4.7 Article

Living shorelines enhanced the resilience of saltmarshes to Hurricane Matthew (2016)

期刊

ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 871-877

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eap.1722

关键词

bulkhead; coastal resilience; erosion; green infrastructure; hardened shoreline; hurricane; living shoreline; marsh sill; rock sill; saltmarsh; Spartina alterniflora; storm

资金

  1. UNC Chapel Hill Royster Society Fellowship
  2. NC Sea Grant Coastal Policy Fellowship
  3. North Carolina Coastal Recreational Fishing License Grant
  4. NOAA's Office for Coastal Management under the National Coastal Management Program [NA15NOS4190091, NA13NOS4190053, NA12NOS4190090]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nature-based solutions, such as living shorelines, have the potential to restore critical ecosystems, enhance coastal sustainability, and increase resilience to natural disasters; however, their efficacy during storm events compared to traditional hardened shorelines is largely untested. This is a major impediment to their implementation and promotion to policy-makers and homeowners. To address this knowledge gap, we evaluated rock sill living shorelines as compared to natural marshes and hardened shorelines (i.e., bulkheads) in North Carolina, USA for changes in surface elevation, Spartina alterniflora stem density, and structural damage from 2015 to 2017, including before and after Hurricane Matthew (2016). Our results show that living shorelines exhibited better resistance to landward erosion during Hurricane Matthew than bulkheads and natural marshes. Additionally, living shorelines were more resilient than hardened shorelines, as they maintained landward elevation over the two-year study period without requiring any repair. Finally, rock sill living shorelines were able to enhance S.alterniflora stem densities over time when compared to natural marshes. Our results suggest that living shorelines have the potential to improve coastal resilience while supporting important coastal ecosystems.

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

4.7
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