pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.11653 · v1 · pith:TY7KTVHZnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

On the Modelling of the Hydrodynamic Drag of Mangroves

Khang Ee Pang , Zhi Yung Tay This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 08:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn
keywords mangroveshydrodynamic dragwave attenuationvegetation modellingcoastal protectionroot characteristicsdrag force profile
0
0 comments X

The pith

Mangrove wave attenuation depends on frequency and species through root structure.

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

The paper develops a generalised parametrisation of mangrove vegetation profiles that applies across species. It then derives a wave attenuation model that includes root characteristics and proposes a simplified representation that matches a given drag force profile. This simplified form is intended for use in both simulations and physical experiments. OpenFOAM runs with the model show that wave damping strength changes with wave frequency and with the particular mangrove species. A reader would care because the finding points to root shape as a controllable factor in coastal wave protection.

Core claim

The authors introduce a generalised parametrisation of the mangrove vegetation profile that is applicable across multiple mangrove species and derive a wave attenuation model that explicitly accounts for the mangrove root characteristics. Based on this parametrisation, they propose a simplified mangrove representation that reproduces a prescribed drag force profile and is suitable for both computational fluid dynamics simulations and experimental fabrication. The hydrodynamic performance of the proposed model is evaluated using OpenFOAM simulations. The results show that the wave attenuation effectiveness of mangroves is frequency-selective and species dependent. This nonlinear behaviour con

What carries the argument

generalised parametrisation of the mangrove vegetation profile that reproduces a prescribed drag force profile

If this is right

  • Wave attenuation strength varies with wave frequency.
  • Attenuation also varies between mangrove species because of differences in root structure.
  • Classical vegetation models that ignore vertical biomass variation miss this nonlinear dependence.
  • Root characteristics form a direct control on the degree of coastal wave protection provided by mangroves.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Models used for coastal engineering may require species-specific root profiles to predict protection levels accurately.
  • The simplified drag-matching representation could be fabricated at laboratory scale to test additional root geometries.
  • Field campaigns that record both wave spectra and mangrove species composition could test whether the frequency selectivity appears in real shorelines.

Load-bearing premise

The generalised parametrisation of the mangrove vegetation profile applies across multiple species and the simplified representation accurately reproduces the drag force profile without needing species-specific recalibration beyond the initial fitting.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of predicted versus measured wave height reduction behind real mangrove stands of different species, recorded at several wave frequencies, would confirm or refute the frequency-selective and species-dependent attenuation.

read the original abstract

Mangroves are increasingly promoted as nature-based solutions for coastal protection, yet many existing models neglect the vertical variation of vegetation biomass, leading to oversimplified representations of root-flow interactions. In this study, we introduce a generalised parametrisation of the mangrove vegetation profile that is applicable across multiple mangrove species and derive a wave attenuation model that explicitly accounts for the mangrove root characteristics. Based on this parametrisation, we propose a simplified mangrove representation that reproduces a prescribed drag force profile and is suitable for both computational fluid dynamics simulations and experimental fabrication. The hydrodynamic performance of the proposed model is evaluated using OpenFOAM simulations. Our results show that the wave attenuation effectiveness of mangroves is frequency-selective and species dependent. This nonlinear behaviour contrasts with classical vegetation models and reveals a previously unrecognized mechanism by which mangrove root characteristics govern coastal protection.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a generalised parametrisation of mangrove vegetation profiles claimed to apply across multiple species, derives a wave attenuation model that accounts for root characteristics, proposes a simplified representation suitable for CFD and experiments that reproduces a prescribed drag force profile, and uses OpenFOAM simulations to conclude that wave attenuation is frequency-selective and species-dependent, exhibiting nonlinear behaviour that contrasts with classical vegetation models and reveals a new mechanism for coastal protection.

Significance. If the generalised parametrisation is shown to be robust across species without species-specific recalibration and the OpenFOAM results are independently validated without circularity in the drag profile, the work could strengthen models of nature-based coastal protection by identifying root-driven frequency selectivity as a governing factor.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Methods] The abstract and methods description provide no information on the number of mangrove species used to fit the generalised parametrisation, the fitting procedure, or any cross-validation on independent profiles; this directly undermines the central claim that the parametrisation is applicable across species without recalibration (see reader's weakest assumption).
  2. [Parametrisation and simplified representation sections] The derivation of the simplified representation that 'reproduces a prescribed drag force profile' does not clarify whether the target profile is obtained from independent measurements or constructed from the same vegetation profile coefficients being validated; if the latter, the reported nonlinear frequency-selective behaviour may be partly by construction (circularity concern).
  3. [Numerical simulations / Results] The OpenFOAM evaluation section reports hydrodynamic performance but supplies no mesh convergence details, boundary conditions, turbulence model choices, or quantitative validation against laboratory or field measurements of drag or wave attenuation; without these, the contrast with classical models and the claimed new mechanism cannot be assessed as load-bearing.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] Notation for the vegetation profile coefficients should be defined explicitly at first use and kept consistent between the generalised parametrisation and the simplified representation.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for any simulation results should include the specific species, wave frequencies, and parameter values used so that the frequency-selective claim can be directly inspected.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments point by point below and indicate where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods] The abstract and methods description provide no information on the number of mangrove species used to fit the generalised parametrisation, the fitting procedure, or any cross-validation on independent profiles; this directly undermines the central claim that the parametrisation is applicable across species without recalibration (see reader's weakest assumption).

    Authors: We agree that the presentation in the abstract and methods lacks sufficient detail on the development of the generalised parametrisation. The manuscript states that it applies across multiple species, but to strengthen this claim, we will revise the methods section to specify the species considered, describe the fitting procedure used, and report any cross-validation performed on independent profiles. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Parametrisation and simplified representation sections] The derivation of the simplified representation that 'reproduces a prescribed drag force profile' does not clarify whether the target profile is obtained from independent measurements or constructed from the same vegetation profile coefficients being validated; if the latter, the reported nonlinear frequency-selective behaviour may be partly by construction (circularity concern).

    Authors: The target drag force profile is based on independent measurements from the literature on mangrove root drag, separate from the profile coefficients. The simplified representation is a practical approximation for CFD and experiments that matches this prescribed profile. The frequency-selective behaviour emerges from the interaction of waves with the vertical root structure in the simulations, not from circular construction. We will add clarifying text in the parametrisation section to make this distinction explicit. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Numerical simulations / Results] The OpenFOAM evaluation section reports hydrodynamic performance but supplies no mesh convergence details, boundary conditions, turbulence model choices, or quantitative validation against laboratory or field measurements of drag or wave attenuation; without these, the contrast with classical models and the claimed new mechanism cannot be assessed as load-bearing.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for these details to allow proper assessment. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated subsection on the numerical setup, including mesh convergence studies, boundary conditions, and turbulence model. Regarding quantitative validation, the current study focuses on comparative simulations against classical vegetation models rather than direct experimental matching; we will discuss this scope limitation explicitly. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Quantitative validation against laboratory or field measurements of wave attenuation, as this would require additional experimental work beyond the scope of the current numerical study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: parametrization introduced independently then evaluated via simulation

full rationale

The abstract introduces a generalised parametrisation as a new modelling step applicable across species, derives a wave attenuation model from it, proposes a simplified representation to reproduce a prescribed drag profile, and evaluates performance via OpenFOAM simulations. No equations or self-citations are provided that reduce the frequency-selective or species-dependent results to a fit or definition by construction. The generality across species is presented as an assumption to be tested rather than a self-referential claim. This matches the default expectation of a self-contained derivation without load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model introduces a new generalized parametrization whose coefficients are not derived from first principles and must be chosen or fitted to match observed biomass profiles; the applicability across species is asserted without independent cross-validation data shown in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • vegetation profile coefficients
    The generalized parametrization requires species-specific or profile-specific coefficients to reproduce biomass variation with height.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The parametrization applies across multiple mangrove species
    Stated directly in the abstract as a basis for the model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5661 in / 1290 out tokens · 18709 ms · 2026-06-27T08:39:51.080834+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Mazda, Y ., Magi, M., Kogo, M., & Hong, P. N. (1997). Mangroves as a coastal protection from waves in the Tong King delta, Vietnam.Mangroves and Salt Marshes,1, 127–135

