Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 353–366

A comparison of 28 natural and dredged material salt marshes in Texas with an emphasis on geomorphological variables

  • D.J. Shafer
  • W.J. Streever


Fourteen dredged material marshes andfourteen natural marshes along the Texas, USA, coastare compared on the basis of 1) edge: area ratios, 2)relative exposure index values, 3) elevation profiles,4) elevation of Spartina alterniflora, 5) soilorganic carbon content, 6) soil silt-clay content, and7) belowground plant biomass. Although edge: areacomparisons cannot detect certain types of differencesin geomorphology, comparisons clearly show thatdredged material marshes, on average, have fewer pondsand flooded depressions than natural marshes. Comparisons of relative exposure index values suggestthat wave protection structures associated with somedredged material marshes may be overbuilt. Elevationprofiles illustrate the potential for structures suchas berms to lead to differences between dredgedmaterial marshes and natural marshes, but they alsoshow the high variability in elevation profiles thatexists among both dredged material and naturalmarshes. S. alternifloraelevations in dredgedmaterial marshes are not significantly different fromthose of natural marshes. Soil organic carbon andsilt-clay content of dredged material marshes are notsignificantly different from those of natural marshes. Although belowground biomass of dredged materialmarshes is significantly lower than that of naturalmarshes, regression analysis suggests that belowgroundbiomass will increase over time. Findings reportedhere suggest several points that should be consideredduring planning and design of dredged material marshesin Texas: 1) if an objective of marsh construction isto mimic natural marsh geomorphology, methods toincrease the amount of unconnected edge need to bedeveloped, 2) methods of effectively summarizinggeomorphic characteristics need further development,and 3) there is some evidence suggesting thatprotective structures may be over-built, and the needfor substantial structural protection should bebalanced against the costs of structures and risk ofsite failure during project design. Lastly, a methodfor increasing the amount of unconnected edge thatinvolves excavation of bay bottom before placement ofdredged material is suggested.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barko, J.W., Smart, R.M., Lee, C.R., Landin, M.C., Sturgis, T.C. and Gordon, R.N. 1977. Establishment and Growth of Selected Freshwater and Coastal Marsh Plants in Relation to Characteristics of Dredged Sediments. Technical Report D-77-2, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Black, C.A. (ed.). 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I: Physical and Mineral Properties. Agronomy Society, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Broome, S.W., Seneca, E.D. and Woodhouse, W.W., Jr. 1988. Tidal salt marsh restoration. Aquatic Botany 32: 1–22.Google Scholar
  4. Cahoon, D.R., Reed, D.J. and Day, J.W. 1995. Estimating shallow subsidence in microtidal salt marshes of the southeastern United States: Kaye and Barghoorn revisited. International Journal of Marine Geology, Geochemistry and Geophysics 128: 1–9.Google Scholar
  5. Craft, C.B., Broome, S.W. and Seneca, E.D. 1988a. Nitrogen, phosphorus and organic carbon pools in natural and transplanted marsh soils. Estuaries 11: 272–280.Google Scholar
  6. Craft, C.B., Broome, S.W., Seneca, E.D. and Showers, W.J. 1988b. Estimating sources of soil organic matter in natural and transplanted estuarine marshes using stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 26: 633–641.Google Scholar
  7. Craft, C.B., Reader, J., Sacco, J.N. and Broome, S.W. 1999. Twenty-five years of ecosystem development of constructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. Ecological Applications 9: 1405–1419.Google Scholar
  8. Craft, C.B., Seneca, E.D. and Broome, S.W. 1991. Porewater chemistry of natural and created marsh soils. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 152: 187–200.Google Scholar
  9. Darnell, T.M., Smith, E.H., Tunnell, J.W., Jr., Withers, K. and Jones, E.R. 1997. The Influence of Landscape Features on Bird Use of Marsh Habitat Created for Whooping Cranes (Grus americana) through Beneficial Use of Dredged Material: Final Report. TAMU-CC-9704-CCS. Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, J. and Streever, B. 1999. Wetland Erosion Protection Structures: How Low Can You Go? Wetlands Research Bulletin CRWRP-1, No.1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.Google Scholar
  11. DeBolt, D.C. 1974. A high sample volume procedure for the colorimetric determination of soil organic matter. Communications of Soil Science and Plant Analysis 5: 131–137.Google Scholar
  12. Delaney, T.P. 1994. A Comparison of Physical Characteristics between Transplanted and Natural Spartina alterniflora Marshes in Lower Galveston Bay, Texas. Master's thesis, Texas A&M University, Galveston, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Keddy, P.A. 1982. Quantifying within-lake gradients of wave energy: Interrelationships of wave energy, substrate particle size, and shoreline plants in Axe Lake, Ontario. Aquatic Botany 14: 41–58.Google Scholar
  14. Kneib, R.T. 1978. Habitat, diet, reproduction and growth of the spot-fin killifish Fundulus luciae, from a North Carolina salt marsh. Copiea: 164–168.Google Scholar
  15. Kneib, R.T. 1984. Patterns in the utilization of the intertidal salt marsh by larvae and juveniles of Fundulus heteroclitus (Linnaeus) and Fundulus luciae (Baird), Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 83: 41–51.Google Scholar
  16. Kneib, R.T. 1987. Predation risk and use of intertidal habitats by young fishes and shrimps. Ecology 68: 379–386.Google Scholar
  17. Kneib, R.T. 1997. The role of tidal marshes in the ecology of estuarine nekton. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 35: 163–220.Google Scholar
