Difference between revisions of "Aeolian Sand Transport"

From Glen Canyon Dam AMP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 45: Line 45:
 
*“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.”  
 
*“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.”  
  
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top;"|
+
|-
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
+
 
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Questions </h2>
 
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Questions </h2>
 
|-
 
|-
 
|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? Or would current stabilization measures carried out by the NPS be more likely to be successful, predictable, and immediate at protecting archaeological sites?
+
*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?  
 +
*Or would current stabilization measures carried out by the NPS be more likely to be successful, predictable, and immediate at protecting archaeological sites?
  
 
|}
 
|}
 
<!--
 
 
|-
 
  
  
--------------------------------ADDITIONAL------------------------------->
 
 
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top;"|
 
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top;"|
 
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
 
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"

Revision as of 10:27, 23 March 2017




---
---
---

Updates

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.”

Questions

  • 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?
  • Or would current stabilization measures carried out by the NPS be more likely to be successful, predictable, and immediate at protecting archaeological sites?


Links

Presentations and Papers

2016

2014

Other Stuff