Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-j5c6p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-04T07:29:34.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Restoration of Tidal Marshes

from Part III - Marsh Response to Stress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2021

By
John Day ,
David M. Burdick ,
Carles Ibáñez ,
William J. Mitsch ,
Tracy Elsey-Quirk  and
Sofia Rivaes
Edited by
Duncan M. FitzGerald  and
Zoe J. Hughes
Duncan M. FitzGerald
Affiliation:
Boston University
Zoe J. Hughes
Affiliation:
Boston University
Get access

Summary

Salt marshes have been lost or degraded as the intensity of human impacts to coastal landscapes has increased due to agriculture, transportation, urban and industrial development, and climate change. Because salt marshes have limited distribution and embody a variety of ecological functions that are important to humans (see ecosystem services, Chapter 15), many societies have recognized the need to preserve remaining marshes, restore those that have been degraded, and create new marshes in areas where they have been lost. An emerging and critical threat to tidal marshes across the globe is increasing rates of sea level rise and other aspects of climate change, which complicates but also heightens the urgency for restoration. By restoration we mean re-establishing natural conditions and the processes needed to support their functions, especially self-maintenance (see Box 17.1). Typically, salt marshes are self-maintaining, with salt tolerant plants, mineral sediments, and tidal flooding interacting to maintain elevation and ecological functions under dynamic conditions (Chapters 4, 7, 8).

Keywords

human impactsrestorationhydrologytidal exchangeriver floodingthin layer depositionliving shorelinesdiversionsdeltas
Type
Chapter
Information
Salt Marshes
Function, Dynamics, and Stresses
 , pp. 443 - 475
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamowicz, S. C. and O’Brien, K. M.. 2012. Drakes Island tidal restoration, science, community and compromise. In Roman, C. T. and Burdick, D. M. (eds.) Tidal Marsh Restoration: A Synthesis of Science and Practice. pp. 315–332. Washington, DC: Island Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, M. A., and Meselhe, E. A. 2010. The use of large water and sediment diversions in the lower Mississippi River (Louisiana) for coastal restoration. Journal of Hydrology, 387: 346e360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, M. A., Demas, C. R., Ebersole, B. A., Kleiss, B. A., Little, C. D., Meselhe, E. A., Powell, N. J., Pratt, T. C., and Vosburg, B. M. 2012. A water and sediment budget for the lower Mississippi–Atchafalaya River in flood years 2008–2010: Implications for sediment discharge to the oceans and coastal restoration in Louisiana. Journal of Hydrology, 432: 84–97.Google Scholar
Barnes, S., Bond, C., Burger, N., Anania, K., Strong, A., Weilant, S., and Virgets, S. 2015. Economic evaluation of coastal land loss in Louisiana. Lousiana State University and the Rand Corporation. Published online. http://coastal.la.gov/economic-evaluation-of-land-loss-in-louisiana/Google Scholar
Batker, D., de la Torre, I., Costanza, R., Day, J., Swedeen, P., Boumans, R., and Bagstad, K.. 2014. The threats to the values of ecosystem goods and services of the Mississippi Delta. In Day, J., Kemp, P., Freeman, A., and Muth, D. (eds.) Perspectives on the Restoration of the Mississippi Delta. pp. 155–174. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, R., Day, J. W., and Miller, C. 1984. Mississippi deltatic wetland survival: Sedimentation versus coastal submergence. Science, 224: 1093–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, M. D., and Roberts, H. H. 2009. Drowning of the Mississippi Delta due to insufficient sediment supply and global sea-level rise. Nature Geoscience, 2: 488–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boesch, D. F., Josselyn, M. N., Mehta, A. J., Morris, J. T., Nuttle, W. K., Simenstad, C. A., and Swift, D. J. Scientific assessment of coastal wetland loss, restoration and management in Louisiana. J. Coast. Res. 1994, i–v, 1–103.Google Scholar
Bozek, C. and Burdick, D. M. 2005. Impacts of seawalls on saltmarsh plant communities in the Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 13: 553–568.Google Scholar
Bromberg, K. D., and Bertness, M. D. 2005. Reconstructing New England salt marsh losses using historical maps. Estuaries, 28: 823–832.Google Scholar
Burdick, D. M., Dionne, M., Boumans, R. M., and Short, F. T. 1997. Ecological responses to tidal restorations of two northern New England salt marshes. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 4: 129–144.Google Scholar
Caffey, R. H. and Schexnayder, M. 2002. Fisheries implications of freshwater diversions., in: An Interpretive Topic Series on Louisiana Coastal Wetland Restoration, Coastal Wetland Planning, Preservation, and Restoration Act (eds.), National Sea Grant Library No. LSU-G-02-003.Google Scholar
Cahoon, D. R., Reed, D. J., Day, J. W. Jr., Steyer, G. D., Boumans, R. M., Lynch, J. C., McNally, D., and Latif, N. 1995. The influence of Hurricane Andrew on Sediment Distribution in Louisiana Coastal Marshes. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue, 21: 280–294.Google Scholar
Callaway, J. C., DeLaune, R. D. and Patrick, W. H. Jr. 1997. Sediment accretion rates from four coastal wetlands along the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Coastal Research, 13: 181–191.Google Scholar
Chabreck, R. H, and Palmisano, A. W. 1973. The effects of Hurricane Camille on the marshes of the Mississippi River Delta. Ecology, 54: 1118–1123.Google Scholar
Clewell, A. F., and Aronson, J. 2013. Ecological Restoration: Principles, Values, and Structures of an Emerging Profession. 2nd ed. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana (CPRA). Integrated Ecosystem Restoration and Hurricane Protection: Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2007.Google Scholar
CPRA (Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana). Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2012.Google Scholar
CPRA (Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana. Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast; Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2017.Google Scholar
Comín, F. A., Romero, J. A., Hernández, O., and Menéndez, M. 2001. Restoration of wetlands from abandoned rice fields for nutrient removal, and biological community and landscape diversity. Restoration Ecology, 9 (2): 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condrey, R., Hoffman, P., and Evers, D. 2014. The last naturally active delta complexes of the Mississippi River (LNDM): Discovery and implications. In Day, J., Kemp, P., Freeman, A., and Muth, D. (eds.) Perspectives on the Restoration of the Mississippi Delta. Estuaries of the World. pp. 33–50. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Cornu, C. E., and Sadro, S. 2002. Physical and functional responses to experimental marsh surface elevation manipulation in Coos Bay’s South Slough. Restoration Ecology, 10: 474–486.Google Scholar
Couvillion, B. R., Barras, J. A., Steyer, G. D., Sleavin, W. , Fischer, M., Beck, H., Trahan, N., Griffin, B., Heckman, D. 2017. Land Area Change in Coastal Louisiana from 1932 to 2010, U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Coverdale, T. C., Altieri, A. H., and Bertness, M. D. 2012. Belowground herbivory increases vulnerability of New England salt marshes to die-off. Ecology, 93: 2085–2094.Google Scholar
Craig, N. J., Turner, R. E., and Day, J. W. 1979. Land loss in coastal Louisiana (U.S.A.). Environmental Management, 3: 133–144.Google Scholar
Craft, C. 2015. Creating and Restoring Wetlands: From Theory to Practice. 1st edn. Elsevier, Inc. The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. B., Valiela, I., Pickart, M., Peacock, E. E., and Reddym, C. M. 2008. Long-term consequences of residual petroleum on salt marsh grass. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45: 1284–1292.Google Scholar
Davis, D. W. 1993. Crevasses on the Lower Course of the Mississippi River. Coastal Zone’93, vol. 1, pp. 360–378, July 19–23, New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar
Davis, D. W. 2000. Historical perspective on crevasses, levees, and the Mississippi River. In Colten, C. E. (ed.) Transforming New Orleans and its Environs. pp. 84–106. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Davis, J. L., Currin, C. A., O’Brien, C. Raffenburg, , and Davis, C. A. 2015. Living shorelines: Coastal resilience with a blue carbon benefit. PLoS ONE 10:e0142595. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142595Google Scholar
