Projecting management-relevant change of undeveloped coastal barriers with the Mesoscale Explicit Ecogeomorphic Barrier model (MEEB) v1.0

Reeves, Ian R. B.; Ashton, Andrew D.; Lentz, Erika E.; Sherwood, Christopher R.; Passeri, Davina L.; Zeigler, Sara L.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232

Preprints

Submitted as: model description paper

23 Jan 2025

Submitted as: model description paper |

| 23 Jan 2025

Status: a revised version of this preprint is currently under review for the journal GMD.

Projecting management-relevant change of undeveloped coastal barriers with the Mesoscale Explicit Ecogeomorphic Barrier model (MEEB) v1.0

Ian R. B. Reeves, Andrew D. Ashton, Erika E. Lentz, Christopher R. Sherwood, Davina L. Passeri, and Sara L. Zeigler

Abstract. Models of coastal barrier geomorphic and ecologic change are valuable tools for understanding and predicting when, where, and how barriers evolve and transition between ecogeomorphic states. Few existing models of barrier systems are designed to operate over spatiotemporal scales congruous with effective management practices (i.e., decades/kilometers, referred to herein as “mesoscales”), incorporate important ecogeomorphic feedbacks, and provide probabilistic projections of future change. Here, we present a new numerical model designed to address these gaps by explicitly yet efficiently simulating coupled aeolian, marine, vegetation, and shoreline components of barrier evolution over spatiotemporal scales relevant to management. The Mesoscale Explicit Ecogeomorphic Barrier model (MEEB) simulates subaerial ecomorphologic change of undeveloped barrier systems over kilometers and decades using meter-scale spatial resolution and weekly time step. MEEB applies simplified parameterizations to represent and couple key ecogeomorphic processes: dune growth, vegetation expansion and mortality, beach and foredune erosion, barrier overwash, and shoreline and shoreface change. The model is parameterized and calibrated with observed elevation, vegetation, and water level data for a case study site of North Core Banks, NC, USA; simulated ecogeomorphic change in model hindcasts agrees well with observations, demonstrating both favorable skill scores and qualitatively correct behavior. We also describe an additional model framework for producing probabilistic projections that account for uncertainties related to future forcing conditions and intrinsic stochastic dynamics and demonstrate the probabilistic framework’s utility with example forecast simulations. As a mesoscale model, MEEB is designed to investigate questions about future barrier ecogeomorphic change of moderate complexity, offering semi-qualitative predictions and semi-quantitative explanations. For example, MEEB can be used to investigate how climate-induced shifts in ecological composition may alter the likelihood of morphologic impacts or to generate probabilistic projections of ecogeomorphic state change.

Received: 05 Dec 2024 – Discussion started: 23 Jan 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Ian R. B. Reeves, Andrew D. Ashton, Erika E. Lentz, Christopher R. Sherwood, Davina L. Passeri, and Sara L. Zeigler

Status: final response (author comments only)

CEC1:
'Comment on gmd-2024-232 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 12 Feb 2025

Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".

https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html

You have archived your code on a git stored in the USGS website However, this is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. You must store your model in an acceptable repository (check our policy for recommendations). Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular. Please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible, as we can not accept manuscripts in Discussions that do not comply with our policy. Also, please include the relevant primary input/output data used to produce the results presented in your manuscript.
I have to note that if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Also, you must include a modified 'Code and Data Availability' section in a potentially reviewed manuscript, containing the DOI and links of the new repositories.
Juan A. Añel

Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-CEC1
- EC1:
  'Reply on CEC1', Andy Wickert, 18 Feb 2025
  
  Dear Drs. Añel and Reeves;
  Thanks to Dr. Añel for noting the less-standard repository used by the authors. This is indeed something that Dr. Reeves and I discussed and revised during the earlier phases of initial editorial review. It seems that the US Geological Survey places certain guidances around code repositories, and I believe that Dr. Reeves has worked to address the standards of GMD by ensuring that the internal USGS GitHub repository is restricted in its edit access. I will direct Dr. Añel to the history of our conversations here.
  Dr. Reeves and Dr. Añel: Would you be able to confer on how to best ensure that this work and manuscript follows the GMD standards while also working within the requirements of the USGS?
  Thanks to all in advance,
  Andy Wickert
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-EC1
  - CEC2: 'Reply on EC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 18 Feb 2025
    
