2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.05.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of an Integrated Biophysical Model to represent morphological and ecological processes in a changing deltaic and coastal ecosystem

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
33
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
0
33
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The second model used to test the effectiveness of the proposed nature-based solutions was the Integrated Biophysical Model (IBM), a project-level Delft3D model that has small grid cells and a slow computing time, referred to by the group as the "slow model" (Baustian et al 2018;Meselhe et al 2015). The IBM couples hydrodynamics, nutrient dynamics, vegetation dynamics, and morphodynamics to model changes to wetland vegetation and estuarine open water (Baustian et al 2018). Additionally, scenarios that included future environmental conditions (sea level rise and subsidence) and the impacts of hurricane-force winds, water levels, and drought conditions were run with the IBM.…”
Section: Figmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second model used to test the effectiveness of the proposed nature-based solutions was the Integrated Biophysical Model (IBM), a project-level Delft3D model that has small grid cells and a slow computing time, referred to by the group as the "slow model" (Baustian et al 2018;Meselhe et al 2015). The IBM couples hydrodynamics, nutrient dynamics, vegetation dynamics, and morphodynamics to model changes to wetland vegetation and estuarine open water (Baustian et al 2018). Additionally, scenarios that included future environmental conditions (sea level rise and subsidence) and the impacts of hurricane-force winds, water levels, and drought conditions were run with the IBM.…”
Section: Figmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The applied Mississippi River hydrograph is depicted in both Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2. This hydrograph is an idealized hydrograph, generated for this study (Sadid et al 2018). It is an idealized typical hydrograph, resulting from a statistical synthesis of the observed Mississippi River hydrograph at Tarbert Landing.…”
Section: Mississippi River Inflow Hydrographmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Baustian et al () model is dependent on an “expert assessment” for 9 of 14 validations for model components (http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Attachment-C3-1_FINAL_02.22.2017.pdf; Table 3), implying that these are partly subjective conclusions that will be less definitive than the equations calculating hydrologic flow and sediment transport. Neither model includes a quantified consideration of the 30% decline in root strength (Hollis & Turner ) or soil strength (Turner ) after small increases in nutrient availability, which Baustian et al (, p 415) suggest is a concern. The interactive effect of hurricanes and diversions is not included, and land gain or loss in wetland soils beyond the initial outfall area are not used to calibrate either model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%