Ecological Aspects of Coastal Sediment Management in the Gulf of Mexico

Reed, Denise J.; Hijuelos, Ann; Fearnley, Sarah

doi:10.2112/si_60_6

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The sediments that form intertidal sand flats near inlets are part of a dynamic ocean beach and inlet sand-sharing system with a finite sand resource. When humans intervene in this sand-sharing system by erecting groins and jetties intended to capture and retain sand in front of a specific shoreline property to protect against erosion, such interventions disrupt the natural flow of sand and commonly result in downdrift sand deficits [49]–[51]. Similarly, seawalls constructed on inlet shores to protect shoreline development from wave damage and overwash function by redirecting the energy of breaking waves downward, which generates sediment erosion seaward of the walls and leads to loss of the intertidal habitat [49]–[51].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When humans intervene in this sand-sharing system by erecting groins and jetties intended to capture and retain sand in front of a specific shoreline property to protect against erosion, such interventions disrupt the natural flow of sand and commonly result in downdrift sand deficits [49]–[51]. Similarly, seawalls constructed on inlet shores to protect shoreline development from wave damage and overwash function by redirecting the energy of breaking waves downward, which generates sediment erosion seaward of the walls and leads to loss of the intertidal habitat [49]–[51]. Finally, mining sands from ebb- or flood-tidal deltas within inlets during boat channel construction and maintenance or for use in beach nourishment removes sand from the littoral sand-sharing system [49], [51].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, seawalls constructed on inlet shores to protect shoreline development from wave damage and overwash function by redirecting the energy of breaking waves downward, which generates sediment erosion seaward of the walls and leads to loss of the intertidal habitat [49]–[51]. Finally, mining sands from ebb- or flood-tidal deltas within inlets during boat channel construction and maintenance or for use in beach nourishment removes sand from the littoral sand-sharing system [49], [51]. The changes induced by each of these engineering interventions impose a high risk of reduction in the volume of sand available for retention in extensive intertidal sand flats within inlets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prey Distribution, Physical Habitat Features, and Guild Traits Interact to Produce Contrasting Shorebird Assemblages among Foraging Patches

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worldwide declines in shorebird populations, driven largely by habitat loss and degradation, motivate environmental managers to preserve and restore the critical coastal habitats on which these birds depend. Effective habitat management requires an understanding of the factors that determine habitat use and value to shorebirds, extending from individuals to the entire community. While investigating the factors that influenced shorebird foraging distributions among neighboring intertidal sand flats, we built upon species-level understandings of individual-based, small-scale foraging decisions to develop more comprehensive guild- and community-level insights. We found that densities and community composition of foraging shorebirds varied substantially among elevations within some tidal flats and among five flats despite their proximity (all located within a 400-m stretch of natural, unmodified inlet shoreline). Non-dimensional multivariate analyses revealed that the changing composition of the shorebird community among flats and tidal elevations correlated significantly (ρs = 0.56) with the spatial structure of the benthic invertebrate prey community. Sediment grain-sizes affected shorebird community spatial patterns indirectly by influencing benthic macroinvertebrate community compositions. Furthermore, combining sediment and macroinvertebrate information produced a 27% increase in correlation (ρs = 0.71) with shorebird assemblage patterns over the correlation of the bird community with the macroinvertebrate community alone. Beyond its indirect effects acting through prey distributions, granulometry of the flats influenced shorebird foraging directly by modifying prey availability. Our study highlights the importance of habitat heterogeneity, showing that no single patch type was ideal for the entire shorebird community. Generally, shorebird density and diversity were greatest at lower elevations on flats when they became exposed; these areas are at risk from human intervention by inlet sand mining, construction of groins and jetties that divert sediments from flats, and installation of seawalls on inlet shorelines that induce erosion of flats.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%