Special Issue: Gravel Bed Rivers 8

Laronne, Jonathan B.; Tsutsumi, Daizo

doi:10.1002/esp.4392

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For several decades, techniques for tracking pebbles in rivers (Foster, 2000;Hassan and Ergenzinger, 2003;Rollet et al, 2008), flumes (Einstein, 1936;Lauth and Papanicolaou, 2009;Hufnagel, 2016;Cassel et al, 2017aCassel et al, , 2018aHufnagel and MacVicar, 2018) or coastal environments (Allan et al, 2006;Benelli et al, 2012a) have constituted a field of research under constant development and innovation (Laronne and Tsutsumi, 2018). Over recent decades, new techniques based on radio (Chacho et al, 1989;Ergenzinger et al, 1989) or radio-acoustic transmitters (Liedermann et al, 2013Tritthart et al, 2018;Klösch and Habersack, 2018) and radio frequency identification transponders (Nichols, 2004) have emerged, with the tracers sometimes also being embedded with motion sensors or accelerometers (Ergenzinger and Schmidt, 1990;McNamara and Borden, 2004;Olinde and Johnson, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of ground‐based and UAV a‐UHF artificial tracer mobility monitoring methods on a braided river

Cassel

Piégay

Fantino³

et al. 2020

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radio frequency identification (RFID) technologies, which allow wireless detection of individual buried or immersed tracers, represent a step forward in sediment tracking, especially passive integrated transponders (PIT tags) that have been widely used. Despite their widespread adoption in the scientific community, they typically have low efficiency when deployed in river systems with active bedload transport or deep wet channels, attributed to their technical specifications. A recent evaluation of active ultra‐high frequency transponders (a‐UHF tags) assessed their larger detection range and provided a methodology for their geopositioning. In this study, we test five different survey methods (one including an unmanned aerial vehicle [UAV]) in a sediment tracking study, and compare them in terms of recovery rate, field effort, geopositioning error, and efficiency. We then tested the method on a larger reach following a Q5 flood and performed cross‐comparisons between active and passive RFIDs. The results confirmed that the a‐UHF RFID technology allowed rapid (1.5 h ha−1) survey of a large area (<34 ha) of emerged bars and shallow water channels with recovery of a high percentage of tracers (72%) that had travelled large distances (mean ≈ 1000 m; max ≈ 3400 m). Moreover, the tracers were identified with low geopositioning error (mean ≈ 7.1 m, ≤1% of their travel distance). We also showed that a UAV‐based survey was fast (0.38 h ha−1), efficient (recovery rate = 84%), and low error (mean ≈ 4.2 m). Thus, a‐UHF RFID technology permits the development of a variety of survey methods, depending on the study objectives and the human and financial resources available. This allows field efforts to be optimized by determining an appropriate balance between the high equipment cost of a‐UHF tracers and the resulting reduced survey costs. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of ground‐based and UAV a‐UHF artificial tracer mobility monitoring methods on a braided river

Cassel

Piégay

Fantino³

et al. 2020

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dimensionless argument: a narrow grain size range near 2 mm plays a special role in river sediment transport and morphodynamics

Parker,

An,

Lamb

et al. 2024

Earth Surf. Dynam.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The grain size 2 mm is the conventional border between sand and gravel. This size is used extensively, and generally without much physical justification, to discriminate between such features as sedimentary deposit type (clast-supported versus matrix-supported), river type (gravel bed versus sand bed), and sediment transport relation (gravel versus sand). Here we inquire as to whether this 2 mm boundary is simply a social construct upon which the research community has decided to agree or whether there is some underlying physics. We use dimensionless arguments to show the following for typical conditions on Earth, i.e., natural clasts (e.g., granitic or limestone) in 20 ∘C water. As grain size ranges from 1 to 5 mm (a narrow band including 2 mm), sediment suspension becomes vanishingly small at normal flood conditions in alluvial rivers. We refer to this range as pea gravel. We further show that bedload movement of a clast in the pea gravel range with, for example, a size of 4 mm moving over a bed of 0.4 mm particles has an enhanced relative mobility compared to a clast with a size of 40 mm moving over a bed of the same 4 mm particles. With this in mind, we use 2 mm here as shorthand for the narrow pea gravel range of 1–5 mm over which transport behavior is distinct from both coarser and finer material. The use of viscosity allows the delineation of a generalized dimensionless bed grain size discriminator between “sand-like” and “gravel-like” rivers. The discriminator is applicable to sediment transport on Titan (ice clasts in flowing methane/ethane liquid at reduced gravity) and Mars (mafic clasts in flowing water at reduced gravity), as well as Earth.

show abstract

Special Issue: Gravel Bed Rivers 8

Cited by 2 publications

References 30 publications

Comparison of ground‐based and UAV a‐UHF artificial tracer mobility monitoring methods on a braided river

Comparison of ground‐based and UAV a‐UHF artificial tracer mobility monitoring methods on a braided river

Dimensionless argument: a narrow grain size range near 2 mm plays a special role in river sediment transport and morphodynamics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About