Description: Local tide and wave conditions were recorded with a RBRduo TDǀwave sensor (RBR Ltd., Ontario/Canada). The sensor was bottom mounted in a shallow tidal creek (0.78 m NHN) through a steel girder (buried 0.3m deep in the sediment) and was positioned 10 cm above sediment surface, as was determined by using a portable differential GPS. This resulted in the sensor falling dry during low tide. For accurate depth calculations, raw pressure data were manually corrected for atmospheric pressure derived from a locally installed weather station. The sensor was pre-calibrated by the manufacturer and the sampling rate was 3 Hz with 1024 samples per burst at a sample interval of 10 min. Recorded data were internally logged until the readout with the Ruskin (V1.13.13) software. Date and time is given in UTC. Data handling was performed according to Zielinski et al. (2018): Post-processing of collected data was done using MATLAB (R2018a). Quality control was performed by (a) erasing data covering maintenance activities, (b) removing outliers, and (c) visually checks. Low-tide data is not removed, but were easily identified through the manually calculated water depth data, where all depths 〈 0.05m represented low tide data.

Description: Local tide and wave conditions were recorded with a RBRduo TDǀwave sensor (RBR Ltd., Ontario/Canada). The sensor was bottom mounted in a shallow tidal creek (0.78 m NHN) through a steel girder (buried 0.3m deep in the sediment) and was positioned 10 cm above sediment surface, as was determined by using a portable differential GPS. This resulted in the sensor falling dry during low tide. For accurate depth calculations, raw pressure data were manually corrected for atmospheric pressure derived from a locally installed weather station. The sensor was pre-calibrated by the manufacturer and the sampling rate was 3 Hz with 1024 samples per burst at a sample interval of 10 min. Recorded data were internally logged until the readout with the Ruskin (V1.13.13) software. Date and time is given in UTC. Data handling was performed according to Zielinski et al. (2018): Post-processing of collected data was done using MATLAB (R2018a). Quality control was performed by (a) erasing data covering maintenance activities, (b) removing outliers, and (c) visually checks. Low-tide data is not removed, but were easily identified through the manually calculated water depth data, where all depths 〈 0.05m represented low tide data.

Description: Local tide and wave conditions were recorded with a RBRduo TDǀwave sensor (RBR Ltd., Ontario/Canada). The sensor was bottom mounted in a shallow tidal creek (0.78 m NHN) through a steel girder (buried 0.3m deep in the sediment) and was positioned 10 cm above sediment surface, as was determined by using a portable differential GPS. This resulted in the sensor falling dry during low tide. For accurate depth calculations, raw pressure data were manually corrected for atmospheric pressure derived from a locally installed weather station. The sensor was pre-calibrated by the manufacturer and the sampling rate was 3 Hz with 1024 samples per burst at a sample interval of 10 min. Recorded data were internally logged until the readout with the Ruskin (V1.13.13) software. Date and time is given in UTC. Data handling was performed according to Zielinski et al. (2018): Post-processing of collected data was done using MATLAB (R2018a). Quality control was performed by (a) erasing data covering maintenance activities, (b) removing outliers, and (c) visually checks. Low-tide data is not removed, but were easily identified through the manually calculated water depth data, where all depths 〈 0.05m represented low tide data.

Description: Local tide and wave conditions were recorded with a RBRduo TDǀwave sensor (RBR Ltd., Ontario/Canada). The sensor was bottom mounted in a shallow tidal creek (0.78 m NHN) through a steel girder (buried 0.3m deep in the sediment) and was positioned 10 cm above sediment surface, as was determined by using a portable differential GPS. This resulted in the sensor falling dry during low tide. For accurate depth calculations, raw pressure data were manually corrected for atmospheric pressure derived from a locally installed weather station. The sensor was pre-calibrated by the manufacturer and the sampling rate was 3 Hz with 1024 samples per burst at a sample interval of 10 min. Recorded data were internally logged until the readout with the Ruskin (V1.13.13) software. Date and time is given in UTC. Data handling was performed according to Zielinski et al. (2018): Post-processing of collected data was done using MATLAB (R2018a). Quality control was performed by (a) erasing data covering maintenance activities, (b) removing outliers, and (c) visually checks. Low-tide data is not removed, but were easily identified through the manually calculated water depth data, where all depths 〈 0.05m represented low tide data.

Description: Data presented here were collected between January 2021 to October 2021 within the research unit DynaCom (Spatial community ecology in highly dynamic landscapes: From island biogeography to metaecosystems, (https://uol.de/dynacom/ ) of the Universities of Oldenburg, Göttingen, and Münster, the iDiv Leipzig and the Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer. Experimental islands and saltmarsh enclosed plots were created in the back barrier tidal flat and in the saltmarsh zone of the island of Spiekeroog. Local tide and wave conditions were recorded with a RBRduo TDǀwave sensor (RBR Ltd., Ontario/Canada). The sensor was bottom mounted in a shallow tidal creek (0.78 m NHN) through a steel girder (buried 0.3m deep in the sediment) and was positioned 10 cm above sediment surface, as was determined by using a portable differential GPS. This resulted in the sensor falling dry during low tide. For accurate depth calculations, raw pressure data were manually corrected for atmospheric pressure derived from a locally installed weather station. The sensor was pre-calibrated by the manufacturer and the sampling rate was 3 Hz with 1024 samples per burst at a sample interval of 10 min. Recorded data were internally logged until the readout with the Ruskin (V1.13.13) software. Date and time is given in UTC. Data handling was performed according to Zielinski et al. (2018): Post-processing of collected data was done using MATLAB (R2018a). Quality control was performed by (a) erasing data covering maintenance activities, (b) removing outliers, and (c) visually checks. Low-tide data is not removed, but were easily identified through the manually calculated water depth data, where all depths 〈 0.05m represented low tide data.

Description: Data presented here were collected between January 2021 to October 2021 within the research unit DynaCom (Spatial community ecology in highly dynamic landscapes: From island biogeography to metaecosystems, (https://uol.de/dynacom/ ) of the Universities of Oldenburg, Göttingen, and Münster, the iDiv Leipzig and the Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer. Experimental islands and saltmarsh enclosed plots were created in the back barrier tidal flat and in the saltmarsh zone of the island of Spiekeroog. Local tide and wave conditions were recorded with a RBRduo TDǀwave sensor (RBR Ltd., Ontario/Canada). The sensor was bottom mounted in a shallow tidal creek (0.78 m NHN) through a steel girder (buried 0.3m deep in the sediment) and was positioned 10 cm above sediment surface, as was determined by using a portable differential GPS. This resulted in the sensor falling dry during low tide. For accurate depth calculations, raw pressure data were manually corrected for atmospheric pressure derived from a locally installed weather station. The sensor was pre-calibrated by the manufacturer and the sampling rate was 3 Hz with 1024 samples per burst at a sample interval of 10 min. Recorded data were internally logged until the readout with the Ruskin (V1.13.13) software. Date and time is given in UTC. Data handling was performed according to Zielinski et al. (2018): Post-processing of collected data was done using MATLAB (R2018a). Quality control was performed by (a) erasing data covering maintenance activities, (b) removing outliers, and (c) visually checks. Low-tide data is not removed, but were easily identified through the manually calculated water depth data, where all depths 〈 0.05m represented low tide data.

Description: Data presented here were collected between January 2021 to October 2021 within the research unit DynaCom (Spatial community ecology in highly dynamic landscapes: From island biogeography to metaecosystems, (https://uol.de/dynacom/ ) of the Universities of Oldenburg, Göttingen, and Münster, the iDiv Leipzig and the Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer. Experimental islands and saltmarsh enclosed plots were created in the back barrier tidal flat and in the saltmarsh zone of the island of Spiekeroog. Local tide and wave conditions were recorded with a RBRduo TDǀwave sensor (RBR Ltd., Ontario/Canada). The sensor was bottom mounted in a shallow tidal creek (0.78 m NHN) through a steel girder (buried 0.3m deep in the sediment) and was positioned 10 cm above sediment surface, as was determined by using a portable differential GPS. This resulted in the sensor falling dry during low tide. For accurate depth calculations, raw pressure data were manually corrected for atmospheric pressure derived from a locally installed weather station. The sensor was pre-calibrated by the manufacturer and the sampling rate was 3 Hz with 1024 samples per burst at a sample interval of 10 min. Recorded data were internally logged until the readout with the Ruskin (V1.13.13) software. Date and time is given in UTC. Data handling was performed according to Zielinski et al. (2018): Post-processing of collected data was done using MATLAB (R2018a). Quality control was performed by (a) erasing data covering maintenance activities, (b) removing outliers, and (c) visually checks. Low-tide data is not removed, but were easily identified through the manually calculated water depth data, where all depths 〈 0.05m represented low tide data.