Search for: All records

Abstract Bioturbation can increase time averaging by downward and upward movements of young and old shells within the entire mixed layer and by accelerating the burial of shells into a sequestration zone (SZ), allowing them to bypass the uppermost taphonomically active zone (TAZ). However, bioturbation can increase shell disintegration concurrently, neutralizing the positive effects of mixing on time averaging. Bioirrigation by oxygenated pore-water promotes carbonate dissolution in the TAZ, and biomixing itself can mill shells weakened by dissolution or microbial maceration, and/or expose them to damage at the sediment–water interface. Here, we fit transition rate matrices to bivalve age–frequency distributions from four sediment cores from the southern California middle shelf (50–75 m) to assess the competing effects of bioturbation on disintegration and time averaging, exploiting a strong gradient in rates of sediment accumulation and bioturbation created by historic wastewater pollution. We find that disintegration covaries positively with mixing at all four sites, in accord with the scenario where bioturbation ultimately fuels carbonate disintegration. Both mixing and disintegration rates decline abruptly at the base of the 20- to 40-cm-thick, age-homogenized surface mixed layer at the three well-bioturbated sites, despite different rates of sediment accumulation. In contrast, mixing and disintegration rates are very low in the upper 25 cm at an effluent site with legacy sediment toxicity, despite recolonization by bioirrigating lucinid bivalves. Assemblages that formed during maximum wastewater emissions vary strongly in time averaging, with millennial scales at the low-sediment accumulation non-effluent sites, a centennial scale at the effluent site where sediment accumulation was high but bioturbation recovered quickly, and a decadal scale at the second high-sedimentation effluent site where bioturbation remained low for decades. Thus, even though disintegration rates covary positively with mixing rates, reducing postmortem shell survival, bioturbation has theneteffect of increasing the time averaging of skeletal remains on this warm-temperate siliciclastic shelf. 

Abstract People often modify the shoreline to mitigate erosion and protect property from storm impacts. The 2 main approaches to modification are gray infrastructure (e.g., bulkheads and seawalls) and natural or green infrastructure (NI) (e.g., living shorelines). Gray infrastructure is still more often used for coastal protection than NI, despite having more detrimental effects on ecosystem parameters, such as biodiversity. We assessed the impact of gray infrastructure on biodiversity and whether the adoption of NI can mitigate its loss. We examined the literature to quantify the relationship of gray infrastructure and NI to biodiversity and developed a model with temporal geospatial data on ecosystem distribution and shoreline modification to project future shoreline modification for our study location, coastal Georgia (United States). We applied the literature‐derived empirical relationships of infrastructure effects on biodiversity to the shoreline modification projections to predict change in biodiversity under different NI versus gray infrastructure scenarios. For our study area, which is dominated by marshes and use of gray infrastructure, when just under half of all new coastal infrastructure was to be NI, previous losses of biodiversity from gray infrastructure could be mitigated by 2100 (net change of biodiversity of +0.14%, 95% confidence interval −0.10% to +0.39%). As biodiversity continues to decline from human impacts, it is increasingly imperative to minimize negative impacts when possible. We therefore suggest policy and the permitting process be changed to promote the adoption of NI.