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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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