    Dear Andy, dear authors,
    I have reviewed the webpage of the USGS data bank. Unfortunately, it does not offer information on several items that we consider necessary to meet our requirements, at least I have not found it. This includes information on the permanence of the repository and funding secured. We usually require evidence of not less than 10 years of funding secured for the maintenance of the repository, usually fifteen or twenty . Also, we require a clear policy on data permanence and data withdrawal or data deletion policies by the host of the repository, which should be based on the decision of a committee. If possible, we prefer repositories backed by several international organizations, to avoid dependency on regulations from a single country. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find information in the USGS data bank on all these points. As we consider them not sufficiently addressed, we can not take the USGS as a suitable repository. If you can follow an example, we decided last year to accept the NCAR RDA after they addressed our requirements.
    In the meantime, as this manuscript is already submitted, and currently the USGS is not acceptable, we would thank if you proceed to store your data in one of the acceptable repositories. Unless the USGS comply with the requirements mentioned and I have missed them. In such case, please, let us know.
    Juan A. Añel
    Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-CEC2
    
    CEC3: 'Reply on CEC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 13 Mar 2025
    
    Dear authors,
    I have to note that this issue remains outstanding and no addressed. I have seen you have replied to comments from reviewers, and however, the review process should not continue before this issue is solved. Please, refrain from replying comments by reviewers before we you have addressed this issue and your manuscript is compliant with the policy of the journal.
    Juan A. Añel
    Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-CEC3
    
    CEC4: 'Reply on CEC3', Juan Antonio Añel, 13 Mar 2025
    
    Dear authors,
    Skip my previous comment. As you did not reply to my last comment, but to the parent comment in the thread, your reply was incorrectly labeled by our systems as a reply to reviewers, instead of reply to the Executive Editor. Additionally, this lead to my incorrect understanding that you had not addressed my comment. I have seen now that you have created a repository containing the requested information. I have checked it, and we can consider now your manuscript in compliance with the code and data policy of the journal.
    Juan A. Añel
    Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-CEC4
- AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Ian Reeves, 13 Mar 2025
  
  Dear Drs. Añel and Wickert,
  We have addressed all concerns related to the journal code/data policy. USGS publication guidelines allow us to place a convenience copy of the software release on Zenodo. We have created this Zenodo copy, added it to the reference list as Reeves (2024b; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15014192), and now reference it in the “Code availability” section of the manuscript:
  “MEEB v1.0 source code and documentation are available for download from Reeves (2024a), the official USGS software release, under a CC0 1.0 Universal license. A public copy of the MEEB v1.0 code and documentation is also archived on Zenodo (Reeves, 2024b).”
  Input files that were used in the simulations presented in this paper and are needed to run the model and calibration scripts are stored within the model repository. We had previously neglected to explicitly mention this. We have now updated the “Data availability” section in the manuscript to reflect this:
  “All elevation and vegetation input files used in the calibration procedures and simulations presented in this work are stored within the archived MEEB v1.0 software release (Reeves, 2024a, 2024b) at /MEEB/Input.”
  Ian Reeves
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-AC1
RC1:
'Review (gmd-2024-232)', Eli D Lazarus, 17 May 2025

