See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231965884

Assessment of coastal dune vulnerability to

natural and anthropogenic disturbances along
the Gulf of Mexico. Environ Conserv
ARTICLE in ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MAY 2006
Impact Factor: 2.37 DOI: 10.1017/S0376892906002876

CITATIONS

READS

43

146

4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Juan B. Gallego-Fernndez

Jose G Garcia-Franco

Universidad de Sevilla

Institute of Ecology INECOL

59 PUBLICATIONS 588 CITATIONS

82 PUBLICATIONS 1,146 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Jose G Garcia-Franco

Retrieved on: 29 March 2016

Environmental Conservation 33 (2): 109117 2006 Foundation for Environmental Conservation

doi:10.1017/S0376892906002876

Assessment of coastal dune vulnerability to natural and anthropogenic

disturbances along the Gulf of Mexico
N D E Z 2 , J O S E G . G A R C I A - F R A N C O 1 ,
M . L U I S A M A R T I N E Z 1 * , J U A N B . G A L L E G O - F E R N A
1

CORAL MOCTEZUMA AND CLAUDIA D. JIMENEZ1

1
2

Departamento de Ecologa Funcional, Instituto de Ecologa, AC, km 2.5 Antigua Carretera a Coatepec, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico 91070, and
Departamento de Biologa Vegetal y Ecologa, Universidad de Sevilla, Apartado 1095, 41080 Sevilla, Spain

Date submitted: 22 December 2004 Date accepted: 25 February 2006 First published online: 26 May 2006

SUMMARY
Human population density is globally three times
higher along the coasts than inland, and thus
environmental impacts of human activities are greater
in magnitude on coastal ecosystems such as beaches
and dunes. Vulnerability assessment (the loss of
capacity to return to the original dynamic state
after system displacement) is thus necessary to
evaluate the conservation status and determine the
most relevant disturbance events. Twenty-six sites
along 902 km of Gulf of Mexico coastline, varying
in conservation status and sedimentary dynamics,
were sampled. At each site a vulnerability index
(VI) was calculated based on variables that described
geomorphological condition, marine influence, aeolian
influence, vegetation condition and human effects.
Vulnerability was very variable along the coast and only
19% of the sampled locations (mostly in the central
Gulf of Mexico) displayed low vulnerability. Cluster
analyses of the values assigned to the checklists for each
location grouped the studied sites into three, according
to their VI values. Low vulnerability locations had
abundant sediment supply and low human impact.
Locations with medium to high VI were mostly
affected by their natural geomorphological and marine
features and had medium to intense human activities.
Management strategies should consider the observed
variability in vulnerability, the natural dynamics
of these systems and the role of human activities
and interests, in order to achieve adequate policies
and establish well-informed priorities for integrated
coastal zone management.
Keywords: coastal dune vegetation, coastal management, Gulf
of Mexico, human impact, natural dynamics, vulnerability

INTRODUCTION
Property damage from hurricanes, storms and related wind
erosion and flooding hazards have a significant impact on

*
Correspondence: Dr Luisa Martinez e-mail: maluisam@ecologia.
edu.mx

coasts throughout the world, where mean density of human

populations is almost three times higher (1.2 109 people
live within both 100 km of a shoreline and 100 m of sea
level) than the global mean (Small & Nicholls 2003). These
demographic trends have been paralleled by a construction
boom for resident and transient populations, resulting in an
intensive stress on coastal ecosystems which has never been
greater. Furthermore, the upward tendencies in population
and infrastructure development indicate that these pressures
are likely to increase (Heinz III Center for Science, Economics
and the Environment 2000) resulting in loss of important
ecosystem services (i.e. mitigating the impact of storms and
hurricanes along the coast and further inland) that coastal
dunes provide to human society (Houston et al. 2001; Pye
2001; Ritchie 2001; Psuty 2004; van der Meulen et al.
2004; M.L. Martnez, A. Intralawan, G. Vazquez, O. PerezMaqueo, P. Sutton & R. Landgrave, unpublished data 2006).
A tragic example of the relevance of well-preserved coastal
dunes was provided by the December 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia, where human activities largely increased the impact
of the disaster. Recent assessments of the coastlines after
the tsunami indicate that well preserved natural ecosystems
(coastal dunes, mangroves and beach forests) reduced tsunami
effects on adjacent communities (Bambaradeniya et al. 2005;
Gibbons et al. 2005; Danielsen et al. 2005).
In the Mexican region of the Gulf of Mexico, human
impact on the coastline is increasing rapidly, mostly owing
to urban and tourism development (Moreno-Casasola 2004)
particularly along the central area of the Gulf of Mexico (State
of Veracruz; Fig. 1). In this region, the development of tourism
on the Costa Esmeralda represents potentially large economic
benefits, but also potentially large environmental impacts.
Policies of urban development along the Mexican coasts
have usually not been based on effective and comprehensive
understanding of coastal dune and beach variability and
dynamics (Moreno-Casasola 2004). Thus, it is necessary to
assess coastal dune vulnerability so that adequate management
responses are generated in order to safeguard the coastal
resources (Heslenfeld et al. 2004). In this study we define
vulnerability as the loss of capacity of a beach or foredune to
return to its original dynamic state after system displacement
(Williams et al. 2001). In this sense, a higher vulnerability will
imply that the system is altered so intensively and extensively
that it will be difficult for it to return to its original dynamic
state. In other words, a highly vulnerable location means its

110

M. L. Martnez et al.
evaluation that integrated morphosedimentological, ecological
and anthropogenic features. We thus adapted a checklist
successfully used in Spain, Portugal and the UK (GarcaMora et al. 2001; Williams et al. 2001) to the local conditions
of the Gulf of Mexico.
The main objective of this study was to assess beach
and foredune vulnerability to disturbance (both natural and
human-induced) along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico.
Specifically, we aimed to (1) assess local vulnerability and conservation status, (2) determine the most relevant disturbance
regime(s) affecting local resilience, considering both natural
(geomorphological, hydrological, aeolian and biological)
and human-induced disturbances and (3) incorporate the
information gathered into a general framework to improve
integrated coastal zone management and conservation along
the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico.

METHODS
Study sites

Figure 1 Location of the study sites.

resilience (the ability to recover and return to its original state)

is low.
Vulnerability assessment is concerned with a wide set of
qualitative and quantitative variables, namely geomorphology,
the buffering capacity of beaches and dunes, the degree
of human manipulation and the resulting ecosystem
fragmentation, and the species inhabiting the area, including
their conservation status (Heinz III Center for Science,
Economics and the Environment 2000; Williams et al.
2001). Frequently however, estimates of damage from natural
disasters along the coast focus mostly on human-related issues
(insured property, costs of public infrastructure repairs, crop
and timber losses), and do not include other disaster-related
costs, such as damage to natural resources and ecosystems
(Houston et al. 2001; Pye 2001; Ritchie 2001; Martnez et al.
2004; Psuty 2004; van der Meulen et al. 2004).
The methods used to assess coastal vulnerability are
diverse, and focus on different issues, such as natural physical
processes, climate change, disturbance frequency and erosion
(Panario & Pineiro 1997; Capobianco et al. 1999; Klein &
Nicholls 1999; Malvarez-Garca et al. 2000; Pethick &
Crooks 2000; Bryan et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2001),
ecological processes (Garca-Mora et al. 2000; Espejel et al.
2004) and socioeconomic impacts (Pielke & Pielke 1997;
Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment
2000). However, because of the large set of features that
comprised our definition of vulnerability, we sought a holistic

The coastline of the Gulf of Mexico is highly diverse,

and includes extensive high dune systems with wide sandy
beaches, and also areas with coastal dunes reduced both in
extent and height. The weather varies from tropical humid
(mean annual temperature and precipitation are 25 C and
2150 mm, respectively) to sub-tropical semi-humid (mean
annual temperature 22 C and annual precipitation 1000 mm)
(Martnez et al. 1993). Spring drought is severe, while the
summer is the rainiest season. During the winter months,
strong northerly winds favour along-shore sand movement.
Tourism and urban development along the coast are also
highly variable in density.
Twenty-six dune locations were selected along the coast of
the Gulf of Mexico according to their morphosedimentological (accretional, stable or erosional), ecological (occurrence
of plant communities) and anthropogenic (varying human
activities that occur on the foredunes and the beach) features.
The locations covered 902 km of coast line from the state
of Tamaulipas to the state of Tabasco (Digital Cartography,
1:1 000 000, CONABIO; Fig. 1). There were two restrictions
to this selection. First, the coastline between Chalchihuecan
and Coatzacoalcos (Fig. 1) was not sampled because it is a
volcanic area with scarce sandy beaches and no foredunes,
and most of the beaches are surrounded by cliffs and volcanic
rocks. Second, the very important coastal city of Veracruz was
not considered because its coastline is totally urbanized, the
beach is narrow and artificially maintained, and there are no
foredunes or natural vegetation left. This is an extreme case
of vulnerability, since there are no natural dynamics that can
possibly sustain the coastline and it therefore deserves to be
studied separately.
At each selected location, a 200300-m long segment
was selected considering that it constrained a homogenous
set of conditions (physical, ecological and human pressure).
The initial segment selection was subjective, after an initial

Coastal dune vulnerability on the Gulf of Mexico

exploration of the site. We walked along the beach and made
a general description of the site considering all the features
in which we were interested. We then subjectively selected
the 200300-m long segment that best represented the area.
When the beach and foredunes were highly heterogeneous (for
instance, the study site had both well preserved and severely
altered segments, as occurred in Chachalacas and Dona Juana)
we chose one segment to represent each case.
Vulnerability assessment
Data on vulnerability and vegetation composition were
gathered during fieldwork in September 2004. At each site,
beach and foredune vulnerability were assessed following a
checklist technique (Garca-Mora et al. 2001; Williams et al.
2001) comprising five groups of variables, namely the geomorphological condition of the dune system (GC, 8 variables),
marine influence (MI, 8 variables), aeolian influence
(AI, 9 variables), vegetation condition (VC, 10 variables)
and human effect (HE, 17 variables) (Garca-Mora et al.
2001; see supplementary material at URL http://www.
ncl.ac.uk/icef/EC Supplement.htm). Each selected variable
was transformed into semi-quantitative values by rating it
independently and ticking the appropriate box in the checklist
within a rating scale that ranged from 0 (lowest) to 4 (highest).
Specifically, each variable included the following aspects that
were considered key elements for beach and coastal dune
vulnerability:
(1) Geomorphological condition (GC). The typology and
extent of the coastal dunes (length, width and height),
including a general assessment of sediment budget.
(2) Marine influence (MI). Wave variables (height, length and
energy), tidal range, coastal orientation, beach slope and
grain size.
(3) Aeolian influence (AI). Influence of wind on sediment
dynamics. With high sediment supply, foredunes develop,
but in blowouts sand is blown inland.
(4) Vegetation condition (VC). Based on Garca-Mora et al.
(1999), we considered three functional types of plants:
type I plants with no presumed adaptations to the dune
environment; type II plants with adaptations to coastal
environmental stress, such as salinity; and type III plants
that are able to withstand burial. Unlike Garca-Mora
et al. (1999), life history attributes (annuals and perennials)
were not included in our classification of plant functional
types because there are very few annual plants growing on
the Mexican coast.
(5) Human effect (HE). Anthropogenic effects on the beach
and foredune were divided into ephemeral (outdoor
facilities, camping sites and paths) and permanent (roads,
houses, walkways, hotels, stores and restaurants).
Vegetation composition
At each site, two 25 10 m transects were randomly laid
along the 200300-m segments that were previously selected.

111

Randomization was performed by using random numbers

which indicated the location of the transect within the
segment. The transects were located along the sea-facing
slope of the foredune, avoiding the inclusion of secondary
dunes. Plant species were collected, identified and deposited
at the XAL herbarium (Instituto de Ecologa, AC, Xalapa,
Veracruz, Mexico). Species cover and abundance were
calculated following the Braun-Blanquet method modified
by van der Maarel (Moreno-Casasola et al. 1982). Based on
previous knowledge of the species that we found (Martnez
et al. 1992; Moreno-Casasola et al. 1994; Martnez &
Moreno-Casasola 1996; Castillo-Campos & Medina-Abreo
2002; Martnez et al. 2002), species were assigned to one of
the three functional types (I, II, III) to group coastal dune
species (Garca-Mora et al. 1999).
Data analyses
Partial vulnerability indices were calculated by summing
the values assigned to every variable within each group
(see supplementary material at URL http://www.ncl.ac.uk/
icef/EC_Supplement.htm) and then expressing the sum as
the percentage of the vulnerability for that group. The
vulnerability index (VI) was obtained by calculating the
average of the five indices as follows:
VI = (GC + MI + AI + VC + HE)/5

(1)

Each of the component indices ranged from 0 to 1, with 1 being

the highest possible value. Thus, as the VI values increased,
the ability of the beach and foredune to withstand further
disturbances (either natural or human-induced) decreased.
The matrix with the values for each of the 26 sampled
sites was analysed by means of cluster analysis. The squared
Euclidean distance was used as the measure of association,
and enabled us to group locations according to their VI values
(Gauch 1985; Jongman et al. 1995). Differences among groups
were analysed by means of one-way ANOVAs (Zar 1984).
RESULTS
Vulnerability varied along the coast (Table 1). However,
medium to high risk VI values were predominant, and only
19% of the sampled beaches and dunes (mostly located in the
central Gulf of Mexico at Dona Juana, La Mancha, Farallon
and Quijote, in addition to Tamiahua) displayed low vulnerability. Cluster analysis revealed three groups with statistically significant differences in coastal conditions (F = 19.612,
p < 0.01) (Fig. 2): group 1 with low vulnerability (VI = 0.30
0.38), group 2 with low to medium vulnerability (VI = 0.39
0.49) and group 3 with high vulnerability (VI = 0.360.54).
Inter-group differences were statistically associated with
indices GC (F = 35.283, p < 0.01), MI (F = 4.516, p < 0.022)
and HE (F = 28.287, p < 0.01), but not with AI (F = 1.549)
or VC (F = 0.854).
Locations from group 1 displayed the lowest GC, MI, HE
and VI values (Table 1). These sites corresponded to areas

112

M. L. Martnez et al.

Table 1 Partial and total vulnerability indices calculated for 26 sites located along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico. (GC = geomorphological
condition of the dune system; MI = marine influence; AI = aeolian influence; VC = vegetation condition; HE = human effect; and VI =
vulnerability index). The highest values for each vulnerability index per group are indicated in bold. Locations are grouped according to the
cluster analysis.
GC

MI

AI

VC

HE

VI

Group 1 Low vulnerability

Tamiahua
Farallon North
Mancha
Quijote
Dona Juana South

0.38
0.36
0.50
0.28
0.34

0.58
0.48
0.45
0.53
0.40

0.23
0.40
0.36
0.48
0.50

0.30
0.15
0.35
0.32
0.30

0.11
0.10
0.25
0.04
0.28

0.32
0.30
0.38
0.33
0.37

Group 2 Medium vulnerability

Tepehuajes North
Tepehuajes South
Barra El Tordo
Casitas
Nautla
Boca de Ovejas
Villarica North
Farallon South
Chachalacas South
Chalchihuecan South
Magallanes disturbed
Magallanes preserved
El Alacran

0.66
0.64
0.64
0.69
0.78
0.63
0.67
0.70
0.56
0.58
0.71
0.75
0.82

0.55
0.55
0.55
0.58
0.65
0.60
0.53
0.63
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.50
0.50

0.47
0.42
0.47
0.42
0.47
0.41
0.58
0.40
0.47
0.58
0.36
0.39
0.50

0.44
0.25
0.23
0.23
0.35
0.35
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.30
0.33
0.18
0.17

0.07
0.26
0.28
0.29
0.18
0.09
0.12
0.04
0.23
0.19
0.25
0.12
0.25

0.44
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.49
0.41
0.43
0.41
0.41
0.44
0.44
0.39
0.45

Group 3 High vulnerability

Playa Norte
Tuxpan
Tecolutla
Villarica South
Dona Juana North
Chachalacas North
Chalchihuecan North
Coatzacoalcos

0.64
0.69
0.84
0.81
0.81
0.78
0.59
0.78

0.48
0.60
0.53
0.55
0.50
0.55
0.48
0.53

0.36
0.56
0.44
0.31
0.45
0.19
0.23
0.53

0.45
0.38
0.43
0.13
0.35
0.33
0.19
0.38

0.46
0.47
0.47
0.41
0.47
0.50
0.32
0.41

0.48
0.54
0.54
0.44
0.51
0.47
0.36
0.52

Group 1
Group 3
Low vulnerability High vulnerability

Group 2
Medium vulnerability

Euclidean distance
10
15

20

25

Tepehuajes S
Barra El Tordo
Casitas
Chachalacas S
Magallanes N
Villarica N
Chalchihuecan S
Magallanes S
El Alacrn
Faralln S
Boca de Ovejas
Tepehuajes N
Nautla
Doa Juana N
Tecolutla
Coatzacoalcos
Tuxpan
Playa Norte
Villarica S
Chachalacas N
Chalchihuecan N
Doa Juana S
La Mancha
Faralln N
Quijote
Tamiahua

Figure 2 Dendrogram of 26 sites located along the Gulf of Mexico,

classified according to their partial vulnerability indices
(geomorphological condition, marine influence, aeolian effect,
vegetation condition and human effect) into three groups: low,
medium and high vulnerability. N = north and S = south.

with highly resilient and low vulnerability dunes. They had

abundant sediment supply, combined with low human impact,
mostly due to low accessibility of the beach. Group 2 sites,
with low to medium VI values were more vulnerable and
less resilient because of the geomorphological condition of
the system (GC 0.560.82) and the highest MI (0.530.65)
and AI (0.360.58) values (Table 1). Beaches in sites from
this group were narrow and many were covered by water
at high tide (Nautla, Barra El Tordo, Boca de Ovejas and
Casitas). Seaward foredune slopes were steep with no shore
bars. In these systems, bare-cliffed dunes resulted from a
low sediment supply, and continuous marine erosion and
washovers (for example Nautla). Sites from group 3, with
high partial and total VI values, were most vulnerable because
of their natural GC (0.590.84) and MI (0.480.6) levels. In
addition, vegetation was highly disturbed (mostly owing to
human activities, such as trampling, urban development and
habitat destruction), and included many species that belonged
to plant functional types I and II, with roots undermined by
erosion. Furthermore, human impact in group 3 sites was
highest (HI 0.320.5). These intensively used sites were barely
managed, included many paths, no boundary fencing and

