the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Projecting management-relevant change of undeveloped coastal barriers with the Mesoscale Explicit Ecogeomorphic Barrier model (MEEB) v1.0
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.
- Preprint
(3613 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Mar 2025)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-232 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 12 Feb 2025
reply
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 EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-232-CEC1 -
EC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Andy Wickert, 18 Feb 2025
reply
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
reply
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
-
CEC2: 'Reply on EC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 18 Feb 2025
reply
-
EC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Andy Wickert, 18 Feb 2025
reply
Model code and software
Mesoscale Explicit Ecogeomorphic Barrier Model (MEEB) v1.0 Ian R. B. Reeves https://doi.org/10.5066/P13N6RHA
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
108 | 24 | 11 | 143 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 108
- PDF: 24
- XML: 11
- Total: 143
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1