You are on page 1of 13

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.

org on July 10, 2013

Geological Society of America Bulletin


Sediment transport and deposition at river mouths: A synthesis
L. D. WRIGHT
Geological Society of America Bulletin 1977;88, no. 6;857-868
doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1977)88<857:STADAR>2.0.CO;2

Email alerting services

click www.gsapubs.org/cgi/alerts to receive free e-mail alerts when new articles


cite this article

Subscribe

click www.gsapubs.org/subscriptions/ to subscribe to Geological Society of


America Bulletin

Permission request

click http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/copyrt.htm#gsa to contact GSA

Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees within scope of their
employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission, without fees or further requests to GSA,
to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a brief paragraph of text in subsequent works and to make
unlimited copies of items in GSA's journals for noncommercial use in classrooms to further education and
science. This file may not be posted to any Web site, but authors may post the abstracts only of their
articles on their own or their organization's Web site providing the posting includes a reference to the
article's full citation. GSA provides this and other forums for the presentation of diverse opinions and
positions by scientists worldwide, regardless of their race, citizenship, gender, religion, or political
viewpoint. Opinions presented in this publication do not reflect official positions of the Society.

Notes

Geological Society of America

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013

Sediment transport and deposition at river mouths:


A synthesis
L. D. WRIGHT

Coastal Studies Unit, Department

of Geography,

ABSTRACT
River-mouth process studies and comparisons of river-mouth
forms from contrasting environments suggest that sediment dispersal and accumulation patterns are governed by three basic effluent
forces and by tide- or wave-induced processes. Neglecting
modifications by tides or waves, effluent behavior and consequent
depositional patterns depend on the relative dominance of (1) outflow inertia, (2) turbulent bed friction seaward of the mouth, and
(3) outflow buoyancy. Inertia-dominated effluents are characterized by fully turbulent jet diffusion, exhibit low lateral spreading
angles and progressive lateral and longitudinal deceleration, and
produce narrow river-mouth bars. Under most natural circumstances, inertial effects are equaled or exceeded by either turbulent
bed friction or effluent buoyancy.
Shallow depths immediately basinward of a river mouth enhance
the effects of bed friction, causing more rapid deceleration and
lateral expansion. Triangular "middle-ground" bars and frequent
channel bifurcation result. Low tidal ranges, fine-grained sediment
loads, and deep outlets favor strong density stratification within the
lower reaches of the channels. Under such circumstances, effluents
are dominated by the effects of buoyancy for at least part of the
year. Buoyant effluents produce narrow distributary mouth bars,
elongate distributaries with parallel banks, and few bifurcations.
In macrotidal environments where tidal currents are stronger
than river flow, bidirectional currents redistribute river sediments,
producing sand-filled, funnel-shaped distributaries and causing
linear tidal ridges to replace the distributary mouth bar. Powerful
waves promote rapid effluent diffusion and decleration and produce constricted or deflected river mouths.
INTRODUCTION
River mouths are the dynamic dispersal points of river-derived
sediments which contribute to delta formation. They are consequently the most fundamental elements of deltaic systems.
River-mouth processes involve a variety of interactions between
riverine and marine waters. These processes acting in combination
determine the patterns by which effluents from river mouths
spread, decelerate, and deposit their sediment load. The geometries
of river-mouth sediment accumulations, together with the associated distributions of grain size and primary sedimentary structures, reflect these effluent diffusion patterns.
The depositional morphologies and sedimentary sequences of
river-mouth systems are among the most varied of all coastal accumulation forms. Multivariate analysis of 34 major deltaic systems (Wright and others, 1974) suggests the existence of a finite
number of river-mouth types. In addition, there have been numerous theoretical, laboratory, and field investigations of river-mouth
processes, including studies by Credner (1878), Gilbert (1884),
Samoilov (1956), Bates (1953), Crickmay and Bates (1955), Axelson (1967), Bonham-Carter and Sutherland (1963), Borichansky
and Mikhailov (1966), Mikhailov (1966, 1971), Jopling (1963),
Takano (1954a, 1954b, 1955), Bondar (1970), Kashiwamura and

The University of Sydney, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia

2006

Yoshida (1967, 1969, 1971), Waldrop and Farmer (1973), Scruton


(1956, 1960), Komar (1973), Garvine (1974,1975), Wright (1970,
1971), Wright and Coleman (1971, 1972, 1973, 1974), and
Wright and others (1973). Synthesis of the above studies suggests
that river-mouth variability can best be understood by considering
river-mouth systems as the resultants of varying contributions from
a few primary and modifying forces. The primary river-mouth
forces are related directly to the interactions between effluent and
basin waters, and they rely on the river outflow for their driving
energy. These primary forces and their depositional products are
modified to varying degrees by tides and waves.
PRIMARY PROCESSES AND FORMS
When the tidal range and incident wave power of the receiving
basin are negligible or small relative to the strength of river outflow, river-dominated configurations result (Wright and Coleman,
1972, 1973). River-dominant situations characterize river mouths
in microtidal lakes, estuaries, enclosed or semi-enclosed seas, or
regions fronted by flat offshore slopes which attenuate wave
power. In such cases, one or more of three primary forces will
dominate: (1) inertia and associated turbulent diffusion; (2) turbulent bed friction; or (3) buoyancy. The associated effluent processes
are illustrated in Figures 1 through 3. The role played by each
force depends on factors such as the discharge rate and outflow
velocity of the stream, water depths in and seaward of the river
mouths, the amount and grain size of the sediment load, and the
sharpness of density contrasts between the river and basin waters.
High outflow velocities, small density contrasts, and deep water
immediately seaward of the mouth permit inertial forces to dominate, causing the effluent to behave as a fully turbulent jet (Fig. 1).
When bed-load transport is large and water depths seaward of the
mouth are shallow, turbulent diffusion becomes restricted to the
horizontal while bottom friction increases deceleration and expansion rates (Fig. 2). Where the river mouth is deep relative to the
riverine discharge, sea water enters the mouth as a salt wedge, and
the buoyancy of the lighter river water becomes dominant; the
effluent then spreads and thins as a relatively discrete layer (Fig. 3).
Bates (1953) referred to outflows from river mouths having negligible density contrasts as " h o m o p y c n a l , " whereas the term
"hypopycnal" was applied to buoyant effluents. In addition, Bates
distinguished a third effluent type, "hyperpycnal" outflows, in
which the issuing water is denser than and plunges beneath the
basin water. Field data on the last type are sparse.
Dynamic Conditions
For homopycnal effluents (that is, negligible buoyancy), the jet
structure depends on the ratio of the inertial to viscous forces as
indexed by the Reynolds number R at the outlet:
Ro = Uo [bo (b0l2)]l I v

(1)

where Un is the mean outlet velocity, h0 and b are respectively the

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 88, p. 8 5 7 - 8 6 8 , 8 figs., June 1977, Doc. no. 70614.

857

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013


INTERTIA - D O M I N A T E D EFFLUENT(fully turbulent et)
in*

mou
Uo

<5
channel
annel 2
bank \ SSSSi zone of ji&ii-iiiii
^>5flow establishment?:

6 0
6
fi

effluent
a

&
n
9

(o * (b

-Q

fully turbulent
^
_
r

-0

&

&

U max'

&

Plan view
U max

Longitudinal cross section

Figure 1.

Spreading, d i f f u s i o n , and deceleration p a t t e r n of fully t u r b u l e n t axial

river-mouth

jet.

FRICTION - D O M I N A T E D EFFLUENT(plane turbulent et with


pronounced turbulent bed shear)
...xgggambi nt
S i S S ^ water w ?

rapid seaward
deceleration

Figure 2 . Spreading, diffusion, and deceleration


pattern of a plane turbulent
jet with p r o n o u n c e d t u r b u lent bed friction.

Plan view

Uo

Longitudinal cross section

mouth

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013


859

SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND DEPOSITION AT RIVER MOUTHS

E F F L U E N T

laterally
homogeneous
effluent
(fresh water)

s u p e r o on
of lighter effluent
drives secondary flows

reloHv.

- u -

Transverse cross section

..

U max
I approximately constant

U max
dece'erates

F1 < 1

^JSsltS^
^fwedge^

intrusion
Longitudinal cross section

Figure 3.

Spreading, mixing, deceleration, a n d secondary flow patterns of b u o y a n t

depth and width of the outlet, and v is the kinematic viscosity.


Pearce (1966) found that the jet becomes fully turbulent when R 0
exceeds 3,000. In controlled laboratory situations, at the mouths of
very small, tranquil streams, or at the mouths of rivers which are
supersaturated with suspended fine sediments (for example, the
Hwang Ho), outflows may be viscous; however, at most large river
mouths, R0> 3,000, and homopycnal outflows should be fully turbulent.
The boundary layers at most natural nonstratified river mouths
are turbulent, and the vertical flux of momentum is dominated
largely by Reynolds stresses. When the mouth is fronted by shallow
water and when bed shear stress r 0 is large, turbulent bed friction
exerts a pronounced influence on effluent expansion and deceleration patterns.
In the case of hypopycnal outflows from highly stratified river
mouths, buoyancy inhibits turbulence. In addition, the underlying
salt water isolates the boundary layer of the outflow from the bed,
minimizing the effects of turbulent bed friction.
The degree to which the effluent is turbulent or buoyant will
depend on the densimetric Froude number F' given by:
F' = 17 / V ygb'

(2)

where U is the mean outflow velocity of the upper layer (in the case
of stratified flows); y is the density ratio
y = I - (P/'PS)

where p, and ps are respectively the densities of fresh water and sea
water, g is the acceleration of gravity, and h' is the depth of the
density interface. Low values of F' suggest dominance of the
buoyant forces; high values indicate inertia dominance. Inertia and
turbulence are suppressed when F' is near or less than 1 but in-

river-mouth

effluents.

crease in importance as F' exceeds 1. Hayashi and Shuto (1967,


1968) found that fully turbulent effluent diffusion occurs when F'
equals or exceeds 16.1
Inertia-Dominated Effluents: Turbulent Jets
Gilbert's (1884) classic discussion on deltaic sedimentation is
based implicitly on the concept of turbulent jet diffusion. The ideal
model of a fully turbulent, homopycnal outflow with negligible
interference from the bottom is probably the simplest and rarest
river-mouth model. This type of effluent is normally associated
with steep gradient streams entering deep fresh-water lakes,
although it may occasionally prevail initially at newly created river
mouths along the open coast. The theory of turbulent jets is discussed in detail by Albertson and others, (1950), Schlichting
(1968), A b r a m o v i c h (1963), and Stolzenbach and H a r l e m a n
(1971). The first systematic attempt to apply the theory to rivermouth sedimentation was made by Bates (1953). Kashiwamura
and Yoshida (1967, 1969) found that effluent diffusion must be of
the homopcynal type in order to approximate the turbulent-jet
model.
Turbulent eddies generated at the free boundaries of the fully
turbulent jet cause fluid and momentum exchange between the
effluent and basin waters (Fig. 1). This diffusion is responsible for
the expansion, mixing, and deceleration of the effluent. The transporting capacities of the effluent are diminished, and sediment is
deposited in a pattern reflecting the effluent spreading. The turbulent effluent expands laterally by progressive seaward growth of the
turbulent region. Stolzenbach and Harleman (1971) found that for
fully turbulent jets the expansion rate was constant and that the
spreading angle (the angle between the effluent center line and the
effluent boundaries) was low, with a value of 1224' (Fig. 1).

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013


L. D. WRIGHT

860

Turbulent jets consist of two zones: (1) a zone of flow establishment characterized by a seaward-diminishing core of constant velocity and (2) a zone of established flow within which turbulent
eddies dominate the entire width of the effluent, and centerline flow
undergoes a progressive seaward deceleration. Transverse to the
effluent within the zone of established flow, the time-averaged
speeds decrease from a maximum (U m a x ) at the centerline to zero at
the effluent boundaries; the velocity profile conforms to a Gaussian
distribution in the ideal case (Fig. 1).
The idealized d e p o s i t i o n a l p a t t e r n resulting f r o m inertiadominated effluents is shown in Figure 4. Because of the low
spreading angles, the lateral dispersion of sediments is confined to a
narrow zone, at least in the region immediately seaward of the
outlet. The coarsest material is initially deposited at the end and
along the lateral margins of the core of constant velocity. This
results in the formation of the narrow lunate-type bar originally
described by Bates (1953). This lunate form is quite subtle and is
largely distinguished by sediment-sorting patterns. Bonham-Carter
and Sutherland (1968) conducted computer simulation studies on
the sediment transport and deposition patterns produced by turbulent jet diffusion. Their results indicated the development of a narrow platform which ascends very gradually seaward but then de-

PRIMARY RIVER - M O U T H DEPOSITIONAL

scends more steeply over the seaward front roughly in accordance


with the pattern shown in Figure 4. Laboratory experiments conducted by Jopling (1963) confirmed the development of a similar
bar profile (that is, flat platform, steep bar front) under conditions
of turbulent, homopycnal outflow into a deep basin. However,
Jopling's experiments probably did not dynamically duplicate the
"frictionless" turbulent jet.
Bed Friction
Effluents dominated purely by inertia and the ideal bar type just
described are rare. The continued deposition of sediment seaward
of the mouth eventually causes a substantial decrease in water
depth, thereby increasing the relative influence of turbulent bed
friction. Under most natural conditions, basin depths just seaward
of the outlet are seldom much greater than the outlet depth and are
commonly shallower. If, under these conditions, outflow velocities
and bed shear stresses are high, turbulent bed friction will become
dominant. Friction acting in combination with lateral turbulent jet
diffusion (that is, plane jet diffusion), causes the rates of effluent
spreading and deceleration to increase substantially. Borichansky
and Mikhailov (1966) and Mikhailov (1971) concluded from a

TYPE A'

INERTIA

DOMINATED EFFLUENTS

/
/
/

channel

y /

y /

/ y

coarsest sands

'' finer sands

/
/

Plan view

mouth

_
The 'Gilbert type' profile

channel

flat to gently ascending


bar h n r | - ^ _ _ _

"'..; : ' . " . ' "


Longitudinal profile

Figure 4.

bar crest

steeper
bar front

''': -.fore sets ; '''...'. ';... ''.''..

'

Idealized depositional pattern related to intertia-dominated effluent diffusion.

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013


SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND DEPOSITION AT RIVER MOUTHS

shallow interdistributary bay. Because of the shallow depth, the


combination of increased bed friction and plane turbulent jet diffusion causes rapid effluent expansion and deceleration. This process
initially produces a broad, radial bar; however, as deposition proceeds, subaqueous levees develop beneath the lateral boundaries of
the effluent, inhibiting further expansion of the effluent. As the bar
grows upward, channelization takes place adjacent to the incipient
levees, creating a bifurcating channel with a triangular shoal
separating the diverging channel arms. A study by Welder (1959)
of the evolution of Cubits Gap, a major crevasse of the Mississippi
Delta, showed that within a few years after the initiation of the
crevasse in the 1860's a rapidly shoaling radial bar had been replaced by a middle-ground bar flanked by abruptly divergent channels.
The forms of middle-ground bars and associated sediment distribution are consistent with the pattern shown in Figure 5. The
bed ascends abruptly to the bar crest which is situated at the extreme upstream end of the bar and usually at a very short distance
from the outlet. The coarser bed-load material accumulates at the
bar crest and along the flanks of the middle-ground shoal as natural
subaqueous levees. Finer material accumulates in the more tranquil
environment over the middle portion of the shoal (Coleman and
others, 1964; Arndorfer, 1971, 1973). Mikhailov (1966) found
that the distance from the outlet to the bar crest decreases and the

series of laboratory experiments that deceleration and lateral expansion increase as depths seaward of the outlet decrease. Since
friction is accompanied by plane turbulent jet diffusion, the transverse velocity distribution is Gaussian in the early phases of bar
development (Borichansky and Mikhailov, 1966).
The depositional response to plane-jet diffusion initiates a shortlived sequence of positive feedback; shoaling seaward of the mouth
causes an increase in the friction-induced deceleration and effluent
spreading, which in turn increases the shoaling rate. Stability is
ultimately regained by the establishment of divergent bifurcating
channels along the margins of the effluent. Reconcentration of outflow into channels reduces the frictional effects and minimizes the
total work done by the outflow. These channels are separated by a
triangular "middle g r o u n d " shoal over which bed shear stresses
and turbulent friction effects are relatively low. The overall result
of this process is the formation of a pattern similar to that shown in
Figure 5. The crevasse-splay "subdeltas" of the modern Mississippi
Delta (Welder, 1959), Coleman and Gagliano, 1964, Coleman and
others, 1969; Arndorfer, 1971) are examples of friction-dominated
river-mouth deposition. Friction influences also appear to be responsible for the morphology of flood-tide deltas formed lagoonward of tidal inlets (Wright and Sonu, 1975).
In the case of the Mississippi subdeltas, deposition begins when a
crevasse breaks through the levee of a major distributary into a

PRIMARY R I V E R - M O U T H DEPOSITIONAL

861

TYPE 'B' FRICTION D O M I N A T E D

EFFLUENTS

ee

.s W .
-r-ji"

. v;.;^^

..-..yo-" -'
. . ^ v v C ' '. ''..

111 M 11 j 111

. _

_
'. -

subaerial
11 M i 11 M 11

'middle ground1
Vbar .
. .

channel
' ' M l | |

subaerilal levee -

:..

I I I I II I I 1111
I I I IMMi Iu I ^

.
'jjfsl- coarsest sands

. ' .

v.*.

.'' finer sands


2-1- silt and clay
"2J interbedded sands

and silts

Plan view

mouth

channel

Longitudinal profile
Figure 5.

Bifurcating channel and m i d d l e - g r o u n d bar patterns associated with friction-dominated river-mouth effluents.

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013


862

L. D. WRIGHT

bifurcation angle increases as the depth-width ratio of the mouth


decreases.
The depositional patterns just described occur at river mouths
which prograde across flat, shallow offshore slopes and which experience high outflow velocities and high bed-load transport for at
least part of the year. On a larger scale, deltas which developed
under this type of river-mouth environment tend to exhibit multiple channel bifurcations with numerous middle-ground shoals.
Buoyancy
The significant rivers of the world debouch fresh water into salt
water basins. However, vertical density contrasts are often subdued
either by tide-and-friction-induced mixing or by the fact that exceptionally powerful river outflow forces the saline sea water seaward beyond the bar crest. The latter situation prevails at the
m o u t h of the Amazon (Gibbs, 1970). Under both circumstances,
the densimetric Froude number at the outlet is large, and inertia
and turbulent friction dominate over buoyancy.
At many river mouths, however, conditions allow strong vertical
density gradients to develop within and seaward of the m o u t h ,
causing the outlet densimetric Froude number F' 0 to maintain values equal to or slightly less than unity. The outflow will then spread
as a b u o y a n t p l u m e above the underlying salt water, and a
buoyancy-dominated depositional pattern will commonly occur.
This requires that the discharge of fresh water exceed the tidal
prism but not be sufficiently strong to flush completely the sea
water f r o m the lower reaches of the channel. A distinct salt wedge
may then intrude into the channel, and the depth of the associated
pycnocline will coadjust with outflow velocity so as to maintain F' 0
= 1 (Ippen and Keulegan, 1965; Pritchard, 1952, 1955; Wright,
1971). Salt-wedge intrusion is best developed at river mouths
which are deep relative to the discharge rate, experience low tidal
ranges, and are fronted by moderately deep water. Development of
the requisite high river-mouth depth-width ratios is promoted by
fine-grained sediment loads.
Salt-wedge intrusion and buoyant effluent expansion prevail at
the mouths of several of the major distributaries of the Mississippi
(Wright, 1970; 1971; Wright and Coleman, 1971, 1974), the
Danube (Bondar, 1963, 1967, 1970), the Po (Nelson, 1970) and
the Ishikari River of J a p a n (Kashiwamura and Yoshida, 1967,
1969), as well as at the mouths of numerous smaller streams. In
addition, many river mouths which are inertia or friction dominated for much of the year may exhibit buoyant effluents for short
periods.
The expansion, deceleration, and secondary circulation patterns
of buoyant effluents are illustrated in Figure 3. The higher order
theory of buoyant jets has been presented by Stolzenbach and
Harleman (1971) and by Waldrop and Farmer (1973, 1974). Observations at the mouth of South Pass, Mississippi River (Wright
and Coleman, 1 9 7 1 , 1 9 7 4 ) and the D a n u b e (Bondar, 1970) suggest
that the effects of turbulent diffusion are subdued relative to
buoyancy and that observed patterns of effluent expansion and
thinning can be explained to a first-order approximation by a simple buoyant model. In accordance with this model, the effluent in
the region between the mouth and about 4 to 6 channel widths (B0
in Fig. 3) seaward expands as a relatively homogeneous layer, in
response to the lateral hydrostatic pressure gradient created by the
buoyant super-elevation of the fresh outflow. T h e expansion rate is
greater than that of a fully turbulent jet but less than that of most
friction-dominated effluents. As long as the salt wedge remains in
the channel, and F'0 1, the effluent behaves as shown in Figure 3
except when strong wave or tidal activity promote mixing. Distinct
fronts characterize the lateral convergence between effluent and
ambient waters (Wright, 1970; Wright and Coleman, 1971, 1974;

