Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Geology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / m a r g e o

Understanding fine-grained river-sediment dispersal on continental margins

J.P. Walsh a,⁎, C.A. Nittrouer b
a
Department of Geological Sciences and Institute for Coastal Science and Policy, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, United States
b
School of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-7940, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Studies of fine-grained sediment dispersal in the marine environment have documented diversity in the
Received 10 September 2008 behavior of depositional systems on continental margins with different oceanographic conditions and
Received in revised form 14 March 2009 morphologies. Based on the pattern and nature of sediment accumulation for twenty-three case studies, we
Accepted 23 March 2009
propose there are five basic types of dispersal systems, and these are related to river, wave, tide and margin
Communicated by John T. Wells characteristics. Data suggest that the type of dispersal system on any margin can be predicted with
knowledge of sediment load, mean significant wave height, tidal range and continental-shelf width at a river
Keywords: mouth, and from these, a hierarchical decision tree is developed. Analysis of the dispersal-system type of
deltas more than 100 river mouths reveals that proximal-accumulation-dominated (PAD) and marine-dispersal-
rivers dominated (MDD) systems are most abundant. But, estuarine-accumulation-dominated (EAD) systems also
continental margins are anticipated to be numerous globally. Research quantifying marine sediment dynamics in these system
sedimentation types is needed. Although less common, the size and nature of subaqueous-delta-clinoform (SDC) and
canyon-captured (CC) systems also warrant future attention to their study. Strong correlations between
physical characteristics (i.e., significant wave height and tidal range) and the depth and distance to the
nearest maximum shelf depocenter provide evidence that in reality a continuum exists between the system
types. The process-related partitioning of sediment in the five different types of marine dispersal systems has
important implications for understanding the stratigraphic record and the cycling of carbon.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction fraction of sandy sediments. But the bulk of sediment discharged by

A river dispersal system is the means and area over which water,
sediments and solutes are generated, transferred and stored in a given
drainage basin, from the source through the sea. The components of
dispersal systems (e.g., mountains, floodplains, deltas), their con-
nectivity and their functioning vary dramatically as result of the
tectonic setting, climate, and many other factors. This paper
specifically examines the nature of sedimentation in the marine
portion of dispersal systems, where most sediment emanating from a
source stream will be deposited under the influence of basin
processes.
Marine sedimentary deposits can take a variety of shapes, and can
be characterized by substantial subaqueous deltas (e.g., Amazon;
Nittrouer et al., 1996). It is well understood that the morphology and
stratigraphy of the proximal portion of deltaic systems are regulated
by waves, tides, and sediment supply (Coleman and Wright, 1975;
Galloway, 1975; Wright, 1985; Orton and Reading, 1993). The subaerial
and shallow parts of the delta generally contain a considerable
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.:+ 1 252 328 5431.
E-mail address: walshj@ecu.edu (J.P. Walsh).
rivers consists of silt and clay particles, and these particles generally
accumulate at deeper depths in the ocean, where the strength of
waves and tides are diminished.
Commonly associated with fine-grained particles are organic
materials and other chemical species that may be buried or recycled
in the seabed (Hedges and Keil, 1995). Storage of terrestrial/marine
carbon and anthropogenic pollutants has important implications for
marine ecosystems, climate cycles, and human impacts. Additionally,
the high-resolution record of potentially thick, deltaic deposits may
give new, detailed insights into late Holocene sea-level rise and
climate change. To address these concerns, it is important that we
understand how fine-grained river sediments accumulate under
different oceanographic conditions and morphological configurations
as highlighted by McKee et al. (2004).
This paper aims to integrate existing knowledge about marine fine-
sediment dispersal systems, so that insights on individual systems can
be placed in a larger context and further research can be planned. At
this point, a relatively small number of dispersal systems have been
examined thoroughly with sedimentological and geophysical tools.
The goals of this work are threefold: (1) to identify commonality
among the systems that have been examined, (2) to determine how
basic characteristics of dispersal systems distinguish them, and (3) to
use these insights to predict the nature of unknown systems.

0025-3227/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2009.03.016
 J.P. Walsh, C.A. Nittrouer / Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45
2. Background
There are a number of factors affecting the accumulation of river-
derived sediments in the ocean (Orton and Reading, 1993; Nittrouer
and Wright, 1994; Wright and Nittrouer, 1995), and these may be
separated into drainage- and receiving-basin characteristics (see Fig. 5
in Coleman and Wright, 1975). Influential aspects of the drainage
basin include the volume of sediment supply and also the timing and
nature of sediment discharge, e.g., the grain-size distribution, and
water/sediment ratio (Orton and Reading, 1993). The amount of
sediment supply has been shown to be proportional to drainage basin
area and elevation (Milliman and Meade, 1983; Milliman, 1995) and
related to mountain uplift rate (Hovius, 1998), but it is also influenced
by a number of other factors including geology, vegetation, rainfall,
and human activities (Pinet and Souriau, 1988; Summerfield and
Hulton, 1994; Syvitski et al., 2005). Wave climate and tidal flows are
critical receiving-basin characteristics that impact marine dispersal,
but other currents (e.g., density-driven transport and geostrophic
circulation) and margin geometry also are important. Because small
(silt and clay) sedimentary particles may be transported easily, they
are extremely sensitive to oceanographic conditions (Orton and
Reading, 1993).
A complete review of shelf-sediment-transport mechanisms is
beyond the scope of this paper; the reader is referred to Nittrouer and
Wright (1994), Nittrouer et al. (2007) and the references therein and
below. There are three primary means in which sediments are
transported across continental margins: (1) surface-plume (or
hypopycnal) transport, (2) dilute-suspension bottom-boundary-
layer dispersal, and (3) sediment gravity flows (e.g., hyperpycnal
plumes and fluid muds). Although impressive from altitude, surface
plumes transport a relatively small amount of the sediment load from
a river, and flocculation is a key process restricting transport distances
(Geyer et al., 2004). Flocculation coupled with estuarine circulation at
river mouths produces the turbidity maximum, a zone characterized
by high suspended-sediment concentrations and commonly rapid
sediment deposition (Geyer et al., 2004). In this way, most sediments
are placed at or near the seabed where rivers meet the coastal ocean.
These sediments can subsequently move across and along continental
margins in the bottom boundary layer as dilute suspensions,
immediately above the seabed. Research with instrumented tripods
has documented and quantified the frequency, magnitude, and
direction of sediment transport by currents and waves on continental
shelves (Sternberg and Nowell, 1999; Sternberg, 2005; Cacchione
et al., 2006; and the papers therein).
After initial deposition, sediment resuspension is governed by the
threshold of motion for sediments, which is a function of the critical
bed shear stress and the combined wave-current bed shear stress
created by the physical conditions (e.g., waves, tides, wind-driven
circulation). When the combined bed shear stress exceeds the critical
stress, sediments are resuspended, and currents can disperse any
suspended sediment. Eventually, sediments will deposit when (and
where) the waves and currents are reduced, as particles flocculate and
settle (Nittrouer and Wright, 1994). Depending on the conditions,
particles (or some fraction of those deposited) can experience
multiple episodes of transport and re-deposition until their ultimate
site of accumulation is reached. Relatively recently, in situ measure-
ments have revealed the importance of sediment gravity flows (dense
suspensions) as a key transport agent on continental shelves (Wright
et al., 1988; Sternberg et. al., 1991; Ogston et al., 2000; Traykovski et
al., 2000; Wright et al., 2001; Puig et al; 2004); however, only on
relatively steep shelves can these flows move by their own weight.
Wright et al. (2001) calculate that sediment gravity flows with
Richardson numbers of b0.25 can become autosuspending at slopes of
0.7° or greater. Elsewhere, waves and/or currents must assist
transport. In fact, most shelves have gradients much less than 0.7°.
For this reason, wave- and current-assisted gravity-driven transport
35
can be important on portions of some margins. Geyer et al. (2004)
states “Notwithstanding the recent progress in identifying new
mechanisms of sediment transport on the continental shelf, we are
a long way from the point at which sediment fluxes and deposition
patterns can be predicted, given knowledge of the supply, the
geometry and forcing conditions.” This is a reasonable statement,
and thus we note here that this paper is not intended to predict the
locations or rates of sediment deposition in different systems. Rather,
the analysis aims to identify commonalities in the nature of
sedimentation in the diversity of marine dispersal systems.
Based on quantitative studies of the marine sediment dispersal
systems, a range in sedimentation behavior is evident. Many rivers
have relatively small sediment loads and large estuaries, such that
little fluvial sediment reaches the continental shelf (Dalrymple et al.,
1992). But, many others with substantial loads have filled their
estuaries, and these are actively supplying most of their sediment to
the shelf. For the Po River, largest accumulation rates (1–3 cm/y) are
found only ~ 2 km from the mouth (Frignani and Langone, 1991;
Palinkas and Nittrouer, 2007). In contrast, foreset beds of the Amazon
subaqueous delta clinoform experience very high rates of sediment
accumulation (N10 cm/y) approximately 250 km from the Amazon
River mouth (Dukat and Kuehl, 1995; Kuehl et al., 1996). In fact, a
number of studies have documented subaqueous delta clinoforms
seaward of river mouths (e.g., Amazon, Nittrouer et al., 1986; Kuehl
et al., 1989; Kuehl et al., 1996; Nittrouer et al., 1996; Ganges–
Brahmaputra, Kuehl et al., 1997; Michels et al., 1998; Yellow
(Huanghe), Alexander et al., 1991; Liu et al., 2002, 2004; Yangtze
(Changjiang), McKee et al., 1983, 1984; Nittrouer et al., 1984; Fly,
Harris et al., 1993; Walsh et al., 2004; Indus, Giosan et al., 2006), and
this body of work indicates similarity in the processes and products of
these systems. However, other research shows subaqueous delta
clinoforms are not formed everywhere. For example, along the Eel
River margin in northern California, flood deposits and large
accumulation rates (0.5–0.8 cm/y, over a 100-year timescale) are
found on the shelf in water depths of ~60 m about 15 km from the
fluvial source, without a notable subaqueous delta clinoform
(Wheatcroft et al., 1997; Sommerfield and Nittrouer, 1999). Despite
large sediment loads, a subaqueous delta clinoform is also absent
seaward of the Copper and Columbia rivers (Nittrouer and Sternberg,
1981; Jaeger et al., 1998). In Papua New Guinea, the Sepik River
discharges its load essentially into a submarine canyon, and excep-
tional rates of sediment deposition and accumulation (N2.5 cm/y) are
evident at 650 m water depth (Walsh and Nittrouer, 2003). Similar
sedimentation is evident in the Congo system (Heezen et al., 1964;
Droz et al., 1996). Examination of the range in the amount of sediment
carried to and off the shelf by various marine dispersal systems
suggests a continuum exists that is related to the width of the
continental shelf and the dominant dispersal processes (Walsh and
Nittrouer, 2003).
Although primarily oriented towards sequence stratigraphic
modeling, Swift and Thorne (1991) provide a conceptual framework
for shelf sedimentation, referred to as “regime theory”, which is
relevant to the research presented here. They suggest that four
variables regulate shelf depositional behavior: sediment input rate
(Q), relative sea-level change (R), the delivered grain size (M), and
dispersive sediment transport (D) which is a function of fluid power
from waves, tides and currents (P). Their “Concept of the Equilibrium
Shelf”, which is based on earlier work (see references therein), argues
that sediments will accumulate vertically until reaching “wave base”,
the theoretical depth above which physical transport processes
preclude accumulation. They discuss how the Q/P relationship is
fundamental in controlling sedimentation on shelves. Swift and
Thorne (1991) further explain that systems where Q × M N R × D are
“deltaic” while those in which Q × M b R × D are “estuarine”. In the
latter case, sufficient accommodation space is available for storage. In
essence, the present paper investigates Q and P variability (but waves
36 J.P. Walsh, C.A. Nittrouer / Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45

and tides independently) as well the Q × M:R × D relationship to
evaluate marine sediment dispersal in modern systems. Additionally,
shelf width is examined as it is thought to be an important factor
regulating shelf accommodation space (Walsh and Nittrouer, 2003).
This paper does not further discuss the ideas of Swift and Thorne
(1991) explicitly, but the findings are relevant to this work. McCave
(1972) provides another perspective regarding the distributions of
fine sediments on continental shelves and suggests that there are five
basic types of shelf mud patterns, which are controlled by sediment
availability (or concentration) and the wave and current activity. Both
diffusive (by waves and tides) and advective (by currents) transport
are hypothesized to control mud distribution on margins, and gravity-
driven flows are thought to be important for moving sediment down
the continental slope. The present paper builds on these proposed
ideas.
3. Methods
A literature review was conducted to develop a conceptual
framework on the nature of sediment accumulation at river mouths
and the controlling factors. Using marine dispersal systems that have
been studied in detail (Table 1), the pattern and partitioning of
sediment accumulation was examined to categorize systems into
different behavioral types, and specific information was compiled for
the systems. Then, plots of the physical data (e.g., mean significant
wave height vs. tidal range) were created to investigate if the
identified types of systems have similar characteristics. In addition,
the shortest distance and shallowest depth to the location of the
nearest maximum shelf depocenter (NMSD; i.e., the location of most
rapid fine-sediment accumulation) were measured. These locations
are identified from radionuclide accumulation rates, sedimentological
information, and seismic-reflection data, and the data are employed to
evaluate physical controls on fine-sediment accumulation across
different dispersal systems.
To use these insights to predict the sedimentation behavior in
other systems, locations of more than 100 large river mouths were
entered into a spreadsheet of river characteristics (e.g., sediment load,
Table 1, Fig. 1A), using data from Hovius (1998) and Milliman and
Syvitski (1992). The narrowest shelf width at these river mouths was
estimated by measuring the shortest distance to the 200-m isobath
from the bathymetry of the British Oceanographic Data Center (1994)
with the provided point-and-click tool. This table was converted into
an ArcView shapefile for integration with wave and tide data. Mean
tidal range information was obtained from a database of 6507
locations (Fig. 1B). A near-global distribution of mean significant
wave height was created by averaging six years of output (February
1997 to January 2003) at three-hour intervals from the NOAA
Wavewatch III model (gray shading in Fig. 2A; Tolman, 2002). To
assign wave and tidal information to each system, the nearest value
within 40 km of a river mouth was selected. Data beyond this range
were considered to be inappropriate. This spreadsheet of data is
available upon request. In some cases, wave and/or tidal information
were not available within 40 km, and a 0-m value was assigned
(Fig. 2). For example, several Mediterranean rivers have tidal-range
information, but similar wave data was not available in these areas.
Based on available published data (Palanques et al., 2002; Wang and
Pinardi, 2002), a significant wave height of 1 m was assumed for the
Po and Ebro Rivers in Table 1. Other rivers without wave and/or tide
data were assigned a mean significant wave height and/or tidal range
of 0 m as these systems generally are located in areas with little fetch,
with seasonal ice cover, and/or on an inland sea; a revised prediction
can be made with other data.
4. Results
A histogram of each variable is provided to illustrate the
distribution of the data (Fig. 2, right). As has been pointed out by
Milliman and Syvitski (1992), the number of rivers with small
drainage areas (and thus, small water and sediment discharge)
exceeds that of large systems by at least one order of magnitude;
this is evident in the sediment discharge data of Fig. 2, right). The
sediment-load, shelf-width and tidal-range data have similar trends,

Table 1
Characteristics of dispersal systems previously studied in detail.

River # River Natural sediment Shelf width Tidal range Mean wave Shortest distance Shallowest depth Class References
load (mt y− 1) (km) (m) (m) to NMSD (km) of NMSD (km)
100 Delaware 1 133 1.7 1.2 NA NA EAD Fletcher et al. (1992)
92 Susquehanna 2 405 0.6 0.0 NA NA EAD Langland and Cronin (2000)
6 Mississippi 400 15 0.3 0.9 1 5 PAD See text and Allison and Neill (2002)
15 Nile 120 40 0.2 NA NA NA PAD Summerhayes et al. (1978); Coleman
et al. (1981)
27 Yukon 60 699 0.7 NA NA NA PAD Nelson and Creager (1977); Nelson et al.
(1980)
34 Niger 40 54 0.8 1.1 NA NA PAD Allen (1964)
39 Rhone 31 36 0.4 NA NA NA PAD Aloisi et al. (1975); Got et al. (1985)
56 Ebro 18 37 0.0 NA NA NA PAD Maldonado et al. (1980); Got et al. (1985)
58 Brazos 16 130 0.5 1.1 NA NA PAD Rodriguez et al. (2000)
66 Po Yellow 13 429 0.5 NA 1.5 4 PAD See text and Correggiari et al. (2001)
2 (Huanghe) 1100 1105 1.1 0.7 15 8 PAD See text
1 Amazon 1200 330 4.8 1.1 250 35 SDC See text
3 Ganges–Brahmaputra 1060 321 3.6 0.9 80 20 SDC See text
5 Yangtze 480 557 3.4 1.1 50 7.5 SDC See text and Hori et al. (2001, 2002)
11 Mekong 160 271 2.9 1.0 NA NA SDC Ta et al. (2002a,b)
16 Fly 115 155 3.4 1.4 30 25 SDC See text
18 Purari 80 83 3.4 1.3 NA 30 SDC See text
41 Kikori 30 146 3.4 1.4 NA 25 SDC See text
21 Copper 70 81 3.0 2.3 20 70 MDD See text
46 Eel 24 16 1.9 3.0 15 60 MDD See text
60 Columbia 15 49 2.5 2.9 15 60 MDD See text
19 Sepik 80 3 0.8 0.9 NA NA CC See text
31 Zaire (Congo) 43 39 1.1 1.4 NA NA CC See text

