Simulating vegetation effects on flows in 3D using an unstructured grid model: model development and validation

  • Yinglong J. ZhangEmail author
  • Nathan Gerdts
  • Eli Ateljevich
  • Kijin Nam


Prevalence of vegetation (either submerged or emergent) in shallow water significantly affects the flow and turbulence structure in this environment. In this paper, we develop a new 3D unstructured grid hydrostatic model that accounts for the 3D effects of vegetation on flows. The model uses a semi-implicit time stepping method and treats the new vegetation-related terms implicitly to enhance numerical stability, so the time step does not need to be reduced as compared with the no-vegetation cases. The stability is also independent of the vegetation parameters, so as to efficiently account for large shear that can occur around the canopy. We validate the model using lab data before applying it to a field study in San Francisco Bay-Delta to illustrate the influence of the vegetation on the flow structure as well as tidal energetics. The efficiency of the model enabled by the implicit method allows, for the first time, the simulation of the vegetation effects during multi-year evolution of vegetation in full three dimensions at large spatial scales.


Vegetation SCHISM San Francisco Bay & Delta, USA 


Funding information

This research is funded by the California Department of Water Resources. Simulations presented in this paper were conducted using the following computational facilities: (1) Sciclone at the College of William and Mary which were provided with the assistance of the National Science Foundation, the Virginia Port Authority, and Virginia’s Commonwealth Technology Research Fund; (2) the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE; Grant TG-OCE130032), which is supported by National Science Foundation grant number OCI-1053575; (3) NASA’s Pleiades.


  1. Ateljevich E, Nam K, Zhang Y, Wang R, Shu Q (2014) “Bay-Delta SELFE calibration overview.” In: Methodology for flow and salinity estimates in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta and Suisun Marsh. 35th Annual Progress Report to the State Water Resources Control Board. Chapter 7. Sacramento (CA): Bay-Delta Office. Delta Modeling Section. California Department of Water ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo A, Oliveira A, Fortunato AB, Zhang Y, Baptista AM (2014) A cross-scale numerical modeling system for management support of oil spill accidents. Mar Pollut Bull 80:132–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett S, Pirim T, Barkdoll B (2002) Using simulated emergent vegetation to alter stream flow direction within a straight experimental channel. Geomorphology 44:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertin X, Bruneau N, Breilh J-F, Fortunato AB, Karpytchev M (2012) Importance of wave age and resonance in storm surges: the case Xynthia, Bay of Biscay. Ocean Model 42:16–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beudin A, Kalra TS, Ganju NK, Warner JC (2017a) Development of a coupled wave-flow-vegetation interaction model. Comput Geosci 100:76–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beudin A, Ganju NK, Defne Z, Aretxabaleta AL (2017b) Physical response of a back-barrier estuary to a post-tropical cyclone. J Geophys Res Oceans 122:5888–5904. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brookes A, Shields FD (1996) River channel restoration: guiding principles for sustainable projects. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Brovchenko I, Maderich V, Terletska K (2011) Numerical simulations of 3D structure of currents in the region of deep canyons on the east coast of the Black Sea. Int J Comput Civ Struct Eng 7(2):47–53Google Scholar
  9. Burla M, Baptista AM, Zhang Y, Frolov S (2010) Seasonal and interannual variability of the Columbia River plume: a perspective enabled by multiyear simulation databases. J Geophys Res 115:C00B16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai X (2018) Impact of submerged aquatic vegetation on water quality in cache slough complex, Sacramento-San Joaquin delta: a numerical modeling study. MSc Thesis, Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceGoogle Scholar
  11. Camporeale C, Perucca E, Ridolfi L, Gurnell AM (2013) Modeling the interactions between river morphodynamics and riparian vegetation. Rev Geophys 51:379–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castagno KA, Jiménez-Robles AM, Donnelly JP, Wiberg PL, Fenster MS, Fagherazzi S (2018) Intense storms increase the stability of tidal bays. Geophys Res Lett:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Casulli V, Cattani E (1994) Stability, accuracy and efficiency of a semiimplicit method for 3D shallow water flow. Comput Math Appl 27:99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cho HJ, Kirui P, Natarajan H (2008) Test of multi-spectral vegetation index for floating and canopy-forming submerged vegetation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 5:477–483Google Scholar
  15. D’Alpaos A, Lanzoni S, Marani M, Rinaldo A (2007) Landscape evolution in tidal embayments: modeling the interplay of erosion, sedimentation, and vegetation dynamics. J Geophys Res 112.
  16. Da Paz A, Villanueva A, Schettini E (2005) The influence of spatial vegetation distribution on Taim Wetland hydrodynamics. Dyn Biogeochem River Corridors Wetland, IAHS-AISH Publication, 78–85Google Scholar
  17. Deleersnijder E, Campin JM, Delhez EJM (2001) The concept of age in marine modeling, I. Theory and preliminary model results. J Mar Syst 28:229e267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dijkstra JT, Uittenbogaard RE (2010) Modeling the interaction between flow and highly flexible aquatic vegetation. Water Resour Res 46:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer-Antze T, Stoesser T, Bates P, Olsen NRB (2001) 3D numerical modelling of open-channel flow with submerged vegetation. J Hydraul Res 39:303–310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gandhi GM, Parthiban S, Thummalu N, Christy A (2015) NDVI: vegetation change detection using remote sensing and Gis – a case study of Vellore District. Proc Comput Sci 57:1199–1210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaylord B, Denny M, Koehl M (2003) Modulation of wave forces on kelp canopies by alongshore currents. Limnol Oceanogr 48:860–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaylord B, Denny M, Koehl M (2008) Flow forces on seaweeds: field evidence for roles of wave impingement and organism inertia. Biol Bull 215:295–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gedan KB, Kirwan M, Wolanski E, Barbier EB, Silliman BR (2011) The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: answering recent challenges to the paradigm. Climate Change 106:7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghisalberti M, Nepf HM (2002) Mixing layers and coherent structures in vegetated aquatic flows. J Geophys Res 107(C2).
  25. Hestir EL, Khanna S, Andrew ME, Santos MJ, Viers JH, Greenberg JA, Rajapakse SS, Ustin SL (2008) Identification of invasive vegetation using hyperspectral remote sensing in the California Delta ecosystem. Remote Sens Environ 112:4034–4047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Horstman E, Dohmen-Janssen C, Narra P, van den Berg N, Siemerink M, Hulscher S (2014) Wave attenuation in mangroves: a quantitative approach to field observations. Coast Eng 94:47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jin KR, Ji Z, Thomas JR (2007) Three-dimensional water quality and SAV modeling of a large shallow lake. J Great Lakes Res 33:28–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khanna S, Santos MJ, Ustin SL, Haverkamp PJ (2011) An integrated approach to a biophysiologically based classification of floating aquatic macrophytes. Int J Remote Sens 32:1067–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kiss M, Jozsa J (2014) Measurement-based hydrodynamic characterisation of reed – open water interface zones in shallow lake environment. Per Pol Civil Eng 58:229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knutson PL, Brochu RA, Seelig WN, Inskeep MR (1982) Wave damping in Spartina alterniflora marshes. Wetlands 2(1):87–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kombiadou K, Ganthy F, Verney R, Plus M, Sottolichio A (2014) Modelling the effects of Zostera noltei meadows on sediment dynamics: application to the Arcachon lagoon. Ocean Dyn 64(10):1499–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lapetina A, Sheng YP (2014) Three-dimensional modeling of storm surge and inundation including the effects of coastal vegetation. Estuar Coasts 37:1028–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lera S, Nardin W, Sanford L, Palinkas C, Guercio R (2019) The impact of submersed aquatic vegetation on the development of river mouth bars. Earth Surf Process Landf 44:1494–1506. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li CW, Xie JF (2011) Numerical modeling of free surface flow over submerged and highly flexible vegetation. Adv. Water Resource 34:468–477. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li CW, Yan K (2007) Numerical investigation of wave–current–vegetation interaction. J Hydraul Eng 133:794–803. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lopez F, García M (2001) Mean flow and turbulence structure of open-channel flow through non-emergent vegetation. J Hydraul Eng:392–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lowe RJ, Koseff JR, Monismith SG (2005) Oscillatory flow through submerged canopies: 1. Velocity structure J Geophys Res 110:C10016. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lucas LV, Stewart AR (2005) Transport, transformation and effects of selenium and carbon in the delta of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers: implications for ecosystem restoration. Final Reprt. Project No. ERP-01-C07. California Bay Delta Authority, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  39. Luhar M, Nepf HM (2011) Flow induced reconfiguration of buoyant and flexible aquatic vegetation. Limnol Oceanogr 56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mendez F, Losada IJ (2004) An empirical model to estimate the propagation of random breaking and nonbreaking waves over vegetation fields. Coast Eng 51:103–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Möller I, Kudella M, Rupprecht F, Spencer T, Paul M, van Wesenbeeck BK et al (2014) Wave attenuation over coastal salt marshes under storm surge conditions. Nat Geosci 7(10):727–731. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nardin W, Larsen L, Fagherazzi S, Wiberg P (2018) Tradeoffs among hydrodynamics, sediment fluxes and vegetation community in the Virginia Coast Reserve, USA. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 210:98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nepf HM (1999) Drag, turbulence, and diffusion in flow through emergent vegetation. Water Resour Res 35:479–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nepf HM, Vivoni ER (2000) Flow structure in depth-limited, vegetated flow. J Geophys Res 105:28547. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pinto L, Fortunato AB, Zhang Y, Oliveira A, Sancho FEP (2012) Development and validation of a three-dimensional morphodynamic modelling system. Ocean Model 57-58:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rodrigues M, Oliveira A, Queiroga H, Fortunato AB, Zhang MY (2009) Three-dimensional modeling of the lower trophic levels in the Ria de Aveiro (Portugal). Ecol Model 220(9–10):1274–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roland A, Zhang Y, Wang HV, Meng Y, Teng Y, Maderich V, Brovchenko I, Dutour-Sikiric M, Zanke U (2012) A fully coupled wave-current model on unstructured grids. J Geophys Res-Ocean 117:C00J33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shimizu Y, Tsujimoto T (1994) Numerical analysis of turbulent open-channel flow over a vegetation layer using a k-e turbulence model. J Hydrosci Hydraul Eng 11:57–67Google Scholar
  49. Soliveres S, Maestre FT (2014) Plant–plant interactions, environmental gradients and plant diversity: a global synthesis of community-level studies. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 16(4):154–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Statzner B, Lamouroux N, Nikora V, Sagnes P (2006) The debate about drag and reconfiguration of freshwater macrophytes: comparing results obtained by three recently discussed approaches. Freshw Biol 51:2173–2183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Su, X. and Li, C.W. (2002), Large eddy simulation of free surface turbulent flow in partly vegetated open channels. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids, 39: 919-937. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sutton-Grier AE, Wowk K, Bamford H (2015) Future of our coasts: the potential for natural or hybrid infrastructure to enhance the resilience of our coastal communities, economies, and ecosystems. Environ Sci Pol 51:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swann L (2008) The use of living shorelines to mitigate the effects of storm events on Dauphin Island, Alabama, USA. American Fisheries Society Symposium, paper # 64, 11 pp.Google Scholar
  54. Tanino Y, Nepf HM (2008) Laboratory investigation of mean drag in a random array of rigid, emergent cylinders. J Hydraul Eng 134:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Temmerman S, Bouma TJ, Govers G, Wang ZB, De Vries MB, Herman PMJ (2005) Impact of vegetation on flow routing and sedimentation patterns: three-dimensional modeling for a tidal marsh. J Geophys Res 110:F04019. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tsujimoto T, Kitamura T (1992) Experimental study on open-channel flow with vegetated zone along side wall. KHL Progressive Report, Hydrology Laboratory, Kanazawa University, Japan, 1992; 21–35Google Scholar
  57. Umlauf L, Burchard H (2003) A generic length-scale equation for geophysical turbulence models. J Mar Res 61:235–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. W. Kimmerer, F. Wilkerson, B. Downing, R. Dugdale, E.S. Gross (RMA), K. Kayfetz, S. Khanna, A.E. Parker, J. Thompson. (2019). “Effects of Drought and the Emergency Drought Barrier on the Ecosystem of the California Delta”, San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 17(3).Google Scholar
  59. Wu C, Yuan H, Young C (2007) Non-hydrostatic modeling of vegetation effects on wave and flow motions, 10th International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, 304–321Google Scholar
  60. Ye F, Chen Q, Blanckaert K, Ma J (2013) Riparian vegetation dynamics: insight provided by a process-based model, a statistical model and field data. Ecohydrology 6:567–585. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhang Y, Baptista AM (2008) SELFE: a semi-implicit Eulerian–Lagrangian finite-element model for cross-scale ocean circulation. Ocean Model 21:71–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang Y, Witter RC, Priest GR (2011) Tsunami–tide interaction in 1964 Prince William Sound tsunami. Ocean Model 40(3–4):246–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang Y, Ateljevich E, Yu H-C, Wu CH, Yu JCS (2015) A new vertical coordinate system for a 3D unstructured-grid model. Ocean Model 85:16–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhang Y, Ye F, Stanev EV, Grashorn S (2016) Seamless cross-scale modelling with SCHISM. Ocean Model 102:64–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceCollege of William & MaryGloucester PointUSA
  2. 2.InnovyzeBroomfieldUSA
  3. 3.California Department of Water ResourcesSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations