Advertisement

Comparison of sampling designs for sediment source fingerprinting in an agricultural watershed in Atlantic Canada

  • Monica Boudreault
  • Alexander J. KoiterEmail author
  • David A. Lobb
  • Kui Liu
  • Glenn Benoy
  • Philip N. Owens
  • Sheng LiEmail author
Sediment Fingerprinting in the Critical Zone

Abstract

Purpose

Sediment fingerprinting is increasingly being used to improve the understanding of sediment dynamics within the critical zone and provide information that can help guide management decisions at the watershed scale. The objectives of this study were to investigate both the implications of different sediment fingerprinting sampling designs and spatial scales on the characterization of sediment dynamics in a predominantly agricultural watershed in northwestern New Brunswick, Canada.

Materials and methods

Color and radionuclide fingerprints were used to discriminate between three potential sediment sources: agricultural topsoil, agricultural streambanks, and forested areas (topsoil and streambanks). Suspended sediment was collected seasonally, between 2008 and 2014, at five sites with drainage areas ranging from 3.0 to 13.4 km2. Using the same source and sediment data set, multiple-, nested-, and local-location fingerprinting sampling designs were employed to investigate the influence of scale of observation, geomorphic connectivity, land use, and the heterogeneity of source fingerprints on apportionment results.

Results and discussion

Sediment collected in the headwaters was primarily derived from forested areas while the sediment collected at the outlet of the watershed was primarily from agricultural topsoil. When comparing the multiple- and nested-location designs, it was found that accounting for the spatial variability in the fingerprint properties of each source had a small difference in the sediment apportionment results. Furthermore, the local-location design demonstrated that the sediment collected at each location was composed of predominately local sources as opposed to upstream sediment entering the local catchment.

Conclusions

Assessment of the sources of sediment at a range of spatial scales better accounts for both geomorphic connectivity and differences in land use throughout the watershed. Overall, each of the three fingerprinting sampling designs provided different information that can be used to guide soil and water conservation management.

Keywords

Agriculture Sampling design Sediment fingerprinting Water quality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Assistance with laboratory analyses and fieldwork was provided by Serban Danielescu, Rick Allaby, Fangzhou Zheng, Zisheng Xing, Junyu Qi, Lionel Stevens, Sylvie Lavoie, John Monteith, Meagan Betts, Tegan Smith, Eva Slavicek, Yulia Kupriyanovich, and Brendon Brooks.

Funding information

This work was supported by several synergy projects funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). Major funding projects include, but not limited to, AAFC A-base projects #1538: “Reducing sediment, N and P loading from arable cropping systems to receiving waters in eastern Canada (PEI, NB, NS, QC)”, ECCC National Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative, and NSERC strategic project (STPGP 413426-2011): “Development of environmental fingerprinting techniques for sources of sediment and associated phosphorus within agricultural watersheds of Canada”.