Garvine, 1973). As the effluent expands laterally, it thins vertically


in order to maintain its volume, as seaward-flow velocities remain
approximately constant, at least in the initial region of expansion
just seaward of the mouth (that is, from the outlet to x = 4 to 6b0).
In the initial expansion region, mixing is minimal, and the
maximum velocity remains nearly constant. However, the progressive seaward decrease in effluent thickness, h', causes F' to
increase to supercritical values. This leads to the generation and
seaward intensification of internal waves. Recent field observations
within the South Pass effluent (Wiseman and others, 1976) reveal
that these shear-generated internal waves have periods on the order
of 15 to 30 sec (near the observed Brunt-Vaisala frequency). In the
region between 4 and 6 channel widths seaward where F' attains
maximum values, pronounced internal waves cause intense saltwater entrainment and vertical mixing. Rapid deceleration and deposition of the coarser sediments over the bar crest result. Farther
seaward, the lowered flow velocities allow the densimetric Froude
number to drop to subcritical levels and the effluent continues to
spread as it transports the fine silt fractions and clays seaward to be
deposited over the distal bar and prodelta. During river flood, the
salt-waterfresh-water interface is pushed seaward to a position
just outside the bar crest. Bed load is then transported to the bar
crest where it accumulates as the flood outflow abruptly decelerates
and separates f r o m the bed upon encountering the pycnocline
(Wright and Coleman, 1974).
Secondary flow associated with buoyant effluent expansion plays
an important role in controlling the geometry of the river-mouth
deposits. Flow divergence near the surface of the effluent, combined with salt-water entrainment, causes a weak secondary convergence near the bottom of the effluent and immediately beneath it
(Wright and Coleman, 1974; Waldrop and Farmer, 1973). The
dual helical cells shown in Figure 3 result. Transverse flow convergence near the accreting bed inhibits the lateral spread of
coarser sediments.
The buoyancy-dominated depositional pattern is shown in Figure 6. Flow convergence near the bed is responsible for the development of subaqueous levees which undergo minimal divergence as
the channel progrades. This leads to the development of straight,
digitate distributaries with comparatively high depth-width ratios
and few bifurcations. The major distributaries of the Mississippi,
notably South Pass, Southwest Pass, and Southeast Pass, exhibit
this type of progradational pattern in contrast to the frictioninfluenced crevasse subdeltas discussed previously. Seaward of the
outlet, the coarsest material accumulates on the distributary-mouth
bar crest which is situated approximately 4 to 6 channel widths
seaward. Again owing to near-bed lateral convergence, the coarsest
bar deposits are narrow. Continued progradation of these laterally
restricted bar sands is responsible for the development of the
"bar-finger sands" described by Fisk (1961). Beyond the bar crest,
sediments fine progressively seaward, whereas the lateral extent
and continuity of the deposits increases as the result of the expanding effluent. Over the bar front, sediment redistribution and sorting
is related more to tidal currents and landward return flows than to
bed shear from effluent processes. The bar front grades seaward
into the distal bar which consists predominantly of silt. The prodelta clays deposited f r o m suspension in the slow-moving outer
extremities of the effluent constitute the ubiquitous basal unit of
the delta.
M A R I N E INFLUENCES
In low-energy microtidal coastal environments, the primary
river-mouth processes often dominate, and marine influences are
minimal. At many river mouths, however, the roles of marine
forces, particularly tides and waves, are far from negligible. These

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013

Figure 6.

River-mouth depositional pattern related to b u o y a n t effluents.

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013


864

L. D. WRIGHT

Figure 7.

Sand-filled, bell-shaped channel and linear tidal ridges associated with m a c r o t i d a l river m o u t h s .

marine forces act in combination with the primary processes,


modifying the latter and their products to varying degrees. The
marine forces exert two basic types of influence: (1) they directly
modify the outflow processes by promoting more rapid mixing and
momentum exchange between effluent and ambient waters and by
redirecting the sediment-transporting flows, and (2) they redistribute and remold the river-mouth deposits following their initial
deposition. Modifying marine processes include tides, waves, coastal currents, various frequencies of internal waves, biologic and
chemical processes, and (in the case of Arctic river mouths) sea ice
and thermal processes. Only the effects of tides and waves are
considered here.
Effects of Tides
M a n y rivers empty into macrotidal environments. At the mouths
of these rivers, one or more of the primary effluent processes can be
expected to play its role; however, the depositional patterns are
strongly influenced by tidal processes which often overwhelm
riverine forces. Notable examples of tide-dominated river mouths
include the mouths of the Ord (Australia), Klang (Malaya), Shatt a l - A r a b (Iraq), C o l o r a d o ( N o r t h America), Y a n g t z e - K i a n g
(China), and Ganges-Brahmaputra (Bangladesh).
Strong tides have three basic effects: (1) tidal mixing obliterates
vertical density gradients, subduing the effects of buoyancy; (2) for
at least part of the year, tides account for a greater fraction of the
sediment-transporting energy than does the river, causing bidirec-

tional sediment transport; and (3) the range of positions of the


land-sea interface and of the zone of marine-riverine interactions is
greatly extended, both vertically and horizontally.
The depositional morphology of numerous macrotidal river
mouths exhibit many common attributes and conform in general to
observations at the macrotidal mouth of the O r d River (Wright and
others, 1973, 1975) and to data on other river mouths in similar
environments (Wright and others, 1974; Coleman and Wright,
1975). At river mouths of this type, strong tidal currents over the
delta front and within the lower reaches of the river channels are
appreciably stronger than the river flow. In the lower Ord, for
example, where spring tide range averages about 6 m, the tidal
prism exceeds the mean river discharge by nearly 3,000 times, and
bidirectional flood-and-ebb currents exceed 3 m sec~'. Marine
salinities prevail at the mouth, and the Ord estuary is well mixed
throughout. The sediments introduced by the river during flood are
transported by the tidal currents and rapidly remolded into tideproduced configurations.
It has been shown that, where strong tidal currents cause pronounced bidirectional t r a n s p o r t of sediment, flood- and ebbdominated bed-load migrations follow adjacent but mutually evasive paths (Ludwick, 1970; Price, 1963). Bidirectional sediment
transport parallel to the direction of river outflow forms linear
subaqueous ridges in and seaward of the mouth (Fig. 7). These
ridges appear to be formed by the lateral convergence of ebb- and
flood-dominated
sediment transport (Wright and others, 1975).
The ridges replace the more continuous distributary-mouth bar

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013


SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND DEPOSITION AT RIVER MOUTHS

Figure 8.
cidence.

