Macro‐Tidal Salt Marsh Ecosystem Response to Culvert Expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to examine the vegetative, sedimentary, nekton and hydrologic conditions pre‐restoration and the initial 2 years post‐restoration at a partially restricted macro‐tidal salt marsh site. Replacement of the culvert increased tidal flow by 88%. This was instrumental in altering the geomorphology of the site, facilitating the creation of new salt marsh pannes, expansion of existing pannes in the mid and high marsh zones, and expansion of the tidal creek network by incorporating relict agricultural ditches. In addition, the increase in area flooded resulted in a significant increase in nekton use, fulfilling the mandate of a federal habitat compensation program to increase and improve the overall availability and accessibility of fish habitat. The restoration of a more natural hydrological regime also resulted in the die‐off of freshwater and terrestrial vegetation along the upland edge of the marsh. Two years post‐restoration, Salicornia europea (glasswort) and Atriplex glabriuscula (marsh orache), were observed growing in these die‐back areas. Similar changes in the vegetation community structure were not observed at the reference site; however, the latter did contain higher species richness. This study represents the first comprehensive, quantitative analysis of ecological response to culvert replacement in a hypertidal ecosystem. These data will contribute to the development of long‐term data sets of pre‐ and post‐restoration, and reference marsh conditions to determine if a marsh is proceeding as expected, and to help with models that are aimed at predicting the response of marshes to tidal restoration at the upper end of the tidal spectrum.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".