Results for “Frontiers in Physics” — Page 4

USGS2024

Vegetation responses to large dam removal on the Elwha River, Washington, USA

Large dam removal can trigger changes to physical and biological processes that influence vegetation dynamics in former reservoirs, along river corridors downstream of former dams, and at a river’s terminus in deltas and estuaries. We present the first comprehensive review of vegetation response to major fluvial disturbance caused by the world’s largest dam removal. After being in place for nearly a century, two large dams were removed along the Elwha River, Washington, USA, between 2011 and 2014. The exposure, erosion, transport, and deposition of large volumes of sediment and large wood that were impounded behind the dams created new fluvial surfaces where plant colonization and growth have occurred. In the former reservoirs, dam removal exposed ~290 ha of unvegetated sediment distributed on three main landforms: valley walls, high terraces, and dynamic floodplains. In addition to natural revegetation in the former reservoirs, weed control and seeding and planting of desirable plants influenced vegetation trajectories. In early years following dam removal, ~20.5 Mt of trapped sediment were eroded from the former reservoirs and transported downstream. This sediment pulse, in combination with transport of large wood, led to channel widening, an increase in gravel bars, and floodplain deposition. The primary vegetation responses along the river corridor were a reduction in vegetated area associated with channel widening, plant establishment on new gravel bars, increased hydrochory, and altered plant community composition on gravel bars and floodplains. Plant species diversity increased in some river segments. In the delta, sediment deposition led to the creation of ~26.8 ha of new land surfaces and altered the distribution and dynamics of intertidal water bodies. Vegetation colonized ~16.4 ha of new surfaces: mixed pioneer vegetation colonized supratidal beach, river bars, and river mouth bars, and emergent marsh vegetation colonized intertidal aquatic habitats. In addition to the sediment-dominated processes that have created opportunities for plant colonization and growth, biological processes such as restored hydrochory and anadromous fish passage with associated delivery of marine-derived nutrients may influence vegetation dynamics over time. Rapid changes to landforms and vegetation growth were related to the large sediment pulse in the early years following dam removal, and the rate of change is expected to attenuate as the system adjusts to natural flow and sediment regimes.

Washington↗

USGS2017

The relative effectiveness of empirical and physical models for simulating the dense undercurrent of pyroclastic flows under different emplacement conditions

High concentration pyroclastic density currents (PDCs) are hot avalanches of volcanic rock and gas and are among the most destructive volcanic hazards due to their speed and mobility. Mitigating the risk associated with these flows depends upon accurate forecasting of possible impacted areas, often using empirical or physical models. TITAN2D, VolcFlow, LAHARZ, and Δ H/L or energy cone models each employ different rheologies or empirical relationships and therefore differ in appropriateness of application for different types of mass flows and topographic environments. This work seeks to test different statistically- and physically-based models against a range of PDCs of different volumes, emplaced under different conditions, over different topography in order to test the relative effectiveness, operational aspects, and ultimately, the utility of each model for use in hazard assessments. The purpose of this work is not to rank models, but rather to understand the extent to which the different modeling approaches can replicate reality in certain conditions, and to explore the dynamics of PDCs themselves. In this work, these models are used to recreate the inundation areas of the dense-basal undercurrent of all 13 mapped, land-confined, Soufrière Hills Volcano dome-collapse PDCs emplaced from 1996 to 2010 to test the relative effectiveness of different computational models. Best-fit model results and their input parameters are compared with results using observation- and deposit-derived input parameters. Additional comparison is made between best-fit model results and those using empirically-derived input parameters from the FlowDat global database, which represent “forward” modeling simulations as would be completed for hazard assessment purposes. Results indicate that TITAN2D is able to reproduce inundated areas well using flux sources, although velocities are often unrealistically high. VolcFlow is also able to replicate flow runout well, but does not capture the lateral spreading in distal regions of larger-volume flows. Both models are better at reproducing the inundated area of single-pulse, valley-confined, smaller-volume flows than sustained, highly unsteady, larger-volume flows, which are often partially unchannelized. The simple rheological models of TITAN2D and VolcFlow are not able to recreate all features of these more complex flows. LAHARZ is fast to run and can give a rough approximation of inundation, but may not be appropriate for all PDCs and the designation of starting locations is difficult. The Δ H/L cone model is also very quick to run and gives reasonable approximations of runout distance, but does not inherently model flow channelization or directionality and thus unrealistically covers all interfluves. Empirically-based models like LAHARZ and Δ H/L cones can be quick, first-approximations of flow runout, provided a database of similar flows, e.g., FlowDat, is available to properly calculate coefficients or Δ H/L . For hazard assessment purposes, geophysical models like TITAN2D and VolcFlow can be useful for producing both scenario-based or probabilistic hazard maps, but must be run many times with varying input parameters. LAHARZ and Δ H/L cones can be used to produce simple modeling-based hazard maps when run with a variety of input volumes, but do not explicitly consider the probability of occurrence of different volumes. For forward modeling purposes, the ability to derive potential input parameters from global or local databases is crucial, though important input parameters for VolcFlow cannot be empirically estimated. Not only does this work provide a useful comparison of the operational aspects and behavior of various models for hazard assessment, but it also enriches conceptual understanding of the dynamics of the PDCs themselves.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