865

Depositional p a t t e r n s characteristic of river m o u t h s influenced by strong wave activity. A. N o r m a l wave incidence. B. Oblique wave in-

forms typical of lower tide range environments and are separated


by deep channels. Near the mouth of the Ord, tidal ridges exhibit
reliefs of 10 to 22 m (Wright and others, 1975). Similar ridges are
present at the mouths of the Klang, Ganges-Brahmaputra and
Shattal-Arab Rivers and have been described at the mouth of the
Colorado River by Meckel (1975). They were originally described
by Off (1963).
Tidal dominance normally creates bell- or funnel-shaped channels with a region of intense meandering near the upper limit of
tidal influence. The Ord, for example, is 100 times wider at its
mouth than at the upstream limit of the tide. The rates of seaward
widening vary considerably between individual rivers and may be
either linear or exponential, although the latter as shown in Figure
7 appears to be the more common. The lower Ord offers an ideal
example of an exponentially convergent channel. This form repre-

sents an equilibrium configuration in which tidal modifications and


channel deposition have coadjusted to produce an equal distribution of work at the channel bed and to maintain a quarter-cycle
standing tide wave over the distance from the mouth to the limit of
tidal influences (Wright and others, 1973).
Another distinction between macrotidal and microtidal river
mouths involves deformation of the tide wave within the lower
channel. In tide-dominated river channels, the ratio of tidal
amplitude to channel depth is high, and the river tide behaves as a
finite amplitude wave. This causes the flood phase to shorten in
duration, whereas the ebb phase is extended. Tidal asymmetry increases upstream, and flood velocities increasingly exceed ebb velocities (Wright and others, 1973). Consequently, there is appreciable upstream transport of bed load except at times of river flood;
in the lower Ord, the largest and most prominent bed forms are

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013


L. D. WRIGHT

866
TABLE 1.
Dominant
force
Inertia

Dynamic
conditions

F'o

r 0 = moderate
to large

P R I M A R Y R I V E R - M O U T H PROCESSES A N D T H E I R

EFFECTS

Ideal river-mouth
environment

Basic mechanisms causing


e x p a n s i o n and deceleration

Effluent behavior

Depositional and m o r p h o l o g i c
patterns

High outflow velocities; negligible outlet stratification;


deep outlet; d e e p
w a t e r basinward of
outlet; small to m o d erate bed load

T u r b u l e n t diffusion of effluent with a m b i e n t (basin)


water causes expansion and
deceleration

C o n s t a n t , low spreading
angle (12.5 for fully turbulent jets); progressive
lateral and longitudinal
deceleration; Gaussian
lateral velocity distribution

T h e ideal " G i l b e r t - t y p e " depositional p a t t e r n . Progressive longitudinal deposition and basinward


fining; lateral fining a w a y f r o m effluent centerline; n a r r o w lunate
bar with a flat or gently ascending
b a c k ; p r o g r a d a t i o n produces the
classic bottomset-foreset-topset
sequence

Turbulent
bed
friction

F'0>>1
t0 = very
large

M o d e r a t e to high
o u t f l o w velocities;
negligible o u t l e t
stratification; shallow outlet; shallow
water basinward
of outlet; high bed
load

Lateral t u r b u l e n t diffusion
enhanced b y b a s i n w a r d increasing frictional resistance

Rapid lateral expansion


(high spreading angle);
progressive and rapid
deceleration

Rapid shoaling a n d a b r u p t deposition of coarser fractions b a s i n w a r d


f r o m outlet; radial bar develops
into " m i d d l e g r o u n d " - type shoal
separating bifurcating incipient
channels

Buoyancy

F'o= 1
T 0 = low

Intermediate o u t f l o w
velocities; strong
outflow density stratification; deep outlet; m o d e r a t e w a t e r
depths b a s i n w a r d of
outlet (relative to outflow width); finegrained sediment
load; low bed load;
small tidal range

Lateral spreading and vertical thinning induced by the


relative superelevation of
the lighter effluent; deceration induced primarily by
e n t r a i n m e n t and high-frequency internal waves at the
pycnocline (salt-water fresh-water " i n t e r f a c e " )

Intermediate lateral expansion rate accompanied


by vertical thinning; exp a n s i o n and thinning rates
decrease s e a w a r d ; effluent velocity initially near
constant, undergoes rapid
deceleration in the region
f r o m 4 t o 6 channel widths
s e a w a r d ; lateral-flow convergence near base of
effluent

Progressive seaward shoaling from


m o t h t o bar crest; progressive
seaward fining beyond bar crest;
bar crest and m i n i m u m water
depths situated between 4 and 6
channel w i d t h s seaward of the outlet; s u b a q u e o u s levees p r o g r a d e
with minimal divergence and
maintain high depth/width ratios
at outlet

flood oriented. Upstream sediment transport by flood currents is


balanced by ebb-dominated sediment transport in deeper channels
where flow becomes concentrated during falling tide. Extensive
a c c u m u l a t i o n s of sand within the channels and bidirectional
crossbedding result.
In less extreme cases, patterns intermediate between the tidedominated and purely river-dominated situations should be expected. The mouth of the Chao Phraya of Thailand (NEDECO,
1965) offers an instructive example. Spring tide range at the mouth
of the Chao Phraya is less than one-half that of the Ord, averaging
2 to 4 m. The mean annual discharge, on the other hand, is five
times as great as that of the Ord. Like the lower Ord, the lower
reaches of the Chao Phraya exhibit an exponential bell shape; but
the rate and extent of seaward widening are far less than those of
the Ord. Seaward of the mouth, the deposits have the form of a
broad radial bar. However, this bar is surmounted by a series of
linear tidal ridges similar to those which occur at the mouth of the
Ord.
Effects of Waves
River mouths located in relatively protected environments or
fronted by flat offshore slopes may experience minimal wave effects. However, many river m o u t h s are attacked by p o w e r f u l
waves. Wright and Coleman (1972, 1973) have shown that riverdominated deltas such as the Mississippi or Danube are associated
with extremely flat offshore slopes which substantially reduce the
power of waves which reach the river mouth or delta shoreline.
Similarly, broad intertidal and subtidal flats at tide-dominated river
mouths dissipate wave forces. On the other hand, river mouths
fronted by steep nearshore slopes in high wave-energy environments are profoundly influenced by waves.

