<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ESurf</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Earth Surface Dynamics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ESurf</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Earth Surf. Dynam.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2196-632X</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/esurf-6-1139-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Directional dependency and coastal framework geology: implications for
barrier island resilience</article-title><alt-title>Directional dependency and coastal framework geology</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Directional dependency and coastal framework geology}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{P. A. Wernette et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2 aff5">
          <name><surname>Wernette</surname><given-names>Phillipe A.</given-names></name>
          <email>wernette@uwindsor.ca</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8902-5575</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Houser</surname><given-names>Chris</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Weymer</surname><given-names>Bradley A.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3762-8056</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Everett</surname><given-names>Mark E.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Bishop</surname><given-names>Michael P.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Reece</surname><given-names>Bobby</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4, Canada</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Geography, Texas A&amp;M University, College Station, Texas, 77843, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, 24148 Kiel, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Department of Geology and Geophysics, Texas A&amp;M University, College Station, Texas, 77843, USA </institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>a</label><institution>now at: Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Ave., <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>Windsor,
Ontario, N9B 3P4, Canada</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Phillipe A. Wernette (wernette@uwindsor.ca)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>27</day><month>November</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>6</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <fpage>1139</fpage><lpage>1153</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>9</day><month>May</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>15</day><month>June</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>18</day><month>October</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>6</day><month>November</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1139/2018/esurf-6-1139-2018.html">This article is available from https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1139/2018/esurf-6-1139-2018.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1139/2018/esurf-6-1139-2018.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1139/2018/esurf-6-1139-2018.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e155">Barrier island transgression is influenced by the alongshore variation in
beach and dune morphology, which determines the amount of sediment moved
landward through wash-over. While several studies have demonstrated how
variations in dune morphology affect island response to storms, the reasons
for that variation and the implications for island management remain unclear.
This paper builds on previous research by demonstrating that paleo-channels
in the irregular framework geology can have a directional influence on
alongshore beach and dune morphology. The influence of relict paleo-channels
on beach and dune morphology on Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, was
quantified by isolating the long-range dependence (LRD) parameter in
autoregressive fractionally integrated moving average (ARFIMA) models,
originally developed for stock market economic forecasting. ARFIMA models
were fit across <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">250</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> unique spatial scales and a moving window
approach was used to examine how LRD varied with computational scale and
location along the island. The resulting LRD matrices were plotted by
latitude to place the results in the context of previously identified variations
in the framework geology. Results indicate that the LRD is not constant
alongshore for all surface morphometrics. Many flares in the LRD plots
correlate to relict infilled paleo-channels, indicating that the framework
geology has a significant influence on the morphology of Padre Island National Seashore (PAIS). Barrier island
surface morphology LRD is strongest at large paleo-channels and decreases to
the north. The spatial patterns in LRD surface morphometrics and framework
geology variations demonstrate that the influence of paleo-channels can be
asymmetric (i.e., affecting beach–dune morphology preferentially in one
direction alongshore) where the alongshore sediment transport gradient was
unidirectional during island development. The asymmetric influence of
framework geology on coastal morphology has long-term implications for
coastal management activities because it dictates the long-term behavior of a
barrier island. Coastal management projects should first seek to assess the
framework geology and understand how it influences coastal processes in order to
more effectively balance long-term natural variability with short-term
societal pressure.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<?pagebreak page1140?><sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e175">Since modern barrier island morphology is the product of past and
present coastal processes acting over preexisting morphologies, effective
barrier island management requires a comprehensive knowledge of how an island
has evolved to its current state in order to understand how it may change in
the future. Continued sea level rise and future climatic uncertainty
represent significant concerns about the resiliency of barrier islands and
threats to many coastal communities (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2016). Barrier island geomorphology can exhibit considerable
variability alongshore, leading to varying responses to storm activity that
ultimately determine the response of the island to sea level rise.
Understanding the source of variability in beach and dune morphology can
provide insight into how the barrier island is likely to change in response
to future storms and sea level rise.</p>
      <p id="d1e178">Storm waves interact with the variable morphology of the nearshore, beach,
and dunes to determine how vulnerability varies along a barrier island. To
some degree, variations in the nearshore, beach, and dune morphology are
influenced by the framework geology (Hapke et al., 2010,
2016; Houser et al., 2008, 2018a; Houser, 2012; Riggs et al.,
1995). In this paper, the term “framework geology” is defined as any
subsurface variation in geologic structure, where variability in geologic
structure can result from variations in sediment type (i.e., sand vs. silt),
differences in compaction, or significant changes in the subsurface organic
content or mineralogy. This term encompasses the subsurface and bathymetric
geologic structure (onshore and offshore), which may include rhythmic bar
and swale structures (Houser and Mathew, 2011; Houser, 2012),
shoreface attached sand ridges (SASRs) overlying offshore glacial outwash
headlands (Hapke et al., 2010; Schwab et al., 2013), or buried infilled
paleo-channels (Anderson et al., 2016; Browder and McNinch, 2006; Fisk,
1959; McNinch, 2004; Schupp et al., 2006; Simms et al., 2010). Since the
framework geology can provide insight into historical patterns of island
transgression (Hapke et al., 2016; Houser, 2012; Houser et al., 2015;
Lentz et al., 2013), it is vital to better understand how the framework
geology influences variability in modern beach and dune morphology
(Cooper et al., 2018). Despite its importance, framework
geology remains absent from contemporary barrier island change models that
treat the geology as being uniform alongshore (Goldstein and Moore, 2016;
Goldstein et al., 2017; Gutierrez et al., 2015; Moore et al., 2010; Murray
et al., 2015; Plant and Stockdon, 2012; Wilson et al., 2015). Sections of a
barrier island that experience greater wash-over will experience a net loss
of sediment landward and localized erosion, but the dissipative nature of
shoreline change (see Lazarus et al., 2011) means that those losses are
distributed alongshore. In this respect, the variation in beach and dune
morphology alongshore forced by the framework geology can influence the rate
of historical shoreline retreat and island transgression and needs to be
considered in models of barrier island response to sea level rise.</p>
      <p id="d1e181">The influence of framework geology on barrier island morphology is well
documented by work along the New York, Florida, and North Carolina coasts.
Submerged glacial outwash headlands along Fire Island, NY, are reflected in
the nearshore bathymetry as a series of shore-oblique ridges and swales
(Hapke et al., 2010; Schwab et al., 2013). The nearshore bathymetry
impacts sediment transport gradients along the island, which has
implications for beach and dune response and recovery following a storm
(Brenner et al., 2018). Using sediment cores in conjunction
with ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and seismic surveys, Houser (2012) demonstrated that variations in shoreline change patterns, beach
width, and dune height corresponded to ridges and swales at Pensacola, FL.
Shoreline position was more stable along the ridges, resulting in a wider
beach which provided more sediment for onshore winds to create higher and
more persistent dunes (Houser, 2012). Paleo-channels dissecting the
southeastern US Atlantic coast also align with hotspots of shoreline
change (Lazarus et al., 2011; Schupp et al., 2006). However,
Lazarus et al. (2011; p.1) argued that “shoreline change at small spatial scales (less than kilometers)
does not represent a peak in the shoreline change signal and that [shoreline] change at larger spatial scales dominates
the [shoreline change] signal”. This implies that
variations in the framework geology, such as paleo-channels, do not
influence long-term shoreline change, but, as noted, shoreline change is
influenced by the alongshore variation in beach and dune morphology. The
dissipative behavior of shoreline change does not negate the importance of
framework geology. While alongshore variation in dune morphology is also
influenced by the distribution of vegetation in both space and time
(Goldstein et al., 2017; Lazarus et al., 2011; Lazarus, 2016), the
self-organized behavior of the dune morphology is ultimately set up by the
framework geology (see Houser, 2012; Stallins and Parker, 2003; Weymer et
al., 2015b).</p>
      <p id="d1e184">The purpose of this paper is to test the hypothesis that relict infilled
paleo-channels in the framework geology of a barrier island play a
significant role and have an asymmetric influence on the alongshore
variation in beach and dune morphology at a range of alongshore length
scales. Based on the combination of a variable framework geology and a
dominant alongshore current, it is feasible that the framework geology may
influence barrier island geomorphology at discrete spatial scales and that
this influence may be asymmetric. Central to this hypothesis is the idea
that the modern island morphology itself is scale-dependent, which has been
proposed and supported by previous studies (Houser, 2012; Houser et al.,
2015; Lazarus et al., 2011; Lazarus and Armstrong, 2015; Lazarus, 2016).
Padre Island National Seashore (PAIS) on North Padre Island, Texas,
represents an ideal location to test this hypothesis because previous
studies have documented significant variability in the subsurface framework
geology (Fig. 1; Anderson et al., 2016; Fisk, 1959;<?pagebreak page1141?> Wernette et al., 2018;
Weymer et al., 2018; Weymer, 2012, 2016), and there is substantial alongshore
variation in beach and dune morphology. Given that the dominant current
along the central Texas coast flowed from north to south during the Holocene
(Sionneau et al., 2008), it follows that the dominant
alongshore sediment transport gradient during that time also flowed from
north to south. It is feasible that paleo-channels along PAIS would have had
interacted with the southerly alongshore current and sediment transport to
asymmetrically influence barrier island geomorphology during island
transgression. In this scenario, areas up-drift of a paleo-channel would be
distinctly different from areas down-drift of the paleo-channel because the
channel acts as a unidirectional sediment sink in the coastal sediment
budget during island development.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p id="d1e190">
Padre Island National Seashore represents an ideal location to
test for a directional influence of the framework geology because of the variability in the surface morphology,
represented by the topobathy digital elevation model (DEM), and the underlying framework geology,
represented by the Pleistocene paleo-surface contour lines from Fisk (1959) and MIS II paleo-surface contour
lines from Anderson et al. (2016).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1139/2018/esurf-6-1139-2018-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Regional setting</title>
      <p id="d1e210">Padre Island National Seashore encompasses a large portion of North Padre
Island, the longest continuous barrier island in the world. Located along
the south Texas, USA, coast, PAIS represents an ideal location to quantify
the alongshore influence of framework geology on barrier island
geomorphology because of the multiple previously identified paleo-channels
dissecting the island (Fig. 1; Anderson et al., 2016; Fisk, 1959; Simms
et al., 2007). Similarly, the modern surface morphology varies alongshore.