Day, J., Agboola, J., Chen, Z., D’Elia, C., Forbes, D., Giosan, L., Kemp, P., et al. 2016c. Approaches to defining deltaic sustainability in the 21st century. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 183: 275–291.Google Scholar
Day, J. W., Boesch, D. F., Clairain, E. J., Kemp, G. P., Laska, S. B., Mitsch, W. J., Orth, K., et al. 2007. Restoration of the Mississippi Delta: Lessons from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science, 315: 1679–1684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Day, J. W., Britsch, L., Hawes, S., Shaffer, G., Reed, D., and Cahoon, D. 2000. Pattern and process of land loss in the Mississippi Delta: A spatial and temporal analysis of wetland habitat change. Estuaries and Coasts, 23:425–438.Google Scholar
Day, J., Cable, J., Lane, R., and Kemp, G. 2016b. Sediment deposition at the Caernarvon crevasse during the great Mississippi flood of 1927: Implications for coastal restoration. Water, 8 (38): doi:10.3390/w8020038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, J., Colten, C., and Kemp, G. P. 2019. Mississippi Delta restoration and protection: shifting baselines, diminishing resilience, and growing non-sustainability. In: Wolanski, E. . Day, J, Elliott, M., and Ramnachandran, R. (eds.) Coasts and Estuaries: The Future. pp. 167–186. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Day, J. W. and Erdman, J.. 2018. Sustainable pathways for Mississippi delta restoration – Pathways to a Sustainable Future. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Day, J., Kemp, G. P., Freeman, A. M., and Muth, D. (Eds.). 2014. Perspectives on the Restoration of the Mississippi Delta – The Once and Future Delta. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, J. W., Lane, R. R., D’Elia, C. F., Wiegman, A. R. H., Rutherford, J. S., Shaffer, G. P., Brantley, C. G., and Kemp, G. P. 2016a. Large infrequently operated river diversions for Mississippi delta restoration. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 183: 292–303.Google Scholar
Deegan, L. A., Johnson, D. S., Warren, R. S., Peterson, B. J., Fleeger, J. W., Fagherazzi, S. and Wollheim, W. 2012. Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss. Nature 490: 388–392.Google Scholar
DeLaune, R. D., Kongchum, M., White, J. R., and Jugsujinda, A. 2013. Freshwater diversions as an ecosystem management tool for maintaining soil organic matter accretion in coastal marshes. Catena, 107: 139e144.Google Scholar
Edwards, K. R., and Proffitt, C. E. 2003. Comparison of wetland structural characteristics between created and natural salt marshes in southwest Louisiana, USA. Wetlands, 23(2): 344–356.Google Scholar
Edwards, K. R., and Mills, K. P. 2005. Aboveground and belowground productivity of Spartina alterniflora (Smooth Cordgrass) in natural and created Louisiana salt marshes. Estuaries, 28: 252–265.Google Scholar
Elsey-Quirk, T., and Adamowicz, S. 2016. Influence of physical manipulations on short-term salt marsh morphodynamics: Examples from the north and mid-Atlantic coast, USA. Estuaries and Coasts, 39:423–439.Google Scholar
Elsey‐Quirk, T., Middleton, B. A. and Proffitt, C. E. 2009. Seed dispersal and seedling emergence in a created and a natural salt marsh on the Gulf of Mexico coast in Southwest Louisiana, USA. Restoration Ecology, 17(3): 422–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, M. A., Cahoon, D. R., and Lynch, J. C. 1999. Restoring marsh elevation in a rapidly subsiding salt marsh by thin-layer deposition of dredged material. Ecological Engineering, 12: 189–205.Google Scholar
Ford, M. A., and Grace, J. B. 1998. Effects of vertebrate herbivores on soil processes, plant biomass, litter accumulation and soil elevation changes in a coastal marsh. Journal of Ecology, 86: 974–982.Google Scholar
Forès, E. 1992. Desecación de la laguna de la Encanyissada: un procedimiento para disminuir los niveles de eutrofia. Butlletí del Parc Nat Delta de l’Ebre, 7: 26–31.Google Scholar
Forès, E., Espanya, A., and Morales, F. 2002. Regeneración de la laguna costera de La Encanyissada (Delta del Ebro). Una experiencia de biomanipulación. Escosistemas 2002/2.Google Scholar
