We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Durham Research Online
You are in:

Salt-marsh foraminiferal distributions from mainland northern Georgia, USA : an assessment of their viability for sea-level studies.

Chen, H. and Shaw, T.A. and Wang, J. and Engelhart, S.E. and Nikitina, D. and Pilarczyk, J.E. and Walker, J. and Garcia-Artola, A. and Horton, B.P. (2020) 'Salt-marsh foraminiferal distributions from mainland northern Georgia, USA : an assessment of their viability for sea-level studies.', Open quaternary., 6 (1). pp. 1-19.


We investigated foraminiferal distributions from two salt-marsh sites at Thunderbolt and Georgetown, in mainland northern Georgia, U.S. Atlantic coast. We analyzed modern epifaunal foraminiferal assemblages across multiple transects consisting of 54 surface samples. Multivariate statistical analysis (Partitioning Around Medoids and Detrended Correspondence Analysis) revealed that dead foraminiferal assemblages are divided into three faunal zones, which are elevation-dependent and site-specific. At Thunderbolt, an intermediate salinity marsh (17‰), high marsh assemblages are dominated by Haplophragmoides spp. with an elevational range of 1.19 to 1.68 m mean tide level (MTL) between Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) to Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT). Low marsh assemblages are dominated by Miliammina fusca and Ammobaculites spp. with an elevational range of – 0.05 to 1.14 m MTL (between MTL and MHHW). At Georgetown, a low salinity marsh (6‰), the assemblages are dominated by Ammoastuta inepta with an elevational range of 0.43 to 1.16 m MTL (between MTL and MHHW). We also enumerated living infaunal foraminiferal populations from six 50-cm sediment cores from the two salt marshes to assess implications for interpretations of sea-level change. Peak concentrations of living foraminiferal populations occur in the upper 1-cm surface sediment in five of the six cores. An exception was observed in high marsh settings of Thunderbolt, where Haplophragmoides spp. and Arenoparrella mexicana were observed living down to 40 cm depth and both the live and dead abundance peaked (32 and 520 specimens per 10 cc respectively) between depths of 15–35 cm in the core. The dominant infaunal species were similar to those observed in modern surface samples, and the total number of infaunal foraminifera was typically less than 15% compared to the total number of dead specimens in the surface samples. Finally, we com­pared the down-core patterns of living and dead foraminiferal abundance that suggest that 90% of the tests were removed within the upper 10 cm of sediment in most cores. This may be due to taphonomic alteration from bioturbation and/or microbial processes. Selective preservation between resistant species such as A. mexicana and fragile species like M. fusca and Ammobaculites spp. can change the subsurface foraminiferal assemblage. This has the potential to cause errors in sea-level reconstructions using foraminiferal assemblage from low marsh sediments. This study highlights the modern vertical distribution of salt-marsh foraminifera in mainland northern Georgia and their potential as modern analogues for fos­sil counterparts in reconstructing sea-level changes. Taphonomic processes may cause the absence of foraminiferal tests or differences between modern and fossil assemblages, which could be problematic when performing RSL reconstructions in low marsh environment.

Item Type:Article
Full text:(VoR) Version of Record
Available under License - Creative Commons Attribution.
Download PDF
Publisher Web site:
Publisher statement:Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See
Date accepted:28 February 2020
Date deposited:08 April 2020
Date of first online publication:26 March 2020
Date first made open access:08 April 2020

Save or Share this output

Look up in GoogleScholar