MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Linking Marine Ecosystem Response to Shoreline Armor Removal and Large Dam Removals in the Elwha River and Nearshore, Washington, USA

2024· article· en· W4405996172 on OpenAlexaff
Jill A. Shaffer, Bob Oxborrow, David S. Parks, Dominique G. Maucieri, Jamie Michel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Coastal Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDam removalShoreEnvironmental scienceEcosystemOceanographyHydrology (agriculture)FisheryGeologySedimentEcologyGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shaffer, J.A.; Oxborrow, B.; Parks, D.S.; Maucieri, D.G., and Michel, J., 2025. Linking marine ecosystem response to shoreline armor removal and large dam removals in the Elwha River and nearshore, Washington, USA. Journal of Coastal Research, 41(1), 1–15. Charlotte (North Carolina), ISSN 0749-0208. Large in-river dams and shoreline armor have a significant negative effect on coastal hydrodynamic and ecosystem processes. Armor removal (AR) is a well-documented shoreline restoration tool, and removal of large dams is proving to be an extremely effective tool to restore riverine ecosystem processes. However, nearshore ecosystem restoration associated with dam removals (DRs) is incomplete when shoreline impediments, including shoreline armoring and lower river alterations, remain, and linkages between dam and shoreline ARs are not well understood. In this study, nearshore ecosystem processes and function restoration response to large DRs and shoreline AR are assessed. Two nearly century-old large dams in the Elwha River watershed in the NW United States were removed during 2011–14, which liberated upward of 18 million tonnes (Mt) or approximately ∼9 million m3 of silt, sand, and gravel to sediment-starved, armored, and unarmored shorelines. Within 1 year of the initiation of DR, unarmored shorelines in the drift cell broadened, flattened, sediment fined, and large woody debris (LWD) volumes significantly increased. Armored shorelines continued to be steep and coarse grained. In 2016–17, approximately 4700 m3 of large riprap (shoreline armor) was removed from more than 650 m of the armored Elwha River east delta reach drift cell. Following AR, previously eroding shorelines broadened, sediment fined, LWD volumes increased significantly, and beach wrack metrics resembled non-armored beaches. These changes followed AR and did not occur at unarmored DR or control treatments. Invertebrate communities also responded to dam and armor removal (DAR) and showed increasing trends every year for 3 years after the project. It is concluded that only partial nearshore ecosystem restoration occurs from large DR when shoreline armoring that impairs nearshore hydrodynamic processes remains and that full ecosystem restoration of the nearshore associated with large DRs is obtained by restoring impaired shorelines along with DRs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Coastal ResearchSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207