Impact of Hurricane Irma on Coral Reef Sediment Redistribution at Looe Key Reef, Florida, USA
Abstract. Understanding event-driven sediment transport in coral reef environments is essential to assessing impacts to reef species, habitats, restoration, and mitigation, yet there remains a global knowledge gap due to limited quantitative studies. Hurricane Irma made landfall in the Lower Florida Keys with sustained 209 km h-1 winds and greater than 8 m waves on 10 September 2017, directly impacting the Florida Reef Tract (FRT), and providing an opportunity to perform a unique comprehensive, quantitative assessment of its impact on coral reef structure and sediment redistribution. We used lidar and multibeam derived digital elevation models (DEMs) collected before and after the passing of Hurricane Irma over a 15.98 km2 area along the Lower FRT including Looe Key Reef to quantify changes in seafloor elevation, volume, and structure due to storm impacts. Elevation change was calculated at over 4-million point-locations across 10 habitat types within this study area for two time periods using data collected from 1) approximately one year before the passing of Irma and three to six months following the storm’s impact, and 2) from three to six months after, and up to 16.5 months after, the storm. Elevation-change data were then used to generate Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) models in ArcMap to calculate changes in seafloor volume during each time-period. Our results indicate that Hurricane Irma was primarily a depositional event that increased mean seafloor elevation and volume at this study site by 0.34 m and up to 5.4 Mm3, respectively. Sediment was transported primarily west-southwest (WSW) and downslope modifying geomorphic seafloor features including the migration of sand waves and rubble fields, formation of scour marks in shallow seagrass habitat, and burial of seagrass and coral-dominated habitat. Approximately 16.5 months after Hurricane Irma (during a 13-month period between 2017 and 2019), net erosion was observed across all habitats with mean elevation-change of -0.15 m and net volume change up to -2.46 Mm3. Rates of elevation change during this post-storm period were one to two orders of magnitude greater than decadal and multi-decadal rates of change in the same location, and changes showed erosion of approximately 50 % of sediment deposited during the storm event as seafloor sediment distribution began to re-equilibrate to non-storm sea state conditions. Our results suggest higher resolution elevation-change data collected over seasonal and annual time periods could enhance characterization and understanding of short-term and long-term rates and processes of seafloor change and help guide post-storm recovery and restoration of benthic habitats in topographically complex coral reef systems.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(3925 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3925 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3000', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Jan 2024
Review of Yates et al.
General commentsThis is a very good paper based on a rare data set that is well processed, providing both original results and a very informative discussion. Processing is simple in its principles, but rigorous. This simplicity makes the paper easy to follow, even with a rich set of results.
The study has different scales of analysis and at the habitat-scale, it brings very interesting details. Also, some of the results could not really be foreseen (fig 5) and this brings a lot to the hurricane and coral reef literature, even if it specific to a Florida reef.
The reader will have access to detailed results that are not necessary to review here, but the study certainly provides a unique database in the context of Caribbean-Atlantic reefs, and as it claims, it fills some major gaps.
Really I don’t see much to complain about with this paper, except two minor comments. It could be publish as is, which is something I have seen only twice in my reviewing career.
Specific comments :
Two minor hiccups:
L122 : I would not say Florida Keys, or the FRT in particular, is a barrier reef ; No way. Rather call them shelf reefs.
L541 (and elsewhere): Accretion: I would not use this word here, as I would consider it as the process of incorporating the sediments and other calcareous material in the reef structures itself, hence a hardening process different than sediment deposition and movements.
Then, may be no need to talk about restoration (L32, abstract). This is the trendy word of the moment in coral reef literature and beyond. Everyone is using it, which bothers me, and it is not justified here. Or add a specific technical paragraph in the Discussion in how there results could really help restoration (only one hint on restoration taking into account the results is provided in the conclusion).
Technical corrections: none, did not see any errors.
END OF REVIEW
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3000-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kimberly Yates, 13 Feb 2024
Very many thanks for your helpful review, perspectives, and comments. We’ve provided responses to your specific comments in a supplemental pdf file attached to this comment (filename: Yates-et-al_EOS_Ocean_Sciences_Reviewer-1_Response_2-13-2024).
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kimberly Yates, 13 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3000', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jan 2024
Here, we are given a welcome and specialized analysis of a particular reef within the Florida Reef Tract, with pre-storm, post-storm, and post-recovery LIDAR observations informing the transient dynamics associated with sedimentation incurred by hurricane stresses. While the results are mostly reasonable, the proposed analysis provides real-world evidence alongside data analysis that can inform future studies of highly transient sedimentary impacts on coral reefs.
The science is conducted very well, paper and analyses are very well written, and I only have minor comments to suggest in how the paper is framed, as well as a few grammatical/editing notes:
L52: The discussion on seagrass here feels more of an afterthought, rather than given full appreciation of the dynamical role it plays in the ecosystem alongside corals. I suggest either elaborating upon it further, or leaving the discussion as an entirely physical analysis.
L57-60: This sentence runs on and is hard to read.
L265, 270-271, 286: Units appear wrong - should be Mm instead of mM.
The first part of the discussion could also be heavily improved with more care taken towards structure and a central message. Often the messaging became diluted because focus would shift significantly through a paragraph. The final paragraphs are structured very well.
L539-568: A break around L554 may be helpful, separating patterns of erosion and corresponding deposition from the review of the underlying mechanisms.
L590 is an important point to make as it also validates potential concerns I would have regarding the reliability of LIDAR as a post-hurricane measurement device. However, the current placement of the note seems slightly out of place and suggests a much less pressing role in the ultimate analysis.
