4.5 Article

Routes of Agulhas rings in the southeastern Cape Basin

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr.2010.07.008

关键词

Agulhas rings; Indo Atlantic exchanges; Altimetry

资金

  1. IFREMER
  2. INSU (Institut National des Sciences de l Univers)
  3. CNRS
  4. Universite de Bretagne Occidentale
  5. Ecole Normale Superieure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using weekly sea surface height data Agulhas rings from the period October 1992 to December 2006 are detected and tracked from their formation dates and throughout the Cape Basin While 102 of them formed at the Agulhas Current retroflection their subsequent subdivisions and junctions led to 199 trajectories The rings geographical probability of presence shows two maxima One related to numerous ring passages lies in the submarine bight formed by the Erica seamount the Schmitt-Ott seamount and the northeastern tip of the Agulhas Ridge The other one to be ascribed to topographic blocking of the eddies is southeast of the latter obstacle On the basis of topographic effects three routes for Agulhas rings are distinguished a Northern route for rings that enter the south-Atlantic northeast of the Erica seamount a Central one for those passing westward between this seamount and the tip of the Agulhas Ridge and a Southern one farther south Despite its bathymetric obstacles the central route is the dominant one both in terms of percentage of eddy crossings at its definition segment and in terms of conveyed volume transport Specific behaviours of rings along each route are described referring to observations in previous studies Some rings from the Northern route interact with the flow regime of the South African continental slope The southernmost trajectories of the Central route are thought to settle the location of the climatological Subtropical Front in that region The rings of the Southern route experience Important core property alteration as they transit through the subantarctic domain (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

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

4.5
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