Frame, G. W., Mellander, M. K., Adamo, D. A.. 2006. Big Egg Marsh experimental restoration in Jamaica Bay, New York. In: Harmon, D. (ed.) People, Places, and Parks: Proceedings of the 2005 George Wright Society Conference on Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites. pp. 123–130. Hancock, Michigan. The George Wright Society.Google Scholar
Friess, D. A., Krauss, K. W., Horstman, E. M., Balke, T., Bouma, T. J., Galli, D. and Webb, E. L. 2012. Are all intertidal wetlands naturally created equal? Bottlenecks, thresholds and knowledge gaps to mangrove and saltmarsh ecosystems. Biological Reviews, 87: 346–366.Google Scholar
Gagliano, S. M., Meyer-Arendt, K. J., and Wicker, K. M. 1981. Land loss in the Mississippi River deltaic plain. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 31:295–300Google Scholar
Genua-Olmedo, A., Alcaraz, C., Caiola, N., and Ibáñez, C. 2016. Sea level rise impacts on rice production: The Ebro Delta as an example. Science of The Total Environment, 571: 1200–1210.Google Scholar
Giosan, L., Syvitski, J., Constantinescu, S., and Day, J. 2014. Protect the world’s deltas. Nature, 516: 31–33.Google Scholar
Gittman, R. K., Popowich, A. M., Bruno, J. F., and Peterson, C. H. 2014. Marshes with and without sills protect estuarine shorelines from erosion better than bulkheads during a category 1 hurricane. Ocean & Coastal Management, 102: 94–102.Google Scholar
Gittman, R. K., Peterson, C. H., Currin, C. A., Fodrie, F. J., Piehler, M. F. and Bruno, J. F. 2015. Living shorelines can enhance the nursery role of threatened estuarine habitats. Ecological Applications, 26: 249–263.Google Scholar
Graham, S. A., and Mendelssohn, I. A. 2013. Functional assessment of differential sediment slurry applications in a deteriorating brackish marsh. Ecological Engineering, 51: 264–274.Google Scholar
Guntenspergen, G. R., Cahoon, D. R., Grace, J., Stayer, G. D., Fournet, S., Townson, M. A., and Foote, A. L. 1995. Disturbance and recovery of Louisiana coastal marsh landscape from the impacts of Hurricane Andrew. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue, 21: 324–339.Google Scholar
Hackney, C. T., Brady, S., Stemmy, L., Boris, M., Dennis, C., Hancock, T., O’Bryon, M., Tilton, C. and Barbee, E. 1996. Does intertidal vegetation indicate specific soil and hydrologic conditions. Wetlands, 16: 89–94.Google Scholar
Hatton, R. S., DeLaune, R. D., and Patrick, W. H. Jr 1983. Sedimentation, accretion, and subsidence in marshes of Barataria Basin, Louisiana. Limnology and Oceanography, 28: 494–502.Google Scholar
Herrera-Silveira, J., Lara-Domíinguez, A., Day, J., Yáñez-Arancibia, A., Ojeda, S. M., Hernández, C. T., and Kemp, G. P. 2019. Ecosystem functioning and sustainable management in coastal systems with high reshwater input in the Southern Gulf of Mexico and Yucatan Peninsula. In: Wolanski, E., Day, J., Elliott, M., and Ramnachandran, R. (eds.) Coasts and Estuaries: The Future. pp. 377–397. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Hazelton, E. L. G., Mozdzer, T. J., Burdick, D. M., Kettenring, K. M., and Whigham, D. F. 2014. Phragmites australis management in the United States: 40 years of methods and outcomes. AoB Plants, 6: plu001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedges, P., Kriwoken, L. K. and Patten, K. 2003. A review of Spartina management in Washington State, US. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 41: 82–90.Google Scholar
Hinkle, R., and Mitsch, W. J. 2005. Salt marsh vegetation recovery at salt hay farm wetland restoration sites on Delaware Bay. Ecological Engineering, 25: 240–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibáñez, C., Canicio, A., Curcó, A., Day, J. W., and Prat, N. 1996b. Evaluation of vertical accretion and subsidence rates. MEDDELT Final Report, Ebre Delta Plain Working Group. University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, C., Canicio, A., and Day, J. W. 1997. Morphologic development, relative sea level rise and sustainable management of water and sediment in the Ebre Delta, Spain. Journal of Coastal Conservation 3:191–202.Google Scholar
