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

PDF(4518 KB)
PDF(4518 KB)
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 +

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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-017-0684-6

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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[16]
Li C, Armstrong S, Williams D (2006). Residual eddies in a tidal channel. Estuaries Coasts, 29(1): 147–158
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[32]
Wong K C, Garvine R W (1984). Observations of wind-induced subtidal variability inthe Delaware estuary. J Geophys Res, 89(C6): 10589–10597
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar
[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
CrossRef Google scholar

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 41406005 and 41666001), Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS (No. QYZDJ-SSW-DQC022), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of SCUT under Grant No. 2017ZD101. Parts of this study were supported by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (contracts # 15050 and 14835). The development of the model was supported by USGS Project of Model Study of Change in Salinity under Different Sea-level Rise Scenarios in the York River and James River. We appreciate two anonymous reviewers’ comments and constructive suggestions, which improve the manuscript. We thank Mac Sisson for his comments on the early version and help on editing the manuscript. This is the contribution number #3704 of Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2017 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF(4518 KB)

Accesses

Citations

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/