Spatial pattern and edge characteristics in restored terrace versus reference salt marshes in Galveston Bay
-
Published source details
Feagin R.A. & Wu X.B. (2006) Spatial pattern and edge characteristics in restored terrace versus reference salt marshes in Galveston Bay. Wetlands, 26, 1004-1011.
Published source details Feagin R.A. & Wu X.B. (2006) Spatial pattern and edge characteristics in restored terrace versus reference salt marshes in Galveston Bay. Wetlands, 26, 1004-1011.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Reprofile/relandscape: brackish/salt marshes Action Link |
 |
-
Reprofile/relandscape: brackish/salt marshes
A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 2004 in two salt marshes in Texas, USA (Feagin & Wu 2006) found that relandscaped plots, where sediment had been pushed into ridges, contained less and more patchy marsh habitat than natural reference plots. Relandscaped plots contained less marsh habitat (low marsh: 6–7%; high marsh: <1–3%) than natural areas (low marsh: 27–37%; high marsh: <1–10%). Accordingly, relandscaped plots contained more open water (76–91%) than natural areas (20–53%). Five of seven landscape structural metrics also significantly differed between relandscaped and natural plots. Relandscaped plots were dominated by multiple small patches of low marsh with relatively complex outlines, whereas natural plots contained fewer, larger, clumped patches of low marsh with relatively simple outlines (see original paper for data). Methods: Vegetation was mapped from aerial photographs taken in 2004 (ground-truthed in May 2005). Vegetation was compared in three pairs of 4-ha plots/marsh. In each pair, one plot contained reprofiled marsh (submerged sediment pushed into ridges, in a grid pattern or arcs; date of intervention not clearly reported). The other contained natural, undisturbed marsh.
(Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)