Ibañez, C., James, P. Day, J. W., Day, J. N., and Prat, N. 2010. Vertical accretion and relative sea level rise in the Ebro delta wetlands (Catalonia, Spain). Wetlands, 30: 979–988.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, C., and Prat, N. 2003. The environmental impact of the Spanish Hydrological Plan on the lower Ebro river and delta. Water Resources Development, 19(3): 485–500.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, C., Prat, N., and Canicio, A. 1996a. Changes in the hydrology and sediment transport produced by large dams on the lower Ebro river and its estuary. Regulated Rivers, 12(1): 51–62.Google Scholar
Jefferies, R. L., Jano, A. P. and Abraham, K. F. 2006. A biotic agent promotes large-scale catastrophic change in the coastal marshes of Hudson Bay. Journal of Ecology, 94: 234–242.Google Scholar
Jones, S. F., Stagg, C. A. Krauss, K. W. and Hester, M. W. 2016. Tidal saline wetland regeneration of sentinel vegetation types in the northern Gulf of Mexico: An overview. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 174: A1–A10.Google Scholar
Keddy, P. A., Campbell, D., McFalls, T., Shaffer, G. P., Moreau, R., Dranguet, C., and Heleniak, R. 2007. The wetlands of Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas: Past, present and future. Environmental Reviews, 15: 43–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, G. P., Day, J. W. and Freeman, A. M. 2014. Restoring the sustainability of the Mississippi River Delta. Ecological Engineering, 65: 131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, P., Day, J., Rogers, D., Giosan, L., and Peyronnin, N. 2016. Enhancing mud supply to the Mississippi River delta: Dam bypassing and coastal restoration. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 183: 304–313.Google Scholar
Keown, M. P., Dardeau, E. A. Jr., and Causey, E. M. 1986. Historic trends in the sediment flow regime of the Mississippi River. Water Resources Research, 22: 1555–1564.Google Scholar
Kesel, R. H. 1989. The role of the Mississippi River in wetland loss in southeastern Louisiana, U.S.A. Environmental Geology, 13:183–193.Google Scholar
Kesel, R. H., Yodis, E. G., and McCraw, D. J. 1992. An approximation of the sediment budget of the lower Mississippi River prior to major human modification. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 17: 711–722.Google Scholar
Kim, W., Mohrig, D., Twilley, R., Paola, C., and Parker, G. 2009. Is it feasible to build new land in the Mississippi River Delta? Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 90: 373–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirwan, M. L., and Blum, L. K. 2011. Enhanced decomposition offsets enhancedIbáñez C, Prat N (2003) The environmental impact of the Spanish Hydrological Plan on the lower Ebro river and delta. Water Resources Development, 19(3): 485–500.Google Scholar
Ko, J., and Day, J. 2004. A review of ecological impacts of oil and gas development on coastal ecosystems in the Mississippi delta. Ocean and Coastal Management, 47: 671–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konisky, R. A., Burdick, D. M., Dionne, , and Neckles, M. H. A. 2006. A regional assessment of salt marsh restoration and monitoring in the Gulf of Maine. Restoration Ecology, 14: 516–525.Google Scholar
La Peyre, M. K., Gossman, B., and Piazza, B. P. 2009. Short- and long-term response of deteriorating brackish marshes and open-water ponds to sediment enhancement by thin-layer dredge disposal. Estuaries and Coasts, 32: 390–402.Google Scholar
LCWCRTF (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force). 2006. The 2006 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress on the Effectiveness of Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act Projects. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans.Google Scholar
LCWCRTF (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force). 2012. The 2012 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress on the Effectiveness of Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act Projects. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Lopez, J., Henkel, T., Moshogianis, A., Baker, A., Boyd, E., Hillmann, E., Connor, P., and Baker, D. B., 2014. Examination of deltaic processes of Mississippi River outlets Caernarvon Delta and Bohemia Spillway in southeast Louisiana. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 64: 707e708.Google Scholar
