Influence of Seasonal River Discharge on Tidal Propagation in the Ganges‐Brahmaputra‐Meghna Delta, Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Significant research efforts have been devoted to understanding river‐tide interactions in estuaries. However, studies on the impact of monsoon‐driven fluctuations of river discharge are limited. Here, the role of varying river discharge on the tidal propagation and tidal limit along the Ganges‐Brahmaputra‐Meghna Delta (GBMD), a macrotidal estuary subject to seasonal and annual river discharge variations, is investigated. The Delft3D hydrodynamic model is validated and applied to an average flood year condition and nine idealized scenarios covering the typical hydrological conditions. Results reveal that the upper limit of the tidal propagation shifts 75 km upstream during the dry season. The residual water level slope and tidal damping rate increase with river discharge beyond 100 km from the estuary mouth. The balance between the generation and dissipation of quarterdiurnal tides shifts spatially as a result of changes in channel convergence and friction and temporally as a function of river discharge, which controls the total friction in the upper tidal river. The balance between tidal dissipation and generation depends on the residual velocity generated by river discharge and the velocity of the principal tides. The maximal generation of quarterdiurnal tides in the upper GBMD depends on the friction generated from the river‐tide interaction. Critical river discharge thresholds produce an optimal condition of dissipation of semidiurnal tides and generation of quarterdiurnal tides through friction at the upper and middle estuary. River discharge above the critical river discharge amount more rapidly dissipates both semidiurnal and quarterdiurnal tides than generates quarterdiurnal tides from nonlinear interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".