Waves directly modify the expansion and deceleration patterns


of river-mouth effluents. Outflow from river mouths refracts and
steepens incident waves in such a way as to concentrate power on
the effluent and to cause breaking in water depths greater than the
normally breaking depth. The resultant wave-induced setup opposes the outflow, while wave-breaking enhances the mixing and
momentum exchange between the effluent and ambient waters.
The effect is to cause very rapid deceleration and loss of sediment
transporting ability within short distances from the outlet. Buoyant
effluents are precluded by intense wave-induced vertical mixing;
Wright (1970) found a statistically significant tendency for vertical
mixing and deceleration rates to increase when seas are rough.
Recent observations at the wave-dominated mouth of the Shoalhaven River on the high-energy southeast coast of Australia (Wright,
1977) show that during low flow considerable wave-induced mixing between fresh and salt water takes place within the mouth.
During flood, sea water is completely flushed f r o m the outlet, and
outflow velocities exceed 2 m sec" 1 . However, breaking waves immediately mix the outflowing fresh water with salt water, and over
a distance of two channel widths (about 600 m), seaward velocities
drop to values as low as 30 cm sec - 1 .
Figure 8A shows the morphology of a typical wave-dominated
river mouth with normal wave incidence. Increased deceleration
causes rapid deposition, and the crest of the crescentic river-mouth
bar forms at short distances from the mouth. Along the lateral
flanks of the effluent, steep velocity gradients cause deposition of
bed load, forming pronounced subaqueous levees which assume
the form of broad shoals. Contemporaneous with initial deposition, shoaling waves create swash bars which migrate shoreward
over the levee-shoals. The shoreward return of sediments constricts
the river mouth until outflow becomes sufficiently concentrated to
maintain the outlet. Constrictions similar to those shown in Figure

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013


S E D I M E N T T R A N S P O R T A N D D E P O S I T I O N A T RIVER
TABLE 2.

MOUTHS

M O D I F Y I N G M A R I N E PROCESSES A N D T H E I R

867

EFFECTS

River-mouth environm e n t in which force


most likely t o be
dominant

N a t u r e of modifications
t o effluent

Behavior of modified
effluent

Postdepositional modifications t o river-mouth


deposits

Depositional a n d
morphologic patterns

Tides

High tide range, usually


associated with semienclosed or shallow seas,
deeply indented gulfs,
o r straits

Intense mixing by tidal


currents destroys vertical
stratification; tidal flow
overwhelms river outflow, causing currents at
m o u t h to reverse with
tidal phase; strong bed
shear f r o m tidal currents

Strong outflow and inflow at m o u t h related t o


tides rather than river
i n p u t except during river
floods; tidal flow sustains
swift currents to considerable distances f r o m
outlet

Bidirectional sediment
t r a n s p o r t by tidal currents, causes significant
u p s t r e a m return of sediment into channel; mutually evasive flood- and
ebb-dominated sediment
t r a n s p o r t s in and seaw a r d of the m o u t h converge to f o r m linear elongate ridges

Bell- or funnel-shaped
lower river courses are sand
filled with flared m o u t h s ;
large tidal ridges aligned
parallel to flow constitute
m a j o r bar f o r m .

Waves

Direct exposure t o open


ocean; relatively steep
o f f s h o r e profile

Wave refraction by issuing currents causes local


c o n c e n t r a t i o n of p o w e r
a r o u n d effluent; wave
breaking p r o m o t e s
a b r u p t mixing and deceleration of effluent; waveinduced setup inhibits
outflow

Rapid seaward deceleration; effects by buoyancy


subdued by destruction
of stratification; effluent
n a r r o w e d by lateral convergence of wave forces

W a v e reworking causes
s h o r e w a r d return of sand
over s u b a q u e o u s levees
as swash bars; m o u t h becomes constricted; rew o r k i n g may also transf o r m bar crest into swash
bar d u r i n g low flow;
s h o r e w a r d return of sand
m a y occasionally seal
mouth

Constricted m o u t h fronted
by s u b a q u e o u s deposits
similar to the ebb-tide
deltas of tidal inlets; b r o a d ,
shoal-like s u b a q u e o u s
levees capped by swash bars
converge slightly s e a w a r d ;
regular, crescentic riverm o u t h bar located at short
distance seaward of outlet

Modifying
force

8A are a fundamental characteristic of wave-dominated river


mouths: notable examples include the San Francisco, Senegal, and
the Shoalhaven. Where discharge is perennially high, outflow and
wave forces achieve a balance, and the outlet is maintained. However, if wave power is very high and discharge is seasonal, the
mouth may be temporarily sealed (for example, the Shoalhaven).
Wave-dominated river-mouth depositional patterns are very
similar to the ebb-tide deltas seaward of tidal inlets as described by
Hayes and others (1970), Oertel (1972), and Wright and Sonu
(1975). The subaqueous levees and crescentic bars are respectively
analogous to the ramp-margin shoals and distal lobes of ebb-tide
deltas (Oertel, 1972).
When wave incidence is persistently oblique to the river mouth,
the same basic processes are operative. However, littoral drift redirects the sediment downdrift along the adjacent coast, causing a
laterally deflected river mouth similar to that shown in Figure 8B.
The mouths of the Senegal (Africa) and Jequitinhonha (Brazil) are
typical examples.
CONCLUSIONS
River-mouth morphologies and depositional patterns comprise a
broad spectrum of types. The position of any individual river
mouth within this spectrum depends on the relative intensity and
mutual interactions of each of the primary and modifying forces.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the process-form associations characteristic of five extreme situations in which one of the determinant
forces in dominant. Many river mouths are intermediate between
these various extremes. In addition, significant roles are played by
forces other than those discussed herein.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research on which this synthesis is largely based was supported by the Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana State University,
under Contract N00014-69-A-0211-0003, Project NR388 002
with the Geography Programs of the Office of Naval Research. Investigations at the mouth of the Shoalhaven are supported by The

University of Sydney and the Australian Research Grants Committee.


