the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
RiverBedDynamics v1.0: A Landlab component for computing two-dimensional sediment transport and river bed evolution
Abstract. Computational landscape evolution models (LEMs) typically comprise at least two coupled components: a flow hydraulics solver that routes water across a landscape and a fluvial geomorphological model that modifies terrain properties, primarily bed surface elevation. LEMs used in long-term simulations over large watersheds, including some available in the Landlab library, often assume that only erosive processes occur in rivers and that terrain elevation increases solely due to tectonic uplift. Consequently, these models cannot capture the dynamics of gravel-bedded rivers, lacking the capacity to include sediment mixtures, simulate sediment deposition, and track textural changes in substrate stratigraphy that result from varying flow characteristics. To address this limitation, we developed, implemented, and tested RiverBedDynamics, a new Landlab component that simulates the evolution of bed surface elevation and grain size distribution in two-dimensional grids based on the Exner equation for sediment mass balance. By dynamically coupling RiverBedDynamics with Landlab's hydrodynamic flow solver, OverlandFlow, we created a new LEM capable of simulating the dynamics of local shear stresses, bed load transport rates, and grain size distributions. Comparisons of our LEM results with analytical and previously reported solutions demonstrate its ability to accurately predict time-varying local changes in bed surface elevation, including erosion and deposition, as well as grain size distribution. Furthermore, application of our LEM to a synthetic watershed illustrates how spatially variable rainfall intensity leads to varying discharge patterns, which in turn drive changes in bed elevation and grain size distribution across the domain. This approach provides a more comprehensive representation of the complex interactions between flow dynamics and sediment transport in gravel-bedded rivers, enhancing our ability to model landscape evolution across diverse geomorphic settings.
- Preprint
(2163 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3390', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jan 2025
reply
This manuscript presents a novel approach for modeling gravel-bed river evolution, specifically the employment of sediment deposition process, within the context of Landscape Evolution Models (LEMs). The authors introduce the RiverBedDynamics component within the Landlab platform to improve the accuracy and applicability of LEMs for gravel-bed rivers. By integrating sediment transport dynamics, grain size evolution, and non-steady flow conditions, the model addresses key aspects of gravel-bed rivers in existing LEMs, particularly in simulating the complex interactions between river channels and surrounding landscapes.
The manuscript is well-structured, and the motivation for developing the new component is clearly articulated, supported by existing LEM frameworks and their limitations. The authors demonstrate how the RiverBedDynamics component can overcome these limitations by incorporating sediment transport dynamics, non-steady flow conditions, GSD evolution, and predicting bed surface changes across entire watersheds. Although, the manuscript can be accepted in its current form, some additional clarifications might be helpful for the readers to have a thorough understanding of the work.Â
The authors presented a simple approach to employ deposition process based on the mass conservation at each cell. Some previous works have also employed the sediment deposition using different frameworks such as size-dependent sediment deposition probability in a Lagrangian framework in CIDRE (Carretier et al. 2023, https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/6741/2023/), and Eularian framework in River.lab (Davy et al, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF004156), and  Minor et al. 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JF006546). These previous works employing deposition process deserves a credit and need to be discussed how their sediment deposition framework complement or differs from this this work. The uniqueness of RiverBed Dynamics lies in its easy coupling with any flow solver, incorporation within the Landlab framework, and prediction of temporal changes in GSD (although GSD doesn’t change much during the simulation period, Figure 9d). In another work, Lei et al (https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR035983) studied the change in GSD in response to different sediment supply. The authors can try to alter the sediment supply rates and supply GSD to study the sediment sorting (not necessary for this review as this is a model description paper, just a suggestion) or atleast discuss in the paper about the possible causes of minimal changes in the GSD.
Line 125: key aspects can be mentioned as the bracketed term.
Line 158-159: Rewrite the sentence
Figure 2: The fonts in Figure 2 are too small to read. The Figure with enlarged fonts in landscape format (rotating 90O) might improve the readability.
Line 196-200: Can you please briefly mention what variables have been calculated at nodes and links specifically.
 Line 208-209: Why authors prefer central difference scheme as it calculates the velocity averaged over three links (x-1, x, x+1). Instead the velocity calculated between two links as . The velocity calculated between two links might be better representative of local channel hydraulics, (i.e., flow resistance). However, the form adopted might be better for numerical stability. Justify the choice in the manuscript.
Line 238-247: Again, please clarify what parameters being calculated at nodes and links.
Equation 15: , Authors can clarify the role of Fi in the numerator as transport of ith size can be estimated as transport of ith size divided by the transport of all size classes without Fi.
Line 335-336: The active layer depth may change with the strength of flow (discharge, and depth), especially the unsteady flow. The assumption of constant active layer might intercept the interaction between bedload and the substrate layer, and might not be the better representative of the actual process in the field. The authors should justify the limitations of the approach and what implication it might have on the bed evolution and grain size distribution.
Line 360-370: Does the two stratigraphic layers may have different GSD depending on the time evolution of bedload? How does the stratigraphic deposition improve the process representation? What difference does it make with a single deposition layer instead of a deposition layer of a constant depth of 1 m. Depending on the discussion, it seems all the stratigraphic layers might possess merely the same GSD. Please clarify.
Â
Table 1: Option surface_water__velocity_prev_time_link was not explained or mentioned anywhere else in the paper.
Figure 9d: Its difficult to see the differences in GSD at different times. The authors can try to reduce the linewidth and reduce the frequency of plots and see if it improves the readability of the Figure (i.e. plotting only o, 8.1,16.2, and 93.9 days). Also Figures 9c and 9d shows minimal changes in GSD after the 60 days. Does this relate to the sediment sorting/armouring being developed after 60 days? The authors can add another subplots showing the vertical stratigraphic distribution of geometric mean size (at the same location x=1000m) and the GSD at different stratigraphic layers. Or Does it relates to continuous sediment supply with same GSD as that of bed. Also the authors can discuss the possible implications of altering the sediment supply rates and GSD on bed evolution.
How computational intensive is the application of RiverBedDynamics to real-world problems. Briefly mention about the computation times for different simulations in channel and synthetic watershed, and how feasible is it to apply it to a flood event in a river both spatially and temporally with computational requirements.
Line 672-677: The procedure of adjusting the water depth after the erosion or deposition is not very clear. How running the model for few internal cycles can give the better water surface elevations over the eroding or depositing cells.
Since many variables and their short representation have been used in the paper and its often confusing what variables are being referred to. It may be better, if the authors can provide the list of variables used and their full names at the end of manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3390-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
157 | 24 | 9 | 190 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 157
- PDF: 24
- XML: 9
- Total: 190
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1