the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Salt intrusion dynamics in a well-mixed sub-estuary connected to a partially to well-mixed main estuary
Zhongyuan Lin
Guang Zhang
Huazhi Zou
Abstract. Salt intrusion in estuaries has been exacerbated by climate change and human activities. Previous studies have primarily focused on salt intrusion in the mainstem of estuaries, whereas those in sub-estuaries (those branch off their main estuaries) have received less attention. During an extended La Niña event from 2021 to 2022, a sub-estuary (the East River estuary alongside the Pearl River Estuary, China, experienced severe salt intrusion, posing a threat to the freshwater supply in the surrounding area. Observations revealed that maximum salinities in the main estuary typically preceded spring tides, exhibiting significant asymmetry in salinity rise and fall over a fortnightly timescale. In contrast, in the upstream region of the sub-estuary, the variation of salinity was in phase with that of the tidal range, and salinity rise and fall exhibited more symmetrical.
Inspired by these observations, we employed idealized numerical models and analytical solutions to investigate the underlying physics behind these behaviors. It was discovered that under normal dry condition (with a river discharge of 1500 m3 s-1 at the head of the main estuary), the river-tide interaction and change in horizontal dispersion accounted for the in-phase relationship between the salinity and tidal range in the upstream region of the sub-estuary. Under extremely dry conditions (i.e., a river discharge of 500 m3 s-1 at the head of the main estuary), salinity variations kept pace with those of the tidal range from the middle to upstream regions of the sub-estuary. The variation of salinity in the main estuary, along with those of salt dispersion and freshwater influx inside the sub-estuary collectively influenced salinity variation in the well-mixed sub-estuary. These findings have important implications for water resource management and salt intrusion prevention in the catchment area.
- Preprint
(2540 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(594 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Zhongyuan Lin et al.
Status: open (until 18 Dec 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2248', Hubert H.G. Savenije, 11 Nov 2023
reply
The paper reads well and contains interesting new observations. It is also good that the authors present empirical proof that salt intrusion is larger during spring tide in well-mixed estuaries, while in partially mixed estuaries the highest intrusion is achieved during neap tide.
In general, I think the paper can be accepted for publication. I have a few observations, though, which I trust the authors will address in a revised final version.1. In Figure 10b we see that the salt flux is always directed upstream. This cannot be the total salt flux because in that case there would not be a steady state: the estuary would continuously become more saline. I suspect that the authors mean the dispersive salt flux, as described by the third term in Eq(3), or the righthand side of Eq (4). In steady state the total average flux should be zero (the advective transport matches the dispersive transport). Please clarify.
2. Then there is an issue with the way how the authors describe the condition for steady state. They compare the 14 days tide scale of the neap-spring cycle with the time that a water particle takes to travel through the estuary. If that time scale is T_f, then we see that during low flow, this time scale is very long, particularly in wide estuaries. But this is not the right time scale to consider. What should be considered is the system response time scale, such as for instance is described in Section 5.6.1 of Savenije (2012), which is a book cited by the authors. Referring to Table 5.6 in Savenije (2012), one can see that the system response time scale (whether T_K or T_S) is substantially smaller than T_f (with a factor 2 to 10 depending on the channel geometry and river flow). This explains why the analytical model provides quite good sub-tidal salinity estimates even for low river discharge.
Finally, the observation in line 606 “justifies ignoring the steady shear part in Eq. (3)” is not at all clear to me. What is ignored in Eq.(3)? And how does this connect to “steady shear”?
I wish the authors success with submitting their revised version.
ref.:
Savenije, H.H.G., 2012. Salinity and tides in alluvial estuaries. Second Edition <www.salinityandtides.com>.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2248-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wenping Gong, 13 Nov 2023
reply
Dear Prof. Savenije:
We very appreciate your comments for our manuscript. These comments and insights are helpful for improving the quality of our paper. We address your comments point-by-point as follows.
Comment:
The paper reads well and contains interesting new observations. It is also good that the authors present empirical proof that salt intrusion is larger during spring tide in well-mixed estuaries, while in partially mixed estuaries the highest intrusion is achieved during neap tide.
In general, I think the paper can be accepted for publication. I have a few observations, though, which I trust the authors will address in a revised final version.Response:
We thank for the constructive comments from the reviewer.
Comment:
- In Figure 10b we see that the salt flux is always directed upstream. This cannot be the total salt flux because in that case there would not be a steady state: the estuary would continuously become more saline. I suspect that the authors mean the dispersive salt flux, as described by the third term in Eq(3), or the righthand side of Eq (4). In steady state the total average flux should be zero (the advective transport matches the dispersive transport). Please clarify.
Response:
This is a great comment. We double-check our subroutine for calculating the salt flux, and note that we made an error to misrepresent the water depth for the grid cells. We recalculate the fluxes and the new results are presented in the new Fig.10.
The new results indicate that the salt flux is generally positive during the periods from neap to spring tides, showing a net salt import, and negative from spring to neap tides, a net salt export.
Comment:
- Then there is an issue with the way how the authors describe the condition for steady state. They compare the 14 days tide scale of the neap-spring cycle with the time that a water particle takes to travel through the estuary. If that time scale is T_f, then we see that during low flow, this time scale is very long, particularly in wide estuaries. But this is not the right time scale to consider. What should be considered is the system response time scale, such as for instance is described in Section 5.6.1 of Savenije (2012), which is a book cited by the authors. Referring to Table 5.6 in Savenije (2012), one can see that the system response time scale (whether T_K or T_S) is substantially smaller than T_f (with a factor 2 to 10 depending on the channel geometry and river flow). This explains why the analytical model provides quite good sub-tidal salinity estimates even for low river discharge.
Response:
We carefully read the relevant chapter in Savenije (2012), and recalculate the response timescale of Ts (). The thus obtained timescale is 16.22 day, which is comparable to the spring-neap tidal cycle.
We revise the text accordingly.
Comment:
Finally, the observation in line 606 “justifies ignoring the steady shear part in Eq. (3)” is not at all clear to me. What is ignored in Eq.(3)? And how does this connect to “steady shear”?
Response:
The landward salt transport is generally decomposed into two parts: one is the steady shear induced by estuarine circulation and salinity stratification, and the other one is tidal oscillatory transport (McCready and Geyer, 2010). As the sub-estuary is generally well-mixed, the estuarine circulation and salinity stratification are both weak, thus the steady shear is minor. The dominant landward salt transport is thus the tidal oscillatory. In some literature, the salt transport equation is written as:
Where the second term in the right side denotes the steady shear. In Eq. (3), the steady shear is lumped into the horizontal dispersion.
We modify the text accordingly.
Comment:
I wish the authors success with submitting their revised version.
ref.:
Savenije, H.H.G., 2012. Salinity and tides in alluvial estuaries. Second Edition <www.salinityandtides.com>.Response:
Thanks again for your constructive comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2248-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wenping Gong, 13 Nov 2023
reply
Zhongyuan Lin et al.
Zhongyuan Lin et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
96 | 27 | 8 | 131 | 14 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 96
- PDF: 27
- XML: 8
- Total: 131
- Supplement: 14
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1