Coastal dune vulnerability on the Gulf of Mexico

pedestrian access from nearby urban settlements was very
easy. The high partial VI values resulted in relatively high
total vulnerability (0.360.54) (Table 1).
We found a total of 61 plant species belonging to 23 different families. Of these, three species (Ipomoea pes-caprae
(L.) R. Br., Croton punctatus Jacq. and Sporobolus virginicus
(L.) Kunth., 0.05% of the total number of species) were
very frequent and found in 6573% of the locations visited.
Six species (Ipomoea imperatii (Cyrill) Gmel., Sesuvium
portulacastrum L., Cenchrus equinatus L., Chamaecrista
chamaecristoides (Colladon) I & B, Canavalia rosea (Sw.) DC
and Randia laetevirens Standley) were less abundant, but were
found in 2745% of the studied sites. The remaining 51
species were much scarcer, and 34 were only observed in
13 sites. The most frequent species were not always the local
dominants (Table 2). Vegetation in group 1 locations (low VI)
was dominated by Chamaecrista chamaecristoides, Paspalum
spp. Croton punctatus, Ipomoea pes-caprae and Palafoxia
lindenii A. Gray (all type III species). The vegetation in group 2
locations (low to medium VI) was dominated by a wider variety
of species, some of which were exotics (Casuarina equisetifolia
L.), type I (Iresine celosia L.) or type II (Randia laetevirens)
species. Type III species (Croton punctatus, Ipomoea pescaprae, Sporobolus virginicus) were also dominant in group
2 locations. High VI group 3 locations had the greatest
number of dominant species that included several type I
plants (Crotalaria incana L., Cenchrus equinatus, Parthenium
spp. and Commelina erecta L.), besides type III species (Croton
punctatus, Ipomoea pes-caprae and Palafoxia lindenii) that were
abundant along most of the coastline.

DISCUSSION
General trends
Of the analysed coastlines, 81% had medium to high VI
values. These areas corresponded to beaches and dunes with
high vulnerability to natural attributes (GC, MI, AI and
VC) coupled with a relatively intense human intervention. In
these vulnerable locations, the occupation and even the total
destruction of the back-beach and foredunes (for example
Playa Norte, Tecolutla, Chachalacas and Coatzacoalcos)
by permanent and transitory infrastructure development is
already affecting natural coastal dynamics, and will probably
result in high social and economic costs. When extreme
disturbance events occur, damaged and destroyed back beach
and foredunes, which act as a natural coastal defence protector
in severe wave events, will no longer be capable of providing
coastal protection (Pilkey 2003; O.M. Perez-Maqueo, R.
Costanza, M.L. Martnez, P. Sutton & S. Anderson,
unpublished data 2006). In addition, the exotic species
that we observed in high vulnerability locations probably
contribute to species replacement and increases environmental degradation. In intense conurbations such as Veracruz,
foredunes and natural vegetation are completely lost.

113

Caveats and strengths of the methods

Coastal dunes are fragile ecosystems that are likely to be
damaged or disappear because of human activities, impact
of which has increased worldwide at accelerated rates over
the last decades. As a result, conservationists and managers
are more and more often asked to assess the vulnerability of
these ecosystems. Unlike alternative vulnerability evaluations
(Panario & Pineiro 1997; Capobianco et al. 1999; Klein &
Nicholls 1999; Garca-Mora et al. 2000; Heinz III Center for
Science, Economics and the Environment 2000; Pethick &
Crooks 2000; Bryan et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2001; Judge
et al. 2003; Espejel et al. 2004), the holistic approach that
we followed here to assess coastal vulnerability included the
wide variety of aspects that determine dune dynamics and
resilience, namely physical, biological and human variables.
The vulnerability indices calculated for each location allowed
us to assess both potential vulnerability and the main sources
of local disturbance, yielding relevant information for coastal
managers and decision makers on the adequate management
strategies for each site.
The qualitative nature of the VI we used enables its users
to assess vulnerability status quite rapidly, which makes it a
practical tool. In our case, we were able to evaluate 902 km
of coastline in less than a month. The ease and efficiency of
the method matches the rate that vulnerability assessments
are required. However, an important drawback that derives
from the qualitative method we used is its relative nature.
Both partial and integral vulnerability indices are relative
and lack confidence intervals. Certainly, absolute measures
of threat (such as erosion rates and vegetation dynamics)
are possible and would yield error estimates. Nevertheless,
the time required to perform this is much longer (at least a
year), more expensive and, most importantly, would render
results that are very similar to those obtained through the
qualitative method. In either case, the central region of the
Gulf of Mexico would be considered as the least vulnerable and
most resilient region, while Tuxpan, Chachalacas, Tecolutla
and Coatzacoalcos would be the most vulnerable and least
resilient. From our experience, we think that for our goals,
absolute measures of threat are more costly than efficient and
useful.
On top of the benefit of quick vulnerability assessment, the
relativity of the VI facilitates comparison between locations
and is useful for regional management and conservation
decisions (Laranjeira et al. 1999; Garca-Mora et al. 2001;
Williams et al. 2001). For example, after determining the
vulnerability status of each site, it would be easier to balance
the competing demands of the coast at a regional scale. Which
areas should be preserved and which should be restored or
developed? From our results, it becomes obvious that high
vulnerability sites (from group 3, including Veracruz) need
to be restored in order to avoid or ameliorate the current
almost total disruption of coastal processes. As much as
possible, restoration measures should promote and restore
natural dune formation and promote the reintroduction of

114

M. L. Martnez et al.

Table 2 Species richness,

percentage of bare sand, dominant
species and species type (according
to Garca-Mora et al. 1999)
observed at each study site.
Type I = plants with no presumed
adaptations to the dune
environment; type II = plants
with adaptations to coastal
environmental stress, such as
salinity; type III = plants that are
able to withstand burial. Locations
are grouped according to the
results of the cluster analysis:
group 1 = low VI, group
2 = medium VI and group
3 = high VI.

