Reply to comment on our paper “evolution of tidal creek networks in a high sedimentation environment: A 5-year experiment at Tijuana Estuary, California”

Abstract

We appreciate the interest in our article on the Friendship Marsh and the opportunity to clarify further our work in this 8-ha field experiment in topographic heterogeneity (three areas with tidal creeks, three without). In the abstract, we stated our purposes, the second of which was, "to test the need to excavate creeks during salt marsh restoration" (Wallace 2005, p. 795). Because need is a general concept (it could refer to cost or ecosystem functioning, or other metrics), we clarified the domain of our study in the introduction by listing hypotheses and questions. All of these concerned the physical effects of adding creeks (none addresses valuation of costs and benefits). Wallace et al. (2005, p. 796) stated, "We tested the hypothesis that cells with excavated creeks would develop different creek network and marsh surface characteristics by addressing the following questions: What variables affect tidal creek development? How do creek crosssectional area and creek length differ in cells with and without excavated creeks? How, and at what rate, do excavated creeks adjust toward equilibrium morphologies and drainage density of reference systems? What variables affect marsh surface development? Do vertical accretion and changes in surface elevation differ in areas with and without excavated creeks? How do excavated creeks affect the development of tidal prism in comparison to reference sites?".