deep, relatively uniform accumulations 

 of high marsh Spartina patens peat. 

 The Shaler model, however^ (which did 

 not invoke a relative sea level change 

 because many people at the time 

 thought that the rise in sea level due 

 to deglaciation had been completed 

 long before) called for a relatively 

 thin layer of high marsh peat over a 

 layer of S^. alterniflora peat over a 

 mud flat deposit in a clear and 

 regular sequence. The type of peat 

 could be distinguished by the roots 

 and rhizomes it contained (Figure 4). 

 Johnson (1925) concluded, based on 

 these criteria, that: 



"My own studies and those of my 

 assistants, involving the making 

 of many hundreds of sections 

 through our coastal marshes from 

 Prince Edward Island to Florida, 



amply confirm the essential 

 points in the conclusions of 

 Mudge and Davis. Karsh sections 

 showing the theoretical sequence 

 of deposits described by Shaler 

 do exist, however, but they 

 seem clearly to represent 

 local departures from the 

 normal sequences of marsh 

 development " 



The Barnstable Marshes - Redfield's 

 Synthesis 



In 1934, J.B 

 the stratigraphy of 

 Branford, Connecticut, 

 mechanism by which the 

 Shaler theories might be 

 It appeared from Knight's 



Knight described 



a marsh near 



and suggested a 



Mudge and 



reconciled. 



work that 



the marsh had first formed as Shaler 

 proposed, but that once the Spartina 



Figure 4. Characteristics used by Johnson (1925) to distinguish between salt 

 marsh peat deposits containing low marsh plants (1) Spartina alterniflora . 

 and high marsh plants (2) Spartina patens and (3) Distichlis spicata . Drawings 

 by G.B. Reed in Johnson (1925). (A) culm bases, rhizomes, and roots, (B) 

 cross section of rhizome, and (C) enlarged cross section of rhizome. 



7 



