4.6 Article

The Impact of Biophysical Processes on Sediment Transport in the Wax Lake Delta (Louisiana, USA)

期刊

WATER
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w12072072

关键词

Wax Lake Delta; coastal Louisiana; sediment deposition; vegetation; coastal restoration

资金

  1. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) through the Coastal Science Assistantship Program (CSAP)
  2. pFund through the Board of Regents
  3. National Science Foundation-Coupled Natural Human systems grant [DBCS 1212112]
  4. Department of the Interior South-Central Climate Adaptation Science Center [G12AC00002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sediment transport in coastal regions is regulated by the interaction of river discharge, wind, waves, and tides, yet the role of vegetation in this interaction is not well understood. Here, we evaluated these variables using multiple acoustic and optical sensors deployed for 30-60 days in spring and summer/fall 2015 at upstream and downstream stations in Mike Island, a deltaic island within the Wax Lake Delta, LA, USA. During a flooding stage, semidiurnal and diurnal tidal impact was minimal on an adjacent river channel, but significant in Mike Island where vegetation biomass was low and wave influence was greater downstream. During summer/fall, a vegetated channel constricted the water flow, decreasing current speeds from similar to 13 cm/s upstream to nearly zero downstream. Synchrony between the upstream and downstream water levels in spring (R-2= 0.91) decreased in summer/fall (R-2= 0.84) due to dense vegetation, which also reduced the wave heights from 3-20 cm (spring) to nearly 0 cm (summer/fall). Spatial and temporal differences in total inorganic nitrogen and orthophosphate concentrations in the overlying and sediment porewater were evident as result of vegetation growth and expansion during summer/fall. This study provides key hourly/daily data and information needed to improve the parameterization of biophysical models in coastal wetland restoration projects.

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