4.6 Review

Bedload transport: beyond intractability

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211932

关键词

bedload transport efficiency; bedload transport rate; dimensionless specific stream power; quantile locally weighted scatterplot smoothing; sediment availability; transport regimes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This passage discusses four distinct bedload transport regimes in river systems and argues against the pursuit of a universal formula. It suggests the use of data-driven approaches to reveal nonlinear trends and the development of idiomatic relations that embrace the specificity of rivers in each transport regime.
Scrutiny of multifarious field and laboratory data amassed over nine decades reveals four distinct bedload transport regimes and demonstrates the search for a universal formula is a fallacious pursuit. In only one regime, in which the supply of transportable material is unconstrained, does the transport rate in some rivers approximate the expected proportional relationship with dimensionless specific stream power (omega(*)). At the other extreme, transport occurs at or near the threshold of particle motion, and the availability of sediment is regulated by the characteristics of the bed surface. In each regime, there is an underlying variation of transport rates at a given discharge, that is neither obscured by long measurement times nor standardized methodologies, and to properly differentiate them, the bedload size must be known. We show a data-driven relationship based on measurements made over several years, across the entire flow range, that requires no a priori specification of the association between the transport rate and omega(*), can reveal nonlinear trends that may otherwise be masked by omni-present temporal and spatial variability. The demise of the search for a universal formula will be accelerated by the development of idiomatic relations that embrace the specificity of rivers in each transport regime.

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