Difference between revisions of "Aeolian Sand Transport"

From Glen Canyon Dam AMP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 62: Line 62:
 
|style="color:#000;"|
 
|style="color:#000;"|
  
*Does aeolian sand transport research support the use of anthropogenic sand bar building as a means to provide a source of aeolian sands to preserve and protect archaeological sites?  
+
*Does aeolian sand transport research support the use of sand bar building from HFEs as a means to provide a source of aeolian sands to preserve and protect archaeological sites?  
  
 
|-
 
|-

Revision as of 16:38, 23 March 2017




---
---
---

Updates

AeolianClassification.jpg
[1]
AeolianCulturalSites.jpg
[2]

Of 358 river-corridor arch sites (RM 0-240), 74 (21%) are adjacent and upwind of sandbars receiving HFE sand (Type 1 and Type 2a) that don't have some sort of topographic barrier. Of these, 43 sites are currently blocked by vegetation from receiving aeolian sand.

Links

Questions

  • Does aeolian sand transport research support the use of sand bar building from HFEs as a means to provide a source of aeolian sands to preserve and protect archaeological sites?

Presentations and Papers

2017

2016

2015

2014

Other Stuff

Collin et al. 2016:

  • Aeolian deposition was found at 4 sites (30%) where partial infilling occurred preventing further erosion.
  • “Despite this promise for archaeological site preservation, our observations show that gully annealing can only occur under a specific set of conditions related to fluvial sand availability and wind transport direction.”
  • "In this study, aeolian deposition, even with anthropogenic forcing via fluvial sand-bar building high flow dam releases, was found to be generally insufficient to offset the effects of precipitation-induced gullying."