the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Mangroves as nature-based mitigation for ENSO-driven compound flood risks in a river delta
Ignace Pelckmans
Jean-Philippe Belliard
Olivier Gourgue
Luis Elvin Dominguez-Granda
Stijn Temmerman
Abstract. Densely populated coastal river deltas are very vulnerable to compound flood risks, coming from both oceanic and riverine sources. Climate change may increase these compound flood risks due to sea level rise and intensifying precipitation events. Here, we investigate to what extent nature-based flood defence strategies, through conservation of mangroves in a tropical river delta, can contribute to mitigate the oceanic and riverine components of compound flood risks. While current knowledge of estuarine compound flood risks is mostly focussed on short-term events such as storm surges (taking one or a few days), longer-term events, such as El Niño events (continuing for several weeks to months) along the Pacific coast of Latin America, are understudied. Here, we present a hydrodynamic modelling study of a large river delta in Ecuador aiming to elucidate the compound effects of El Niño driven oceanic and riverine forcing on extreme high water level propagation through the delta, and in particular, the role of mangroves in reducing the compound high water levels. Our results show that the deltaic high water level anomalies are predominantly driven by the oceanic forcing but that the riverine forcing causes the anomalies to amplify upstream. Furthermore, mangroves in the delta attenuate part of the oceanic contribution to the high water level anomalies, with the attenuating effect increasing in the landward direction, while mangroves have a negligible effect on the riverine component. These findings show that mangrove conservation and restoration programs can contribute to nature-based mitigation, especially the oceanic component of compound flood risks in a tropical river delta.
- Preprint
(2564 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Ignace Pelckmans et al.
Status: open (until 03 Oct 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1009', Jasper Dijkstra, 11 Sep 2023
reply
The MS is well written, clear and addresses a relevant issue (or a combination thereof), and the timing nicely coincides with the onset of another El Niño.
The MS completely relies on numerical modelling. It would be nice to see a comparison to, or a discussion of analytical solutions of this problem (or a reasoning why numerics are better than analytics in this case). This would also function as a theoretical framework for hypothesis and system behaviour, and could help identify other deltas (regimes) where mangroves may have a similar protective role, without the need for expensive numerical modelling. Will this be covered in Pelckmans et al in prep (l372)?
Spatial scale seems to be very important; this could be stressed more in abstract and title (.e.g [...] flood risks in a large river delta.), and in the discussion. It is nice that you demonstrate the principle here, but how relevant is this to other deltas in the world, which are smaller, narrower, have an other tidal range, lower discharge?
I believe this is a useful study that illustrates the importance of conserving/restoring mangroves in deltas to mitigate (compound) flooding. But I am also wary of overstating the effect of nature-based solutions, and I think the authors need to be a bit more careful there, either by providing stronger proof for their assumptions/parameterisations (e.g. a small sensitivity study, which could even be done in the form of an extra scenario (e.g. 'what if we thin the forest?')), or by addressing the limits to their conclusions more clearly. To put it bluntly, and to challenge you to prove the opposite: I think the effect of mangroves is overestimated, and that they hardly play a role in shorter deltas.
l130: Good to see that authors explicitly address the vegetation drag. But maybe too much? A diameter of 3.5 cm combined with 85 (~9x9)roots per m2 gives a blocked frontal area of 32%, which seems high. Is there any sensitivity or calibration study to warrant this? And why didn't they use local observations - the environments and consequently the vegetation properties are quite different in Australia and Japan. Besides, h in Eq 4 is not defined.
l143: mangrove elevation calibrated to measured elevation levels. Nice method, but are these supported by any actual measures? Alike to mangrove dimensions, did you do some sensitivity checks?
l140: what is the source of the mangrove cover data?
l146: NSE should not have a unit?
l150: the part on generating conditions is a bit confusing despite the actual procedure being quite straightforward
2.3.2 should be landward boundary, not seaward
2.3 Model scenarios should be 2.4
l195: by making the mangrove areas 10m higher they cannot flood at all. I don't think it is a realistic parameterisation of the actual land use change (conversion into shrimp ponds or urbanisation with unprotected slums). This parameterisation effectively is a channelization that exaggerates the difference between yes-no mangrove presence. Likewise, converting all mangrove area into +10m land is very extreme.
l245: formatting is different
l243: significantly > substantially (the first is a statistical term). (also line 364; please check the entire ms yourself)
l370: most optimal > optimalPoints for Discussion:
What about the long-term effect of mangrove removal on tidal prism, channel depth and resulting water levels?
To inform on the potential for nature based solutions: What if potentially suitable habitat would be converted into mangroves again?
Model error is 0.18 m (does this differ among the 11 gauges?). Whilst this does not inform on how well HWL alone are simulated, this value is quite close to the differences between some model scenarios.
The results are discussed per set of scenarios, it would be nice to have a table (though a bit repetitive) that easily, visually compares the effects of all scenarios in a single figure.
You addressed flood levels along the thalweg of the estuary (where the difference w/wo mangroves is the smallest), but what about flood levels further into the mangrove areas, i.e. closer to some urban areas (this eems especially relevant for the western branch).I have very few textual remarks, highlighted in the pdf.
Ignace Pelckmans et al.
Ignace Pelckmans et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
186 | 43 | 11 | 240 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 186
- PDF: 43
- XML: 11
- Total: 240
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1