Journal of Coastal Conservation

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 105–116 | Cite as

Early development of vegetation in restored dune plant microhabitats on a nourished beach at Ocean City, New Jersey

Article

Abstract

Topography and vegetation of restored dunes on a developed barrier island were examined after a large-scale beach nourishment project. Restoration began in 1993 using sand-trapping fences andAmmophila breviligulata Fern. plantings. Subsequent growth of dunes was favored by installing new fences and suspending beach raking to accommodate nesting birds. Plant species richness, percent cover of vegetation, and height ofA. breviligulata were sampled in 1999 on seven shore perpendicular transects in six dune microhabitats (backdune, primary crest, mid-foredune, swale, seaward-most fenced ridge, incipient dune on the backbeach).

A total of 26 plant taxa were found at all seven sites. Richness and percent cover were greatest in the backdune and crest, especially in locations that predated the 1992 nourishment. Richness was greater where fences enhanced stabilization. Fences initially compensate for time and space and allow vegetation to develop rapidly, but maintenance nourishment is required to protect against wave erosion and ensure long-term viability of habitat. An expanded environmental gradient is an option, where beach nourishment provides space for a species-rich crest and backdune to develop, while the incipient dune remains dynamic. Options where space is restricted include a dynamic, full-sized seaward section of a naturally functioning dune (truncated gradient) or a spatially restricted sampler of a wider natural dune (compressed gradient) maintained using fences. Expanded and truncated gradients may become self-sustaining and provide examples of natural cycles of change. Compressed gradients provide greater species richness and flood protection for the available space, but habitats are vulnerable to erosion, and resident views may be impaired.

Keywords

Ammophila breviligulata Barrier island Beach nourishment Developed coast Environmental gradient Restoration Sand fence Species richness Stabilization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anon. 1966.Study of the New Jersey coastal inlets and beaches: Interim reporton Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Stone Harbor. US Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  2. Anon. 1989.Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, New Jersey Project: General design memorandum and final supplemental environmental impact statement. US Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  3. Anon. 1999.Tide Tables 1999, East coast of North and South America. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Amos, W.H. & Amos, S.H. 1985.Atlantic and Gulf Coasts: Audubon Society nature guides. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  5. Andre, H.M., Noti, M.-I. & Lebrun, P. 1994. The soil fauna: the other last biotic frontier.Biodivers. Conserv. 3: 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aronson, J., Dhillion, S. & Le Floc’h, E. 1995. On the need to select an ecosystem of reference, however imperfect: a reply to Pickett and Parker.Restoration Ecol. 3: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett, C.B. & Grizzle, R. 1999. A holistic approach to sustainability based on pluralism stewardship.Environ. Ethics 21: 23–42.Google Scholar
  8. Baye, P. 1990. Ecological history of an artificial foredune ridge on a northeastern barrier spit. In: Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D. (ed.)Proc. Canadian Symp. Coastal Sand Dunes 1990. pp. 389–403. National Research Council Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  9. Breton, F. & Esteban, P. 1995. The management and recuperation of beaches in Catalonia. In: Healy, M.G. & Doody, J.P. (eds.)Directions in European coastal management, pp. 511–517. Samara Publishing Ltd., Cardigan.Google Scholar
  10. Breton, F., Clapés, J., Marqués, A. & Priestly, G.K. 1996. The recreational use of beaches and consequences for the development of new trends in management: the case of the beaches in the Metropolitan Region of Barcelona.Ocean Coastal Manage. 32: 153–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breton, F., Esteban, P. & Miralles, E. 2000. Rehabilitation of metropolitan beaches by local administrations in Catalonia: new trends in sustainable coastal mangement.J. Coastal Conserv. 6: 97–106.Google Scholar
  12. Callicott, J.B., Crowder, L.B. & Mumford, K. 1999. Current normative concepts in conservation.Conserv. Biol. 13: 22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox, D. 1997. On the value of natural relations.Environ. Ethics 19:173–183.Google Scholar
  14. Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D. & Law, M.N. 1990. Seasonal patterns and controls on sediment supply to coastal foredunes, Long Point, Lake Erie. In: Nordstrom, K.F., Psuty, N.P. & Carter, R.W.G. (eds.)Coastal dunes: Form and process, pp. 177–200. John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  15. de Rooij-van der Goes, P.C.E.M., van Dijk, C., van der Putten, W.H. & Jungerius, P.D. 1997. Effects of sand movement by wind on nematodes and soil-borne fungi in coastal foredunes.J. Coastal Conserv. 3: 133–142.Google Scholar
  16. Doing, H. 1985. Coastal fore-dune zonation and succession in various parts of the world.Vegetatio 61: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ehrenfeld, J.G. 1990. Dynamics and processes of barrier island vegetation.Aquat. Sci. 2: 437–480.Google Scholar
  18. Ehrenfeld, J. G. 2000 Evaluating wetlands within an urban context.Ecol. Engr. 15: 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Falk, D.A. 1990. Discovering the future, creating the past: some reflections on restoration.Restor. Manage. Notes 8: 71.Google Scholar
  20. Hobbs, R.J. & Norton, D.A. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology.Restor. Ecol. 4: 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hosier, P.E. & Cleary, W.J. 1977. Cyclic geomorphic patterns of washover on a barrier island in southeastern North Carolina.Environ. Geol. 2: 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson, L.L., Lopukhine, N. & Hillyard, D. 1995. Ecological restoration: a definition and comments.Restor. Ecol. 3: 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackson, N.L. & Nordstrom, K.F. 1999. Spatial variation in source characteristics and aeolian trapping rates on a beach. In:Coastal sediments 99, pp. 1198–1206. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  24. Katz, E. 1999. A pragmatic re-consideration of anthropocentrism.Environ. Ethics 21: 377–390.Google Scholar
  25. Keddy, P.A. 1981. Experimental demography of a dune annual:Cakile edentula growing along an environmental gradient in Nova Scotia.J. Ecol. 69: 615–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Light, A. & Higgs, E.S. 1996. The politics of ecological restoration.Environ. Ethics 18: 227–247.Google Scholar
  27. Maun, M.A. 1998. Adaptation of plants to burial in coastal sand dunes.Can. J. Bot. 76: 713–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Melvin, S.M., Griffin, C.R. & MacIvor, L.H. 1991. Recovery strategies for piping plovers in managed coastal landscapes.Coastal Manage. 19: 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Minteer, B.A. & Manning, R.E. 1999. Pragmatism in environmental ethics: democracy, pluralism, and the management of nature.Environ. Ethics. 21: 191–207.Google Scholar
  30. Moreno-Casasola, P. 1986. Sand movement as a factor in the distribution of plant communities in a coastal dune system.Vegetatio 65: 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Naveh, Z. 1998. Ecological and cultural landscape restoration and the cultural evolution towards a post-industrial symbiosis between human society and nature.Restor. Ecol. 6: 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nordstrom, K.F. 2000.Beaches and dunes of developed coasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  33. Nordstrom, K.F., Lampe, R. & Vandemark, L.M. 2000. Reestablishing naturally functioning dunes on developed coasts.Environ. Manage. 25: 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palmer, M.A., Ambrose, R.F. & Poff, N.L. 1997. Ecological theory and community restoration ecology.Restor. Ecol. 5: 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pethick, J. 1996. The sustainable use of coasts: monitoring, modelling and management. In: Jones, P.S., Healy, M.G. & Williams, A.T. (eds.)Studies in European coastal management, pp. 83–92. Samara Publishing Ltd., Cardigan.Google Scholar
  36. Rhind, P.M. & Jones, P.S. 1999. Floristics and sonservation status of sand-dune communities in Wales.J. Coastal Conserv. 5: 31–42.Google Scholar
  37. Ritchie, W. & Penland, S. 1988. Rapid dune changes associated with overwash processes on the deltaic coast of south Louisiana.Mar. Geol. 81: 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson, E.F. 1977.Wave climate at selected locations along U.S. coasts. Tech. Rept. 77-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Belvoir, VA.Google Scholar
  39. van der Maarel, E. 1979. Environmental management of coastal dunes in The Netherlands. In Jefferies, R.L. & Davy, A.J. (eds.)Ecological processes in coastal environments, pp. 543–570. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  40. van der Wal, D. 1998. Effects of fetch and surface texture on aeolian sand transport on two nourished beaches.J. Arid Environ. 39: 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Westhoff, V. 1985. Nature management in coastal areas of Western Europe.Vegetatio 62: 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. White, P.S. & Walker, J.L. 1997. Approximating nature’s variation: selecting and using reference information in restoration ecology.Restor. Ecol. 5: 338–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EUCC; Opulus Press Uppsala 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural ResourcesRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Marine and Coastal SciencesRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  3. 3.Graduate Group in EcologyUniversity of California at DavisDavis

Personalised recommendations