LETTERS
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 17 AUGUST 2015 | DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2505
Braiding of submarine channels controlled by
aspect ratio similar to rivers
Brady Z. Foreman1*†, Steven Y. J. Lai2, Yuhei Komatsu3 and Chris Paola1
The great majority of submarine channels formed by turbidity
and density currents are meandering in planform; they consist
of a single, sinuous channel that transports a turbid, dense
flow of sediment from submarine canyons to ocean floor envi-
ronments1,2 . Braided turbidite systems consisting of multiple,
interconnected channel threads are conspicuously rare1 . Fur-
thermore, such systems may not represent the spontaneous
planform instability of true braiding, but instead result from
erosive processes or bathymetric variability3–5 . In marked con-
trast to submarine environments, both meandering and braided
planforms are common in fluvial systems6,7 . Here we present
experiments of subaqueous channel formation conducted at
two laboratory facilities. We find that density currents readily
produce a braided planform for flow aspect ratios of depth
to width that are similar to those that produce river braiding.
Moreover, we find that stability model theory for river planform
morphology8 successfully describes submarine channels in
both experiments and the field. On the basis of these observa-
tions, we propose that the rarity of braided submarine channels
is explained by the generally greater flow depths in submarine
systems, which necessitate commensurately greater widths
to achieve the required aspect ratio, along with feedbacks9,10
among flow thickness, suspended sediment concentration and
channel relief that induce greater levee deposition rates and
limit channel widening.
Alluvial rivers and submarine channels represent the main
conduits by which sediment is transported and deposited across
Earth’s surface, and are central in the construction of terrestrial
and marine topography1,7 . High-resolution imaging of submarine
morphology has revealed a striking degree of parallelism between
submarine and terrestrial channels, with meandering, dendritic
(tributary) and fan-like (distributary) morphologies well developed
in both realms. But there is a glaring gap in the set of
morphologic parallels: whereas both subaerial and submarine
channels systems exhibit single-thread meandering and multi-
thread braided planform morphologies1,2,6,7 , it is not clear whether
true braiding occurs in the submarine realm.
Meandering and braided planforms are both relatively common
in fluvial systems6,7 . Meandering rivers tend to occur on shallower
slopes characterized by more uniform hydrographs and with
relatively more suspended (finer) sediments6,7 . Braided rivers tend
to occur on steeper slopes that transport coarse-grained sediments;
these are also environments in which the hydrograph is often highly
variable (‘flashy’)6,7 . However, the link between braiding and ‘flashy’
hydrographs is probably not fundamental, as braided rivers are
easily produced experimentally under constant water discharge8,11,12 .
1 Department of Earth Sciences, St Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414, USA. 2 Department of Hydraulic
and Ocean Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan. 3 Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation, Technology Research,
Chiba 261-0025, Japan. †Present address: Department of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington 98225, USA.
*e-mail: brady.foreman@wwu.edu
700
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Similarly, the braided rivers of the Indo-Gangetic plain are a clear
natural counterpoint to these broad generalizations, as they occur
on lower slopes, transport large volumes of sand, and, in some cases,
do not exhibit flashy discharges13 . Furthermore, meandering and
braided rivers commonly differ in total sediment load, with the
former exhibiting lower concentrations than the latter6,7 . Finally, it is
common for braided rivers to transition into meandering planforms
downstream as slopes decrease and coarse sediment is selectively
deposited out6,7 .
Submarine channels formed by sediment gravity flows (turbidity
and density currents) exhibit several key differences from their
subaerial counterparts. Meandering planforms are overwhelmingly
the most prevalent, if not the sole channel planform morphology
in modern submarine settings1 . Documented braid-like submarine
morphology is rare in the literature and where identified it is unclear
whether the bars that define the pattern represent a dynamic,
autogenic instability of the flow–sediment system, as is the case for
true braiding8 , or are instead nucleated around seafloor topography
(for example, gas and fluid vents)5 or related to erosive events
that scour multiple channels around fixed erosional islands1,3,4,14 .
If the scant submarine examples are, in fact, true braided systems,
they show some opposite trends relative to their subaerial braided
counterparts. These multi-thread submarine channels occur on
notably shallow slopes, whereas meandering occurs across a wider
range of steep and shallow slopes3,4,15 . Multi-thread density currents
seem to be associated with more sustained flows as opposed to flashy
discharges. For example, such systems occur in response to near-
continuous saline undercurrents from the Bosphorus Strait into the
Black Sea5 and long-duration subglacial outburst floods of the late
Pleistocene into the northeastern Labrador Basin4 . In comparison,
episodic turbidity currents of varying magnitude and frequency
readily construct meandering submarine channels2 . Similar to
rivers, multi-thread submarine channels transport coarser grain
sizes4,16 compared to meandering submarine channels1 . Finally,
multi-thread submarine channels seem to occur downstream of
a meandering channel after flow stripping and other overbank
processes preferentially remove finer-grained sediment1,3,14 or finer-
grained sediment is lost to surface plumes4 . In the case of the
late Pleistocene submarine channels of the Labrador Basin these
processes, combined with sediment lofting, potentially led to multi-
thread turbidity currents characterized by relatively low sediment
concentrations4 , the opposite of their subaerial counterparts.
Current theory suggests that bar deposition and the development
of a braided planform is fundamentally a response to flow
instabilities controlled by the depth–width (aspect) ratio of the
flow8 . Other conditions such as slope, hydrograph, grain size and
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 8 | SEPTEMBER 2015 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
NATURE GEOSCIENCE DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2505
a 0 b 0
90
100
x (cm)
x (cm)
180
200
270
360
0 100 200 0 80 160
y (cm) y (cm)
Figure 1 | Images and topography of braided density current deposits. a, Ortho-rectified image of braided density deposits at the SAFL facility. b, Laser
scan of braided topography at the SAFL facility. c, Ortho-rectified laser-scanned image of braided density deposits at the NCKU facility. d, Image of active
density current transporting sediment in multiple channel threads draped over laser-scanned topography at the NCKU facility.
sediment flux–water discharge ratio are not directly responsible for
the development of braid bars and a braided planform8,11,12 . Instead,
these factors and other associative factors (for example, basin
geometry, vegetation, cohesion, overbank sedimentation rates) act
to influence the depth–width ratio of the flow8,11,12 . Thus braiding
develops across a wide range of conditions so long as the flow is
sufficiently wide relative to its depth7,8,17–19 . Indeed, the phenomenon
of braiding within wide channelized flow is so pervasive that it
is considered one of the premier examples of scale independence
in nature, with striking similarities between experimental and
field dimensionless morphologic measures18,19 . However, despite the
ease with which braided fluvial systems develop on experimental
scales18,19 , to our knowledge braiding in submarine channels has yet
to be produced under controlled conditions.
This is particularly surprising given the importance of
experiments in the study of sinuous submarine channels. Density
currents, particularly turbidity currents, are rare, unpredictable,
and difficult to observe in nature; they occur underwater, often at
great depth, and submarine channels can reach enormous scales
(for example, channel widths can be several tens of kilometres
and channel depths several tens to hundreds of metres)1,2 . Thus,
for many purposes experiments are the sole means to examine
channelized density currents in detail. The majority of these
experimental studies impose a static channel form, straight or
sinuous9,20,21 . Although these studies accurately capture in-channel
flow dynamics and overbank deposition, they are not intended to
provide insight into channel initiation and evolution1,9,19,20 . The
comparatively few studies that do involve channel initiation on
experimental scales have produced single-thread, weakly sinuous
channels22 or a distributary network of multiple sinuous channels23 .
Here we report experiments explicitly designed to subject
subaqueous density currents to conditions known to produce
spontaneous channel braiding in fluvial systems. Two experimental
series run in parallel at St. Anthony Fall Laboratory (SAFL)
and National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) successfully
produced braided planform morphologies from high-aspect-ratio,
subaqueous saline sheet flows with a constant flow discharge and
sediment supply (see Methods). In both experimental series the
sheet flow quickly evolved into two to five main channels that
were further segmented downstream by a network of braid bar
and lobe deposits (Fig. 1a–d). These main channels underwent
local avulsion events and braid bars tended to migrate downstream
(see Supplementary Movie). This morphology developed on an
initially smooth bed of non-cohesive sediment. An initial slope
was imposed, but the system was otherwise free to self-adjust to
sediment and discharge inputs. The two experimental systems were,
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 8 | SEPTEMBER 2015 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
LETTERS
24 c 0 d
18 30
20
z (cm)
20
12 10
40
6 0
60
z (mm)
20
x (cm)
0
80 40
−6
60
)
cm
−12 100 80
x(
−18 100
120
120
−24 60
140 140 40
0 20
0 20 40 60 y (cm)
y (cm)
on net, aggradational. Thus, by simply imposing a thin, wide flow
as an initial condition, a dynamic, braided planform spontaneously
developed. We conclude, assuming scale independence applies to
braided turbidity systems as it does to braided fluvial systems24 ,
that the sole limitation in natural turbidity systems is developing
a sufficiently wide flow, relative to depth. The question of how
submarine currents self-channelize has been raised by a number
of workers1,2,22,23 . There is clear experimental evidence for self-
channelization in net erosional settings22 . The experiments we
report here demonstrate robust spontaneous formation of multiple
channels without net erosion, under conditions similar to those
known to produce multiple channels in rivers. Although the
problem is far from fully solved, this work adds to the mounting
evidence for similarities in self-channelization between density
currents and rivers.
Our experiments, in combination with other field and experi-
mental examples, indicate that the aspect ratio of density currents
dictates the planform morphology of submarine channels, capturing
the essence of controls on the meander-braided continuum in a
similar manner to fluvial systems. Figure 2 shows the modelled
stability fields for fluvial channel planforms8 along with experi-
mental and field examples of both submarine and subaerial chan-
nels (see Supplementary Information). Forty-two of the 46 single-
thread submarine channels plot in the appropriate stability field.
Moreover, our experimental braided submarine channels, the three
modern braided examples for which there are sufficient accurate
constraints, and three examples of braided submarine channels from
the stratigraphic record all plot within the braided stability field
(see Supplementary Information for calculations and assumptions).
We conclude from these observations that, as in fluvial systems,
the main determinant for a braided versus meandering planform in
submarine channels is the depth–width ratio.
Why then does braiding seem to be less common in submarine
channels than in rivers? We suggest that there are several related
factors that inhibit the development of wide, shallow channels in
submarine as compared to fluvial systems. First, assuming all other
factors equal, the reduced density contrast driving the flow in
density currents compared to rivers means that, in general, density
currents must be much deeper to produce the same shear stress
relative to rivers, so from the outset the width needed to produce
the same aspect ratio is much larger for density flows than for rivers.
Second, in order for braiding to develop in submarine channels
in a similar manner to fluvial systems the braid bars themselves
must subdivide the flow, which requires bar forms that scale with
flow depth8,11,12,17 . However, bar forms in turbidity currents are
rarely commensurate with flow depth1 owing to the substantial
701
 LETTERS
100
NCKU
Slope/densimetric Froude number
10−1
SAFL
Northeastern
Labrador Basin
10−2
Black Sea
Orinoco fan
s
aid
br
0
10−3
r1
ve
s
aid
O
br
10
2−3 braids
3−
1−2 braids
10−4
10−5 10−4 10−3
Depth/width
Turbidity data (experimental/field data)
/ Braided
/ Meandering
Straight
Figure 2 | Theoretical stability fields of fluvial channel planforms with
supporting field and experimental river examples8 , and comparison
to submarine examples. Explanation of the sources of the fluvial and
submarine data underlying this figure can be found in the Methods and
Supplementary Information.
thicknesses of many turbidity currents and the fine-grained nature
of the upper reaches of the flow. Third, many submarine systems are
exceedingly clay-rich1,2 , implying that cohesive effects in overbank
deposits may be generally greater in submarine systems than in
fluvial systems, inhibiting channel widening. Fourth, the rates of
levee and overbank deposition compared to in-channel deposition
are significantly higher in submarine than in fluvial systems9,10,25–27 .
If channel widening is viewed as a related rates problem between
sediment removed along channel margins and sediment deposition
on levees and overbank areas, then the rate of widening should
be proportionally slower in turbidity systems. Higher levee and
overbank sedimentation rates occur due to overspill processes
because many channelized submarine flows are thicker than the
conforming channels that they construct10,28,29 . Experiments and
seismic data indicate balanced, or equal rates of aggradation
between levee tops and the channel base9,10,26–28 ; thus, thicker
flow events pass over the channel topography largely unimpeded
and contribute to overbank sedimentation9,10,26–28 . This has been
proposed to lead to the unusual stability in submarine systems9,10,26 ,
and may also help explain the paucity of submarine braiding;
changes in the thickness of flow events are accommodated by
either preferential overbank or in-channel deposition to maintain
the channel geometry9,10,26,27 , as opposed to channel widening.
Analogously, in some fluvial systems significantly reduced channel
mobility and bank erosion have been linked to high overbank
aggradation rates due to trapping of sediment by vegetation30 .
These observations combined with our experiments indicate that
the rarity of braided submarine channels is probably not due to
inherent differences between fluvial and density flow behaviour
in the channel itself, but rather is a result of the generally
greater thickness of density flows combined with greater rates
of cohesive overbank deposition in submarine systems. Overbank
processes seem to play a major role in controlling the evolution
of bathymetry and morphology of the largest sedimentary systems
on Earth.
702
NATURE GEOSCIENCE DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2505
Methods
Methods and any associated references are available in the online
Cambro−Ordovician
version of the paper.
and Miocene turbidites
Received 13 April 2015; accepted 10 July 2015;
published online 17 August 2015
References
1. Wynn, R. B., Cronin, B. T. & Peakall, J. Sinuous deep-water channels: Genesis,
geometry and architecture. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 24, 341–387 (2007).
2. Piper, D. J. W. & Normark, W. R. Processes that initiate turbidity currents and
their influence on turbidites: A marine geology perspective. J. Sedim. Res. 79,
347–362 (2009).
3. Ercilla, G. et al. New high-resolution acoustic data from the ‘braided system’ of
the Orinoco deep-sea fan. Mar. Geol. 146, 243–350 (1998).
4. Hesse, R. et al. Sandy submarine braid plains: Potential deep-water reservoirs.
Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 85, 1499–1521 (2001).
5. Flood, R. D., Hiscott, R. N. & Aksu, A. E. Morphology and evolution of an
anastomosed channel network where saline underflow enters the Black Sea.
10−2 10−1 100 Sedimentology 56, 807–839 (2009).
6. Leopold, L. B. & Wolman, M. G. River channel patterns: Braided, meandering
Fluvial data and straight. US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 282-B, 39–85 (1957).
/ Braided 7. Schumm, S. A. Patterns of alluvial rivers. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 13,
/ Meandering 5–27 (1985).
/ Straight 8. Parker, G. On the cause and characteristic scales of meandering in braiding in
rivers. J. Fluid Mech. 76, 457–480 (1976).
9. Straub, K. M. & Mohrig, D. Quantifying the morphology and growth of levees
in aggrading submarine channels. J. Geophys. Res. 113, F03012 (2008).
10. Peakall, J., McCaffrey, B. & Kneller, B. A process model for the evolution,
morphology, and architecture of sinuous submarine channels. J. Sedim. Res. 70,
434–448 (2000).
11. Ashmore, P. E. Bed load transport in braided gravel-bed stream models. Earth
Surf. Process. Landf. 13, 677–695 (1988).
12. Paola, C. in Gravel-Bed Rivers V (ed. Mosley, M. P.) 11–38 (New Zealand
Hydrological Society, 2001).
