Search for: All records

When longshore transport systems encounter tidal inlets, complex mechanisms are involved in bypassing sand to downdrift barriers. Here, this process is examined at Plum Island Sound and Essex Inlets, Massachusetts, USA. One major finding from this study is that sand is transferred along the coast—especially at tidal inlets—by parcels, in discrete steps, and over decadal-scale periods. The southerly orientation of the main-ebb channel at Plum Island Sound, coupled with the landward migration of bars from the ebb delta to the central portion of the downdrift Castle Neck barrier island, have formed a beach protuberance. During the constructional phase, sand is sequestered at the protuberance and the spit-end of the barrier becomes sediment starved, leading to shoreline retreat and a broadening of the spit platform at the mouth to Essex Bay (downdrift side of Castle Neck). Storm-induced sand transport from erosion of the spit and across the spit platform is washed into Essex Bay, filling channels and enlarging flood deltas. This study illustrates the pathways and processes of sand transfer along the shoreline of a barrier-island/tidal-inlet system and provides an important example of the processes that future hydrodynamic and sediment-transport modeling should strive to replicate. 

Abstract Recent changes in US oceanographic assets are impacting scientists' ability to access seafloor and sub‐seafloor materials and thus constraining progress on science critical for societal needs. Here we identify national infrastructure needs to address critical science questions. This commentary reports on community‐driven discussions that took place during the 3‐dayFUTURE of US Seafloor Sampling Capabilities 2024 Workshop, which used an “all‐hands‐on‐deck” approach to assess seafloor and sub‐seafloor sampling requirements of a broad range of scientific objectives, focusing on capabilities that could be supported through the US Academic Research Fleet (US‐ARF) now or in the near future. Cross‐cutting issues identified included weight and size limitations in the over‐boarding capabilities of the US‐ARF, a need to access material at depths greater than ∼20 m below the seafloor, sampling capabilities at the full range of ocean depths, technologies required for precise navigation‐guided sampling and drilling, resources to capitalize on the research potential of returned materials, and workforce development.