    1997

  2. [2]

    K., & Asano, T

    Mazda, Y ., Magi, M., Yoshichika Ikeda, T. K., & Asano, T. (2006). Wave reduction in a mangrove forest dominated by Sonneratia sp.Wetlands Ecol. Manage.,14, 365–378

    2006

  3. [3]

    A., Kirby, J

    Dalrymple, R. A., Kirby, J. T., & Hwang, P. A. (1984). Wave diffraction due to areas of energy dissipation.J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng.,110(1), 67–79

    1984

  4. [4]

    J., & Losada, I

    Mendez, F. J., & Losada, I. J. (2004). An empirical model to estimate the propagation of random breaking and nonbreaking waves over vegetation fields.Coast. Eng.,51(2), 103–118

    2004

  5. [5]

    Wu, W.-C., Ma, G., & Cox, D. T. (2016). Modeling wave attenuation induced by the vertical density variations of vegetation.Coast. Eng.,112, 17–27

    2016

  6. [6]

    Horstman, E., Bryan, K., Mullarney, J., Pilditch, C., & Eager, C. (2018). Are flow- vegetation interactions well represented by mimics? A case study of mangrove pneu- matophores.Adv. Water Resour .,111, 360–371

    2018

  7. [7]

    Ohira, W., Honda, K., Nagai, M., & Ratanasuwan, A. (2013). Mangrove stilt root mor- phology modeling for estimating hydraulic drag in tsunami inundation simulation.Trees, 27, 141–148

    2013

  8. [8]

    H., Blanco, A

    Yoshikai, M., Nakamura, T., Suwa, R., Argamosa, R., Okamoto, T., Rollon, R., Basina, R., Primavera-Tirol, Y . H., Blanco, A. C., Adi, N. S., & Nadaoka, K. (2021). Scaling relations and substrate conditions controlling the complexity of Rhizophora prop root system.Estuar . Coast. Shelf Sci.,248, 107014

    2021

  9. [9]

    Lopez-Arias, F., Maza, M., Calleja, F., Govaere, G., & Lara, J. L. (2024). Integrated drag coefficient formula for estimating the wave attenuation capacity of Rhizophora sp. mangrove forests.Front. Mar . Sci,11

    2024

  10. [10]

    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, 47–62

    2014

  11. [11]

    K., Gatziolis, D., Mullarney, J

    Liénard, J., Lynn, K., Strigul, N., Norris, B. K., Gatziolis, D., Mullarney, J. C., Karin, R. B., & Henderson, S. M. (2016). Efficient three-dimensional reconstruction of aquatic vegetation geometry: Estimating morphological parameters influencing hydrodynamic drag.Estuar . Coast. Shelf Sci.,178, 77–85

    2016

  12. [12]

    Mori, N., Chang, C.-W., Inoue, T., Akaji, Y ., Hinokidani, K., Baba, S., Takagi, M., Mori, S., Koike, H., Miyauchi, M., Suganuma, R., Sabunas, A., Miyashita, T., & Shimura, T. (2022). Parameterization of mangrove root structure of Rhizophora stylosa in coastal hydrodynamic model.Front. Built Environ.,7, 782219

    2022

  13. [13]

    L., & Losada, I

    Maza, M., Lara, J. L., & Losada, I. J. (2015). Tsunami wave interaction with mangrove forests: A 3-d numerical approach.Coast. Eng.,98, 33–54

    2015

  14. [14]

    L., & Losada, I

    Higuera, P., Lara, J. L., & Losada, I. J. (2013). Realistic wave generation and active wave absorption for Navier–Stokes models: Application to OpenFOAM®.Coast. Eng.,71, 102–118

    2013

  15. [15]

    E., & Fuhrman, D

    Larsen, B. E., & Fuhrman, D. R. (2018). On the over-production of turbulence beneath surface waves in Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes models.J. Fluid Mech.,853, 419– 460

    2018

  16. [16]

    Grue, J., & Huseby, M. (2002). Higher-harmonic wave forces and ringing of vertical cylinders.Appl. Ocean Res.,24(4), 203–214

    2002