Systems listed in the table are those that were used to develop the hierarchical decision tree in Fig. 6. See Fig. 5 for examples of classifications. The distance to and depth of the nearest
maximum shelf depocenter (NMSD; i.e., the zone of high sediment accumulation) was measured on several margins where the NMSD could be identified with sediment
accumulation rates or seismic reflection data. Where information was not calculated or available a “NA” is indicated.
 J.P. Walsh, C.A. Nittrouer / Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45 37

Fig. 1. Magnitude of sediment discharge (A), and tidal range and shelf width (B) at many large river mouths. Size and color of symbols are scaled as indicated. Sediment discharge
units are megatons per year (Mt y− 1), and data are adopted from Milliman and Syvitski (1992) and Hovius (1998). Background data are elevations from ETOPO2 (Smith and
Sandwell, 1997; Jakobsson et al., 2000). Rivers are the following: 1 = Amazon, 2 = Yellow (Huanghe), 3 and 4 = Ganges–Brahmaputra, 5 = Yangtze (Changjiang), 6 = Mississippi,
7 = Irrawaddy, 8 = Indus, 9 = Magdalena, 10 = Godavari, 11 = Mekong, 12 = Orinoco, 13 = Red, 14 = Colorado, 15 = Nile, 16 = Fly, 17 = Orange, 18 = Purari, 19 = Sepik, 20 = Parana,
21 = Copper, 22 = Pearl, 23 = Danube, 24 = Krishna, 25 = Choshui, 26 = Mahanadi, 27 = Yukon, 28 = Tigris–Euphrates, 29 = Amur, 30 = Zambezi, 31 = Zaire, 32 = Mackenzie,
33 = Liao He, 34 = Niger, 35 = Daling, 36 = Kaoping, 37 = Limpopo, 38 = Tana, 39 = Rhone, 40 = Tsengwen, 41 = Kikori, 42 = Murray, 43 = Damodar, 44 = Waiapu, 45 = Susitna,
46 = Eel, 47 = Peinan, 48 = Kizil Irmak, 49 = Semani, 50 = Chira, 51 = Fraser, 52 = Hsiukuluan, 53 = Hualien, 54 = Ord, 55 = Rio Grande, 56 = Ebro, 57 = Rufiji, 58 = Brazos, 59 = Ob,
60 = Columbia, 61 = Drini, 62 = Huaihe, 63 = Indigirka, 64 = Haast, 65 = Negro, 66 = Po, 67 = Rio Negro, 68 = Yenisey, 69 = Lena, 70 = Chao Phraya, 71 = Uruguay, 72 = Kuskok-
wim, 73 = Waiapoa, 74 = Rio Colorado, 75 = Pechora, 76 = Colville, 77 = Kolyma, 78 = Sao Francisco, 79 = Severnaya, 80 = St. Lawrence, 81 = Burdekin, 82 = Jana, 83 = Sanaga,
84 = Waiau, 85 = Dnestr, 86 = Vistula, 87 = Mobile, 88 = Garonne, 89 = Dnepr, 90 = Colorado, 91 = Senegal, 92 = Susquehanna, 93 = Loire, 94 = Seine, 95 = Hudson, 96 = Elbe,
97 = Don, 98 = Rhein, 99 = Meuse, 100 = Delaware, 101 = Rio Grande, 102 = Weser, 103 = Apalachicola, 104 = Kemijoki, 105 = Oder.

indicating rivers with relatively small sediment loads, shelf widths,
and tidal ranges are more common in this dataset. In total, twenty five
of the systems have a shelf width b40 km. A number of systems have
no wave data; the remaining data range from 0.7 to 3 m and have a
mode at 1.1 m. Two scatter plots of these data are created to show
distribution of the variables with respect to others and to illustrate
how the well-studied systems in Table 1 are distributed (Fig. 3). Note,
neither of the graphs exhibits a simple relationship between the
variables. The only strong relationships observed in the data collected
are shown in Fig. 4.
By comparing sediment accumulation patterns from previous
studies, we have identified five basic types of fine-grained marine
dispersal systems (Fig. 5). Each system that has been studied in some
detail is classified using this scheme (Table 1). The example systems in
Fig. 5 (right) are not end-members, and it is likely that true end-
members do not exist. Most, if not all, systems probably lose a fraction
of their load to various segments of a continental margin. The system
types proposed in Fig. 5 are designed to explain how the majority of
sediment supplied by a river is stored in the marine setting. The
Delaware and Susquehanna rivers with relatively low sediment loads
(b2 Mt y− 1) drain into large, unfilled estuaries, which capture the
majority of the sediment load (Fig. 3A; Fletcher et al., 1992; Langland
and Cronin, 2000); these systems are classified as Estuarine
Accumulation Dominated (EAD) (Table 1; Fig. 5). Deltaic systems
with rapid rates of sediment accumulation very close to their mouth
(e.g., Po and Mississippi rivers) are referred to as Proximal
38 J.P. Walsh, C.A. Nittrouer / Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45

Fig. 2. Mean significant wave height for dispersal systems (left) and histograms of the data in this study (right). Note, circles indicate systems where mean significant wave heights
are b 2m, and squares are those systems where mean significant wave heights are N 2m. Also, the large areas of white in the Arctic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and elsewhere are sites
of no data. A scale bar for the mean significant wave height data (gray shading) is provided. The percent occurrence of systems for the specified variables is shown at right.

Accumulation Dominated (PAD). In these cases, the delta-front
(essentially the foreset of a proximal, shallow clinoform; Giosan
et al., 2006) lies only kilometers from the distributary mouth. The
Yellow (Huanghe) River is most appropriately classified as PAD
because 90% of the Yellow River sediment load accumulates very close
to the river mouth in the Bohai Sea (Bornhold et al., 1986). Note, these
systems have relatively low mean significant wave height (b2 m) and/
or tidal range (b2 m) (Table 1; Figs. 3 and 5). Subaqueous delta
clinoforms (SDC) are shelf sedimentary deposits displaced from the
river sediment source (i.e., part of the deeper prodelta; Giosan et al.,
2006), with notable relief above the transgressive surface (e.g., Fly and
Amazon rivers). In this case, the foreset region of the SDC is located
tens to hundreds of kilometers seaward. These pronounced features
account for a significant fraction of the sediment budget in several
dispersal systems (Table 1) and are characterized by large sediment
loads and tidal ranges (Table 1; Figs. 3 and 5). The sediment load
discharged from marine-dispersal-dominated (MDD) rivers is more
efficiently dispersed in the ocean, precluding the development of a
PAD or SDC (i.e., no clinoforms are present). MDD systems have high
mean significant wave heights and/or tidal ranges (both N2 m;
Table 1; Figs. 3B and 5). In MDD systems, areas of high sediment
accumulation can be located in tectonic basins on the shelf, slope or in
canyons (e.g., Eel and Columbia rivers). Even during high-stands in sea
level, the majority (N50%) of sediment discharged by some rivers is
transported rapidly to the deep sea via a submarine canyon, and such
systems are classified here as canyon captured (CC; e.g., Sepik and
Congo rivers). These systems have narrow shelf widths (Table 1;
Fig. 3A).
Data from systems studied quantitatively (i.e., to define sediment
accumulation rates and patterns) reveal two important relationships
(Fig. 4). Mean significant wave height is well correlated with the
depth of NMSD, and a strong non-linear relationship exists between
tidal range and the distance to the NMSD. Both of these plots have
high correlation coefficients (r2 = 0.82 and 0.76, respectively; Fig. 4),
suggesting a strong association between the variables.
5. Discussion
5.1. Sediment partitioning and fluvial dispersal systems
There is great disparity in how processes affect the partitioning of
fine-grained sediment between different sinks (e.g., estuarine sedi-
ment trapping versus turbidity-current transport to the deep sea;
Heezen et al., 1964; Fletcher et al., 1992; Kineke et al., 2000; Langland

Fig. 3. Scatter plots of shelf width and sediment load (A) and tidal range and mean significant wave height for classified and all systems (B). EAD and CC systems plot in the darker
blue and lighter green patterns of A, respectively. In B, yellow and white shading indicates areas anticipated to be MDD and PAD systems, respectively; however, systems in B that fall
within the hachured pattern are expected to SDC, if their load exceeds 100 Mt y− 1. The small black dots are the unclassified dispersal systems (i.e., those in Fig. 1 but not in Table 1).
 J.P. Walsh, C.A. Nittrouer / Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45 39

Fig. 4. Scatter plots of mean significant wave height versus depth to nearest maximum shelf depocenter (NMSD) (A) and tidal range versus distance to NMSD (B). These plots use data
from quantitatively studied systems listed in Table 1. Note, the x-axis in A is linear, but is logarithmic in B.

