An empirical model to estimate the propagation of random breaking and nonbreaking waves over vegetation fields

Modeling flow in coral communities with and without waves: A synthesis of porous media and canopy flow approaches

“…This is particularly important given that frictional dissipation can play a major role in the transformation of waves propagating inshore when the bottom is naturally very rough, that is, over rocky bottoms (e.g., Adams et al 2002), aquatic vegetation (e.g., Mendez and Losada 2004), or coral reefs (e.g., Lowe et al 2005a). Flow within living canopies can also be important to benthic communities (Carpenter et al 1991;Atkinson and Bilger 1992;Lesser et al 1994).…”

Uniendo ingeniería y ecología: la protección costera basada en ecosistemas

“…La atenuación del oleaje depende de las características de la vegetación (densidad, dimensiones, profundidad, etc.) y del oleaje [46]. El grado de atenuación de las mareas de tormenta (storm surge) depende de las características de la vegetación y de la tormenta, como la velocidad de traslación y la altura de la marea [47,48].…”

Flume instrumentation for measurement of drag on flexible elements under waves

“…Vegetation has been shown to effectively attenuate flow (Fonseca et al 1982;Peterson et al 2004) and wave energy (Dean 1978;Fonseca and Cahalan 1992;Kobayashi et al 1993;Mendez et al 1999;Möller et al 1999;Dean and Bender 2006;Augustin et al 2009). Several models for predicting wave dissipation through vegetation have been proposed based on the conservation of energy (Dalrymple et al 1984;Mendez and Losada 2004) and conservation of momentum (Kobayashi et al 1993) for linear waves, and these have subsequently been expanded and new models proposed (Dubi and Torum 1995;Mendez et al 1999;Chen and Zhao 2012). Additional models investigating wave attenuation under the combination of wave flow and current flow (Ota et al 2005;Li and Yan 2007) have also been proposed.…”

“…The lack of information on species limits the usefulness of the models developed, and generalizations of plant behavior have not proved to be robust enough for practice (Mendez and Losada 2004). While some species, such as Cabomba caroliana, Nympheae rubra, and Eichinodorus grandifloru (Penning et al 2009), Laminaria hyperborea (Dubi and Torum 1995;Mork 1996), Macrocystis pyrifera (Elwany et al 1995;Elwany and Flick 1996), Posidonia oceanica (Gacia and Duarte 2001;Stratigaki et al 2009), Spartina alterniflora (Möller et al 1996(Möller et al , 1999, and Zostera marina (Fonseca and Cahalan 1992;Ifuku and Hayashi 1998), have been characterized for energy dissipation parameters, many more species have no information available.…”

“…While some species, such as Cabomba caroliana, Nympheae rubra, and Eichinodorus grandifloru (Penning et al 2009), Laminaria hyperborea (Dubi and Torum 1995;Mork 1996), Macrocystis pyrifera (Elwany et al 1995;Elwany and Flick 1996), Posidonia oceanica (Gacia and Duarte 2001;Stratigaki et al 2009), Spartina alterniflora (Möller et al 1996(Möller et al , 1999, and Zostera marina (Fonseca and Cahalan 1992;Ifuku and Hayashi 1998), have been characterized for energy dissipation parameters, many more species have no information available. Establishing the relationships of drag to the Reynolds number (Re), using the orbital velocity and vegetation diameter as the characteristic length, and Keulegan-Carpenter number (KC), using the orbital velocity and vegetation diameter as the characteristic length, have also been attempted with some success (Mendez and Losada 2004;Augustin et al 2009), but there has not been strong evidence which one of these non-dimensional parameters is better suited to represent drag for plants (USACE 2006). Sarpaka and Isaacson (1981) extensively look at the interrelation of drag and momentum of obstructions in waves to Re and KC, along with other nondimensional parameters, but do not unite these parameters in one relation.…”