Location

Species
richness

% bare
sand

Dominant species

Species
Type

14

10

50

Mancha

24

45

Quijote

70

C. chamaecristoides
Paspalum sp.
Croton punctatus
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Randia laetevirens
Diphysa robinoides
Commelina erecta
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Palafoxia lindenii
Croton punctatus

III
I
III
III
II
I
I
III
III
III

Sporobolus virginicus
Palafoxia texana
Croton punctatus
Croton punctatus
Asteraceae
Canavalia rosea
Casuarina equisetifolia
Coccoloba barbadensis
Croton punctatus
Croton punctatus
Croton punctatus
Croton punctatus
Canavalia rosea
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Palafoxia lindenii
Sesuvium portulacastrum
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Palafoxia lindenii
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Croton punctatus
Canavalia rosea
Palafoxia lindenii
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Iresine celosia
Casuarina equisetifolia
Acalypha hederacea
Coccoloba barbadensis
Ipomoea imperatii
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Randia laetevirens
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Croton punctatus
Okenia hypogea

III
III
III
III
II
III
exotic
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
I
exotic
III
III
III
III
II
III
III
III

Croton punctatus
Uniola paniculata
Sporobolus virginicus
Ipomoea imperatii
Palafoxia lindenii
Ipomoea imperatii
Crotalaria incana
Cenchrus equinatus
Parthenium sp.

III
III
III
III
III
III
I
I
I

Group 1
Tamiahua
Farallon North

Dona Juana South

40

Group 2
Tepehuajes North

14

60

Tepehuajes South

13

50

Barra El Tordo

14

45

Casitas
Nautla
Boca de Ovejas

9
11
13

80
85
35

Villarica North

80

Farallon South

45

12

15

Chalchihuecan South

60

Magallanes, disturbed

14

15

Magallanes, preserved

60

El Alacran

80

Group 3
Playa Norte

20

Tuxpan

10

65

Tecolutla

12

35

Chachalacas South

Coastal dune vulnerability on the Gulf of Mexico

Table 2 Continued.

Location
Villarica South

Djuana North

Species
richness
4

% bare
sand
40

25

13

15

Chalchihuecan North

40

Coatzacoalcos

25

Chachalacas North

native species, especially type III plants that are the natural
dune builders. These measures would, where possible, allow
the natural response of the system when exposed to highimpact disturbance events such as hurricanes and winter
storms. In turn, medium to low vulnerability sites should
be preserved or managed in a well-informed manner so that
they retain their natural dynamics and resilience. Special
attention is necessary for the central region of the Gulf of
Mexico where the development of the Costa Esmeralda may
have an important impact on the least disturbed coastline
segments.

Management
The economic relevance of safeguarding the coastline of
the Gulf of Mexico is evident. Mexico is one of the most
attractive international tourist destinations of the world
and receives nearly 20.6 million tourists a year, which in
2001 alone generated US$ 8.4 billion (Secretara de Turismo
2002). Of these tourists, 8.6 million (40%) go to the beach,
attracted by the beauty, wilderness, pleasant sea temperatures
and expected good environmental quality. This generates a
potentially high environmental stress on the coasts, especially
with the current tendency to poor planning and zonation.
In fact, as occurs in many regions of the world increased
pressure on the beaches and coastal dunes along the Gulf of
Mexico has resulted in increased degradation at a regional
scale. Proof of this is the evident decline in geographic
range and population size of the Mexican coastal endemic
shrub Chamaecrista chamaecristoides, mainly due to habitat
destruction (M.L. Martnez & J.G. Garcia-Franco, field
observations 2004).
What are the best options for well-informed coastal management, development and conservation? From our perspective,
several coastal dune attributes need to be considered if
integrated coastal zone management and conservation are to

Dominant species
Sporobolus virginicus
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Palafoxia lindenii
Croton punctatus
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Palafoxia lindenii
Palafoxia lindenii
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Croton punctatus
Commelina erecta
Cenchrus equinatus
Canavalia rosea
Ipomoea pes-caprae
Croton punctatus
Sesuvium portulacastrum
Ipomoea pes-caprae

115
Species
Type
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
I
I
III
III
III
III
III

be achieved, namely coastal variability, natural dynamics and

the role of human activities and interests.
Along the Gulf of Mexico, coastal vulnerability is highly
heterogeneous, depending on local physical, biological and
socioeconomic variables. Geological and hydrological attributes of each coastline, coupled with vegetation characteristics,
will affect shoreline dynamics and sediment migration (Psuty
2004), while local human activities will determine the intensity
of human impacts. Thus, policies based on the treatment of
the coast as an undifferentiated unit will be likely to lead to
simplistic (and deteriorating) management strategies.
The dynamic nature of the coasts allows coastal ecosystems
to persist in such a disturbance-prone environment. It is
thus fundamental to preserve the natural dynamics of these
ecosystems in order to maintain their biodiversity and to sustain ecosystem services such as coastal protection (Panario &
Pineiro 1997; Martnez et al. 2004; Bambaradeniya et al. 2005).
Human development and activities often disrupt the natural
coastal dynamic processes that maintain the coastline and are
exacerbating factors determining the vulnerability to coastal
hazards. Furthermore, development-related fragmentation of
the natural ecosystems has increased ecosystem vulnerability
in such a way that storms and hurricanes can have significantly
larger, more costly and long-lasting impacts on coastal
ecosystems than might otherwise be expected (Pielke & Pielke
1997; Gibbons et al. 2005).

CONCLUSIONS
The Gulf of Mexico coastlines studied showed vulnerability
values that largely varied according to local geomorphological
dynamics and the intensity of human impact. Management
strategies should consider this variability in vulnerability and
natural coastal dynamics, in order to achieve adequate and sitespecific policies, as well as to establish well-informed priorities
and healthy zoning of activities.

116

M. L. Martnez et al.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank R. Landgrave for Figures 1 and 2. We appreciate the
recommendations and suggestions made by Nicholas Polunin
and two anonymous reviewers that improved the manuscript. This project was partially financed by CONACYTSEMARNAT (2002-C01-0126), INECOL (902-17-516
MLM, 902-17-144 JGGF) and Programa de Actividades
de Transferencia de Tecnologa- Consejera de Educacion y
Ciencia-Junta de Andaluca, Spain (JBGF).

References
Bambaradeniya, C.N.B., Ekanayake, S.P., Sandun, M., Perera, J.,
Rodrigo, R.K., Pradeep, V.A.M., Samarawickrama, K. & Asela,
C. (2005) A report of the terrestrial assessment of tsunami
impacts on the coastal environment in Rekawa, Ussangoda and
Kalametiya (RUK) area of Southern Sri Lanka, pp. 138. The
World Conservation Union, Sri Lanka.
Bryan, B., Harvey, N., Belperio, T. & Bourman, B. (2001)
Distributed process modeling for regional assessment of coastal
vulnerability to sea-level rise. Environmental Modelling Assessment
6: 5765.
Capobianco, M., DeVriend, H.J., Nicholls, R.J. & Stive, M.J.F.
(1999) Coastal area impact and vulnerability assessment: the point
of view of a morphodynamic modeller. Journal of Coastal Research
15: 701716.

Castillo-Campos, G. & Medina-Abreo, M.E. (2002) Arboles

y arbustos
de la reserva natural de La Mancha, Veracruz. Mexico: Instituto de
Ecologa, AC: 143 pp.
Danielsen, F., Srensen, M.K., Olwig, M.F., Selvam, V., Parish,
P., Burgess, N.D., Hiraishi, T., Karunagaran, V.M., Rasmussen,
M.S., Hansen, L.B., Quarto, A. & Suryadiputra, N. (2005) The
Asian tsunami: a protective role for coastal vegetation. Science 310:
643.
Espejel, I., Ahumada, B., Cruz, Y. & Heredia, A. (2004) Coastal
vegetation as indicators for conservation. In: Coastal Dunes:
Ecology and Conservation, ed. M.L. Martnez & N. Psuty,
pp. 297318. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Garca Mora, M.R., Gallego Fernandez, J.B. & Garca Novo, F.
(1999) Plant functional types in relation to foredune dynamics and
the main coastal stresses. Journal of Vegetation Science 10: 2734.
Garca-Mora, M.R., Gallego-Fernandez, J.B. & Garca-Novo,
F. (2000) Plant diversity as a suitable tool for coastal dune
vulnerability assessment. Journal of Coastal Research 16: 990995.
Garca-Mora, M.R., Gallego-Fernandez, J.B., Williams, A.T. &
Garca-Novo, F. (2001) A coastal dune vulnerability classification.
A case study of the SW Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Coastal
Research 17: 802811.
Gauch, H.G. (1985) Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology.
USA: Cambridge Studies in Ecology.
Gibbons, H., Oates, J.L. & Jaffe, B. (2005) USGS scientists study
sediment deposited by 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Sound Waves
69: 14.
Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment
(2000) The Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards. Implications for Risk
Assessment and Mitigation. USA: Island Press.
Heslenfeld, P., Jungerius, P.D. & Kijn, J.A. (2004) European
coastal dunes: ecological values, threats, opportunities and policy
development. In: Coastal Dunes: Ecology and Conservation, ed.

