Sustainability of future coasts and estuaries: A synthesis

Newton, Alice; Harff, Jan; You, Zai-Jin; Zhang, Hua; Wolanski, Eric

doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2016.11.017

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The nearshore coastal ocean (including the intertidal and subtidal regions) supports a wide range of ecosystem goods and services, for example: habitat provision for important algal and fish species [1,2], biodiversity maintenance [3], recreation [4], and carbon cycling and sequestration [5]. With over half the world's human population living near the coast [6], the nearshore communities are exposed to multiple anthropogenic stressors and vulnerable to the effects of climate change [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Environmental monitoring of the nearshore is key to managing these threats.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Sea Surface Temperature When Surfing

Brewin

Cyronak

Bresnahan

et al. 2020

Oceans

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nearshore coastal waters are among the most dynamic regions on the planet and difficult to sample from conventional oceanographic platforms. It has been suggested that environmental sampling of the nearshore could be improved by mobilising vast numbers of citizens who partake in marine recreational sports, like surfing. In this paper, we compared two approaches for measuring sea surface temperature (SST), an Essential Climate Variable, when surfing. One technique involved attaching a commercially-available miniature temperature logger (Onset UTBI-001 TidbiT v2) to the leash of the surfboard (tether connecting surfer and surfboard) and the second, attaching a surfboard fin (Smartfin) that contained an environmental sensor package. Between July 2017 and July 2018, 148 surfing sessions took place, 90 in the southwest UK and 58 in San Diego, California, USA. During these sessions, both Smartfin and leash sensors were deployed simultaneously. On the leash, two TidbiT v2 sensors were attached, one with (denoted LP) and one without (denoted LU) a protective boot, designed to shield the sensor from sunlight. The median temperature from each technique, during each surfing session, was extracted and compared along with independent water temperature data from a nearby pier and benthic logger, and matched with photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) data from satellite observations (used as a proxy for solar radiation during each surf). Results indicate a mean difference ( δ ) of 0.13 °C and mean absolute difference ( ϵ ) of 0.14 °C between Smartfin and LU, and a δ of 0.04 °C and an ϵ of 0.06 °C between Smartfin and LP. For UK measurements, we observed better agreement between methods ( δ = 0.07 °C and ϵ = 0.08 °C between Smartfin and LU, and δ = 0.00 °C and ϵ = 0.03 °C between Smartfin and LP) when compared with measurements in San Diego ( δ = 0.22 °C and ϵ = 0.23 °C between Smartfin and LU, and δ = 0.08 °C and ϵ = 0.11 °C between Smartfin and LP). Surfing SST data were found to agree well, in general, with independent temperature data from a nearby pier and benthic logger. Differences in SST between leash and Smartfin were found to correlate with PAR, both for the unprotected (LU) and protected (LP) TidbiT v2 sensors, explaining the regional differences in the comparison (PAR generally higher during US surfing sessions than UK sessions). Considering that the Smartfin is sheltered from ambient light by the surfboard, unlike the leash, results indicate the leash TidbiT v2 sensors warm with exposure to sunlight biasing the SST data positively, a result consistent with published tests on similar sensors in shallow waters. We matched all LU data collected prior to this study with satellite PAR products and corrected for solar heating. Results highlight the need to design temperature sensor packages that minimise exposure from solar heating when towed in the surface ocean.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Sea Surface Temperature When Surfing

Brewin

Cyronak

Bresnahan

et al. 2020

Oceans

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Coastal marine ecosystems provide a range of ecological goods and services, including biodiversity maintenance [3], habitat provision for important species [4], and carbon cycling and sequestration [5]. However, with more than half the world's human population living in coastal regions [6], many nearshore marine ecosystems are impacted by multiple anthropogenic stressors, including decreased water quality [7,8], overfishing [9] and habitat loss [10]. Additionally, at regional scales, the combined impacts of climate change-ocean warming, sea-level rise and acidification-are altering coastal marine ecosystems [11,12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Operational AVHRR Sea Surface Temperature Data at the Coastline Using Benthic Temperature Loggers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The nearshore coastal ocean is one of the most dynamic and biologically productive regions on our planet, supporting a wide range of ecosystem services. It is also one of the most vulnerable regions, increasingly exposed to anthropogenic pressure. In the context of climate change, monitoring changes in nearshore coastal waters requires systematic and sustained observations of key essential climate variables (ECV), one of which is sea surface temperature (SST). As temperature influences physical, chemical and biological processes within coastal systems, accurate monitoring is crucial for detecting change. SST is an ECV that can be measured systematically from satellites. Yet, owing to a lack of adequate in situ data, the accuracy and precision of satellite SST at the coastline are not well known. In a prior study, we attempted to address this by taking advantage of in situ SST measurements collected by a group of surfers. Here, we make use of a three year time-series (2014-2017) of in situ water temperature measurements collected using a temperature logger (recording every 30 min) deployed within a kelp forest (∼3 m below chart datum) at a subtidal rocky reef site near Plymouth, UK. We compared the temperature measurements with three other independent in situ SST datasets in the region, from two autonomous buoys located ∼7 km and ∼33 km from the coastline, and from a group of surfers at two beaches near the kelp site. The three datasets showed good agreement, with discrepancies consistent with the spatial separation of the sites. The in situ SST measurements collected from the kelp site and the two autonomous buoys were matched with operational Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) EO SST passes, all within 1 h of the in situ data. By extracting data from the closest satellite pixel to the three sites, we observed a significant reduction in the performance of AVHRR at retrieving SST at the coastline, with root mean square differences at the kelp site over twice that observed at the two offshore buoys. Comparing the in situ water temperature data with pixels surrounding the kelp site revealed the performance of the satellite data improves when moving two to three pixels offshore and that this improvement was better when using an SST algorithm that treats each pixel independently in the retrieval process. At the three sites, we related differences between satellite and in situ SST data with a suite of atmospheric variables, collected from a nearby atmospheric observatory, and a high temporal resolution land surface temperature (LST) dataset. We found that differences between satellite and in situ SST at the coastline (kelp site) were well correlated with LST and solar zenith angle; implying contamination of the pixel by land is the principal cause of these larger differences at the coastline, as opposed to issues with atmospheric correction. This contamination could be either from land directly within the pixel, potentially impacted by errors in geo-location, or possibly through thermal adjacenc...

show abstract

“…Our coastal social-ecological systems are increasingly under more pressures (Newton et al 2016). First of all, coastal urbanization (e.g., infrastructure construction for land reclamation, coastal defense, harbour, tourism, aquaculture, wind power, and oil and gas exploration) will continue and, in some cases, expand offshore (Dafforn et al 2015).…”

Section: Coastal Environmental Changes Under Increasing Anthropogenicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both LOICZ-II and Future Earth Coast projects focus on themes of sustainable and healthy development of coastal society and ecosystems (Crossland et al 2005;Ramesh et al 2015). Numerous meetings have been held to address these hot topics of coastal vulnerability and sustainability, aiming to provide coastal planners effective and innovative management strategies and tools towards sustainability of coastal social-ecological systems (e.g., Cabral et al 2015;Newton et al 2016). This special collection, "Coastal Environmental Changes under Increasing Anthropogenic Impacts", was developed from submissions to three well-attended sessions convened during the AOGS (Asia Oceania Geosciences Society) annual meetings, 2017-2019.…”

Section: Coastal Environmental Changes Under Increasing Anthropogenicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coastal environmental changes under increasing anthropogenic impacts: an introduction

2019

Anthropocene Coasts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainability of future coasts and estuaries: A synthesis

Cited by 16 publications

References 13 publications

Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Sea Surface Temperature When Surfing

Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Sea Surface Temperature When Surfing

Evaluating Operational AVHRR Sea Surface Temperature Data at the Coastline Using Benthic Temperature Loggers

Coastal environmental changes under increasing anthropogenic impacts: an introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About