, 2009) and was supported by both the quasi-stable sea level in the Black Sea since the mid Holocene (Giosan et al., 2006a and Giosan et al., 2006b) and the drastic increase in discharge over the last 1000–2000 years (Giosan et al., find more 2012). Second, delta fringe depocenters supporting delta lobe development are associated only with the mouths of major distributaries, but their volume is influenced by both sediment discharge and mouth morphodynamics. Lobes develop and are maintained not only via repartitioning most of the sediment

load to a single distributary but also by trapping of fluvial and marine sediments at the wave-dominated mouths of small discharge distributaries and periodically releasing them downcoast (Giosan et al., 2005). In this way, multiple lobes with different morphologies can coexist, abandonment of wave-dominated lobes is delayed and, by extension, the intensity www.selleckchem.com/products/GDC-0941.html of coastal erosion is minimized. River delta restoration as defined by Paola et al. (2011) “involves diverting sediment and water from major channels into adjoining drowned areas, where the sediment can build new land and provide

a platform for regenerating wetland ecosystems.” Such strategies are being currently discussed for partial restoration of the Mississippi delta, because the fluvial sediment load there is already lower than what is necessary to offset the already lost land ( Turner, 1997, Blum and Roberts, 2009 and Blum and Roberts, 2012). The decline in fluvial sediment load on the Mississippi Metalloexopeptidase combined with the isolation of the delta plain by artificial levees and enhanced subsidence have led to enormous losses of wetland, but capture of some fluvial sediment that is now lost at sea (e.g., Falcini et al., 2012) is envisioned via controlled river releases during floods and/or diversions

( Day et al., 1995, Day et al., 2009, Day et al., 2012 and Nittrouer et al., 2012). Strategies are designed to maximize the capture of bedload, which is the primary material for new land build up ( Allison and Meselhe, 2010 and Nittrouer et al., 2012) and they include deep outlet channels and diversions after meander bends where lift-off of bed sand increases. Mass balance modeling for the Mississippi delta indicates that between a fourth and a half of the estimated land loss could be counteracted by capturing the available fluvial sediment load ( Kim et al., 2009). Sand is indeed needed to nucleate new land in submerged environments, but enhancing the input of fine sediments to deltaic wetlands should in principle be an efficient way to maintain the delta plain that is largely above sea level because fine suspended sediments make up the great bulk of the sediment load in large rivers (e.g., 98–95%; Milliman and Farnsworth, 2011).