L608 I believe this is a typo and should be ‘aerial.’’
L613-615 This line that suggests conflict between the current work and a previous work feels unnecessary, because while the pattern of motion for major landforms may have been oriented WSW, at the larger scale, the primary source of sediment originally deposited onto LKR may have arrived from the south, and the following motion of the sand lobe was not a part of the during hurricane motion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3000-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Kimberly Yates, 13 Feb 2024
Very many thanks for your helpful review, perspectives, and comments. We’ve provided responses to your specific comments in a supplemental pdf file attached to this comment (filename: Yates-et-al_EOS_Ocean_Sciences_Reviewer-2_Response_2-13-2024).
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Kimberly Yates, 13 Feb 2024
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3000', Bernadette Sloyan, 30 Jan 2024
I encourage the authors to consider the reviewers comments and submit a revised manuscript and point-by-point rely that addresses the reviewers comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3000-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Kimberly Yates, 30 Jan 2024
Thank you for the guidance. We will respond to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3000-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Kimberly Yates, 30 Jan 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3000', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Jan 2024
Review of Yates et al.
General commentsThis is a very good paper based on a rare data set that is well processed, providing both original results and a very informative discussion. Processing is simple in its principles, but rigorous. This simplicity makes the paper easy to follow, even with a rich set of results.
The study has different scales of analysis and at the habitat-scale, it brings very interesting details. Also, some of the results could not really be foreseen (fig 5) and this brings a lot to the hurricane and coral reef literature, even if it specific to a Florida reef.
The reader will have access to detailed results that are not necessary to review here, but the study certainly provides a unique database in the context of Caribbean-Atlantic reefs, and as it claims, it fills some major gaps.
Really I don’t see much to complain about with this paper, except two minor comments. It could be publish as is, which is something I have seen only twice in my reviewing career.
Specific comments :
Two minor hiccups:
L122 : I would not say Florida Keys, or the FRT in particular, is a barrier reef ; No way. Rather call them shelf reefs.
L541 (and elsewhere): Accretion: I would not use this word here, as I would consider it as the process of incorporating the sediments and other calcareous material in the reef structures itself, hence a hardening process different than sediment deposition and movements.
Then, may be no need to talk about restoration (L32, abstract). This is the trendy word of the moment in coral reef literature and beyond. Everyone is using it, which bothers me, and it is not justified here. Or add a specific technical paragraph in the Discussion in how there results could really help restoration (only one hint on restoration taking into account the results is provided in the conclusion).
Technical corrections: none, did not see any errors.
END OF REVIEW
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3000-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kimberly Yates, 13 Feb 2024
Very many thanks for your helpful review, perspectives, and comments. We’ve provided responses to your specific comments in a supplemental pdf file attached to this comment (filename: Yates-et-al_EOS_Ocean_Sciences_Reviewer-1_Response_2-13-2024).
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kimberly Yates, 13 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3000', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jan 2024
Here, we are given a welcome and specialized analysis of a particular reef within the Florida Reef Tract, with pre-storm, post-storm, and post-recovery LIDAR observations informing the transient dynamics associated with sedimentation incurred by hurricane stresses. While the results are mostly reasonable, the proposed analysis provides real-world evidence alongside data analysis that can inform future studies of highly transient sedimentary impacts on coral reefs.
The science is conducted very well, paper and analyses are very well written, and I only have minor comments to suggest in how the paper is framed, as well as a few grammatical/editing notes:
L52: The discussion on seagrass here feels more of an afterthought, rather than given full appreciation of the dynamical role it plays in the ecosystem alongside corals. I suggest either elaborating upon it further, or leaving the discussion as an entirely physical analysis.
L57-60: This sentence runs on and is hard to read.
L265, 270-271, 286: Units appear wrong - should be Mm instead of mM.
The first part of the discussion could also be heavily improved with more care taken towards structure and a central message. Often the messaging became diluted because focus would shift significantly through a paragraph. The final paragraphs are structured very well.
L539-568: A break around L554 may be helpful, separating patterns of erosion and corresponding deposition from the review of the underlying mechanisms.
L590 is an important point to make as it also validates potential concerns I would have regarding the reliability of LIDAR as a post-hurricane measurement device. However, the current placement of the note seems slightly out of place and suggests a much less pressing role in the ultimate analysis.
L608 I believe this is a typo and should be ‘aerial.’’
L613-615 This line that suggests conflict between the current work and a previous work feels unnecessary, because while the pattern of motion for major landforms may have been oriented WSW, at the larger scale, the primary source of sediment originally deposited onto LKR may have arrived from the south, and the following motion of the sand lobe was not a part of the during hurricane motion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3000-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Kimberly Yates, 13 Feb 2024
Very many thanks for your helpful review, perspectives, and comments. We’ve provided responses to your specific comments in a supplemental pdf file attached to this comment (filename: Yates-et-al_EOS_Ocean_Sciences_Reviewer-2_Response_2-13-2024).
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Kimberly Yates, 13 Feb 2024
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3000', Bernadette Sloyan, 30 Jan 2024
I encourage the authors to consider the reviewers comments and submit a revised manuscript and point-by-point rely that addresses the reviewers comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3000-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Kimberly Yates, 30 Jan 2024
Thank you for the guidance. We will respond to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3000-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Kimberly Yates, 30 Jan 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 340 | 112 | 33 | 485 | 15 | 12 |
- HTML: 340
- PDF: 112
- XML: 33
- Total: 485
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Zachery Fehr
Selena Johnson
David Zawada
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3925 KB) - Metadata XML