Central PAIS is characterized by large, relatively continuous dunes,
compared to the elongated parabolic dunes along northern PAIS and the
heavily scarped and dissected dunes in southern PAIS. Padre Island is
separated from the mainland by Laguna Madre, Baffin Bay, and the
Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), which was dredged during the 1950s.</p>
      <p id="d1e213">Multiple paleo-channels dissect the framework geology of central PAIS and
Laguna Madre (Fig. 1; Fisk, 1959). These channels were suggested to have
been incised into the Pleistocene paleo-surface and infilled during Holocene
transgression. The prevailing theory of formation of PAIS is that the island
was initially a series of disconnected barrier islands during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ka), when a series of channels were
incised into the paleo-topographic surface (Weise and White, 1980). Rapid
sea level transgression during the late Pleistocene and Holocene drowned the
relict dunes and submerged other dunes located approximately 80 km inland
from the LGM shoreline, resulting in disconnected
offshore shoals in the current location of PAIS. The disconnected shoals
coalesced around 2.8 ka because sand from the relict Pleistocene dunes
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km offshore from the LGM shoreline) and sediment
discharged from rivers were reworked via alongshore currents, resulting in a
continuous subaqueous shoal. Eventually, sediment from offshore relict dunes
and increased river discharge supplied enough sediment to the shoals that
they aggraded vertically, becoming subaerially exposed in the same location
as the modern barrier island (Weise and White, 1980).</p>
      <p id="d1e236">A series of studies in the Gulf of Mexico have focused on extracting a
buried ravinement surface, also referred to as the marine isotope stage
(MIS) II paleo-surface and buried Pleistocene surface, including the area
offshore of PAIS (Fig. 1; Anderson et al., 2016; Fisk, 1959; Simms et
al., 2010). Maps of the MIS II surface indicate that PAIS is dissected by<?pagebreak page1142?> at
least two substantial paleo-channels. One large channel dissects PAIS at an
oblique angle near “the hole” in Laguna Madre, an area immediately
landward of PAIS characterized by consistently deeper water (Fisk, 1959).
Based on knickpoints in the MIS II paleo-surface, this large channel
appears to meander from a northeasterly orientation to an easterly orientation
as it crosses PAIS, eventually flowing into a large paleo-channel adjacent
to Baffin Bay. The large paleo-channel forming Baffin Bay is the combined
ancestral Los Olmos, San Fernando, and Patronila (LOSP) Creeks, which was
drowned during sea level transgression and eventually filled with sediment
(Simms et al., 2010). Complexities in the framework geology and
modern island geomorphology, coupled with the fact that PAIS framework
geology has already been mapped, make PAIS an ideal location to examine how
framework geology influences barrier island geomorphology.</p>
      <p id="d1e239">Previous studies of PAIS have utilized geophysical surveys and sediment
cores to document variation in the depth to a buried Pleistocene
paleo-surface (Anderson et al., 2016; Fisk, 1959; Wernette et al., 2018;
Weymer et al., 2016). Weymer et al. (2016) confirmed paleo-channels
in the buried Pleistocene paleo-surface using a 100 km alongshore
electromagnetic induction (EMI) survey, where areas of lower apparent
conductivity are indicative of a deeper buried surface based on the
difference in conductivity between overlying Holocene sand and the buried
silty clay Pleistocene paleo-surface. Areas where the subsurface apparent
conductivity decreased alongshore coincided with paleo-channels which had
been previously mapped. Wavelet decomposition of the alongshore EMI survey
and offshore bathymetry serve as proxies for the onshore and offshore
framework geology, respectively. When analyzed and interpreted in
conjunction with alongshore beach and dune morphometrics, these metrics
reveal that larger beach and dune systems are located within the previously
mapped paleo-channels (Wernette et al., 2018). The current paper
expands on previous research by adapting economic forecast models to
determine how paleo-channels in the framework geology have influenced beach
and dune evolution and whether this influence is directional and
scale-dependent. Identifying these spatial lags, their spatial scale(s), and
their lag direction(s) is the first step toward integrating this information
into morphodynamic prediction models.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Data sources and validation</title>
      <p id="d1e248">Examining the relationships between surface and subsurface barrier island
geomorphology requires continuous alongshore data for surface morphology and
subsurface framework geology. Barrier island surface morphometrics (i.e., beach
width, beach volume, dune toe elevation, dune crest elevation, dune height,
dune volume, island width, and island volume) were extracted every 1 m along
the entire length of PAIS using an automated multi-scale approach
(Wernette et al., 2016). This approach is advantageous because it is
less subjective and more efficient than conventional approaches to
extracting island morphology. Long-term shoreline change (1950–2007) was
used in this analysis because fine-scale and shorter-term changes are
unlikely to persist given that there has not been ample storm activity to
continually force shorter-term variations in shoreline change at PAIS
(Houser et al., 2018b). Offshore bathymetric depth profiles were
extracted every 1 m from a National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) coastal
relief model (CRM; Fig. 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e251">Dune height is an important morphometric to examine the influence of
framework geology on barrier island morphology, since initial patterns in
dune height and dune crest elevation can persist through time (Houser,
2012; Lazarus, 2016; Weymer et al., 2015b) and determine the response of a
barrier island to storms (Sallenger, 2000). Areas of high dunes are more
likely to limit wash-over and inundation during a storm, and instead sediment
is likely to be partially eroded from the dune and deposited on the beach
and nearshore (Houser, 2012; Sallenger, 2000). Following the storm,
sediment deposited in the nearshore is available for beach recovery through
nearshore bar migration and welding. Onshore winds can transport sediment
inland (i.e., from the beach to dune) following a storm, promoting dune recovery
and development. Conversely, areas with lower or no dunes are more likely to
be over-washed or completely inundated, resulting in the net landward
transportation of sediment to the back-barrier. Since dune sand is not
deposited in the nearshore or along the beach during the storm, sediment is
not available for nearshore, beach, and, eventually, dune recovery. In this
way, variations in dune height and dune crest elevation are likely to
persist through time by directly affecting patterns of over-wash and
represent a control on patterns of coastal resiliency and shoreline change.
Identifying processes that set up modern patterns in dune morphology
provides valuable insight into how the barrier island formed and how it
continues to be influenced by the framework geology. Since dune height and
development are partially a function of beach width, it follows that beach
width is a valuable morphometric to evaluate for patterns of long-range
dependence (LRD) and short-range dependence (SRD).</p>
      <p id="d1e254">Information about the subsurface framework geology of the coast was derived
from a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km alongshore EMI survey (Wernette et
al., 2018; Weymer et al., 2016). EMI works by inducing a primary
electromagnetic field in the subsurface half-space and measuring the
deformation (i.e., response) of a secondary current. From the secondary field
deformation, it is possible to compute the apparent conductivity of the
half-space at a specific frequency. While the apparent conductivity is
influenced by a multitude of factors (Huang and Won, 2000; Huang,
2005), recent fieldwork suggests that hydrology has a minimal influence on
the subsurface conductivity at PAIS at broad geographic scales, relative to
the influence of stratigraphic and lithologic variation. A series of
piezometer shore-normal transects were collected in fall 2016, which
indicated that sand was dry within the first 2 m of the surface<?pagebreak page1143?> along
the back beach. Since the EMI surveys were collected along the back beach,
the piezometer measurements support the use of EMI as a proxy for the
subsurface framework geology. Previous research used EMI surveys to confirm
the location of several paleo-channels and to begin to quantify their influence
on coastal geomorphology EMI surveys (Wernette et al., 2018; Weymer,
2016), while the current paper aims to determine the alongshore influence
(direction and scale) of the paleo-channels.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Statistical modeling of spatial series</title>
      <p id="d1e273">Previous research demonstrates that island morphology and framework geology
can be spatially variable at multiple scales alongshore (Hapke et al.,
2016; Lentz and Hapke, 2011; Schwab et al., 2013; Wernette et al., 2018;
Weymer, 2012, 2016; Weymer et al., 2015a); however, previous
approaches utilized models unable to identify spatial lags that may occur
given alongshore sediment transport gradients. Since the goal of this paper
is to evaluate SRD and LRD of island morphology and framework geology and to test whether
there is directional dependence in island morphology, the current study
requires a statistical model capable of accounting for SRD and LRD.
