Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Research about York River estuary

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including York River estuary.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Model behavior and sensitivity in an application of the cohesive bed component of the community sediment transport modeling system for the York River estuary, VA, USA

The Community Sediment Transport Modeling System (CSTMS) cohesive bed sub-model that accounts for erosion, deposition, consolidation, and swelling was implemented in a three-dimensional domain to represent the York River estuary, Virginia. The objectives of this paper are to (1) describe the application of the three-dimensional hydrodynamic York Cohesive Bed Model, (2) compare calculations to observations, and (3) investigate sensitivities of the cohesive bed sub-model to user-defined parameters. Model results for summer 2007 showed good agreement with tidal-phase averaged estimates of sediment concentration, bed stress, and current velocity derived from Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) field measurements. An important step in implementing the cohesive bed model was specification of both the initial and equilibrium critical shear stress profiles, in addition to choosing other parameters like the consolidation and swelling timescales. This model promises to be a useful tool for investigating the fundamental controls on bed erodibility and settling velocity in the York River, a classical muddy estuary, provided that appropriate data exists to inform the choice of model parameters.

Virginia

Relative effects of nutrient enrichment and grazing on epiphyte-macrophyte (Zostera marina L.) dynamics

The independent and interactive effects of nutrient concentration and epiphyte grazers on epiphyte biomass and macrophyte growth and production were examined in Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) microcosms. Experiments were conducted during early summer, late summer, fall, and spring in a greenhouse on the York River estuary of Chesapeake Bay. Nutrient treatments consisted of ambient or enriched (3× ambient) concentrations of inorganic nitrogen (ammonium nitrate) and phosphate. Grazer treatments consisted of the presence or absence of field densities of isopods, amphipods, and gastropods. epiphyte biomass increased with both grazer removal and nutrient enrichment during summer and spring experiments. The effect of grazers was stronger than that of nutrients. There was little epiphyte response to treatment during the fall, a result possibly of high ambient nutrient concentrations and low grazing pressure. Under low grazer densities of early summer, macrophyte production (g m −2 d −1 ) was reduced by grazer removal and nutrient enrichment independently. Under high grazer densities of late summer, macrophyte production was reduced by enrichment only with grazers absent. During spring and fall there were no macrophyte responses to treatment. The relative influence of epiphytes on macrophyte production may have been related to seasonally changing water temperature and macrophyte requirements for light and inorganic carbon.

Virginia