Invasive water chestnut hinders tidal wetland development
Consistent shoreline development and urbanization have historically resulted in the loss of wetlands. However, some construction activities have inadvertently resulted in the emergence of new tidal wetlands, with prominent examples of such anthropogenic wetlands found within the Hudson River Estuary...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Earth surface processes and landforms 2022-05, Vol.47 (6), p.1409-1424 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1424 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1409 |
container_title | Earth surface processes and landforms |
container_volume | 47 |
creator | McKeon, Kelly Woodruff, Jonathan D. Yellen, Brian Fernald, Sarah H. Sheehan, Mary Chase |
description | Consistent shoreline development and urbanization have historically resulted in the loss of wetlands. However, some construction activities have inadvertently resulted in the emergence of new tidal wetlands, with prominent examples of such anthropogenic wetlands found within the Hudson River Estuary. Here, we utilize two of these anthropogenically created tidal wetlands to explore the sedimentary and hydrologic conditions driving wetland development from a restoration perspective. Tivoli North is an emergent freshwater tidal marsh, while Tivoli South is an intertidal mudflat with vegetation restricted to the seasonal growth of invasive water chestnut during summer months. Using a combination of sediment traps, cores, and tidal flux measurements, we present highly resolved sediment budgets from these two protected bays and parameterize trapping processes responsible for their divergent wetland evolution. Utilizing a 16‐year tidal flux dataset, we observe net sediment trapping in Tivoli North for most years, with consistent trapping throughout the year. Conversely, flux measurements at Tivoli South reveal net sediment loss over the study period, with trapping constrained to the summer months. Here, we explore potential mechanisms responsible for these contrasting accumulation regimes, including initial geological differences, sediment loading, and human land use changes, with a focus on the invasion of emergent aquatic vegetation. Results suggest that water chestnut is contributing to these divergent morphologies by inhibiting sediment trapping and facilitating erosion, thereby preventing marsh nucleation in Tivoli South. The longevity of this dataset highlights the capacity of aquatic vegetation to regulate sediment exchange and geomorphology in enclosed bays when provided with an opportunity to colonize. The results of this project provide evidence to inform the management of restoration projects in river systems with tidal wetlands, especially those affected by invasive species of aquatic vegetation.
We utilize a 16‐year tidal flux dataset alongside sediment cores and traps to create high‐resolution sediment budgets that assess the impact of invasive aquatic vegetation on sediment trapping in freshwater tidal wetlands. Results show that water chestnut (Trapa natans) invasion impedes long‐term sediment trapping and facilitates erosion, preventing marsh initiation and growth in off‐river waterbodies along tidal rivers. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/esp.5323 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2663859378</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2663859378</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3163-fc5a235fb263727027081f3ae3ab076637709f8145b068839131d67fb53103273</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kFFLwzAQx4MoOKfgRyj44ktnLrc2yaOMOQcDBfU5pOuFdXRtTdqNfXsz56twcHD87u7Pj7F74BPgXDxR6CYZCrxgI-A6T7VCeclGHLRMNaK8ZjchbDkHmCo9YnrZ7G2o9pQcbE8-WW8o9M3QJ5uqKcmHpK9KWycH6mvblElJe6rbbkdNf8uunK0D3f31Mft6mX_OXtPV22I5e16lFiHH1K0zKzBzhchRCsljKXBoCW3BZR6HkmunYJoVPFcKNSCUuXRFhsBRSByzh_PdzrffQ0xntu3gm_jSiLiuMo1SRerxTK19G4InZzpf7aw_GuDmJMZEMeYkJqLpGT1UNR3_5cz84_2X_wFjT2IQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2663859378</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Invasive water chestnut hinders tidal wetland development</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>McKeon, Kelly ; Woodruff, Jonathan D. ; Yellen, Brian ; Fernald, Sarah H. ; Sheehan, Mary Chase</creator><creatorcontrib>McKeon, Kelly ; Woodruff, Jonathan D. ; Yellen, Brian ; Fernald, Sarah H. ; Sheehan, Mary Chase</creatorcontrib><description>Consistent shoreline development and urbanization have historically resulted in the loss of wetlands. However, some construction activities have inadvertently resulted in the emergence of new tidal wetlands, with prominent examples of such anthropogenic wetlands found within the Hudson River Estuary. Here, we utilize two of these anthropogenically created tidal wetlands to explore the sedimentary and hydrologic conditions driving wetland development from a restoration perspective. Tivoli North is an emergent freshwater tidal marsh, while Tivoli South is an intertidal mudflat with vegetation restricted to the seasonal growth of invasive water chestnut during summer months. Using a combination of sediment traps, cores, and tidal flux measurements, we present highly resolved sediment budgets from these two protected bays and parameterize trapping processes responsible for their divergent wetland evolution. Utilizing a 16‐year tidal flux dataset, we observe net sediment trapping in Tivoli North for most years, with consistent trapping throughout the year. Conversely, flux measurements at Tivoli South reveal net sediment loss over the study period, with trapping constrained to the summer months. Here, we explore potential mechanisms responsible for these contrasting accumulation regimes, including initial geological differences, sediment loading, and human land use changes, with a focus on the invasion of emergent aquatic vegetation. Results suggest that water chestnut is contributing to these divergent morphologies by inhibiting sediment trapping and facilitating erosion, thereby preventing marsh nucleation in Tivoli South. The longevity of this dataset highlights the capacity of aquatic vegetation to regulate sediment exchange and geomorphology in enclosed bays when provided with an opportunity to colonize. The results of this project provide evidence to inform the management of restoration projects in river systems with tidal wetlands, especially those affected by invasive species of aquatic vegetation.
We utilize a 16‐year tidal flux dataset alongside sediment cores and traps to create high‐resolution sediment budgets that assess the impact of invasive aquatic vegetation on sediment trapping in freshwater tidal wetlands. Results show that water chestnut (Trapa natans) invasion impedes long‐term sediment trapping and facilitates erosion, preventing marsh initiation and growth in off‐river waterbodies along tidal rivers.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0197-9337</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-9837</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/esp.5323</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bognor Regis: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Anthropogenic factors ; Aquatic plants ; Aquatic vegetation ; Bays ; Chestnut ; Cores ; Datasets ; Divergence ; Driving conditions ; Environmental restoration ; Estuaries ; Estuarine dynamics ; Fluctuations ; Freshwater ; Geomorphology ; Hydrology ; Inland water environment ; Introduced species ; Invasive species ; Land use ; marsh development ; Mud flats ; Nucleation ; Project management ; Restoration ; River systems ; Rivers ; Sediment ; sediment transport ; Sediment traps ; Sediments ; Shoreline development ; Shorelines ; Summer ; Tidal marshes ; tidal wetlands ; Trapa natans ; Trapping ; Urbanization ; Vegetation ; water chestnut ; wetland restoration ; Wetlands</subject><ispartof>Earth surface processes and landforms, 2022-05, Vol.47 (6), p.1409-1424</ispartof><rights>2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2022 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3163-fc5a235fb263727027081f3ae3ab076637709f8145b068839131d67fb53103273</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3163-fc5a235fb263727027081f3ae3ab076637709f8145b068839131d67fb53103273</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8314-0102 ; 0000-0002-6999-4037 ; 0000-0002-1632-5972 ; 0000-0002-0767-7378</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fesp.5323$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fesp.5323$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McKeon, Kelly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woodruff, Jonathan D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yellen, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fernald, Sarah H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sheehan, Mary Chase</creatorcontrib><title>Invasive water chestnut hinders tidal wetland development</title><title>Earth surface processes and landforms</title><description>Consistent shoreline development and urbanization have historically resulted in the loss of wetlands. However, some construction activities have inadvertently resulted in the emergence of new tidal wetlands, with prominent examples of such anthropogenic wetlands found within the Hudson River Estuary. Here, we utilize two of these anthropogenically created tidal wetlands to explore the sedimentary and hydrologic conditions driving wetland development from a restoration perspective. Tivoli North is an emergent freshwater tidal marsh, while Tivoli South is an intertidal mudflat with vegetation restricted to the seasonal growth of invasive water chestnut during summer months. Using a combination of sediment traps, cores, and tidal flux measurements, we present highly resolved sediment budgets from these two protected bays and parameterize trapping processes responsible for their divergent wetland evolution. Utilizing a 16‐year tidal flux dataset, we observe net sediment trapping in Tivoli North for most years, with consistent trapping throughout the year. Conversely, flux measurements at Tivoli South reveal net sediment loss over the study period, with trapping constrained to the summer months. Here, we explore potential mechanisms responsible for these contrasting accumulation regimes, including initial geological differences, sediment loading, and human land use changes, with a focus on the invasion of emergent aquatic vegetation. Results suggest that water chestnut is contributing to these divergent morphologies by inhibiting sediment trapping and facilitating erosion, thereby preventing marsh nucleation in Tivoli South. The longevity of this dataset highlights the capacity of aquatic vegetation to regulate sediment exchange and geomorphology in enclosed bays when provided with an opportunity to colonize. The results of this project provide evidence to inform the management of restoration projects in river systems with tidal wetlands, especially those affected by invasive species of aquatic vegetation.
We utilize a 16‐year tidal flux dataset alongside sediment cores and traps to create high‐resolution sediment budgets that assess the impact of invasive aquatic vegetation on sediment trapping in freshwater tidal wetlands. Results show that water chestnut (Trapa natans) invasion impedes long‐term sediment trapping and facilitates erosion, preventing marsh initiation and growth in off‐river waterbodies along tidal rivers.</description><subject>Anthropogenic factors</subject><subject>Aquatic plants</subject><subject>Aquatic vegetation</subject><subject>Bays</subject><subject>Chestnut</subject><subject>Cores</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Divergence</subject><subject>Driving conditions</subject><subject>Environmental restoration</subject><subject>Estuaries</subject><subject>Estuarine dynamics</subject><subject>Fluctuations</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Geomorphology</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Inland water environment</subject><subject>Introduced species</subject><subject>Invasive species</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>marsh development</subject><subject>Mud flats</subject><subject>Nucleation</subject><subject>Project management</subject><subject>Restoration</subject><subject>River systems</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Sediment</subject><subject>sediment transport</subject><subject>Sediment traps</subject><subject>Sediments</subject><subject>Shoreline development</subject><subject>Shorelines</subject><subject>Summer</subject><subject>Tidal marshes</subject><subject>tidal wetlands</subject><subject>Trapa natans</subject><subject>Trapping</subject><subject>Urbanization</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><subject>water chestnut</subject><subject>wetland restoration</subject><subject>Wetlands</subject><issn>0197-9337</issn><issn>1096-9837</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kFFLwzAQx4MoOKfgRyj44ktnLrc2yaOMOQcDBfU5pOuFdXRtTdqNfXsz56twcHD87u7Pj7F74BPgXDxR6CYZCrxgI-A6T7VCeclGHLRMNaK8ZjchbDkHmCo9YnrZ7G2o9pQcbE8-WW8o9M3QJ5uqKcmHpK9KWycH6mvblElJe6rbbkdNf8uunK0D3f31Mft6mX_OXtPV22I5e16lFiHH1K0zKzBzhchRCsljKXBoCW3BZR6HkmunYJoVPFcKNSCUuXRFhsBRSByzh_PdzrffQ0xntu3gm_jSiLiuMo1SRerxTK19G4InZzpf7aw_GuDmJMZEMeYkJqLpGT1UNR3_5cz84_2X_wFjT2IQ</recordid><startdate>202205</startdate><enddate>202205</enddate><creator>McKeon, Kelly</creator><creator>Woodruff, Jonathan D.</creator><creator>Yellen, Brian</creator><creator>Fernald, Sarah H.</creator><creator>Sheehan, Mary Chase</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8314-0102</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6999-4037</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1632-5972</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0767-7378</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202205</creationdate><title>Invasive water chestnut hinders tidal wetland development</title><author>McKeon, Kelly ; Woodruff, Jonathan D. ; Yellen, Brian ; Fernald, Sarah H. ; Sheehan, Mary Chase</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a3163-fc5a235fb263727027081f3ae3ab076637709f8145b068839131d67fb53103273</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Anthropogenic factors</topic><topic>Aquatic plants</topic><topic>Aquatic vegetation</topic><topic>Bays</topic><topic>Chestnut</topic><topic>Cores</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Divergence</topic><topic>Driving conditions</topic><topic>Environmental restoration</topic><topic>Estuaries</topic><topic>Estuarine dynamics</topic><topic>Fluctuations</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Geomorphology</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Inland water environment</topic><topic>Introduced species</topic><topic>Invasive species</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>marsh development</topic><topic>Mud flats</topic><topic>Nucleation</topic><topic>Project management</topic><topic>Restoration</topic><topic>River systems</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Sediment</topic><topic>sediment transport</topic><topic>Sediment traps</topic><topic>Sediments</topic><topic>Shoreline development</topic><topic>Shorelines</topic><topic>Summer</topic><topic>Tidal marshes</topic><topic>tidal wetlands</topic><topic>Trapa natans</topic><topic>Trapping</topic><topic>Urbanization</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><topic>water chestnut</topic><topic>wetland restoration</topic><topic>Wetlands</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McKeon, Kelly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woodruff, Jonathan D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yellen, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fernald, Sarah H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sheehan, Mary Chase</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Earth surface processes and landforms</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McKeon, Kelly</au><au>Woodruff, Jonathan D.</au><au>Yellen, Brian</au><au>Fernald, Sarah H.</au><au>Sheehan, Mary Chase</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Invasive water chestnut hinders tidal wetland development</atitle><jtitle>Earth surface processes and landforms</jtitle><date>2022-05</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1409</spage><epage>1424</epage><pages>1409-1424</pages><issn>0197-9337</issn><eissn>1096-9837</eissn><abstract>Consistent shoreline development and urbanization have historically resulted in the loss of wetlands. However, some construction activities have inadvertently resulted in the emergence of new tidal wetlands, with prominent examples of such anthropogenic wetlands found within the Hudson River Estuary. Here, we utilize two of these anthropogenically created tidal wetlands to explore the sedimentary and hydrologic conditions driving wetland development from a restoration perspective. Tivoli North is an emergent freshwater tidal marsh, while Tivoli South is an intertidal mudflat with vegetation restricted to the seasonal growth of invasive water chestnut during summer months. Using a combination of sediment traps, cores, and tidal flux measurements, we present highly resolved sediment budgets from these two protected bays and parameterize trapping processes responsible for their divergent wetland evolution. Utilizing a 16‐year tidal flux dataset, we observe net sediment trapping in Tivoli North for most years, with consistent trapping throughout the year. Conversely, flux measurements at Tivoli South reveal net sediment loss over the study period, with trapping constrained to the summer months. Here, we explore potential mechanisms responsible for these contrasting accumulation regimes, including initial geological differences, sediment loading, and human land use changes, with a focus on the invasion of emergent aquatic vegetation. Results suggest that water chestnut is contributing to these divergent morphologies by inhibiting sediment trapping and facilitating erosion, thereby preventing marsh nucleation in Tivoli South. The longevity of this dataset highlights the capacity of aquatic vegetation to regulate sediment exchange and geomorphology in enclosed bays when provided with an opportunity to colonize. The results of this project provide evidence to inform the management of restoration projects in river systems with tidal wetlands, especially those affected by invasive species of aquatic vegetation.
We utilize a 16‐year tidal flux dataset alongside sediment cores and traps to create high‐resolution sediment budgets that assess the impact of invasive aquatic vegetation on sediment trapping in freshwater tidal wetlands. Results show that water chestnut (Trapa natans) invasion impedes long‐term sediment trapping and facilitates erosion, preventing marsh initiation and growth in off‐river waterbodies along tidal rivers.</abstract><cop>Bognor Regis</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/esp.5323</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8314-0102</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6999-4037</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1632-5972</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0767-7378</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0197-9337 |
ispartof | Earth surface processes and landforms, 2022-05, Vol.47 (6), p.1409-1424 |
issn | 0197-9337 1096-9837 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2663859378 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Anthropogenic factors Aquatic plants Aquatic vegetation Bays Chestnut Cores Datasets Divergence Driving conditions Environmental restoration Estuaries Estuarine dynamics Fluctuations Freshwater Geomorphology Hydrology Inland water environment Introduced species Invasive species Land use marsh development Mud flats Nucleation Project management Restoration River systems Rivers Sediment sediment transport Sediment traps Sediments Shoreline development Shorelines Summer Tidal marshes tidal wetlands Trapa natans Trapping Urbanization Vegetation water chestnut wetland restoration Wetlands |
title | Invasive water chestnut hinders tidal wetland development |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T23%3A14%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Invasive%20water%20chestnut%20hinders%20tidal%20wetland%20development&rft.jtitle=Earth%20surface%20processes%20and%20landforms&rft.au=McKeon,%20Kelly&rft.date=2022-05&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1409&rft.epage=1424&rft.pages=1409-1424&rft.issn=0197-9337&rft.eissn=1096-9837&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/esp.5323&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2663859378%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2663859378&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |