DOCSLIB.ORG

Performance Measures for a Mississippi River Reintroduction Into the Forested Wetlands of Maurepas Swamp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Performance Measures for a Mississippi River Reintroduction Into the Forested Wetlands of Maurepas Swamp Prepared in cooperation with the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) of Louisiana Performance Measures for a Mississippi River Reintroduction Into the Forested Wetlands of Maurepas Swamp Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5036 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Coastal swamp forest in Louisiana undergoing a transition between a closed canopy and open canopy habitat, representing the primary habitat targeted for a Mississippi River reintroduction into Maurepas Swamp, Louisiana (photograph by Ken W. Krauss, U.S. Geological Survey). Performance Measures for a Mississippi River Reintroduction Into the Forested Wetlands of Maurepas Swamp By Ken W. Krauss, Gary P. Shaffer, Richard F. Keim, Jim L. Chambers, William B. Wood, and Stephen B. Hartley Prepared in cooperation with the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) of Louisiana Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5036 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Krauss, K.W., Shaffer, G.P., Keim, R.F., Chambers, J.L., Wood, W.B., and Hartley, S.B., 2017, Performance measures for a Mississippi River reintroduction into the forested wetlands of Maurepas Swamp: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5036, 56 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175036. ISSN 2328-0328 (online) iii Acknowledgments The development of these performance measures was supported by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) of Louisiana. Specifically, we thank Carol Parsons Richards, Honora Buras, Brad Miller, and Richard Raynie, all with CPRA, for tasking this effort and providing much needed feedback along the way. Along with these partners, additional reviews of this document were provided by Danielle Richardi (CPRA), Christopher M. Swarzenski (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]), William H. Conner (Clemson University), Robert R. Lane (Louisiana State University), Steve Smith (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries), and Beth A. Middleton (USGS). Supplemental funding for the development and publication of these performance measures was provided by the USGS Climate Research & Development Program, USGS Environments Program, and USGS Wetland and Aquatic Research Center. iv Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................iii Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Wetland Restoration ......................................................................................................................................2 Mississippi River Reintroduction Into Maurepas Swamp ......................................................................3 Targeted Wetland Habitats of Maurepas Swamp ...................................................................................3 Performance Measures and Adaptive Management ..............................................................................5 PM1: Establishing a Hydrologic Regime Consistent With Swamp Forest Sustainability ..........8 Performance Measure Discussion and Literature .................................................................8 Hydrology Performance Measure ............................................................................................9 Considerations..............................................................................................................................9 Assessment Methods .................................................................................................................9 Water Balance ...................................................................................................................9 Flooding and Drought .......................................................................................................11 Sediment Deposition and Scour .....................................................................................11 Hydrologic Connectivity ...................................................................................................11 PM2: Ameliorating Salinity Intrusion ..............................................................................................12 Performance Measure Discussion and Literature .............................................. 12 Salinity Performance Measure ...............................................................................................14 Considerations............................................................................................................................14 Assessment Methods ...............................................................................................................14 PM3: Increasing Rates of Soil Surface Elevation Gain ...............................................................16 Performance Measure Discussion and Literature ..............................................................17 Soil Surface Elevation Performance Measure .....................................................................18 Considerations............................................................................................................................19 Assessment Methods ...............................................................................................................20 Radioisotope Dating of Cores .........................................................................................21 Rod SETs .............................................................................................................................21 Repetitive Surveying of SETs by Using High-Precision d/RTK-GPS and cGPS ......22 PM4: Increasing Forest Structural Integrity ...................................................................................22 Performance Measure Discussion and Literature ...............................................................22 Forest Structural Integrity Performance Measures ............................................................23 Stand Density ....................................................................................................................23 FFQI......................................................................................................................................24 Considerations ...........................................................................................................................24 Stand Density ....................................................................................................................24 FFQI......................................................................................................................................24 Assessment Methods ...............................................................................................................26 PM5: Facilitating Nutrient Uptake and Retention ..........................................................................26 v Performance Measure Discussion and Literature ...............................................................27 Nutrient Uptake and Retention Performance Measure ......................................................27 Considerations............................................................................................................................28 Assessment Methods ...............................................................................................................29 Water Quality Analysis .....................................................................................................29 Analysis of Deposited Sediments ..................................................................................29 Reference Sites ............................................................................................................................................30 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................30 References Cited .........................................................................................................................................34 Appendix 1. Current Plot and Data Availability of Potential Relevance for Future Monitoring ...........................................................................................................................43 Figures 1. Map showing location and certain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Battle of New Orleans (January 8, 1815) the Battle of New Orleans
    The Battle of New Orleans (January 8, 1815) The Battle of New Orleans occurred on January 8, 1815, which, interestingly, was after American and British negotiators signed the Treaty of Ghent (Belgium) but before word of the treaty’s signing reached North America. Given the American victory, most Americans concluded the British agreed to the treaty because of the battle’s outcome and hence most Americans believed the United States had won the war, which was not the case. Great Britain had long considered an attack on the American gulf coast. Early efforts had failed. By the time British forces first arrived along Florida’s Gulf Coast, then still part of the Spanish empire, Major General Andrew Jackson had defeated hostile Creek Indians near Horseshoe Bend and forced Creek leaders to sign the Treaty of Fort Jackson, ending British hopes of Native American help in the forthcoming campaign. Still, in August 1814 British forces landed at Pensacola in Spanish Florida to use it as a staging base for attacks on Mobile, Alabama, or New Orleans and the Mississippi River. Jackson’s subsequent attack on Pensacola, and the British destruction of the town’s fortifications before retreating, left the base useless to the British and the Americans. In fall 1814, it seemed Britain’s two-decade long war with France had ended with the exile of Napoleon Bonaparte to the island of Elba off the northeast coast of Italy. The British were able to transfer more warships and battle-tested troops to expand their control of the American coastline and to invade New Orleans, an important port for goods and agricultural bounty coming down the Mississippi River and full of valuable cotton and sugar.
    [Show full text]
  • A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana’S Coastal Wetlands
