4.5 Article

Influence of reed stem density on foredune development

Journal

EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS
Volume 26, Issue 11, Pages 1161-1176

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/esp.257

Keywords

vegetation density; aeolian processes; modelling; roughness elements; adaptation length

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vegetation density on foredunes exerts an important control on aeolian sediment transport and deposition, and therefore on profile development. In a long-term monitoring field experiment, three plots were planted with regular grids of reed bundles in three different densities: 4, 2 and 1 bundles per m(2). This study reports on the differences in profile development under the range of vegetation densities. Topographic profiles were measured between May 1996 and April 1997. Results indicate important differences in profile development for the three reed bundle densities: in the highest density plot a distinct, steep dune developed, while in the lowest density a more gradual and smooth sand ramp was deposited. When the stems had been completely buried, differences in profile evolution vanished. After a second planting of reed stems in January 1997 the process was repeated. In May 1997, all plots had gained a sand volume ranging from 11.5 to 12.3 m(3) m(-1), indicating that the sediment budget is relatively constant, regardless of the particular profile evolution. The field evidence is compared with simulations of profile development, generated by the foredune development model SAFE. The model successfully reproduces the overall profile development, but in general, the equations used for vegetation-transport interaction overestimate the effect of vegetation. This causes some deviations between field and model results. Several reasons for this are discussed. Based on the experiments reported here, recommendations are given for further research. Copyright (C) 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available