Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The HRE and its major tidal wetland systems.

(a) Location of the HRE in New York State, northeastern USA; (b) overview of the tidal wetland systems of the HRE; (c)–(e) delineated tidal wetland systems in the HRE, from north to south. See S1 Table for a list of corresponding tidal wetland numbers and names.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

The frequency of occurrence of the model’s tidal wetland classes along an elevation gradient.

Data shown are for the northern portion of the study area, and exclude any values that were well outside of the elevation range of each wetland class. This pattern of elevational frequency for the three tidal wetland classes is representative of both the north and south sections of the study area.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Re-classification of the 2007 mapped wetland classes into SLAMM classes with model elevation ranges.

Elevation ranges are in Half Tide Units—the difference between Mean Higher High Water or Mean Lower Low Water and Mean Tide Level.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

SLR projections in centimeters (rounded to the nearest whole number) used in SLAMM simulations for the north and south sections of the HRE.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The three generic accretion curves used to parameterize high, medium and low marsh accretion rates in SLAMM models.

Elevation is in Half Tide Units [HTU]—the difference between Mean Higher High Water or Mean Lower Low Water and Mean Tide Level.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Change in wetland extent and wetland classes.

(a) MSL-LA, (b) MSLR-MA, (c) MSLR-HA, (d) HSLR-LA, (e) HSLR-MA, and (f) HSLR-HA scenarios.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 3.

Wetland change (ha and %) by time step in the MSLR-LA and HSLR-LA scenarios.

Numbers in each time step represent changes from the previous time step (with 2020 representing the change from the Time Zero simulation of year 2007).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 5.

Projections for the Piermont Marsh tidal wetland area (Fig 1c, #48).

(a) Time Zero (current conditions); MSLR with (b) HA, (c) MA, and (d) LA by year 2100; HSLR with (e) HA, (f) MA, and (g) LA by year 2100.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Projected wetland resilience and loss in HRE wetlands by year 2100.

Somewhat resilient wetlands are those that experience a change in class, while most resilient wetlands are those that maintain the same class through the century.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Wetland resilience and loss projected within the wetland systems of the HRE under the current trend scenario.

Somewhat resilient wetlands are those that experience a change in class, while most resilient wetlands are those that maintain the same class through the century. Fig 1c–1e shows the location of the tidal wetland systems in the estuary, and the S1 Table relates wetland system numbers to names.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Total tidal wetland area projected by the nine SLR and accretion scenarios.

These results include high marsh, low marsh and tidal flat, and exclude developed upland areas that were projected to convert to wetland.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Majority projections of uncertainty analysis iterations for Iona Island Marsh by year 2100.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Percent likelihood of the inundation of any type of exiting tidal wetland by the year 2100 at Iona Island Marsh.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Comparison of the current trend scenario deterministic model (MSLR-LA) and uncertainty analysis results.

Uncertainty analysis results include mean, 10th percentile, and 90th percentile for Iona Island Marsh’s (a) high marsh, (b) low marsh, and (c) tidal flat categories.

More »

Fig 11 Expand