This contribution describes a numerical model designed to address mesoscales of physical and ecological coastal processes "over years to decades and hundreds to thousands of meters and with meter-scale spatial resolution" [L78]. The authors explain that the model is "designed to answer questions of moderate complexity regarding when, where, and how ecogeomorphic change is likely to occur, with correspondingly moderate levels of both predictive (quantitative) and explanatory (qualitative) power" [L140].
I found the manuscript clear and comprehensive in its explication – which are the qualities a potential user needs most from a model description. The demonstrations of short (three-year) and long (multi-decadal projections) time scales are an interesting exercise.
From the results presented (Figs. 5, 6, 8), it appears that the model largely reiterates topographic controls on morphological change, which makes me wonder what kind of forcing would be required for the model to predict a real shift in morphological regime: from overwash-prone to overwash-resistant, for example, or vice versa (Fig. 8).
A couple of very minor remarks. First, I think including the skill results somewhere beside or within the paired "observed" and "simulated" panels (Figs. 5, 6) would be helpful for the reader to interpret what they're already comparing visually. The skill results can also be reported in a table, as they are presently – this is a both/and suggestion.
Second, although the stated intention of the model is to forecast "when, where, and how ecogeomorphic change is likely to occur", the multi-year results (Figs. 5, 6) and probabilistic projections (Fig. 8) show elevation change. It's not immediately clear how or where vegetation manifests in those elevation maps. I raise this only to point out that the maps, as presented, appear to reflect geomorphic change; the "eco" here could perhaps be made more explicit. The authors have been careful with their caveats in the kinds of forecasts this model delivers: the spatio-temporal changes in vegetation characteristics (density, patchiness) are likely to be more qualitative here, but quantifying extents and/or trends of change across the model domain under a given set of conditions might nonetheless be informative.
Finally, it strikes me that the examples provided here offer "meso" time scales but spatial scales more aligned with the models the authors characterise as "microscale". All the domains shown are for a barrier reach of 500 m; I am curious about what model outputs look like at spatially extended scales. I can understand how the spatial scale used here serves the purpose of demonstration, but a 500 m domain ultimately seems slightly misaligned with the motivation of the Introduction. Do the skill scores go down as spatial scales increase? (That is, to what extent does the user trade skill for scale?) Could skill scores somehow be normalised by spatial scale? (Is it ever reasonable to expect high-resolution predictive precision over many kms?)
Perhaps in future work – because I'm sure it's outside the scope of this effort – the authors could, for a selected barrier site, push a microscale model (e.g., XBeach) up to its maximum spatio-temporal limits and push this model from its minimum spatio-temporal limits, to explicitly illustrate and examine where, when, and how the trajectories of the micro/meso models cross over in their respective utility.
I look forward to seeing this work in print in GMDD.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Ian Reeves, 29 Aug 2025
  
  We are grateful to Dr. Lazarus for the generous feedback that has helped us significantly improve our manuscript. Below, we provide our responses (indented) to referee comments. All line numbers refer to the original submitted manuscript.
  ___________
  
  This contribution describes a numerical model designed to address mesoscales of physical and ecological coastal processes "over years to decades and hundreds to thousands of meters and with meter-scale spatial resolution" [L78]. The authors explain that the model is "designed to answer questions of moderate complexity regarding when, where, and how ecogeomorphic change is likely to occur, with correspondingly moderate levels of both predictive (quantitative) and explanatory (qualitative) power" [L140].
  
  I found the manuscript clear and comprehensive in its explication – which are the qualities a potential user needs most from a model description. The demonstrations of short (three-year) and long (multi-decadal projections) time scales are an interesting exercise.
  
  We appreciate this positive feedback.
  
  From the results presented (Figs. 5, 6, 8), it appears that the model largely reiterates topographic controls on morphological change, which makes me wonder what kind of forcing would be required for the model to predict a real shift in morphological regime: from overwash-prone to overwash-resistant, for example, or vice versa (Fig. 8).
  
  We appreciate this question. For the probabilistic projections (Fig. 8), the model predicts that these two locations will most likely be relatively stable over the next couple decades. Given our use of observational data to set initial conditions and forcings and carefully calibrate model parameters, we of course consider this a model prediction rather than artifact. That being said, shifts in morphological regime do appear to have occurred in a minority of the 96 batch simulations that comprise the probabilistic projections (Fig. 8); we can see this particularly in Figs. 8e and 8f, where negligible elevation change is most likely to occur landward of the dune crest (Fig. 8e), but this most likely prediction is not fully certain (Fig. 8f), suggesting there is a smaller probability of significant dune loss and overwash. The loss of dune width from 2024 to 2050 also suggests that a shift in morphological regime (from overwash-resistant to overwash-prone) may become the most likely prediction in the decades following 2050. We have improved this explanation in the manuscript (L804):
  “Overall, this projection indicates that vulnerability to HWE-driven change is low through 2050 landward of the initial 2018 foredune crest, though the high probability of major dune width loss in this period suggests that the likelihood of a shift in morphologic regime from overwash-resistant to overwash-prone may increase rapidly in the subsequent decades.”
  
