+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier...

Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier...

Date post: 13-Apr-2018
Category:
Upload: duongthien
View: 219 times
Download: 6 times
Share this document with a friend
27
Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island Bay, Virginia, USA David C. Fugate 1 Institute of Marine and Coastal Science, Rutgers University, 71 Dudley Rd, NJ 08901, USA, email: [email protected] , tel: (732) 932-6555 x233, fax: (732) 932-8578 Carl T. Friedrichs Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, PO Box 1346, Gloucester Point, VA 23062, USA, email: [email protected] , tel: (804) 684-7303, fax: (804) 684-7195 Ata Bilgili Dartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, 8000 Cummings Hall, Hanover, NH 03755, USA, email: [email protected] , tel: (603) 646-0263 Left Running Head: Fugate, D. C. et al. Right Running Head: Residence Time in a Shallow Lagoon 1 Corresponding Author
Transcript
Page 1: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island Bay,

Virginia, USA

David C. Fugate1

Institute of Marine and Coastal Science, Rutgers University, 71 Dudley Rd, NJ 08901,

USA, email: [email protected] , tel: (732) 932-6555 x233, fax: (732) 932-8578

Carl T. Friedrichs

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, PO Box 1346,

Gloucester Point, VA 23062, USA, email: [email protected], tel: (804) 684-7303, fax:

(804) 684-7195

Ata Bilgili

Dartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, 8000 Cummings Hall, Hanover, NH

03755, USA, email: [email protected], tel: (603) 646-0263

Left Running Head: Fugate, D. C. et al.

Right Running Head: Residence Time in a Shallow Lagoon

1Corresponding Author

Page 2: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 2

Abstract

Hog Island Bay, Virginia, is a shallow back barrier lagoon that is subject to

seasonal inputs of inorganic nitrogen and related episodes of hypoxia. Numerical

simulations were carried out to estimate the importance of physical flushing times

relative to biochemical turnover times known to be a few days or less within the system.

A 2D vertically averaged finite element hydrodynamic model, which was designed to

accommodate regular flooding and dewatering of shallow flats and marshes, was coupled

with a particle tracking model to estimate median lagoon residence time and the spatial

distribution of local residence time in the lagoon. The model was forced with observed

tidal elevations and winds from the end of the growing season when hypoxia tends to

occur. The median residence time estimated by numerical modeling is on the order of

weeks (358 hours), and variations in tidal stage, tidal range and wind produced deviations

in median residence time on the order of days. Residence times near the inlets were very

short, while those near the mainland were long, showing that (i) horizontal mixing in the

Bay is insufficient to successfully apply integral methods to obtain residence times, and

(ii) residence times near the mainland are long compared to timescales of biologically

driven chemical transformations.

Introduction

Hog Island Bay, Virginia, is a shallow back barrier lagoon located behind Hog

Island, one of the 100 km long chain of barrier islands on the Eastern Shore of the

Page 3: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 3

Delmarva Peninsula, USA (Fig. 1). The lagoon system includes numerous relic oyster

shoals, salt marshes, and mudflats, and is dissected by deep channels leading to the inlets.

Freshwater runoff into the system is minimal and the water column is vertically well-

mixed. Agriculture in the surrounding watershed leads to seasonal inputs of organic and

inorganic nitrogen into the Bay. These nutrients support the growth of macroalgae

(Gracilaria sp., Ulva lactuca), and microalgae as the primary producers in the system.

Senescence and microbial degradation of the algal mats at the end of the growing season

in late summer periodically cause hypoxia in the water column (Havens et al. 2001; Tyler

et al. 2001). Nitrogen uptake and turnover by primary producers and bacteria typically

occur on time scales of minutes to a few days (Anderson et al. 2003; Tyler et al. 2003),

although nitrogen can be retained in macroalgal biomass for weeks (Tyler et al. 2001) .

