Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 68 references

Effect of Discharge on the Nonlinear Bar Growth: A Flume Experiment

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports flume experiments that, for the first time, continuously track alternate-bar growth without stopping the flow, and compares the measured growth rates with weakly nonlinear theory.

desk verdict Solid new bar-growth dataset with a plausible qualitative trend; the quantitative comparison to theory needs error bars and pre-specified exclusions before the headline claim is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05593 v1 pith:WYKR4OXT submitted 2026-08-06 physics.flu-dyn physics.geo-ph

Shohei Seki , Daichi Moteki , Hiroyasu Yasuda This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynphysics.geo-ph
keywords alternatebarsbargrowthrateLandauequationStreamTomographyflumeexperimentwaterdischargestabilitytheorybedloadtransport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Using a nonintrusive bed-topography scanner, this paper measures the full life cycle of alternate river bars in a laboratory flume without ever stopping the flow. Across four discharges and four slopes, bar height rises along a sigmoidal curve that the authors fit with the Landau equation of weakly nonlinear bar theory, obtaining a growth rate and an equilibrium height for each condition. The central result is that the dimensionless growth rate of bar height increases as discharge decreases, but less sharply than linear stability theory predicts for a single alternate-bar mode, with the gap widening at low discharge. The paper also ties this to a hydraulic mechanism: lower discharge makes bars tall relative to flow depth, which deflects the flow, cuts off sediment transport behind bars, and feeds scour. If correct, the findings provide continuous experimental benchmarks for bar-stability theories and a basis for predicting how bar height responds to changing river discharge.

What carries the argument

The central device is Stream Tomography, a laser-sheet and camera cart that maps the bed at one-minute intervals and one-centimeter-squared resolution while the flow continues, supplying complete time series of bar height $H_{\mathrm{MB}}(t)$. These series are fitted with the general solution of the Landau equation, which yields the growth rate $\Omega_{H_{\mathrm{MB}}}$ and equilibrium height $H_{\mathrm{MB}e}$ as empirical coefficients, with time made dimensionless using the Exner bedload timescale $t^* = t\,q_{s0}/((1-p)h_0 B/2)$. The hydraulic interpretation rests on fixed-bed, depth-averaged flow simulations over the measured topography, from which the authors compute the flow-deflection ratio $|v|/u$ and the area where the Shields stress falls below the critical value for sediment motion.

