Cited by 68Coastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesEcology and biodiversity studies

Floristic Development Patterns in a Restored Elk River Estuarine Marsh, Grays Harbor, Washington

Thom, Ronald M., Zeigler, Robert, Borde, Amy B.·2002·Restoration Ecology

Abstract

We describe the changes in the floral assemblage in a salt marsh after reconnection to estuarine tidal inundation. The Elk River marsh in Grays Harbor, Washington was opened to tidal flushing in 1987 after being diked for approximately 70 years. The freshwater pasture assemblage dominated by Phalarais arundinacea (reed canary grass) converted to low salt marsh vegetation within 5 years, with the major flux in species occurring between years 1 and 4. The system continued to develop through the 11‐year post‐breach monitoring period, although change after year 6 was slower than in previous years. The assemblage resembles a low salt marsh community dominated by Distichlis spicata (salt grass) and Salicornia virginica (pickleweed). Because of subsidence of the system during the period of breaching, the restored system remains substantially different from the Deschamsia cespitosa (tufted hairgrass)‐dominated reference marsh. Use of a similarity index to compare between years and also between reference and restored marshes in the same year revealed that similarity in floral composition between year 0 and subsequent years decreased with time. However, there was a period of dramatic dissimilarity during years 1 to 3 when the system was rapidly changing from a freshwater to estuarine condition. Similarity values between the reference and restored system generally increased with time. Somewhat surprisingly the reference marsh showed considerable between‐year variation in similarity, whi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1526-100x.2002.01038.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Rates of recovery at other marsh restoration sites near the Columbia River give credence to the concept that marshes may not yet exhibit typical wetland vegetation.

    “It is given credence by our understanding of the rates of recovery at other marsh restoration sites near the Columbia River (Frenkel andMorlan 1991, Thom et al. 2002).”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Thom et al. 2002

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 68

Authors
Thom, R. M., Zeigler, R., & Borde, A. B.
Affiliations
  • Battelle (US)
  • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (US)
Corresponding author
Thom, Ronald M.
Venue
Restoration Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-08-20
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
487-496
ISSN
  • 1061-2971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-100X
OpenAlex
W2117485957
Cited by
68
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Restoration Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Washington State University
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Coastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
Keywords
salt marsh restoration, species composition change, reed canary grass, Distichlis spicata, Salicornia virginica, tufted hairgrass, marsh subsidence, accretion rate, interannual variability, Grays Harbor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review