{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027675276752767528, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0027675276752767526, 'mean_word_length': 5.436201780415431, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Asymmetrical deltas below wave base: Insights from the Fraser River Delta, Canada

The Fraser River Delta exhibits distinct asymmetry in the sedimentological and neoichnological characteristics of the updrift (south) and downdrift (north) sides of the main distributary channel in water depths below storm‐wave base. The asymmetry is the result of net northward tidal flow. Tides erode sediments across the updrift delta front, whereas the downdrift delta front is an area of net deposition. A submarine channel prevents sand eroded from the updrift delta front from reaching the downdrift delta. The updrift delta front and updrift upper prodelta are composed of sand or heterolithic sand and mud that show a low density of burrowing (Bioturbation Index 0 to 3) and are dominated by simple traces. The downdrift delta front and prodelta, and the updrift lower prodelta are composed of homogeneous muds with significantly higher bioturbation intensities (Bioturbation Index 3 to 6), and a more diverse suite of traces akin to Cruziana Ichnofacies. Using the Fraser River Delta as an archetype and comparing the Fraser to the Amazon River Delta, a preliminary model for deep‐water (below storm‐wave base: ca 20 m) asymmetrical deltas is proposed. Firstly, deep‐water asymmetrical deltas are recognized from sediments deposited below storm‐wave base. At these depths, tidal and ocean currents are more likely to impact sediment transport, but wave processes are less effective as a sediment transport mechanism. Sediments deposited below storm‐wave base in deep‐water asymmetrical deltas will display the following: (i) the updrift delta front will be coarser‐grained (for example, sand‐dominated or heterolithic sand and mud), than the downdrift delta front (for example, mud‐dominated); and (ii) the updrift delta front should show low‐diversity suites of simple burrows. Depending on sedimentation rates, the downdrift delta front and prodelta may show either high diversity suites of traces that are dominated by both complex and simple burrows (low sedimentation rates) or low density and diversity suites akin to the updrift delta front (high sedimentation rates).