Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 96–106 | Cite as

Surface elevation dynamics in vegetatedSpartina marshes versus unvegetated tidal ponds along the Mid-Atlantic coast, USA, with implications to waterbirds

  • R. Michael Erwin
  • Donald R. Cahoon
  • Diann J. Prosser
  • Geoffrey M. Sanders
  • Phillippe Hensel


Mid Atlantic coastal salt marshes contain a matrix of vegetation diversified by tidal pools, pannes, and creeks, providing habitats of varying importance to many species of breeding, migrating, and wintering waterbirds. We hypothesized that changes in marsh elevation were not sufficient to keep pace with those of sea level in both vegetated and unvegetatedSpartina alterniflora sites at a number of mid lagoon marsh areas along the Atlantic Coast. We also predicted that northern areas would suffer less of a deficit than would southern sites. Beginning in August 1998, we installed surface elevation tables at study sites on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, southern New Jersey, and two locations along Virginia's eastern shore. We compared these elevation changes over the 4–4.5 yr record with the long-term (>50 yr) tidal records for each locale. We also collected data on waterbird use of these sites during all seasons of the year, based on ground surveys and replicated surveys from observation platforms. Three patterns of marsh elevation change were found. At Nauset Marsh, Cape Cod, theSpartina marsh surface tracked the pond surface, both keeping pace with regional sea-level rise rates. In New Jersey, the ponds are becoming deeper while marsh surface elevation remains unchanged from the initial reading. This may result in a submergence of the marsh in the future, assuming sea-level rise continues at current rates. Ponds at both Virginia sites are filling in, while marsh surface elevation rates do not seem to be keeping pace with local sea-level rise. An additional finding at all sites was that subsidence in the vegetated marsh surfaces was less than in unvegetated areas, reflecting the importance of the root mat in stabilizing sediments. The implications to migratory waterbirds are significant. Submergence of much of the lagoonal marsh area in Virginia and New Jersey over the next century could have major negative (i.e., flooding) effects on nesting populations of marsh-dependent seaside sparrowsAmmodramus maritimus, saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrowsAmmodramus caudacutus, black railsLaterallus jamaicensis, clapper railsRallus longirostris. Forster's ternsSterna forsteri, common ternsSterna hirundo, and gull-billed ternsSterna nilotica. Although short-term inundation of many lagoonal marshes may benefit some open-water feeding ducks, geese, and swans during winter, the long-term ecosystem effects may be detrimental, as wildlife resources will be lost or displaced. With the reduction in area of emergent marsh, estuarine secondary productivity and biotic diversity will also be reduced.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Aubrey, D. G. andP. E. Speer. 1985. A study of non-linear tidal propagation in shallow in let estuarine systems. 1. Observations.Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 21:185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America, 2nd edition. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  3. Bertness, M. 1999. The Ecology of Atlantic Shorelines, 1st edition, Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. Boumans, R. M. andJ. W. Day, Jr., 1993. High precision measurements of sediment elevation in shallow coastal areas using a sedimentation-erosion table.Estuaries 16:375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, S., C. Hickey, andB. Harrington (eds.). 2000. United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, 1st edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  6. Burger, J. 1984. Abiotic factors affecting migrant, shorebirds, p. 1–73.In J. Burger and B. Olla (eds.), Shorebirds: Migration and Foraging Behavior, Behavior of Marine Animals, Volume 6. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Cahoon, D. R., J. W. Day, Jr., andD. Reed. 1999. The influence of surface and shallow subsurface soil processes on wetland elevation: A synthesis.Current Topics in Wetland Biogeochemistry 3:72–88.Google Scholar
  8. Cahoon, D. R., M. A. Ford, andP. F. Hensel. 2004. Ecogeomorphology ofSpartina patens-dominated tidal marshes: Soil organic matter accumulation, marsh elevation dynamics, and disturbance, p. 247–266.In S. Fagherazzi, M. Marani, and L. K. Blum (eds.), The Ecogeomorphology of Tidal Marshes, Coastal Estuaries Studies, Volume 59. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Cahoon, D. R., P. Hensel, J. Rybczyk, K. L. McKee, E. Proffitt, andB. C. Perez. 2003. Mass tree mortality leads to mangrove peat collapse at Bay Islands, Honduras after Hurricane Mitch.Journal of Ecology 91:1093–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cahoon, D. R., J. C. Lynch, P. Hensel, R. Boumans, B. C. Perez, B. Segura, andJ. W. Day, Jr. 2002. High-precision measurements of wetland sediment elevation: I. Recent improvements to the sedimentation-erosion table.Journal of Sedimentary Research 72:730–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cahoon, D. R., J. C. Lynch, andR. M. Knaus. 1996. Improved cryogenic coring device for sampling wetland soils.Journal of Sedimentary Research 66:1025–1027.Google Scholar
  12. Cahoon, D. R. andD. J. Reed. 1995. Relationships among marsh surface topography, hydroperiod, and soil accretion in a deteriorating Louisiana salt marsh.Journal of Coastal Research 11:357–369.Google Scholar
  13. Cahoon, D. R., D. J. Reed, andJ. W. Day, Jr. 1995. Estimating shallow subsidence in microtidal salt marshes of the southeastern United States: Kaye and Barghoorn revisited.Marine Geology 128:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cahoon, D. R. andR. E. Turner. 1989. Accretion and canal impacts in a rapidly subsiding wetland: II. Feldspar marker horizon technique.Estuaries 12:260–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Callaway, J. C., J. A. Nyman, andR. D. Delaune. 1996. Sediment accretion in coastal wetlands: A review and a simulation model of processes.Current Topics in Wetland Biogeochemistry 2:2–23.Google Scholar
  16. Chabreck, R. A. 1988. Coastal Marshes: Ecology and Wildlife Management, 1st edition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  17. Christansen, T. 1998. Sediment deposition on a tidal salt marsh Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Virginia.Google Scholar
  18. Emery, K. O. andD. G. Aubrey. 1991. Sea Levels, Land Levels, and Tide Gauges, 1st edition. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Erwin, R. M., G. M. Sanders, andD. J. Prosser. 2004. Changes in lagoonal marsh morphology at selected northeastern Atlantic coast sites of significance to migratory waterbirds.Wetlands 24:891–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erwin, R. M., G. M. Sanders, D. J. Prosser andD. R. Cahoon. 2006. High tides and rising seas: Potential effects on estuarine waterbirds.In R. Greenberg, J. Maldonado, S. Droege, and M. V. McDonald (eds.) Vertebrates of Tidal Marshes: Ecology, Evolution and Conservation. Studies in Avian Biology. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas,In press.Google Scholar
  21. Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, andG. Page. 2002. Global climate change and sea level rise: Potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds.Waterbirds 25:173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giorgi, F., B. Hewitson, J. Christiansen, M. Hulme, H. Von Storch, P. Whetton, R. Jones, L. Mearns, andC. Fu. 2001. Regional climate information—Evaluation and projections, p. 583–638.In J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. A. Johnson (eds.), The Scientific Basis. Contributions of Working Group I to the Thrid Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press U.K.Google Scholar
  23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Summary for Policymakers: Climate Change 2001. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  24. Kearney, M. S., J. C. Stevenson, andL. G. Ward. 1994. Spatial and temporal changes in marsh vertical accretion rates at Monie Bay: Implications for sea level rise.Journal of Coastal Research 10:1010–1020.Google Scholar
  25. Longcore, J., D. McAuley, G. Hepp, and J. Rhymer. 2000. American Black Duck. The Birds of North America, No. 481, Philadelphia Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  26. Mitchell, L., S. Gabrey, P. P. Marra, andR. M. Erwin. 2006. Impacts of marsh management on salt marsh birds.In R. Greenberg, J. Maldonado, S. Droege, and M. V. McDonald (eds.), Vertebrates of Tidal Marshes: Ecology, Evolution and Conservation. Studies in Avian Biology. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas.In press.Google Scholar
  27. Mitsch, W. J. andJ. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2nd edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Nicholls, R. andS. Leatherman. 1996. Adapting to sea-level rise: Relative sea-level trends to 2100 for the United States.Coastal Management 24:301–324.Google Scholar
  29. Nichols, J. D., J. E. Hines, J. R. Sauer, F. W. Fallon, J. E. Fallon, andP. J. Heglund. 2000. A double-observer approach for estimating detection probability and abundance in avian point counts.Auk 117:393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ott, R. L. 1993. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, 1st edition. Duxbury Press, Belmont, California.Google Scholar
  31. Palmer, R. S. (ed.), 1976. Handbook of North American Birds: Volume 2, Waterfowl. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  32. Pethick, J. S. 1981. Long-term accretion rates on tidal marshes.Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 61:571–577.Google Scholar
  33. Reid, W. V. andM. C. Trexler. 1992. Responding to potential impacts of climate change on U.S. coastal diversity.Coastal Management 20:117–142.Google Scholar
  34. Roman, C. T., J. A. Peck, J. R. Allen, J. W. King, andP. G. Appleby. 1997. Accretion of a New England (U.S.A.) salt marsh in response to inlet migration, storms, and sea-level rise.Easturine Coastal and Shelf Science 45:717–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rottenborn, S. 1996. The use of coastal agricultural fields in Virginia as foraging habitat by shorebirds.Wilson Bulletin 108:783–796.Google Scholar
  36. Rybczyk, J. andD. R. Cahoon. 2002. Estimating the potential for submergence for two wetlands in the Mississippi, River delta.Estuaries 25:985–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SAS Institute. 2000. SAS/STAT user's Guide, Version 8. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  38. Titus, J. G. (ed.). 1988. Greenhouse effects, sea level rise, and coastal wetlands. U.S. Government Printing Office, EPA-230-05-86-013. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  39. Titus, J. G. 1991. Greenhouse effect and coastal wetland policy: How Americans could abandon an area the size of Massachusetts.Environmental Management 15:39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Titus, J. G., R. A. Park, S. P. Leatherman, J. R. Weggel, M. S. Greene, P. W. Mausel M. S. Trehan, S. Brown, C. Grant, andG. W. Yohe. 1991. Greenhouse effect and sea level rise: Loss of land and the cost of holding back the sea.Coastal Management 19:171–204.Google Scholar

Sources of Unpublished Materials

  1. Roman, C. S. personal communication. National Park Service, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882.Google Scholar
  2. Smith, P. unpublished data. Virginia Coast Reserve Long Term Ecological Research laboratory, P.O. Box 55, Cheriton, Virginia 23316.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Michael Erwin
    • 1
  • Donald R. Cahoon
    • 2
  • Diann J. Prosser
    • 2
  • Geoffrey M. Sanders
    • 2
  • Phillippe Hensel
    • 2
  1. 1.U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesville
  2. 2.Bellsville Agricultural Research Center-EastU.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterBellsville
  3. 3.National Capital ParksWashington, D.C.

Personalised recommendations