0.01 m−1, p < 0.001). Significant differences in the current attenuation and turbulence dissipation rates for the reference and planted vegetation are attributed to the observed differences in vegetation array and morphology. Although the hydrodynamic analyses did not suggest limitations to recruitment, mangrove seedlings were not observed in restored vegetation, while four recruited seedlings/m were counted in the reference vegetation. The lack of recruitment in the restored shoreline may suggest a lag in morphological habitat suitability (slope, sediment texture, organic matter content) after restoration. Although hydrodynamics suggest that the restored site should be functionally similar to a reference condition, thresholds in habitat suitability may emerge over longer timescales.

Highlights

  • Shoreline ecotones provide essential ecosystem services, yet the modification of shoreline attributes that are vital to this functionality is widespread [1,2], in developed areas [3]

  • The hydrodynamic analyses did not suggest limitations to recruitment, mangrove seedlings were not observed in restored vegetation, while four recruited seedlings/m were counted in the reference vegetation

  • The analysis presented suggests that the Restored site was successful because, from a hydrodynamic perspective, it was well-suited for the applied living shoreline restoration technique

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Shoreline ecotones provide essential ecosystem services, yet the modification of shoreline attributes that are vital to this functionality (e.g., slope, vegetation cover, material structure) is widespread [1,2], in developed areas [3]. Nature-based solutions to shoreline stabilization, such as living shorelines, are intended to maintain the functionality of the ecotone [7], for instance by preserving or restoring the equilibrium slope, and the natural hydrology and connectivity of intertidal and subtidal wetland habitats [8,9]. Living shorelines are often framed as an alternative or complement to traditional hard-armoring techniques that were designed to prevent erosion [10] and may be implemented as restoration in areas of active shoreline degradation [11], including planting or the placement of native species. Hybrid living shoreline approaches may include engineered structural elements that were designed to dissipate hydrodynamic energy [7,12]. As investment in living shoreline restoration increases, understanding the influence of restoration designs to shoreline sediment transport and erosion will lead to more robust decision making and impactful investments in shoreline stability

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call