Short-range dependence includes localized relationships in the data series,
such as an autoregressive or moving average; there, LRD is the dependence of
values on all other data values within the data series, irrespective of
trend or window size. While fractal Gaussian noise (fGn) and fractal
Brownian motion (fBm) models can model the SRD, both are unable to model the
LRD of a series because both models are limited to two parameters (fGn:
range and standard deviation; fBm: variance and scaling). Therefore, we used
an autoregressive fractionally integrated moving average (ARFIMA) model to
capture the LRD of a data series.</p>
      <p id="d1e276">ARFIMA models may be considered a special case of autoregressive moving
average (ARMA) models that have been most widely applied in predicting
financial market behavior; however, it is possible to analyze spatial data
series by substituting space for time. The most significant advantage of
ARFIMA models over ARMA, fGn, and fBm models is their potential to account for
autoregressive (AR) relationships, LRD, and moving average (MA)
relationships simultaneously through fitting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameters,
respectively. Many ARFIMA models utilize all three parameters simultaneously
to describe a data series, although it is possible to isolate the influence
of AR, LRD, or MA within the data in order to better understand more
specifically how the data are structured (Fig. 2). By isolating one of the
three parameters, it is possible to distinguish the degree to which LRD
influences a data series, independent of any SRD influence. This ability to
distinguish and isolate LRD from SRD is unique and represents the most
significant reason that ARFIMA models were used to test for directional
dependencies in coastal geomorphology.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p id="d1e302">Sample beach–dune alongshore data series and ARFIMA model
parameters (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> AR; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> LRD; and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> MA) for three coastal geomorphology
scenarios. <bold>(a)</bold> Jetties trap sediment on the beach up-drift side and starve
the down-drift beach of sediment (see Ocean City, Maryland, USA), resulting
in increased AR values on either side of the jetty. <bold>(b)</bold> Groin fields can
trap sediment between the groins within the field, while starving the
down-drift beach of sediment. In this case, beach volume at a particular
location within the field can be modeled as the MA of adjacent beach volume
measurements. Outside of the groin field, beach volume may
increase/decrease, resulting in increased AR values and decreased MA values.
<bold>(c)</bold> Framework geology, such as infilled paleo-channels, influences coastal
geomorphology on broader spatial scales (see “oblique sandbars” in the
Outer Banks, North Carolina, USA; McNinch, 2004) and is much more likely to
appear in the LRD values. While coastal morphology at broad scales is
influenced by the entire data series, sediment transport gradients can be
influenced by more localized processes, resulting in an inverted trend with
the AR component. The degree to which a particular point is influenced by
the entire data series at a particular scale can be modeled and plotted
using the LRD parameter.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1139/2018/esurf-6-1139-2018-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1144?><p id="d1e351">The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameters provide information about SRD structures within the
data series, representing AR and MA, respectively. Data series modeled with
high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values are those where the data value at a particular location is
dependent on the trend in nearby values. For example, large jetties or
groins can affect the overall alongshore sediment transport (Fig. 2a and b), trapping sediment on the up-drift side of the structure and starving
down-drift areas of beach sediment. Alongshore beach–dune metrics, such as
beach volume, provide valuable information about the alongshore influence of
the coastal engineering structures. Using an ARMA model to characterize the
data series, we would find that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values are very high adjacent to the
jetties and decrease moving away from the structure (Fig. 2a). This simple
AR relationship between the structures and beach volume is effectively
represented by the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter because this relationship is relatively
localized to either side of the structures and the data series does not
extend for several kilometers alongshore. Moving beyond the accumulated
sediment on the up-drift side or shadow on the down-drift side of the jetties,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter values decrease. It is important to note that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter is
useful for modeling localized AR relationships; however, given a more
complex and/or substantially larger data series, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter is less
likely to capture directional trends simply due to the increased “noise”
inherent in larger data series. In other words, the AR relationships may
become obfuscated with increasingly large and/or complex data series.</p>
      <p id="d1e412">Data series modeled with high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values also exhibit strong local dependence,
although the data value at a particular location is dependent not on
localized directional trends but on the average of nearby values (i.e., moving
average). For example, assuming a groin field is effectively able to trap
sediment and build a stable beach, the influence of these structures on
beach volume can be effectively captured by the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter (Fig. 2b). The
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter values for beach volume are much higher within the groin field
than outside of the field because the beach volume is being influenced by
sediment trapped up-drift and down-drift of a specific point. Similar to the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter, it is important to note that the effectiveness of using <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
parameter values to identify MA relationships decreases with increasing data
series complexity and/or length. MA relationships are less evident in larger
or very complex series simply because of the noise within the larger
data series.</p>
      <p id="d1e450">Unlike ARMA models which only utilize the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values, ARFIMA models
include an additional <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter that can vary fractionally and provides
information about the degree to which values within the series are dependent
on all other values in the series, not simply localized effects (i.e., moving
average and autoregressive). This <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter makes ARFIMA particularly well
suited for modeling series with broad-scale dependencies (Fig. 2c). In the
case of coastal geomorphology, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter values may be particularly useful
for identifying the influence of very broad-scale influencing factors, such
as paleo-channels in the framework geology (Weymer et al., 2018;
Weymer, 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e488">ARFIMA modeling in the geosciences remains relatively unexplored, despite
its potential for better understanding spatial and temporal patterns of
variability in complex datasets. While previous research demonstrated that
ARFIMA modeling can provide insight into long-range dependence patterns in
alongshore barrier island surface and subsurface morphology at discrete
scales (Weymer et al., 2018; Weymer, 2016), the current paper expands
the ARFIMA approach to analyze alongshore morphometrics at all scales along
the entire length of spatial data series. In other words, while previous
research discretized a data series into arbitrary alongshore lengths and
locations to characterize LRD along PAIS, the current paper assesses LRD at
all alongshore length scales along the entire length of PAIS. In this sense,
the current paper presents a new approach to assessing how LRD changes
alongshore and interprets these changes with respect to coastal processes
and barrier island evolution. While wavelet decomposition can provide
insight into relationships between two variables in the same location
(Wernette et al., 2018), utilizing ARFIMA as a sliding window across
multiple spatial scales can shed light on relationships that exhibit a lag
in one or both directions. The advantage of this new approach is its
application to examine alongshore influences of various natural and
anthropogenic features (e.g., jetties, seawalls, groin fields, paleo-channels,
and/or headlands) and identify their effective zone(s) of influence on
coastal processes and geomorphology.</p>
      <p id="d1e491">In this paper, the effects of LRD within each spatial data series was
isolated using a 0, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, 0 ARFIMA model. Each ARFIMA model was fit using the
<italic>fracdiff</italic> package (Fraley et al., 2012, in R Core Team, 2016), where the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameters were set equal to 0. Setting both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameters to 0
eliminates the short-range autoregressive and moving average terms from the
fitted models. Each surface, subsurface, and bathymetric spatial data series
contains 96 991 measurements in total. Each spatial series was divided into
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">250</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> unique computational windows, corresponding to
alongshore length scales, ranging from two observations (2 m alongshore
length scale) to the entire 96 991 observations (96 991 m alongshore length
scale). While the number of computational windows can be decreased, or
increased, it is important to note that the ARFIMA modeling process is
computationally intensive, requiring days to complete an analysis of a single
spatial data series on a high-performance desktop computer. Increasing the
number of computational windows would provide more detailed information
about the structure of the dataset but would significantly increase the
computing power required to fit the models. Decreasing the number of
computational scales would decrease the computing power required and speed
up the computations; however, it would become more difficult to resolve the
scales at which the structure breaks down. The range of computational
windows could also be adjusted to a specific range, depending<?pagebreak page1145?> on the
objectives of the research. At each scale the computational window is moved
along the dataset and the appropriate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter is computed. The fitted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
parameter is then assigned to the center of the window at the corresponding
length scale. Repeating this process for each alongshore length scale yields
a matrix of values, where the row corresponds to the alongshore length scale
of the data subset used to compute the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter and the column represents
the alongshore location of the center of the computational window. This
matrix can be plotted similar to a wavelet plot to examine spatial patterns
of LRD throughout the entire dataset at all length scales.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Interpreting LRD plots</title>
      <p id="d1e570">Figure 3 represents a sample LRD plot using a 10 km alongshore portion of
PAIS dune height, where the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis represents the alongshore position or
space (in meters) and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis represents the alongshore spatial scale (in
meters). Plots are oriented by latitude on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis, from south (left) to
north (right). In this paper, all plots utilize a color ramp from blue to
red, where blue hues represent smaller <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter values and red hues
represent larger <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter values. Given this color scheme, locations or
segments of the data lacking LRD are likely to appear as “flares” or flames.