MacBroom, J. G., and Schiff, R. 2012. Predicting the hydrologic response of salt marshes to tidal restoration. In Roman, C.T. and Burdick, D.M. (eds.) Tidal Marsh Restoration: A Synthesis of Science and Practice. pp. 315–332. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G. 2015. Wetlands, 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
Morgan, P. A., Burdick, D. M., and Short, F. T. 2009. The functions and values of fringing salt marshes in northern New England, USA. Estuaries and Coasts, 32: 483–495.Google Scholar
Nagarkar, M., and Raulund-Rasmussen, K. 2016. An appraisal of adaptive management planning and implementation in ecological restoration: Case studies from the San Francisco Bay Delta, USA. Ecology and Society, 21(2): 43.Google Scholar
Naquin, J. D., Lui, K. B, McCloskey, T. A., and Bianchette, T. A., 2014. Storm deposition induced by hurricanes in a rapidly subsiding coastal zone. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue, 70: 308–313.Google Scholar
NAS (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2017. Effective Monitoring to Evaluate Ecological Restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Needelman, B. A., Crooks, S., Shumway, C. A. J., Titus, G. Takacs, R. and Hawkes, J. E. 2012. Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding to Climate Change through Coastal Habitat Restoration. Washington, DC: Restore America’s Estuaries.Google Scholar
Nicholls, R. J., and Cazenave, A. 2010. Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science, 328: 1517–1520.Google Scholar
Nicholls, R. J., Hutton, C. W., Lazar, , Allan, A., Adger, W., Adams, H., Wolff, J., Rahman, M. and Salehin, M. 2016. Integrated assessment of social and environmental sustainability dynamics in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna delta, Bangadesh. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 183: 370–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nittrouer, J. A., Best, J. L., Brantley, C., Cash, R. W., Czapiga, M., Kumar, P., and Parker, G., 2012. Mitigating land loss in coastal Louisiana by controlled diversion of Mississippi River sand. Nature Geoscience, 5: 534–537.Google Scholar
NOAA. 2015. Guidance for Considering the Use of Living Shorelines. Living Shorelines Workgroup. www.habitatblueprint.noaa.gov/living-shorelines/Google Scholar
Nyman, J. A., Crozier, C. R., and DeLaune, R. D. 1995. Roles and patterns of Hurricane sedimentation in an estuarine marsh landscape. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 40, 665–679.Google Scholar
Paola, C., Twilley, R., Edmonds, D., Kim, W., Mohrig, D., and Parker, G. 2011. Natural processes in delta restoration: Application to the Mississippi delta. Annual Reviews of Marine Science, 3: 67–91.Google Scholar
Peterson, S. B., Teal, J. M., and Mitsch, W. J. eds. 2005. Delaware Bay Salt Marsh Restoration. Ecological Engineering, Special issue, 25: 199–314.Google Scholar
Pethick, J. 2002. Estuarine and tidal wetland restoration in the United Kingdom: policy versus practice. Restoration Ecology, 10: 431–437.Google Scholar
Peyronnin, N. S., Green, M., Richards, C. P., Owens, A., Reed, D., Chamberlain, J., Groves, D. G., Rhinehart, K., and Belhadjali, K. 2013. Louisiana’s 2012 coastal master plan: Overview of a science-based and publicly informed decision-making process. Journal of Coastal Research, 67, 1–15.Google Scholar
Peyronnin, N. S., Caffey, R. H., Cowan, J. H. Jr., Justic, D., Kolker, A. S., Laska, S. B., McCorquodale, A., et al. 2017. Optimizing sediment diversion operations: Working group recommendations for integrating complex ecological and social landscape interactions. Water, 9: 368. DOI: 10.3390/w9060368Google Scholar
Pont, D., Day, J. and Ibáñez, C. 2017. The impact of two large floods (1993–1994) on sediment deposition in the Rhone delta: Implications for sustainable management. Science of the Total Environment, 609: 251–262.Google Scholar
Powers, S. P., and Boyer, K. E. 2013. Marine restoration ecology. In Bertness, M. D., Bruno, J., Silliman, B., and Stachowicz, J. et al. (eds.). Marine Community Ecology and Conservation. pp. 495–516. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Prado, P., Alcaraz, C., Jornet, L., Caiola, N. and Ibáñez, C. 2017. Effects of enhanced hydrological connectivity on Mediterranean salt marsh fish assemblages with emphasis on the endangered Spanish toothcarp (Aphanius iberus). PeerJ 5:e3009. DOI 10.7717/peerj.3009.Google Scholar