  Therefore, shifts in morphologic regime at these two locations would be more likely to occur with bigger or more frequent HWEs, slower aeolian recovery, and/or more time. We now mention that changes to HWE intensity could make regime shifts more likely in our projections (L806):
  “Potential increases in future HWE intensity (e.g., Knutson et al., 2020) could also enhance the likelihood of more fundamental morphological and ecological regime changes by 2050 – such fundamental changes would also be likely to occur by the end of the century.”
  
  A couple of very minor remarks. First, I think including the skill results somewhere beside or within the paired "observed" and "simulated" panels (Figs. 5, 6) would be helpful for the reader to interpret what they're already comparing visually. The skill results can also be reported in a table, as they are presently – this is a both/and suggestion.
  
  Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the skill scores to each panel in Figs. 5 & 6 and have updated the captions accordingly.
  
  Second, although the stated intention of the model is to forecast "when, where, and how ecogeomorphic change is likely to occur", the multi-year results (Figs. 5, 6) and probabilistic projections (Fig. 8) show elevation change. It's not immediately clear how or where vegetation manifests in those elevation maps. I raise this only to point out that the maps, as presented, appear to reflect geomorphic change; the "eco" here could perhaps be made more explicit. The authors have been careful with their caveats in the kinds of forecasts this model delivers: the spatio-temporal changes in vegetation characteristics (density, patchiness) are likely to be more qualitative here, but quantifying extents and/or trends of change across the model domain under a given set of conditions might nonetheless be informative.
  
  We agree that ecological dynamics in the example model simulations we provided were not as explicitly highlighted as the geomorphic dynamics. This is partially because the model hindcasts from Fig. 6 only run for about 3.5 years over a period with relatively little disturbance, thus the vegetation change is relatively minimal. For the 32-yr probabilistic forecast examples (Fig. 8), however, we have added text to Section 4.3 that more explicitly describes the ways in which vegetation tends to dynamically change and influence geomorphic evolution in the forecasts:
  “At the initially overwash-prone site (Figs. 8a-c), model projections suggest that major deposition is most likely at the proximal parts of the overwash fans with minor deposition most likely on the more distal portions (Fig. 8b). Repeated overwash events will tend to prevent vegetation from recolonizing the overwash fans over the course of the simulation. Consequentially, aeolian deflation of the sparsely vegetated overwash fans, and resulting minor deposition along the landward vegetated fringes of the fans (cf. Rodriguez et al., 2013), is also predicted to be likely. The model also predicts the high likelihood of major accretion around the seaward slope and toe of the present foredunes, reflecting the steeping of the beach profile with net seaward growth of the foredune system and likely net seaward expansion of vegetation cover.” (L783)
  “At the initially overwash-resistant site (Figs. 8d-f), the probabilistic projection suggests that major lateral dune erosion via scarping is likely to occur but that the foredune ridge will most likely persist (Fig. 8e). Aeolian deposition near the initial foredune crest is likely to offset some of the height and volume lost from dune scarping. As a result of this persistent and resistant topography, dense vegetation will tend to cover the barrier interior and prevent aeolian reworking landward of the dune crest.” (L799)
  “Potential increases in future HWE intensity (e.g., Knutson et al., 2020) could also enhance the likelihood of more fundamental morphological and ecological regime changes by 2050 – such fundamental changes would also be likely to occur by the end of the century.” (L806)
  
  Finally, it strikes me that the examples provided here offer "meso" time scales but spatial scales more aligned with the models the authors characterise as "microscale". All the domains shown are for a barrier reach of 500 m; I am curious about what model outputs look like at spatially extended scales. I can understand how the spatial scale used here serves the purpose of demonstration, but a 500 m domain ultimately seems slightly misaligned with the motivation of the Introduction. Do the skill scores go down as spatial scales increase? (That is, to what extent does the user trade skill for scale?) Could skill scores somehow be normalised by spatial scale? (Is it ever reasonable to expect high-resolution predictive precision over many kms?)
  