and Cronin, 2000; Walsh and Nittrouer, 2003). A scatter plot of mean
significant wave height versus mean tidal range is a simple, objective
way to compare processes affecting coastal and shelf systems (Davis
and Hayes, 1984), and rivers classified in this study (Table 1) are
plotted in Fig. 3B to illustrate how physical processes may relate to the
dispersal-system classifications. The scatter plot in Fig. 3A can be used
as a similar tool to examine the shelf width and sediment load of a
system. Shown on these plots is an interpretation of where the five
system types are anticipated to plot; this interpretation will be
discussed further.
5.1.1. Estuarine-accumulation-dominated (EAD) systems
EAD systems are characterized by flocculation and estuarine
circulation, and these are commonly the most critical processes
regulating the nature of sediment accumulation. EADs represent the
simplest scenario of marine dispersal, where the load of a system is
sufficiently small that the estuary into which it drains remains
unfilled. Sediments generally are rapidly deposited, and, even if
resuspended, only a small portion might escape. As a result, regardless
of other characteristics (shelf width, waves, or tides, as indicated in
Fig. 3A), most river sediments accumulate within the estuary. The

Fig. 5. Major types of marine river-sediment dispersal systems (left side) and representative examples of each type (except EAD, right side). Examples for the PAD (B), CC (C), MDD
(D) and SDC (E) are the Po, Sepik, Eel and Fly rivers, respectively (right). These example systems do not reflect end-members. The distribution of 100-y sediment accumulation rates
are shown in small figures for each example system. Locations of maximum fine-grained sediment accumulation in each system type (left) and examples (right) are shown in red.
Isobath positions are noted on right. See Table 1 for references.
40 J.P. Walsh, C.A. Nittrouer / Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45
Delaware and Susquehanna rivers are two examples of EAD systems,
but numerous others are found along the west and east sides of the
Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere. Based on these two systems, the
sediment load criterion for an EAD system is assumed to be b2 Mt y− 1
(Fig. 3A). However, quantitative knowledge about the sediment
budgets from more systems may shift this boundary. Sediment load
is not expected to be the sole factor regulating this system type, but it
is used here as a first-order proxy. The size of the receiving estuary, the
timing of the discharge, and the oceanographic conditions also can be
important.
5.1.2. Proximal-accumulation-dominated (PAD) systems
As in the EAD case, PAD systems are also characterized by
flocculation and rapid deposition of fine-grained sediments. In these
cases, however, the sediments supplied by source streams have filled
the estuaries and presently enter coastal water bodies experiencing
relatively small waves and a low tidal range (Fig. 3B). With diminished
stream-transport capacity from effluent spreading and insufficient
bed shear stresses for sediment movement by marine processes, the
majority (N50%) of fine-grained sediments flocculate and deposit
close to (within a few kilometers of) the coastline (e.g., Fisk et al.,
1954; Scruton, 1960; Frignani and Langone, 1991; Fox et al., 2004;
Frignani et al., 2005; Corbett et al., 2006; Palinkas and Nittrouer,
2007). A significant portion of the load also can be advected in the
direction of prevailing currents (e.g., 35–40% for the Po River, Fig. 5;
Frignani et al., 2005). This rapid proximal sediment accumulation
forms the depositional bulge where each distributary reaches the
coastline (Fisk et al., 1954). Like the Mississippi delta, these systems
can build to unstable relief onto the surrounding shelf, and thus be
prone to mass-failure events (e.g., Coleman and Prior, 1988). Due to
the nature of PAD systems (i.e., sediments accumulate rapidly near
their discharge location), channel migration and switching are
common. For this reason, sediment may be discharged by more than
one distributary channel, and several foci of sediment accumulation
can occur on the continental shelf adjacent to each distributary
channel (Fig. 5, right).
5.1.3. Canyon-captured (CC) systems
At CC river mouths, the majority of the sediment load moves
rapidly down a canyon immediately seaward of the river mouth;
sediment gravity flows (e.g., turbidity currents) are the primary
means of sediment transport to the deep sea in such systems (Heezen
et al., 1964; Kineke et al., 2000; Walsh and Nittrouer, 2003). The
proximity of a submarine canyon is the most important factor
determining the degree to which, the load of a system is lost to a
canyon. At river mouths where the shelf is narrow (and steep),
canyons can be more closely positioned to a fluvial source, or may
form the natural extensions of river valleys. As a first approach, the
minimum gradient for an autosuspending gravity flow (0.7°; Wright
et al., 2001) is used to identify margins where this form of transport
will dominate. This criterion suggests that shelves b12 km in width
(assuming a shelf break depth of 150 m) are locations where CC
systems should be anticipated. The two examples described here, the
Sepik and Congo rivers, match this description. Because CC systems
are most likely found in areas with narrow continental shelves that
typically have small tidal ranges, they should plot near the abscissa in
Fig. 3B. Other types of modern dispersal systems can lose a portion of
their sediment load to the deep sea (e.g., Eel: Mullenbach and
Nittrouer, 2000; Columbia: Baker and Hickey, 1986; Mississippi:
Coleman et al., 1998; Ganges–Brahmaputra: Kuehl et al., 1989), yet
these are not classified as CC systems as the majority (N50%) is not lost
to a canyon.
Many studies of modern dispersal systems have documented the
transport of fluvial sediment through canyons. These incised features
may extend very close to river mouths, thereby intercepting the shelf
dispersal pathway of river sediments. A significant portion of the
sediment from the Sepik, Eel, Congo, and Ganges–Brahmaputra River
is transported regularly and rapidly by sediment gravity flows through
submarine canyons (Heezen et al., 1964; Kudrass et al., 1998;
Mullenbach and Nittrouer, 2000; Puig et al., 2003; Walsh and
Nittrouer, 2003; Puig et al., 2004). All of these systems have shelves
narrower than 50 km adjacent to the canyon head. These examples
provide good evidence for the impact of shelf width on off-shelf
sediment transport (Walsh and Nittrouer, 2003). In the CC systems
(Sepik and Congo Rivers), a submarine canyon extends essentially into
the river mouth; in other cases, a canyon is incised into the
surrounding margin near the discharge location. The Ganges–
Brahmaputra system highlights how a canyon may capture a
significant part (~1/3) of the river sediment budget, although not
being immediately adjacent to the river mouth (Goodbred and Kuehl,
1999). The Swatch of No Ground (a submarine canyon) is situated
over 200 km from the river mouth, yet sediment is actively
transported into and through this canyon because of strong along-
shelf transport and the very narrow shelf at the canyon head (Kudrass
et al., 1998). Numerous aspects of sedimentary dynamics (e.g., bottom
Ekman veering, internal waves) and their coupling can also impact the
extent of off-shelf sediment transport.
5.1.4. Marine-dispersal-dominated (MDD) systems
Bottom-boundary layer transport and sediment gravity flows
efficiently disperse most river sediments on the continental margin
surrounding an MDD system. The cartoon of a MDD system implies
one large area of greatest sediment accumulation (Fig. 5, left). But, as
depicted for the Eel River system, several isolated foci of sediment
accumulation may exist; these distorted bulls-eye patterns may be
related to dominant currents, fluid-mud transport pathways, and
structural controls allowing sediment accumulation to be locally
elevated at several sites over the same time scale (Fig. 5, right;
Nittrouer and Sternberg, 1981; Jaeger et al., 1998; Alexander and
Simoneau., 1999; Sommerfield and Nittrouer, 1999; Mullenbach and
Nittrouer, 2000). MDD systems develop where rivers discharge their
sediment load into an oceanographic environment with moderate to
large waves and/or currents (gray area in Fig. 3B). Because of
energetic receiving-basin conditions, the majority of the fine-grained
sediment load cannot accumulate at shallow water depths proximal to
the river mouth; only a fraction (up to 10%) may be sequestered
among proximal sandy sediments (e.g., the Eel River shelf; Crockett
and Nittrouer, 2004). The development of fluid muds during flooding
can allow deposition of discrete beds at a consistent location on the
continental shelf (Wheatcroft et al., 1997; Sommerfield and Nittrouer,
1999). Nevertheless, a considerable portion of the load is advected
across and along the margin (tens to hundreds of kilometers) as a
result of efficient dispersal by bottom and intermediate nepheloid
layers (Alexander and Simoneau, 1999; Walsh and Nittrouer, 1999;
Mullenbach and Nittrouer, 2000; Puig et al., 2003, 2004). The impact
of the mean significiant wave height and tidal range on the nearest
maximum shelf depocenter suggests their critical control on MDD
development (Fig. 4). These relationships reflect the importance of
wave orbitals and tidal currents on the depth and distances,
respectively, where fine sediment can accumulate. The data suggest
that both waves and tides are important to continental-margin
sediment dispersal and, specifically, MDD-system functioning.
5.1.5. Subaqueous-delta-clinoform (SDC) systems
SDC systems are different from EAD and PAD systems in that their
coastline is characterized by a “tide-dominated delta” (triangular-
shaped) as a result of strong astronomical tidal flow (Coleman and
Wright, 1975; Galloway; 1975), and tidal flows are important in
carrying the fine-sediment load greater distances from the shoreline
(Figs. 3B and 5). In dispersal systems with a SDC, at least two
important areas (including the SDC) of marine sediment storage are
identified (Fig. 5, left). Expansive coastal wetlands and floodplains are
 J.P. Walsh, C.A. Nittrouer / Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45 41

common to these systems, and a significant fraction of the river
sediment load may be stored in these regularly (marine) or
episodically (freshwater) flooded areas. These characteristics result
from the broad, low-gradient margins where SDC systems are located.
In the Amazon and Ganges–Brahmaputra systems, it is estimated that
about one third of the load is sequestered in the region between the
beginning of tidal influence and the river mouth (Nittrouer et al.,
1996; Goodbred and Kuehl, 1998). Coastal areas of the Gulf of Papua
may store 14% of the load from several large rivers including the Fly,
Kikori, and Purari Rivers (Walsh and Nittrouer, 2004). The separation
of coastal and shelf sinks (Fig. 5, left) is accomplished through
energetic tidal flow and wave action (Figs. 3B and 4). The pattern of
sediment accumulation on a SDC is generally aligned with bathy-
metric isobaths, and is parallel to but significantly displaced (tens to
hundreds of kilometers) from the shoreline (Fig. 5, right). This pattern
reflects the impact of waves and tides on the depth and distance of
sediment accumulation (Fig. 4). A subaqueous delta clinoform
accretes vertically to the depth (known as the rollover point) above
which fine sediments in the topset region are in disequilibrium with
the oceanographic conditions (Walsh et al., 2004). Energetic flows
gradually or episodically move sediment seaward. Ultimately, greatest
accumulation rates are situated on the more steeply dipping foreset
region, where combined (wave and current) bed shear stresses are
diminished, due to deeper water depths (Fig. 2, right; Harris et al.,
1993; Kuehl et al., 1996; Walsh et al., 2004). The rollover point (i.e., the
shallow boundary of the foreset region, where sediments accumulate
most rapidly) may be better regarded as the “wave-current base”
(Walsh et al., 2004).
Large tidal range (N2 m), in particular, is a key trait of SDC systems,
as tidal flows enable the separation between the river mouth and the
region of high sediment accumulation rates on the subaqueuos delta
clinoform (Fig. 3B). But, the amount of sediment supplied to the
margin seaward of a river mouth also is hypothesized to be important
(Fig. 3A). SDC systems listed in Table 1 have sediment loads that cover
a broad range, 115–1200 Mt y− 1. SDCs have not been found seaward of
any rivers with smaller sediment loads, e.g., Eel, Columbia. Based on
this information, we infer that any river or group of rivers with
appropriate physical conditions (i.e., large tidal range and modest
wave climate) and a load N100 Mt y− 1 could develop a SDC. The Kikori
River (which discharges 30 Mt y− 1) empties into the northwestern
Gulf of Papua along with the larger Fly and Purari Rivers among others
(Walsh et al., 2004), and the combined loads (N300 Mt y− 1; Milliman,
1995) coalesce to form a SDC in this region. The rationale for needing a
large sediment load for SDC development is based on the observation
that as the distance to the nearest maximum shelf deposition
increases non-linearly with tidal range (Fig. 4B), the area over
which sediments must accumulate to produce a subaqueous delta
clinoform also increases non-linearly because of effluent spreading.
For this reason, systems with sediment loads b100 Mt y− 1 but large
tides (N2 m) are hypothesized to be unable to form a subaqueous delta
clinoform (Fig. 3A). For the same reason, systems with large loads but
N2 m mean significant wave heights also will not create subaqueous

Fig. 6. The hierarchical decision tree developed in this study. This hierarchical decision tree is designed to predict the marine dispersal system at a river mouth using basic
oceanographic and morphologic characteristics. The tool was constructed by evaluating the factors controlling well-studied dispersal systems (Table 1; Fig. 3).
42 J.P. Walsh, C.A. Nittrouer / Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45
delta clinoforms (Fig. 3B). More data are needed to better establish the
boundaries between SDC and MDD systems, but undoubtedly,
sediment load is a key factor. Given the available data, a 100 Mt y− 1
limit is assumed based on the Fly River in the westernmost (updrift)
portion of the Gulf of Papua (Fig. 3A).
5.2. A prediction tool
A reasonable prediction of the sediment dispersal type at any river
mouth can be made with knowledge of tidal range, significant wave
height, sediment supply and shelf width (Fig. 3). A hierarchical
decision tree is developed here to predict the type of marine dispersal
system at any river mouth (Fig. 6). This approach successfully predicts
all the system classifications listed in Table 1, except the Kikori and
Purari rivers which act as SDC systems as a result of their enhanced
load. With the basic information available (sediment load, shelf width,
mean significant wave height and tidal range) for a given system, one
can use the decision tree to predict the type of marine dispersal
system at a river mouth. The predictions for each system with
available (or assumed) data are plotted in Fig. 7. The prediction totals
for each system are the following: 16 EAD, 39 PAD, 9 CC, 32 MDD, and
8 SDC. In these data, PAD and MDD systems are most abundant, but, as
pointed out earlier, this study is heavily biased towards large river
systems. In reality, the number of EAD systems (i.e., those with a load
b2 Mt y− 1) should be significantly larger than the other classes, while
the number of SDC systems would be modified the least. The literature
on EAD systems is indeed extensive, but process-oriented sediment
dynamics studies and sediment budgets are needed for more EAD
systems, to better quantify trapping efficiencies. PAD and MDD
systems also are likely to be more numerous, as these are produced
by rivers with moderate sediment loads. These systems also have been
relatively understudied (Table 1). Although SDC and CC systems are
rarer, their size and nature (dominated by gravity-driven flows)
requires further research to quantify and, ultimately, model these
systems.
The research presented here attempts to find order within the
complexity of nature, and, in so doing, disregards important subtleties
in terrestrial and marine processes that have impacts on fine-grained
sediment dispersal of specific river systems. This is the bane of such
approaches. Nevertheless, this research is valuable in that it helps
Fig. 7. Predictions for the type of marine dispersal system characterizing N 100 rivers in this study. These predictions were made using the available data (Figs. 1 and 2) and the
hierarchical decision tree in Fig. 6. Data are available upon request.
explain and evaluate which and why some systems behave similarly,
and this is accomplished using data that are readily available for many
dispersal systems. Regional currents undoubtedly also play an
important role in regulating the nature of fine-sediment dispersal
on continental margins, but to the knowledge of the authors, these
data do not exist in a form that can be easily accounted for globally.
Additionally, this classification highlights the existence of distinctly
different types of dispersal systems, and this is relevant not only to
modern studies but also to interpretation of ancient strata.
5.3. A continuum of systems
The observed relationships between marine processes and the
depth and distance of the NMSD have significant implications for the
proposed classification system (Fig. 4), as they suggest that fine-
grained sediment dispersal responds over a predictable scale to mean
significant wave height and tidal range (linear and logarithmic,
respectively). It is hypothesized that the former relationship is related
to the wave orbital control on the water depth at which fine sediments
can accumulate, and the latter is caused by the distance fine-sediment
must be transported to reach these water depths on continental
shelves, which is a consequence of their shelf width. These relation-
ships imply that dispersal systems lie more in a continuum than as
discrete types (e.g., there is no exact boundary between PAD and
SDC systems). The modeling work of Swenson et al. (2005) nicely
illustrates this concept, highlighting how the changes in the distance
between the shoreline and rollover point are impacted by the physical
conditions. With these comments in mind, the reader should be aware
that the thresholds used in the decision tree (Fig. 6) are not well
defined and probably do not represent absolute boundaries (Fig. 3).
Nonetheless, the hierarchical decision tree is valuable as it provides
direction for using process-related factors to understand the diversity
in dispersal systems. Future research can test, refine and refute the
ideas presented.
5.4. System types through geologic time
It must be mentioned that the type of marine sediment dispersal
for many river systems certainly has changed with time. During low
stands of sea level, when rivers debouched at the modern shelf break,
 J.P. Walsh, C.A. Nittrouer / Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45
CC systems would have been considerably more common than today
(Milliman and Syvitski, 1992), and wave and tide conditions were
likely different as climate and shelf width (and, therefore, fetch) were
altered. As sea level rose rapidly after the Last Glacial Maximum, most
rivers systems stored their sediment loads in estuarine valleys
crossing the shelf (i.e., were EAD systems). When sea-level rise
slowed around 8–6 ky BP and where sediment overwhelmed the
holding capacity of some estuaries, deltas began to form around the
world (Warne and Stanley, 1995). In this way, the modern dispersal
systems presented in Fig. 7 reflect the transition of former estuaries to
non-EAD systems (i.e., a balance between sediment fill and initial
size). This evolution in system behavior must be kept in mind when
interpreting the geologic record.
5.5. Implications
Variability in the process-related partitioning of sediments in the
five fundamental types of dispersal systems identified in this study has
significant implications for the fate of carbon; a detailed discussion
with specific focus on large river margins is provided in McKee et al.
(2004). Rapid deposition and accumulation of sediment, particularly
in thick beds from sediment gravity flows (e.g., fluid muds or turbidity
currents) can minimize biological mixing and carbon respiration.
Continued remobilization of sediment allows multiple opportunities
for carbon respiration by oxygen-, iron-, and manganese-based
electron-receptor systems for bacterial decomposition (Aller et al.,
2004). Particularly in EAD, PAD and CC cases, terrestrially supplied
carbon can have little opportunity for oxidation in the marine
environment; rapid transport and thick accumulation of sediment
likely minimizes oxygen exposure times, and enhances carbon burial
(Hedges and Keil, 1995; Harnett et al., 1998). Fluid muds also can
transport sediment in MDD and SDC systems, but much of this
sediment experiences multiple episodes of sediment movement, and
carbon has repeated opportunities for incineration in such systems
(Aller, 1998). Dynamics and complexities in carbon loading (e.g., Goni
et al., 1997; Leithold and Blair, 2001) and respiration with multiple
electron receptors (e.g., Aller, 1998) need to be better understood in all
types of dispersal systems for the development of realistic global
carbon budgets (Keil et al., 1997; McKee et al., 2004).
6. Conclusions
The conclusions of this research are the following:
1) Fine-grained fluvial sediment dispersal systems can be divided
into five basic types: estuarine accumulation dominated (EAD),
canyon captured (CC), proximal accumulation dominated (PAD),
marine dispersal dominated (MDD), and subaqueous delta clino-
form (SDC).
2) These divisions are based on the dominant mode and pattern of
sedimentation anticipated from each type. EAD and PAD systems are
regulated by flocculation, and immediate deposition. CC systems are
dominated by gravity-driven off-shelf sediment transport, and MDD
and SDC are controlled by dilute suspension transport in the benthic-
boundary-layer and sediment gravity flows.
3) Basic characteristics of these systems (mean significant wave
height, tidal range, shelf width and sediment load) can be used to
predict the dispersal system using a hierarchical decision tree.
4) Strong relationships between the mean significant wave height and
the depth and distance of the nearest maximum shelf depocenter
suggest that a continuum exists between the systems types.
5) More research is needed to verify or improve the definition of the
boundaries between the dispersal system types, and develop a
better understanding how sedimentological and geochemical
processes affect the quality and quantity of sediment accumulation.
43
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the National Science Foundation (grants OCE
9904167, OCE 0203351 and OCE 0452166), the National Geographic
Society (grant 6573-99) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR
N00014-00-1-0846) for funding this research. Neal Driscoll gave
helpful support for this paper. The work was inspired by discussions
with many past lab mates and other colleagues. Liviu Giosan and other
anonymous reviewers are acknowledged for suggestions which
improved the manuscript.
References
Alexander, C.R., Simoneau, A.M., 1999. Spatial variability in sedimentary processes on
the Eel continental slope. Mar. Geol. 154 (1–4), 243–254.
