Large-scale coastal and fluvial models constrain the late Holocene evolution of the Ebro Delta

Nienhuis, Jaap H.; Ashton, Andrew D.; Kettner, Albert J.; Giosan, Liviu

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-585-2017

Articles | Volume 5, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-585-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-585-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 5, issue 3

Research article

|

25 Sep 2017

Research article |

| 25 Sep 2017

Large-scale coastal and fluvial models constrain the late Holocene evolution of the Ebro Delta

Jaap H. Nienhuis, Andrew D. Ashton, Albert J. Kettner, and Liviu Giosan

Download

Final revised paper (published on 25 Sep 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 06 Mar 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Reviewer comments', Jorge Guillen, 27 Mar 2017
RC2: 'Comment on Large-scale coastal and fluvial models constrain the late Holocene evolution of the Ebro delta, Spain', Enrica viparelli, 27 Mar 2017
RC3: 'Coastal geomorphology', Edward Anthony, 03 Apr 2017
RC4: 'Long-term deltaic plain development', Jose A. Jiménez, 07 Apr 2017
AC1: 'Final Response', Jaap Nienhuis, 06 Jun 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Jaap Nienhuis on behalf of the Authors (16 Jun 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by Editor) (04 Jul 2017) by Simon Mudd

This paper received 4 detailed and constructive reviews, to which the authors have now responded. I have now read the manuscript and response of the authors, and would like to highlight a few issues.

There were several common themes in the reviews.
1) The model is a simplification of reality and therefore speculative. This criticism is inevitable in any work using reduced complexity models but I feel the authors do a good job of responding to reviewers who raised this issue by editing the text and making clear the aims of the study. Reviewers who made this criticism also noted that the paper included interesting findings so it seems reviewers felt the paper had something new to offer. It does seem that there are some shortcomings of the model which cannot be overcome (e.g., the effect of changing sea level) but the authors are very clear in the text about these limitations and I see no evidence that the authors are trying to hide anything.
2) Terminology: a few reviewers noted some inconsistency in the terminology; the authors have fixed this.
3) Changes to the fluvial model: The authors have made extensive changes in relation to the fluvial model at the request of the reviewers, and these changes seem mostly reasonable. I do have some comments on this topic in my annotated version of the manuscript, however. A number of reviewers' questions both the sediment transport formulations and the selected grain size and the authors have carefully addressed these issues.
4) The NAO analysis is not strong: The authors have reworded the text to justify the assumption that wave climate is not a dominant factor in determining delta growth.
5) Reviewers wanted projections into the future. The authors felt this would be speculative and beyond the scope of the paper. I agree with the authors.

Overall I feel the authors have done a good job of addressing reviewer concerns. I have added some editorial comments. In addition, I have some comments on the fluvial modelling, which I still feel is not clear. I am therefore asking for minor revisions to the manuscript.

Comments to the Author: PDF

Hide

AR by Jaap Nienhuis on behalf of the Authors (12 Jul 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 Aug 2017) by Simon Mudd

ED: Publish as is (21 Aug 2017) by Andreas Lang (Editor)

AR by Jaap Nienhuis on behalf of the Authors (22 Aug 2017)

Short summary

The Ebro Delta in Spain has a distinctive coastline shape, the origin of which has been debated. Here we show with two simple models, one of the Ebro River and one of its delta, that is it possible to reproduce this distinctive shape under constant sediment supply, wave climate, and sea-level conditions. We also find that the majority of the delta grew in the last 2000 years, when a great increase in sediment supply from the Ebro River allowed it to accelerate its growth.