4.7 Article

Preconditioning and triggering of offshore slope failures and turbidity currents revealed by most detailed monitoring yet at a fjord-head delta

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 450, 期 -, 页码 208-220

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2016.06.021

关键词

river delta; submarine landslides; turbidity current; geohazard; mass failure; sediment flow

资金

  1. NERC International Opportunities Fund [NE/M017540/1]
  2. NERC Environmental Risks to Infrastructure Innovation Programme (ERIIP) [NE/N012798/1]
  3. NERC
  4. Royal Society Industry Fellowship
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/M017540/1, noc010011, NE/P005780/1, NE/N012798/1, NE/M017540/2, NE/K011480/2] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. NERC [NE/N012798/1, NE/M017540/2, noc010011, NE/P005780/1, NE/M017540/1, NE/K011480/2] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rivers and turbidity currents are the two most important sediment transport processes by volume on Earth. Various hypotheses have been proposed for triggering of turbidity currents offshore from river mouths, including direct plunging of river discharge, delta mouth bar flushing or slope failure caused by low tides and gas expansion, earthquakes and rapid sedimentation. During 2011, 106 turbidity currents were monitored at Squamish Delta, British Columbia. This enables statistical analysis of timing, frequency and triggers. The largest peaks in river discharge did not create hyperpycnal flows. Instead, delayed delta-lip failures occurred 8-11 h after flood peaks, due to cumulative delta top sedimentation and tidally-induced pore pressure changes. Elevated river discharge is thus a significant control on the timing and rate of turbidity currents but not directly due to plunging river water. Elevated river discharge and focusing of river discharge at low tides cause increased sediment transport across the delta-lip, which is the most significant of all controls on flow timing in this setting. (C) 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

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