13. Sinha, R. & Friend, P. F. River systems and their sediment flux, Indo-Gangetic
plains, Northern Bihar, India. Sedimentology 41, 825–845 (1994).
14. Cronin, B. T. et al. in Atlas of Deep-Water Environments: Architectural Styles in
Turbidite Systems (eds Pickering, K. T. et al.) 84–88 (Chapman & Hall, 1995).
15. Covault, J. A., Fildani, A., Romans, B. W. & McHargue, T. The natural range of
submarine canyon-and-channel longitudinal profiles. Geosphere 7,
313–332 (2011).
16. Hein, F. J. & Walker, R. G. The Cambro-Ordovician Cap Eragé Formation,
Queébec, Canada: Conglomeratic deposits of a braided submarine channel
with terraces. Sedimentology 29, 309–352 (1982).
17. Schumm, S. A. & Kahn, H. R. Experimental study of channel patterns. Geol.
Soc. Am. Bull. 83, 1755–1770 (1972).
18. Murray, A. B. & Paola, C. A cellular model of braided rivers. Nature 371,
54–57 (1994).
19. Paola, C., Straub, K., Mohrig, D. & Reinhardt, L. The ‘‘unreasonable
effectiveness’’ of stratigraphic and geomorphic experiments. Earth Sci. Rev. 97,
1–43 (2009).
20. Straub, K. M., Mohrig, D., McElroy, B., Buttles, J. & Pirmez, C. Interactions
between turbidity currents and topography in aggrading sinuous submarine
channels: A laboratory study. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 120, 368–385 (2008).
21. Sequeiros, O. E. Estimating turbidity current conditions from channel
morphology: A Froude number approach. J. Geophys. Res. 117,
C04003 (2012).
22. Métivier, F., Lajeunesse, E. & Cacas, M.-C. Submarine canyons in the bathtub.
J. Sedim. Res. 75, 6–11 (2005).
23. Yu, B. et al. Experiments on self-channelization subaqueous fans emplaced by
turbidity currents and dilute mudflows. J. Sedim. Res. 76, 889–902 (2006).
24. Malverti, L. E., Lajeunesse, E. & Métivier, F. Small is beautiful: Upscaling
from microscale laminar to natural turbulent rivers. J. Geophys. Res. 113,
F04004 (2008).
25. Pirmez, C. Growth of a Submarine Meandering Channel-Levee System on the
Amazon Fan PhD dissertation, Univ. Columbia (1994).
26. Deptuck, M. E., Steffens, G. S., Barton, M. & Pirmez, C. Architecture and
evolution of upper fan channel-belts on the Niger Delta slope and in the
Arabian Sea. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 20, 649–676 (2003).
27. Straub, K. M. & Mohrig, D. Growth of constructional canyons via sheet flow
turbidity currents: Observations from offshore Brunei Darussalam. J. Sedim.
Res. 79, 24–39 (2009).
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 8 | SEPTEMBER 2015 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
NATURE GEOSCIENCE DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2505
28. Hiscott, R. N. et al. Basin-floor fans in the North Sea: Sequence stratigraphic
models vs. sedimentary facies: Discussion. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 81,
662–665 (1997).
29. Mohrig, D. & Buttles, J. Deep turbidity currents in shallow channels. Geology
35, 155–158 (2007).
30. Smith, D. G. & Smith, N. D. Sedimentation in anastomosed river systems:
Examples from alluvial valleys near Banff, Alberta. J. Sedim. Petrol. 50,
157–164 (1980).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Industry Consortium, which
includes Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC), ConocoPhillips,
Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobil, and BHP Billiton, as well as the Ministry of Science and
Technology from Taiwan (MOST 103-2221-E-006-215) for funding of this research.
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 8 | SEPTEMBER 2015 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
LETTERS
S. S. C. Hung, D. Baldus, R. Rosario, A. Sorenson and B. Erickson are acknowledged for
assistance in conducting experiments.
Author contributions
B.Z.F., S.Y.J.L., Y.K. and C.P. co-wrote manuscript. B.Z.F. and S.Y.J.L. designed the
experimental set-up and ran experiments. C.P. and Y.K. conceived of the project. All
authors contributed to data analysis.
Additional information
Supplementary information is available in the online version of the paper. Reprints and
permissions information is available online at www.nature.com/reprints.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to B.Z.F.
Competing financial interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
703
LETTERS
Methods
The experimental set-up at St. Anthony Fall Laboratory (SAFL) consists of a table,
2.2 m wide and 3.65 m long, with 0.15 m roughened sideboards on either side. This
table is submerged within a 5.0 m × 5.0 m × 0.64 m tank. The experimental set-up
at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) is similar to the one at SAFL. An
inside tank (0.7 m × 1.4 m × 0.06 m) is submerged into an outside tank
(0.9 m × 1.65 m × 0.6 m). The SAFL set-up introduces a saline current as a sheet
flow at the proximal end using a simple weir system, whereas the NCKU set-up
initially introduces the saline current as a point source that is allowed to
immediately expand across the sediment bed. Saline currents have a density of
∼1.2 g ml−1 compared to ∼1 g ml−1 density of ambient freshwater in the basin.
Saline current discharges are held constant at 3,000 ml s−1 and 27 ml s−1 at SAFL
and NCKU, respectively. The distal end of the SAFL set-up extends to the flat basin
floor with a pump system employed to prevent the accumulation of saline bottom
waters. In the NCKU set-up an overflow weir is employed to remove saline water
and sediment at the distal end. An initial bed of crushed walnut sand with D50 of
1 mm (SAFL) and white plastic sand with D50 of 0.3 mm (NCKU) covers the floor
of each experimental set-up. At SAFL walnut sand is hand-fed at a constant rate at
the proximal end at a rate of 53 ml s−1 . At NCKU a motor-controlled sediment
feeder was used to maintain a constant rate of sediment at 0.73 ml s−1 . At SAFL,
sediment was introduced evenly across the sheet flow as best as possible. Walnut
sand was soaked in saline water before introduction to the experiment. The wet
bulk density of the walnut sand is 1.2 g ml−1 and white plastic sand 1.5 g ml−1 . The
sediment flux/water discharge ratio is similar, 0.02 and 0.03, for SAFL and NCKU,
respectively. The experiments were initiated with a bed slope of 3.0◦ and 6.0◦ for
SAFL and NCKU, respectively. In both cases flow depths of the initial saline current
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
NATURE GEOSCIENCE DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2505
were 2 ± 1 mm. This results in a width–depth ratio of flows of 1,000:1 for SAFL
and 350:1 for NCKU. Runtime for the SAFL experiment was 4 h and for the NCKU
experiment it was 2 h. Images were collected every 15–20 min from a drained basin
in the SAFL experiments and every 5 s while the NCKU experiment was running.
A sheet laser system was used to obtain topography at the end of the run at SAFL.
The NCKU laser system is able to scan the submerged surface and obtained
topography every 10 min.
Data. Fluvial data presented in Fig. 2 was obtained from the compilation of
Parker8 . Submarine channel data sets presented in Fig. 2 were obtained from the
sources listed in the Supplementary Information; many occur within a recent
compilation21 . Depth and width of submarine channels were obtained from
base of the thalweg to levee top and levee top to levee top for several of the
field-based channels, respectively. Note that this actually underestimates the
flow depth, because the thickness of many density currents exceeds the
bounding channel. For submarine channels from the stratigraphic record
(noted in data table) the maximum width was limited by outcrop exposure in
some cases. In a few instances the densimetric Froude number for field
submarine channels was not available. In those cases we have estimated this value
within the middle range of those documented reported21 unless otherwise noted.
Turbidity currents exhibit a restricted range in Froude numbers (one order of
magnitude) in comparison to their fluvial counterparts (four orders of
magnitude)21 . The uncertainty of this estimate does not affect the overall
pattern or interpretations. Slopes and Froude numbers for submarine channels
in the stratigraphic record were estimated to obtain the most conservative ratio of
the two.
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience