Life expectancy of shingle beaches: measuring in situ abrasion
In situ abrasion of shingle beach material is a neglected area of study in coastal geomorphology, with reduction in beach volumes normally attributed to longshore and offshore drift. Results from field abrasion experiments conducted on flint shingle beaches on the East Sussex coast, southern England...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of coastal research 2002-03, Vol.36 (sp1), p.249-255 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 255 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | sp1 |
| container_start_page | 249 |
| container_title | Journal of coastal research |
| container_volume | 36 |
| creator | Dornbusch, U. Williams, R.B.G. Moses, C. Robinson, D.A. |
| description | In situ abrasion of shingle beach material is a neglected area of study in coastal geomorphology, with reduction in beach volumes normally attributed to longshore and offshore drift. Results from field abrasion experiments conducted on flint shingle beaches on the East Sussex coast, southern England, show that in situ reductions in volume of beach material may be more significant than has been thought. Two beaches composed almost entirely of flint shingle were seeded with hard quartzite from a Devon beach and less resistant limestone from a South Wales beach that are readily distinguishable from the flint. The seeding commenced in January 2001. The pebbles, similar in size and shape to the natural flint shingle, were left in the surf zone at two sites. Prior to exposure the pebbles were engraved with a code number and weighed. At regular intervals those that could be re-found were re-weighed and returned to the beach. Abrasion rates were calculated for each pebble as percentage weight loss per tide. By the end of October 2001, more than 700 measurements of abrasion rates had been made from a total of 431 pebbles. Average limestone abrasion rates (0.0266% loss of weight per tide) were three times greater than those of quartzite (0.0082% per tide). Measurable abrasion rates were recorded over just a few tidal cycles, not only in severe wave conditions but also in much calmer weather. The maximum abrasion rates recorded exceeded 1% per tide for limestone. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2112/1551-5036-36.sp1.249 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2811274562</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26477811</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26477811</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b390t-3e70609fa8fd9d2ea0fd812826e8446528eba81807d334c85cf069cdb77e41983</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkFtLwzAUx4MoOKffQCHgc2duzcUHQYY3GPiizyFtT1zH1tSkBfftzajsWThw4PwvB34IXVOyYJSyO1qWtCgJlwWXi9TTBRPmBM2O51M0I0qYgjCiz9FFShtCqNRCzdDDqvWA4aeHenBdvcfB47Ruu68t4ApcvYZ0j3fg0hjzEbcdTu0wYldFl9rQXaIz77YJrv72HH0-P30sX4vV-8vb8nFVVNyQoeCgiCTGO-0b0zBwxDeaMs0kaCFkyTRUTlNNVMO5qHVZeyJN3VRKgaBG8zm6nXr7GL5HSIPdhDF2-aVlOiNQopQsu8TkqmNIKYK3fWx3Lu4tJfZAyh6Q2AMSmyeTsplUjt1MsU0aQjxmmBRK5fKss0mv2hA6-F_pL7ssdEE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2811274562</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Life expectancy of shingle beaches: measuring in situ abrasion</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Dornbusch, U. ; Williams, R.B.G. ; Moses, C. ; Robinson, D.A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dornbusch, U. ; Williams, R.B.G. ; Moses, C. ; Robinson, D.A.</creatorcontrib><description>In situ abrasion of shingle beach material is a neglected area of study in coastal geomorphology, with reduction in beach volumes normally attributed to longshore and offshore drift. Results from field abrasion experiments conducted on flint shingle beaches on the East Sussex coast, southern England, show that in situ reductions in volume of beach material may be more significant than has been thought. Two beaches composed almost entirely of flint shingle were seeded with hard quartzite from a Devon beach and less resistant limestone from a South Wales beach that are readily distinguishable from the flint. The seeding commenced in January 2001. The pebbles, similar in size and shape to the natural flint shingle, were left in the surf zone at two sites. Prior to exposure the pebbles were engraved with a code number and weighed. At regular intervals those that could be re-found were re-weighed and returned to the beach. Abrasion rates were calculated for each pebble as percentage weight loss per tide. By the end of October 2001, more than 700 measurements of abrasion rates had been made from a total of 431 pebbles. Average limestone abrasion rates (0.0266% loss of weight per tide) were three times greater than those of quartzite (0.0082% per tide). Measurable abrasion rates were recorded over just a few tidal cycles, not only in severe wave conditions but also in much calmer weather. The maximum abrasion rates recorded exceeded 1% per tide for limestone.