Supplementary material

11368_2019_2306_MOESM1_ESM.png (148 kb)
Fig. S1 Median grain size of the < 2 mm fraction for the three sources and the suspended sediment at each of the five sampling locations. Red line indicates the commonly used upper limit of grain size (63 μm) used in many fingerprinting studies (PNG 148 kb)
11368_2019_2306_MOESM2_ESM.png (341 kb)
Fig. S2 Box and whisker plots showing the distribution of the eight color-based coefficients (unitless) and the 137Cs activity (Bq kg−1) for the three sources and the suspended sediment collected at the five sampling locations (PNG 341 kb)
11368_2019_2306_MOESM3_ESM.png (1.3 mb)
Fig. S3 Linear regression demonstrating the variability in the relation between median grain size (as measured on the < 2 mm fraction) and the eight color-based coefficients (unitless) and the 137Cs activity (Bq kg−1) for each of the three potential sources of sediment. (unitless) and the 137Cs activity(Bq kg−1) for each of the three potential sources of sediment (PNG 1358 kb)
11368_2019_2306_MOESM4_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. Barthod L, Liu K, Lobb DA, Owens PN, Martínez-Carreras N, Koiter AJ, Petticrew EL, McCullough GK, Cenwei L, Gaspar L (2015) Selecting color-based tracers and classifying sediment sources in the assessment of sediment dynamics using sediment source fingerprinting. J Environ Qual 44:1605–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett DA, Vitale AJ (2001) Evaluating nonpoint pollution policy using a tightly coupled spatial decision support system. Environ Manag 27:825–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilotta GS, Brazier RE (2008) Understanding the influence of suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biota. Water Res 42:2849–2861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blann K, Anderson J, Sands G, Vondracek B (2009) Effects of agricultural drainage on aquatic ecosystems: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 39:909–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boudreault M, Koiter AJ, Lobb DA, Owens PN, Liu K, Benoy G, Danielescu S, Li S (2018) Using colour, shape and radionuclide sediment fingerprints to identify sources of sediment in an agricultural watershed in Atlantic Canada. Can Water Resour J 43:347–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brantley SL, Goldhaber MB, Ragnarsdottir KV (2007) Crossing disciplines and scales to understand the critical zone. Elements 3:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brantley SL, DiBiase RA, Russo TA, Shi Y, Lin H, Davis KJ, Kaye M, Hill L, Kaye J, Eissenstat DM (2016) Designing a suite of measurements to understand the critical zone. Earth Surf Dynam 4:211–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chow TL, Cormier H, Daigle JL, Ghamem I (1990) Effects of potato cropping practices on water runoff and soil erosion. Can J Soil Sci 70:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chow TL, Xing Z, Ress HW (2009) Impacts of intensive potato production on water yield and sediment load. Final report (2004-2007) on watershed evaluation of beneficial management practices (WEBs) for black brook watershed. New Brunswick, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  10. Chow L, Xing Z, Benoy G, Rees HW, Meng F, Jiang Y, Daigle JL (2011) Hydrology and water quality across gradients of agricultural intensity in the Little River watershed area, New Brunswick, Canada. J Soil Water Conserv 66:71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins AL, Walling DE (2002) Selecting fingerprint properties for discriminating potential suspended sediment sources in river basins. J Hydrol 261:218–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins AL, Walling DE, Leeks GJL (1997) Source type ascription for fluvial suspended sediment based on a quantitative composite fingerprinting technique. Catena 29:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Du P, Walling DE (2017) Fingerprinting surficial sediment sources: exploring some potential problems associated with the spatial variability of source material properties. J Environ Manag 194:4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018) Weather Office. http://climate.weather.gc.ca/. Accessed 09 Aug 2018
  15. Fryirs K (2013) (dis)connectivity in catchment sediment cascades: a fresh look at the sediment delivery problem. Earth Surf Process Landf 38:30–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Govers G, Van Oost K, Wang Z (2014) Scratching the critical zone: the global footprint of agricultural soil erosion. Proc Earth Plan Sci 10:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Habibiandehkord R, Lobb DA, Owens PN, Flaten DN (2019) Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in controlling legacy phosphorus exports from agricultural land. J Environ Qual 48:314–321.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.04.0129
