4.7 Article

Flows, Transport, and Effective Drag in Intertidal Salt Marsh Creeks

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2021JC017357

关键词

effective drag; bed drag; asymmetry; intertidal creek; salt marsh; flow

资金

  1. UF Graduate Student Preeminence Award
  2. NSF CAREER (CBET) [1652628]
  3. NSF LTER (BIO-OCE) [1832178, OCE-1736830]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intertidal creeks play a significant role in connecting salt marshes and influencing the spatial heterogeneity in plant and animal distributions. The study reveals that the effective drag in these creeks is significantly higher than bed drag, leading to asymmetrical drag between tidal flood and ebb phases. Pressure gradient and friction dominate creek momentum balance, highlighting potential impacts on eco-geospatial evolution of salt marshes.
Intertidal creeks (channel width <5 m) weave through salt marshes, delivering water, nutrients, and sediments into the marsh interior and affecting spatial heterogeneity in plant and animal distributions. Despite their global prevalence, creek connectivity, and the mechanisms controlling cross-marsh hydrodynamics, remain poorly resolved. In this study, we measured flow and total suspended solids transport in three intertidal creeks within a confined drainage basin in a Georgia, USA salt marsh. We discovered that the effective drag is 3-12 times greater than bed drag, reaching levels similar to those observed in coral reefs. Furthermore, the drag between tidal flood and ebb phases differs, indicating an asymmetric drag. Analyses of along-channel momentum reveal that pressure gradient O(10-3-10-2) m/s(2) and friction O(10-3-10-2) m/s(2) dominate creek momentum balance. Divergence in tidal and suspended solids transport between adjacent creeks revealed contrasting tidal transport asymmetries (i.e., flood or ebb dominated) within this confined basin. We discuss how these differences may alter the eco-geospatial evolution of salt marshes and their response to sea-level rise.

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