Significant effect of sediment cohesion on delta morphology

Delta morphology is thought to be controlled by factors such as river discharge, tides and waves. Numerical modelling shows that sediment cohesion also strongly influences the development of a delta’s characteristics. The morphologies of the world’s deltas are thought to be determined by river discharge, tidal range and wave action 1. More recently, sea-level rise 2,3 and human engineering4 have been shown to shape delta evolution. The effects of factors such as sediment type and the overall amount of sediment carried by rivers are considered secondary4,5,6. In particular, the role of sediment cohesion, which is controlled by sediment size and type of vegetation, is unclear. Here we use a numerical flow and transport model7,8,9,10 to show that sediment cohesiveness also strongly influences the morphology of deltas. We find that, holding all other factors constant, highly cohesive sediments form bird’s-foot deltas with rugose shorelines and highly complex floodplains, whereas less cohesive sediments result in fan-like deltas with smooth shorelines and flat floodplains. In our simulations, sediment cohesiveness also controls the number of channels that form within the deltas, and the average angle of bifurcation of those channels. As vegetation generally acts as a cohesive agent, we suggest that deltas that formed before the expansion of land plants in the Devonian period should show fan-like characteristics, a finding consistent with the limited data from the sedimentological record11.

[1]  Martha Lou Broussard,et al.  Deltas : models for exploration , 1975 .

[2]  L. Wright.  Sediment transport and deposition at river mouths: A synthesis , 1977 .

[3]  Dynamic changes and processes in the Mississippi River delta , 1988 .

[4]  H. Reading,et al.  Variability of deltaic processes in terms of sediment supply, with particular emphasis on grain size , 1993 .

[5]  Lawrence P. Sanford,et al.  Assessing the paradigm of mutually exclusive erosion and deposition of mud, with examples from upper Chesapeake Bay , 1993 .

[6]  O. Catuneanu,et al.  Precambrian clastic sedimentation systems , 1998 .

[7]  David M. Paterson,et al.  Working with Natural Cohesive Sediments , 2002 .

[8]  G. Stelling,et al.  Development and validation of a three-dimensional morphological model , 2004 .

[9]  A. Defina,et al.  Modeling of channel patterns in short tidal basins , 2005 .

[10]  T. Sun,et al.  Jet-Plume Depositional Bodies—The Primary Building Blocks of Wax Lake Delta , 2005 .

[11]  A. Keshavarzi,et al.  Optimizing water intake angle by flow separation analysis , 2005 .

[12]  G. Petts,et al.  Braided Rivers: process, deposits, ecology and management. , 2006 .

[13]  J. Donnelly,et al.  Young Danube delta documents stable Black Sea level since the middle Holocene: Morphodynamic, paleogeographic, and archaeological implications , 2006 .

[14]  D. S. Maren.  Grain size and sediment concentration effects on channel patterns of silt-laden rivers , 2007 .

[15]  J. Syvitski,et al.  Morphodynamics of deltas under the influence of humans , 2007 .

[16]  D. Edmonds,et al.  Mechanics of river mouth bar formation: Implications for the morphodynamics of delta distributary networks , 2007 .

[17]  D. Mohrig,et al.  Conditions for branching in depositional rivers , 2007 .

[18]  Jerome P.-Y. Maa,et al.  Critical Bed-Shear Stress for Cohesive Sediment Deposition under Steady Flows , 2008 .

[19]  D. Edmonds,et al.  Stability of delta distributary networks and their bifurcations , 2008 .

[20]  J. Roelvink,et al.  Long-term process-based morphological modeling of the Marsdiep Tidal Basin , 2008 .

[21]  Chris Paola,et al.  Influence of steady base-level rise on channel mobility, shoreline migration, and scaling properties of a cohesive experimental delta , 2009 .

[22]  Ben Sheets,et al.  Predicting delta avulsions: Implications for coastal wetland restoration , 2009 .

[23]  I. Overeem,et al.  Sinking deltas due to human activities , 2009 .

[24]  J. S. Andrade,et al.  Simulation of birdfoot delta formation with application to the Mississippi Delta , 2009 .

[25]  David C. Hoyal,et al.  Morphodynamic evolution of experimental cohesive deltas , 2009 .

[26]  Wonsuck Kim,et al.  Is It Feasible to Build New Land in the Mississippi River Delta , 2009 .

[27]  G. Parker,et al.  Delta progradation driven by an advancing sediment source: Coupled theory and experiment describing the evolution of elongated deltas , 2009 .

[28]  W. Bertoldi,et al.  Morphological Analysis and Prediction of River Bifurcations , 2009 .

[29]  Paul J. Martin,et al.  Comparison of Model-Simulated and Observed Currents in the Central Adriatic During DART , 2009 .

[30]  D. Jerolmack.  Conceptual framework for assessing the response of delta channel networks to Holocene sea level rise , 2009 .