In order to determine the importance of physical flushing relative to biologically

mediated transformations, we performed an analysis of water residence times in Hog

Island Bay using a numerical model. A variety of time scales, such as residence time,

transit time and average age, have been used to characterize the degree of mixing and

flushing in estuaries (Geyer and Signell 1992; Vallino and Hopkinson 1998; Monsen et

al. 2002; Bilgili et al. 2003a). We will use the concept of median residence time, which

is the length of time required to replace half of a group of labeled or “tagged” water

particles inside the bay with new water from the outside of the bay. Previous analytical

estimations of water residence time in Hog Island Bay have yielded short time scales of

flushing. Brumbaugh (1996) measured volume flux at the inlets of the lagoon system and

used the tidal prism method to estimate a mean residence time of about 5 tidal cycles or

about 60 hours (median residence time would be a factor of 0.7 less).

Page 4: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 4

The tidal prism method calculates residence time in units of tidal cycles by

dividing the volume of the lagoon at high tide by the volume of water which passes

through the tidal inlet over the course of a representative flood tide. This method assumes

that each tide replaces entirely old water with entirely new water and that the new water

is immediately mixed to the back of the lagoon. Oertel (Oertel 2001) also applied the

tidal prism method to the region, but employed high resolution bathymetry and the tidal

range to estimate a mean residence time of only 1.85 tidal cycles. The tidal prism method

is inadequate for describing residence times in estuaries of significant size because it

assumes the horizontal distance a water particle travels over a tidal cycle to be the same

order as the length of the estuary. Furthermore, traditional integral methods largely

neglect spatial and temporal variations in tidal amplitude, wind stress, and horizontal

mixing (Geyer and Signell 1992; Oliveira and Baptista 1997).

Numerical models can account for the factors which limit other methods that are

used for estimating flushing rates and have successfully estimated residence time in

basins with complex geometry (Hofmann et al. 1991; Oliveira and Baptista 1997; Vallino

and Hopkinson 1998; Smith et al. 2001; Bilgili et al. 2003a). In this study, we coupled a

2D finite element hydrodynamic model, called BELLAMY, that was developed by Ip et

al (1998) and others with a particle tracking module, DROG3DDT (Blanton 1995), to

perform a series of LaGrangian drifter experiments in Hog Island Bay. The model was

forced by observed wind and water elevation data that were collected for over 50 tidal

cycles at the end of the growing season.

Page 5: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 5

Model Description

The lagoon system associated with Hog Island Bay (Fig. 2) has extensive tidal

flats and marsh which emerge during low tides but continue to slowly drain groundwater

while emerged. A common numerical scheme used to model alternately dry and flooded

regions is to “turn off” elements which become dry (Jelesnianski et al. 1992; Hervouet

and Janin 1994). The reconfiguration of the grid required by this method comes at a

computational cost, can create an unrealistic step-like response in the hydrodynamics

near the drying boundary, and does not represent soil drainage at low tide. Another

approach developed by Ip et al. (1998) solves these problems by allowing water to

continue to flow through a porous sublayer after the element becomes dry. The principal

momentum balance in many shallow tidal embayments is between the pressure gradient

and bottom stress (Swift and Brown 1983; Friedrichs et al. 1992). The diffusive nature of

this force balance allows straightforward coupling to an equation for Darcian diffusion of

groundwater in an underlying porous sublayer (Ip et al. 1998). The governing equations

of the original model depended only upon this balance of forces. To accommodate deeper

channels and meteorological forcing, the model has since evolved to include local

acceleration, wind stress, and the opportunity to include a depth dependent bottom

friction coefficient in the governing equations (McLaughlin et al. 2003). When the water

elevation in a given element reaches below a threshold level of 0.5 m, local acceleration

is ignored, significantly speeding the computation where grid spacing is smallest.

The shallow bathymetry and minimal freshwater input of Hog Island Bay allow

the utilization of a two dimensional vertically averaged model. The model solves for the

Page 6: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 6

state of the system based on tidal forcing and wind stress. The non-linear system of

governing equations of the model is solved iteratively at each time step. In the shallowest

areas, pressure gradient and bottom surface stress are balanced:

WQQζ

Q

=+∇

=⋅∇+∂∂

2

0

HCgH

tH

d

where H is total depth of the water column, Q = HV is the volumetric flux, V is the depth

averaged velocity, g is gravitational acceleration, ζ is surface elevation relative to mean

sea level, Cd is the bottom drag coefficient, and W is the kinematic wind stress (see also

McLaughlin et al., 2003). These equations may be rearranged to eliminate Q and

produce a nonlinear diffusion equation. The addition of a porous layer below the open

channel using a Darcian approach yields:

o

opo gH

DDDt

S Wζζ⋅−∇=∇+⋅∇−

∂∂ )(

where Do and Dp are the diffusion parameters for the open channel and porous medium,

and S is the storage coefficient, which varies between the open channel and the porous

medium. In deeper channels, local acceleration is added to the momentum balance:

WQQζQ

=+∇+∂∂

=⋅∇+∂∂

2

0

HCgH

t

td

The flooding and drying module in this model study is not an attempt to accurately

describe the flow in the Darcian layer but rather a natural way of incorporating into the

model the volume of fluid displaced during the filling and emptying of tidal flats. This is

necessary due to the fact that the hydrodynamics in the main channel and other non-

Page 7: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 7

drying areas are directly affected by the water storage on drying basins. The model is

discussed extensively and is proven to be numerically robust and to successfully

reproduce tidal constituents and morphological features in the Great Bay Estuary, New

Hampshire in: (Ip et al. 1998; Inoue and Wiseman 2000; Erturk et al. 2002; Thompson et

al. 2002; Bilgili et al. 2003b; McLaughlin et al. 2003).

Particle, or drogue, tracking was done with DROG3DDT (Blanton 1995) which

was implemented with only one vertical layer in order to accommodate the 2D vertically

averaged hydrodynamic model. The tracking model is forced by the velocity field

generated by the Bellamy model and solved using a fourth order Runge-Kutta integration

scheme. Particles are treated as passive drifters in this model.

Computational Setup

The primary region of interest within the lagoon system is Hog Island Bay, a

Long Term Ecological Research site of ongoing nutrient flux analyses. The open water

boundaries of the entire modeled region lie offshore in the ocean at least 18 km away

from Hog Island Bay to avoid boundary effects, and to avoid the necessity of estimating

forcing conditions along the many inlets within the system. Detailed bathymetry of the

Machipongo watershed was obtained from the Virginia Coast Reserve/Long Term

Ecological Research (VCR/LTER) webpage (Oertel et al. 2000). Additional bathymetry

was obtained from NOAA nautical charts and the NOAA GEODAS database. Drogue

release positions were limited to the areas of the Bay in the Machipongo watershed where

Page 8: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 8

high resolution bathymetry was available, so that residence times may be simulated most

accurately.

The modeled region was gridded using the BatTri 2D Finite Element Generator

(Smith and Bilgili 2003). The model mesh was configured to have a minimum angle

constraint of 25 degrees and to satisfy a Courant condition of 1000 with a time step of

149 seconds. An offshore zone of coarser resolution was defined beyond the 18 meter

contour. These grid constraints and data produced a finite element grid of 29,900 nodes

and 32,400 elements (Fig. 3).

Bottom roughness is incorporated into the drag coefficient via the definition Cd =

g n2 H-1/3 (e.g., Henderson, 1966), where n is the Manning’s roughness coefficient, and n

(in mks units) is specified as a linear function of instantaneous water depth according to:

Hn 000492.0040.0 −= . The porous medium thickness is set to 1 m, and the hydraulic

conductivity within the medium is set to 3.16 x 10-4 (Bilgili et al. 2003b). Sensitivity

analyses by Bilgili et al. (2003) indicated that changes in the porous medium parameters

result in no significant change in the hydrodynamics of the open-water channel, which is

the area of interest. Since the lagoon is almost entirely enclosed by land, a wind drag

coefficient of 0.004 was used in accordance with the results for offshore directed winds

from Friedrichs and Wright (1998).