  We agree that the examples provided, which span only 0.5 km in length alongshore, do not fully demonstrate the spatial scales the model is specifically designed to simulate. However, as noted by the reviewer, a smaller domain enables us to more clearly and concisely demonstrate and explain the model output, which we feel is the bigger priority. Therefore, we have added this justification and an explanation that the model can handle much larger domain sizes (L782):
  “While these sites span only 0.5 km in length alongshore for the purpose of providing a clear and concise demonstration of model output, MEEB can handle model domains up to tens of kilometers in alongshore length.”
  
  Skill scores do not necessarily reduce with increasing domain size, as some locations of a barrier would score higher, while others lower. Therefore, skill scores would tend to approach the mean score of the entire barrier as the domain extent is increased. We have added this explanation to the manuscript (L757):
  “Our testing sites each span 0.5 km in length alongshore to demonstrate the variability of model performance in different geomorphic settings; with increasingly larger model domain extents, the skill scores would tend to approach the mean score of the entire barrier.”
  
  Perhaps in future work – because I'm sure it's outside the scope of this effort – the authors could, for a selected barrier site, push a microscale model (e.g., XBeach) up to its maximum spatio-temporal limits and push this model from its minimum spatio-temporal limits, to explicitly illustrate and examine where, when, and how the trajectories of the micro/meso models cross over in their respective utility.
  
  This is a thoughtful idea. We have added a sentence in the Discussion introducing it as potential future work (L845):
  “Future work could compare MEEB simulations with micro- (e.g., XBeach, Roelvink et al., 2009) or macro-scale (e.g. LTA14, Lorenzo-Trueba and Ashton, 2014) models to explicitly determine when, where, and how the trajectories of the models overlap in their respective utility.”
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on gmd-2024-232', Andy Wickert, 04 Aug 2025
Dear Dr. Reeves and co-authors,
I am taking the unusual step as editor of submitting my own review of the paper in lieu of that of a second external referee. I am doing this because:
Finding a referee is so difficult and time-consuming.

We have lost further time while I was out of contact and in the field.

I would rather have the chance to read your paper myself than spend significant additional time searching for referees.

I know enough about sediment-transport mechanics that I think I can give the paper a fair review, despite not working on coastal geomorphology myself (perhaps an advantage, for potential CoI).

I agree with the authors that the need for such meso-scale models is essential for applied geomorphology and prediction of changes in landscapes and hazards into the coming decades. I find their manuscript to be well-written, well-illustrated, and a strong candidate for publication.
I attach a PDF containing an extensive set of handwritten comments on this paper. Some of these comments are related to writing and communication. Many link to questions about the science, its clarity (generally good in this paper, notwithstanding), and communication of the methods.
Because of the strength of this paper alongside the rather large number of moderate changes or clarifications I have suggested, I recommend that the authors provide minor revisions.
Thank you for an enjoyable and educational read,
Andy Wickert
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-RC2
- AC3:
  'Reply on RC2', Ian Reeves, 29 Aug 2025
  We are grateful to Dr. Wickert for the generous feedback that has helped us significantly improve our manuscript. Below, we provide our responses (in plain text) to referee comments (in bold). All line numbers refer to the original submitted manuscript.
  ___________
  
  I agree with the authors that the need for such meso-scale models is essential for applied geomorphology and prediction of changes in landscapes and hazards into the coming decades. I find their manuscript to be well-written, well-illustrated, and a strong candidate for publication.
  
  I attach a PDF containing an extensive set of handwritten comments on this paper. Some of these comments are related to writing and communication. Many link to questions about the science, its clarity (generally good in this paper, notwithstanding), and communication of the methods.
  
  Because of the strength of this paper alongside the rather large number of moderate changes or clarifications I have suggested, I recommend that the authors provide minor revisions.
  
  Thank you for the positive feedback. In our revision, we have adopted all fixes to grammar, style, and typos/errors suggested in the annotated PDF. Additionally, we have responded to each handwritten comment in the PDF, including (amongst others):
  
  Adding additional details on computer specs needed to run the model (L153):
  
  “The model is written in Python and can be run on PC, Macintosh, and Linux operating systems. The typical runtime for a 10-year simulation of a 1-km-long barrier segment with 1-m grid resolution is approximately 40 to 80 min, or approximately 10 to 20 min with a grid resolution of 2 m. Memory usage depends strongly on domain size, grid resolution, and the frequency and type of saved model output. An individual deterministic simulation in MEEB is run on an individual core, while our probabilistic framework runs batches of deterministic simulations in parallel across multiple cores (as many as allocated); a high-performance computing cluster is recommended for probabilistic simulations spanning >10 km of shoreline.”
  
  Annotating Fig. 1d with relevant variables
  
  Moving Table 1 and 2 to the Appendix, and renaming Table 3 as “Table 1”
  
  Adding a short justification for the approximation of the groundwater surface (L232):
  
  “Assuming that the groundwater surface typically resembles a subdued reflection of the topography, the groundwater surface in MEEB…”
  
  We also note that it is unnecessary to flatten the water surface of ponds in the model because and will equal 0 and 1 (respectively) regardless of whether ponds are flattened or not (L234):
  
  “Groundwater can intersect topographic depressions as surface ponds (MEEB does not flatten the water surface in ponds given that and regardless).”
  
  Reordering the second paragraph of Section 2.3 (L250):
  
  “Every 25^-1 y ( = 0.04 y or ~14.6 d), MEEB determines whether a HWE occurs depending on the observed time series (for hindcasts) or a probability of occurrence dependent on the time of year (for forecasts). If no HWE is determined to occur for a Marine iteration, no marine processes take place (i.e., the landscape remains unaltered) and MEEB proceeds directly to the Shoreline component of the model. If a HWE is determined to occur for a Marine iteration, the HWE is described by a total water level (TWL)…”
  
  Clarifying q_x in Eq. 2 as a deposited volume and therefore porosity is implicitly included (L277):
  
  “the deposited volume of sediment at cross-shore location , , is equal to…”
  
  Noting the derivation/source of the overwash flow routing constant (L314):
  
  “…and is a constant equal to 0.5 (derived from the equation for motion of uniform flow; Murray and Paola, 1997).”
  
  Clarifying variable Q_s as a volumetric sediment flux (volume per cell per iteration) in the overwash flow routing section (L322)
  
  “The depositional volume of sediment transported each iteration (i.e., the volumetric sediment flux) from the distributing cell to landward neighbor …”
  
  Emphasizing the physical basis for the exponential decay distribution of overwash sediment delivered to the subaqueous back-barrier environment (L331):
  
  “Where overwash reaches the back-barrier shoreline, the sediment load into the subaqueous back-barrier environment is distributed in an exponentially decaying fashion, with the landward neighbor with the most discharge receiving the most sediment, which produces steeply dipping delta-like foreset deposits typically observed when overwash flows into standing bodies of waters (Schwartz, 1982; Shaw et al., 2015)”
  
  Adding a description of the simple temporal discretization method used to avoid instabilities in the Marine component of the model (L346):
  
  “Our method involves simply dividing the resulting elevation change at each substep by the number of substeps within the hour.”
  
  Adding a figure (Fig. 4c) to show how shoreline diffusivity depends on shoreline angle for the given long-term wave climate of North Core Banks (L453):
  
  “The nonlinear dependence of shoreline diffusion on wave angle mostly affects the overall magnitude of shoreline diffusivity, with a secondary dependence on shoreline angle θ, as demonstrated in calculations of the wave-climate averaged shoreline diffusivity for NCB (Fig. 4c).”
  
  The caption for Fig. 4 was also updated accordingly:
  
  “(c) Wave-climate-averaged shoreline diffusivity as a function of shoreline angle calculated for a given , , , and representative of NCB; vertical orange bar indicates the range of shoreline angles from the initial 2024 NCB shoreline.”
  
  No spectral domain calculation for waves was performed as long-term averaged wave statistics were taken from hindcast hourly wave conditions (L453):
  
  “MEEB uses single representative values of and for the entire shoreline, which, along with and , are derived from hindcast offshore wave conditions (described in Sect. 3.4).”
  
  Clarifying that alongshore variability in cross-shore sediment transport counteracts the tendency of alongshore diffusion to smooth the ocean shoreline into a straight line over time (L456):
  
  “Therefore, the alongshore diffusion will tend to smooth the ocean shoreline towards a linear shape between the two endpoints of the domain over time, while alongshore variability in cross-shore sediment transport (e.g., overwash) counteracts this tendency by creating or sustaining perturbations in shoreline shape over time and can also move the endpoints in the cross-shore direction.”
  
  Clarifying that model inputs in the probabilistic framework are exactly the same for duplicate simulations (L509):
  
  “Duplicate simulations use the same exact model inputs, yet differ in their ecogeomorphic evolution because of the internal model stochasticity.”
  
  Defining the total water level where first mentioned in the text and in the caption of Figure 4:
  
  “…defined as an event in which the total water level (TWL; the sum of tide, surge, and wave runup) exceeds MHW.” (L185)
  
  “Total water level is the sum of tide, surge, and wave runup.” (Fig. 4 caption)
  
  Including a plain-language description of the Brier Skill Score (L644):
  
  “We define model performance primarily through the direct cell-by-cell comparison of simulated and observed elevation with the Brier Skill Score (BSS), which measures how much the simulated change improves a prediction relative to the baseline of predicting no change at all”
  
  Clarifying that a) during calibration of marine parameters, only the marine component of the model was utilized (all other components were inactive); and b) during calibration of the aeolian parameters, all components were utilized and active:
  
  “First, Marine parameters alone were optimized using only the Marine component of MEEB over a single HWE event” (L661)
  
  “Figure 5: Hindcast simulations testing performance of the MEEB Marine component with calibrated Marine parameters.” (Fig. 5 caption)
  
  “Results from the preceding marine parameter calibration were used to set the marine parameter values for the Aeolian calibration, and all components of MEEB (Aeolian, Marine, Shoreline, and Vegetation) were utilized and active.” (L672)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-AC3
EC2: 'Proceed with revision', Andy Wickert, 04 Aug 2025

Dear Dr. Reeves and co-authors,
Based on the recommendations of myself and the first reviewer, I encourage you to generate and submit a revised manuscript.
Looking forward to seeing your updates,
Andy Wickert

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-EC2

Ian R. B. Reeves, Andrew D. Ashton, Erika E. Lentz, Christopher R. Sherwood, Davina L. Passeri, and Sara L. Zeigler

Model code and software

Mesoscale Explicit Ecogeomorphic Barrier Model (MEEB) v1.0 Ian R. B. Reeves https://doi.org/10.5066/P13N6RHA

Ian R. B. Reeves, Andrew D. Ashton, Erika E. Lentz, Christopher R. Sherwood, Davina L. Passeri, and Sara L. Zeigler

Viewed

Total article views: 420 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
304	86	30	420	15	46

HTML: 304
PDF: 86
XML: 30
Total: 420
BibTeX: 15
EndNote: 46

Views and downloads (calculated since 23 Jan 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2025	43	15	4	62
Feb 2025	81	12	7	100
Mar 2025	34	9	3	46
Apr 2025	13	7	2	22
May 2025	28	9	2	39
Jun 2025	19	12	10	41
Jul 2025	19	3	0	22
Aug 2025	67	19	2	88

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 23 Jan 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2025	43	15	4	62
Feb 2025	81	12	7	100
Mar 2025	34	9	3	46
Apr 2025	13	7	2	22
May 2025	28	9	2	39
Jun 2025	19	12	10	41
Jul 2025	19	3	0	22
Aug 2025	67	19	2	88

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 408 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 408 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 29 Aug 2025

Short summary

We describe a new model of coastal barrier ecogeomorphic change that operates over spatiotemporal scales congruous with effective management practices, incorporates key ecogeomorphic feedbacks, and provides probabilistic projections. The model skillfully captures important barrier dynamics through robust data integration and calibration of relatively simple model parameterizations, and can be used to understand and predict when, where, and how barriers evolve to inform decision-making processes.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0