News:

Due to SPAM attacks, new members must be approved before posting.  Please email jclough@warrenpinnacle.com when registering and your account will be approved.

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Karin

#1
Hi again Jonathan,

Just to follow up - I discussed this with the wetland specialist in our research group (assoc prof Catherine Lovelock) and she confirmed that using the surface elevation change (accretion minus shallow subsidence) would indeed be the more sensible thing to do here. The deep subsidence is close to negligible in this region. The shallow subsidence varies with distance to water channel, so we will use the accretion model built into SLAMM and parameterise it with the surface elevation change data instead.

Also, Catherine mentioned that she is developing a research proposal and would be very interested in discussing the possibility to use and potentially adapt/develop the SLAMM model to other key coastal/marine environments in Australia. I'll forward your email address to her if that's OK so that she can contact you about this directly.

Cheers, Karin
#2
Thanks for your (very informative) reply, Jonathan.

I will discuss your comments further with the wetland specialist in our group, and also run scenarios with both sets of values (accretion or surface elevation change) to see what effect it has on long-term wetland changes as you suggested.

Cheers, Karin
#3
Hi Jonathan,

For our study in south-east QLD, Australia, we have access to field data for both accretion rates and for surface elevation changes (i.e. accretion minus subsidence caused by e.g. soil compaction). The two values differ a lot, especially for saltmarsh which has an accretion rate of ca 2 mm/year but a negative surface elevation change (relative to a fixed subsurface benchmark).

Do you think it would be better to use the values for surface elevation change than the pure accretion values when running SLAMM?

Thanks,
Karin   
#4
Thanks Jonathan, that was really helpful. The section in the technical documentation made things much clearer too.

Cheers, Karin
#5
Model Formulation & Parameters / Overwash
June 06, 2010, 08:49:45 PM
Hi again,

We also have two questions about the overwash parameters, and I thought I'd put them into a separate topic:

(1) Frequency Overwash: Should this be given as a number of years - e.g. if overwash happens every 50 years, should I put 1/50 or 50?

(2) Marsh and Mangrove Percent Loss: Is the presumed cause for this loss (due to sand transport) that marsh/mangrove suffocates as it gets covered by sand, or is it erosion due to loss of sand/soil?

Thanks again,

Karin
#6
Hi,

We are using SLAMM for a research project in south east Australia, and have two questions relating to the accretion model in v6.0.1:

(1) Turbidity Maximum Zone: It says a range of salinity should be specified - should this really be e.g. a lower limit above which there is some salinity effect (e.g. 15 ppt), or should it be given as a range (e.g. 15-35 ppt)?

(2) "S" Non Turbidity Maximum (unitless): In the description it says "Accretion limitation factor in region where there is no salinity effect". My colleagues and I have a hard time understanding what this really means? Is it always 0 or 1 or can it have any value?

Thanks a lot in advance,

Karin