on the unplanted strips until the second year following the heavy first- 

 year crop of seed on the planted blocks. It seems, therefore, that these 

 areas were both seeded and protected by the planted blocks. It is 

 possible that' without this protection, seeds could not remain in place 

 at this location long enough for germination and establishment, and that 

 revegetation would have to come from gradual expansion of vegetation from 

 a more protected part of the island. 



2. Cedar Island . 



The experimental area is on the former Lola Naval facility situated 

 on a promontory near the southern tip of Cedar Island. It is exposed to 

 a fetch of several miles across Pamlico Sound to the east and northeast 

 and across Core Sound to the south. It appears to be representative of 

 many eroding shorelines in much of the Core and Pamlico Sound region. 



This area is believed to have a long history of erosion. On more 

 protected shores nearby, Junous marsh is growing on a thick (0.6 to 1.2 

 meters) layer of peat well above normal water levels, with the perpendi- 

 cular face of the peat exposed along the water's edge. Apparently the 

 marsh has grown upward on the surface of the accumulating peat and has 

 long since lost contact with the intertidal zone along this edge. Conse- 

 quently, the exposed face is quite vulnerable to erosion. This was 

 probably true in front (east) of the Lola facility some years ago, but if 

 so, the thick peat layer has eroded away. This shoreline is steep (10 to 

 25 percent slope) , and is presently composed of coarse sand interlayered 

 with thin lenses of peat. With only wind setup, a narrow area is available, 

 2 to 4 meters wide, on which S. alterniflova could be expected to grow. 

 Before planting in May 1972 there were three or four small eroding patches 

 of S. alterniflora along this shore. About 1,900 S. altemiflora plants, 

 dug near Drum Inlet, were transplanted by hand on about 0.6-by 0.6-meter 

 spacing along a 0.2-kilometer stretch of shoreline south of the Radar 

 Tower (Fig. 51). Following this planting, the area was subjected to 

 strong northeast winds by a subtropical cyclonic disturbance from 24 to 

 27 May. A few weeks later, 60 percent of the transplants were washed out 

 and the appearance of the 40 percent remaining was not encouraging. 

 Consequently, this trial was written off as a failure and was not checked 

 again until late in the season. At that time, the surviving plants had 

 made a surprising recovery. When growth emerged the following spring 

 (1973), these plantings were well established, and by fall a high propor- 

 tion of this stretch of shoreline was effectively stabilized (Fig. 52). 



Samples were taken from this area in the fall of 1973 to estimate 

 productivity (Tab. 25). Growth on this site was unusually dense and 

 vigorous. Number of culms and flowers per unit area was quite high, and 

 dry matter production was unusually high. When rechecked in January 1974, 

 the only noticeable change in these plantings was some sporadic sand 

 deposition by storm tides and waves. There was no evidence of stand loss 

 from erosion. 



99 