Proffitt, C. E., Chiasson, R. L., Owens, A. B., Edwards, K. R., and Travis, S. E. 2005. Spartina alterniflora genotype influences facilitation and suppression of high marsh species colonizing an early successional salt marsh. Journal of Ecology, 93(2): 404–416.Google Scholar
Proffitt, C. E., and Young, J. 1999. Salt marsh plant colonization, growth and dominance on large mudflats created using dredged sediments. In Rozas, L. R et al. (eds.) Recent Research in Coastal Louisiana: Natural System Function and Response to Human Influence. pp. 218–228. Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.Google Scholar
Reiner, E. L. 2012. Restoration of tidally restricted salt marshes at Rumney Marsh, Massachusetts. In Roman, C. T. and Burdick, D. M. (eds.) Tidal Marsh Restoration a Synthesis of Science and Practice. pp. 355–370. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Ray, G. L. 2007. Thin layer disposal of dredged material on marshes: A review of the technical and scientific literature. ERDC/EL Technical Notes Collection (ERDC/EL TN-07-1), Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 2007.Google Scholar
Restore America’s Estuaries. 1999. Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration. Arlington Virginia. www.edc.uri.edu/restoration/html/resource/rae-erf.pdfGoogle Scholar
Roberts, H. H. 1997. Dynamic changes of the holocene Mississippi River delta plain: The delta cycle. Journal of Coastal Research, 13(3): 605–627.Google Scholar
Rogers, B. D., Herke, W. H., and Knudsen, E. E. 1992. Effects of three different water-control structures on the movement of coastal fishes and macrocrustaceans. Wetlands, 12: 106–120.Google Scholar
Roman, C. T. and Burdick, D. M. 2012. Tidal Marsh Restoration: A Synthesis of Science and Management. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Rozsa, R. 1995. Tidal restoration in Connecticut. In Dreyer, G. D. and Niering, W. A. (eds.) Tidal Marshes of Long Island Sound: Ecology, History and Restoration. Bulletin no. 34. pp. 51–65. The Connecticut College Arboretum, New London, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Rutherford, J., Day, J., D’Elia, C., Wiegman, A., Willson, C., Caffey, R., Shaffer, G., Lane, R., and Batker, D. 2018. Evaluating trade-offs of a large, infrequent sediment diversion for restoration of a forested wetland in the Mississippi delta. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 203: 80–89.Google Scholar
Saltonstall, K. 2002. Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 99: 2445–2449.Google Scholar
Sasser, C., Holm, G., Evers, E., and Shaffer, G. 2018. The nutria in Louisiana: A current and historical perspective. In Day, J. and Erdman, J. (eds.) Mississippi Delta Restoration – Pathways to a Sustainable Future. pp. 39–60. Springer, Glam, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Saucier, R. R. 1963. Recent Geomorphic History of the Pontchartrain basin. Coastal Studies Series No. 9. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA.Google Scholar
Simenstad, C. A., Reed, D. and Ford, M. 2006. When is restoration not? Incorporating landscape-scale processes to restore self-sustaining ecosystems in coastal wetland restoration. Ecological Engineering, 26: 27–39.Google Scholar
Simenstad, C. A., and Thom, R. M. 1996. Functional equivalency trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-Hi-Te estuarine wetland. Ecological Applications, 6: 38–56.Google Scholar
Slocum, M. G., Mendelssohn, I. A., and Kuhn, N. L., 2005. Effects of sediment slurry enrichment on salt marsh rehabilitation: plant and soil responses over seven years. Estuaries, 28: 519–528.Google Scholar
Smith, S. M., Roman, C. T., James-Pirri, M., Chapman, K., Portnoy, , and Gwilliam, J. E. 2009. Responses of plant communities to incremental hydrologic restoration of a tide-restricted salt marsh in southern New England (Massachusetts, USA). Restoration Ecology, 17: 606–618.Google Scholar
Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Tucson Az: Society for Ecological Restoration International.Google Scholar
Staver, L. W. 2015. Ecosystem dynamics in tidal marshes constructed with fine grained, nutrient rich dredged material. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
Streever, 2000. Spartina alterniflora marshes on dredge material: a critical review of the ongoing debate over success. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 8: 295–316.Google Scholar
Swenson, E. M., and Turner, R. E. 1987. Spoil banks: effects on a coastal marsh water-level regime. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 24:599–609.Google Scholar
Syvitski, J., Kettner, A., Overeem, I., Hutton, E., Hannon, M. Brakenridge, G., Day, J., et al. 2009. Sinking deltas due to human activities. Nature Geoscience, 2: 681–686.Google Scholar
Teal, J., and Teal, M. 1969. Life and Death of the Salt Marsh. Ballantine Books, New York.Google Scholar
Teal, J. M, and Weinstein, M. P. 2002. Ecological engineering, design, and construction considerations for marsh restorations in Delaware Bay, USA. Ecological Engineering, 18: 607–618.Google Scholar
Tockner, K., Malard, F., and Ward, J. V. 2000. An extension of the flood pulse concept. Hydrological Processes, 14: 2861–2883.Google Scholar
Turner, R. E. and Streever, B. 2002. Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration: Northern Gulf of Mexico. Kugler Publications, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Twilley, R. R., Couvillion, B. R., Hossain, I., Kaiser, C., Owens, A. B., and Steyer, G. D. 2014. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Assessment and Restoration Program: The role of ecosystem forecasting in evaluating restoration planning in the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain. American Fisheries Society Symposium. v. 64, p. 29–46.Google Scholar
Twilley, R. R., Couvillion, B. R., Hossain, I., Kaiser, C., Owens, A. B., Steyer, G. D., and Visser, J. M. 2018 Coastal Louisiana ecosystem assessment and restoration program: The role of ecosystem forecasting in evaluating restoration planning in the Mississippi river deltaic plain. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 64, 29–46.Google Scholar
Twilley, R. R., and Rivera-Monroy, V. 2009. Sediment and nutrient tradeoffs in restoring Mississippi River Delta: restoration vs. eutrophication. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 141: 39–44.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, M., Dionne, M. and Edgerly, J. 2008. Physical factors mediate effects of grazing by a non-indigenous snail species on saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) in New England marshes. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 746–752.Google Scholar
USGCRP. 2017. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., Fahey, D.W., Hibbard, K.A., Dokken, D.J., Stewart, B.C., and Maycock, T.K. (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Valoppi, L., 2018, Phase 1 studies summary of major findings of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, South San Francisco Bay, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018–1039, 58 p., plus appendixes, https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181039.Google Scholar
Wiegman, A., Day, J., D’Elia, C., Rutherford, J., Morris, J., Roy, E., Lane, R., Dismukes, D., and Synder, B. 2017. Modeling impact of sea-level rise, oil price, and management strategy on the costs of sustaining Mississippi delta marshes with hydraulic dredging. STOTEN.Google Scholar
Wilber, P. 1993. Managing Dredged Material Via Thin-Layer Disposal in Coastal Marshes. USACE Technical Note EEDP-01-32.Google Scholar
Williams, P. B., and Orr, M. K. 2002. Physical evolution of restored breached levee salt marshes in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Restoration Ecology, 10: 527–542.Google Scholar
Wolters, M., Garbutt, A. and Bakker, J. P. 2005. Salt-marsh restoration: evaluating the success of de-embankments in north-west Europe. Biological Conservation, 123: 249–268.Google Scholar
Wolters, M., Garbutt, A., Bekker, R. M., Bakker, J. P, and Carey, P. D. 2008. Restoration of saltmarsh vegetation in relation to site suitability, species pool and dispersal traits. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45: 904–912.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×