Advancing mechanistic understanding of cohesive sediment transport: Integrating flume experiments, field measurements, and modelling approaches in a gravel-bed river
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gravel-bed rivers draining mountainous forested headwater regions are critically important for drinking water supply and ecological integrity. These rivers, however, have been increasingly impacted by intensifying anthropogenic and natural (especially climate change exacerbated) landscape disturbances that commonly increase hillslope/channel connectivity and the delivery of cohesive sediment (<63 μm) and associated pollutants. Despite the known deleterious threats of excess cohesive sediments, there is still limited understanding of their transport and intra-gravel storage due to the complexities of such processes. Accordingly, the objectives of this study were to: i) calibrate and validate a semi-empirical cohesive sediment transport model (RIVFLOC) using the observations from flume experiments; ii) estimate the intra-gravel storage capacity for cohesive sediment with the calibrated model based on the field dataset (collected in two field campaigns between 2019 and 2021), and; iii) investigate mechanisms of cohesive sediment transport dynamics in this gravel-bed river, identifying knowledge gaps and areas for future research. Our results showed that despite the increased floc settling velocity, deposition was hindered by turbulent flow fields. The model predicted that ∼60 % of upstream cohesive sediment would ingress within the 10 km study reach due to the flow interaction with the gravel-bed. Despite the agreement between flume and field observations on ingress rates and preferential ingress of coarser (∼100 μm) flocs, notable differences were observed between modelled and field datasets, highlighting unknowns regarding cohesive sediment exfiltration without framework mobilization. This study uniquely integrates field measurements, flume experiments, and modelling strategies to evaluate the transport and fate of cohesive sediment in a gravel-bed river. Accordingly, our findings advance current knowledge on the mechanistic understanding of cohesive sediment transport and highlight future research directions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".