pose of supplementing the main scientific contents and out-comes of the paper.
1Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.
2School of Geography, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK.
3Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
4Department of Geosciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Copyright 2015 by the American Geophysical Union. 0148-0227/15/$9.00
HydrodynamicOprocesses
SedimentOtransportOprocesses
BedOevolution
IsOΔζO≥OΔζ
refO?
UpdateOofObedOelevation
YES
NO
Eco-m
orph
odynam
icOfeedback
PlantOdrag
ParticleOcapture
OrganicOproduction
BedOlevelsOmultipliedOby
MO=OΔζ
refO/OΔζ
maxNoOmorphologicalO
acceleration
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time)[years]
Morphological)factor)M
0
/ab:)No)vegetation);)C
0))=)0)mg/l
/bb:)Vegetation)typej1);)C
0))=)0)mg/l
/cb:)Vegetation)typej2);)C
0))=)0)mg/l
/db:)No)vegetation);)C
0))=)25)mg/l
/eb:)Vegetation)typej1);)C
0))=)25)mg/l
/fb:)Vegetation)typej2);)C
0))=)25)mg/l
/gb:)No)vegetation);)C
0))=)50)mg/l
/hb:)Vegetation)typej1);)C
0))=)50)mg/l
/ib:)Vegetation)typej2);)C
0))=)50)mg/l
/jb:)No)vegetation);)C
0))=)100)mg/l
/kb:)Vegetation)typej1);)C
0))=)100)mg/l
/lb:)Vegetation)typej2);)C
0))=)100)mg/l
ζ [m] −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 distanceC[m] 0 100 200 distanceC[m] NoCvegetation;CC0C=C25Cmg/l 0 100 200 300 400 VegetationCtype−1;CC0C=C25Cmg/l C VegetationCtype−2;CC0C=C25Cmg/l distanceC[m] NoCvegetation;CC0C=C50Cmg/l 0 100 200 300 400 VegetationCtype−1;CC0C=C50Cmg/l VegetationCtype−2;CC0C=C50Cmg/l distanceC[m] distanceC[m] C NoCvegetation;CC0C=C100Cmg/l 0 200 400 600 0 100 200 300 400 distanceC[m] VegetationCtype−1;CC0C=C100Cmg/l 0 200 400 600 distanceC[m] VegetationCtype−2;CC0C=C100Cmg/l 0 200 400 600 jdk jek jfk jgk jhk jik jjk jkk jlk
Figure S3. Simulated marsh morphologies after 100 years according to different sediment supply and marsh ecology, computed with the continuous formulation (8). Columns: with different ecological scenarios; rows: with increasing sediment supply. Marsh morphologies devel-oped from a tidal flat characterized by high and smoothed topographic perturbations (Figure 2a).
distancev[m] VelocityvUvatvtv=v4.5hvaftervLTvv 0 100 200 300 400 distancev[m] Novvegetation;vC0v=v50vmg/l 0 100 200 300 400 Vegetationvtype−1;vC0v=v50vmg/l v Vegetationvtype−2;vC0v=v50vmg/l vVegetationvtype−1;vC0v=v50vmg/l Novvegetation;vC0v=v50vmg/l Vegetationvtype−2;vC0v=v50vmg/l distancev[m] 0 200 400 600 distancev[m] 0 200 400 600 distancev[m] 0 200 400 600 VelocityvUvatvtv=v4.5hvaftervLT VelocityvUvatvtv=v4.5hvaftervLT
ConcentrationvCvatvtv=v4.5hvaftervLT ConcentrationvCvatvtv=v4.5hvaftervLT ConcentrationvCvatvtv=v4.5hvaftervLT
Uv[m/s] 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 Cv[mg/l] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 )ab )bb )cb )db )eb )fb
Figure S4. Velocity and concentration fields computed at one instant during the flood phase (at t = 4.5 hours after Low Tide (LT)) after 30 years of simulation under a sediment supply C0 = 50 mg/l and for every
ecologi-cal scenarios considered. Top: magnitude of the velocity U supplemented with the velocity vectors; bottom: sus-pended sediment concentration C.
No3vegetation;3C03=3253mg/l Vegetation3type−1;3C03=3253mg/l Vegetation3type−2;3C03=3253mg/l
No3vegetation;3C03=3503mg/l Vegetation3type−1;3C03=3503mg/l Vegetation3type−2;3C03=3503mg/l
No3vegetation;3C03=31003mg/l Vegetation3type−1;3C03=31003mg/l Vegetation3type−2;3C03=31003mg/l
Time3[year s] P3[m3] P3[m3] P3[m3] 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Ω [m 2 ] 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Ω [m 2 ] 100 102 104 0 2 4 6 8 Ω [m 2 ] 100 102 104 bfc bec bdc bgc bhc bic 100 102 104 blc bkc bjc 9 11 13 Ω [m 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure S5. 100-year evolution of the cross-sectional area Ω vs tidal prism P at the mouth of the tidal network common to all the simulated marsh morphologies (as in Figure 3a). Results after 30 years (as in Figure 7) are highlighted by black dots.