Alexander, C.R., DeMaster, D.J., Nittrouer, C.A., 1991. Sediment accumulation in a modern
epicontinental-shelf setting—the Yellow Sea. Mar. Geol. 98 (1), 51–72.
Allen, J.R.L., 1964. Sedimentation in the modern delta of the river Niger, west Africa,
Deltaic and shallow marine deposits. In: Van Straaten, L.M.J.U. (Ed.), Deltaic and
Shallow Marine Deposits: Proceedings of the 6th International Sedimentological
Congress. Developments in Sedimentology 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 26–34.
Aller, R.C., 1998. Mobile deltaic and continental shelf muds as suboxic, fluidized bed
reactors. Mar. Chem. 61 (3–4), 143–155.
Aller, R.C., Hannides, A., Heilbrun, C., Panzeca, C., 2004. Coupling of early diagenetic
processes and sedimentary dynamics in tropical shelf environments: the Gulf of
Papua deltaic complex. Cont. Shelf Res. 24, 2455–2486.
Allison, M.A., Neill, C.F., 2002. Accumulation rates and stratigraphic character of the
modern Atchafalaya River prodelta, Louisiana. Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. 52,
1031–1040.
Aloisi, J.C., Monaco, A., Thommeret, J., Thommeret, Y., 1975. Evolution paleogeographi-
que du plateau continental languedocien dans le cadre du golfe du Lyon; Analyse
comparee des donnees sismiques, sedimentologiques et radiometriques concer-
nant le Quaternaire recent. (Paleogeographical evolution of the Languedoc
continental shelf in the framework of the Gulf of Lion; comparative analysis from
seismic, sedimentologic and radiometric data concerning the upper Quaternary).
Rev. Geogr. Phys. Geol. Dyn. 17 (1), 13–22.
Baker, E.T., Hickey, B.M., 1986. Contemporary sedimentation processes in and around an
active West-Coast submarine-canyon. Mar. Geol. 71, 15–34.
Bornhold, B.D., Yang, Z.S., Keller, G.H., Prior, D.B., Wiseman, W.J., Wang, Q., Wright, L.D.,
Xu, W.D., Zhuang, Z.Y., 1986. Sedimentary framework of the modern Huanghe
(Yellow-River) Delta. Geo-Mar. Lett. 6 (2), 77–83.
British Oceanographic Data Center, 1994. GEBCO Digital Atlas. British Oceanographic
Data Center, Birkenhead, Merseyside, United Kingdom.
Cacchione, D., Sternberg, R.W., Ogston, A.S., 2006. Bottom instrumented tripods:
history, applications, and impacts. Cont. Shelf Res. 26 (17–18), 2319–2334.
Coleman, J.M., Wright, L.D., 1975. Modern river deltas: variability of processes and sand
bodies. In: Broussard, M.L. (Ed.), Deltas, Models for Exploration. Houston Geological
Society, Houston, pp. 99–149.
Coleman, J.M., Prior, D.B., 1988. Mass-wasting on continental margins. Annu. Rev. Earth
Planet. Sci. 16, 101–119.
Coleman, J.M., Roberts, H.H., Murray, S.P., Salama, M., 1981. Morphology and dynamic
sedimentology of the Eastern Nile Delta Shelf. Mar. Geol. 42 (1–4), 301–326.
Coleman, J.M., Roberts, H.H., Stone, G.W., 1998. Mississippi River delta: an overview. J.
Coast. Res. 14 (3), 698–716.
Corbett, D.R., Mckee, B., Allison, M., 2006. Nature of decadal-scale sediment
accumulation on the western shelf of the Mississippi River delta. Cont. Shelf Res.
26, 2125–2140.
Correggiari, A., Trincardi, F., Langone, L., Roveri, M., 2001. Styles of failure in late
Holocene highstand prodelta wedges on the Adriatic shelf. J. Sediment. Res. 71 (2),
218–236.
Crockett, J.S., Nittrouer, C.A., 2004. The sandy inner shelf as a repository for muddy
sediment: an example from Northern California. Cont. Shelf Res. 24 (1), 55–73.
Dalrymple, R.W., Zaitlin, B.A., Boyd, R., 1992. Estuarine facies models: conceptual basis
and stratigraphic implications. J. Sediment. Petrol. 62, 1130–1146.
Davis, R.A., Hayes, M.O., 1984. What is a wave-dominated coast? Mar. Geol. 60, 313–329.
Droz, L., Rigaut, F., Cochonat, P., Tofani, R., 1996. Morphology and recent evolution of the
Zaire turbidite system (Gulf of Guinea). Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 108 (3), 253–269.
Dukat, D.A., Kuehl, S.A., 1995. Non-steady-state Pb-210 flux and the use of Ra-228/Ra-
226 as a geochronometer on the Amazon Continental-Shelf. Mar. Geol. 125 (3–4),
329–350.
Fisk, H.N., McFarlan, E.J., Kolb, C.R., Wilbert, L.J., 1954. Sedimentary framework of the
modern Mississippi delta. J. Sediment. Petrol. 24, 76–99.
Fletcher, C.H., Knebel, H.J., Kraft, J.C., 1992. Holocene depocenter migration and
sediment accumulation in Delaware Bay—a submerging marginal marine sedi-
mentary basin. Mar. Geol. 103 (1–3), 165–183.
Fox, J.M., Hill, P.S., Milligan, T.G., Boldrin, A., 2004. Flocculation and sedimentation on
the Po River Delta. Mar. Geol. 203 (1–2), 95–107.
Frignani, M., Langone, L., 1991. Accumulation rates and Cs-137 distribution in sediments
off the Po River Delta and the Emilia-Romagna Coast (Northwestern Adriatic Sea,
Italy). Cont. Shelf Res. 11 (6), 525–542.
Frignani, M., Langone, L., Ravaioli, M., Sorgente, D., Alvisi, F., Albertazzi, S., 2005. Fine-
sediment mass balance in the western Adriatic continental shelf over a century
time scale. Mar. Geol. 222–223, 113–133.
44 J.P. Walsh, C.A. Nittrouer / Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45
Galloway, W.E., 1975. Process framework for describing the morphologic and
stratigraphic evolution of deltaic depositional systems. In: Broussard, M.L. (Ed.),
Deltas, Models for Exploration. Houston Geological Society, Houston, pp. 87–98.
Geyer, W.R., Hill, P.S., Kineke, G.C., 2004. The transport, transformation and dispersal of
sediment by buoyant coastal flows. Cont. Shelf Res. 24, 927–949.
Giosan, L., Constantinescu, S., Clift, P.D., Tabrez, A.R., Danish, M., Inam, A., 2006. Recent
morphodynamics of the Indus delta shore ans shelf. Cont. Shelf Res. 26, 1668–1684.
Goni, M.A., Ruttenberg, K.C., Eglinton, T.I., 1997. Source and contribution of terrigenous
organic carbon to surface sediments in the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 389 (6648), 275–278.
Goodbred, S.L., Kuehl, S.A., 1998. Floodplain processes in the Bengal Basin and the
storage of Ganges–Brahmaputra river sediment: an accretion study using Cs-137
and Pb-210 geochronology. Sediment. Geol. 121 (3–4), 239–258.
Goodbred, S.L., Kuehl, S.A., 1999. Holocene and modern sediment budgets for the
Ganges–Brahmaputra river system: evidence for highstand dispersal to flood-plain,
shelf, and deep-sea depocenters. Geology 27 (6), 559–562.
Got, H., Aloesi, J.-C., Monaco, A., 1985. Sedimentary processes in Mediterranean deltas
and shelves. In: Stanley, D.J., Wezel, F.-C. (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
Harris, P.T., Baker, E.K., Cole, A.R., Short, S.A., 1993. A preliminary-study of sedimentation
in the tidally dominated Fly River Delta, Gulf of Papua. Cont. Shelf Res. 13 (4),
441–472.
Hartnett, H.E., Keil, R.G., Hedges, J.I., Devol, A.H., 1998. Influence of oxygen exposure
time on organic carbon preservation in continental margin sediments. Nature 391
(6667), 572–574.
Hedges, J.I., Keil, R.G., 1995. Sedimentary organic-matter preservation—an assessment
and speculative synthesis. Mar. Chem. 49 (2–3), 81–115.
Heezen, B.C., Ewing, M., Granelli, N.C.L., Menzies, R.J., Schneider, E.D., 1964. Congo
submarine canyon. Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. 48 (7), 1126–1149.
Hori, K., et al., 2001. Sedimentary facies of the tide-dominated paleo-Changjiang
(Yangtze) estuary during the last transgression. Mar. Geol. 177 (3–4), 331–351.
Hori, K., Saito, Y., Zhao, Q., Wang, P., 2002. Architecture and evolution of the tide-
dominated Changjiang (Yangtze) River delta, China. Sediment. Geol. 146 (3–4),
249–264.
Hovius, N., 1998. Controls on sediment supply by large rivers. SEPM Spec. Publ. 42,
47–69.
Jakobsson, M., et al., 2000. New grid of Arctic bathymetry aids scientists and
mapmakers. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 81 (9), 89, 93, 96.
Jaeger, J.M., Nittrouer, C.A., Scott, N.D., Milliman, J.D., 1998. Sediment accumulation
along a glacially impacted mountainous coastline: North-east Gulf of Alaska. Basin
Res. 10 (1), 155–173.
Keil, R.G., Mayer, L.M., Quay, P.D., Richey, J.E., Hedges, J.I., 1997. Loss of organic matter
from riverine particles in deltas. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 61 (7), 1507–1511.
Kineke, G.C., Woolfe, K.J., Kuehl, S.A., Milliman, J.D., Dellapenna, T.M., Purdon, R.G., 2000.
Sediment export from the Sepik River, Papua New Guinea: evidence for a divergent
sediment plume. Cont. Shelf Res. 20, 2239–2266.
Kudrass, H.R., Michels, K.H., Wiedicke, M., Suckow, A., 1998. Cyclones and tides as
feeders of a submarine canyon off Bangladesh. Geology 26, 715–718.
Kuehl, S.A., Hariu, T.M., Moore, W.S., 1989. Shelf sedimentation off the Ganges–
Brahmaputra River system—evidence for sediment bypassing to the Bengal fan.
Geology 17 (12), 1132–1135.
Kuehl, S.A., Nittrouer, C.A., Allison, M.A., Faria, L.E.C., Dukat, D.A., Jaeger, J.M., Pacioni, T.D.,
Figueiredo, A.G., Underkoffler, E.C., 1996. Sediment deposition, accumulation, and
seabed dynamics in are energetic fine-grained coastal environment. Cont. Shelf Res.
16 (5–6), 787–815.
Kuehl, S.A., Levy, B.M., Moore, W.S., Allison, M.A., 1997. Subaqueous delta of the Ganges–
Brahmaputra river system. Mar. Geol. 144 (1–3), 81–96.
Langland, M., Cronin, T. (Eds.), 2000. A Summary Report of Sediment Processes in
Chesapeake Bay and Watershed. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-
4123. U.S. Geological Survey, p. 122.
Leithold, E.L., Blair, N.E., 2001. Watershed control on the carbon loading of marine
sedimentary particles. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 65, 2231–2240.
Liu, J.P., Milliman, J.D., Gao, S., 2002. The Shandong mud wedge and post-glacial
sediment accumulation in the Yellow Sea. Geo-Mar. Lett. 21 (4), 212–218.
Liu, J.P., Milliman, J.D., Gao, S., Cheng, P., 2004. Holocene development of the Yellow
River's subaqueous delta, North Yellow Sea. Mar. Geol. 209 (1–4), 45–67.
Maldonado, A., Serra, J., Martrous, F., Verdaguer, A., Aloisi, J.C., Got, H., Monaco, A.,
Mirabile, L., 1980. La plateforme continentale de l'Ebre dans le cadre de l'evolution