  18. Kneib, R.T. and Wagner, S.L. 1994. Nekton use of vegetated marsh habitats at different stages of tidal inundation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 106: 227–238.Google Scholar
  19. Kurz, R.C., Fenqick, R.W. and Davis, K.A. 1998. A Comparison of Fish Communities in Restored and Natural Salt Marshes in Tampa Bay, Florida. Southwest Florida Water Management District Technical Report, Tampa, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Landin, M.C., Webb, J.W. and Knutson, P.L. 1989. Long-Term Monitoring of Eleven Corps of Engineers Habitat Development Field Sites built of Dredged Material, 1974-1987. Technical Report D-89-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.Google Scholar
  21. LaSalle, M.W., Landin, M.C. and Sims, J.G. 1991. Evaluation of the flora and fauna of a Spartina alterniflora marsh established on dredged material in Winyah Bay, South Carolina. Wetlands 11: 191–208.Google Scholar
  22. Lindau, C.W. and Hossner, L.R. 1981. Substrate characterization of an experimental marsh and three natural marshes. Soil Science Society of America Journal 45: 1171–1176.Google Scholar
  23. Melvin, S.L. and Webb, J.W. 1998. Differences in avian communities of natural and created Spartina alterniflora salt marshes. Wetlands 18: 59–69.Google Scholar
  24. Milne, B.T. 1991. Lessons from applying fractal models to landscape patterns. In: Turner, M.G. and Gardner, R.H. (eds.), Quantitative Landscape Ecology. pp. 199–238. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Minello, T.J. and Webb, J.W. 1997. Use of natural and created Spartina alterniflora salt marshes by fishery species and other aquatic fauna in Galveston Bay, Texas, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 151: 165–179.Google Scholar
  26. Minello, T.J. and Zimmerman, R.J. 1992. Utilization of natural and planted Texas salt marshes by fish and decapod crustaceans. Marine Ecology Progress Series 90: 273–285.Google Scholar
  27. Minello, T.J., Zimmerman, R.J. and Medina, R. 1994. The importance of edge for natant macrofauna in a created salt marsh. Wetlands 14: 184–198.Google Scholar
  28. Moy, L.D. and Levin, L.A. 1991. Are Spartina marshes a replaceable resource? A functional approach to evaluation of marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
  29. Peterson, G.W. and Turner, R.E. 1994. The value of salt marsh edge vs interior as a habitat for fish and decapod crustaceans in a Louisiana tidal marsh. Estuaries 17(1B): 235–262.Google Scholar
  30. Poach, M.E. and Faulkner, S.P. 1998. Soil phosphorus characteristics of created and natural wetlands in the Atchafalaya Delta, LA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 46: 195–203.Google Scholar
  31. Posey, M.H., Alphin, T.D. and Powell, C.M. 1997. Plant and infaunal communities associated with a created marsh. Estuaries 20: 42–47.Google Scholar
  32. Reed, D. J. 1992. Effect of weirs on sediment deposition in Louisiana coastal marshes. Environmental Management 16: 55–65.Google Scholar
  33. Reed, D.J. and Cahoon, D.R. 1992. The relationship between marsh surface topography and vegetation parameters in a deteriorating Louisiana Spartina alterniflora salt marsh. Journal of Coastal Research 8: 77–87.Google Scholar
  34. Sacco, J.N., Seneca, E.D. and Wentworth, T.R. 1994. Infaunal community development of artificially established salt marshes in North Carolina. Estuaries 17: 489–500.Google Scholar
  35. Seneca, E.D., Broome, S.W., Woodhouse, W.W., Cammen, L.M. and Lyon, J.T. 1976. Establishing Spartina alterniflora marsh in North Carolina. Environmental Conservation 3: 185–188.Google Scholar
  36. Shafer, D.J. and Yozzo, D.J. 1998. National Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessment to Tidal Fringe Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-16. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, R.D., Ammann, A., Bartoldus, C., and Brinson, M.M. 1995. An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. Technical Report WRP-DE-9. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Streever, W.J. 2000. Spartina alterniflora marshes on dredged material: A critical review of the ongoing debate over success. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8: 295–316.Google Scholar
  39. Streever, W.J. and Genders, A.J. 1997. The effect of improved tidal flushing and competitive interactions at the boundary between salt marsh and pasture. Estuaries 20: 804–815.Google Scholar
  40. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1954. Bulletin of the U.S. Beach Erosion Board 8: 21.Google Scholar
  41. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District. 1995. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway: Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Texas; Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Unnumbered November 1995 report, US. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Webb, J.W. and Newling, C.J. 1985. Comparison of natural and man-made salt marshes in Galveston Bay complex, Texas. Wetlands 4: 75–86.Google Scholar
  43. White, W.A., Calnan, T.R. and R.A. Morton. 1998. Evaluation of Marsh Creation and Restoration Projects and their Large-scale Application, Galveston-Trinity Bay System. Unnumbered report from The University of Texas at Austin (Bureau of Economic Geology) and Texas General Land Office (Coastal Division), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  44. Zar, J.H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  45. Zimmerman, R.J. and Minello, T.J. 1984. Densities of Penaeus aztecus, Penaeus setiferus, and other natant macrofauna in a Texas salt marsh. Estuaries 7: 421–433.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • D.J. Shafer
    • 1
  • W.J. Streever
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterVicksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations