4.6 Article

Fine-scale relief related to Late Holocene channel shifting within the floor of the upper Redondo Fan, offshore Southern California

期刊

SEDIMENTOLOGY
卷 56, 期 6, 页码 1690-1704

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3091.2009.01052.x

关键词

Flow-stripping; scours; submarine canyons; submarine fans; turbidite

类别

资金

  1. David and Lucile Packard Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Erosional and depositional bedforms have been imaged at outcrop scale in the upper Redondo Fan, in the San Pedro Basin of offshore Southern California in >= 600 m water depths, using an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle developed by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. The Autonomous Underwater Vehicle is equipped with multibeam and chirp sub-bottom sonars. Sampling and photographic images using the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Remotely Operated Vehicle Tiburon provide groundtruth for the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle survey. The 0 center dot 3 m vertical and 1 center dot 5 m lateral bathymetric resolution and 0 center dot 1 m sub-bottom profile resolution provide unprecedented detail of bedform morphology and structure. Multiple channels within the Redondo Fan have been active at different times during the Late Holocene (0 to 3000 yr bp). The currently active channel extending from Redondo Canyon makes an abrupt 90 degrees turn at the canyon mouth before resuming a south-easterly course along the east side of the Redondo Fan. This channel is floored by sand and characterized by small steps generally < 1 m in relief, spaced 10 to 80 m in the down-channel direction. A broader channel complex lies along the western side of the fan valley that was last active more than 850 years ago. Two distinct trains of large scours, with widths ranging from tens to a few hundred metres and depths of 20 m, occur on the floor of the western channel complex, which has a thin mud drape. If observed in cross-section only, these large scours would probably be misidentified as the thalweg of an active channel.

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

4.6
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