the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Flow Structure and Mixing Near a Small River Plume Front: Winyah Bay, SC, USA
Abstract. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of Eulerian data collected in the vicinity of the front of a recently discharged river plume from Winyah Bay, SC, USA. The data presented capture the plume structure and evolution and include high-resolution velocity and temperature time series, supplemented by T-S profiles from a MicroCTD profiler. The observations identified a pre-existing plume extending to 4 meters, with a water density of 1,023.6 kg m-3, laying above denser ambient waters. Upon arrival, the newly discharged plume introduced a fresher layer (1,020.7 kg m-3) extending to 2.6 meters, gradually thinning due to radial spreading. The plume’s frontal propagation measured at 0.36 m s-1 with a calculated Froude number of 1.32, indicating gravity current dynamics. Mixing processes were examined using the available overturn potential energy (AOPE) in the water column as described in Smith (2020). The analysis showed that near the bed, bottom boundary layer turbulence is the main mixing mechanism both before and after the passage of the front. In the surface layer, before the arrival of the front, mixing is driven by wind-induced shear and overturning. Despite high turbulent kinetic energy dissipation in certain regions, shear-induced mixing within the gravity current was minimal. These findings were reflected in the density diffusivity estimates near the surface that varied from 10-6 prior to the arrival of the front, increasing to 10-5 very near the front and diminishing to 10-10 within the plume despite the high velocity shear observed there. Evidence of internal waves was observed, particularly in the pre-existing plume, providing further insights into the complex hydrodynamic interactions within river plumes and their role in coastal mixing.
- Preprint
(6100 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-189', Preston Spicer, 14 Mar 2025
This is an excellent data set with great potential as a valuable contribution to the river plume community. My general comment is there is a lot going on in this manuscript: the figures are busy, and there are many redundancies. I find myself often losing track of what is important and what is extra “fluff”. It think the results, discussion, and associated figures can be streamlined and the story made clearer. I am generally fine with the analysis, but some relatively significant restructuring and rewriting is needed. I outlined my individual and broader concerns in the attached PDF.
-Preston Spicer, PNNL- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', George Voulgaris, 23 May 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-189', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Apr 2025
The manuscript presents field measurements of water-column mean and turbulent statistics during a passing river plume. The topic falls in the scope of the journal Ocean Science. The presentation could be improved to more effectively emphasize the novelty of the study and the science behind these unique measurements. I would recommend publication provided that my suggestions are considered.
Major suggestions:
Introduction: Suggest more explicitly highlighting the novelty of this study. Currently, the authors provided a review of relevant existing studies. Still, it is vague what the knowledge gaps are left in those studies and how this new set of measurements will address any unresolved questions.
Section 4.4: While the Figs. 12 to 16 are adequately described, how each variable is calculated, how its value changes, etc., the implied dynamics and physics are not discussed in detail. Suggest strengthening the discussion. Also, Figures 14 and 15 seem very noisy, and the scattering of the data is not addressed. I suggest the authors improve the clarity of the figures.
Conclusion: Suggest better highlighting the most important findings of the paper. Please also consider discussing possible future work.
Minor suggestions:
Fig. 1(b): what is the variable shown in the image?
Fig. 3(c): The unit of dT/dz is missing.
Fig. 6(c) and Line 220: the vertical current ~ cm/s is quite strong. It also indicates horizontal divergence above the depth of maximum w and convergence below. I would suggest the authors more clearly explain the circulation.
Fig. 8(c): suggest using a different colormap to better highlight positive and negative, for example, lowbluehighred.
Line 262: the sentence is not clear to me. Suggest clarifying.
Line 273: suggest deleting “As presented earlier,”
Fig. 9: what does the purple arrow in Layer 2 mean?
Fig. 10: suggest changing the order of the panels so that panel a is at the top and panel d is at the bottom.
Table 3: in the caption, please define \epsilon_k.
Fig. 14: the unit for K_\{rho} is wrong.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-189-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', George Voulgaris, 23 May 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
245 | 54 | 16 | 315 | 13 | 14 |
- HTML: 245
- PDF: 54
- XML: 16
- Total: 315
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1