Advertisement

Equilibrium sediment exchange in the earth’s critical zone: evidence from sediment fingerprinting with stable isotopes and watershed modeling

  • David Tyler Mahoney
  • Nabil Al Aamery
  • James Forrest FoxEmail author
  • Brenden Riddle
  • William Ford
  • Y. T. Wang
Sediment Fingerprinting in the Critical Zone

Abstract

Purpose

The equilibrium sediment exchange process is defined as instantaneous deposition of suspended sediment to the streambed countered by equal erosion of sediment from the streambed. Equilibrium exchange has rarely been included in sediment transport studies but is needed when the sediment continuum is used to investigate the earth’s critical zone.

Materials and methods

Numerical modeling in the watershed uplands and stream corridor simulates sediment yield and sediment source partitioning for the Upper South Elkhorn watershed in Kentucky, USA. We simulate equilibrium exchange when upland-derived sediment simultaneously deposits to the streambed while streambed sediments erode. Sediment fingerprinting with stable carbon isotopes allowed constraint of the process in a gently rolling watershed.

Results and discussion

Carbon isotopes work well to partition upland sediment versus streambed sediment because sediment deposited in the streambed accrues a unique autotrophic, i.e., algal, fingerprint. Stable nitrogen isotopes do not work well to partition the sources in this study because the nitrogen isotope fingerprint of algae falls in the middle of the nitrogen isotope fingerprint of upland sediment. The source of sediment depends on flow intensity for the gently rolling watershed. Streambed sediments dominate the fluvial load for low and moderate events, while upland sediments become increasingly important during high flows and extreme events. We used sediment fingerprinting results to calibrate the equilibrium sediment exchange rate in the watershed sediment transport model.

Conclusions

Our sediment fingerprinting and modeling evidence suggest equilibrium sediment exchange is a substantial process occurring in the system studied. The process does not change the sediment load or streambed sediment storage but does impact the quality of sediment residing in the streambed. Therefore, we suggest equilibrium sediment exchange should be considered when the sediment continuum is used to investigate the critical zone. We conclude the paper by outlining future research priorities for coupling sediment fingerprinting with watershed modeling.

Keywords

Carbon stable isotopes Sediment continuum Sediment fingerprinting Watershed sediment transport modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the two anonymous reviewers, the submission editor, and the Editor-In-Chief for comments that greatly improved the quality of this paper. We thank LIF Creative (www.lif-creative.com) for illustration and graphic design assistance.

Funding information

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of this research under National Science Foundation Award 163288.

Supplementary material

11368_2018_2208_MOESM1_ESM.docx (48 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 48 kb)

