Cargando…
The role of biophysical cohesion on subaqueous bed form size
Biologically active, fine‐grained sediment forms abundant sedimentary deposits on Earth's surface, and mixed mud‐sand dominates many coasts, deltas, and estuaries. Our predictions of sediment transport and bed roughness in these environments presently rely on empirically based bed form predicto...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794777/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27011393 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067667 |
_version_ | 1782421517900972032 |
---|---|
author | Parsons, Daniel R. Schindler, Robert J. Hope, Julie A. Malarkey, Jonathan Baas, Jaco H. Peakall, Jeffrey Manning, Andrew J. Ye, Leiping Simmons, Steve Paterson, David M. Aspden, Rebecca J. Bass, Sarah J. Davies, Alan G. Lichtman, Ian D. Thorne, Peter D. |
author_facet | Parsons, Daniel R. Schindler, Robert J. Hope, Julie A. Malarkey, Jonathan Baas, Jaco H. Peakall, Jeffrey Manning, Andrew J. Ye, Leiping Simmons, Steve Paterson, David M. Aspden, Rebecca J. Bass, Sarah J. Davies, Alan G. Lichtman, Ian D. Thorne, Peter D. |
author_sort | Parsons, Daniel R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Biologically active, fine‐grained sediment forms abundant sedimentary deposits on Earth's surface, and mixed mud‐sand dominates many coasts, deltas, and estuaries. Our predictions of sediment transport and bed roughness in these environments presently rely on empirically based bed form predictors that are based exclusively on biologically inactive cohesionless silt, sand, and gravel. This approach underpins many paleoenvironmental reconstructions of sedimentary successions, which rely on analysis of cross‐stratification and bounding surfaces produced by migrating bed forms. Here we present controlled laboratory experiments that identify and quantify the influence of physical and biological cohesion on equilibrium bed form morphology. The results show the profound influence of biological cohesion on bed form size and identify how cohesive bonding mechanisms in different sediment mixtures govern the relationships. The findings highlight that existing bed form predictors require reformulation for combined biophysical cohesive effects in order to improve morphodynamic model predictions and to enhance the interpretations of these environments in the geological record. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4794777 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47947772016-03-21 The role of biophysical cohesion on subaqueous bed form size Parsons, Daniel R. Schindler, Robert J. Hope, Julie A. Malarkey, Jonathan Baas, Jaco H. Peakall, Jeffrey Manning, Andrew J. Ye, Leiping Simmons, Steve Paterson, David M. Aspden, Rebecca J. Bass, Sarah J. Davies, Alan G. Lichtman, Ian D. Thorne, Peter D. Geophys Res Lett Research Letters Biologically active, fine‐grained sediment forms abundant sedimentary deposits on Earth's surface, and mixed mud‐sand dominates many coasts, deltas, and estuaries. Our predictions of sediment transport and bed roughness in these environments presently rely on empirically based bed form predictors that are based exclusively on biologically inactive cohesionless silt, sand, and gravel. This approach underpins many paleoenvironmental reconstructions of sedimentary successions, which rely on analysis of cross‐stratification and bounding surfaces produced by migrating bed forms. Here we present controlled laboratory experiments that identify and quantify the influence of physical and biological cohesion on equilibrium bed form morphology. The results show the profound influence of biological cohesion on bed form size and identify how cohesive bonding mechanisms in different sediment mixtures govern the relationships. The findings highlight that existing bed form predictors require reformulation for combined biophysical cohesive effects in order to improve morphodynamic model predictions and to enhance the interpretations of these environments in the geological record. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-02-19 2016-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4794777/ /pubmed/27011393 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067667 Text en ©2016. The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Letters Parsons, Daniel R. Schindler, Robert J. Hope, Julie A. Malarkey, Jonathan Baas, Jaco H. Peakall, Jeffrey Manning, Andrew J. Ye, Leiping Simmons, Steve Paterson, David M. Aspden, Rebecca J. Bass, Sarah J. Davies, Alan G. Lichtman, Ian D. Thorne, Peter D. The role of biophysical cohesion on subaqueous bed form size |
title | The role of biophysical cohesion on subaqueous bed form size |
title_full | The role of biophysical cohesion on subaqueous bed form size |
title_fullStr | The role of biophysical cohesion on subaqueous bed form size |
title_full_unstemmed | The role of biophysical cohesion on subaqueous bed form size |
title_short | The role of biophysical cohesion on subaqueous bed form size |
title_sort | role of biophysical cohesion on subaqueous bed form size |
topic | Research Letters |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794777/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27011393 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067667 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT parsonsdanielr theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT schindlerrobertj theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT hopejuliea theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT malarkeyjonathan theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT baasjacoh theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT peakalljeffrey theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT manningandrewj theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT yeleiping theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT simmonssteve theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT patersondavidm theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT aspdenrebeccaj theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT basssarahj theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT daviesalang theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT lichtmaniand theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT thornepeterd theroleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT parsonsdanielr roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT schindlerrobertj roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT hopejuliea roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT malarkeyjonathan roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT baasjacoh roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT peakalljeffrey roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT manningandrewj roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT yeleiping roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT simmonssteve roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT patersondavidm roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT aspdenrebeccaj roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT basssarahj roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT daviesalang roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT lichtmaniand roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize AT thornepeterd roleofbiophysicalcohesiononsubaqueousbedformsize |