M.L. Martnez & N. Psuty, pp. 335351. Heidelberg, Germany:

Springer-Verlag.
Houston, J.A., Edmonson, S.E. & Rooney, P.J., eds. (2001) Coastal
Dune Management. Shared Experience of European Conservation
Practice. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press.
Jongman, R.H.G., Ter Braak, C.J.F. & van Tongeren, O.F.R.,
eds. (1995) Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Judge, E.K., Overton, M.F. & Fisher, J.S. (2003) Vulnerability
indicators for coastal dunes. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal
and Ocean Engineering 129: 270278.
Klein, R.J.T. & Nicholls, R.J. (1999) Assessment of coastal
vulnerability to climate change. Ambio 28: 182187.
Laranjeira, M.M., Ramos Pereira, A. & Williams, A.T. (1999)
Comparison of two checklist methods for assessment of coastal
dune vulnerability. Boletn del Instituto Espanol de Oceanografa
15: 259268.
Malvarez-Garca, G., Pollard, J. & Domnguez Rodrguez, R. (2000)
Origins, management, and measurement of stress on the coast of
Southern Spain. Coastal Management 28: 215234.
Martnez, M.L. & Moreno-Casasola, P. (1996) Effects of burial by
sand on seedling growth and survival in six tropical sand dune
species. Journal of Coastal Research 12: 406419.
Martnez, M.L., Maun, A.M. & Psuty, N. (2004) The fragility
and conservation of the worlds coastal dunes: geomorphological,
ecological and socioeconomic perspectives. In: Coastal Dunes:
Ecology and Conservation, ed. M.L. Martnez, & N. Psuty,
pp. 355369. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Martnez, M.L., Moreno-Casasola, P. & Castillo, S. (1993)
Biodiversidad costera: playas y dunas. In: Biodiversidad Marina
y Costera de Mexico, ed. S.I. Salazar-Vallejo & N.E. Gonzalez,
pp. 160181. Mexico: CIQRO-CONABIO.
Martnez, M.L., Valverde, T. & Moreno-Casasola, P. (1992)
Germination responses to temperature, salinity, light and depth
of sowing of ten tropical dune species. Oecologia 92: 343353.
Martnez, M.L., Vazquez, G., White, D., Thivet, G. & Brengues,
M. (2002) Germination responses of five tropical beach and
dune species exposed to artificial sand burial and inundation
by fresh- and sea-water. Canadian Journal of Botany 80:
416424.
Moreno-Casasola, P. (2004) Conservation and management of
tropical sand dune systems. In: Coastal Dunes: Ecology and
Conservation, ed. M.L. Martnez & N. Psuty, pp. 319333.
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Moreno-Casasola, P., van der Maarel, E., Castillo, S., Huesca, M.L.
& Pisanty, I. (1982) Ecologa de la vegetacion de dunas costeras:
estructura y composicion. I. Biotica 7: 491526.
Moreno-Casasola, P., Grime, J.P. & Martnez, M.L. (1994) A
comparative study of the effects of fluctuations in temperature
and moisture supply on hard coat dormancy in seeds of coastal
tropical legumes. Journal of Tropical Ecology 10: 6786.
Panario, D. & Pineiro, G. (1997) Vulnerability of oceanic dune
systems under wind pattern change scenarios in Uruguay. Climate
Research 9: 6772.
Pethick, J.S. & Crooks, S. (2000) Development of a coastal
vulnerability index: a geomorphological perspective. Environmental Conservation 27: 359367.
Pilkey, O.H. (2003) A Celebration of the Worlds Barrier Islands. China:
Columbia University Press.
Pielke Jr, R.A. & Pielke Sr, R.A. (1997) Hurricanes: their Nature and
Impacts on Society. London, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Coastal dune vulnerability on the Gulf of Mexico

Psuty, N.P. (2004) The coastal foredune: a morphological basis for
regional coastal dune development. In: Coastal Dunes: Ecology
and Conservation, ed. M.L. Martnez & N. Psuty, pp. 1127.
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Pye, K. (2001) Long-term geomorphological changes and how
they may affect the dune coasts of Europe. In: Coastal Dune
Management. Shared Experience of European Conservation Practice,
ed. J.A. Houston, S.E. Edmonson & P.J. Rooney, pp. 1723.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press.
Ritchie, W. (2001) Coastal dunes: resultant dynamic position
as a conservational managerial objective. In: Coastal Dune
Management. Shared Experience of European Conservation Practice,
ed. J.A. Houston, S.E. Edmonson & P.J. Rooney, pp. 116.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press.
Secretara de Turismo (2002) Segundo informe de gobierno [www
document]. URL http://www.sectur.gob.mx

117

Small, C. & Nicholls, R.J. (2003) A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. Journal of Coastal Research 19: 584
599.
Van der Meulen, F., Bakker, T.W.M. & Houston, J.A. (2004) The
costs of our coasts: examples of dynamic dune management from
Western Europe In: Coastal Dunes: Ecology and Conservation, ed.
M.L. Martnez & N. Psuty, pp. 259277. Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
Williams, A.T., Alveirinho-Dias, J., Garca-Novo, F., Garca-Mora,
M.R., Curr, R. & Pereira, A. (2001) Integrated coastal dune
management: checklists. Continental Shelf Research 21: 19371960.
Zhang, K., Douglas, B.C. & Leatherman, S.P. (2001) Beach erosion
potential for severe Noreasters. Journal of Coastal Research 17:
309321.
Zar, J.H. (1984) Biostatistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.