    America’s Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands Final Project Report Department of Agricultural Economics Mississippi State University Revised April 1, 2013 Daniel R. Petrolia * Matthew G. Interis Joonghyun Hwang Mississippi State University Michael K. Hidrue University of Delaware Ross G. Moore USDA Farm Service Agency, Selmer, TN GwanSeon Kim University of Georgia *Corresponding Author: [email protected] The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to Kerry St. Pe and all the staff of the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program for providing valuable information and their assistance in improving the quality of the survey instrument. This research was conducted under award NA06OAR4320264 06111039 to the Northern Gulf Institute by the NOAA Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research, U.S. Department of Commerce; and supported by the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension Service, Multistate Project W-2133 “Benefits and costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Public and Private Lands” (Hatch # MIS-033120). 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A nationwide survey was conducted in the summer of 2011 via Knowledge Networks to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP) for a large-scale restoration project in the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary in coastal Louisiana. A split-sample approach was used to administer both a binary-choice (contingent valuation) and multinomial-choice (choice experiment) version of the survey, with the latter used to estimate willingness to pay for increments in three specific wetland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, storm surge protection, and fisheries productivity. A total of 3,464 respondents completed the valuation exercise, of which 3,228 (93%) had neither visited nor live/lived in the study region.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War in the Delta: Environment, Race, and the 1863 Helena Campaign George David Schieffler University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2017 Civil War in the Delta: Environment, Race, and the 1863 Helena Campaign George David Schieffler University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Schieffler, George David, "Civil War in the Delta: Environment, Race, and the 1863 Helena Campaign" (2017). Theses and Dissertations. 2426. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2426 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Civil War in the Delta: Environment, Race, and the 1863 Helena Campaign A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History by George David Schieffler The University of the South Bachelor of Arts in History, 2003 University of Arkansas Master of Arts in History, 2005 August 2017 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ____________________________________ Dr. Daniel E. Sutherland Dissertation Director ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Elliott West Dr. Patrick G. Williams Committee Member Committee Member Abstract “Civil War in the Delta” describes how the American Civil War came to Helena, Arkansas, and its Phillips County environs, and how its people—black and white, male and female, rich and poor, free and enslaved, soldier and civilian—lived that conflict from the spring of 1861 to the summer of 1863, when Union soldiers repelled a Confederate assault on the town.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mississippi River Delta Basin and Why We Are Failing to Save Its Wetlands
    University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses 8-8-2007 The Mississippi River Delta Basin and Why We are Failing to Save its Wetlands Lon Boudreaux Jr. University of New Orleans Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td Recommended Citation Boudreaux, Lon Jr., "The Mississippi River Delta Basin and Why We are Failing to Save its Wetlands" (2007). University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations. 564. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/564 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by ScholarWorks@UNO with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights- holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Mississippi River Delta Basin and Why We Are Failing to Save Its Wetlands A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of New Orleans in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Urban Studies By Lon J. Boudreaux Jr. B.S. Our Lady of Holy Cross College, 1992 M.S. University of New Orleans, 2007 August, 2007 Table of Contents Abstract.............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Habitats
    Wetland Habitats 103 Wetlands Taste Test Teacher Instructions Focus/Overview Grade Level This lesson is designed to educate students about the different wetland Upper Elementary ecosystems found in Louisiana. The students will compare and contrast these different habitats using their sense of taste. Duration 50-55 minutes Learning Objectives The students will: Setting . Learn the definitions of a wetland and an ecosystem The classroom . Learn how various salinity levels define wetland habitats . Taste water samples with various salinity levels and determine Vocabulary what wetland habitat the water would likely have “come from” Habitat Wetland GLEs Salinity Science 4th – (SI-E-A1, A2, A3, B4) 5th – (SI-M-A1), (LS-M-C3) 6th – (SI-M-A1, A2, A3, A7, B5) English Language Arts 4th – (ELA-1-E5, E6) 5th – (ELA -4-M2) 6th – (ELA-1-M1), (ELA-7-M1), (ELA-4-M2) Materials List . Four 2-liter bottles (teachers or students should bring from home . Small disposable cups or Dixie cups (teacher provides) . Salt (teacher provides) . Water (teacher provides) Background Information We are able to taste things, because we have “taste buds” on our tongues. Taste buds are on the front, sides and back of the tongue. Taste buds allow us to determine if the food we eat is sweet, sour, bitter or salty. The front taste buds taste the salty/sweet foods, the back taste buds taste the bitter foods and the side taste buds taste the sour foods. The human tongue has almost 10,000 taste buds, and girls have more taste buds than boys. There are taste buds even on the roofs of our mouths! A habitat is defined as a location where plants and animals live.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain
    92° 91° 90° 89° 88° Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Cape Girardeau 73cc 72 io Ri Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000 and depicts revisions and Literature Cited: PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Shannen S. Chapman (Dynamac Corporation), Oh ver environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that were originally compiled at a smaller scale (USEPA Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map Barbara A. Kleiss (USACE, ERDC -Waterways Experiment Station), James M. ILLINOIS assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing 2003, Omernik, 1987). This poster is part of a collaborative effort primarily between USEPA Region Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map) (supplementary supplement): Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, Omernik, (USEPA, retired), Thomas L. Foti (Arkansas Natural Heritage p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. 71 the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the VII, USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H., and Commission), and Elizabeth O. Murray (Arkansas Multi-Agency Wetland Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Planning Team). 37° environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mississippi River Fisheries Coordination Office
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lower Mississippi River Fisheries Coordination Office Station Facts Activity Highlights ■ Established: 1994. ■ Development of an Aquatic Resource Management Plan to ■ Number of staff: one. restore natural resources in the 2.7 ■ Geographic area covered: million-acre, leveed floodplain of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, the Lower Mississippi River. Mississippi, Missouri, and ■ Publication of the LMRCC Tennessee. Newsletter, a regional newsletter Station Goals on aquatic resource conservation photo: USFWS photo: ■ Provide a permanent forum for management issues, and natural facilitating the management of the resource-based economic aquatic natural resources of the development. Lower Mississippi River leveed ■ Provide long-term economic, floodplain. environmental, and public ■ Restore and enhance aquatic recreation benefits to the region by habitat in the Lower Mississippi cooperatively addressing aquatic River leveed floodplain and resource management issues. tributaries. Questions and Answers: photo: USFWS photo: ■ Increase public awareness and What does your office do? encourage sustainable use of the The Lower Mississippi River Lower Mississippi River’s natural Fisheries Coordination Office resources. (FCO) coordinates the work of many different state and Federal ■ Promote natural resource-based natural resource management and economic development. environmental quality agencies that deal with the Lower Mississippi River ■ Increase technical knowledge of the aquatic resource issues. Lower Mississippi River’s natural resources. Why is the Lower Mississippi River photo: USFWS photo: important? Services provided to: The Mississippi River is the fourth ■ Project leader serves as longest river in the world, flowing coordinator for the Lower for more than 2,350 miles from its Mississippi River Conservation headwaters in Lake Itasca, Minnesota Committee (LMRCC); LMRCC to the Gulf of Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio River Basin Facts
    Ohio River Basin Facts Drainage Area: Total: 203,940 square miles in 15 states (528,360 square kilometers) In Pennsylvania: 15,614 square miles (40,440 square kilometers) Length of River: Ohio River: 981 miles Allegheny River: 325 miles Monongahela River: 129 miles Watershed Address from Headwaters to Mouth: The Ohio begins at the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and ends in Cairo, Illinois, where it flows into the Mississippi River. The Allegheny begins in north-central Pennsylvania near Coudersport and Colesburg in Potter County, flows north into New York, then bends to the south and flows to Pittsburgh. The Monongahela begins just above Fairmont, West Virginia, at the confluence of the West Fork and Tygart Valley rivers, and flows northward to Pittsburgh. Major Tributaries in Pennsylvania: Allegheny, Beaver, Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Clarion, and Conemaugh Rivers; French Creek Population: Total: 25 million people In Pennsylvania: 3,451,633 people Major Cities in Pennsylvania: (over 10,000 people) Aliquippa, Butler, Greensburg, Indiana, Johnstown, Meadville, New Castle, Oil City, Pittsburgh, Sharon, Somerset, St. Mary’s, Uniontown, Warren, Washington Who Is Responsible for the Overall Management of the Water Basin? Ohio River Basin Commission Ohio Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) Ohio River Basin Water Management Council Ohio River Basin Consortium for Research and Education Economic Importance and Uses: An estimated $43 billion in commodities are transported along the 2,582 miles of navigable waterways within the basin annually. Barge transportation has increased 50% over the last decade and carries 35% of the nation’s waterborne commerce. Approximately 121 companies are located directly on the waterfront and are dependent upon southwestern Pennsylvania’s rivers for their business in one way or another.