  18. Haddadchi A, Olley J, Pietsch T (2015) Quantifying sources of suspended sediment in three size fractions. J Soils Sediments 15:2086–2100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kemp P, Sear D, Collins A, Naden P, Jones I (2011) The impacts of fine sediment on riverine fish. Hydrol Process 25:1800–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King DJ, Eilers RG, Grant BA, Lobb DA, Padbury GA, Rees HW, Shelton IJ, Wall GJ, Vliet LJP (2000) Risk of tillage erosion. In: McRae T, Smith S, Gregorich LJ (eds) Environmental health of Canadian agroecosystems. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, pp 77–83Google Scholar
  21. Klages MG, Hsieh YP (1975) Suspended solids carried by the Gallatin River of southwestern Montana: II. Using mineralogy for inferring sources. J Environ Qual 4:68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koiter AJ, Lobb DA, Owens PN, Petticrew EL, Li S, Tiessen KHD (2013a) Investigating the role of connectivity and scale in assessing the sources of sediment in an agricultural watershed in the Canadian prairies using sediment source fingerprinting. J Soils Sediments 13:1676–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koiter AJ, Owens PN, Petticrew EL, Lobb DA (2013b) The behavioural characteristics of sediment properties and their implications for sediment fingerprinting as an approach for identifying sediment sources in river basins. Earth-Sci Rev 125:24–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laceby JP, Evrard O, Smith HG, Blake WH, Olley JM, Minella JPG, Owens PN (2017) The challenges and opportunities of addressing particle size effects in sediment source fingerprinting: a review. Earth-Sci Rev 169:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lal R (2006) Managing soils for feeding a global population of 10 billion. J Sci Food Agr 86:2273–2284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Langmaid KK, MacMillan JK, Loiser JG (1976) Soils of northern Victoria County, New Brunswick. 7th report of the New Brunswick soil survey. Canada Department of Agriculture. Thron press ltd, Fredericton, New Brunswick, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  27. Langmaid KK, Losier JG, MacMillan JK (1980) Soils of Madawaska County, New Brunswick. 8th report of the New Brunswick soil survey. Canada Department of Agriculture. Thron press ltd, Fredericton, New Brunswick, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu K, Lobb DA, Miller JJ, Owens PN, Caron ME (2018) Determining sources of fine-grained sediment for a reach of the lower little Bow River, Alberta, using a colour-based sediment fingerprinting approach. Can J Soil Sci 98:55–69Google Scholar
  29. Loucks OL (1962) A forest classification for the maritime provinces. Proc Nova Scotian Inst Sci 25:85–167Google Scholar
  30. Marshall IB, Schut PH, Ballard M (1999) A National Ecological Framework for Canada: attribute data. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  31. Martínez-Carreras N, Krein A, Gallart F, Iffly JF, Pfister L, Hoffmann L, Owens PN (2010) Assessment of different colour parameters for discriminating potential suspended sediment sources and provenance: a multi-scale study in Luxembourg. Geomorphology 118:118–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mckinley R, Radcliffe D, Mukundan R (2013) A streamlined approach for sediment source fingerprinting in a southern Piedmont watershed, USA. J Soils Sediments 13:1754–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mellerowicz KT, Ress HW, Chow TL, Ghamem I (1993) Soils of the black brook watershed St. Andre parish, Madawaska County, New Brunswick. New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fredericton, New Brunswick, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  34. Oliver DM, Clegg CD, Heathwaite AL, Haygarth PM (2007) Preferential attachment of Escherichia coli to different particle size fractions of an agricultural grassland soil. Water Air Soil Pollut 185:369–375Google Scholar
  35. Owens PN, Batalla RJ, Collins AJ, Gomez B, Hicks DM, Horowitz AJ, Kondolf GM, Marden M, Page MJ, Peacock DH, Petticrew EL, Salomons W, Trustrum NA (2005) Fine-grained sediment in river systems: environmental significance and management issues. River Res Applic 21:693–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Owens PN, Blake WH, Gaspar L, Gateuille D, Koiter AJ, Lobb DA, Petticrew EL, Raiffarth D, Smith HG, Woodward JC (2016) Fingerprinting and tracing the sources of soils and sediments: earth and ocean sciences, geoarchaeological, forensic, and human health applications. Earth-Sci Rev 162:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parnell AC, Inger R, Bearhop S, Jackson AL (2010) Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too much variation. PLoS One 5:e9672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Pimentel D (2006) Soil erosion: a food and environmental threat. Environ Devel Sustain 8:119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quinton JN, Catt JA (2007) Enrichment of heavy metals in sediment resulting from soil erosion on agricultural fields. Environ Sci Technol 41:3495–3500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-project.org/
