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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Earth surface processes and landforms 2022-05, Vol.47 (6), p.1409-1424
Hauptverfasser: McKeon, Kelly, Woodruff, Jonathan D., Yellen, Brian, Fernald, Sarah H., Sheehan, Mary Chase
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 &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2022 John Wiley &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; 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