Upriver transport of dissolved substances in an estuary and sub-estuary system of the lower James River, Chesapeake Bay

doi:10.1007/s11707-017-0684-6

Front. Earth Sci.

2018, Vol. 12

Issue (3) : 583-599 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-017-0684-6

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Upriver transport of dissolved substances in an estuary and sub-estuary system of the lower James River, Chesapeake Bay

Bo HONG¹(

), Jian SHEN², Hongzhou XU³

¹. School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China
². Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg VA23062, USA
³. Institute of Deep-sea Science and Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Sanya 572000, China

Download: PDF(4518 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

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

Corresponding Author(s): Bo HONG

Just Accepted Date: 12 December 2017 Online First Date: 15 January 2018 Issue Date: 05 September 2018

Cite this article:

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[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2018, 12(3): 583-599.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-017-0684-6
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2018/V12/I3/583

Fig.1 (a) The topography of the James River. The water depth is in meters. The contour interval is 5 m. The transect across the mouth of the Elizabeth River is marked. The star at the mouth of the Elizabeth River denotes the position where the exchange flow was calculated in Figs. 5–9. The Sewells Point (SP) Station is marked by a red triangle. Stations LE5.1, LE5.2, LE5.3, LE5.4, LE5.5-W, and LE5.6 are marked by red squares. The four major branches of the Elizabeth River are marked by the shaded areas; (b) Computational domain and model grid of the James River. The three red triangles represent the locations of the freshwater input. The transect along the main channel of the James River is marked. The domain M is selected as a representative region for the analysis of upstream transport.

Fig.2 (a–f) Model-data comparisons for the temporal variations of salinity profile at stations LE5.1, LE5.2, LE5.3, LE5.4, LE5.5-W, and LE5.6. The observations were obtained from the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program; (g–h) comparisons of tidal and subtidal water elevation at Sewells Point station.

Tab.1 Statistics of the model-data comparison in water level. RMS denotes root mean square

Fig.3 Monthly mean results in August, 2005: (a) surface and bottom layer DS concentration (arbitrary unit); (b) surface and bottom layer DS transport time (day); (c) surface and bottom layer residual circulation; (d) salinity transect along the main channel of the James River. The location of the transect is marked in Fig. 1(b).

Fig.4 Time series of volume mean DS concentration and transport time calculated in the entire water column of domain M. The location of domain M is marked in Fig. 1(b).

Fig.5 (a) Wind vector from Day 270 to Day 300, 2005; (b) surface and bottom layer DS concentration (arbitrary unit) on Days 280 (southerly wind) and 287 (northerly wind); (c) time series of volume mean DS concentration in domain M; (d) exchange flow at the mouth of the Elizabeth River on Days 277, 280, and 287, respectively. The location of the exchange flow was marked in Fig. 1(a) by the green star at the Elizabeth River mouth. The positive (negative) direction indicates flow leaving (entering) Elizabeth River.

Fig.6 (a) Subtidal water level at the mouth of the James River. The observed subtidal water level at Sewells Point station is also superimposed; (b) daily mean surface and bottom layer DS concentration (arbitrary units) on Days 295, 298, 301, and 306 in 2005, respectively; (c) time series of volume mean DS concentration in domain M; (d) exchange flow at the mouth of Elizabeth River on Days 293, 297, 301, and 306 in 2005, respectively.

Fig.7 (a) Total river discharge to the James River from its headwaters; (b) daily mean surface and bottom layer DS concentration (arbitrary unit) on Days 94 and 258 in 2005; (c) salinity transect on Days 94 and 258 along the main channel of the James River (see Fig. 1(b) for the location of the transect. Here p1, p2, p3 represent the corresponding sites in (b) and (c)); (d) exchange flow at the mouth of Elizabeth River on Days 94 and 258, respectively.

Fig.8 (a) Time series of tidal elevation at Sewells Point Station in 2005; (b) low-pass filtered DS flux (mass×m³/s, mass is in arbitrary units) across the mouth of Elizabeth River; (c) exchange flow at the mouth of Elizabeth River on Days 213 and 220, respectively; (d) volume mean DS concentration in the domain M.

Fig.9 Results from the sensitivity runs with wind turned off (Zero), northerly wind (N), westerly wind (W), southerly wind (S), and easterly wind (E), respectively: (a) exchange flow at the mouth of Elizabeth River; (b) flux of dissolved substances at the mouth of Elizabeth River, which were calculated from the transect across the mouth of Elizabeth River shown in Fig. 1(a); (c) volume mean DS concentration in the domain M.

Fig.10 Travel time (days) corresponding to the depth-averaged peak concentration of DS released from the four branches of the Elizabeth River on Day 213 (left) and Day 220 (right). The travel time is relative to the releasing day. Days 213 and 220 are selected to represent the typical spring and neap tidal condition, respectively.

Tab.2 Correlation coefficient (at 95% confidence level) of the mean DS concentration in domain M with each physical forcing component. The dominant tides in James River is M2 and S2. The 15-day running average is applied in order to remove the tidal effect from the one-year results

Fig.11 Results of spectrum analysis for daily mean DS concentration and forcing variables. The first three significant frequencies for DS concentration are 22.75, 28, and 14.56 days.

Fig.12 (a) Multi-variable regression of DS concentration in the domain M with the forcing field, which include wind, water level, river discharge, and stratification at Station LE5.4 (near NNP and is maintained by the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program). The correlation coefficient is 0.856 (p=0.00001).

1	Basdurak N B, Valle-Levinson A (2013). Tidal variability of lateral advection in a coastalplain estuary. Cont Shelf Res, 61–62: 85–97 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.04.026
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 https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JC900117
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 https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JPO4016.1
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-7963(01)00026-4
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 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1988)045<0055:AQETEM>2.0.CO;2
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2009.06.008
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 https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2016.1205438
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2010.03.010
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.03.014
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 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(1990)116:3(341)
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.01.013
16	Li C, Armstrong S, Williams D (2006). Residual eddies in a tidal channel. Estuaries Coasts, 29(1): 147–158 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02784706
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 https://doi.org/10.1029/RG020i004p00851
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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-011-9398-2
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 https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC004770
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2004.10.003
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.036
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 https://doi.org/10.2307/1353055
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.09.001
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2004.06.010
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.01.014
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 https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JC900307
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 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1978)008<0225:NTVITC>2.0.CO;2
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 https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002691
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 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1976)006<0345:VOITWP>2.0.CO;2
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4343(02)00030-4
32	Wong K C, Garvine R W (1984). Observations of wind-induced subtidal variability inthe Delaware estuary. J Geophys Res, 89(C6): 10589–10597 https://doi.org/10.1029/JC089iC06p10589
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 https://doi.org/10.1357/002224002762231188
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 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02841966
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.07.014

[1]	Boyuan ZHU, Jinyun DENG, Jinwu TANG, Wenjun YU, Alistair G.L. BORTHWICK, Yuanfang CHAI, Zhaohua SUN, Yitian LI. Erosion-deposition patterns and depo-center movements in branching channels at the near-estuary reach of the Yangtze River[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(3): 537-552.
[2]	Xia LEI, Jiayi PAN, Adam DEVLIN. An ultraviolet to visible scheme to estimate chromophoric dissolved organic matter absorption in a Case-2 water from remote sensing reflectance[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(2): 384-400.
[3]	Yongming SHEN, Gefei DENG, Zhihao XU, Jun TANG. Effects of sea level rise on storm surge and waves within the Yangtze River Estuary[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(2): 303-316.
[4]	Menglu ZHANG, Baoshan CUI, Zhiming ZHANG, Xuelian JIANG. Salinity-oriented environmental flows for keystone species in the Modaomen Estuary, China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2017, 11(4): 670-681.
[5]	Xianbin LIU,Deliang LI,Guisheng SONG. Assessment of heavy metal levels in surface sediments of estuaries and adjacent coastal areas in China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2017, 11(1): 85-94.
[6]	Meilin WU,Youshao WANG,Junde DONG,Fulin SUN,Yutu WANG,Yiguo HONG. Spatial assessment of water quality using chemometrics in the Pearl River Estuary, China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2017, 11(1): 114-126.
[7]	Man-Chung CHIM,Jiayi PAN,Wenfeng LAI. Modified optical remote sensing algorithms for the Pearl River Estuary[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2015, 9(4): 732-741.
[8]	António M. BAPTISTA,Charles SEATON,Michael P. WILKIN,Sarah F. RISEMAN,Joseph A. NEEDOBA,David MAIER,Paul J. TURNER,Tuomas KÄRNÄ,Jesse E. LOPEZ,Lydie HERFORT,V.M. MEGLER,Craig McNEIL,Byron C. CRUMP,Tawnya D. PETERSON,Yvette H. SPITZ,Holly M. SIMON. Infrastructure for collaborative science and societal applications in the Columbia River estuary[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2015, 9(4): 659-682.
[9]	Ming ZHANG,Yongming SHEN. Determination of water flushing characteristics and their influencing factors on the Dahuofang Reservoir in China using an improved ECOMSED model[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2015, 9(3): 394-411.
[10]	Yong ZENG,Yanpeng CAI,Peng JIA,Jiansu MAO. Development of a model-based flood emergency management system in Yujiang River Basin, South China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2014, 8(2): 231-241.
[11]	Maotian LI,Jianzhong GE,Jens KAPPENBERG,Dagmar MUCH,Ohle NINO,Zhongyuan CHEN. Morphodynamic processes of the Elbe River estuary, Germany: the Coriolis effect, tidal asymmetry and human dredging[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2014, 8(2): 181-189.
[12]	Yucen LU, Yongming SHEN. Influence of bathymetry evolution on position of tidal shear front and hydrodynamic characteristics around the Yellow River estuary[J]. Front Earth Sci, 2012, 6(4): 405-419.
[13]	Alfonso BLANCO, John J. QU, William E. ROPER. Spectral signatures of hydrilla from a tank and field setting[J]. Front Earth Sci, 2012, 6(4): 453-460.
[14]	Liang WANG, Xiaodong ZHAO, Yongming SHEN. Coupling hydrodynamic models with GIS for storm surge simulation: application to the Yangtze Estuary and the Hangzhou Bay, China[J]. Front Earth Sci, 2012, 6(3): 261-275.
[15]	Anning SUO, Dongzhi ZHAO, Fengshou ZHANG, Huaru WANG, Fengqiao LIU, . Driving forces and management strategies for estuaries in northern China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2010, 4(1): 51-58.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed