4.8 Article

Braiding of submarine channels controlled by aspect ratio similar to rivers

期刊

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 700-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2505

关键词

-

资金

  1. St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Industry Consortium
  2. Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC)
  3. ConocoPhillips
  4. Chevron
  5. Shell
  6. ExxonMobil
  7. BHP Billiton
  8. Ministry of Science and Technology from Taiwan [MOST 103-2221-E-006-215]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The great majority of submarine channels formed by turbidity and density currents are meandering in planform; they consist of a single, sinuous channel that transports a turbid, dense flow of sediment from submarine canyons to ocean floor environments(1,2). Braided turbidite systems consisting of multiple, interconnected channel threads are conspicuously rare(1). Furthermore, such systems may not represent the spontaneous planform instability of true braiding, but instead result from erosive processes or bathymetric variability(3-5). In marked contrast to submarine environments, both meandering and braided planforms are common in fluvial systems(6,7). Here we present experiments of subaqueous channel formation conducted at two laboratory facilities. We find that density currents readily produce a braided planform for flow aspect ratios of depth to width that are similar to those that produce river braiding. Moreover, we find that stability model theory for river planform morphology(8) successfully describes submarine channels in both experiments and the field. On the basis of these observations, we propose that the rarity of braided submarine channels is explained by the generally greater flow depths in submarine systems, which necessitate commensurately greater widths to achieve the required aspect ratio, along with feedbacks(9,10) among flow thickness, suspended sediment concentration and channel relief that induce greater levee deposition rates and limit channel widening.

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

4.8
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