  42. Ritchie JC, Clebsch EEC, Rudolph WK (1970) Distribution of fallout and natural gamma radionuclides in litter, humus and surface mineral soil layers under natural vegetation in the Great Smoky Mountains, North Carolina-Tennessee. Health Phys 18:479–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. RStudio Team (2016) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA http://www.rstudio.com/
  44. Russell MA, Walling DE, Hodgkinson RA (2001) Suspended sediment sources in two small lowland agricultural catchments in the UK. J Hydrol 252:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith HG, Sheridan GJ, Lane PNJ, Noske PJ, Heijnis H (2011) Changes to sediment sources following wildfire in a forested upland catchment, southeastern Australia. Hydrol Process 25:2878–2889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stock BC, Semmens BX (2016) Unifying error structures in commonly used biotracer mixing models. Ecology 97:2562–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stock BC, Jackson AL, Ward EJ, Parnell AC, Phillips DL, Semmens BX (2018) Analyzing mixing systems using a new generation of Bayesian tracer mixing models. PeerJ 6c:e5096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Su JJ, van Bochove E, Thériault G, Novotna B, Khaldoune J, Denault JT, Zhou J, Nolin MC, Hu CX, Bernier M, Benoy G, Xing ZS, Chow L (2011) Effects of snowmelt on phosphorus and sediment losses from agricultural watersheds in eastern Canada. Agric Water Manag 98:867–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vale SS, Fuller IC, Procter JN, Basher LR, Smith IE (2016) Application of a confluence-based sediment-fingerprinting approach to a dynamic sedimentary catchment, New Zealand. Hydrol Process 30:812–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2013) Modern applied statistics with S-PLUS. Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  51. Wall GJ, Wilding LP (1976) Mineralogy and related parameters of fluvial suspended sediments in northwestern Ohio. J Environ Qual 5:168–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Walling DE (1983) The sediment delivery problem. J Hydrol 65:209–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walling DE (2005) Tracing suspended sediment sources in catchments and river systems. Sci Total Environ 344:159–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Walling DE, Peart MR, Oldfield F, Thompson R (1979) Suspended sediment sources identified by magnetic measurements. Nature 281:110–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walling DE, Owens PN, Leeks GJL (1999) Fingerprinting suspended sediment sources in the catchment of the river Ouse, Yorkshire, UK. Hydrol Process 13:955–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weihs C, Ligges U, Luebke K, Raabe N (2005) klaR analyzing German business cycles. In: Baier D, Decker R, Schmidt-Thieme L (eds) Data analysis and decision support. Springer, Berlin, pp 335–343Google Scholar
  57. Wethered AS, Ralph TJ, Smith HG, Fryirs KA, Heijnis H (2015) Quantifying fluvial (dis)connectivity in an agricultural catchment using a geomorphic approach and sediment source tracing. J Soils Sediments 15:2052–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Withers P, Jarvie H (2008) Delivery and cycling of phosphorus in rivers: a review. Sci Total Environ 400:379–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yang Q, Meng F-R, Zhao Z, Chow TL, Benoy G, Rees HW, Bourque CP-A (2009) Assessing the impacts of flow diversion terraces on stream water and sediment yields at a watershed level using SWAT model. Agric Ecosyst Environ 132:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhao Z, Chow TL, Rees HW, Yang Q, Xing Z, Meng F-R (2009) Predict soil texture distributions using an artificial neural network model. Comput Electron Agric 65:36–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zheng Y, Luo X, Zhang W, Wu B, Han F, Lin Z, Wang X (2012) Enrichment behavior and transport mechanism of soil-bound PAHs during rainfall-runoff events. Environ Pollut 171:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fredericton Research and Development CentreAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaFrederictonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Soil ScienceUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Department of GeographyBrandon UniversityBrandonCanada
  4. 4.Swift Current Research and Development CentreAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaSwift CurrentCanada
  5. 5.Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management and Canadian Rivers InstituteUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada
  6. 6.Environmental Science Program and Quesnel River Research CentreUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada

Personalised recommendations