Much of the original research was conducted in collaboration
with J. M. Coleman, Director, Coastal Studies Institute. Investigations in the Ord River were conducted in collaboration with J. M.
Coleman and B. G. Thom.
REFERENCES CITED
Abramovich, G. N., 1963, The theory of turbulent jets: C a m b r i d g e ,
Mass., Massachusetts Inst. Technology Press.
Albertson, M . L., Dai, Y. B., Jensen, R. A., and Rouse, H., 1950, Diffusion
of submerged jets: A m . Soc. Civil Engineers Trans., v. 115, p. 6 3 9 697.
A r n d o r f e r , D., 1971, Process and p a r a m e t e r interaction in Rattlesnake Crevasse, Mississippi River D e l t a [Ph.D. dissert.]: B a t o n R o u g e ,
Louisiana State Univ.
1973, Discharge patterns in t w o crevasses of the Mississippi River
Delta: M a r i n e Geology, v. 15, p. 2 6 9 - 2 8 7 .
Axelson, V., 1956, Laitaure Delta: Geog. Annaler, v. 4 9 , p. 1 127.
Bates, C. C., 1963, Rational theory of delta f o r m a t i o n : A m . Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 3 7 , p. 2 1 1 9 - 2 1 6 1 .
Bondar, C., 1963, D a t a concerning marine w a t e r penetration into the
m o u t h of the Sulina Channel: Studii Hidraulica, v. 9, no. 1, p. 2 9 3 3 3 5 [in R o m a n i a n ] .
1967, C o n t a c t of fluvial and sea waters at the D a n u b e River mouths in
the Black Sea: Studii Hidrologie, v. 19, p. 1 5 3 - 1 6 4 [in R o m a n i a n ] .
1968, Hydraulic and hydrological conditions of the Black Sea waters
penetration into the D a n u b e m o u t h s : Studii Hidrologie, v. 2 5 , p.
1 0 3 - 1 2 0 [in R o m a n i a n ] .
1970, Considerations theoretiques sur la dispersion d ' u n c o u r a n t liquide de densite redruite et a niveau libre, dans un bassin c o n t e n a n t un
liquide d ' u n e plus grande densite: Symposium on the H y d r o l o g y of
Deltas, U N E S C O , v. 11, p. 2 4 6 - 2 5 6 .
B o n h a n - C a r t e r , G. F., and Sutherland, A. J., 1968, Diffusion and settling of
sediments at river m o u t h s : A c o m p u t e r simulation model: Gulf Coast
Assoc. Geol. Socs. Trans., v. 17, p. 326338.
Borichansky, L. S., a n d Mikhailov, V. N . , 1966, Interaction of river a n d sea
water in the absence of tides, in Scientific problems of the h u m i d tropical deltas and their implications: U N E S C O , p. 1 7 5 - 1 8 0 .
Bowden, K. F., 1967, Circulation and diffusion, in Lauff, G. H . , ed., Es-

Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 10, 2013


868

L. D. WRIGHT

tuaries: Am. Assoc. Adv. Sei. Pub. 83, p. 1 5 - 3 6 .


Coleman, J. M., and Wright, L. D,, 1971, Analysis of m a j o r river systems
and their deltas, procedures a n d rationale, with t w o examples:
Louisiana State Univ. Coastal Studies Inst. Tech. Rept. 95, 125 p.
1975, M o d e r n river deltas: Variability of process a n d sand bodies, in
Broussard, M . L., ed., Deltas: M o d e l s for exploration: H o u s t o n Geol.
Soc., p. 9 9 - 1 4 9 .
C o l e m a n , J. M . , Gagliano, S. M . , a n d W e b b , J. E., 1964, M i n o r sedimentary structures in a p r o g r a d i n g distributary: M a r i n e Geology, v. 1, p.
240-258.
Credner, G . R., 1878, Die deltas, ihre morphologie, geographische Verbreitung, u n d entstehungs bedingungen: Petermanns Geog. Mitt. (Erg n z u n g s b a n d ) , v. 12, p. 1 - 7 4 .
Crickmay, C. H., and Bates, C. C., 1955, Discussion of delta formation:
A m . Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 3 9 , p. 1 0 7 - 1 1 4 .
Fisk, H . N., 1 9 6 1 , Bar finger sands of the Mississippi Delta, in Geometry of
s a n d s t o n e bodies: A m . Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, p. 2 9 - 5 2 .
Garvine, R. W., 1 9 7 4 , Physical features of the Connecticut River outflow
d u r i n g high discharge: J o u r . Geophys. Research, v. 79, p. 8 3 1 - 8 4 6 .
1975, T h e distribution of salinity and t e m p e r a t u r e in the Connecticut
River estuary: J o u r . Geophys. Research, v. 80, p. 1 1 7 6 - 1 1 8 3 .
Gibbs, R. J., 1970, Circulation in the A m a z o n River estuary and adjacent
Atlantic O c e a n : J o u r . M a r i n e Research, v. 2 8 , p. 1 1 3 - 1 2 3 .
Gilbert, G. K., 1 8 8 4 , The topographical features of lake shores: U.S. Geol.
Survey Ann. Rept. 5, p. 1 0 4 - 1 0 8 .
H a y a s h i , J., and Shuto, N . , 1967, D i f f u s i o n of w a r m w a t e r jets discharged
horizontally a t the w a t e r surface: Internat. Assoc. Hydraulic Research,
12th Cong., Proc. 4, p. 4 7 - 5 9 .
1968, Diffusion of w a r m cooling water discharged from a power
plant: 11th Coastal Engineering Conf., Council W a v e Research.
Hayes, M . O., Goldsmith, W., and H o b b s , C . H . , 1970, Offset coastal inlets: 12th Coastal Engineering Conf., Proc., W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.,
p. 1 1 8 7 - 1 2 0 0 .
Ippen, A. T., and Keulegan, G. B., 1965, Salinity intrusions in estuaries, in
Wicker, C. F., ed., Evaluation of present state of knowledge of factors
affecting tidal hydraulics and related p h e n o m e n a : U.S. Army Corps
Engineers, C o m m . o n Tidal Hydraulics, chap. 4.
Jopling, H., 1 9 6 3 , Hydraulic studies o n the origins of bedding: Sedimentology, v. 2, p. 1 1 5 - 1 2 1 .
K a s h i w a m u r a , M . , and Yoshida, D., 1967, O u t f l o w pattern of fresh water
issued f r o m a river m o u t h : Coastal Engineering in J a p a n , v. 10,
p. 1 0 9 - 1 1 5 .
1969, Flow pattern of density current at a river m o u t h : Internat. Assoc. H y d r a u l . Research, 13th Cong., Proc. 3, p. 1 8 1 - 1 9 0 .
1 9 7 1 , T r a n s i e n t acceleration of surface flow at a river m o u t h : Coastal
Engineering in J a p a n , v. 14, p. 1 3 5 - 1 4 2 .
K o m a r , P. D., 1973, C o m p u t e r models of delta g r o w t h due to sediment
input f r o m rivers a n d longshore t r a n s p o r t : Geol. Soc. America Bull.,
v. 84, p. 2 2 1 7 - 2 2 2 6 .
Ludwick, J. L., 1970, Sand waves and tidal channels in the entrance to
C h e s a p e a k e Bay: O l d D o m i n i o n Univ. Inst. O c e a n o g r a p h y Tech.
Rept. 1, 7 9 p.
Meckel, L. D., 1975, H o l o c e n e sand bodies in the C o l o r a d o Delta area,
n o r t h e r n Gulf of California, in Broussard, M . L., ed., Deltas: M o d e l s
for e x p l o r a t i o n : H o u s t o n Geol. Soc., p. 2 3 7 - 2 6 5 .
Mikhailov, V. N., 1966, H y d r o l o g y and f o r m a t i o n of river m o u t h bars, in
Scientific problems of the humid tropical zone deltas and their implications: U N E S C O , p. 5 9 - 6 4 .
1971, Dynamics of the flow and the bed in nontidal river m o u t h s :
M o s c o w , Div. H y d r o l o g y , 2 5 8 p.
N e d e c o , 1965, Siltation of the B a n k o k Port Channel, Vols. I a n d II:
A m s t e r d a m , N o r t h H o l l a n d Publ. Co.
Nelson, B. W., 1970, H y d r o g r a p h y , sediment dispersal, and recent historical development of the Po River Delta, Italy, in M o r g a n , J. P., ed.,
Deltaic sedimentation: M o d e r n a n d ancient: Soc. Econ. Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 1 5 2 - 1 8 4 .
Oertel, G. F., 1972, Sediment t r a n s p o r t of estuary entrance shoals and the
f o r m a t i o n of swash platforms: J o u r . Sed. Petrology, v. 4 2 , p. 8 5 8 863.
O f f , J., 1963, R h y t h m i c linear sand bodies caused by tidal currents: Am.
Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 4 7 , no. 2, p. 3 2 4 - 3 4 1 .
Pearce, A. F., 1966, Critical Reynolds n u m b e r for fully-developed t u r b u lence in circular submerged w a t e r jets: N a t M e c h . Engineering Research Inst., Council for Sei. and Indus. Research (Pretoria, South Af-

rica), CSIR Rept. M E G 475.


Price, W. A., 1 9 6 3 , Patterns of flow and channeling in tidal inlets: J o u r .
Sed. Petrology, v. 33, p. 2 7 9 - 2 9 0 .
Pritchard, D. W., 1 9 5 2 , Estuarine h y d r o g r a p h y , in Landsberg, H. E., ed.,
Advances in geophysics, Vol. 1: L o n d o n , Academic Press, p. 2 4 3 -

280.
1955, Estuarine circulation patterns: Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, Proc. 8,
no. 717, p. 7 1 7 / 1 - 7 1 7 / 1 1 .
Schlichting, H . , 1968, B o u n d a r y layer theory: N e w York, M c G r a w - H i l l ,
7 4 7 p.
Scruton, P. C., 1956, O c e a n o g r a p h y of Mississippi Delta sedimentary environments: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 4 0 , p. 2 8 6 4 2952.
1960, Delta building and t h e deltaic sequence, in Shepard, F. P.,
Phleger, F. B., and van Andel, T. H., eds., Recent sediments, n o r t h w e s t
Gulf of M e x i c o : Tulsa, Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, p. 8 2 - 1 0 2 .
Stolzenbach, K. D., and H a r l e m a n , D.R.F., 1971, An analytical experimental investigation of surface discharges of heated water: Massachusetts
Inst. Technology, Ralph M . Parsons Lab., W a t e r Resources and H y d r o d y n a m i c s , Dept. Civil Engineering Rept. 135, 2 1 2 p.
T a k a n o , K., 1 9 5 4 a , O n the velocity distribution off the m o u t h of a river:
Oceanog. Soc. J a p a n Jour., v. 10, p. 6 0 - 6 4 .
1954b, O n the salinity and velocity distributions off the m o u t h of a
river: O c e a n o g . Soc. J a p a n Jour., v. 10, p. 9 2 - 9 8 .
1955, A complementary note o n the diffusion of the seaward flow off
the m o u t h of a river: O c e a n o g . Soc. J a p a n Jour., v. 11, p. 1 - 3 .
W a l d r o p , W . R., and Farmer, R. C., 1973, Three-dimensional flow and sediment t r a n s p o r t at river m o u t h s : Louisiana State Univ. Coastal Studies
Inst. Tech. Rept. 150, 137 p.
1974, Three-dimensional c o m p u t a t i o n of b u o y a n t river plumes: J o u r .
Geophys. Research, v. 79, p. 1 2 6 9 - 1 2 7 6 .
Welder, F. A., 1959, Processes of deltaic sedimentation in the lower Mississippi River: Louisiana State Univ. Coastal Studies Inst. Tech. Rept. 12,
90 p.
Wiseman, W. J., Wright, L. D., Rouse, L. J., and C o l e m a n , J. M . , 1976,
Periodic p h e n o m e n a a t the m o u t h of the Mississippi River: C o n t r .
M a r i n e Sci., v. 2 0 , p. 1 1 - 3 2 .
Wright, L. D., 1970, Circulation, effluent diffusion, and sediment transport, m o u t h of South Pass, Mississippi River Delta: Louisiana State
Univ. Coastal Studies Inst. Tech. Rept. 84, 5 6 p.
1971, H y d r o g r a p h y of South Pass, Mississippi River Delta: A m . Soc.
Civil Engineers; Waterways, H a r b o u r s and Coastal Engineering Div.
J o u r . , Proc., no. 97, p. 4 9 1 - 5 0 4 .
1977, M o r p h o d y n a m i c s of a w a v e - d o m i n a t e d river m o u t h : 15th Coastal Engineering Conf., Proc., H o n o l u l u , H a w a i i (in press).
Wright, L. D., and C o l e m a n , J. M . , 1 9 7 1 , Effluent expansion and interfacial
mixing in the presence of a salt wedge, Mississippi River delta: J o u r .
Geophys. Research, v. 76, no. 36, p. 8 6 4 9 - 8 6 6 1 .
1972, River delta m o r p h o l o g y : W a v e climate and the role of the subaqueous profile: Science, v. 176, p. 2 8 2 - 2 8 4 .
1973, Variations in m o r p h o l o g y of m a j o r river deltas as functions of
ocean w a v e and river discharge regimes: A m . Assoc. Petroleum
Geologists Bull., v. 57, no. 2, p. 3 7 0 - 3 9 8 .
1974, Mississippi River m o u t h processes: Effluent dynamics and
morphologic development: J o u r . Geology, v. 82, p. 7 5 1 - 7 7 8 .
Wright, L. D., and Sonu, C. J., 1975, Processes of sediment t r a n s p o r t a n d
tidal delta development in a stratified tidal inlet, in C r o n i n , L. E., ed.,
Estuarine research, Vol. 2: N e w York, Academic Press, p. 6376.
Wright, L. D., C o l e m a n , J. M . , a n d T h o m , B. G., 1973, Processes of channel development in a high-tide-range environment: C a m b r i d g e Gulf
O r d River Delta: J o u r . Geology, v. 81, p. 1 5 - 4 1 .
Wright, L. D., C o l e m a n , J. M . , and Erickson, M . W., 1974, Analysis of
m a j o r river systems and their deltas: M o r p h o l o g i c and process comparisons: Louisiana State Univ. Coastal Studies Inst. Tech. Rept. 156,
114 p.
Wright, L. D., C o l e m a n , J. M , , and T h o m , B. G., 1975, Sediment t r a n s p o r t
and deposition in a macrotidal river channel, O r d River, Western Australia, in C r o n i n , L. E., ed., Estuarine research, Vol. 2: N e w York,
Academic Press, p. 3 0 9 - 3 2 2 .

M A N U S C R I P T R E C E I V E D BY T H E S O C I E T Y N O V E M B E R 2 4 ,
REVISED MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED JUNE 1 5 ,
M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED SEPTEMBER 2 4 ,

1975

1976

1976
Printed in U.S.A.

You might also like