Chile’s Mega-Quake Restored Beaches and Biodiversity

 Chilean coast after the 2010 tsunami.: Marcelo Caro via Wikimedia Commons

Chilean coastal town after the 2010 tsunami: Marcelo Caro via Wikimedia Commons

The study is believed to be the first-ever quantification of earthquake and tsunami effects on sandy beach ecosystems along a tectonically active coastal zone.

Chile’s 8.8 earthquake and tsunami of 2010 caused massive devastation, not least along its coastline, with some beaches subsiding and losing biodiversity, and some rocky reefs uplifting  and losing biodiversity—as you might expect.

But thanks to the investigations of a science team already looking at the ecology of Chile’s sandy beaches before the quake, we now know this natural disaster also engineered some powerful and unexpected forms of coastal restoration. 

This occurred where the temblor uplifted coastlines with coastal armouring—like seawalls and rocky revetments—which allowed those once-disappearing beaches to quickly grow where they had not grown in a long time, and allowed plants and other species to reinhabit places they hadn’t inhabited in a long time.

The study, just published in the open-access PLoS ONEalso previews the types of changes we might expect from climate warming and its accompanying sea level rise. 

 

Photos of study sites taken before and after the 2010 Chile earthquake: Eduardo Jaramillo, et al. PLoS ONE. DOI:info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0035348.g002Photos of study sites taken before and after the 2010 Chile earthquake: Eduardo Jaramillo, et al. PLoS ONE. DOI:info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0035348.g001

In the before-and-after disaster above the orange dotted lines indicate 24 hour spring high tide line. You can see that dry sandy areas above the high tide line dwindled where beaches that subsided (a) and increased where beaches uplifted (b, c and d). These changes were affected by whether or not coastal armoring was in place. Specifically

  • a–b show unarmored sites (a: where land subsided and the beach grew narrower after the quake; b: where coastal uplift made the beach wider afterwards)
  • c–d show armored sites (c: where uplifted wider intertidal occurs in conjunction with a seawall; d: where uplifted wider intertidal occurs in conjunction with a revetment)
  • e–f show relationships between the magnitude of land-level changes (e: shows beach widths; f: shows beach face slopes—red dots=sites with seawalls; blue dots=sites with rocky revetments; black dots=unarmored sites)

 

Land level changes from the 2010 Chile earthquake, epicenter yellow star: Eduardo Jaramillo, et al. PLoS ONE.

Land level changes from the 2010 Chile earthquake, epicenter yellow star: Eduardo Jaramillo, et al. PLoS ONE. DOI:info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0035348.g001

“So often you think of earthquakes as causing total devastation, and adding a tsunami on top of that is a major catastrophe for coastal ecosystems,” says co-author Jenny Dugan, at UCSB“As expected, we saw high mortality of intertidal life on beaches and rocky shores, but the ecological recovery at some of our sandy beach sites was remarkable. Plants are coming back in places where there haven’t been plants, as far as we know, for a very long time. The earthquake created sandy beach habitat where it had been lost. This is not the initial ecological response you might expect from a major earthquake and tsunami.”

From the paper:

Ecological effects of extreme events, such those we observed for the [Chile] event, are expected to vary in duration. Shorter-term effects on beaches included direct mortality associated with the tsunami and the indirect bottom up effects of increased inputs of algal wrack from uplifted rocky shores on upper shore invertebrate consumers such as talitrid amphipods (Orchestoidea tuberculata). However, in areas with significant uplift (ca. 2 m), locations of armoring structures were shifted higher on the beach profile, reducing interaction with waves and tides and restoring intertidal zones for biota and ecological function. For this reason we expect positive changes observed in these beach ecosystems to persist, altering intertidal community composition and dynamics over the long term, even in front of existing coastal armoring. In contrast, for the subsided armored areas, community composition and population abundances are expected to remain depressed over time.

 

The paper:

  • Jaramillo E, Dugan JE, Hubbard DM, Melnick D, Manzano M, et al. (2012) Ecological Implications of Extreme Events: Footprints of the 2010 Earthquake along the Chilean Coast. PLoS ONE 7(5): e35348. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035348

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate