the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modeling wave-vegetation interactions: the impact of seagrass flexibility and seasonal variability
Abstract. This study delves into the intricate dynamics between wave activity and marine vegetation, focusing on Posidonia oceanica meadows in the Mediterranean Sea along the Civitavecchia coastal zone (north-eastern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). Traditional modeling approaches often oversimplify wave-vegetation interactions and overlook the necessity for robust in-situ observational systems, which can lead to inadequate representations of the dynamic environments where seagrasses thrive. The Digital Twin modelling framework presents a compelling solution, offering comprehensive insights that enhance decision-making for coastal management. We advance wave-vegetation modeling by integrating a refined seagrass representation that encompasses flexibility, seasonal growth dynamics, and phenotypic traits, all informed by site-specific measurements. Applying this model to the Civitavecchia coast demonstrated that integrating observed seasonal variability into the numerical model was crucial for obtaining realistic results. This revealed a mean monthly wave damping capacity variation of up to 10 %, intricately driven by seasonal growth dynamics. Spatial assessments unveiled wave height reductions ranging from 10 % to 40 %, with an average attenuation of 18 % across Sites of Community Importance and 24 % for seagrass traits over rocky substrate. These findings offer valuable insights into the role of seagrasses as nature-based solution, facilitating more effective coastal management strategies and guiding restoration efforts in vulnerable marine ecosystems.
- Preprint
(10456 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-321', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Feb 2025
The manuscript provides a contribution to modelling the impact of seagrass on waves by integration of seagrass flexibility and seasonality in a numerical model. I think the presented work is a valuable advancement of numerical modelling of the impact of seagrass on wave attenuation, highlighting the impact of variation. Unfortunately, I found several aspects not described very clearly in the manusript and hence encourage the authors to revise the manuscript for clarity and precision in the wording. I have made specific comments in the attached document. I recommend to place a particluar focus on the conclusions section, which is more a repeat and summary as it stands.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-321', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Mar 2025
The manuscript by Shirinov et al. can contribute to advancing the modelling of wave propagation over seagrass beds in field conditions by including the influence of seagrass flexibility and seasonality in a widely employed numerical framework. All the relevant aspects of the work have been described on the manuscript, including field data of seagrass biomechanical properties and model validation. However, there are quite a few issues that should be tackled by authors with a thorough revision. My major concerns are:
- The equations employed to describe seagrass bending in response to the flow are valid for unidirectional flows. If this is not a typo, the simulations should be repeated implementing the right set of equations developed for oscillatory flows.
- To assess the impact of flexibility, I would expect that a comparison between the case of rigid seagrass and that of flexible seagrass is performed. The present comparison between non-vegetated bed and beds with flexible seagrass is inherently influenced by the presence of the seagrass regardless of its mechanical properties. How can the influence of flexibility be isolated with the results presented?
- The wave attenuation predicted by the model is compared across the four Sites of Community Importance and three different substrates. However, the discussion does not critically assess why the impact of flexible seagrass is different across sites/substrates based on the phenotypic traits of the plants available from the sampling campaign. I suggest the authors to work on this aspect to strengthen the manuscript by linking better the outcomes of their model with the (expected) underlying physical mechanisms.
- Conclusions are rather weak and should be re-written.
More specific comments, and comments related to the presentation quality, are included in the attached document.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
139 | 36 | 9 | 184 | 7 | 4 |
- HTML: 139
- PDF: 36
- XML: 9
- Total: 184
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 49 | 29 |
Italy | 2 | 38 | 22 |
China | 3 | 12 | 7 |
Germany | 4 | 10 | 5 |
Brazil | 5 | 6 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 49