Each of the flares, such as the flare at location A, represent the scale and
areas of the dataset where LRD begins to break down in favor of SRD. LRD
dominates at a particular location at a broad spatial scale (indicated by
red hues) and becomes less influential as the spatial scale becomes
increasingly finer (indicated by the transition from red to yellow to blue
hues). In the case of the flare at location A (Fig. 3) we can see that the
dune height series exhibits strong LRD at scales broader than
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km alongshore. This suggests that dune height at location
A is related to adjacent values down to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km on both sides
of A. Morphology at scales finer than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m is more locally
dependent. In this respect, ARFIMA represents an approach to determine the
limiting scale to self-similarity.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p id="d1e641">Example LRD plot using alongshore dune height at PAIS. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis
represents the alongshore length scale (in meters), and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis
represents the alongshore location. LRD is persistent at greater alongshore
length scales at location B than location A. Additionally, location B is
asymmetric, which may suggest a directional dependence in the data series.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=170.716535pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1139/2018/esurf-6-1139-2018-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e664">Depending on the structure of the morphology and/or geology, it is feasible
that the LRD may not appear to be symmetrical. Long-range dependence is
asymmetric at location B, where the LRD begins to break down more rapidly to
the right side of the plot than the left. While the physical interpretation
of a LRD plot depends on the variable, asymmetric flares can be broadly
interpreted as areas where the variable is more locally dependent on the
surrounding values at the scales and in the direction that the flare is
oriented. In the case of flare B, dune height is more dependent on adjacent
values to the north up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">39</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km alongshore. Asymmetries in
the LRD plots can provide valuable information about the underlying
structure influencing the variable of interest.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
      <p id="d1e685">Subsurface apparent conductivity exhibits substantial LRD along the entire
length of PAIS (Fig. 4a). Patterns in the subsurface framework geology LRD
plot demonstrate that the framework geology is self-similar at broader
scales and that this structure varies alongshore at finer alongshore length
scales which correspond to the scale of the previously identified
paleo-channels. The large LRD values at broad spatial scales (Fig. 4a)
demonstrate that the paleo-topographic structure dominated by broad-scale
coastal curvature over very broad spatial scales. Since the framework
geology reflects the paleo-topography and the modern barrier island surface
is dissipative at very broad scales, based on large LRD values at broad
scales in the modern barrier island morphology, it follows that the
framework geology is dissipative. The substantial LRD along much of the
island supports previous work by Weymer (2016) and Weymer et al. (2018), which demonstrated that subsurface framework geology exhibits LRD at
discrete locations and alongshore length scales.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e690">Long-range dependence plots of alongshore morphometrics: <bold>(a)</bold> 3 kHz
apparent conductivity, <bold>(b)</bold> shoreline change rate (end-point rate), <bold>(c)</bold> beach
width, <bold>(d)</bold> dune toe elevation, <bold>(e)</bold> dune crest elevation, <bold>(f)</bold> dune height,
<bold>(g)</bold> island width, <bold>(h)</bold> bathymetric depth profile at 2 km offhsore, and
<bold>(i)</bold> bathymetric depth profile at 4 km offshore. All LRD plots are aligned with
the map below, based on latitude. Previously documented variability in the
framework geology is indicated by the contour lines representing the
Pleistocene (i.e., MIS II) paleo-surface (Anderson et al., 2016;
Fisk, 1959).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1139/2018/esurf-6-1139-2018-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1147?><p id="d1e727">The shoreline change LRD plot exhibits the greatest LRD values (i.e., highest LRD
values across all broad spatial scales) along the length of PAIS, as
indicated by the dominance of red hues in Fig. 4b. Most flares present in
the shoreline change LRD are at relatively fine spatial scales, shorter than
a few kilometers. Peaks in the shoreline change LRD  plot are very narrow,
which we interpret to mean that the long-term shoreline change is dominantly
dissipative with only minor undulations due to localized coastal processes,
consistent with the findings of Lazarus et al. (2011), who demonstrated
that broad-scale and long-term shoreline change is dissipative. Waves
impacting the coast can erode sediment from one area and transport it to
another area, resulting in undulations in the shoreline orientation. Since
long-term shoreline change is the result of cumulative daily wave processes
eroding undulations in the shoreline shape and dissipating any short-term
undulations, fine-scale variations in the nearshore bathymetry, such as
nearshore bars and troughs, can affect patterns of erosion and deposition
along the coast over longer periods of time (Hapke et al.,
2016). Therefore, it follows that the long-term shoreline change LRD plot
would exhibit a large amount of LRD.</p>
      <p id="d1e730">Beach width LRD is more variable than shoreline change (Fig. 4c), with the
least amount of variability concentrated in approximately the southern third
of the island. These flares are likely present because transverse ridges in
the nearshore bathymetry affect localized wave refraction patterns, thereby
influencing fine-scale patterns in beach morphology. Patterns in the beach
morphology in southern PAIS are likely more localized because the incoming
wave energy is refracted around the transverse ridges, which impacts
sediment transport gradients along this part of the island. Any variations
in beach morphology are more locally influenced by relatively closely spaced
transverse ridges (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 1.5 km alongshore spacing),
resulting in broad-scale LRD along southern PAIS.</p>
      <p id="d1e744">The central third of PAIS beach width is characterized by several
significant flares in LRD, with many of the strongest flares adjacent to
infilled paleo-channels previously identified by Fisk (1959) (Figs. 4c
and 5a). The scale at which LRD transitions to SRD is at the broadest
alongshore length scales proximal to Baffin Bay, and this threshold decreases
in scale to the north (Figs. 4c and 6a). Given a dominant southerly
alongshore current during island development in the Holocene (Anderson et
al., 2016; Sionneau et al., 2008) and corresponding southerly sediment
transport gradient, patterns in the beach morphology LRD plot suggest that
the paleo-channels are asymmetrically influencing beach morphology.
Simms et al. (2010) presented seismic profiles extending from
north to south across the ancestral LOSP Creeks, which exhibit a series of
onlapping reflectors on the northern edge of the seismic profiles. These
onlapping reflectors are indicative of deposition on the northern edge of
the paleo-channel and support the hypothesis that alongshore spit
development occurred within the LOSP Creeks paleo-channel. The beach north
of the large paleo-channel identified by Fisk (1959) would have been
nourished by sediment discharged from the ancestral LOSP Creeks, now forming
Baffin Bay. Similarly, the beach north of the ancestral LOSP Creeks
paleo-channel may have been nourished by sediment from the ancestral Nueces
River. In this way, beach morphology up-drift of the large paleo-channels
would impact beach morphology within and south of the large paleo-channels.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p id="d1e749">LRD plots of <bold>(a)</bold> beach width, <bold>(b)</bold> dune crest elevation, and
<bold>(c)</bold> dune height for central PAIS, where Fisk (1959) identified a series of
relict infilled paleo-channels dissecting the island. The scale at which
LRD breaks down in favor of SRD is greatest at the southern edge of large
paleo-channels, and this scale gradually decreases to the north. Smaller
paleo-channels do not appear to be as influential in the modern beach and
dune morphology, suggesting that small channels may not have as significant
an influence as larger channels.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1139/2018/esurf-6-1139-2018-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e767">Alongshore LRD in the dune crest elevation and dune height varies similarly
to beach width LRD along PAIS (Figs. 4e, 4f, 5b, 5c, 6b, and 6c). The
southern third of PAIS is characterized by LRD–SRD transitioning at finer
alongshore length scales than the northern two-thirds of the island, as
indicated by the flares in the dune height LRD plot (Fig. 4e and f). The
most significant flares are proximal to the ancestral LOSP Creeks
paleo-channels dissecting central PAIS and the ancestral Nueces River
paleo-channel extending into Baffin Bay (Fig. 6). Given that the dominant
alongshore sediment transport gradient is from north to south and that the
beach morphology exhibits an asymmetric LRD to the north of the large
paleo-channels, it follows that LRD and SRD patterns in dune morphology
would exhibit similar asymmetry to beach morphology.</p>
      <p id="d1e770">The transition from dune height LRD to SRD occurs at the largest scale,
i.e., approximately at 35 km alongshore length scales (Figs. 4f and 6c). This
maximum occurs at the southern edge of the ancestral LOSP Creeks
paleo-channel, adjacent to Baffin Bay (Fig. 6c). The alongshore length scale
can be interpreted as the alongshore distance that the paleo-channel
affected wave refraction patterns and sediment distribution along the beach,
ultimately affecting sediment supply to develop larger dunes. It follows
that paleo-channel influence on dune crest elevation and dune height would
be asymmetric, with greater LRD to the north of the paleo-channels, assuming
paleo-channels inhibited southern alongshore sediment transport and starved
the beach down-drift. The wide beach up-drift of a paleo-channel represents a
larger sediment supply and greater fetch for aeolian transport and dune
growth and is consistent with peaks in dune height identified by
Wernette et al. (2018).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p id="d1e775">LRD plots of <bold>(a)</bold> beach width, <bold>(b)</bold> dune crest elevation, and
<bold>(c)</bold> dune height for PAIS adjacent to the ancestral LOSP Creeks, forming the
modern Baffin Bay. LRD breaks down in favor of SRD at the largest scales at
the southern edge of the previously identified paleo-channel. The scale at
which LRD breaks down to SRD decreases gradually to the north of the
channel, suggesting that the paleo-channel asymmetrically influenced beach
and dune morphology.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=170.716535pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1139/2018/esurf-6-1139-2018-f06.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1148?><p id="d1e794">Island width exhibits the greatest alongshore variability in LRD of all
island and framework geology morphometrics (Fig. 4g) and demonstrates that
island width is dependent on broad- and fine-scale patterns of change. Areas
of low dunes are likely to be overtopped during a storm, transporting
sediment to the landward margin of the island. Waves and currents along the
landward margin of the island erode the wash-over fans and redistribute
sediment along the island. In this sense, the island width at one location
is directly influenced by sedimentation patterns along the adjacent parts of
the island. Undulations in the Gulf of Mexico shoreline are smoothed out
over the long term, thereby reducing the likelihood that patterns in island
width are solely caused by shoreline change patterns. This repeat wash-over,
followed by sediment redistribution along the back-barrier shoreline,
represents the mechanism by which barrier islands can transgress landward
and keep up with sea level rise.</p>
      <p id="d1e797">Bathymetric depth profiles at 2 and 4 km offshore exhibit substantial LRD
at broad scales, but this breaks down at scales finer than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km alongshore (Fig. 4h and i). Long-range dependence breaks down at larger
alongshore length scales in the 2 km bathymetry, compared to the 4 km
bathymetry. Since modern coastal processes continue to affect alongshore
sediment transport, large undulations in the bathymetry are smoothed out
over time by sediment redistributed along the coast. Finer-scale variations
in the modern nearshore bathymetry occur at similar spatial scales as
previously identified at PAIS (Wernette et al., 2018). The 2 km
bathymetric profile LRD breaks down at broader spatial scales than the 4 km
bathymetry (Fig. 4h and i). This suggests that localized variations in
coastal processes manifest themselves in the nearshore bathymetry closer to the
shoreline. Wave shoaling and breaking will erode and deposit sediment along
the coast, impacting bathymetric structures closer to the shoreline.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e816">As noted, flares in the LRD plots are interpreted as areas where the
morphometrics are more locally dependent on the adjacent values. Since
flares in the LRD plots of surface morphometrics are most pronounced
adjacent to the infilled paleo-channels and decrease to the north (Figs. 4,
5, and 6), this spatial correlation supports the hypothesis that the modern
barrier island morphology was influenced by variations in the framework
geology. Paleo-channels along PAIS range in scale, with the smallest
channels only <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m below the modern surface and the deepest
and widest channels <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m deep.
