the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Influence of alluvial slope on avulsion in river deltas
Abstract. Changed hydrological regimes, sea-level rise, and accelerated subsidence are all putting river deltas at risk across the globe. One mechanism by which deltas may respond to these stressors is that of avulsion. Decades of delta avulsion studies have resulted in conflicting hypotheses that avulsion frequency and location are primarily controlled by upstream (water and sediment discharge) or downstream (backwater and sea-level rise) drivers. Here we use Delft3D morphodynamic simulations to test the upstream-influence hypothesis by varying the initial alluvial slopes upstream of a self-formed delta plain within a range (1.13 × 10−4 to 3.04 × 10−3) that is representative of global deltas and recording avulsion, while leaving all other parameters constant. Avulsion timing and location were recorded in six scenarios modelled over a 400-year period. We measured independent morphometric variables including avulsion length, delta lobe width, bankfull depth, channel width at avulsion, delta topset slope and sediment load and compare these to natural and laboratory deltas. We find that larger deltas take more time to avulse as avulsion timing scales with avulsion length, delta lobe width and bankfull depth. More importantly, we also find a strong (p < 0.05) negative correlation between delta topset slope and avulsion timescale. We argue that topset slope is directly dependent on the varying upstream alluvial slope which determines sediment supply to the delta. Increases in upstream alluvial slope raise transport capacity so bringing more sediment into a delta plain, leading to higher aggradation rates and, consequently, more frequent avulsions. These results induce further debate over the role of downstream controls on delta avulsion.
- Preprint
(1340 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2863 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2113', Luca Colombera, 09 Aug 2024
It is now the third time that I review some version of this manuscript, which was previously submitted twice to another journal.
Through both rounds of revisions, the authors have implemented changes that have largely addressed my earlier comments and, in my opinion, improved the article. At this stage, I do not have any other major points of criticism.
Still, I have found some discrepancies between text and figures/data that need to be looked at. There are also some bits of text that may benefit from some wordsmithing. These are all pointed out in the annotated ms.
Also, upon a re-read of the paper, I now think the authors could move all the description of methods, analyses and results that are included in the section 4.2 of the Discussion to the corresponding relevant sections (Methods and Results). I think the narrative of the paper would benefit from that.
I have left all the minor comments and suggestions in the annotated version of the paper.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Octria Adi Prasojo, 09 Aug 2024
Dear Dr Colombera,
We are very grateful for your continuous support to our manuscript.
We would also thank you for your detailed comments you made in the attached file.
From the attached file, we have meticulously read all your comments and we will carefully consider moving Figure 5 to be earlier in the Results section. We also think that moving Figure S4 to the main figure such as to be the Figure 7b would be better. In terms of the structure of our discussion, yes, we also feel that moving the analytical solution into the Methods section would make the structure better.
We will make sure to incorporate your feedback in this review round into the revised manuscript.
Many thanks,
Octria Prasojo and co-authorsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2113-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Octria Adi Prasojo, 09 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2113', Stephan Toby, 04 Sep 2024
This manuscript shows the results of a Delft3D modelling study on the effect of upstream alluvial slope on avulsion frequency in river deltas. The study follows a nice systematic approach of Delft3D runs and analysis of various morphometric features that would be of interest to readers. The authors also made a decent effort in tying models to case studies.
Although I like the systematic approach and analysis, I have two main concerns: (1) Not all arguments and choices in the design and analysis of this study are clear to me, as detailed in the attached file. (2) Some arguments in the text seem to contradict, and not all claims are clearly supported by the results. Although there is potential in this study, I encourage the authors to address or clarify the comments in the attached file. Purple comments are mine, yellow are another reviewer.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Octria Adi Prasojo, 18 Nov 2024
Dear Stephan Toby,
we appreciate your thorough and detailed comments on our manuscript.
Rest assured that we have accommodated your inputs into our revised version.You can find our response to your inputs in the 'response to reviewer' pdf file attached here.
We also uploaded the same file together with the revised manuscript and supplementary materials through the ESurf system.
Best wishes,
Octria Prasojo
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Octria Adi Prasojo, 18 Nov 2024
Data sets
Modelling Dataset Octria Adi Prasojo, Trevor B. Hoey, Amanda Owen, and Richard D. Williams https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23912625.v2
Video supplement
Video S1 Octria Adi Prasojo, Trevor B. Hoey, Amanda Owen, and Richard D. Williams https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25470505.v1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
252 | 57 | 57 | 366 | 48 | 7 | 5 |
- HTML: 252
- PDF: 57
- XML: 57
- Total: 366
- Supplement: 48
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1