recente du delta. The continental shelf of the Ebro region in the framework of Recent
delta evolution. Abstracts-International Geological Congress 26, Paris, p. 508.
McCave, I.N., 1972. Transport and escape of fine-grained sediment from shelf areas. In:
Swift, D.J.P., Duane, D., Pilkey, O.H. (Eds.), Shelf Sediment Transport. Dowden
Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 225–248.
McKee, B.A., Nittrouer, C.A., DeMaster, D.J., 1983. Concepts of sediment deposition and
accumulation applied to the continental-shelf near the mouth of the Yangtze-River.
Geology 11 (11), 631–633.
McKee, B.A., DeMaster, D.J., Nittrouer, C.A., 1984. The use of Th-234/U-238 disequili-
brium to examine the fate of particle-reactive species on the Yangtze continental-
shelf. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 68 (3), 431–442.
McKee, B.A., Aller, R.C., Allison, M.A., Bianchi, T.S., Kineke, G.C., 2004. Transport and
transformation of dissolved and particulate materials on continental margins
influenced by major rivers: benthic boundary layer and seabed processes. Cont.
Shelf Res. 24 (7–8), 899–926.
Michels, K.H., Kudrass, H.R., Hubscher, C., Suckow, A., Wiedicke, M., 1998. The submarine
delta of the Ganges–Brahmaputra: cyclone-dominated sedimentation patterns.
Mar. Geol. 149 (1–4), 133–154.
Milliman, J.D., 1995. Sediment discharge to the ocean from small mountainous rivers:
the New Guinea example. Geo-Mar. Lett. 15 (3–4), 127–133.
Milliman, J.D., Meade, R.H., 1983. World-wide delivery of river sediment to the oceans. J.
Geol. 91 (1), 1–21.
Milliman, J.D., Syvitski, J.P.M., 1992. Geomorphic tectonic control of sediment discharge
to the ocean—the importance of small mountainous rivers. J. Geol. 100 (5),
525–544.
Mullenbach, B.L., Nittrouer, C.A., 2000. Rapid deposition of fluvial sediment in the Eel
Canyon, northern California. Cont. Shelf Res. 20 (16), 2191–2212.
Nelson, H., Creager, J.S., 1977. Displacement of Yukon-derived sediment from Bering Sea
to Chukchi Sea during Holocene time. Geology 5 (3), 141–146.
Nelson, C.H., Rowland, R.W., Stoker, S.W., Bradley, B.R., 1980. Interplay of physical and
biological sedimentary structiures of the Bering epicontinental shelf. In: Larsen, M.
C., Nelson, C.H., Thor, D.R. (Eds.), Geological, Geochemical, and Geotechinical
Observation on the Bering Shelf, Open-File Report 80-979. U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, VA.
Nittrouer, C.A., Sternberg, R.W., 1981. The formation of sedimentary strata in an
allochthonous shelf environment—the Washington continental-shelf. Mar. Geol. 42
(1–4), 201–232.
Nittrouer, C.A., Wright, L.D., 1994. Transport of particles across continental shelves. Rev.
Geophys. 32 (1), 85–113.
Nittrouer, C.A., DeMaster, D.J., McKee, B.A., 1984. Fine-scale stratigraphy in proximal and
distal deposits of sediment dispersal systems in the East China Sea. Mar. Geol. 61
(1), 13–24.
Nittrouer, C.A., Kuehl, S.A., DeMaster, D.J., Kowsmann, R.O., 1986. The deltaic nature of
Amazon shelf sedimentation. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 97 (4), 444–458.
Nittrouer, C.A., et al., 1996. The geological record preserved by Amazon shelf
sedimentation. Cont. Shelf Res. 16 (5–6), 817–841.
Nittrouer, C.A., Austin, J.A., Field, M.E., Kravitz, J.H., Syvitski, J.P.M., Wiberg, P.L., 2007.
Writing a Rosetta Stone: Insights into Continental-Margin Sedimentary Processes
and Strata, Special Publication 37 of the International Association of Sedimentol-
ogists. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA. 549 pp.
Ogston, A.S., Cacchione, D.A., Sternberg, R.W., Kineke, G.C., 2000. Observations of storm
and river flood-driven sediment transport on the northern california continental
shelf. Cont. Shelf Res. 20, 2141–2162.
Orton, G.J., Reading, H.G., 1993. Variability of deltaic processes in terms of sediment
supply, with particular emphasis on grain size. Sedimentology 40, 475–512.
Palanques, A., Puig, P., Guillen, J., Jimenez, J., Gracia, V., Sanchez-Arcilla, A., Madsen, O.,
2002. Near-bottom suspended sediment fluxes on the microtidal low-energy Ebro
continental shelf (NW Mediterranean). Cont. Shelf Res. 22 (2), 285–303.
Palinkas, C.M., Nittrouer, C.A., 2007. Modern sediment accumulation on the Po shelf,
Adriatic Sea. Cont. Shelf Res. 27, 489–505.
Pinet, P., Souriau, M., 1988. Continental erosion and large-scale relief. Tectonics 7,
563–582.
Puig, P., Ogston, A.S., Mullenbach, B.L., Nittrouer, C.A., Sternberg, R.W., 2003. Shelf-to-
canyon sediment-transport processes on the Eel continental margin (northern
California). Mar. Geol. 193 (1–2), 129–149.
Puig, P., Ogston, A.S., Mullenbach, B.L., Nittrouer, C.A., Parsons, J.D., Sternberg, R.W.,
2004. Storm-induced sediment gravity flows at the head of the Eel submarine
canyon, northern California margin. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 109 (C3).
Rodriguez, A.B., Hamilton, M.D., Anderson, J.B., 2000. Facies and evolution of the
modern Brazos Delta, Texas; wave versus flood influence. J. Sediment. Res. 70 (2),
283–295.
Scruton, P.C., 1960. Delta building and the deltaic sequence. In: Shepard, F.P., Phleger, F.B.,
van Andel, T.H. (Eds.), Recent Sediments, northwest Gulf of Mexico. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK.
Smith, W.H.F., Sandwell, D.T., 1997. Global sea floor topography from satellite altimetry
and ship depth soundings. Science 277, 1956–1962.
Sommerfield, C.K., Nittrouer, C.A., 1999. Modern accumulation rates and a sediment
budget for the Eel shelf: a flood-dominated depositional environment. Mar. Geol.
154 (1–4), 227–241.
Sternberg, R., 2005. Sediment transport in the coastal ocean: a retrospective evaluation
of the benthic tripod and its impact, past, present and future. Sci. Mar. 69, 43–54.
Sternberg, R.W., Nowell, A.R.M., 1999. Continental shelf sedimentology: scales of
investigation define future research opportunities. J. Sea Res. 41 (1–2), 55–71.
Sternberg, R.W., Kineke, G.C., Johnson, R., 1991. An instrument system for profiling
suspended sediment, fluid, and flow conditions in shallow marine environments.
Cont. Shelf Res. 11 (2), 109–122.
Summerfield, M.A., Hulton, N.J., 1994. Natural controls of fluvial denudation rates
in major world drainage basins. J. Geophys. Res. B Solid Earth Planets 99,
13871–13883.
Summerhayes, C.P., Sestini, G., Misdorp, R., Marks, N., 1978. Nile Delta; nature and
evolution of continental shelf sediments. Mar. Geol. 27 (1–2), 43–65.
Swenson, J.B., Paola, C., Pratson, L., Voller, V.R., Murray, A.B., 2005. Fluvial and marine
controls on combined subaerial and subaqueous delta progradation: morphody-
namic modeling of compound-clinoform development. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf.
110, 1–16.
Swift, D.J.P., Thorne, J.A., 1991. Sedimentation on continental margins: I. A general model
for shelf sedimentation. In: Swift, D.J.P., Tillman, R.W., Oertel, G.F., Thorne, J.A.
(Eds.), Shelf Sand and Sandstone Bodies, Geometry, Facies and Sequence
Stratigraphy: International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication,
vol. 14, pp. 3–31.
Syvitski, J.P.M., Vörösmarty, C.J., Kettner, A.J., Green, P.A., 2005. Impact of humans on the
flux of terrestrial sediment to the global coastal ocean. Science 308, 376–380.
Ta, T.K.O., Nguyen, V.L., Tateishi, M., Kobayashi, I., Saito, Y., Nakamura, T., 2002a. Sediment
facies and Late Holocene progradation of the Mekong River Delta in Bentre Province,
southern Vietnam: an example of evolution from a tide-dominated to a tide- and
wave-dominated delta. Sediment. Geol. 152 (3–4), 313–325.
 J.P. Walsh, C.A. Nittrouer / Marine Geology 263 (2009) 34–45
Ta, T.K.O., Nguyen, V.L., Tateishi, M., Kobayashi, I., Tanabe, S., Saito, Y., 2002b. Holocene
delta evolution and sediment discharge of the Mekong River southern Vietnam.
Quat. Sci. Rev. 21 (16–17), 1807–1819.
Tolman, H.L., 2002. User manual and system documentation of WAVEWATCH-III version
2.22. NOAA/NWS/NCEP/OMB technical note, 222: 133 pp.
Traykovski, P., Geyer, W.R., Irish, J.D., Lynch, J.F., 2000. The role of wave-induced density-
driven fluid mud flows for cross-shelf transport on the Eel River continental shelf.
Cont. Shelf Res. 20, 2113–2140.
Walsh, J.P., Nittrouer, C.A., 1999. Observations of sediment flux to the Eel continental
slope, northern California. Mar. Geol. 154 (1–4), 55–68.
Walsh, J.P., Nittrouer, C.A., 2003. Contrasting styles of off-shelf sediment accumulation
in New Guinea. Mar. Geol. 196 (3–4), 105–125.
Walsh, J.P., Nittrouer, C.A., 2004. Mangrove sedimentation in the Gulf of Papua, Papua
New Guinea. Mar. Geol. 208, 225–248.
Walsh, J.P., et al., 2004. Clinoform mechanics in the Gulf of Papua, New Guinea. Cont.
Shelf Res. 24 (19), 2487–2510.
Wang, X.H., Pinardi, N., 2002. Modeling the dynamics of sediment transport and
resuspension in the northern Adriatic Sea. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 107 (C12), 3225.
45
Warne, A.G., Stanley, D.J., 1995. Sea-level change as critical factor in development of
basin margin sequences: new evidence from late Quaternary record. J. Coast. Res.
Spec. Issue 17, 231–240.
Wheatcroft, R.A., Sommerfield, C.K., Drake, D.E., Borgeld, J.C., Nittrouer, C.A., 1997. Rapid
and widespread dispersal of flood sediment on the northern California margin.
Geology 25 (2), 163–166.
Wright, L.D., 1985. River deltas, In: Davis, R.A. (Ed.), Coastal Sedimentary Environments,
2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 1–75.
Wright, L.D., Nittrouer, C.A., 1995. Dispersal of river sediments in coastal seas—six
contrasting cases. Estuaries 18 (3), 494–508.
Wright, L.D., Wiseman, W.J., Bornhold, B.D., Prior, D.B., Suhayda, J.N., Keller, G.H., Yang,
Z.S., Fan, Y.B., 1988. Marine dispersal and deposition of Yellow-River silts by gravity-
driven underflows. Nature 332, 629–632.
Wright, L.D., Friedrichs, C.T., Kim, S.C., Scully, M.E., 2001. Effects of ambient currents and
waves on gravity-driven sediment transport on continental shelves. Mar. Geol. 175
(1–4), 25–45.