the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Dec 2025
Thaw slump erosion accelerates fluvial sediment transport after a heatwave on the Taymyr Peninsula, Russia
Abstract. Thaw slumps appear to be expanding across much of the Arctic, yet questions remain about the quantity and fate of sediment eroded from these mass-wasting features, its role in downstream material transport, and how erosion evolves after initial failure. Here, we document the watershed-scale consequences of the largest single-initiation thaw slump event to date, which covers more than 30,000 km² on the Taymyr Peninsula in northern Russia. Using automated satellite methods, we track the rapid failure of more than 1,700 individual thaw slumps and record their ongoing post-failure erosion. We use a combination of Landsat and Sentinel-2 data to show that suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) downstream of slump clusters spiked to 2–5x background levels immediately (1–2 days) after the acceleration of thaw slump failure during the 2020 Siberian heat wave. Elevated suspended sediment transport rates scale with the upstream density of slumps and have persisted as slumps continue to erode; sediment transport during the period 2020–2024 is thus unprecedented in the region during the 40-year Landsat record. Although elevated relative to pre-failure, sediment export to the ocean appears to be significantly less than what is transported by rivers into estuaries, suggesting that estuarine storage may account for much of the eroded lost material, potentially transforming estuarine physical processes and threatening aquatic habitat.
- Preprint
(7796 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5691', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Jan 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Evan Dethier, 04 Jun 2026
We thank the two reviewers and the Editor for their thoughtful comments on this paper. We anticipate being able to make the changes and clarifications suggested by the reviewers and expect that our finished manuscript will be much improved. Below, we outline our intended changes to reviewer RC 1.
General comments
To the general comments, we are appreciative of the kind words and support for our manuscript. We hope that we can make the edits suggested by the reviewer and further improve this work.
The primary conceptual comment regards the trapping of sediment in the estuaries. We agree that this is an area of some uncertainty, and comment in the manuscript this uncertainty. Our satellite algorithms were developed based on samples generally not taken from estuaries. The depth of estuarine waters, and the various ways that estuarine sediment transport differs from river sediment transport, highlighted by the reviewer, make it difficult to be certain that the signal of trapping that we observe is real.
In our revised manuscript, we intend to bolster the discussion of this observation with the sources helpfully provided by the reviewer, as well as additional comment about the sources of uncertainty in these estimates. We will also further clarify that we do not see the estuary as a completely efficient sediment trap. In short, we intend to follow the reviewer’s summary suggestion that we provide “A short discussion of how flocculation and vertical sediment redistribution could complicate interpretations of sediment mass balance in estuaries would provide helpful context and nuance for the apparent estuarine storage signal.” We intend to add such a discussion.
Specific comments & Technical corrections and questions
Below, we provide further responses to specific comments and technical corrections and questions. We reproduce these comments for clarity, responding below each one in bold.
Figure 1: I found the label of “SSC sampling site” (orange triangle) to be a bit misleading, since (at least to me), it implies taking physical water samples and measuring the SSC. Perhaps relabel to “SSC estimation site” or something similar? Likewise, line 159 says “…To take a sample for SSC analysis…” Perhaps rephrase to, “To make a satellite-derived SSC estimate…” or something similar.
This is a good suggestion and we will revise the map to be more clear about the nature of this “sampling”.
Lines 28-30: “Erosion could decrease if vegetation growth is bolstered by warmer temperatures; resulting increases in root strength could increase sediment cohesion, leading to slower hillslope processes, fewer mass failure events, and slower rates of riverbank erosion (Ielpi et al., 2023)”. I know this is an idea that is popular in the literature, but it seems that, for this mechanism to be credible, there needs to be an explanation for how the ~1 meter rooting depth effectively stabilizes the ~10+ meter tall riverbanks of these major rivers.
We wanted to present the existing debate in the literature to help frame our work. In our revision, we will either provide a mechanistic rationale for this or clarify further that it is not supported by our work but, instead, an important idea in the literature.
Lines 277-278: “A tenfold increase in percent slump area corresponds to an average SSC increase of approximately 131 mg/L.” Can you reframe this numerical estimate so that it is dimensionally consistent? That is, the more dimensionally-consistent scaling should go like: SSC [mg/L] ~ rho_s*V_s/Q_w, where rho_s is the sediment density (mass per volume sediment), V_s is the mass of slump material per year, and Q_w is the volume of water discharge per year. Can you use other thaw-slump inventories that estimate retrogressive thaw slump volumes (i.e., from repeat DEMs), or your own DEM analysis, to estimate a simple empirical scaling between measured thaw slump area (reported in this manuscript – e.g., Fig. 1) and thaw slump volume? Similarly, can you estimate the total annual water discharge (Q_w)? This comparison will be interesting because it may reveal the approximate sensitivity of the suspended sediment flux to the input sediment flux (albeit with some uncertainty from the approximations required to estimate river discharge and thaw slump volume). Is this proportionally between input and transmitted sediment flux close to 1, or is it much smaller than 1?
We also agree that reporting suspended sediment concentration, on its own, is less satisfying than reporting both suspended sediment concentration and suspended sediment flux. However, we are not aware of reasonable discharge estimates for this region, limiting our ability to calculate suspended sediment flux.
As to the area-volume scaling relationships, we agree that scaling these slump area estimates to calculate volumes is possible. However, because these would be scalings based on area, rather than observed volumes, the nature of the relationship between slump size and river sediment transport will not change.
Confronted with the limitations, we decided to report the empirical relation between the observed increase in thaw slump area and increase in stream suspended sediment concentration. We also think that the close temporal link between these phenomena is worth documenting, even absent a 1:1 comparison of fluxes. We do hope that future efforts to better constrain both discharge and eroded sediment volumes will answer the reviewer’s appropriate question, which also hints at key unanswered questions about in-stream storage. We intend to comment more explicitly on these questions in the revised manuscript.
Figure 3: Does the non-linear relationship between thaw slump area and SSC (fitted here as a log-linear relationship between the SSC anomaly and the fractional thaw slump area) indicate that the sediment input from thaw slumps is maxing-out the river’s sediment transport capacity? On a related note, do you see any key morphological changes to the river networks in the last 5 years that reflect the increased sediment influx?
We believe that this question follows very naturally from the previous one (and our answer to it), and is extremely interesting. We have some qualitative evidence that capacity of at least some of these rivers is exceeded, given the building of some in-channel bars, deposition of debris fans at the base of some thaw slumps, and some evidence of channel aggradation observable in satellite images. We intend to comment on these effects in our revised manuscript and provide additional images to support these qualitative observations. Future work on morphological changes, coupled with a better understanding of fluxes rather than concentrations, is crucial.
Figure 3a-b: It would be useful to remind readers in this figure what the time-averaged (or pre-2020) average SSC is in each river reach, so that we know how the plotted SSC anomalies in mg/L compare to the pre-perturbation average sediment concentrations.
Noted. We will add these metrics.
Lines 421-422: Add references to this sentence?
Yes, we will add references to this section.
Lines 425-426: “Still, we note that the estuaries appear to have increased annual storage to accommodate increased sediment influx, aggrading rather than simply transporting these additional loads.” Do you see any direct evidence for aggradation here? I understand you don’t have repeat bathymetric surveys, but how about evidence for sediment infilling based on the accommodation space on the shallow edges of the estuaries being filled with sediment? See my comments above about being worried that the estuary signal could be, in part, a changing vertical distribution of the sediment load in the water column rather than a reduced depth-integrated sediment flux.
The tidal variation in the estuary has made such quantification of estuarine storage difficult. However, we intend to document estuary aggradation, particularly where affected streams are entering the estuary. We will redouble our efforts to control for the tidal variability.
Lines 157-158: “Areas with slopes exceeding 8 m/m (derived from ArcticDEM) were excluded to avoid non-water surfaces.” This slope seems extraordinarily high to me. Is there any rationale for choosing such a high slope cutoff for this processing step of helping to distinguish water vs. land? For example, why not spatially filter (average) the ArcticDEM to remove noise and then use a much smaller slope threshold? No need to re-do the analysis, but some justification might be warranted since 8 m/m is a non-physical water surface slope (other than for waterfalls)!
Yes, using a lower slope can sometimes remove pixels at the edges of steep slopes, where the stream undercuts a slope. We will add this justification.
Lines 190-192: This sentence feels repetitive with line 165.
Noted, we will remove or revise.
References
We will incorporate the helpful references provided by the reviewer, both as described above and as appropriate throughout the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5691-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Evan Dethier, 04 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5691', Sergey Chalov, 22 Jan 2026
The paper is an important step forward to track the climate impact on channel processes in the Artic environment. The paper is well-written and very nicely presented, though I have very significant concerns regarding methodology and discussion of the results. If authors are capable to extend the paper firstly providing enough data to verify methods, add more detailed regional setting and extend discussion to prove the importance of thaw slumps compared to other drivers of sediment transport which were neglected, the paper would be very relevant.
The Abstract does not contain enough information about studied area (including rivers which were selected) and period. Similarly, the whole paper significantly lacks of 2 things:
- Catchment scale description. It is completely unclear the route of the sediment from the that slumps to estuaries. The river networks and the studied catchments should be drawn separately as separate figures, and the location of the stations/thaw slumps should be also there clearly shown.
- Are there any local evidences to verify thaw slump detection algorithm? “Note that pixels must be classified as “slump” in 60% of 75 images in a year to qualify as a slump for that year” – what is 60 %, is that correct and why?
- The matter of accuracy of the satellite imagery approach. Even though you have a chapter “ Improved accuracy likely with local calibration” it is not clear which samples were considered to train a satellite model. Paper should present analyses of model/measured SSC estimates consistency. At least literature data / datasets from stater monitoring gauging network is important to consider.
Regarding the algorithm itself: our studies for Arctic rivers in this region discussed regional regression models trained specifically based on local samples which were build for conditions also in permafrost region and probably can be used also for Taymyr (DOI: 10.3390/rs13224549 ; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111252; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233845) . How these models are comparable with the algorithm used?
- Images used for SSC estimates should be described in term of hydrological season observed at the studied rivers during the day image was captured. This seasonal hydrological variability is the primary factor of long-term and seasonal variations in SSC and should be considered through the text.
Regarding Discussion there are also few questions:
- Firstly, both with thaw slumps acceleration, there are other fluvial processes which are important and are accelerating in the area, including bank erosion. The impacts of the bank erosion on sediment transport in the present Arctic climate have been widely discussed recently (for the Northern Siberia you can check the most recent one: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-5615-2025, 2025 and https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02614-7). In particular, these studies revealed a correlation between daily summer temperatures in Arctic and sediment plumes below river bank permafrost outcrops along Kolyma river. Similarly, here in Taymyr which is covered by permafrost these bank process can be similarly important, also in term of their reaction to 2020 heat wave.
- Kind of catchment analyses is also important here – the distance from the thaw slumps locations to the river channels, sediment delivery to the river network. Potentially, the specific estimate of sediment delivery from the slump into the river network should be provided based on volumetric estimates of the thaw slump, how much sediments reach the river channels.
- The analyses of the estuaries - what are the estuaries here? What is the upstream and downstream points used for SSC estimate in estuary – does this consider effects of coastal processes, tides, surges? There are few studies which show that permafrost bank degradation enhances sediment transport in Siberian estuaries. What are the reasons that at Taymyr estuaries sediments are stored. As far as you did not provide a map of the estuary, probably (may be!) there is sea water with lower SSC at the downstream locations of your estuarian profiles?
Also, your analyses for estuary (figure 4) gives very precise values of SSC along estuary – and here the variation of the data is much lower than natural variations of SSC between hydrological seasons and years. This is very doubtful
- The rivers based on the model results are quite different by SSC – even though this also requires some on-site verification, what is the reason for that? Here catchment analyses which will consider other processes and catchment parameters besides what slumps can provides more detailed focus of sediment export drivers at these catchments
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5691-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Evan Dethier, 04 Jun 2026
We thank the two reviewers and the Editor for their thoughtful comments on this paper. We anticipate being able to make the changes and clarifications suggested by the reviewers and expect that our finished manuscript will be much improved. Below, we outline our intended changes to reviewer RC 2.
General comments
To the general comments, we agree that this is an important next step and appreciate the generous words on the paper. We will work hard to address the concerns of the reviewer in our revision.
We will further clarify the methods as suggested by the reviewer, add a more detailed regional setting, and extend the discussion to incorporate other possible drivers of erosion.
To the numbered (1, 2, 3) specific concerns in the general comments:
- We will certainly amend or supplement the abstract and overview figure(s) to illustrate the flows of water and sediment and provide additional regional context. We believe this will clarify for the reader the direction of flow and contribution of different areas to different streams and esturaries.
- We did provide verification for the thaw slump detection algorithm but we will provide additional clarification in our revised document.
- We will provide additional corroboration of the satellite retrieval algorithms. In fact, the papers suggested by the reviewer will be helpful in this corroboration and we are grateful to have been pointed to them. These will allow us to illustrate an independent test of the algorithms used.
In addition, we will add further clarification of the hydrological seasonality of the images used to estimate SSC. As a brief preview of this response, we have incorporated a range of hydrological season in both the pre- and post-2020 slump event period. The distribution of dates is shown in the initial manuscript, Fig. A1. We will be clear to highlight this more clearly, as well as more clearly describe how we calculate an “annual” SSC from irregularly spaced SSC estimates.
Specific comments & Technical corrections and questions
Below, we provide further responses to specific comments and technical corrections and questions. We reproduce these comments for clarity, responding below each one in bold.
- Firstly, both with thaw slumps acceleration, there are other fluvial processes which are important and are accelerating in the area, including bank erosion. The impacts of the bank erosion on sediment transport in the present Arctic climate have been widely discussed recently (for the Northern Siberia you can check the most recent one: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-5615-2025, 2025 and https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02614-7). In particular, these studies revealed a correlation between daily summer temperatures in Arctic and sediment plumes below river bank permafrost outcrops along Kolyma river. Similarly, here in Taymyr which is covered by permafrost these bank process can be similarly important, also in term of their reaction to 2020 heat wave.
We agree that other fluvial processs are operating in this area, and across the Arctic. We are happy to see these papers and will incorporate them in a revised manuscript. We did seek to control for these alternate erosion mechnaisms by investigating “control rivers” in the region. We saw increased SSC without the presesnce of thaw slumps for the 2020 year, especially, in these control areas. This corroborates the connection between warm days and sediment plumes from the papers above. However, this effect waned after 2021 for control rivers, whereas we saw continued increases in SSC in streams affected by thaw slumps. We will focus more on these topics in our revised discussion.
- Kind of catchment analyses is also important here – the distance from the thaw slumps locations to the river channels, sediment delivery to the river network. Potentially, the specific estimate of sediment delivery from the slump into the river network should be provided based on volumetric estimates of the thaw slump, how much sediments reach the river channels.
We agree that distance from thaw slump to river is a crucial metric. We will add an analysis of this connectivity to our revised manuscript.
- The analyses of the estuaries - what are the estuaries here? What is the upstream and downstream points used for SSC estimate in estuary – does this consider effects of coastal processes, tides, surges? There are few studies which show that permafrost bank degradation enhances sediment transport in Siberian estuaries. What are the reasons that at Taymyr estuaries sediments are stored. As far as you did not provide a map of the estuary, probably (may be!) there is sea water with lower SSC at the downstream locations of your estuarian profiles?
We will clarify the location of these estuaries, which we defined based on the extent of tidal variability. We agree that these estuaries have enhanced sediment transport. Our argument is that they may also be trapping some of the thaw-slump derived sediment. We will add additional discussion about the potential caveats to this finding.
Also, your analyses for estuary (figure 4) gives very precise values of SSC along estuary – and here the variation of the data is much lower than natural variations of SSC between hydrological seasons and years. This is very doubtful
We agree that the lines in this figure (Figure 4c) collapse a lot of the variability. However, we do so because we are showing the standard error of the estimate of the mean SSC, rather than a metric of its variability. We will add a figure showing more clearly the seasonality of SSC to make this more clear. This variability is shown in the partially transparent points in Figure 2.
- The rivers based on the model results are quite different by SSC – even though this also requires some on-site verification, what is the reason for that? Here catchment analyses which will consider other processes and catchment parameters besides what slumps can provides more detailed focus of sediment export drivers at these catchments
We think that the rivers have different SSC, to a large extent, because they have different density of thaw slumps upstream. We see relatively minor differences between rivers in the pre-2020 period. Only after slumps become pervasive in late 2020 do these major differences become more clear. We will comment on this more thoroughly in our revised discussion, it is an important point.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5691-AC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,520 | 1,013 | 132 | 2,665 | 117 | 104 |
- HTML: 1,520
- PDF: 1,013
- XML: 132
- Total: 2,665
- BibTeX: 117
- EndNote: 104
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments
Dethier et al. investigate the geomorphic consequences of a major thaw slump event on the Taymyr Peninsula during the summer 2020 Siberian heat wave. Using automated analyses of Landsat and Sentinel-2 imagery, the authors track the initiation and evolution of ~1,700 thaw slumps and link this disturbance to abrupt, region-wide increases in suspended sediment concentration (SSC) in downstream fluvial networks.
The paper is excellent, thorough, and clearly written. It represents a valuable extension of Erikson et al. (2025) by scaling from the detailed analysis of a single thaw slump up to a regional synthesis. Importantly, this study moves beyond documenting the spatiotemporal distribution of thaw slumps--an emphasis of several recent studies (e.g., Bernhard et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2025)--to explicitly address the transport and fate of thaw-slump-derived sediment through fluvial systems, all the way out to the ocean. I was also impressed by the temporal resolution of the analysis: pinpointing the linkage between slump activity and increased sediment concentration in river networks at a timescale of just days. This kind of temporal resolution will prove valuable in constraining the relative importance of acute, short-lived events (e.g., heat waves, rainstorms) vs. long-term climatic drivers (e.g., decadal warming trends) in causing retrogressive thaw slumps and other types of permafrost degradation/collapse features.
Overall, I recommend this paper for acceptance following revision. My primary comments focus on the authors’ interpretation of the declining satellite-derived SSC near estuary mouths, and specifically their inference that a substantial fraction of thaw-slump-derived sediment is retained in estuarine sinks rather than exported to the ocean. As described below, I wonder to what extent the decline in SSC of surface waters in estuaries is a reflection of enhanced flocculation--and therefore a greater proportion of the sediment transport occurring deeper in the water column, invisible to satellites--rather than a signal of reduced sediment transport through the integrated water column, which is what the authors imply in the current manuscript.
Main conceptual comment:
The central question I kept returning to while reading this manuscript is whether the estuaries are truly trapping ~50% (or more) of the incoming sediment flux, thereby preventing that sediment from reaching the coastal ocean, or whether the observed downstream decline in satellite-derived SSC reflects enhanced flocculation and vertical redistribution of suspended sediment in estuarine waters.
To first order, the degree of flocculation should depend on the suspended sediment concentration, the organic carbon concentration, and the salinity (ion concentration), as well as the hydrodynamic controls (e.g., turbulence) (e.g., Lamb et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021; Abolfazli and Strom, 2023; Osborn et al., 2023; Kranck, 1973). In brackish environments, increases in ionic strength can promote rapid aggregation of mud-sized particles, increasing settling velocity and altering the vertical structure of the suspended sediment profile. As a result, a larger fraction of the sediment load may be transported deeper in the water column, below the depth to which satellite color inversion methods are sensitive.
This raises an important question for the interpretation of Figures 3c–d and related analyses. For example, in the pre-perturbation comparison (Fig. 3d), estuaries already exhibit lower estimated SSC than upstream reaches. Following the 2020 disturbance, could the observed decline in surface-water SSC toward estuary mouths partly reflect increased flocculation in response to elevated sediment supply interacting with brackish water, rather than a true decrease in depth-integrated sediment transport? In such a scenario, the estuaries may still be efficiently transmitting sediment seaward, but with a vertical concentration profile (i.e., Rouse profile) that shifts sediment transport to deeper parts of the water column that are effectively invisible to satellite detection.
This question does not affect the excellent analyses presented in the paper. Rather, I think the manuscript would be strengthened by explicitly acknowledging this uncertainty and by clarifying that satellite-derived SSC primarily reflects near-surface conditions. A short discussion of how flocculation and vertical sediment redistribution could complicate interpretations of sediment mass balance in estuaries would provide helpful context and nuance for the apparent estuarine storage signal.
Specific comments
Figure 1: I found the label of “SSC sampling site” (orange triangle) to be a bit misleading, since (at least to me), it implies taking physical water samples and measuring the SSC. Perhaps relabel to “SSC estimation site” or something similar? Likewise, line 159 says “…To take a sample for SSC analysis…” Perhaps rephrase to, “To make a satellite-derived SSC estimate…” or something similar.
Lines 28-30: “Erosion could decrease if vegetation growth is bolstered by warmer temperatures; resulting increases in root strength could increase sediment cohesion, leading to slower hillslope processes, fewer mass failure events, and slower rates of riverbank erosion (Ielpi et al., 2023)”. I know this is an idea that is popular in the literature, but it seems that, for this mechanism to be credible, there needs to be an explanation for how the ~1 meter rooting depth effectively stabilizes the ~10+ meter tall riverbanks of these major rivers.
Lines 277-278: “A tenfold increase in percent slump area corresponds to an average SSC increase of approximately 131 mg/L.” Can you reframe this numerical estimate so that it is dimensionally consistent? That is, the more dimensionally-consistent scaling should go like: SSC [mg/L] ~ rho_s*V_s/Q_w, where rho_s is the sediment density (mass per volume sediment), V_s is the mass of slump material per year, and Q_w is the volume of water discharge per year. Can you use other thaw-slump inventories that estimate retrogressive thaw slump volumes (i.e., from repeat DEMs), or your own DEM analysis, to estimate a simple empirical scaling between measured thaw slump area (reported in this manuscript – e.g., Fig. 1) and thaw slump volume? Similarly, can you estimate the total annual water discharge (Q_w)? This comparison will be interesting because it may reveal the approximate sensitivity of the suspended sediment flux to the input sediment flux (albeit with some uncertainty from the approximations required to estimate river discharge and thaw slump volume). Is this proportionally between input and transmitted sediment flux close to 1, or is it much smaller than 1?
Figure 3: Does the non-linear relationship between thaw slump area and SSC (fitted here as a log-linear relationship between the SSC anomaly and the fractional thaw slump area) indicate that the sediment input from thaw slumps is maxing-out the river’s sediment transport capacity? On a related note, do you see any key morphological changes to the river networks in the last 5 years that reflect the increased sediment influx?
Figure 3a-b: It would be useful to remind readers in this figure what the time-averaged (or pre-2020) average SSC is in each river reach, so that we know how the plotted SSC anomalies in mg/L compare to the pre-perturbation average sediment concentrations.
Lines 421-422: Add references to this sentence?
Lines 425-426: “Still, we note that the estuaries appear to have increased annual storage to accommodate increased sediment influx, aggrading rather than simply transporting these additional loads.” Do you see any direct evidence for aggradation here? I understand you don’t have repeat bathymetric surveys, but how about evidence for sediment infilling based on the accommodation space on the shallow edges of the estuaries being filled with sediment? See my comments above about being worried that the estuary signal could be, in part, a changing vertical distribution of the sediment load in the water column rather than a reduced depth-integrated sediment flux.
Technical corrections and questions
Lines 157-158: “Areas with slopes exceeding 8 m/m (derived from ArcticDEM) were excluded to avoid non-water surfaces.” This slope seems extraordinarily high to me. Is there any rationale for choosing such a high slope cutoff for this processing step of helping to distinguish water vs. land? For example, why not spatially filter (average) the ArcticDEM to remove noise and then use a much smaller slope threshold? No need to re-do the analysis, but some justification might be warranted since 8 m/m is a non-physical water surface slope (other than for waterfalls)!
Lines 190-192: This sentence feels repetitive with line 165.
References
Abolfazli, E. and Strom, K., 2023. Salinity impacts on floc size and growth rate with and without natural organic matter. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 128(7), p.e2022JC019255.
Bernhard, P., Zwieback, S., Bergner, N., and Hajnsek, I.: Assessing volumetric change distributions and scaling relations of retrogressive thaw slumps across the Arctic, The Cryosphere, 16, 1–15, 2022.
Dai, C., Ward Jones, M. K., van der Sluijs, J., Nesterova, N., Howat, I. M., Liljedahl, A. K., Higman, B., Freymueller, J. T., Kokelj, S. V., and Sriram, S.: Volumetric quantifications and dynamics of areas undergoing retrogressive thaw slumping in the Northern Hemisphere, Nat. Commun., 16, 6795, 2025.
Erikson, C. M., Dethier, E. N., and Renshaw, C. E.: Seasonal dynamics of a coupled hillslope — river system in the Arctic revealed by semi-automated satellite image analysis, Remote Sens. Environ., 328, 114883, 2025.
Kranck, K., 1973. Flocculation of suspended sediment in the sea. Nature, 246(5432), pp.348-350.
Lamb, M. P., de Leeuw, J., Fischer, W. W., Moodie, A. J., Venditti, J. G., Nittrouer, J. A., et al. (2020). Mud in rivers transported as flocculated and suspended bed material. Nature Geoscience, 13(8), 566–570.
Osborn, R., Dunne, K.B., Ashley, T., Nittrouer, J.A. and Strom, K., 2023. The flocculation state of mud in the lowermost freshwater reaches of the Mississippi River: Spatial distribution of sizes, seasonal changes, and their impact on vertical concentration profiles. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 128(7), p.e2022JF006975.
Zhang, Y., Ren, J., Zhang, W. and Wu, J., 2021. Importance of salinity-induced stratification on flocculation in tidal estuaries. Journal of Hydrology, 596, p.126063.