Saltmarsh erosion and restoration in south-east England¶
WOLTERS, M., BAKKER, J. P., BERTNESS, M. D., JEFFERIES, R. L., & MÖLLER, I. (2005). Saltmarsh erosion and restoration in south-east England: squeezing the evidence requires realignment. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(5), 844-851.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Coastal Squeeze
- A worked instance shows the substance: an English salt marsh fifty metres wide between a sea-wall and a high-water mark advancing five millimetres a year, needing twenty metres to support its bird community, has roughly sixty years of viable habitat — and only managed retreat (removing the wall to allow landward migration) preserves it in the long run, because only that removes the fixed rear that is the source of the squeeze.
This sourceQuantifies coastal-squeeze saltmarsh loss against fixed sea defences and managed realignment (sea-wall set-back / removal allowing landward migration) as the durable restoration response.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
The paper describes managed realignment as the response to coastal squeeze, but it treats squeeze as contested and does not show that only managed retreat preserves marsh long-term; the numbers are the entry's own.
“Whether the term coastal squeeze is appropriate to describe the loss is likely to remain contentious until the quantitative contributions of the different erosional processes are evaluated.”
- A worked instance shows the substance: an English salt marsh fifty metres wide between a sea-wall and a high-water mark advancing five millimetres a year, needing twenty metres to support its bird community, has roughly sixty years of viable habitat — and only managed retreat (removing the wall to allow landward migration) preserves it in the long run, because only that removes the fixed rear that is the source of the squeeze.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:7597f4e3b727 · see in the full table