Hostname: page-component-66d9dcfd78-khxdb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-10T07:10:54.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turbulence in a channel with a patchy submerged canopy: the impact of spatial configuration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2025

Hyoungchul Park Open the ORCID record for Hyoungchul Park [Opens in a new window]  and
Heidi Nepf
Hyoungchul Park*
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Heidi Nepf
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
*
Corresponding author: Hyoungchul Park, hpark418@mit.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates how the spatial configuration of submerged three-dimensional patches of vegetation impacts turbulence. Laboratory experiments were conducted in a channel with submerged patches of model vegetation configured with different patch area densities ($\phi _{p}$), representing the bed area fraction occupied by patches, ranging from 0.13 to 0.78, and different spatial patterns transitioning from two dimensional (channel-spanning patches) to three dimensional (laterally unconfined patches). These configurations produced a range of flow regimes within the canopy, from wake interference flow to skimming flow. At low area density ($\phi _{p}\lt0.5$), turbulence within the canopy increased with increasing $\phi _{p}$ regardless of spatial configuration, while at high area density ($\phi _{p}\gt0.5$), the relationship between turbulence and $\phi _{p}$ depended on the spatial configuration of the patches. For the same patch area density, the configuration with smaller lateral gaps generated stronger turbulence within the canopy. The relative contributions of wake and shear production also varied with the spatial configuration of the patches. At low area densities, wake production dominated over shear production, while at high area densities, shear production was more dominant due to an enhanced shear layer at the top of the canopy and reduced mean velocity within the canopy. A new predictive model for the channel-averaged turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) was developed as a function of channel-averaged velocity, canopy geometry, and patch area density, which showed good agreement with the measured TKE.

JFM classification

Waves/Free-surface Flows: Hydraulics Geophysical and Geological Flows: River dynamics Turbulent Flows: Turbulent boundary layers

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 1006 , 10 March 2025 , A15
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, J.D. & Okubo, A. 1993 Reduced mixing in a marine macrophyte canopy. Funct. Ecol. 7 (3), 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asaeda, T. & Rashid, M.H. 2017 Effects of turbulence motion on the growth and physiology of aquatic plants. Limnologica 62, 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belcher, S.E., Jerram, N. & Hunt, J.C.R. 2003 Adjustment of a turbulent boundary layer to a canopy of roughness elements. J. Fluid Mech. 488, 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, H.J., Haddadchi, A. & Hicks, D.M. 2021 Interactions between aquatic vegetation, hydraulics and fine sediment: a case study in the Halswell River, New Zealand. Hydrol. Process. 35 (6), e14245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, H.J., Nikora, V.I., Gibbins, C.N., Cameron, S.M., Papadopoulos, K., Stewart, M. & Hicks, D.M. 2019 Flow interactions with an aquatic macrophyte: a field study using stereoscopic particle image velocimetry. J. Ecohydraulics 4 (2), 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, H.J., Nikora, V.I., Gibbins, C.N., Fraser, S., Green, D.R., Papadopoulos, K. & Hicks, D.M. 2018 Coupling unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and hydraulic surveys to study the geometry and spatial distribution of aquatic macrophytes. J. Ecohydraulics 3 (1), 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvani, G., Carbonari, C. & Solari, L. 2022 Stability analysis of submerged vegetation patterns in rivers. Water Resour. Res. 58 (8), e2021WR031901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, S.M., Nikora, V.I., Albayrak, I., Miler, O., Stewart, M. & Siniscalchi, F. 2013 Interactions between aquatic plants and turbulent flow: a field study using stereoscopic PIV. J. Fluid Mech. 732, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z., He, G., Fang, H., Liu, Y. & Dey, S. 2024 Influence of bioroughness density on turbulence characteristics in open-channel flows. J. Hydraul. Engng 150 (4), 04024021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z., Jiang, C. & Nepf, H. 2013 Flow adjustment at the leading edge of a submerged aquatic canopy. Water Resour. Res. 49 (9), 5537–5551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, H., Mandel, T., Zarama, F. & Koseff, J.R. 2021 Local and nonlocal impacts of gaps on submerged canopy flow. Water Resour. Res. 57 (2), e2019WR026915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantinescu, G., Miyawaki, S. & Liao, Q. 2013 Flow and