Flow–Vegetation Interaction in a Living Shoreline Restoration and Potential Effect to Mangrove Recruitment

Hydrodynamic differences among shorelines with no vegetation, reference vegetation (mature mangrove), and vegetation planted on restored shoreline (marsh grass and young mangrove) were compared based on field observations 6.5 years after living shoreline restoration. Mean current velocities and wave...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Kelly M. Kibler, Vasileios Kitsikoudis, Melinda Donnelly, David W. Spiering, Linda Walters
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	MDPI AG 2019-06-01
Series:	Sustainability
Subjects:	ecohydraulics living shoreline restoration mangrove flow-vegetation interaction recruitment
Online Access:	https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3215

id	doaj-ac62665880c34d1bb12d871d20642dca
record_format	Article
spelling	doaj-ac62665880c34d1bb12d871d20642dca2020-11-25T00:16:47ZengMDPI AGSustainability2071-10502019-06-011111321510.3390/su11113215su11113215Flow–Vegetation Interaction in a Living Shoreline Restoration and Potential Effect to Mangrove RecruitmentKelly M. Kibler0Vasileios Kitsikoudis1Melinda Donnelly2David W. Spiering3Linda Walters4Department of Civil, Environmental & Construction Engineering and National Center for Integrated Coastal Research, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816, USADepartment of Civil, Environmental & Construction Engineering, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816, USADepartment of Biology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816, USADepartment of Civil, Environmental & Construction Engineering, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816, USADepartment of Biology and National Center for Integrated Coastal Research, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816, USAHydrodynamic differences among shorelines with no vegetation, reference vegetation (mature mangrove), and vegetation planted on restored shoreline (marsh grass and young mangrove) were compared based on field observations 6.5 years after living shoreline restoration. Mean current velocities and waves were more strongly attenuated in vegetation (from channel to shoreline: 80−98% velocity decrease and 35−36% wave height reduction) than in bare shoreline (36−72% velocity decrease, 7% wave height reduction, ANOVA: <i>p</i> < 0.001). Normalized turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rates were significantly higher in reference vegetation (0.16 ± 0.03 m<sup>−1</sup>) than in restored (0.08 ± 0.02 m<sup>−1</sup>) or bare shoreline (0.02 ± 0.01 m<sup>−1</sup>, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Significant differences in the current attenuation and turbulence dissipation rates for the reference and planted vegetation are attributed to the observed differences in vegetation array and morphology. Although the hydrodynamic analyses did not suggest limitations to recruitment, mangrove seedlings were not observed in restored vegetation, while four recruited seedlings/m were counted in the reference vegetation. The lack of recruitment in the restored shoreline may suggest a lag in morphological habitat suitability (slope, sediment texture, organic matter content) after restoration. Although hydrodynamics suggest that the restored site should be functionally similar to a reference condition, thresholds in habitat suitability may emerge over longer timescales.https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3215ecohydraulicsliving shorelinerestorationmangroveflow-vegetation interactionrecruitment
collection	DOAJ
language	English
format	Article
sources	DOAJ
author	Kelly M. Kibler Vasileios Kitsikoudis Melinda Donnelly David W. Spiering Linda Walters
spellingShingle	Kelly M. Kibler Vasileios Kitsikoudis Melinda Donnelly David W. Spiering Linda Walters Flow–Vegetation Interaction in a Living Shoreline Restoration and Potential Effect to Mangrove Recruitment Sustainability ecohydraulics living shoreline restoration mangrove flow-vegetation interaction recruitment
author_facet	Kelly M. Kibler Vasileios Kitsikoudis Melinda Donnelly David W. Spiering Linda Walters
author_sort	Kelly M. Kibler
title	Flow–Vegetation Interaction in a Living Shoreline Restoration and Potential Effect to Mangrove Recruitment
title_short	Flow–Vegetation Interaction in a Living Shoreline Restoration and Potential Effect to Mangrove Recruitment
title_full	Flow–Vegetation Interaction in a Living Shoreline Restoration and Potential Effect to Mangrove Recruitment
title_fullStr	Flow–Vegetation Interaction in a Living Shoreline Restoration and Potential Effect to Mangrove Recruitment
title_full_unstemmed	Flow–Vegetation Interaction in a Living Shoreline Restoration and Potential Effect to Mangrove Recruitment
title_sort	flow–vegetation interaction in a living shoreline restoration and potential effect to mangrove recruitment
publisher	MDPI AG
series	Sustainability
issn	2071-1050
publishDate	2019-06-01
description	Hydrodynamic differences among shorelines with no vegetation, reference vegetation (mature mangrove), and vegetation planted on restored shoreline (marsh grass and young mangrove) were compared based on field observations 6.5 years after living shoreline restoration. Mean current velocities and waves were more strongly attenuated in vegetation (from channel to shoreline: 80−98% velocity decrease and 35−36% wave height reduction) than in bare shoreline (36−72% velocity decrease, 7% wave height reduction, ANOVA: <i>p</i> < 0.001). Normalized turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rates were significantly higher in reference vegetation (0.16 ± 0.03 m<sup>−1</sup>) than in restored (0.08 ± 0.02 m<sup>−1</sup>) or bare shoreline (0.02 ± 0.01 m<sup>−1</sup>, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Significant differences in the current attenuation and turbulence dissipation rates for the reference and planted vegetation are attributed to the observed differences in vegetation array and morphology. Although the hydrodynamic analyses did not suggest limitations to recruitment, mangrove seedlings were not observed in restored vegetation, while four recruited seedlings/m were counted in the reference vegetation. The lack of recruitment in the restored shoreline may suggest a lag in morphological habitat suitability (slope, sediment texture, organic matter content) after restoration. Although hydrodynamics suggest that the restored site should be functionally similar to a reference condition, thresholds in habitat suitability may emerge over longer timescales.
topic	ecohydraulics living shoreline restoration mangrove flow-vegetation interaction recruitment
url	https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3215
work_keys_str_mv	AT kellymkibler flowvegetationinteractioninalivingshorelinerestorationandpotentialeffecttomangroverecruitment AT vasileioskitsikoudis flowvegetationinteractioninalivingshorelinerestorationandpotentialeffecttomangroverecruitment AT melindadonnelly flowvegetationinteractioninalivingshorelinerestorationandpotentialeffecttomangroverecruitment AT davidwspiering flowvegetationinteractioninalivingshorelinerestorationandpotentialeffecttomangroverecruitment AT lindawalters flowvegetationinteractioninalivingshorelinerestorationandpotentialeffecttomangroverecruitment
_version_	1725382636621266944

Flow–Vegetation Interaction in a Living Shoreline Restoration and Potential Effect to Mangrove Recruitment

Similar Items