Forcing data for the model were obtained from the NOAA Center for Operational

Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS). Hourly water elevations from

Wachapreague, near the northern end of the modeling domain, and Kiptopeke, near the

southern end at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, were distance weighted along the 146

open water boundary nodes. Hourly wind velocities were obtained from the Kiptopeke

Page 9: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 9

station. The model is forced with tidal elevations at the open water boundaries from the

period of August 2 to September 16, 2000 (Julian day 214-259, Fig. 4). Wind stress

forcing is derived from the wind velocities over the same period and applied uniformly

across the grid.

The model was set to run at time steps of 149 seconds, or about 300 time steps per

tidal cycle. Drogue tracking was started after the first six tidal cycles to allow time for

the hydrodynamic model to reach dynamic equilibrium. The median residence time is

estimated as the length of time required for half of the modeled drifters to exit through

one of the inlets. Once they exit, it is assumed that the predominantly Southward

alongshore current carries them away so that they do not reenter (Finkelstein and Ferland

1987).

Model Validation

The entire record of tidal elevations that were obtained from the CO-OPS data

archive for Kiptopeke from August 2, 2000 to September 16, 2000 are shown in Fig. 4b.

Note the variation in tidal range and synoptic variations in mean water level. The tidal

elevations at Wachapreague are similar, but with about 0.3 m larger tidal range. Wind

velocities for the same time period are variable and moderate (Fig. 4a). Mean predicted

peak flood currents at Machipongo Inlet were 0.6 m s-1. Although not measured at the

same time, these results are consistent with the mean peak flood currents of 0.6 m s-1

obtained by Brumbaugh (1996) on July 15-16, 1993 at Machipongo Inlet. Tidal ranges at

the open boundaries for the simulation period varied from 0.62 m to 1.30 m with a mean

Page 10: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 10

of 0.95 m. The modeled tidal prisms within this region for this period ranged from 0.4 ×

108 m3 to 1.5× 108 m3 with a mean of 0.8 × 108 m3. This compares favorably with the

tidal prism estimate of Oertel (2001) of 1.8 × 108 m3, considering that he assumed a 1.5

m tidal range.

A more rigorous opportunity to validate the model came, subsequent to the initial

residence time analysis, in November 2002, when an upward looking Acoustic Doppler

Profiler (ADP) was deployed by P. Wiberg and S. Lawson near Rogue Island in Hog

Island Bay (Fig. 1) in support of the VCR/LTER site. Without any adjustment of the

model parameters, the model was rerun using observed tidal elevations and winds from

that period. Figure 5 compares the model predictions and the ADP observations of

vertically averaged currents. Although the model misses some peaks in velocity, there is

a generally good match. The mismatch at the peaks biases the root mean square

difference of 0.09 m s-1 between the predicted and observed current speeds, while the root

median square difference gives a more typical mismatch value of 0.06 m s-1.

Particle Spatial Resolution Sensitivity

The lowest spatial resolution of drogue positions that also gives robust estimates

of residence time maximizes the computational efficiency of the model. To determine

the optimal spatial resolution, three runs were performed over 59 tidal cycles using the

same tidal elevation and wind stress data. Regular matrices of drogues were established

within the Machipongo watershed area with three different spatial resolutions. Drogues

were spaced 500, 750, and 1000 meters apart, resulting in 488, 217, and 121 drogues in

Page 11: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 11

each of the three respective configurations. Spatial distributions of the resulting

residence times were qualitatively similar for each of the three runs. Median residence

times were, 524, 525, and 537 hours for the 500, 750 and 1000 meter spacing

respectively. It was therefore determined that drogue configurations with a spatial

resolution higher than 750 meters did not give meaningfully significant differences in the

results, and so this configuration was used in the following experiments (Fig. 6).