What would settle it

Recompute the bar-height derivative directly from the raw Stream Tomography time series and test whether $(dH_{\mathrm{MB}}/dt)/H_{\mathrm{MB}}$ is a linear function of $(H_{\mathrm{MB}}/H_{\mathrm{MB}e})^2$. A systematic departure from that line — particularly during the fast-growth phase, where the fit is least good — would show that the Landau equation is only an approximation and that the reported $\Omega_{H_{\mathrm{MB}}}$ values cannot be identified with the theoretical linear growth rate. The bar-celerity mechanism could be checked independently by measuring sediment flux directly and comparing it with the relation $C = q_s / (2(1-p)Z)$ used in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a dimensionless bedload timescale, alternate-bar height in the flume grows faster and to a higher equilibrium value when discharge is lower. The full growth curves, captured without stopping the flow, are well described by the Landau equation $$\frac{dH_{\mathrm{MB}}}{dt} = \Omega_{H_{\mathrm{MB}}} H_{\mathrm{MB}} \left(1 - \left(\frac{H_{\mathrm{MB}}}{H_{\mathrm{MB}e}}\right)^2\right),$$ and the fitted dimensionless growth rate $\Omega_{H_{\mathrm{MB}}}$ increases as discharge decreases, but its sensitivity is weaker than the maximum linear growth rate of the single alternate-bar mode ($m=1$) predicted by linear stability theory; the discrepancy grows at lower discharge. Fixed-bed flow calculations over the measured topography explain the trend: at low discharge the bar is tall relative to flow depth, flow deflection is stronger, non-transport zones spread downstream of depositional areas, bar migration slows, and flow and sediment transport concentrate in the scour zone, deepening the pools that set bar height.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that bar height $H_{\mathrm{MB}}(t)$ — a composite quantity made of many Fourier modes — evolves according to the same Landau equation as the amplitude $\alpha_{11}$ of a single alternate-bar mode; the paper itself notes there is no theoretical guarantee of this, and if the true evolution is not Landau-type, the fitted growth rates are not the quantities being compared with stability theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Lower discharge on a bedload-based timescale makes alternate bars grow faster and reach a larger equilibrium height, so a sustained discharge reduction should make bars taller and less mobile.
  • The measured growth-rate-versus-discharge curve gives stability theories a quantitative target: they must reproduce a weaker-than-linear sensitivity, especially at low discharge.
  • Bar-height growth in these runs is dominated by deepening scour rather than rising deposition, so monitoring the minimum bed elevation alone can track height development.
  • Flow deflection, non-transport zones, and bar celerity respond together with bar height, meaning bar development is a self-reinforcing feedback rather than a one-way response to discharge.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the fitted $\Omega_{H_{\mathrm{MB}}}$ values could be used to calibrate the intermodal coupling coefficients in the two-mode amplitude equations the paper sketches, turning the observed growth of $\alpha_{20}$ into a quantitative correction to the single-mode theory.
  • Inference: if linear theory systematically overshoots the discharge sensitivity of bar growth, flood-frequency projections built on single-mode growth rates may overstate future bar-height change; checking this would require matching long bed-elevation records to discharge histories in real rivers.
  • Inference: the mechanism implies a testable crossover — the regime of bimodal flow deflection, large non-transport zones, and suppressed migration should begin near a particular bar height-to-depth ratio, which a future experiment could isolate by varying discharge at fixed slope.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a laboratory flume study of alternate-bar development under four discharges and four channel slopes (16 conditions, at least five replicates each), using the non-intrusive Stream Tomography technique to measure bed topography continuously without interrupting flow. Bar height H_MB is defined as the max-minus-min bed elevation within a tracked half-wavelength, and its temporal evolution is fitted to the general solution of the Landau equation (Eq. 6) to extract a growth rate Omega_HMB and equilibrium height H_MBe. The dimensionless growth rate is then compared against the linear stability theory of Colombini et al. (1987) for the single alternate-bar mode alpha_11, using two sediment-transport formulas (Meyer-Peter and Mueller, Parker). The central empirical claim is that the growth rate of bar height increases as discharge decreases on a bedload-based timescale, but its sensitivity to discharge is weaker than the theoretical sensitivity of the linear growth rate, with the discrepancy growing at lower discharge. Fixed-bed Nays2D simulations over measured bed topographies are used to propose a mechanism: lower discharge produces larger height-to-depth ratios, stronger flow deflection, expanded non-sediment-transport zones, reduced bar migration, and concentration of transport in scour zones, promoting bar-height growth. Case 16 and some replicates are excluded from the analysis on criteria that are only partly specified in advance.

Significance. If upheld, the paper would provide the first continuous experimental estimates of the nonlinear growth coefficient of the Landau equation for alternate bars and a benchmark for bar stability theories, which is a meaningful contribution to fluvial geomorphology. The study has notable strengths: a multi-replicate design that addresses inherent variability in bar formation; a non-intrusive measurement technique that avoids flow interruption; direct data availability via a Zenodo dataset; and an explicit statement of the main modeling assumption, including its caveat. The hydraulic calculations over measured bed topography add a physically plausible mechanistic interpretation. However, the central claim depends on the unvalidated substitution of bar height H_MB for the single-mode amplitude alpha_11 in the Landau equation, and the headline discharge-sensitivity comparison lacks confidence intervals or significance testing. These issues are load-bearing for the main conclusion and require additional analysis before the result can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3.1, Eq. (5)] The identification of the measured bar height H_MB with the single-mode amplitude alpha_11 in Eq. (5) is the load-bearing step of the paper. The authors themselves state that 'there is no theoretical guarantee that bar height follows a Landau equation.' H_MB is a composite quantity defined over a half-wavelength and contains contributions from alpha_20 and other modes; Appendix B reports alpha_20/alpha_11 up to about 0.8. Consequently, the fitted Omega_HMB is a lumped, model-dependent growth rate, not the linear growth rate Omega_11 of the most amplified single bar mode. Figure 8 then compares the discharge sensitivity of this fitted quantity with the theoretical sensitivity of Omega_11. If a different saturation form, or no Landau form, describes the data, the fitted Omega_HMB and the power-law exponent a would change, and the central claim about weaker-than-linear sensitivity could weaken or reverse. The paper should provide a sensitivity analysis with alternative sigmoidal forms (e.g., logistic or Gompertz), or an explicit derivation of how modal superposition biases the fitted growth rate, to show that the headline conclusion does not rely solely on the Landau functional form.
  2. [Section 3.3.2, Figure 8] The headline claim that the experimental growth rate is 'less sensitive' to discharge than the theoretical prediction is based on power-law fits y = b Q^a plotted in Figure 8, but no confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests are reported for the exponent a or for the comparison against the theoretical exponents. With at least three replicates per condition after screening, a bootstrap or mixed-effects analysis is feasible and would directly address whether the observed weaker sensitivity is statistically robust across slopes. As written, the visual separation in Figure 8 is not quantified, and the statement that the discrepancy 'becomes more pronounced at lower discharge' also lacks a formal test. These statistical gaps undermine the paper's central quantitative conclusion.
  3. [Section 3, exclusions of Case 16 and replicates] The exclusion of Case 16 (Q = 1.7 L/s, I = 1/200) and of replicates with 'substantially lower reproducibility than the others' is partly post-hoc and may bias the discharge-sensitivity comparison. Case 16 is precisely the lowest-discharge, lowest-slope condition, the regime where the discrepancy with theory is largest, so excluding it could strengthen the appearance of a monotonic discharge trend. The authors should either justify exclusions with a pre-specified protocol, or report how the Figure 8 results change when Case 16 and the excluded replicates are included. Without this, the robustness of the inferred power-law exponents to data-selection choices remains unclear.
  4. [Appendix A1] The goodness of fit R^2 > 0.90 (and about 0.75 in the least favorable case) is cited as evidence that the Landau equation adequately represents bar-height evolution, but this does not validate the functional form: many sigmoidal curves fit such time series equally well. The statistical screening that removes coefficients with p > 0.05 assesses coefficient reliability, not model adequacy. A residual analysis, a comparison with alternative growth-and-saturation models, or a test of the implied relationship between growth rate and current height (e.g., dH_MB/dt divided by H_MB versus H_MB^2) would provide much stronger support for the use of Eq. (5).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.3.1] There is an internal equation-numbering inconsistency: the text says 'Equation (6)' when referring to the Landau equation, but Eq. (5) is the Landau equation and Eq. (6) is its general solution; please correct the cross-references.
  2. [Table 1 and Figure 3] The caption of Figure 3 does not note that panel (o) is absent for I = 1/200 due to the exclusion of Case 16; please state this in the caption or figure layout for clarity.
  3. [Section 2.1] The critical discharge Q_c appearing in Table 1 is said to be 'calculated by the method described later,' but the method is not described in Section 2.1; please provide the formula or a forward reference to Section 3.3.2 where the stability analysis is presented.
  4. [Figure 8, legend] The legend entries '0.3' and '0.7' for the theoretical curves are not explained in the caption; they should be identified as the r values (transverse bedload direction coefficient) used in the stability analysis.
  5. [Section 5.1.2, Eq. (11)] The piecewise expression for H_MB/h_0 in Eq. (11) is introduced without derivation or definition of the symbols beyond the preceding amplitudes; please clarify how this composite expression arises from the two-mode evolution equations (9) and (10).
  6. [Various] Several typographical issues need correction: 'manuscript submitted toJGR' appears without the intended spacing; 'v/upales' in the Figure 9 caption should read 'v/u panels'; and 'T able 1' heading contains an extra space.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical Landau-fit growth rates are compared against an external linear-stability benchmark, and self-citations concern the measurement technique rather than the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the fit of Eq. (6), the general solution of the Landau equation, to measured bar-height time series, yielding the empirical growth rate Omega_HMB, followed by a comparison of Omega_HMB with the linear-theory growth rate Omega_11 computed from Colombini et al. (1987). The fitted quantity is not defined in terms of the theoretical quantity; the two are obtained independently, so the reported weaker sensitivity to discharge is an empirical outcome that could in principle have gone the other way. The paper explicitly flags the substitution of H_MB for alpha_11 as an approximation, stating 'Because bars are a superposition of multiple Fourier components, there is no theoretical guarantee that bar height follows a Landau equation,' and it provides goodness-of-fit diagnostics in Appendix A1. That is an acknowledged model assumption, not a circular definition or a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (Moteki et al. 2022; Ishihara and Yasuda 2022; Moteki et al. 2023; Seki et al. 2023) support the Stream Tomography measurement technique and the perturbation design, not the growth-rate conclusion, and the main comparison uses external theory and empirical benchmarks (Colombini et al. 1987; S. Ikeda 1984). The non-sediment-transport-zone analysis is a quantitative diagnostic based on the criterion tau* < tau*_c; while lower base Shields numbers make the threshold easier to cross, the reported spatial patterns and their dependence on bar height are computed from measured bed topography rather than imposed by the claim. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no parameter fitted to a subset of data is subsequently presented as a prediction of that same subset. Therefore the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mainly on modeling choices: the Landau functional form, the Exner-based timescale, and the single-mode theoretical benchmark. These are flagged in the text but are not independently verified. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • r (bedload transverse transport direction coefficient) = 0.3-0.7 (swept)
    The theoretical growth-rate curves in Figure 8 vary with r; the paper plots the full range and does not identify a best-fit value, so the theory-experiment comparison band depends on this unconstrained constant.
  • Landau coefficients Omega_HMB, H_MBe, H_MB0 per replicate = Per-condition fitted values (Appendix A1)
    These are the empirical outputs of the study, obtained by nonlinear least-squares fitting of Eq. (6); they are experimental products rather than ad hoc inputs, but their values inherit the assumed Landau functional form.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Bar height H_MB(t) follows the Landau equation (Eq. 5) with H_MB substituted for the single-mode amplitude alpha_11.
    The paper states 'there is no theoretical guarantee that bar height follows a Landau equation' and adopts the form based on the sigmoidal shape of the data (Section 3.3.1). All growth-rate estimates rest on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The Exner-based dimensionless time t* (Eq. 1) with the Meyer-Peter-Muller bedload formula is the appropriate common clock for comparing growth rates across discharges.
    The central trend 'growth rate increases with decreasing discharge' holds on this bedload-based timescale; in real time, lower-discharge runs take longer to reach the same t* (Table 1). The paper discloses this framing in the key points.
  • domain assumption The maximum linear growth rate of the single (m,n)=(1,1) mode from Colombini-type stability analysis is the correct benchmark for the growth rate of composite bar height.
    The comparison in Figure 8 and the 'weaker sensitivity' claim assume that Omega_11 of the single most-amplified mode should match the growth rate of the observed bar height, which is a superposition of modes (Sections 3.3.2 and 5.1.2).
  • domain assumption Bar-height growth in these experiments is governed primarily by progressive scour rather than deposition.
    Based on Figure 4 (min bed elevation decreases while max elevation is nearly constant); the mechanistic interpretation in Section 5.2 relies on scour-driven growth (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Nays2D depth-averaged fixed-bed simulations with the measured bed prescribed and Manning-Strickler roughness reproduce the flow deflection and shear-stress distributions relevant to bar growth.
    The mechanism (Sections 4 and 5.2) is inferred from these simulations; the model is not validated against independent velocity measurements in this paper (Section 2.3).
  • domain assumption Non-sediment-transport zones are identified by the criterion tau* < tau*c = 0.034.
    The expansion of non-transport zones in Figure 12 is defined by this threshold; below-threshold areas are white in Figure 9. The 15-fold difference at I=1/143 is partly a consequence of lower base tau*0 at low discharge.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of Discharge on the Nonlinear Bar Growth: A Flume Experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WYKR4OXT

@misc{pith2026260805593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of Discharge on the Nonlinear Bar Growth: A Flume Experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WYKR4OXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05593}
}
read the original abstract

Alternate bars are ubiquitous bedforms in alluvial rivers, and excessive bar-height growth can increase flood risk and disrupt ecosystems. Predicting bar-height variability requires quantifying the dependence of bar growth rate on water discharge, yet this has rarely been achieved because conventional flume measurements interrupt the flow and cannot continuously capture bar evolution. Here we conducted laboratory experiments under four discharges and four channel slopes (16 conditions) and continuously mapped bed topography using Stream Tomography, a nonintrusive, flow-through measurement technique. Bar height exhibits sigmoidal growth and is well described by the Landau equation, allowing robust estimation of the growth rate and equilibrium height. The inferred dimensionless growth rate tends to increase as discharge decreases, but its sensitivity is weaker than that predicted by stability theory for a single alternate-bar mode. This discrepancy becomes more pronounced at lower discharge, indicating limitations of linearization and the influence of interactions among multiple bar modes. Furthermore, numerical flow simulations over the measured bed topography reveal that, during bar development, lower-discharge conditions produce a relatively larger bar height-to-depth ratio, making the flow more prone to deflection. In such cases, sediment transport is restricted downstream of depositional areas, thereby limiting bar migration. Consequently, flow and sediment transport become concentrated in the scour zones, enhancing local scour and promoting the growth of bar height. These results provide benchmark constraints for bar stability theories and help improve predictions of how bar height responds to changes in discharge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05593 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Longitudinal view of the experimental flume. –11– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal changes in bed elevation in plan view (top) and in longitudinal profiles (bottom) for Case 10, Replicate 1: (a) t = 60 min, (b) t = 80 min, and (c) t = 100 min. The blue and orange dashed lines in the plan view correspond to the blue and orange solid lines in the longitudinal profiles, respectively. The green circles in the longitudinal profiles indicate the intersection points of the left- and right-bank b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. During the stage of bar-height growth, under lower discharges, bars grow in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Temporal evolution of the alternate-bar height. Rows correspond to channel slope (I = 1/91, 1/111, 1/143, and 1/200, from top to bottom), and columns correspond to discharge (Q = 1.7, 2.2, 2.7, and 3.2 L/s, from left to right). The black solid lines indicate the mean v…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal changes in the deposition and scour locations. Rows correspond to chan￾nel slope (I = 1/91, 1/111, 1/143, and 1/200, from top to bottom), and columns correspond to discharge (Q = 1.7, 2.2, 2.7, and 3.2 L/s, from left to right). Circles and crosses indicate the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temporal changes in the bar celerity. Rows correspond to channel slope (I = 1/91, 1/111, 1/143, and 1/200, from top to bottom), and columns correspond to discharge (Q = 1.7, 2.2, 2.7, and 3.2 L/s, from left to right). Circles and crosses indicate the upstream and down￾…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relationship between bar position and bar height. Rows correspond to channel slope (I = 1/91, 1/111, 1/143, and 1/200, from top to bottom), and columns correspond to discharge (Q = 1.7, 2.2, 2.7, and 3.2 L/s, from left to right). Circles and crosses indicate the upstre…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of the Landau-equation fit for I = 1/143 at each discharge. –23– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relationship between the bar growth rate and water discharge. Panels (a)–(d) show the results obtained using the sediment transport formula of Meyer-Peter and M¨uller (1948) at each channel slope, whereas panels (e)–(h) show those obtained using the formula of Parker (…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Contour maps at HMB/d ≈ 20 for I = 1/143. The first, second, and third rows show bed elevation, v/u, and τ∗, respectively. (a) Case 12, Replicate 1, at 80 min; (b) Case 9, Replicate 1, at 70 min. The target bar is outlined by the black dashed line. In the v/u pales, po…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Frequency distribution of |v|/u. (a) Case 12, Replicate 1, at 80 min; (b) Case 9, Replicate 1, at 70 min. The orange line shows a kernel density estimate (KDE) of the distribu￾tion. The distribution is multimodal (here, bimodal) under low-discharge conditions, whereas…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Representative values of |v|/u, an index of flow deflection on the target bar. The left panels (a), (c), (e), and (g) show the median (circles), and the right panels (b), (d), (f), and (h) show the mode (triangles). Rows correspond to channel slope (I = 1/91, 1/111, 1…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fractional area of the non-sediment-transport zones on the target bar at each channel slope. These zones expand as discharge decreases and bar height increases. –31– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Representative values of |v|/u, a measure of flow deflection considering bar shape alone. The left panels (a), (c), (e), and (g) show the smaller discharge, and the right panels (b), (d), (f), and (h) show the larger discharge. Rows correspond to channel slope (I = 1/…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , title =

    Seminara, G. , title =. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. , volume =. 2010 , doi =

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    and Ali, S

    Dey, S. and Ali, S. Z. , title =. Phys. Fluids , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    and Camporeale, C

    Visconti, F. and Camporeale, C. and Ridolfi, L. , title =. J. Geophys. Res. , volume =. 2010 , doi =

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    and Watanabe, Y

    Nagata, T. and Watanabe, Y. and Yasuda, H. and Ito, A. , title =. Earth Surf. Dynam. , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    and Hiramatsu, Y

    Inoue, T. and Hiramatsu, Y. and Johnson, J. P. L. and Dempo, J. and Mishra, J. , title =. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    , title =

    Gurnell, A. , title =. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Richard Hauer and Harvey Locke and Victoria J

    F. Richard Hauer and Harvey Locke and Victoria J. Dreitz and Mark Hebblewhite and Winsor H. Lowe and Clint C. Muhlfeld and Cara R. Nelson and Michael F. Proctor and Stewart B. Rood , title =. Sci. Adv. , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    and Deng, J

    Hu, Y. and Deng, J. and Li, D. and Lu, X. and Zhou, J. and Wang, C. and Li, Y. , title =. Geophys. Res. Lett. , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    work page 2024

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Impact of river regulation on gravel bar decline and vegetation expansion over recent decades , journal =

    Holu. Impact of river regulation on gravel bar decline and vegetation expansion over recent decades , journal =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  2. [10]

    and Mahendran, R

    Hirabayashi, Y. and Mahendran, R. and Koirala, S. and Konoshima, L. and Yamazaki, D. and Watanabe, S. and Kim, H. and Kanae, S. , title =. Nature Climate Change , volume =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  3. [11]

    Arnell, N. W. and Gosling, S. N. , title =. Climate Change , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  4. [12]

    and Hirabayashi, Y

    Tanoue, M. and Hirabayashi, Y. and Ikeuchi, H. , title =. Sci. Rep. , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  5. [13]

    Changing climate both increases and decreases European river floods , journal =

    Bl. Changing climate both increases and decreases European river floods , journal =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  6. [14]

    and Villarini, G

    Slater, L. and Villarini, G. and Archfield, S. and Faulkner, D. and Lamb, R. and Khouakhi, A. and Yin, J. , title =. Geophys. Res. Lett. , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  7. [15]

    and Welber, M

    Redolfi, M. and Welber, M. and Carlin, M. and Tubino, M. and Bertoldi, W. , title =. Earth Surf. Dynam. , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  8. [16]

    and Morgan, J

    Nelson, P. and Morgan, J. , title =. Geomorphology , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  9. [17]

    and Kishi, T

    Kuroki, M. and Kishi, T. , title =. Proceedings of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (in Japanese) , volume =. 1984 , doi =

    1984

  10. [18]

    and Seminara, G

    Colombini, M. and Seminara, G. and Tubino, M. , title =. J. Fluid Mech. , volume =. 1987 , doi =

    1987

  11. [19]

    , title =

    Redolfi, M. , title =. Water Resour. Res. , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  12. [20]

    and Tubino, M

    Lanzoni, S. and Tubino, M. , title =. J. Fluid Mech. , volume =. 1999 , doi =

    1999

  13. [21]

    and Repetto, R

    Tubino, M. and Repetto, R. and Zolezzi, G. , title =. J. Hydraul. Res. , volume =. 1999 , doi =

    1999

  14. [22]

    and Shimizu, Y

    Iwasaki, T. and Shimizu, Y. and Kimura, I. , title =. Adv. Water Resour. , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  15. [23]

    Stability analysis of ecomorphodynamic equations , journal =

    B. Stability analysis of ecomorphodynamic equations , journal =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  16. [24]

    , title =

    Kinoshita, R. , title =. Bureau of Resources, Science and Technology Agency, Research Material (in Japanese) , volume =. 1961 , doi =

    1961

  17. [25]

    and Muramoto, Y

    Fujita, Y. and Muramoto, Y. , title =. Bulletin of the Disaster Prevention Research Institute , volume =. 1982 , doi =

    1982

  18. [26]

    and Muramoto, Y

    Fujita, Y. and Muramoto, Y. , title =. Bulletin of the Disaster Prevention Research Institute , volume =. 1985 , doi =

    1985

  19. [27]

    , title =

    Ikeda, H. , title =. Environmental Research Center Papers, The University of Tsukuba , volume =. 1983 , doi =

    1983

  20. [28]

    Jaeggi, M. N. R. , title =. J. Hydraul. Eng. , volume =. 1984 , doi =

    1984

  21. [29]

    , title =

    Ikeda, S. , title =. J. Hydraul. Eng. , volume =. 1984 , doi =

    1984

  22. [30]

    and da Silva, A

    Cheng, Y. and da Silva, A. M. F , title =. J. Hydraul. Eng. , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  23. [31]

    and Doelman, A

    Schielen, R. and Doelman, A. and Swart, H. E. , title =. J. Fluid Mech. , volume =. 1993 , doi =

    1993

  24. [32]

    , title =

    Tubino, M. , title =. Water Resour. Res. , volume =. 1991 , doi =

    1991

  25. [33]

    , title =

    Hall, P. , title =. J. Fluid Mech. , volume =. 2004 , doi =

    2004

  26. [34]

    Welford, M. R. , title =. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. , volume =. 1994 , doi =

    1994

  27. [35]

    Bertagni, M. B. and Camporeale, C. , title =. Water Resour. Res. , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  28. [36]

    Ali, S. Z. and Dey, S. and Mahato, R. K. , title =. Proc. R. Soc. A , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  29. [37]

    and Redolfi, M

    Carlin, M. and Redolfi, M. and Tubino, M. , title =. Water Resour. Res. , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  30. [38]

    and Takatsu, S

    Izumi, N. and Takatsu, S. and Kawamura, S. , title =. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Ser. A2 (Applied Mechanics) (in Japanese) , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  31. [39]

    and Kawamura, S

    Izumi, N. and Kawamura, S. , title =. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Ser. B1 (Hydraulic Engineering) (in Japanese) , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  32. [40]

    and Yamaoka, I

    Hasegawa, K. and Yamaoka, I. , title =. Proceedings of the Japanese Conference on Hydraulic (in Japanese) , volume =. 1982 , doi =

    1982

  33. [41]

    Garcia, M. and Ni. Dynamics of sediment bars in straight and meandering channels: experiments on the resonance phenomenon , journal =. 1993 , doi =

    1993

  34. [42]

    and Carlin, M

    Redolfi, M. and Carlin, M. and Tubino, M. , title =. Geophys. Res. Lett. , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  35. [43]

    and Iwasaki, T

    Inoue, T. and Iwasaki, T. and Sumner, T. and Hiramatsu, Y. and Ozeki, T. and Sasaki, S. and Tomino, T. and Kido, R. , title =. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Special Issue (Hydraulic Engineering) (in Japanese) , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  36. [44]

    and Murai, T

    Moteki, D. and Murai, T. and Hoshino, T. and Yasuda, H. and Muramatsu, S. and Hayasaka, K. , title =. Phys. Fluids , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  37. [45]

    , title =

    Ishihara, M and Yasuda, H. , title =. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  38. [46]

    and Seki, S

    Moteki, D. and Seki, S. and Muramatsu, S. and Hayasaka, K. and Yasuda, H. , title =. Phys. Fluids , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  39. [47]

    and Moteki, D

    Seki, S. and Moteki, D. and Yasuda, H. , title =. Phys. Fluids , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  40. [48]

    , title =

    Iwagaki, Y. , title =. Transactions of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (in Japanese) , volume =. 1956 , doi =

    1956

  41. [49]

    Meyer-Peter, E. and M. Formulas for Bed-Load transport , journal =

  42. [50]

    Nelson, J. M. and Shimizu, Y. and Abe, T. and Asahi, K. and Gamoue, M. and Inoue, T. and Iwasaki, T. and Kakinuma, T. and Kawamura, S. and Kimura, I. and Kyuka, T. and McDonald, R. R. and Nabi, M. and Nakatsugawa, M. and Sim. The international river interface cooperative: Publ...

    2016

  43. [51]

    and Nelson, J

    Shimizu, Y. and Nelson, J. and Ferrel, K. A. and Asahi, K. and Giri, S. and Inoue, T. and Iwasaki, T. and Jang, C-L. and Kang, T. and Kimura, I. and Kyuka, T. and Mishara, T. and Nabi, M. and Patsinghasanee, S. and Yamaguchi, S. , title =. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. , volume ...

    2019

  44. [52]

    and Desta, F

    Crosato, A. and Desta, F. B. and Cornelisse, J. and Schuurman, F. and Uijttewaal, W. S. J. , title =. Water Resour. Res. , volume =. 2012 , doi =

    2012

  45. [53]

    and Muramoto, Y

    Fujita, Y. and Muramoto, Y. , title =. Disaster Prevention Research Institute annuals (in Japanese) , volume =. 1975 , doi =

    1975

  46. [54]

    , title =

    Parker, G. , title =. J. Fluid Mech. , volume =. 1978 , doi =

    1978

  47. [55]

    and Hansen, E

    Engelund, F. and Hansen, E. , title =. Technical University of Denmark Ostervoldgade , pages =

  48. [56]

    and Yamasaka, Y

    Fukuoka, S. and Yamasaka, Y. , title =. Proceedings of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (in Japanese) , volume =. 1985 , doi =

    1985

  49. [57]

    and Yamasaka, Y

    Fukuoka, S. and Yamasaka, Y. and Shimizu, Y. , title =. Proceedings of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (in Japanese) , volume =. 1985 , doi =

    1985

  50. [58]

    and Ishii, C

    Kuroki, M. and Ishii, C. and Itakura, T. , title =. Proceedings of Hydraulic Engineering (in Japanese) , volume =. 1992 , doi =

    1992

  51. [59]

    and Pornprommin, A

    Izumi, N. and Pornprommin, A. , title =. Proceedings of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (in Japanese) , volume =. 2002 , doi =

    2002

  52. [60]

    and Kuwamura, T

    Watanabe, Y. and Kuwamura, T. , title =. Proceedings of Hydraulic Engineering (in Japanese) , volume =. 2005 , doi =

    2005

  53. [61]

    , title =

    Watanabe, Y. , title =. Proceedings of Hydraulic Engineering (in Japanese) , volume =. 2006 , doi =

    2006

  54. [62]

    Lisle, T. E. and Ikeda, H. and Iseya, F. , title =. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. , volume =. 1991 , doi =

    1991

  55. [63]

    , title =

    Seki, S. , title =. Zenodo , year =

  56. [64]

    and Devineni, N

    Najibi, N. and Devineni, N. , title =. Earth Syst. Dynam. , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  57. [65]

    and Rinaldi, M

    Belletti, B. and Rinaldi, M. and Buijse, A. D. and Gurnell, A. M. and Mosselman, E. , title =. Environ. Earth Sci. , volume =. 2015 , doi =

    2015

  58. [66]

    Bank erosion processes measured with UAV-SfM along complex banklines of a straight mid-sized river reach , journal =

    Dur. Bank erosion processes measured with UAV-SfM along complex banklines of a straight mid-sized river reach , journal =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  59. [67]

    and Gong, Z

    Zhao, K. and Gong, Z. and Zhang, K. and Wang, K. and Jin, C. and Zhou, Z. and Xu, F. and Coco, G. , title =. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  60. [68]

    Das, V. K. and Debnath, K. , title =. J. Hydrol. , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.