Observations of an inshore front associated with the Chesapeake Bay outflow plume

Marmorino, G. O.; Donato, T.F.; Sletten, Mark A.; Trump, C. L.

doi:10.1016/s0278-4343(99)00094-1

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The flow separation caused the formation of two boundaries for the plume waters, one offshore and one inshore, during ebb periods. This was analogous to observations in Delaware Bay [ Sanders and Garvine , 1996] and from radar measurements in the Chesapeake Bay [ Sletten et al , 1999] and ADCPs [ Marmorino et al , 2000; Marmorino and Trump , 2004]. During flood periods, the flow is like a potential sink [e.g., Chadwick and Largier , 1999] and moves in roughly the same direction as in ebb (toward the bay mouth) in the region inshore of the Chesapeake Channel.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Whether the observed anticyclonic recirculation around Cape Henry develops under much weaker riverine inputs than those observed in this study remains a question to be explored. Nonetheless, it is hypothesized that the recirculation is most likely caused by tidal rectification as also suggested by Johnson [1976], Marmorino et al [2000] and Marmorino and Trump [2004]. The persistent observations of this anticyclonic recirculation in different studies suggests additional observational or modeling studies to explore whether it functions as a retention mechanism for transport of larvae that require re‐entrance into Chesapeake Bay for their survival.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subtidal flow structure at the turning region of a wide outflow plume

Valle‐Levinson

Holderied²,

et al. 2007

J. Geophys. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of underway current velocity profiles and near‐surface temperature and salinity measurements were combined with temperature and salinity profiles to characterize the subtidal flow structure at the turning region of a wide plume, the Chesapeake Bay outflow plume. In this context, “wide” refers to the ratio of lateral plume expansion to internal radius of deformation being greater than one. Observations were obtained in September and November of 1996 and in February and May of 1997 with the idea of capturing the variability in forcing conditions typically associated with these seasons. However, regional precipitation patterns yielded similar buoyancy forcing conditions for the four surveys and among the wettest years on record. This buoyancy forcing produced a well‐delineated outflow plume that separated from the coast on its way out the estuary. The plume separation acted in conjunction with frictional effects to delineate an inshore front, in addition to the customarily described offshore front. The outflow plume was markedly constrained by the Chesapeake Channel, which was also the main conduit of shelf waters toward the estuary. The bathymetric influence was also evident in the surface salinity field, the mean flows and the volume fluxes. The offshore extent of the plume was found between the scale predicted by geostrophic dynamics (internal Rossby radius) and that predicted by cyclostrophic dynamics. Such offshore extent was most likely linked to the plume interactions with the bathymetrically steered up‐estuary flow. This was corroborated by an analytical solution that explored the dynamical balance among pressure gradient, Coriolis accelerations and friction. In addition to being influenced by bathymetry, the Chesapeake Bay outflow plume was modified by local and remote effects related to atmospheric forcing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Subtidal flow structure at the turning region of a wide outflow plume

Valle‐Levinson

Holderied²,

et al. 2007

J. Geophys. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fronts driven by differences in temperature and salinity can form along the Virginia coast, similar to those occurring in the Delaware Bay (Sanders and Garvine 1996;Marmorino et al 2000). These fronts typically occur near Cape Henry and are more common during high tide, under high-flow conditions (e.g., spring).…”

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 90%

“…These fronts typically occur near Cape Henry and are more common during high tide, under high-flow conditions (e.g., spring). During these events, dense oceanic water is trapped between the coast and the plume and subducts underneath the surface water within timescales of a tidal cycle (Marmorino et al 2000). Associated dissolved and particulate material from dense inshore water can then become entrained in the northward flow, potentially moving back into the estuary (Marmorino et al 2000).…”

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

Chesapeake Bay Plume Morphology and the Effects on Nutrient Dynamics and Primary Productivity in the Coastal Zone

Filippino

Bernhardt

Mulholland

2009

Estuaries and Coasts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine the effects of the Chesapeake Bay outflow plume on the coastal ocean, nutrient concentrations and climatology were evaluated in conjunction with nitrogen (N) and carbon (C) uptake rates during a 3-year field study. Sixteen cruises included all seasons and captured high-and low-flow freshwater input scenarios. Event-scale disturbances in freshwater flow and wind speed and direction strongly influenced the location and type of plume present and thus the biological uptake of N and C. As expected, volumetric primary productivity rates did not always correlate with chlorophyll a concentrations, suggesting that high freshwater flow does not translate into high productivity in the coastal zone; rather, high productivity was observed during periods where recycling processes may have dominated. Results suggest that timing of meteorological events, with respect to upwelling or downwelling favorable conditions, plays a crucial role in determining the impact of the estuarine plume on the coastal ocean.

show abstract

“…In recent years several studies have been carried out to decipher the processes and climatic conditions that enable the transfer of fine particles from the Albemarle Sound and Cheasepeake and Delaware estuaries to the adjacent shelf (e.g. Marmorino et al, 2000;Johnson et al, 2001;Dzwonkowski and Yan, 2005;Culver et al, 2008;Muscarella et al, 2011). Indeed, estuarine-shelf exchange of fine sediments is favored over estuarine outflow-plume processes.…”

Section: Pollen Sources and Mechanisms Of Seaward Pollen Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%