References

  1. Ahmadi SH, Amin S, Keshavarzi AR, Mirzamostafa N (2006) Simulating watershed outlet sediment concentration using the ANSWERS model by applying two sediment transport capacity equations. Biosyst Eng 94(4):615–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al Aamery N, Fox JF, Snyder M (2016) Evaluation of climate modeling factors impacting the variance of streamflow. J Hydrol 542:125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alberts EE, Nearing MA, Weltz MA, Risse LM, Pierson FB, Zhang XC, Laflen JM, Simanton JR (1995) Chapter 7 soil component. In: Flanagan DC, Nearing MA, USDA (eds) Water erosion and prediction project hillslope profile and watershed model documentation, NSERL Report No. 10. USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West Lafayette, pp 7.1–7.47Google Scholar
  4. Ambroise B (2004) Variable ‘active’ versus ‘contributing’ areas or periods: a necessary distinction. Hydrol Process 18(6):1149–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold JG, Allen PM (1999) Automated methods for estimating baseflow and ground water recharge from streamflow records. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(2):411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnold JG, Allen PM, Muttiah R, Bernhardt G (1995) Automated base flow separation and recession analysis techniques. Ground Water 33(6):1010–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellanger B, Huon S, Velasquez F, Valles V, Girardin C, Mariotti A (2004) Monitoring soil organic carbon erosion with δ13C and δ15N on experimental field plots in the Venezuelan Andes. Catena 58(2):125–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blake WH, Ficken KJ, Taylor P, Russell MA, Walling DE (2012) Tracing crop-specific sediment sources in agricultural catchments. Geomorphology 139:322–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonn BA, Rounds SA (2010) Use of stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen to identify sources of organic matter to bed sediments of the Tualatin River, Oregon (No. 2010-5154). US Geological Survey, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Borselli L, Cassi P, Torri D (2008) Prolegomena to sediment and flow connectivity in the landscape: a GIS and field numerical assessment. Catena 75(3):268–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bracken LJ, Turnbull L, Wainwright J, Bogaart P (2015) Sediment connectivity: a framework for understanding sediment transfer at multiple scales. Earth Surf Process Landf 40(2):177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cambardella CA, Elliott ET (1992) Particulate soil organic-matter changes across a grassland cultivation sequence. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:777–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell JE, Fox JF, Davis CM, Rowe HD, Thompson N (2009) Carbon and nitrogen isotopic measurements from southern Appalachian soils: assessing soil carbon sequestration under climate and land use variation. J Environ Eng ASCE 135(6):439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cellino M, Lemmin U (2004) Influence of coherent flow structures on the dynamics of suspended sediment transport in open-channel flow. J Hydraul Eng 130(11):1077–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chang HH (1988) Fluvial processes in river engineering. Krieger Publishing Company, MalabarGoogle Scholar
  17. Collins AL, Walling DE, Leeks GJL (1997) Source type ascription for fluvial suspended sediment based on a quantitative composite fingerprinting technique. Catena 29(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooper RJ, Pedentchouk N, Hiscock KM, Disdle P, Krueger T, Rawlins BG (2015) Apportioning sources of organic matter in streambed sediments: an integrated molecular and compound-specific stable isotope approach. Sci Total Environ 520:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dalzell BJ, Filley TR, Harbor JM (2007) The role of hydrology in annual organic carbon loads and terrestrial organic matter export from a midwestern agricultural watershed. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 71(6):1448–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis C (2008) Sediment fingerprinting using organic matter tracers to study streambank erosion and streambed sediment storage processes in the South Elkhorn watershed. MSc thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis CM, Fox JF (2009) Sediment fingerprinting: review of the method and future improvements for allocating sediment non-point source pollution. J Environ Eng ASCE 135(7):490–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dou GR (1974) Similarity theory and its application to design of total sediment transport model, vol 14. Research Bulletin of Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, Nanjing, pp 127–139Google Scholar
  23. Droppo IG, Amos CL (2001) Structure, stability, and transformation of contaminated lacustrine surface fine-grained laminae. J Sediment Res 71(5):717–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Droppo IG, Stone M (1994) In-channel surficial fine-grained sediment laminae. Part I: physical characteristics and formational processes. Hydrol Process 8(2):101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ford WI (2011) Particulate organic carbon fate and transport in a lowland, temperate watershed. MSc thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Ford WI (2014) Control of the surficial fine-grained laminae upon stream carbon and nitrogen cycles. PhD dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Ford WI, Fox JF (2014) Model of particulate organic carbon transport in an agriculturally impacted stream. Hydrol Process 28(3):662–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ford WI, Fox JF (2017) Stabilization of benthic algal biomass in a temperate stream draining agroecosystems. Water Res 108:432–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ford WI, Fox JF, Pollock E, Rowe H, Chakraborty S (2015a) Testing assumptions for nitrogen transformations in a low gradient agricultural stream. J Hydrol 527:908–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ford WI, Fox JF, Rowe H (2015b) Impact of extreme hydrologic disturbance upon the sediment carbon quality in agriculturally-impacted temperate stream. Ecohydrology 8(3):438–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fox JF (2006) Fingerprinting using biogeochemical tracers to investigate watershed processes. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Fox JF (2009) Identification of sediment sources in forested watersheds with surface coal mining disturbance using carbon and nitrogen isotopes. J Am Water Resour Assoc 45(5):1273–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fox JF, Davis CM, Martin DK (2010) Sediment source assessment in a lowland watershed using nitrogen stable isotopes. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46(6):1192–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fox JF, Ford WI, Strom K, Villarini G, Meehan M (2014) Benthic control upon the morphology of transported fine sediments in a low-gradient stream. Hydrol Process 28(11):3776–3788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fox JF, Martin DK (2015) Sediment fingerprinting for calibrating a soil erosion and sediment-yield model in mixed land-use watersheds. J Hydrol Eng 20(6):C4014002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fox JF, Papanicolaou AN (2007) The use of carbon and nitrogen isotopes to study watershed erosion processes. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43(4):1047–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fox JF, Papanicolaou AN (2008a) An un-mixing model to study watershed erosion processes. Adv Water Resour 31(1):96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fox JF, Papanicolaou AN (2008b) Application of the spatial distribution of nitrogen stable isotopes for sediment tracing at the watershed scale. J Hydrol 358(1–2):46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fryirs K (2013) (Dis) connectivity in catchment sediment cascades: a fresh look at the sediment delivery problem. Earth Surf Process Landf 38(1):30–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ, Preston NJ, Kasai M (2007a) Buffers, barriers and blankets: the (dis) connectivity of catchment-scale sediment cascades. Catena 70(1):49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ, Preston NJ, Spencer J (2007b) Catchment-scale (dis) connectivity in sediment flux in the upper Hunter catchment, New South Wales, Australia. Geomorphology 84(3):297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gellis AC, Hupp CR, Pavich MJ, Landwehr JM, Banks WS, Hubbard BE, Langland MJ, Ritchie JC, Reuter JM (2009) Sources, transport, and storage of sediment at selected sites in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5186, 95 p, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Gibbs MM (2008) Identifying source soils in contemporary estuarine sediments: a new compound-specific isotope method. Estuar Coasts 31(2):344–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gomez B, Trustrum NA, Hicks DM, Rogers KM, Page MJ, Tate KR (2003) Production, storage, and output of particulate organic carbon: Waipaoa River basin, New Zealand. Water Resour Res 39(6).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001619
  45. Gourdin E, Huon S, Evrard O, Ribolzi O, Bariac T, Sengtaheuanghoung O, Ayrault S (2015) Sources and export of particle-borne organic matter during a monsoon flood in a catchment of northern Laos. Biogeosciences 12(4):1073–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gupta RS (2016) Hydrology and hydraulic systems. Waveland Press, Long GroveGoogle Scholar
  47. Guy BT, Dickenson WT, Sohrabi TM, Rudra RP (2009) Development of an empirical model for calculating sediment-transport capacity in shallow overland flows: model calibration. Biosyst Eng 103(2):245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hancock GJ, Revill AT (2013) Erosion source discrimination in a rural Australian catchment using compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA). Hydrol Process 27(6):923–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hanson GJ, Simon A (2001) Erodibility of cohesive streambeds in the loess area of the midwestern USA. Hydrol Process 15(1):23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hooghoudt SB (1940) General consideration of the problem of field drainage by parallel drains, ditches, watercourses, and channels. Publ. No.7 in the series Contribution to the knowledge of some physical parameters of the soil (titles translated from Dutch). Bodemkundig Instituut, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  51. Husic A, Fox JF, Ford WI, Agouridis C, Currens J, Taylor C (2017) Sediment carbon source, fate, and transport in a Fluviokarst watershed (part 2): numerical model development and application. J Hydrol 549:208–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jacinthe PA, Lal R, Owens LB (2009) Application of stable isotope analysis to quantify the retention of eroded carbon in grass filters at the North Appalachian experimental watersheds. Geoderma 148(3–4):405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jarritt NP, Lawrence DSL (2007) Fine sediment delivery and transfer in lowland catchments: modelling suspended sediment concentrations in response to hydrological forcing. Hydrol Process 21(20):2729–2744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Joe S, Kuo FY (2003) Remark on algorithm 659: implementing Sobol’s quasirandom sequence generator. ACM Trans Math Softw 29(1):49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Julien PY, Simons DB (1985) Sediment transport capacity of overland flow. Trans ASAE 28(3):755–0762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jung BJ, Lee HJ, Jeong JJ, Owen J, Kim B, Meusburger K, Alewell C, Gebauer G, Shope C, Park JH (2012) Storm pulses and varying sources of hydrologic carbon export from a mountainous watershed. J Hydrol 440:90–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kouhpeima A, Feiznia S, Ahmadi H, Hashemi SA, Zareiee AR (2010) Application of quantitative composite fingerprinting technique to identify the main sediment sources in two small catchments of Iran. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 5:6677–6698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. KYAPED (2014) Kentucky aerial photography and elevation data program. Available via http://kygeonet.ky.gov/kyfromabove/. Accessed 30 Jan 2018
  59. Laceby JP, Huon S, Onda Y, Vaury V, Evrard O (2016) Do forests represent a long-term source of contaminated particulate matter in the Fukushima Prefecture? J Environ Manag 183:742–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Laceby JP, Olley J, Pietsch TJ, Sheldon F, Bunn SE (2015) Identifying subsoil sediment sources with carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios. Hydrol Process 29(8):1956–1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lambert CP, Walling DE (1988) Measurement of channel storage of suspended sediment in a gravel-bed river. Catena 15(1):65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Madej MA, Sutherland DG, Lisle TE, Pryor B (2009) Channel responses to varying sediment input: a flume experiment modeled after Redwood Creek, California. Geomorphology 103(4):507–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mahoney DT (2017) Sediment transport modelling using dynamic (dis) connectivity prediction for a bedrock controlled catchment. MSc thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USAGoogle Scholar
  64. Mahoney DT, Fox JF, Al Aamery N (2018) Watershed erosion modeling using the probability of sediment connectivity in a gently rolling system. J Hydrol 561:862–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McCarney-Castle K, Childress TM, Heaton CR (2017) Sediment source identification and load prediction in a mixed-use Piedmont watershed, South Carolina. J Environ Manag 185:60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McConnachie JL, Petticrew EL (2006) Tracing organic matter sources in riverine suspended sediment: implications for fine sediment transfers. Geomorphology 79(1–2):13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McCorkle EP, Berhe AA, Hunsaker CT, Johnson DW, McFarlane KJ, Fogel ML, Hart SC (2016) Tracing the source of soil organic matter eroded from temperate forest catchments using carbon and nitrogen isotopes. Chem Geol 445:172–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McGrain P (1983) The geologic story of Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky Special Publication 8: Series XI, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  69. Minella JPG, Merten GH, Clarke RT (2004) Identification of sediment sources in a small rural drainage basin. IAHS Publ XX, IAHS Press, Wallingford, pp 44–51Google Scholar
  70. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. T ASABE 50(3):885–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mukundan R, Radcliffe DE, Ritchie JC (2011) Channel stability and sediment source assessment in streams draining a Piedmont watershed in Georgia, USA. Hydrol Process 25(8):1243–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mukundan R, Radcliffe DE, Ritchie JC, Risse LM, McKinley RA (2010) Sediment fingerprinting to determine the source of suspended sediment in a southern Piedmont stream. J Environ Qual 39(4):1328–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mukundan R, Walling DE, Gellis AC, Slattery MC, Radcliffe DE (2012) Sediment source fingerprinting: transforming from a research tool to a management tool. J Am Water Resour Assoc 48(6):1241–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nachtergaele J, Poesen J, Sidorchuk A, Torri D (2002) Prediction of concentrated flow width in ephemeral gully channels. Hydrol Process 16(10):1935–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Nadelhoffer KF, Fry B (1988) Controls on natural 15N and 13C abundances in forest soil organic matter. Soil Sci Soc Am J 52:1633–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nazari Samani A, Wasson RJ, Malekian A (2011) Application of multiple sediment fingerprinting techniques to determine the sediment source contribution of gully erosion: review and case study from Boushehr province, southwestern Iran. Prog Phys Geogr 35(3):375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Srinivasan R, Williams JR (2002) Soil and water assessment tool user’s manual version 2000. GSWRL Report 202:02-06, Publ. Texas Water Resources Institute. TR-192, College Station, TexasGoogle Scholar
  78. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2011) Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, College StationGoogle Scholar
  79. Nezu I, Nakagawa H (1993) Turbulence in open channel flows. IAHR/AIRH Monograph. Balkema, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  80. Nicholls DJ (2001) The source and behaviour of fine sediment deposits in the River Torridge Devon and their implications for salmon spawning. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Exeter, Exeter, UKGoogle Scholar
  81. Papanicolaou AN, Elhakeem M, Krallis G, Prakash S, Edinger J (2008) Sediment transport modeling review—current and future developments. J Hydraul Eng 134(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Papanicolaou AN, Fox JF, Marshall J (2003) Soil fingerprinting in the Palouse Basin, USA, using stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes. Int J Sediment Res 18(2):278–284Google Scholar