    [Show full text]
  • War of 1812 by Beth Carvey the Sauk and Meskwaki and the War of 1812 Prelude to War the War of 1812 Was a Significant Event in S
    War of 1812 by Beth Carvey The Sauk and Meskwaki and the War of 1812 Prelude to War The War of 1812 was a significant event in Sauk and Meskwaki history and also for many other native nations who resided along and near the Mississippi River. The War of 1812 was actually two wars: an international war fought between the United States and Great Britain in the east and an Indian war fought in the west. This article is the first of a four-part series which will explore the War of 1812 in terms of native peoples’ points of view, the military actions that occurred in the western frontier theater, and the consequences for the Sauk and Meskwaki that resulted from the American victory. In 1812 the western frontier was comprised of the Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri River regions, encompassing parts of present-day Wisconsin, Illinois, and northwest Missouri. More than ten different native nations, including the Sauk and Meskwaki, lived on these lands with an estimated population of 25,000 people. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 the native people of the region had been growing increasingly unhappy with the United States. Four main reasons were at the heart of this unhappiness: arrogance and ignorance on the part of many American officials; illegal white settlement on native lands; a number of treaties that dispossessed tribes of their lands; and economic matters, specifically the fur trade. The Sauk and Meskwaki had poor relations with the United States government since the signing of the fraudulent Treaty of 1804, whereby the two nations ceded over 50 million acres of land to the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Distances Between United States Ports 2019 (13Th) Edition
    Distances Between United States Ports 2019 (13th) Edition T OF EN CO M M T M R E A R P C E E D U N A I C T I E R D E S M T A ATES OF U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) RDML Timothy Gallaudet., Ph.D., USN Ret., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere National Ocean Service Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management Cover image courtesy of Megan Greenaway—Great Salt Pond, Block Island, RI III Preface Distances Between United States Ports is published by the Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), pursuant to the Act of 6 August 1947 (33 U.S.C. 883a and b), and the Act of 22 October 1968 (44 U.S.C. 1310). Distances Between United States Ports contains distances from a port of the United States to other ports in the United States, and from a port in the Great Lakes in the United States to Canadian ports in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Distances Between Ports, Publication 151, is published by National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and distributed by NOS. NGA Pub. 151 is international in scope and lists distances from foreign port to foreign port and from foreign port to major U.S. ports. The two publications, Distances Between United States Ports and Distances Between Ports, complement each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi River
    Mississippi River In 2011 the lower Mississippi River carried the greatest volume of floodwaters ever recorded, exceeding the his- toric flood of 1927. In that earlier flood, considered the most destructive river flood in the history of the United States, levees were breached or overtopped in 145 loca- tions, 70,000 km2 were inundated, and 700,000 people were displaced for weeks to months. Officially hundreds of people died but more likely thousands of rural resi- dents were killed (Barry 1997). The flood exposed two primary limitations to river and floodplain management of the time. First, flood manage- ment relied excessively on levees (the “levees-only” ap- proach) which presumed that nearly the entire floodplain could be disconnected from river floods. Second, flood- plain and river management was uncoordinated. In response to the flood, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed the Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries Project (MR&T). The MR&T coordinated levee placement and design, dam development and operations, floodplain management and navigation for the lower Mississippi Riv- er basin, including several major tributaries (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). In addition to replacing a piecemeal approach to river management with a comprehensive system approach, the MR&T also moved floodplain management away from the “levees only” approach and included floodplain storage and conveyance as critical components of flood-risk man- Figure 1. The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. Floodways agement. Four floodways were designated, portions of the are circled in red. (US Army Corps of Engineers) historic floodplain that would reconnect to the river and convey floodwaters during the highest floods (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Extent of Mississippi River Water in the Mississippi Bight and Louisiana Shelf Based on Water Isotopes Virginie Sanial, Alan Shiller, Dongjoo Joung, Peng Ho
    Extent of Mississippi River water in the Mississippi Bight and Louisiana Shelf based on water isotopes Virginie Sanial, Alan Shiller, Dongjoo Joung, Peng Ho To cite this version: Virginie Sanial, Alan Shiller, Dongjoo Joung, Peng Ho. Extent of Mississippi River water in the Mississippi Bight and Louisiana Shelf based on water isotopes. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Elsevier, 2019, 226, pp.106196. 10.1016/j.ecss.2019.04.030. hal-02511271 HAL Id: hal-02511271 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02511271 Submitted on 18 Mar 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. (VWXDULQH&RDVWDODQG6KHOI6FLHQFH Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecss Extent of Mississippi River water in the Mississippi Bight and Louisiana Shelf 7 based on water isotopes ∗ Virginie Saniala, , Alan M. Shillera,DongJooJoungb, Peng Hoa a University of Southern Mississippi, School of Ocean Science & Engineering, 1020 Balch Boulevard, Stennis Space Center, MS, 39529, USA b University of Rochester, Earth and Environmental Sciences, 227 Hutchison Hall, P.O. Box 270221, Rochester, NY, 14627, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The northern Gulf of Mexico is a complex and very productive coastal river-dominated system that receives Mississippi River freshwater from numerous rivers including the Mississippi River.
    [Show full text]