Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 67–77 | Cite as

Loss of Coastal Strand Habitat in Southern California: The Role of Beach Grooming

Article

Abstract

We investigated the role of beach grooming in the loss of coastal strand ecosystems. On groomed beaches, unvegetated dry sand zones were four times wider, macrophyte wrack cover was >9 times lower, and native plant abundance and richness were 15 and >3 times lower, respectively, compared to ungroomed beaches. Experimental comparisons of native plant performance were consistent with our survey results: although initial germination was similar, seed bank, survival, and reproduction were significantly lower in groomed compared to ungroomed plots. Rates of aeolian sand transport were significantly higher in groomed plots, while native plants or wrack placed in that zone reduced sand transport. Our results suggest beach grooming has contributed to widespread conversion of coastal strand ecosystems to unvegetated sand. Increased conservation of these threatened coastal ecosystems could help retain sediment, promote the formation of dunes, and maintain biodiversity, wildlife, and human use in the face of rising sea levels.

Keywords

Native plants Aeolian sand transport Biodiversity Beach Beach zones Ecotone Coastal dune Hummock Macrophyte wrack Kelp 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank D. Chakos, M. Lastra, M. Lippincott, J. Tarmann, and A. Webster for their dedication and enthusiastic assistance with all aspects of field and laboratory work. We gratefully acknowledge K. Samis for her measurements of beaches on the northern Channel Islands in 2003. We extend special thanks to V. Gardner, Resource Ecologist for California State Parks, Channel Coast District, for making this research possible at San Buenaventura State Beach. We thank V. Gardner, C. Roye, and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. This research was supported by funding to J. Dugan from (1) the California Sea Grant Program Project # R/CZ-174 under NOAA Grant #NA06RG0142 through NOAA’s National Sea Grant College Program, U. S. Department of Commerce; (2) California Department of Parks and Recreation, Channel Coast District; and (3) the Santa Barbara Coastal LTER funded by the National Science Foundation (Award # OCE-9982105 and OCE-0620276). The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of California Sea Grant, California State Parks, the National Science Foundation or the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Conflicts of Interest Notification

The authors hereby state that they do not have a financial relationship with the organization that sponsored the research and that no potential conflicts of interest exist to our knowledge and understanding. We maintain full control of all primary data and we agree to allow the journal to review our data if requested.

References

  1. Anderson, W.B., and G.A. Polis. 1999. Nutrient fluxes from water to land: Seabirds affect plant nutrient status on Gulf of California islands. Oecologia 118(3): 324–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbour, M.G. 1992. Life at the leading edge: The beach plant syndrome. In Coastal plant communities of Latin America, ed. U. Seeliger, 291–307. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Barbour, M.G., and T.M. De Jong. 1977. Response of west coast beach taxa to salt spray, seawater inundation and soil salinity. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 104(1): 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbour, M.G., and A.F. Johnson. 1988. Beach and dune. In Terrestrial vegetation of California, ed. M.G. Barbour, and J. Major, 223–262. New York: Wiley Interscience. Reprinted with supplement by California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, B.O., and D.J. Sherman. 1999. Coastal dune dynamics: Problems and prospects. In Aeolian environments, sediments and landforms, ed. A.S. Goudie, I. Livingston, and S. Stokes, 71–104. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Bird, E.C.F. 2000. Coastal geomorphology: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A., and A. McLachlan. 2002. Sandy shore ecosystems and the threats facing them: Some predictions for the year 2025. Environmental Conservation 29: 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, J.R. 1996. Coastal zone management handbook. Florida: CRC.Google Scholar
  9. Defeo, O., A. McLachlan, D. Schoeman, T. Schlacher, J. Dugan, A. Jones, M. Lastra, and F. Scapini. 2009. Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: A review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 81: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Jong, T.M. 1979. Water and salinity relations of Californian beach species. Journal of Ecology 67: 647–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Jong, T.M., and M.G. Barbour. 1979. Contributions to the biology of Atriplex leucophylla, a C4 Californian beach plant. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 106: 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, J.M. Engle, D.L. Martin, D.M. Richards, G.E. Davis, K.D. Lafferty, and R.F. Ambrose. 2000. Macrofauna communities of exposed sandy beaches on the Southern California mainland and Channel Islands. In Fifth California Islands Symposium, 339–346. Outer Continental Shelf Study, US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service 99-0038, http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/medn/symposia/5th%20California%20Islands%20Symposium%20%281999%29/Proceedings/.
  13. Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, M. McCrary, and M. Pierson. 2003. The response of macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed sandy beaches of southern California. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 58S: 133–148.Google Scholar
  14. Feagin, R.A., D.J. Sherman, and W.E. Grant. 2005. Coastal erosion, global sea-level rise, and the loss of sand dune plant habitats. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(3): 359–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fink, B.H., and J.B. Zedler. 1990. Maritime stress tolerance studies of California dune perennials. Madrono 37(3): 220–213.Google Scholar
  16. Goossens, D., Z. Offer, and G. London. 2000. Wind tunnel and field calibration of five aeolian sand traps. Geomorphology 35: 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greaver, T.L., and L.L. Sternberg. 2007. Fluctuating deposition of ocean water drives plant function on coastal sand dunes. Global Change Biology 13: 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harley, C.D.G., A.R. Hughes, K.M. Hultgren, B.G. Miner, C.J.B. Sorte, C.S. Thornber, L.F. Rodriguez, L. Tomanek, and S.L. Williams. 2006. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters 9: 228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hesp, P. 2002. Foredunes and blowouts: Initiation, geomorphology and dynamics. Geomorphology 48: 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hobday, A. 2000. Abundance and dispersal of drifting kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera rafts in the Southern California Bight. Marine Ecology Progress Series 195: 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klein, Y.L., J.P. Osleeb, and M.R. Viola. 2004. Tourism-generated earnings in the coastal zone: A regional analysis. Journal of Coastal Research 20: 1080–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Komar, P.D. 1998. Beach processes and sedimentation. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Lastra, M., H.M. Page, J.E. Dugan, D.M. Hubbard, and I.F. Rodil. 2008. Processing of allochthonous macrophyte subsidies by sandy beach consumers: Estimates of feeding rates and impacts on food resources. Marine Biology 154: 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Llewellyn, P.J., and S.E. Shackley. 1996. The effects of mechanical beach-cleaning on invertebrate populations. British Wildlife 7: 147–155.Google Scholar
  25. Looney, P.B., and D.J. Gibson. 1995. The relationship between the soil seed bank and above ground vegetation of a coastal barrier island. Journal of Vegetation Science 6: 825–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin, K.T., R. Speer-Blank, J. Pommerening, K. Flannery, and K. Carpenter. 2006. Does beach grooming harm grunion eggs? Shore and Beach 74: 17–22.Google Scholar
  27. Nordstrom, K.F. 2000. Beaches and dunes on developed coasts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nordstrom, K.F., R. Lampe, and L.M. Vandemark. 2000. Reestablishing naturally functioning dunes on developed coasts. Environmental Management 25(1): 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nordstrom, K.F., N.L. Jackson, A.H.F. Klein, D.J. Sherman, and P.A. Hesp. 2006. Offshore aeolian transport across a low foredune on a developed barrier island. Journal of Coastal Research 22(5): 1260–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nordstrom, K.F., N.L. Jackson, J.M. Hartman, and M. Wong. 2007. Aeolian sediment transport on a human-altered foredune. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32: 102–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Page, G.W., J.S. Warriner, J.C. Warriner, and P.W.C. Paton. 1995. Snowy plover. In The birds of North America, No. 154, ed. A. Poole, and G. Gill, 1–23. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences.Google Scholar
  32. Reed, D.C., A. Rassweiler, and K.K. Arkema. 2008. Biomass rather than growth rate determines variation in new primary production by giant kelp. Ecology 89(9): 2493–2505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roig i Munar, F.X. 2004. Analisis y consecuencias de la modificacion artificial del perfil playa-duna provocado por el effecto mecanico de su limpieza. Investigaciones Geograficas 33: 87–103.Google Scholar
  34. Schlacher, T.A., J.E. Dugan, D.S. Schoeman, M. Lastra, A. Jones, F. Scapini, A. McLachlan, and O. Defeo. 2007. Sandy beaches at the brink. Diversity & Distributions 13(5): 556–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schlacher, T.A., D.S. Schoeman, J. Dugan, M. Lastra, A. Jones, F. Scapini, and A. McLachlan. 2008. Sandy beach ecosystems: Key features, management challenges, climate change impacts, and sampling issues. Marine Ecology 29: 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slott, J.M., A.B. Murray, A.D. Ashton, and T.J. Crowley. 2006. Coastline responses to changing storm patterns. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L18404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whitmarsh, D., J. Northen, and S. Jaffry. 1999. Recreational benefits of coastal protection: A case study. Marine Policy 23: 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marine Science InstituteUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations