98% to the coast) However, further partition of the fluvial sedi

98% to the coast). However, further partition of the fluvial sediment reaching the coast heavily favored one distributary over the others (i.e., the Chilia; ∼70%). Consequently, the two active delta lobes of St. George II and Chilia III were built

contemporaneously but not only the morphologies of these lobes were strikingly different (i.e., typical river dominated for Chilia and wave-dominated for St. George; Fig. 2) but also their morphodynamics was vastly dissimilar reflecting sediment availability and wave climate (Fig. 3). The second major distributary, the buy BEZ235 St. George, although transporting only ∼20% of the fluvial sediment load, was able to maintain progradation close to the mouth on a subaqueous quasi-radial “lobelet” asymmetrically offset downcoast. Remarkably, this lobelet was far smaller than the

whole St. George lobe. However, it had an areal extent half the size of the Chilia lobe at one third its fluvial sediment feed and was even closer in volume to the Chilia lobe because of its greater thickness. To attain this high level of storage, morphodynamics at the St. George mouth must have included a series of efficient feedback loops to trap sediments near the river mouth even under extreme conditions UMI-77 supplier of wave driven longshore sand transport (i.e., potential rates reaching over 1 million cubic meters per year at St. George mouth; vide infra and see Giosan et al., 1999). Periodic release of sediment stored at the mouth along emergent elongating downdrift barriers such as Sacalin Island ( Giosan et al., 2005, Giosan et al., 2006a and Giosan et al., 2006b) probably transfers sediment to the

rest of lobe’s coast. In between the two major river mouth depocenters at Chilia and St. George, the old moribund lobe of Sulina eroded away, cannibalizing old ridges and rotating the coast counter-clockwise (as noted early by Brătescu, 1922). South of the St. George mouth, the coast was sheltered morphologically by the delta upcoast and thus stable. One net result of this differential behavior was the slow rotation of the entire Rebamipide current St. George lobe about its original outlet with the reduction in size of the updrift half and concurrent expansion of the downdrift half. Trapping of sediment near the St. George mouth was previously explained by subtle positive feedbacks such as the shoaling effect of the delta platform and the groin effects exerted by the river plume, updrift subaqueous levee (Giosan et al., 2005 and Giosan, 2007) and the St. George deltaic lobe itself (Ashton and Giosan, 2011). Thus, the main long term depocenter for asymmetric delta lobes such as the St. George is also asymmetrically placed downcoast (Giosan et al., 2009), while the updrift half is built with sand eroded from along the coast and blocked at the river mouth (Giosan, 1998 and Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). Going south of the St.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>