4.7 Article

Model-based interpretation of sediment concentration and vertical flux measurements in a shallow estuarine environment

期刊

LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 60, 期 2, 页码 463-481

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/lno.10047

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PBEZ2-121244]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [BR3785/1-1]
  3. NSF [OCE-0751970]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A one-dimensional numerical model describing tidally varying vertical mixing and settling was used to interpret sediment concentrations and vertical fluxes observed in the shoals of South San Francisco Bay by two acoustic Doppler velocimeters (ADVs) at elevations of 0.36 m and 0.72 m above bed. Measured sediment concentrations changed by up to 100 g m(-3) over the semidiurnal tidal cycle. These dynamics were dominated by local resuspension and settling. Multiple particle class models suggested the existence of a class with fast settling velocities (w(s) of 9.0 x 10(-4) m s(-1) in spring and 5.8 x 10(-4) m s(-1) in fall) and a slowly settling particle fraction (w(s) of <1 x 10(-7) m s(-1) in spring and 1.4 x 10(-5) m s(-1) in fall). Modeled concentrations of slowly settling particles at 0.36 m were as high as 20 g m(-3) during fall and varied with the spring-neap cycle while fine sediment concentrations in spring were constant around 5 g m(-3). Analysis of in situ water column floc size distributions suggested that floc properties in the lower part of the water column were most likely governed by particle-size distribution on the bed and not by coagulation, validating our multiple particle size approach. A comparison of different sediment bed models with respect to model performance, sensitivity, and identifiability suggested that the use of a sediment erosion model linear in bottom shear stress tau(b) (E = M (tau(b) - tau(c))) was the most appropriate choice to describe the field observations when the critical shear stress tau(c) and the proportionality factor M were kept constant.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据