Upriver transport of dissolved substances in an estuary and sub-estuary system of the lower James River, Chesapeake Bay

Bo HONG , Jian SHEN , Hongzhou XU

Front. Earth Sci. ›› 2018, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (3) : 583 -599.

PDF (4518KB)
Front. Earth Sci. ›› 2018, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (3) : 583 -599. DOI: 10.1007/s11707-017-0684-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Upriver transport of dissolved substances in an estuary and sub-estuary system of the lower James River, Chesapeake Bay

Author information +
History +
PDF (4518KB)

Abstract

The water exchange between the James River and the Elizabeth River, an estuary and sub-estuary system in the lower Chesapeake Bay, was investigated using a 3D numerical model. The conservative passive tracers were used to represent the dissolved substances (DS) discharged from the Elizabeth River. The approach enabled us to diagnose the underlying physical processes that control the expansion of the DS, which is representative of potential transport of harmful algae blooms, pollutants from the Elizabeth River to the James River without explicitly simulating biological processes. Model simulations with realistic forcings in 2005, together with a series of process-oriented numerical experiments, were conducted to explore the correlations of the transport process and external forcing. Model results show that the upriver transport depends highly on the freshwater discharge on a seasonal scale and maximum upriver transport occurs in summer with a mean transport time ranging from 15–30 days. The southerly/easterly wind, low river discharge, and neap tidal condition all act to strengthen the upriver transport. On the other hand, the northerly/westerly wind, river pulse, water level pulse, and spring tidal condition act to inhibit the upriver transport. Tidal flushing plays an important role in transporting the DS during spring tide, which shortens the travel time in the lower James River. The multivariable regression analysis of volume mean subtidal DS concentration in the mesohaline portion of the James River indicates that DS concentration in the upriver area can be explained and well predicted by the physical forcings (r= 0.858, p=0.00001).

Keywords

transport process / physical forcing / numerical modeling / estuary / Chesapeake Bay

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Bo HONG, Jian SHEN, Hongzhou XU. Upriver transport of dissolved substances in an estuary and sub-estuary system of the lower James River, Chesapeake Bay. Front. Earth Sci., 2018, 12(3): 583-599 DOI:10.1007/s11707-017-0684-6

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

References

[1]

Basdurak N B, Valle-Levinson A (2013). Tidal variability of lateral advection in a coastalplain estuary. Cont Shelf Res, 61–62: 85–97

[2]

Brubaker J M, Simpson J H (1999). Flow convergence and stability at a tidal estuarinefront: acoustic Doppler current observations. J Geophys Res, 104(C8): 18257–18268

[3]

Chen S N, Sanford L P (2009). Axial wind effects on stratification and longitudinalsalt transport in an idealized partially mixed estuary. J Phys Oceanogr, 39(8): 1905–1920

[4]

Deleersnijder E, Campin J M, Delhez E J M (2001). The concept of age in marine modeling. I. Theory and preliminary model results. J Mar Syst, 28: 229–267

[5]

Galperin B, Kantha L H, Hassid S, Rosati A (1988). A quasi-equilibrium turbulent energy model for geophysicalflows. J Atmos Sci, 45(1): 55–62

[6]

Gong W P, Shen J, Hong B (2009). The influence of wind on the water age in the tidal Rappahannock River. Mar Environ Res, 68(4): 203–216

[7]

Hamrick J M (1992). A Three-Dimensional Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer Code: Theoretical and Computational Aspects. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. No. 317. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia

[8]

Hamrick J M, Wu T S (1997). Computational design and optimization of the EFDC/HEM3D surface waterhydrodynamic and eutrophication models. In: Delich G, Wheeler M F, eds. Next Generation Environmental Modelsand Computational Methods. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Pennsylvania,143–161

[9]

Hong B, Gong W, Peng S, Xie Q, Wang D, Li H, Xu H (2016). Characteristics of vertical exchange process in the Pearl River Estuary (PRE). Aquat Ecosyst Health Manage, 19(3): 286–295

[10]

Hong B, Panday N, Shen J, Wang H V, Gong W, Soehl A (2010). Modeling water exchange between Baltimore Harbor and Chesapeake Bay using artificial tracers: seasonal variations. Mar Environ Res, 70(1): 102–119

[11]

Hong B, Shen J (2012). Responses of estuarine salinity and transport processes to potential future sea-level rise in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci, 104–105: 33–45

[12]

Hong B, Shen J (2013). Linking dynamics of transport timescale and variations of hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay. J Geophys Res, 118: 1–13

[13]

Kuo A Y, Byrne R J, Brubaker J M, Posenau J H (1988). Vertical transport across an estuary front. In: Dronkers J, van Leussen W, eds.Physical Processes in Estuaries. New York: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 93–109

[14]

Kuo A Y, Byrne R J, Hyer P V, Ruzecki E P, Brubaker J M (1990). Practicalapplication of theory for tidal-intrusion fronts. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng, 116(3): 341–361

[15]

Lee S B, Birch G, Lemckert C J (2011). Fieldand modeling investigations of fresh-water plume behavior in response to infrequent high-precipitation events, Sydney Estuary, Australia. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci, 92(3): 389–402

[16]

Li C, Armstrong S, Williams D (2006). Residual eddies in a tidal channel. Estuaries Coasts, 29(1): 147–158

[17]

Mellor G L, Yamada T (1982). Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems. Rev Geophys Space Phys, 20(4): 851–875

[18]

Morse R E, Shen J, Blanco-Garcia J L, Hunley W S, Fentress S, Wiggins M, Mulholland M R (2011). Environmental and physical controlson the formation and transport of blooms of the dinoflagellate cochlodinium polykrikoides margalef in lower Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Estuaries Coasts, 34(5): 1006–1025

[19]

Narváez D A, Valle-Levinson A (2008). Transverse structure of wind-driven flow at the entranceto an estuary: Nansemond River. J GeophysRes, 113(C9): C09004

[20]

Park K, Jung H S, Kim H S, Ahn S (2005). Three-dimensional hydrodynamic and eutrophication model (HEM-3D): application to Kwang-Yang Bay, Korea. Mar Environ Res, 60(2): 171–193

[21]

Park K, Kuo A Y, Shen J, Hamrick J M (1995). A three-dimensional hydrodynamic eutrophication model (HEM-3D): description of water quality and sediment process submodels. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. No. 327. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA 23062

[22]

Rice K C, Hong B, Shen J (2012). Assessment of salinityintrusion in the James and Chickahominy Rivers as a result of simulated sea-level rise in Chesapeake Bay, East Coast, USA. J Environ Manage, 111: 61–69

[23]

Shen J, Boon J D, Kuo A Y (1999). A modeling study of a tidal intrusion front and its impact on larval dispersion in the James River estuary, Virginia. Estuaries Coasts, 22(3): 681–692

[24]

Shen J, Gong W (2009). Influence of model domain size, wind directions and Ekman transporton storm surge development inside the Chesapeake Bay: a case study of extra-tropical cyclone Ernesto, 2006. J Mar Syst, 75(1–2): 198–215

[25]

Shen J, Haas L (2004). Calculating age and residence time in the tidal York River using three-dimensional model experiments. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci, 61(3): 449–461

[26]

Shen J, Lin J (2006). Modeling study of the influences of tide and stratification on age of water in the tidal James River. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci, 68(1–2): 101–112

[27]

Valle-Levinson A, Wong K C, Lwiza K M (2000). Fortnightly variability in the transverse dynamics of a coastal plain estuary. J Geophys Res, 105(C2): 3413–3424

[28]

Wang D P, Elliott A J (1978). Nontidal variability in the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River, evidence for nonlocal forcing. J Phys Oceanogr, 8(2): 225–232

[29]

Warner J C, Geyer W R, Lerczak J A (2005). Numerical modeling of an estuary: a comprehensive skill assessment. J Geophys Res, 110(C5): C05001

[30]

Weisberg R H, Sturges W (1976). Velocity observations in the west passage of Narragansett Bay: a partially mixed estuary. J Phys Oceanogr, 6(3): 345–354

[31]

Wong K C (2002). On the wind-induced exchange between Indian River Bay, Delaware and the adjacent continental shelf. Cont Shelf Res, 22(11–13): 1651–1668

[32]

Wong K C, Garvine R W (1984). Observations of wind-induced subtidal variability inthe Delaware estuary. J Geophys Res, 89(C6): 10589–10597

[33]

Wong K C, Valle-Levinson A (2002). On the relative importance of the remote and local wind effects on the subtidal exchange at the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay. J Mar Res, 60(3): 477–498

[34]

Wilmott C J (1981). On the validation of models. Physical Geography, 2: 184–194

[35]

Xia M, Xie L, Pietrafesa L J (2007). Modeling of the Cape Fear River estuary plume. Estuariesand Coasts, 30(4): 698–709

[36]

Xu H, Lin J, Wang D (2008). Numerical study onsalinity stratification in the Pamlico River Estuary. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci, 80(1): 74–84

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF (4518KB)

1022

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

AI思维导图

/