turbulence structure past a cluster of freshwater mussels. J. Hydraul. Engng 139 (4), 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornacchia, L., Folkard, A., Davies, G., Grabowski, R.C., van de Koppel, J., van der Wal, D. & Bouma, T.J. 2019 a Plants face the flow in V formation: a study of plant patch alignment in streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64 (3), 1087–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornacchia, L., Lapetoule, G., Licci, S., Basquin, H. & Puijalon, S. 2023 How to build vegetation patches in hydraulic studies: a hydrodynamic-ecological perspective on a biological object. J. Ecohydraulics 1-16 (2), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornacchia, L., Licci, S., Nepf, H., Folkard, A., van der Wal, D., van de Koppel, J. & Bouma, T.J. 2019 b Turbulence-mediated facilitation of resource uptake in patchy stream macrophytes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64 (2), 714–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornacchia, L., Riviere, N., Soundar Jerome, J.J., Doppler, D., Vallier, F. & Puijalon, S. 2022 Flow and wake length downstream of live submerged vegetation patches: how do different species and patch configurations create sheltering in stressful habitats? Water Resour. Res. 58 (3), e2021WR030880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornacchia, L., Van De Koppel, J., Van Der Wal, D., Wharton, G., Puijalon, S. & Bouma, T.J. 2018 Landscapes of facilitation: how self-organized patchiness of aquatic macrophytes promotes diversity in streams. Ecology 99 (4), 832–847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cui, H., Felder, S. & Kramer, M. 2023 Predicting flow resistance in open-channel flows with submerged vegetation. Environ. Fluid Mech. 23 (4), 757–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, C.J., López, F. & García, M.H. 1996 Mean Flow and Turbulence in a Laboratory Channel with Simulated Vegetation. Hydrosystems Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Etminan, V., Lowe, R.J. & Ghisalberti, M. 2017 A new model for predicting the drag exerted by vegetation canopies. Water Resour. Res. 53 (4), 3179–3196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folkard, A.M. 2005 Hydrodynamics of model Posidonia oceanica patches in shallow water. Limnol. Oceanogr. 50 (5), 1592–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folkard, A.M. 2011 Flow regimes in gaps within stands of flexible vegetation: laboratory flume simulations. Environ. Fluid Mech. 11 (3), 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghisalberti, M. 2009 Obstructed shear flows: similarities across systems and scales. J. Fluid Mech. 641, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghisalberti, M. & Nepf, H. 2006 The structure of the shear layer over rigid and flexible canopies. Environ. Fluid Mech. 6 (3), 277–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghisalberti, M. & Nepf, H. 2009 Shallow flows over a permeable medium: the hydrodynamics of submerged aquatic canopies. Transp. Porous Med. 78 (2), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghisalberti, M. & Nepf, H.M. 2002 Mixing layers and coherent structures in vegetated aquatic flows. J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans 107 (C2), 3–1.Google Scholar
Gijón Mancheño, A., Jansen, W., Winterwerp, J.C. & Uijttewaal, W.S. 2021 Predictive model of bulk drag coefficient for a nature-based structure exposed to currents. Sci. Rep. 11 (1), 3517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gioia, G. & Bombardelli, F. 2002 Scaling and similarity in rough channel flows. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (1), 014501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goring, D.G. & Nikora, V.I. 2002 Despiking acoustic Doppler velocimeter data. J. Hydraul. Engng 128 (1), 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J.C. 2005 Modelling flow resistance in vegetated streams: review and development of new theory. Hydrol. Process. 19 (6), 1245–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamed, A.M. & Chamorro, L.P. 2018 Turbulent boundary layer around 2D permeable and impermeable obstacles. Exp. Fluids 59, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, A.T., Tinoco, R.O. & Cowen, E.A. 2012 A $k{-}\varepsilon$ turbulence model based on the scales of vertical shear and stem wakes valid for emergent and submerged vegetated flows. J. Fluid Mech. 701, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Ribault, C., Vinkovic, I. & Simoëns, S. 2021 Large eddy simulation of particle transport and deposition over multiple 2D square obstacles in a turbulent boundary layer. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 126 (16), e2020JD034461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, J. & Nepf, H. 2021 Evolution of flow velocity from the leading edge of 2-D and 3-D submerged canopies. J. Fluid Mech. 916, A36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhar, M. & Nepf, H.M. 2013 From the blade scale to the reach scale: a characterization of aquatic vegetative drag. Adv. Water Resour. 51, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltese, A., Cox, E., Folkard, A.M., Ciraolo, G., La Loggia, G. & Lombardo, G. 2007 Laboratory measurements of flow and turbulence in discontinuous distributions of ligulate seagrass. J. Hydraul. Engng 133 (7), 750–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marjoribanks, T.I., Lague, D., Hardy, R.J., Boothroyd, R.J., Leroux, J., Mony, C. & Puijalon, S. 2019 Flexural rigidity and shoot reconfiguration determine wake length behind saltmarsh vegetation patches. J. Geophys. Res.: Earth Surface 124 (8), 2176–2196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayaud, J.R., Wiggs, G.F. & Bailey, R.M. 2016 Dynamics of skimming flow in the wake of a vegetation patch. Aeolian Res. 22, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meire, D.W., Kondziolka, J.M. & Nepf, H.M. 2014 Interaction between neighboring vegetation patches: Impact on flow and deposition. Water Resour. Res. 50 (5), 3809–3825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakagawa, H., Nezu, I. & Ueda, H. 1975 Turbulence of open channel flow over smooth and rough beds. In Proceedings of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 155–168. Japan Society of Civil Engineers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nepf, H., Ghisalberti, M., White, B. & Murphy, E. 2007 Retention time and dispersion associated with submerged aquatic canopies. Water Resour. Res. 43, W04422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nepf, H.M. 2012 Flow and transport in regions with aquatic vegetation. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 44 (1), 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nepf, H.M. & Vivoni, E.R. 2000 Flow structure in depth-limited, vegetated flow. J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans 105 (C12), 28547–28557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nezu, I. 1977 Turbulent Structure in Open-Channel Flows. Kyoto University.Google Scholar
Nicolle, A. & Eames, I. 2011 Numerical study of flow through and around a circular array of cylinders. J. Fluid Mech. 679, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nortek 2018 The Comprehensive Manual for Velocimeters. Nortek.Google Scholar
O’Neill, P.L., Nicolaides, D., Honnery, D. & Soria, J. 2004 Autocorrelation functions and the determination of integral length with reference to experimental and numerical data. In 15th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, Sydney, NSW, Australia, pp. 1–4. University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Park, H. & Hwang, J.H. 2019 Quantification of vegetation arrangement and its effects on longitudinal dispersion in a channel. Water Resour. Res. 55 (5), 4488–4498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, H. & Hwang, J.H. 2021 A standard criterion for measuring turbulence quantities using the four-receiver acoustic Doppler velocimetry. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 681265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poggi, D., Katul, G.G. & Albertson, J.D. 2004 Momentum transfer and turbulent kinetic energy budgets within a dense model canopy. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 111 (3), 589–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prada, A.F., George, A.E., Stahlschmidt, B.H., Jackson, P.R., Chapman, D.C. & Tinoco, R.O. 2021 Using turbulence to identify preferential areas for grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) larvae in streams: a laboratory study. Water Resour. Res. 57 (2), e2020WR028102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raupach, M.R. & Shaw, R.H. 1982 Averaging procedures for flow within vegetation canopies. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 22 (1), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sand-Jensen, K. 2003 Drag and reconfiguration of freshwater macrophytes. Freshwat. Biol. 48 (2), 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savio, M., Vettori, D., Biggs, H., Zampiron, A., Cameron, S.M., Stewart, M. & Nikora, V. 2023 Hydraulic resistance of artificial vegetation patches in aligned and staggered configurations. J. Hydraul. Res. 61 (2), 220–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoelynck, J., Creëlle, S., Buis, K., De Mulder, T., Emsens, W.J., Hein, T. & Folkard, A. 2018 What is a macrophyte patch? Patch identification in aquatic ecosystems and guidelines for consistent delineation. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 18 (1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shan, Y., Zhao, T., Liu, C. & Nepf, H. 2020 Turbulence and bed load transport in channels with randomly distributed emergent patches of model vegetation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47 (12), e2020GL087055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siniscalchi, F. & Nikora, V. 2013 Dynamic reconfiguration of aquatic plants and its interrelations with upstream turbulence and drag forces. J. Hydraul. Res. 51 (1), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siniscalchi, F. & Nikora, V.I. 2012 Flow–plant interactions in open-channel flows: a comparative analysis of five freshwater plant species. Water Resour. Res. 48, W05503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sukhodolova, T.A. & Sukhodolov, A.N. 2012 Vegetated mixing layer around a finite-size patch of submerged plants: 1. Theory and field experiments. Water Resour. Res. 48, W10533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, D. 2010 Two circular cylinders in cross-flow: a review. J. Fluids Struct. 26 (6), 849–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, H., Tian, Z., Yan, J. & Yuan, S. 2014 Determining drag coefficients and their application in modelling of turbulent flow with submerged vegetation. Adv. Water Resour. 69, 134–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanino, Y. & Nepf, H.M. 2008 Lateral dispersion in random cylinder arrays at high Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. 600, 339–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennekes, H. & Lumley, J.L. 1972 A First Course in Turbulence. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinoco, R.O. & Coco, G. 2016 A laboratory study on sediment resuspension within arrays of rigid cylinders. Adv. Water Resour. 92, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinoco, R.O., Prada, A.F., George, A.E., Stahlschmidt, B.H., Jackson, P.R. & Chapman, D.C. 2022 Identifying turbulence features hindering swimming capabilities of grass carp larvae (Ctenopharyngodon idella) through submerged vegetation. J. Ecohydraulics 7 (1), 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, C.Y. & Tinoco, R.O. 2020 A model to predict surface gas transfer rate in streams based on turbulence production by aquatic vegetation. Adv. Water Resour. 143, 103666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, C.Y. & Tinoco, R.O. 2022 From substrate to surface: a turbulence-based model for gas transfer across sediment-water-air interfaces in vegetated streams. Water Resour. Res. 58 (1), e2021WR030776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vettori, D., Niewerth, S., Aberle, J. & Rice, S.P. 2021 A link between plant stress and hydrodynamics? Indications from a freshwater macrophyte. Water Resour. Res. 57 (9), e2021WR029618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, S. 2020 Life in Moving Fluids: the Physical Biology of Flow-Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, N.R. & Shaw, R.H. 1977 A higher order closure model for canopy flow. J. Appl. Meteorol. 16 (11), 1197–1205.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, S.A. & Nickling, W.G. 1993 The protective role of sparse vegetation in wind erosion. Prog. Phys. Geog. 17 (1), 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Y. & Nepf, H. 2020 Measured and predicted turbulent kinetic energy in flow through emergent vegetation with real plant morphology. Water Resour. Res. 56 (12), e2020WR027892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, J., Zhu, Z., Zhou, J., Chu, X., Sui, H., Cui, B. & van der Heide, T. 2021 Saltmarsh resilience controlled by patch size and plant density of habitat-forming species that trap shells. Sci. Total Environ. 778, 146119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, J.Q. & Nepf, H.M. 2018 A turbulence-based bed-load transport model for bare and vegetated channels. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45 (19), 10–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, J.Q. & Nepf, H.M. 2019 Impact of vegetation on bed load transport rate and bedform characteristics. Water Resour. Res. 55 (7), 6109–6124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You, H. & Tinoco, R.O. 2023 Turbulent coherent flow structures to predict the behavior of particles with low to intermediate Stokes number between submerged obstacles in streams. Water Resour. Res. 59 (2), e2022WR032439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Lei, J., Huai, W. & Nepf, H. 2020 Turbulence and particle deposition under steady flow along a submerged seagrass meadow. J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans 125 (5), e2019JC015985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X. & Nepf, H. 2020 Flow-induced reconfiguration of aquatic plants, including the impact of leaf sheltering. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65 (11), 2697–2712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, T. & Nepf, H. 2024 Turbulence and bedload transport in submerged vegetation canopies. Water Resour. Res. 60 (12), e2024WR037694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, T. & Nepf, H.M. 2021 Turbulence dictates bedload transport in vegetated channels without dependence on stem diameter and arrangement. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48 (21), e2021GL095316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Park and Nepf supplementary material

Park and Nepf supplementary material
Download Park and Nepf supplementary material(File)
File 643.8 KB