4.5 Article

Reconciling models and measurements of marsh vulnerability to sea level rise

期刊

LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY LETTERS
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 140-149

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lol2.10230

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Geological Survey Land Change Science Climate RD Program
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship Program
  3. NSF LTER [1832221]
  4. NSF EAR-CAREER [1654374]
  5. NSF EAR-GLD [1529245]
  6. NSF OCE-SEES [1426981]
  7. U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area
  8. Division Of Earth Sciences
  9. Directorate For Geosciences [1529245] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study combines data from marshes along the U.S. Atlantic Coast and around the world to show that 70% of variability in marsh accretion rates can be explained by suspended sediment concentration and tidal range. The results help bridge the gap between models and measurements and confirm that sediment supply is the key determinant of wetland vulnerability at continental scales.
Tidal marsh survival in the face of sea level rise (SLR) and declining sediment supply often depends on the ability of marshes to build soil vertically. However, numerical models typically predict survival under rates of SLR that far exceed field-based measurements of vertical accretion. Here, we combine novel measurements from seven U.S. Atlantic Coast marshes and data from 70 additional marshes from around the world to illustrate that-over continental scales-70% of variability in marsh accretion rates can be explained by suspended sediment concentratin (SSC) and spring tidal range (TR). Apparent discrepancies between models and measurements can be explained by differing responses in high marshes and low marshes, the latter of which accretes faster for a given SSC and TR. Together these results help bridge the gap between models and measurements, and reinforce the paradigm that sediment supply is the key determinant of wetland vulnerability at continental scales.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据