  83. Partheniades E (1965) Erosion and deposition of cohesive soils. J Hydraul Div 91(1):105–139Google Scholar
  84. Phillips JD (2003) Sources of nonlinearity and complexity in geomorphic systems. Prog Phys Geogr 27(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Phillips JM, Russell MA, Walling DE (2000) Time-integrated sampling of fluvial suspended sediment: a simple methodology for small catchments. Hydrol Process 14:2589–2602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rhoton FE, Emmerich WE, DiCarlo DA, McChesney DS, Nearing MA, Ritchie JC (2008) Identification of suspended sediment sources using soil characteristics in a semiarid watershed. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72(4):1102–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rose LA, Karwan DL, Aufdenkampe AK (2018) Sediment fingerprinting suggests differential suspended particulate matter formation and transport processes across hydrologic regimes. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 123:1213–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Russell MA, Walling DE, Hodgkinson RA (2001) Suspended sediment sources in two small lowland agricultural catchments in the UK. J Hydrol 252(1–4):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Russo JP (2009) Investigation of surface fine grained laminae, streambed, and streambank processes using a watershed scale hydrologic and sediment transport model. MSc thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USAGoogle Scholar
  90. Russo JP, Fox JF (2012) The role of the surface fine-grained laminae in a lowland watershed: a model approach. Geomorphology 171–172:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Saisana M, Tarantola S (2008) Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  92. Sanford LP, Maa JPY (2001) A unified erosion formulation for fine sediments. Mar Geol 179(1–2):9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schindler Wildhaber Y, Liechti R, Alewell C (2012) Organic matter dynamics and stable isotope signature as tracers of the sources of suspended sediment. Biogeosciences 9(6):1985–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Simon A, Thomas RE (2002) Processes and forms of an unstable alluvial system with resistant, cohesive streambeds. Earth Surf Process Landf 27(7):699–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sims RP, Preston DG, Richardson AJ, Newton JH, Isgrig D, Blevins RL (1968) Soil survey of Fayette county, Kentucky. USDA Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  96. Slimane AB, Raclot D, Evrard O, Sanaa M, Lefèvre I, Ahmadi M, Le Bissonnais Y (2013) Fingerprinting sediment sources in the outlet reservoir of a hilly cultivated catchment in Tunisia. J Soils Sediments 13(4):801–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Smith HG, Blake WH (2014) Sediment fingerprinting in agricultural catchments: a critical re-examination of source discrimination and data corrections. Geomorphology 204:177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Stewart HA, Massoudieh A, Gellis A (2015) Sediment source apportionment in Laurel Hill Creek, PA, using Bayesian chemical mass balance and isotope fingerprinting. Hydrol Process 29(11):2545–2560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Stewart RL, Fox JF (2015) Role of macroturbulence to sustain turbulent energy in decelerating flows over a gravel bed. Geomorphology 248:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Stone M, Droppo IG (1994) In-channel surficial fine-grained sediment laminae. Part II: chemical characteristics and implications for contaminant transport in fluvial systems. Hydrol Process 8(2):113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. USDA Soil Science Division Staff (2017) Soil survey manual. In: Ditzler C, Scheffe K, Monger HC (eds) USDA handbook 18. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  102. Walling DE (2005) Tracing suspended sediment sources in catchments and river systems. Sci Total Environ 344(1–3):159–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Walling DE, Collins AL, Sichingabula HM, Leeks GJL (2001) Integrated assessment of catchment suspended sediment budgets: a Zambian example. Land Degrad Dev 12(5):387–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Walling DE, Owens PN, Leeks GJ (1999) Fingerprinting suspended sediment sources in the catchment of the River Ouse, Yorkshire, UK. Hydrol Process 13(7):955–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Walling DE, Woodward JC (1995) Tracing sources of suspended sediment in river basins: a case study of the River Culm, Devon, UK. Mar Freshw Res 46(1):327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Walling DE, Woodward JC, Nicholas AP (1993) A multi-parameter approach to fingerprinting suspended-sediment sources. IAHS Publ XX, IAHS Press, Wallingford, pp 329–338Google Scholar
  107. Winterwerp JC, Van Kesteren WG (2004) Introduction to the physics of cohesive sediment dynamics in the marine environment (Vol. 56). Elsevier, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  108. Yan LJ, Yu XX, Lei TW, Zhang QW, Qu LQ (2008) Effects of transport capacity and erodibility on rill erosion processes: a model study using the finite element method. Geoderma 146(1–2):114–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Zhang Y, Collins AL, McMillan S, Dixon ER, Cancer-Berroya E, Poiret C, Stringfellow A (2017) Fingerprinting source contributions to bed sediment-associated organic matter in the headwater subcatchments of the River Itchen SAC, Hampshire, UK. River Res Appl 33(10):1515–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Tyler Mahoney
    • 1
  • Nabil Al Aamery
    • 1
  • James Forrest Fox
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brenden Riddle
    • 1
  • William Ford
    • 2
  • Y. T. Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biosystems & Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations