Search

Mud plays a pivotal role in estuarine ecology and morphology. However, field data on the lateral and vertical depositional record of mud are rare. Furthermore, numerical morphodynamic models often ignore mud due to long computational times and simplifications of mixed depositional processes. This study aims to understand the spatial distribution, formative conditions and preservation of mud deposits in the intertidal zone of bars in high‐energy sand‐dominated estuaries, and to elucidate the effects of mud on morphology, ecology and stratigraphic architecture. To meet these objectives, field data (historic bathymetry, bio‐morphological maps and sediment cores of the shoal of Walsoorden, Western Scheldt estuary, the Netherlands) were combined with complementary hydro‐morphodynamic numerical modelling (Delft3D). Based on the field observations, two types of mud deposits were distinguished: (1) mudflat deposits, which are thick (>10 cm) mud beds at the surface associated with high elevations and low accumulation rates; and (2) mud drapes, which are thin (millimetre to centimetre) buried laminae that form and preserve at a wide range of elevations and energy conditions. Model results show that deposition on mudflats occurs just after high‐tide slack water in areas shielded from high flood velocities, suggesting that mud accumulation is mostly controlled by elevation, flow velocity and flow direction. Mud accumulation increases shoal elevation, sometimes to supratidal levels. This reduces flow over the shoal, which in turn reduces chute channel formation, stabilises bar morphology and decreases local tidal prism. These effects further promote mud deposition and vegetation settling. Although observations show that mud cover at the surface is relatively high (20%–40% of the intertidal area), mud constitutes only a small percentage of the total estuary volume (ca 5%) revealing that only a small fraction is preserved in the stratigraphy. Due to this mismatch between surface and subsurface expression of mud, interpretations of estuarine stratigraphy risk underestimating the influence of mud at the surface on morphodynamics and habitats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Channels in rivers and estuaries are the main paths of fluvial and tidal currents that transport sediment through the system. While network representations of multi‐channel systems and their connectivity are quite useful for characterisation of braiding patterns and dynamics, the recognition of channels and their properties is complicated because of the large bed elevation variations, such as shallow shoals and bed steps that render channels visually disconnected. We present and analyse two mathematically rigorous methods to identify channel networks from a terrain model of the river bed. Both methods construct a dense network of locally steepest‐descent channels from saddle points on the terrain, and select a subset of channels with a certain minimum sediment volume between them. This is closely linked to the main mechanism of channel formation and change by displacement of sediment volume. The two methods differ in how they compute these sediment volumes: either globally through the entire length of the river, or locally. We compare the methods for the measured bathymetry of the Western Scheldt estuary, The Netherlands, over the past decades. The global method is overly sensitive to small changes elsewhere in the network compared to the local method. We conclude that the local method works best conceptually and for stability reasons. The associated concept of alluvial connectivity between channels in a network is thus the inverse of the volume of sediment that must be displaced to merge the channels. Our method opens up possibilities for new analyses as shown in two examples. First, it shows a clear pattern of scale dependence on volume of the total network length and of the number of nodes by a power law relation, showing that the smaller channels are relatively much shorter. Second, channel bifurcations were found to be predominantly mildly asymmetrical, which is unexpected from fluvial bifurcation theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]