Table 1.
Resilience categories and metrics.
[Note to printing production team: if possible, please separate the three broad categories in the final published table, either using gray shading for the first and third as we have done here, or by putting thick boundaries around each of the three categories, or a double line between the second and third].
Fig 1.
Best management options to maximize resilience to relative sea level rise for each marsh type.
Green text indicates a positive condition, red reflects a negative one. From a restoration or adaptation practitioner’s perspective the more resilience categories that are shown in red for each marsh type, the more costly a project will likely be to implement.
Table 2.
Summary of marsh resilience score results for tidal marsh units in coastal regions of the contiguous US.
[Note to print production team: if possible, please using shading for alternate rows, as we have done here. Otherwise please ensure there is sufficient spacing between rows so that they can easily be distinguished. Also, please be sure not to replace the hyphens in the first column, both in the top row “Current Condition–Vulnerability–Adaptive Capacity” or in the subsequent ones “High–Low–High” etc. It is important to be clear that there are three separate scores, described in the top row and assessed in the subsequent ones].
Fig 2.
Regional resilience of marshes as assessed by metrics of current condition, vulnerability to relative sea level rise and marsh adaptation potential.
The two categories that have a positive influence on tidal marsh resilience to relative sea level rise—current condition and adaptive capacity—range on a positive scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high). Collectively, metrics in the vulnerability category have a negative influence on resilience, so this category is scored on a negative scale from -1 (low vulnerability) to -10 (high vulnerability). MHHW stands for Mean Higher High Water. Country outline: United States Census Bureau.
Fig 3.
Average marsh resilience score for each coastal state and each National Estuarine Research Reserve within the contiguous US.
Reserves with a standard deviation of zero have their boundaries contained all within one HUC-12 boundary. Country outline: United States Census Bureau.
Fig 4.
Resilience scores for marsh units of the Gulf Islands National Seashore in Mississippi and Florida.
Colored polygons represent MUCs assessed in our national application of the framework. Islands labeled with letters are individual subwatershed boundaries within the Gulf Islands National Seashore. Country outline: United States Census Bureau. World Imagery source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community.
Fig 5.
Resilience scores for each marsh unit, resilience category, and composite metric in the Gulf Islands National Seashore.
Letters identify marsh units within the National Seashore, as displayed in Fig 4. The two categories that have a positive influence on tidal marsh resilience to relative sea level rise—current condition and adaptive capacity—range on a positive scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high). Collectively, metrics in the vulnerability category have a negative influence on resilience, so this category is scored on a negative scale from -1 (low vulnerability) to -10 (high vulnerability). This figure serves as an example of detailed results generated by applying our tidal marsh assessment framework.