Error Estimation

For each model simulation, there is an error in the estimated median residence

time that is associated with variations of the particle trajectories within the region of

interest. The method of choosing a grid of evenly spaced particles within the region is a

type of random systematic sampling of the modeled region with a regular interval (750

m) and a random start point. In order to estimate the error associated with variation of

potential particle trajectories within the region, ten simulations were performed with the

same forcing conditions and sampling interval, but with different random start locations.

Each new starting position of the sampling mesh was placed 75 meters eastward from the

previous starting position. The resulting standard error of the median residence time for

these ten simulations was only 2.6 hours, suggesting that the estimation of the median

residence time is not significantly affected by small scale spatial variations within the

model simulation.

Page 12: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 12

Median Residence Time

An important source of variation of median residence time in real estuaries is the

variation of tidal elevations and wind velocities. The magnitude of these variations over

synoptic time scales at the end of the growing season was estimated by performing

separate model simulations with different starting times. The beginning of each

simulation was lagged an arbitrary synoptic timescale of 3.5 tidal cycles from the

previous one. Nine separate simulations were performed on the summer/fall 2000 period

before there was insufficient water level data available to continue further in the year.

The nine simulations were run for 18,000 - 9600 time steps or approximately 60 - 32 tidal

cycles, of which the first 6 cycles were not used for particle tracking. The mean bay

residence time from the five simulations is 358 +/- 39 hours (Table 1) and the range of

bay residence time is 333 hours, showing that changes in tidal amplitude and wind

velocities result in changes in bay residence time on the order of days. Mean bay

residence times of drogues released during flood were on average 95 +/- 29 hours longer

than those released 3.5 tidal cycles later during ebb. Particles initiated on ebb have

systematically shorter residence times because the first half tidal cycle is directed

seaward rather than landward.

The spatial distributions of the local residence times are similar for each of the

above described simulations (Fig. 7). Local residence time is generally a function of

distance from the inlets and proximity to the deep channel, except in cases where there is

an elevated marsh around which residence times are high, for example, Rogue Island,

which is just north of the inside of Machipongo Inlet. Many drogues that were originally

Page 13: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 13

located near the mainland never made it out of the Bay during the simulated time period.

Figure 8 shows a typical drogue path. Animation of the wind velocity and the drogues

show that drogue movement is influenced by the stronger tidal velocities in the deep

channels, while in the shallower regions wind forcing is more important. When the

model is run without wind forcing, the median residence time is too long to calculate

because over half of the particles never leave the Bay. The wind not only provides a

natural forcing on the water, it also acts as a horizontal diffuser. It is possible that adding

random-walk type diffusion to the hydrodynamic model may further decrease the

estimated median residence time. The overall distribution of residence times and the

general pattern of the drogue paths indicate that the new water introduced at each flood

tide pushes the water that is resident during low tide up and away from the inlets.

Moderate wind induced horizontal mixing disperses the drogues and allows them to

eventually exit with the ebbing tide.

The above particle tracking method for estimating median residence time is

somewhat biased toward shallow regions in that, upon initial release, the drogues are

equally spaced in terms of lagoon surface area, but not equally spaced in terms of the

lagoon water volume that each initial drogue position represents. A more rigorous

volume residence time can be calculated by weighting each drogue by the water depth at

its initial release location. A slightly lower median residence time then results for the

lagoon as a whole. Taking this approach results in the following median residence time:

324 +/- 39.

Page 14: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 14

Conclusions

Numerical modeling has shown that the median residence times in Hog Island

Bay at the end of the growing season are on the order of weeks instead of the few tidal

cycles previously estimated using the tidal prism method. Numerical modeling not only

accounts for limited horizontal mixing and changes in tidal amplitude and wind forcing, it

allows the release of orders of magnitude more drogues than field operations allow and

improves the statistical significance of the results. The spatial distribution of the

residence times and general water movement within the Bay do not support the

assumption of complete horizontal mixing that is required by integral methods of

residence time estimation. Instead, the results suggest that in shallow friction dominated

lagoons, new water from the incoming tide piles the old water up and away from the

inlets. Residence times near the inlets are consequently very short, while away from the

inlets water may reside for many weeks. Thus, in marshy areas and tidal creeks near the

upland, biologically mediated reactions with turnover timescales of minutes to a few days

are likely to control the fate of nutrients, while near the inlet, physical flushing

dominates. One possible exception in Hog Island Bay may be the physical advection of

nutrients tied up macroalgal biomass. It should be noted that the estimates nearest the

inlets are conservatively short. Should the assumption of no returning old water be

incorrect, then the amount of time a given parcel of water resides near the inlet is

underestimated. The strong response of the drogues in shallow water to wind forcing

suggests that during the winter, when algal growth is slow and winds are high, that

residence times may be shorter due to a higher degree of horizontal mixing.

Page 15: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 15

Acknowledgements

We thank Pat Wiberg and Sarah Lawson for providing the ADP data. We also

thank Brian Zelenke for help with digitizing the model domain and Jonathan Shewchuk

for developing the Triangle routines used in the BatTri 2D Finite Element Generator.

This project was funded by UVA/USDA NRICGP USDA Grant No. 2001-35101-09873

US Department of Agriculture and by the National Science Foundation through Grant

DEB-0213767.

Literature Cited

Anderson, I. C., McGlathery, K. J. and Tyler, A. C., 2003. Microbial processing of "reactive nitrogen" in a temperate coastal lagoon. Ecology Progress Series, 246: 73-84.

Bilgili, A., Proehl, J., Lynch, D., Smith, K. and Swift, M. R., 2003a, Experiments in Lagrangian Modeling of Transport and Exchange in a Gulf of Maine Estuary, Numerical Methods Laboratory Report #NML-03-5, Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, http://www-nml.dartmouth.edu/Publications/internal_reports/NML-03-5/ ).

Bilgili, A., Swift, M. R., Lynch, D. R. and Ip, J. T. C., 2003b. Modeling Bed-Load Transport of Coarse Sediments in the Great B ay Estuary, NH, Using a 2-D Kinematic Flooding-Dewatering Model. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 58(4): 937-950.

Blanton, B. O., 1995. Drog3d: User's manual for 3-dimensional drogue tracking on a finite element grid with linear finite elements., Ocean Processes Numerical Methods Laboratory, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.

Brumbaugh, R. D., 1996. Recruitment of Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus, postlarvae to the back-barrier lagoons of Virginia's Eastern Shore, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.

Page 16: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 16

Erturk, S. N., Bilgili, A., Swift, M. R., Brown, W. S. and Celikkol, B., 2002. Simulation of the Great Bay Estuarine System: Tides with tidal flats wetting and drying. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(C5): 1-9.

Finkelstein, K. and Ferland, M., 1987. Back-barrier response to sea-level rise, Eastern Shore of Virginia. In: D. Nummedal, O.H. Pilkey and J.D. Howard (Editors), Sea-Level Fluctuation and Coastal Evolution, Special Publication 41: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Minerologists., pp. 145-155.

Friedrichs, C. T., Lynch, D. R. and Aubrey, D. G., 1992. Velocity asymmetries in frictionally-dominated tidal embayments: longitudinal and lateral variability. In: D. Prandle (Editor), Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Dynamics and exchanges in estuaries and the coastal zone. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, pp. 277-312.

Friedrichs, C. T. and Wright, L. D., 1998. Wave effects on inner shelf wind drag coefficients. In: B.L. Edge and J.M. Hemsley (Editors), Third International Symposium Waves 97. ASCE, Virginia Beach, VA, pp. 1033-1047.

Geyer, W. R. and Signell, R. P., 1992. A reassessment of the role of tidal dispersion in estuaries and bays. Estuaries, 15(2): 97-108.

Havens, K. E. et al., 2001. Complex interactions between autotrophs in shallow marine and freshwater ecosystems: implications for community responses to nutrient stress. Environmental Pollution, 113: 95-107.

Hervouet, J.-M. and Janin, J.-M., 1994. Finite element algorithms for modelling flood propagation. In: P. Molinaro and L. Natale (Editors), Modelling of Flood Propagation Over Initially Dry Areas. ASCE, New York, NY, pp. 102-113.

Hofmann, E. E., Hedstroem, K. S., Moisan, J. R., Haidvogel, D. B. and Mackas, D. L., 1991. Use of simulated drifter tracks to investigate general transport patterns and residence times in the coastal transition zone. Journal of Geophysical Research, 96(C8): 15041-15052.

Inoue, M. and Wiseman, W. J. J., 2000. Transport, Mixing and Stirring Processes in a Louisiana Estuary: A Model Study. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 50: 449-466.

Ip, J. T. C., Lynch, D. R. and Friedrichs, C. T., 1998. Simulation of estuarine flooding and dewatering with application to Great Bay, New Hampshire. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 47: 119-141.

Jelesnianski, C. P., Chen, J. and Shaffer, W. A., 1992. SLOSH: Sea, lake, and overland surges from hurricanes.

McLaughlin, J. W., Bilgili, A. and Lynch, D. R., 2003. Numerical modeling of tides in the Great Bay Estuarine System: Dynamical Balance and spring-neap residual modulation. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 57(1-2): 283-296.

Monsen, N. E., Cloern, J. E., Lucas, L. V. and Monismith, S. G., 2002. A comment on the use of flushing time, residence time and age as transport time scales. Limnology and Oceanography, 47(5): 1545-1553.

Oertel, G. F., 2001. Hypsographic, hydro-hypsographic and hydrological analysis of coastal bay environments, Great Machipongo Bay, Virginia. Journal of Coastal Research, 17(4): 775-783.

Oertel, G. F., Overman, K., Carlson, R., Porter, J. H. and Allen, T., 2000. Hypsographic analysis of coastal bay environments using integrated remote sensing techniques,

Page 17: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 17

Great Machipongo Bay, Virginia, Proceedings of Sixth International Conference Remote Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments. Veridian ERIM International, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 207-232.

Oliveira, A. and Baptista, A. M., 1997. Diagnostic modeling of residence times in estuaries. Water Resources Research, 33(8): 1935-1946.

Smith, C. L., Hill, A. E., Foreman, M. G. G. and Pena, M. A., 2001. Horizontal transport of marine organisms resulting from interactions between diel vertical migration and tidal currents off the west coast of Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 58: 736-748.

Smith, K. and Bilgili, A., 2003, BATTRI: 2-D Finite Element Grid Generator, http://www-nml/Publications/internal_reports/NML-03-15/, http://www-nml/Publications/internal_reports/NML-03-15/.

Swift, M. R. and Brown, W. S., 1983. Distribution of bottom stress and tidal energy dissipation in a well mixed estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 17: 297-317.

Thompson, K. R., Dowd, M., Shen, Y. and Greenberg, D. A., 2002. Probabilistic characterization of tidal mixing in a coastal embayment: a Markov Chain approach. Cont. Shelf Res., 22(11-13): 1603-1614.

Tyler, A. C., Mastronicola, T. A. and McGlathery, K. J., 2003. Nitrogen fixation and nitrogen limitation of primary production along a natural marsh chronosequence. Oecologia., 136: 431-438.

Tyler, A. C., McGlathery, K. J. and Anderson, I. C., 2001. Macroalgae Mediation of Dissolved Organic Nitrogen Fluxes in a Temperate Coastal Lagoon. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 53: 155-168.

Vallino, J. J. and Hopkinson, C. S., Jr., 1998. Estimation of dispersion and characteristic mixing times in Plum Island Sound Estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 46: 333-350.

Page 18: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 18

Table 1. Variation in Median Residence Times over Synoptic Time Scales

Time lag from Julian

Day 214 (Tidal Cycles)

Median Residence Time,

Median Depth Weighted

Residence Time

(Hours)

0 (flood) 534, 522

3.5 (ebb) 478, 417

7 (flood) 435, 386

10.5 (ebb) 381, 356

14 (flood) 334, 309

17.5 (ebb) 244, 206

21 (flood) 398, 337

24.5 (ebb) 219, 182

28 (flood) 201, 200

Mean +/- s.e. 358 +/- 39, 324 +/- 38

Page 19: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 19

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Map of Hog Island Bay, Virginia, USA. The ‘X’ marks the spot where the ADP

was deployed.

Fig. 2. Hog Island Bay bathymetry, 1,2,5,10 and 15 m contours.

Fig. 3. Finite element grid of Hog Island Bay and surrounding region.

Fig. 4. Tidal elevations and wind velocities from Kiptopeke used to force the model.

Fig. 5. Observed and predicted vertically averaged current speeds near Rogue Island.

Fig. 6. Initial configuration of particle locations.

Fig. 7. Spatial distribution of local residence times for particles released during flood.

Fig. 8. Selected particle path over channel and shallow regions.

Page 20: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 20

Mac

hipo

ngo

Inle

t

Rog

ue Is

land

Delmarva Peninsula

Kipt

opek

e

xM

achi

pong

oIn

let

Rog

ue Is

land

Delmarva Peninsula

Kipt

opek

e

Delmarva Peninsula

Kipt

opek

e

x

Page 21: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 21

Page 22: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 22

44.

14.

24.

34.

44.

54.

64.

75

4.1

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

x 1

0y

Page 23: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 23

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

-1

-0.50

0.51

Julia

n D

ay

Tidal Elevation (m)

-15

-10-50510

Wind Velocity (m s-1)

Page 24: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 24

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

(m s-1)

Obs

erve

dP

redi

cted

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

(m s-1)

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

(m s-1)

Hou

rs fr

om 0

0:00

18N

ov02

ES

T

Page 25: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 25

4.2

4.25

4.3

4.35

4.4

x 10

5

4.13

4.13

5

4.14

4.14

5

4.15

x 10

6

Hor

izon

tal D

ista

nce

from

Wes

t to

Eas

t, x

(m)

Vertical Distance from South to North, y (m)

Page 26: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 26

++

Page 27: Estimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier ...web.vims.edu/~cfried/cv/2006/Fugate_etal_2006_ECM.pdfEstimation of Residence Time in a Shallow Back Barrier Lagoon, Hog Island

Fugate, Friedrichs, and Bilgili 27

4.2

4.22

4.24

4.26

4.28

4.3

4.32

4.34

4.36

4.38

4.4 x 10

5

4.12

8

4.13

4.13

2

4.13

4

4.13

6

4.13

8

4.14

4.14

2

4.14

4

4.14

6

4.14

8

x 10

6

Hor

izont

al D

ista

nce

from

Wes

t to

East

, x (m

)

Vertical Distance from South to North, y (m)

Initi

alPo

sitio

n Exit

4.2

4.22

4.24

4.26

4.28

4.3

4.32

4.34

4.36

4.38

4.4 x 10

5

4.12

8

4.13

4.13

2

4.13

4

4.13

6

4.13

8

4.14

4.14

2

4.14

4

4.14

6

4.14

8

x 10

6

Hor

izont

al D

ista

nce

from

Wes

t to

East

, x (m

)

Vertical Distance from South to North, y (m)

Initi

alPo

sitio

n Exit


Recommended