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-0208</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1551-5036</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2112/1551-5036-36.sp1.249</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Fort Lauderdale: Coastal Education and Research Foundation</publisher><subject>Abrasion ; Attrition ; beach ; Beaches ; cobbles ; Engraving ; Flint ; Geomorphology ; Life expectancy ; Life span ; Limestone ; Offshore ; Pebbles ; Quartzite ; Shingle ; Surf zone ; Sussex coast ; Tidal cycles ; Tides ; Weight ; Weight loss</subject><ispartof>Journal of coastal research, 2002-03, Vol.36 (sp1), p.249-255</ispartof><rights>Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Inc. 2002</rights><rights>Copyright Allen Press Inc. Mar 2002</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b390t-3e70609fa8fd9d2ea0fd812826e8446528eba81807d334c85cf069cdb77e41983</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26477811$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26477811$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dornbusch, U.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, R.B.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moses, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, D.A.</creatorcontrib><title>Life expectancy of shingle beaches: measuring in situ abrasion</title><title>Journal of coastal research</title><description>In situ abrasion of shingle beach material is a neglected area of study in coastal geomorphology, with reduction in beach volumes normally attributed to longshore and offshore drift. Results from field abrasion experiments conducted on flint shingle beaches on the East Sussex coast, southern England, show that in situ reductions in volume of beach material may be more significant than has been thought. Two beaches composed almost entirely of flint shingle were seeded with hard quartzite from a Devon beach and less resistant limestone from a South Wales beach that are readily distinguishable from the flint. The seeding commenced in January 2001. The pebbles, similar in size and shape to the natural flint shingle, were left in the surf zone at two sites. Prior to exposure the pebbles were engraved with a code number and weighed. At regular intervals those that could be re-found were re-weighed and returned to the beach. Abrasion rates were calculated for each pebble as percentage weight loss per tide. By the end of October 2001, more than 700 measurements of abrasion rates had been made from a total of 431 pebbles. Average limestone abrasion rates (0.0266% loss of weight per tide) were three times greater than those of quartzite (0.0082% per tide). Measurable abrasion rates were recorded over just a few tidal cycles, not only in severe wave conditions but also in much calmer weather. The maximum abrasion rates recorded exceeded 1% per tide for limestone.</description><subject>Abrasion</subject><subject>Attrition</subject><subject>beach</subject><subject>Beaches</subject><subject>cobbles</subject><subject>Engraving</subject><subject>Flint</subject><subject>Geomorphology</subject><subject>Life expectancy</subject><subject>Life span</subject><subject>Limestone</subject><subject>Offshore</subject><subject>Pebbles</subject><subject>Quartzite</subject><subject>Shingle</subject><subject>Surf zone</subject><subject>Sussex coast</subject><subject>Tidal cycles</subject><subject>Tides</subject><subject>Weight</subject><subject>Weight loss</subject><issn>0749-0208</issn><issn>1551-5036</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkFtLwzAUx4MoOKffQCHgc2duzcUHQYY3GPiizyFtT1zH1tSkBfftzajsWThw4PwvB34IXVOyYJSyO1qWtCgJlwWXi9TTBRPmBM2O51M0I0qYgjCiz9FFShtCqNRCzdDDqvWA4aeHenBdvcfB47Ruu68t4ApcvYZ0j3fg0hjzEbcdTu0wYldFl9rQXaIz77YJrv72HH0-P30sX4vV-8vb8nFVVNyQoeCgiCTGO-0b0zBwxDeaMs0kaCFkyTRUTlNNVMO5qHVZeyJN3VRKgaBG8zm6nXr7GL5HSIPdhDF2-aVlOiNQopQsu8TkqmNIKYK3fWx3Lu4tJfZAyh6Q2AMSmyeTsplUjt1MsU0aQjxmmBRK5fKss0mv2hA6-F_pL7ssdEE</recordid><startdate>20020301</startdate><enddate>20020301</enddate><creator>Dornbusch, U.</creator><creator>Williams, R.B.G.</creator><creator>Moses, C.</creator><creator>Robinson, D.A.</creator><general>Coastal Education and Research Foundation</general><general>COASTAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC. [CERF]</general><general>Allen Press Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020301</creationdate><title>Life expectancy of shingle beaches: measuring in situ abrasion</title><author>Dornbusch, U. ; Williams, R.B.G. ; Moses, C. ; Robinson, D.A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b390t-3e70609fa8fd9d2ea0fd812826e8446528eba81807d334c85cf069cdb77e41983</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Abrasion</topic><topic>Attrition</topic><topic>beach</topic><topic>Beaches</topic><topic>cobbles</topic><topic>Engraving</topic><topic>Flint</topic><topic>Geomorphology</topic><topic>Life expectancy</topic><topic>Life span</topic><topic>Limestone</topic><topic>Offshore</topic><topic>Pebbles</topic><topic>Quartzite</topic><topic>Shingle</topic><topic>Surf zone</topic><topic>Sussex coast</topic><topic>Tidal cycles</topic><topic>Tides</topic><topic>Weight</topic><topic>Weight loss</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dornbusch, U.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, R.B.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moses, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, D.A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of coastal research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dornbusch, U.</au><au>Williams, R.B.G.</au><au>Moses, C.</au><au>Robinson, D.A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Life expectancy of shingle beaches: measuring in situ abrasion</atitle><jtitle>Journal of coastal research</jtitle><date>2002-03-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>sp1</issue><spage>249</spage><epage>255</epage><pages>249-255</pages><issn>0749-0208</issn><eissn>1551-5036</eissn><abstract>In situ abrasion of shingle beach material is a neglected area of study in coastal geomorphology, with reduction in beach volumes normally attributed to longshore and offshore drift. Results from field abrasion experiments conducted on flint shingle beaches on the East Sussex coast, southern England, show that in situ reductions in volume of beach material may be more significant than has been thought. Two beaches composed almost entirely of flint shingle were seeded with hard quartzite from a Devon beach and less resistant limestone from a South Wales beach that are readily distinguishable from the flint. The seeding commenced in January 2001. The pebbles, similar in size and shape to the natural flint shingle, were left in the surf zone at two sites. Prior to exposure the pebbles were engraved with a code number and weighed. At regular intervals those that could be re-found were re-weighed and returned to the beach. Abrasion rates were calculated for each pebble as percentage weight loss per tide. By the end of October 2001, more than 700 measurements of abrasion rates had been made from a total of 431 pebbles. Average limestone abrasion rates (0.0266% loss of weight per tide) were three times greater than those of quartzite (0.0082% per tide). Measurable abrasion rates were recorded over just a few tidal cycles, not only in severe wave conditions but also in much calmer weather. The maximum abrasion rates recorded exceeded 1% per tide for limestone.</abstract><cop>Fort Lauderdale</cop><pub>Coastal Education and Research Foundation</pub><doi>10.2112/1551-5036-36.sp1.249</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0749-0208 |
| ispartof | Journal of coastal research, 2002-03, Vol.36 (sp1), p.249-255 |
| issn | 0749-0208 1551-5036 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2811274562 |
| source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Abrasion Attrition beach Beaches cobbles Engraving Flint Geomorphology Life expectancy Life span Limestone Offshore Pebbles Quartzite Shingle Surf zone Sussex coast Tidal cycles Tides Weight Weight loss |
| title | Life expectancy of shingle beaches: measuring in situ abrasion |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T00%3A32%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Life%20expectancy%20of%20shingle%20beaches:%20measuring%20in%20situ%20abrasion&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20coastal%20research&rft.au=Dornbusch,%20U.&rft.date=2002-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=sp1&rft.spage=249&rft.epage=255&rft.pages=249-255&rft.issn=0749-0208&rft.eissn=1551-5036&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112/1551-5036-36.sp1.249&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26477811%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2811274562&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26477811&rfr_iscdi=true |