Regardless of the paleo-channel dimensions, patterns in the LRD plots
demonstrate that paleo-channels affect the nearshore bathymetry and modern
island morphometrics asymmetrically and decrease in minimum alongshore scale
to the north. Beach and dune morphology up-drift of a paleo-channel directly
affects sediment available for areas of the beach down-drift. In this way,
larger paleo-channels (depth and width) will have a greater accommodation
space and influence beach–dune morphology along a greater stretch of coast,
while smaller paleo-channels have a more limited accommodation space and,
therefore, influence a smaller stretch of adjacent coastal morphology. Given
that a paleo-channel would have acted as a sediment sink for excess sediment
transported alongshore during sea level transgression, it follows that LRD
values would remain high at fine spatial scales up-drift of the paleo-channel
locations (Figs. 5 and 6).</p>
      <p id="d1e849">The current paper is in agreement with previous research that demonstrates
barrier island morphology is dissipative at broad spatial scales
(Wernette et al., 2018; Lazarus et al., 2011). Long-range
dependence is significant at very broad<?pagebreak page1149?> spatial scales in all island
morphometrics except for island width. Previous research also demonstrates
that rhythmic undulations and isolated paleo-channels can influence
short-term shoreline change patterns (Lazarus et al., 2011; McNinch,
2004; Schupp et al., 2006) and beach and dune morphology (Houser
et al., 2008; Houser and Barrett, 2010). This paper presents new information
supporting the hypothesis that paleo-channels in the framework geology
interact with alongshore currents to drive asymmetries in barrier island
geomorphology and that the scale of influence is ultimately limited. This
asymmetry is likely caused by paleo-channels acting as sediment sinks for
sediment transported south by a prevailing southerly alongshore current
during barrier island formation.</p>
      <p id="d1e852">The alongshore distance that variations in the framework geology influence
beach and dune morphology is dependent on paleo-channel scale and
orientation, relative to the average shoreline orientation. Long-range
dependence plots of beach and dune morphometrics suggest that beach and dune
morphology within the largest paleo-channel dissecting the island, the
ancestral LOSP Creeks, was influenced by beach and dune morphology up to 25 km north of the channel edge (Figs. 4c–f, 5, and 6). The large
paleo-channel identified by Fisk (1959) is slightly smaller in scale
than the paleo-channel forming Baffin Bay; however, the large Fisk (1959) channel intersects the coast at an oblique angle. Since the channel
dissects PAIS at an oblique angle, the influence of this channel is more
apparent on beach morphology than dune morphology. An oblique channel would
have required more sediment and take longer to fill than a shore-normal
channel. Subsequently, a wide beach and dunes would begin to form in the
shore-normal paleo-channel before the oblique paleo-channel. For an oblique
paleo-channel the volume of sediment required to fill the channel from
alongshore sediment transport and fluvial deposition from the mainland would
likely have been insufficient to build a wide beach to supply sediment for
significant dune growth.</p>
      <p id="d1e855">Paleo-currents during the Holocene were predominantly from north to south
(Sionneau et al., 2008), which would have set up a southerly
alongshore sediment transport gradient. Sediment transported from north to
south along the coast would have nourished beaches up-drift (i.e., north) of the
channel. Consequently, nourished beaches up-drift of the paleo-channel had a
greater sediment supply and increased fetch for aeolian transport inland to
promote large dune development (Bauer and
Davidson-Arnott, 2002; Bauer et al., 2009). While beach nourishment and dune
growth continued up-drift of the channel, excess sediment entering the
channel was deposited along the up-drift edge of the channel (Fig. 7).
Deposition on the up-drift edge was caused by the increased accommodation
space within the channel. Increasing the area that the alongshore current
flows through (i.e., transitioning from a confined alongshore current to an open
channel), while maintaining the alongshore current discharge, resulted in a
decreased flow along the northern edge. Reducing alongshore current velocity
caused sands to be deposited along the northern edge of the channel (Fig. 7), while finer particles are transported farther into the channel and
funneled offshore through the channel outlet. Given enough time and with
continued sea level rise during the Holocene, this preferential deposition
would have built a spit into the channel. Sediment trapped in the
paleo-channel would be unavailable to the beach down-drift. The closest
modern analogy to this alongshore sedimentation process is the formation and
evolution of an alongshore spit eventually completely crossing the
outflowing river channel, where the river is eventually cut off by the
elongating spit. In this case, sediment is supplied to the up-drift beach and
provides a sediment source for dunes to form.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><caption><p id="d1e861">The stages of how paleo-channels in the framework geology affected
barrier island development and evolution at PAIS, beginning with <bold>(a)</bold> initial
paleo-channel incision (approximately MIS II). <bold>(b)</bold> As sea-level began to
rise, sediment was transported south from river outlets to the north and was
deposited along the northern edge of the paleo-channel. <bold>(c)</bold> Continued
sea-level rise and sedimentation from the north, coupled with episodic
fluvial channel fill, continue to fill the paleo-channel until <bold>(d)</bold> the
paleo-channel is completely infilled and the island coalesces alongshore.
From <bold>(a)</bold> to <bold>(d)</bold> beaches to the north of the active channel area are supplied
with sediment from river outlets up-drift, which provide ample sediment
supply for aeolian sediment transport and dune development.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1139/2018/esurf-6-1139-2018-f07.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e889">Directional dependencies in beach and dune morphology, initially set up by
the interaction of framework geology with a dominant southerly alongshore
current, persist through time due to preferential wash-over reinforcing
preexisting alongshore variation in dune height. Areas of the island with
limited or no dune development are preferentially overtopped by elevated
water levels during a storm. Conversely, areas with higher dunes resist
storm wash-over/inundation and recover more rapidly following a storm.
Alongshore variations in the barrier island morphometrics, such as dune
height, persist through time because these patterns are reinforced by
episodic wash-over of small dunes during storms.</p>
      <p id="d1e892">The apparent disconnect between long-term shoreline change and framework
geology is due to the cumulative influence of waves continuously interacting
with the coast. This disconnect is further highlighted by the lack of storms
impacting PAIS. Long-term shoreline change rate is the cumulative result of
waves moving sediment on a daily basis, while short-term variations in
shoreline position caused by storms are feasible. It is unlikely that
short-term variations in PAIS shoreline position identified here are caused
by storms because PAIS has not been significantly impacted by a storm since
Hurricane Bret in 1999. Any short-term undulations in shoreline position are
likely to disappear over longer timescales, especially since no storm has
hit the island to cause significant localized shoreline erosion. Therefore,
the long-term shoreline change rate LRD (Fig. 4b) is unlikely to exhibit
substantial variation alongshore. Beach, dune, and island morphology do show
significant variation in patterns of LRD along PAIS (Figs.  4c, 4d, 4e, 4f,
4g, 5, and 6) because the initial barrier island morphology was set up by
the framework geology. If hurricanes had impacted PAIS more frequently, it
is likely that the alongshore variations in dune morphology, which were
initially set up by the paleo-channels, would have been reinforced. This is
because areas set up as low dunes would be preferentially over-washed while
areas of high dunes would be more resistant and resilient during and
following a storm. Therefore, the impact of a hurricane would highlight
alongshore variations in dune morphology set up by the paleo-channels.
Predicting future changes to barrier island geomorphology requires<?pagebreak page1150?> a
comprehensive knowledge of how the framework geology affected initial
variation in the beach and dunes.</p>
      <p id="d1e895">Understanding how the framework geology influences barrier island
geomorphology has important implications for understanding how barrier
islands are likely to respond to and recover following a storm or series of
storms. While many models of barrier island recovery focus on
spatiotemporal models of change, Parmentier et al. (2017)
demonstrated that spatial autocorrelation outperformed temporal
autocorrelation (e.g., “space beats time”, SBT) when predicting the recovery of
vegetation following Hurricane Dean. Since vegetation recovery and dune
geomorphic recovery are related (Houser et al., 2015), it follows
that understanding spatial autocorrelation in beach and dune features is
essential to predicting future changes to barrier island geomorphology. The
current paper supports the conclusions of Parmentier et al. (2017) by
demonstrating that spatial variations in the framework geology directly
relate to alongshore variations in beach and dune morphology (Figs. 5 and 6). In the context of SBT theory, results of the current paper support the
hypothesis that spatial variations in the framework geology (i.e., “space”)
control barrier island evolution (i.e., “time”). Accurately predicting future
barrier island change is predicated on comprehensively understanding what
processes influenced its initial formation and what processes continue to
influence island morphology. Predicting coastal change without accounting
for all factors affecting formation and evolution, such as directional
dependencies due to framework geology, is more prone to uncertainty, which
can have important managerial applications.</p>
      <p id="d1e898">Given that framework geology influences beach and dune morphology along the
coast, the methods and results of this paper represent an opportunity for
managers to improve coastal engineering projects, such as beach nourishment.
Sediment budget imbalances set up by the framework geology dictate the long-term
barrier island trajectory. Utilizing ARFIMA models to evaluate the
alongshore beach and dune morphology can provide valuable insight into how the
coast is likely to change naturally in the future. To reduce waste by
coastal nourishment, future projects should seek to first comprehensively
understand how the paleo-topography of an area continues to affect coastal
processes and morphology. By understanding the long-term influence of
framework geology, coastal nourishment projects can more effectively balance
how a project focuses on the near-future coastal morphology with long-term
natural changes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e908">This paper quantitatively demonstrates that variation in the framework
geology influences patterns of beach and dune morphology along a barrier
island. Understanding what controls beach and dune morphology and barrier
island development is integral to predicting future changes to barrier
island geomorphology and island transgression caused by storms and sea level
rise. Storm impact and barrier island transgression patterns are controlled
by beach slope, dune height, and wave run-up. Given a persistent alongshore
sediment gradient during the Holocene, paleo-channels in the framework
geology at PAIS likely acted as sediment sinks during<?pagebreak page1151?> island development.
While wide beaches and, subsequently, large dunes are nourished with
sediment up-drift of the channel, excess sediment can become trapped in the
channel. These channels trap sediment, starving sediment from down-drift
portions of the coast. The result of this asymmetry in sediment supply is
that large dunes occur up-drift of the paleo-channel and small dunes occur
down-drift of the paleo-channel. Effectively managing a barrier island
underlain by a variable framework geology should seek to balance short-term
societal pressures in the context of long-term natural change (i.e., framework
geology).</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e915">All datasets and code are available upon request from Phil Wernette (wernette@uwindsor.ca).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p id="d1e921">Because the work is so collaborative, all co-authors contributed equally. There is no author solely involved in any one phase of the research, rather, everybody was involved throughout all phases of the work.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e927">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e933">This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under grant no. 1634077. Publication supported in part by an
Institutional Grant (NA14AR4170102) to the Texas Sea Grant College Program
from the National Sea Grant Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Science
Foundation (DDRI grant number 1634077). This project was supported by a
Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery
Grant to Chris Houser. Undergraduate student research assistants aided in
fieldwork, with funding through a High-Impact Learning Experiences grant
from the Texas A&amp;M University College of Geosciences.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Orencio Duran Vinent<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: Andrew Cooper and Jennifer Miselis</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Anderson, J. B., Wallace, D. J., Simms, A. R., Rodriguez, A. B., Weight, R.
W. R., and Taha, Z. P.: Recycling sediments between source and sink during a
eustatic cycle: Systems of late Quaternary northwestern Gulf of Mexico
Basin, Earth-Sci. Rev., 153, 111–138, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.10.014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.10.014</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bauer, B. O. and Davidson-Arnott, R. G. D.: A general framework for
modeling sediment supply to coastal dunes including wind angle, beach
geometry, and fetch effects, Geomorphology, 49, 89–108, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Bauer, B. O., Davidson-Arnott, R. G. D., Hesp, P. A., Namikas, S. L.,
Ollerhead, J., and Walker, I. J.: Aeolian sediment transport on a beach:
Surface moisture, wind fetch, and mean transport, Geomorphology, 105,
106–116, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.02.016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.02.016</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Brenner, O. T., Lentz, E. E., Hapke, C. J., Henderson, R. E., Wilson, K. E.,
and Nelson, T. R.: Characterizing storm response and recovery using the
beach change envelope: Fire Island, New York, Geomorphology, 300, 189–202,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.08.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.08.004</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Browder, A. G. and McNinch, J. E.: Linking framework geology and nearshore
morphology: Correlation of paleo-channels with shore-oblique sandbars and
gravel outcrops, Mar. Geol., 231, 141–162, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2006.06.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.margeo.2006.06.006</ext-link>,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Cooper, J. A. G., Green, A. N., and Loureiro, C.: Geological constraints on
mesoscale coastal barrier behaviour, Global Planet. Change, 168,
15–34, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2018.06.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.gloplacha.2018.06.006</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Fisk, H. N.: Padre Island and Lagunas Madre Flats, coastal south Texas,
Second Coastal Geography Conference, 103–151, 1959.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Goldstein, E. B. and Moore, L. J.: Stability and bistability in a
one-dimensional model of coastal foredune height, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 121, 964–977, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015jf003783" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015jf003783</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Goldstein, E. B., Moore, L. J., and Durán Vinent, O.: Lateral vegetation growth rates exert control on coastal foredune
“hummockiness” and coalescing time, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 417–427, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-417-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-5-417-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Gutierrez, B. T., Plant, N. G., Thieler, E. R., and Turecek, A.: Using a
Bayesian network to predict barrier island geomorphologic characteristics,
J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 120, 2452–2475,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003671" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JF003671</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Hapke, C. J., Lentz, E. E., Gayes, P. T., McCoy, C. A., Hehre, R., Schwab,
W. C., and Williams, S. J.: A Review of Sediment Budget Imbalances along
Fire Island, New York: Can Nearshore Geologic Framework and Patterns of
Shoreline Change Explain the Deficit?, J. Coast. Res., 263,
510–522, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2112/08-1140.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2112/08-1140.1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Hapke, C. J., Plant, N. G., Henderson, R. E., Schwab, W. C., and Nelson, T.
R.: Decoupling processes and scales of shoreline morphodynamics, Mar. Geol., 381, 42–53, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2016.08.008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.margeo.2016.08.008</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Houser, C.: Feedback between ridge and swale bathymetry and barrier island
storm response and transgression, Geomorphology, 173–174, 1–16,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.05.021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.05.021</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Houser, C. and Barrett, G.: Divergent behavior of the swash zone in
response to different foreshore slopes and nearshore states, Mar. Geol.,
271, 106–118, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2010.01.015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.margeo.2010.01.015</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Houser, C. and Mathew, S.: Alongshore variation in foredune height in
response to transport potential and sediment supply: South Padre Island,
Texas, Geomorphology, 125, 62–72, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.07.028" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.07.028</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Houser, C., Hapke, C., and Hamilton, S.: Controls on coastal dune
morphology, shoreline erosion and barrier island response to extreme storms,
Geomorphology, 100, 223–240, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.12.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.12.007</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Houser, C., Wernette, P., Rentschlar, E., Jones, H., Hammond, B., and
Trimble, S.: Post-storm beach and dune recovery: Implications for barrier
island resilience, Geomorphology, 234, 54–63,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.12.044" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.12.044</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1152?><ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Houser, C., Barrineau, P., Hammond, B., Saari, B., Rentschlar, E., Trimble,
S., Wernette, P. A., Weymer, B. A., and Young, S.: Role of the foredune in
controlling barrier island response to sea level rise, in: Barrier Dynamics
and Response to Climate Change, edited by: Moore, L. J. and Murray, A. S.,
Springer, 2018a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Houser, C., Wernette, P., and Weymer, B. A.: Scale-dependent behavior of the
foredune: Implications for barrier island response to storms and sea-level
rise, Geomorphology, 303, 362–374, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.12.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.12.011</ext-link>, 2018b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Huang, H.: Depth of investigation for small broadband electromagnetic
sensrs, Geophysics, 70, G135–G142, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2122412" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1190/1.2122412</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, H. and Won, I. J.: Conductivity and susceptibility mapping using
broadband electromagnetic sensors, J. Environ. Eng. Geoph., 5, 31–41, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Lazarus, E., Ashton, A., Murray, A. B., Tebbens, S., and Burroughs, S.:
Cumulative versus transient shoreline change: Dependencies on temporal and
spatial scale, J. Geophys. Res., 116, F02014,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010jf001835" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010jf001835</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Lazarus, E. D.: Scaling laws for coastal overwash morphology, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 12113–112119, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl071213" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016gl071213</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Lazarus, E. D. and Armstrong, S.: Self-organized pattern formation in
coastal barrier washover deposits, Geology, 43, 363–366, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1130/g36329.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1130/g36329.1</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Lentz, E. E. and Hapke, C. J.: Geologic framework influences on the
geomorphology of an anthropogenically modified barrier island: Assessment of
dune/beach changes at Fire Island, New York, Geomorphology, 126, 82–96,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.10.032" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.10.032</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Lentz, E. E., Hapke, C. J., Stockdon, H. F., and Hehre, R. E.: Improving
understanding of near-term barrier island evolution through multi-decadal
assessment of morphologic change, Mar. Geol., 337, 125–139,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2013.02.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.margeo.2013.02.004</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>McNinch, J. E.: Geologic control in the nearshore: shore-oblique sandbars
and shoreline erosional hotspots, Mid-Atlantic Bight, USA, Mar. Geol.,
211, 121–141, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2004.07.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.margeo.2004.07.006</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Moore, L. J., List, J. H., Williams, S. J., and Stolper, D.: Complexities in
barrier island response to sea level rise: Insights from numerical model
experiments, North Carolina Outer Banks, J. Geophys. Res.,
115, F03004, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jf001299" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009jf001299</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Murray, A. S., Lazarus, E., Moore, L., Lightfoot, J., Ashton, A. D.,
McNamara, D. E., and Ells, K.: Decadal Scale Shoreline Change Arises from
Large-Scale Interactions, While Small-Scale Changes Are Forgotten:
Observational Evidence, Proceedings of the Coastal Sediments, San Diego,
USA, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Parmentier, B., Millones, M., Griffith, D. A., Hamilton, S. E., Chun, Y.,
and McFall, S.: When Space Beats Time: A Proof of Concept with Hurricane
Dean, Springer, 207–215, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22786-3_19" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-3-319-22786-3_19</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Plant, N. G. and Stockdon, H. F.: Probabilistic prediction of
barrier-island response to hurricanes, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 117, F03015, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jf002326" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011jf002326</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Riggs, S. R., Cleary, W. J., and Snyder, S. W.: Influence of inherited
geologic framework on barrier shoreface morphology and dynamics, Mar. Geol., 126, 213–234, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Sallenger, A. H.: Storm impact scale for barrier islands, J. Coast. Res., 16, 890–895, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Schupp, C. A., McNinch, J. E., and List, J. H.: Nearshore shore-oblique
bars, gravel outcrops, and their correlation to shoreline change, Mar. Geol., 233, 63–79, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2006.08.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.margeo.2006.08.007</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Schwab, W. C., Baldwin, W. E., Hapke, C. J., Lentz, E. E., Gayes, P. T.,
Denny, J. F., List, J. H., and Warner, J. C.: Geologic Evidence for Onshore
Sediment Transport from the Inner Continental Shelf: Fire Island, New York,
J. Coast. Res., 288, 526–544, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2112/jcoastres-d-12-00160.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2112/jcoastres-d-12-00160.1</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Simms, A. R., Lambeck, K., Purcell, A., Anderson, J. B., and Rodriguez, A.
B.: Sea-level history of the Gulf of Mexico since the Last Glacial Maximum
with implications for the melting history of the Laurentide Ice Sheet,
Quaternary Sci. Rev., 26, 920–940, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.01.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.01.001</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Simms, A. R., Aryal, N., Miller, L., and Yokoyama, Y.: The incised valley of
Baffin Bay, Texas: a tale of two climates, Sedimentology, 57, 642–669,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2009.01111.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-3091.2009.01111.x</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Sionneau, T., Bout-Roumazeilles, V., Biscaye, P. E., Van Vliet-Lanoe, B.,
and Bory, A.: Clay mineral distributions in and around the Mississippi River
watershed and Northern Gulf of Mexico: sources and transport patterns,
Quaternary Scie. Rev., 27, 1740–1751, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.07.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.07.001</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Stallins, J. A. and Parker, A. J.: The Influence of Complex Systems
Interactions on Barrier Island Dune Vegetation Pattern and Process, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 93, 13–29,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.93102" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/1467-8306.93102</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Climate change indicators in the
United States, 2016, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Weise, B. R. and White, W. A.: Padre Island National Seashore: A guide to
the geology, natural environments, and history of a Texas barrier island,
Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, 94, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Wernette, P., Houser, C., and Bishop, M. P.: An automated approach for
extracting Barrier Island morphology from digital elevation models,
Geomorphology, 262, 1–7, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.02.024" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.02.024</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Wernette, P. A., Houser, C., Weymer, B. A., Bishop, M. P., Everett, M. E.,
and Reece, R.: Influence of a spatially complex framework geology on island
geomorphology, Mar. Geol., 398, 151–162, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Weymer, B., Everett, M. E., Houser, C., Wernette, P., and Barrineau, P.:
Differentiating tidal and groundwater dynamics from barrier island framework
geology: Testing the utility of portable multifrequency electromagnetic
induction profilers, Geophysics, 81, E347–E361, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2015-0286.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1190/GEO2015-0286.1</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Weymer, B. A.: A geologic characterization of the alongshore variability in
beach-dune morphology: Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, Master of
Science, Geology and Geophysics, Texas A&amp;M University, 104 pp., 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Weymer, B. A.: An investigation of the role of framework geology on modern
barrier island transgression, Doctor of Philosophy, Geology and Geophysics,
Texas A&amp;M University, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Weymer, B. A., Everett, M. E., de Smet, T. S., and Houser, C.: Review of
electromagnetic induction for mapping barrier island framework geology,
Sedimentary Geol., 321, 11–24, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2015.03.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.sedgeo.2015.03.005</ext-link>, 2015a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1153?><ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Weymer, B. A., Houser, C., and Giardino, J. R.: Poststorm Evolution of
Beach-Dune Morphology: Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, J. Coast. Res., 31, 634–644, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2112/Jcoastres-D-13-00020.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2112/Jcoastres-D-13-00020.1</ext-link>, 2015b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Weymer, B. A., Wernette, P., Everett, M. E., and Houser, C.: Statistical modeling of the long-range-dependent
structure of barrier island framework geology and surface geomorphology, Earth Surf. Dynam., 6, 431–450, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-431-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-6-431-2018</ext-link>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Wilson, K. E., Adams, P. N., Hapke, C. J., Lentz, E. E., and Brenner, O.:
Application of Bayesian Networks to hindcast barrier island morphodynamics,
Coast. Eng., 102, 30–43, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.04.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.04.006</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Directional dependency and coastal framework geology: implications for barrier island resilience</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Barrier island transgression is influenced by the alongshore variation in
beach and dune morphology, which determines the amount of sediment moved
landward through wash-over. While several studies have demonstrated how
variations in dune morphology affect island response to storms, the reasons
for that variation and the implications for island management remain unclear.
This paper builds on previous research by demonstrating that paleo-channels
in the irregular framework geology can have a directional influence on
alongshore beach and dune morphology. The influence of relict paleo-channels
on beach and dune morphology on Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, was
quantified by isolating the long-range dependence (LRD) parameter in
autoregressive fractionally integrated moving average (ARFIMA) models,
originally developed for stock market economic forecasting. ARFIMA models
were fit across  ∼ 250 unique spatial scales and a moving window
approach was used to examine how LRD varied with computational scale and
location along the island. The resulting LRD matrices were plotted by
latitude to place the results in the context of previously identified variations
in the framework geology. Results indicate that the LRD is not constant
alongshore for all surface morphometrics. Many flares in the LRD plots
correlate to relict infilled paleo-channels, indicating that the framework
geology has a significant influence on the morphology of Padre Island National Seashore (PAIS). Barrier island
surface morphology LRD is strongest at large paleo-channels and decreases to
the north. The spatial patterns in LRD surface morphometrics and framework
geology variations demonstrate that the influence of paleo-channels can be
asymmetric (i.e., affecting beach–dune morphology preferentially in one
direction alongshore) where the alongshore sediment transport gradient was
unidirectional during island development. The asymmetric influence of
framework geology on coastal morphology has long-term implications for
coastal management activities because it dictates the long-term behavior of a
barrier island. Coastal management projects should first seek to assess the
framework geology and understand how it influences coastal processes in order to
more effectively balance long-term natural variability with short-term
societal pressure.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Anderson, J. B., Wallace, D. J., Simms, A. R., Rodriguez, A. B., Weight, R.
W. R., and Taha, Z. P.: Recycling sediments between source and sink during a
eustatic cycle: Systems of late Quaternary northwestern Gulf of Mexico
Basin, Earth-Sci. Rev., 153, 111–138, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.10.014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.10.014</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bauer, B. O. and Davidson-Arnott, R. G. D.: A general framework for
modeling sediment supply to coastal dunes including wind angle, beach
geometry, and fetch effects, Geomorphology, 49, 89–108, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bauer, B. O., Davidson-Arnott, R. G. D., Hesp, P. A., Namikas, S. L.,
Ollerhead, J., and Walker, I. J.: Aeolian sediment transport on a beach:
Surface moisture, wind fetch, and mean transport, Geomorphology, 105,
106–116, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.02.016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.02.016</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Brenner, O. T., Lentz, E. E., Hapke, C. J., Henderson, R. E., Wilson, K. E.,
and Nelson, T. R.: Characterizing storm response and recovery using the
beach change envelope: Fire Island, New York, Geomorphology, 300, 189–202,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.08.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.08.004</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Browder, A. G. and McNinch, J. E.: Linking framework geology and nearshore
morphology: Correlation of paleo-channels with shore-oblique sandbars and
gravel outcrops, Mar. Geol., 231, 141–162, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2006.06.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2006.06.006</a>,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Cooper, J. A. G., Green, A. N., and Loureiro, C.: Geological constraints on
mesoscale coastal barrier behaviour, Global Planet. Change, 168,
15–34, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2018.06.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2018.06.006</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Fisk, H. N.: Padre Island and Lagunas Madre Flats, coastal south Texas,
Second Coastal Geography Conference, 103–151, 1959.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Goldstein, E. B. and Moore, L. J.: Stability and bistability in a
one-dimensional model of coastal foredune height, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 121, 964–977, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015jf003783" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015jf003783</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Goldstein, E. B., Moore, L. J., and Durán Vinent, O.: Lateral vegetation growth rates exert control on coastal foredune
“hummockiness” and coalescing time, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 417–427, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-417-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-417-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Gutierrez, B. T., Plant, N. G., Thieler, E. R., and Turecek, A.: Using a
Bayesian network to predict barrier island geomorphologic characteristics,
J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 120, 2452–2475,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003671" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003671</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Hapke, C. J., Lentz, E. E., Gayes, P. T., McCoy, C. A., Hehre, R., Schwab,
W. C., and Williams, S. J.: A Review of Sediment Budget Imbalances along
Fire Island, New York: Can Nearshore Geologic Framework and Patterns of
Shoreline Change Explain the Deficit?, J. Coast. Res., 263,
510–522, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2112/08-1140.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2112/08-1140.1</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Hapke, C. J., Plant, N. G., Henderson, R. E., Schwab, W. C., and Nelson, T.
R.: Decoupling processes and scales of shoreline morphodynamics, Mar. Geol., 381, 42–53, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2016.08.008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2016.08.008</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Houser, C.: Feedback between ridge and swale bathymetry and barrier island
storm response and transgression, Geomorphology, 173–174, 1–16,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.05.021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.05.021</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Houser, C. and Barrett, G.: Divergent behavior of the swash zone in
response to different foreshore slopes and nearshore states, Mar. Geol.,
271, 106–118, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2010.01.015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2010.01.015</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Houser, C. and Mathew, S.: Alongshore variation in foredune height in
response to transport potential and sediment supply: South Padre Island,
Texas, Geomorphology, 125, 62–72, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.07.028" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.07.028</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Houser, C., Hapke, C., and Hamilton, S.: Controls on coastal dune
morphology, shoreline erosion and barrier island response to extreme storms,
Geomorphology, 100, 223–240, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.12.007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.12.007</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Houser, C., Wernette, P., Rentschlar, E., Jones, H., Hammond, B., and
Trimble, S.: Post-storm beach and dune recovery: Implications for barrier
island resilience, Geomorphology, 234, 54–63,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.12.044" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.12.044</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Houser, C., Barrineau, P., Hammond, B., Saari, B., Rentschlar, E., Trimble,
S., Wernette, P. A., Weymer, B. A., and Young, S.: Role of the foredune in
controlling barrier island response to sea level rise, in: Barrier Dynamics
and Response to Climate Change, edited by: Moore, L. J. and Murray, A. S.,
Springer, 2018a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Houser, C., Wernette, P., and Weymer, B. A.: Scale-dependent behavior of the
foredune: Implications for barrier island response to storms and sea-level
rise, Geomorphology, 303, 362–374, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.12.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.12.011</a>, 2018b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, H.: Depth of investigation for small broadband electromagnetic
sensrs, Geophysics, 70, G135–G142, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2122412" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2122412</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, H. and Won, I. J.: Conductivity and susceptibility mapping using
broadband electromagnetic sensors, J. Environ. Eng. Geoph., 5, 31–41, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Lazarus, E., Ashton, A., Murray, A. B., Tebbens, S., and Burroughs, S.:
Cumulative versus transient shoreline change: Dependencies on temporal and
spatial scale, J. Geophys. Res., 116, F02014,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010jf001835" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010jf001835</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Lazarus, E. D.: Scaling laws for coastal overwash morphology, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 12113–112119, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl071213" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl071213</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Lazarus, E. D. and Armstrong, S.: Self-organized pattern formation in
coastal barrier washover deposits, Geology, 43, 363–366, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1130/g36329.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1130/g36329.1</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Lentz, E. E. and Hapke, C. J.: Geologic framework influences on the
geomorphology of an anthropogenically modified barrier island: Assessment of
dune/beach changes at Fire Island, New York, Geomorphology, 126, 82–96,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.10.032" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.10.032</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Lentz, E. E., Hapke, C. J., Stockdon, H. F., and Hehre, R. E.: Improving
understanding of near-term barrier island evolution through multi-decadal
assessment of morphologic change, Mar. Geol., 337, 125–139,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2013.02.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2013.02.004</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
McNinch, J. E.: Geologic control in the nearshore: shore-oblique sandbars
and shoreline erosional hotspots, Mid-Atlantic Bight, USA, Mar. Geol.,
211, 121–141, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2004.07.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2004.07.006</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Moore, L. J., List, J. H., Williams, S. J., and Stolper, D.: Complexities in
barrier island response to sea level rise: Insights from numerical model
experiments, North Carolina Outer Banks, J. Geophys. Res.,
115, F03004, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jf001299" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jf001299</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Murray, A. S., Lazarus, E., Moore, L., Lightfoot, J., Ashton, A. D.,
McNamara, D. E., and Ells, K.: Decadal Scale Shoreline Change Arises from
Large-Scale Interactions, While Small-Scale Changes Are Forgotten:
Observational Evidence, Proceedings of the Coastal Sediments, San Diego,
USA, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Parmentier, B., Millones, M., Griffith, D. A., Hamilton, S. E., Chun, Y.,
and McFall, S.: When Space Beats Time: A Proof of Concept with Hurricane
Dean, Springer, 207–215, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22786-3_19" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22786-3_19</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Plant, N. G. and Stockdon, H. F.: Probabilistic prediction of
barrier-island response to hurricanes, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 117, F03015, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jf002326" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jf002326</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Riggs, S. R., Cleary, W. J., and Snyder, S. W.: Influence of inherited
geologic framework on barrier shoreface morphology and dynamics, Mar. Geol., 126, 213–234, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Sallenger, A. H.: Storm impact scale for barrier islands, J. Coast. Res., 16, 890–895, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Schupp, C. A., McNinch, J. E., and List, J. H.: Nearshore shore-oblique
bars, gravel outcrops, and their correlation to shoreline change, Mar. Geol., 233, 63–79, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2006.08.007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2006.08.007</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Schwab, W. C., Baldwin, W. E., Hapke, C. J., Lentz, E. E., Gayes, P. T.,
Denny, J. F., List, J. H., and Warner, J. C.: Geologic Evidence for Onshore
Sediment Transport from the Inner Continental Shelf: Fire Island, New York,
J. Coast. Res., 288, 526–544, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2112/jcoastres-d-12-00160.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2112/jcoastres-d-12-00160.1</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Simms, A. R., Lambeck, K., Purcell, A., Anderson, J. B., and Rodriguez, A.
B.: Sea-level history of the Gulf of Mexico since the Last Glacial Maximum
with implications for the melting history of the Laurentide Ice Sheet,
Quaternary Sci. Rev., 26, 920–940, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.01.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.01.001</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Simms, A. R., Aryal, N., Miller, L., and Yokoyama, Y.: The incised valley of
Baffin Bay, Texas: a tale of two climates, Sedimentology, 57, 642–669,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2009.01111.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2009.01111.x</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Sionneau, T., Bout-Roumazeilles, V., Biscaye, P. E., Van Vliet-Lanoe, B.,
and Bory, A.: Clay mineral distributions in and around the Mississippi River
watershed and Northern Gulf of Mexico: sources and transport patterns,
Quaternary Scie. Rev., 27, 1740–1751, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.07.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.07.001</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Stallins, J. A. and Parker, A. J.: The Influence of Complex Systems
Interactions on Barrier Island Dune Vegetation Pattern and Process, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 93, 13–29,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.93102" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.93102</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Climate change indicators in the
United States, 2016, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Weise, B. R. and White, W. A.: Padre Island National Seashore: A guide to
the geology, natural environments, and history of a Texas barrier island,
Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, 94, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Wernette, P., Houser, C., and Bishop, M. P.: An automated approach for
extracting Barrier Island morphology from digital elevation models,
Geomorphology, 262, 1–7, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.02.024" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.02.024</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Wernette, P. A., Houser, C., Weymer, B. A., Bishop, M. P., Everett, M. E.,
and Reece, R.: Influence of a spatially complex framework geology on island
geomorphology, Mar. Geol., 398, 151–162, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Weymer, B., Everett, M. E., Houser, C., Wernette, P., and Barrineau, P.:
Differentiating tidal and groundwater dynamics from barrier island framework
geology: Testing the utility of portable multifrequency electromagnetic
induction profilers, Geophysics, 81, E347–E361, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2015-0286.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2015-0286.1</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Weymer, B. A.: A geologic characterization of the alongshore variability in
beach-dune morphology: Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, Master of
Science, Geology and Geophysics, Texas A&amp;M University, 104 pp., 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Weymer, B. A.: An investigation of the role of framework geology on modern
barrier island transgression, Doctor of Philosophy, Geology and Geophysics,
Texas A&amp;M University, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Weymer, B. A., Everett, M. E., de Smet, T. S., and Houser, C.: Review of
electromagnetic induction for mapping barrier island framework geology,
Sedimentary Geol., 321, 11–24, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2015.03.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2015.03.005</a>, 2015a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Weymer, B. A., Houser, C., and Giardino, J. R.: Poststorm Evolution of
Beach-Dune Morphology: Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, J. Coast. Res., 31, 634–644, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2112/Jcoastres-D-13-00020.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2112/Jcoastres-D-13-00020.1</a>, 2015b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Weymer, B. A., Wernette, P., Everett, M. E., and Houser, C.: Statistical modeling of the long-range-dependent
structure of barrier island framework geology and surface geomorphology, Earth Surf. Dynam., 6, 431–450, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-431-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-431-2018</a>, 2018.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Wilson, K. E., Adams, P. N., Hapke, C. J., Lentz, E. E., and Brenner, O.:
Application of Bayesian Networks to hindcast barrier island morphodynamics,
Coast. Eng., 102, 30–43, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.04.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.04.006</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
