Advertisement

Changes in particle size distribution of suspended sediment affected by gravity erosion: a field study on steep loess slopes

  • Wenzhao Guo
  • Xiangzhou XuEmail author
  • Tongxin Zhu
  • Hongwu Zhang
  • Wenlong Wang
  • Yakun Liu
  • Mingdong Zhu
Sediments, Sec 3 • Hillslope and River Basin Sediment Dynamics • Research Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Gravity erosion (mass movement) generates an enormous volume of sediments on steep slopes throughout the world, yet its effect on the particle size distribution of suspended sediments (PSDSS) remains poorly understood. The objective of this study is to quantify the effects of gravity erosion on soil loss, especially the changes of particle size distribution of the suspended sediment.

Materials and methods

In this study, experiments were conducted in a field mobile laboratory in which mass movements were triggered on steep slopes under simulated rainfall. During the experiments, water-sediment samples were collected in polyethylene bottles directly from the gully and channel flows before and during the mass movements. The volumes of each mass failure during and 20 min after the rainfalls were measured by a topography meter. The particle fractions of the samples were analyzed by combining the sieving and photoelectric sedimentometer techniques. A suite of indexes such as median sediment size (d50), sediment heterogeneity (H), fractal dimension (D), and enrichment/dilution ratio (Red) were then used to evaluate the effect of mass movement on PSDSS.

Results and discussion

(1) Gravity erosion had a significant influence on PSDSS. After the mass movements occurred, the proportion of sand-sized particles was decreased from 71 to 51%, whereas the proportions of clay and silt were increased from 1 to 7% and 28 to 42%, respectively. (2) The d50, H, and D were significantly correlated with slope failures. The d50 was decreased from 0.084 to 0.051 mm, whereas the H and D were increased from 5.6 to 26.8 and from 2.60 to 2.78, respectively. This implies that mass movements make the PSDSS more nonuniform and irregular. (3) The suspended sediment tended to be enriched in the silt and clay fractions and diluted in the sand fractions after mass movements. Reds for clay, slit, and sand fractions were 13.9, 1.4, and 0.7 respectively.

Conclusions

The changes of PSDSS after mass movements reflected a combined complex effect of soil sources, erosion types, selective detachment, and deposition processes. Mass movements led to a drastic increase of sediment concentration and the enrichment of fine particles, which developed into hyperconcentrated flows.

Keywords

Gravity erosion Landforms Particle size distribution Sediment Soils 

Notes

Funding information

This study is supported by the Open Research Fund of State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin (IWHR-SKL-201707), National Natural Science Foundation of China (51879032), National Key R & D Project (2016YFC0402504), and Key Project of Science and Technology in Yan’an (2016CGZH-14-03).

References

  1. Abarca M, Guerra P, Arce G, Montecinos M, Escauriaza C, Coquery M, Pastén P (2017) Response of suspended sediment particle size distributions to changes in water chemistry at an Andean mountain stream confluence receiving arsenic rich acid drainage. Hydrol Process 31:296–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrahamson J (1975) Collision rates of small particles in a vigorously turbulent fluid. Chem Eng Sci 30:1371–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acharya G, Cochrane T, Davies T, Bowman E (2011) Quantifying and modeling post-failure sediment yields from laboratory-scale soil erosion and shallow landslide experiments with silty loess. Geomorphology 129:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alberts EE, Moldenhauer WC, Foster GR (1980) Soil aggregates and primary particles transported in rill and interrill flow. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:590–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asadi H, Moussavi A, Ghadiri H, Rose CW (2011) Flow-driven soil erosion processes and the size selectivity of sediment. J Hydrol 406:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beuselinck L, Govers G, Hairsine PB, Sander GC, Breynaert M (2002) The influence of rainfall on sediment transport by overland flow over areas of net deposition. J Hydrol 257:145–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chorley RJ (1967) Models in geomorphology. In: Chorley RJ, Haggett P (eds) Models in geomorphology. Methuen, London, pp 59–96Google Scholar
  8. Cochrane TA, Acharya G (2011) Changes in sediment delivery from hillslopes affected by shallow landslides and soil armouring. J Hydrol 50:5–18Google Scholar
  9. Crosta GB, Frattini P, Fusi N (2007) Fragmentation in the Val Pola rock avalanche, Italian Alps. J Geophys Res-Atmos 112:290–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies TR, Mcsaveney MJ (2009) The role of rock fragmentation in the motion of large landslides. Eng Geol 109:67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gao GL, Ding GD, Wu B, Zhang YQ, Qin SG, Zhao YY, Bao YF, Liu YD, Wan L, Deng JF (2014) Fractal scaling of particle size distribution and relationships with topsoil properties affected by biological soil crusts. PLoS One 9(2):e88559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Govers G (1985) Selectivity and transport capacity of thin flows in relation to rill erosion. Catena 12:35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grismer ME, Ellis AL, Fristensky A (2008) Runoff sediment particle sizes associated with soil erosion in the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Land Degrad Dev 19:331–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guo WZ (2018) Experimental studies on the processes of gravity erosion and sediment yield on the steep loess slope. Dalian University of Technology, PhD thesis, pp 1–114 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  15. Guo WZ, Xu XZ, Wang WL, Yang JS, Liu YK, Xu FL (2016) A measurement system applicable for landslide experiments in the field. Rev Sci Instrum 87:044501-1–044501-7Google Scholar
  16. Guo WZ, Luo L, Wang WL, Liu ZY, Chen ZX, Kang HL, Yang B (2019) Sensitivity of rainstorm-triggered shallow mass movements on gully slopes to topographical factors on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Geomorphology 337:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hao Y, Yang Y, Liu B, Liu Y, Gao X, Guo Q (2016) Size characteristics of sediments eroded from three soils in China under natural rainfall. J Soils Sediments 16:2153–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haritashya UK, Kumar A, Singh P (2010) Particle size characteristics of suspended sediment transported in meltwater from the Gangotri Glacier, central Himalaya-an indicator of subglacial sediment evacuation. Geomorphology 122:140–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. He JJ, Sun LY, Gong HL, Cai QG (2017) Laboratory studies on the influence of rainfall pattern on rill erosion and its runoff and sediment characteristics. Land Degrad Dev 28:1615–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holland KT, Elmore PA (2008) A review of heterogeneous sediments in coastal environments. Earth-Sci Rev 89:116–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Issa OM, Bissonnais YL, Planchon O, Favis Mortlock D, Silvera N, Wainwright J (2006) Soil detachment and transport on field and laboratory scale interrill areas: erosion processes and the size selectivity of eroded sediment. Earth Surf Process Landforms 31:929–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jia X, Li Y, Wang H (2016) Bed sediment particle size characteristics and its sources implication in the desert reach of the Yellow River. Environ Earth Sci 75:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiao JY, Wang WZ (2001) Non-uniformity of spatial distribution of rainfall on the loess plateau. Hydrology 02:20–24 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  24. Keefer DK, Larsen MC (2007) Assessing landslide hazards. Science 316:1136–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koiter AJ, Owens PN, Petticrew EL, Lobb DA (2017) The role of soil surface properties on the particle size and carbon selectivity of interrill erosion in agricultural landscapes. Catena 153:194–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li T, Wang G, Xue H, Wang K (2009) Soil erosion and sediment transport in the gullied loess plateau: scale effects and their mechanisms. Sci China Ser E: Technol Sci 52:1283–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyu X, Yu J, Zhou M, Ma B, Wang G, Zhan C, Han GX, Guan B, Wu HF, Li YZ, Wang D (2015) Changes of soil particle size distribution in tidal flats in the Yellow River Delta. PLoS One 10:e0121368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marden M, Herzig A, Basher L (2014) Erosion process contribution to sediment yield before and after the establishment of exotic forest: Waipaoa catchment, New Zealand. Geomorphology 226:162–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyer LD, Line DE, Harmon WC (1992) Size characteristics of sediment from agricultural soils. J Soil Water Conserv 47:107–111Google Scholar
  30. Olsen DA, Townsend CR (2003) Hyporheic community composition in a gravel-bed stream: influence of vertical hydrological exchange, sediment structure and physicochemistry. Freshw Biol 48:1363–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pierson TC (2005) Hyperconcentrated flow—transitional process between water flow and debris flow. In: Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 159–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Qian N (1989) Movements of hyper-concentration flows. Tsinghua Press, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  33. Ries JB (2000) The landslide in the surma khola valley, high mountain region of the central Himalaya in Nepal. Phys Chem Earth Pt B 25:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sadeghi SH, Harchegani MK (2012) Effects of sand mining on suspended sediment particle size distribution in Kojour Forest River, Iran. J Agric Sci Technol 14:1637–1646Google Scholar
  35. Schumm SA, Mosley MP, Weaver WE (1987) Experimental fluvial geomorphology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 3–5Google Scholar
  36. Shanmugam G (1996) High-density turbidity currents: are they sandy debris flows? J Sediment Res 66:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shi ZH, Yue BJ, Wang L, Fang NF, Wang D, Wu FZ (2013) Effects of mulch cover rate on interrill erosion processes and the size selectivity of eroded sediment on steep slopes. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Slattery MC, Burt TP (1997) Particle size characteristics of suspended sediment in hillslope runoff and stream flow. Earth Surf Process Landforms 22:705–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith TB, Owens PN (2014) Flume- and field- based evaluation of a time- integrated suspended sediment sampler for the analysis of sediment properties. Earth Surf Process Landforms 39:1197–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stone PM, Walling DE (1997) Particle size selectivity considerations in suspended sediment budget investigations. Water Air Soil Pollut 99:63–70Google Scholar
  41. Sutherland DG, Ball MH, Hilton SJ, Lisle TE (2002) Evolution of a landslide-induced sediment wave in the Navarro River, California. Geol Soc Am Bull 114:1036–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tang K, Zhang P, Zhang H, Liu Y (1992) Soil erosion disasters on the loess plateau: its prevention and countermeasures. In: Shi Y, Embleton C (eds) Geo-hazards and their mitigation. Science Press, Beijing, pp 93–100 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  43. Walling DE, Moorehead PW (1989) The particle size characteristics of fluvial suspended sediment: an overview. Hydrobiologia 176:125–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 46:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walling DE, Owens PN, Waterfall BD, Leeks GJ, Wass PD (2000) The particle size characteristics of fluvial suspended sediment in the Humber and Tweed catchments, UK. Sci Total Environ 251:205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang WZ, Jiao JY (1996) Statistic analysis on variation of rainfall and runoff-sediment yield process on slope surface in loess plateau region. Bull Soil Water Conserv 5:21–28 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  47. Wang D, Fu B, Zhao W, Hu H, Wang Y (2008) Multifractal characteristics of soil particle size distribution under different land-use types on the loess plateau, China. Catena 72:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang Y, Zhang X, Zhang J, Li S (2009) Spatial variability of soil organic carbon in a watershed on the loess plateau. Pedosphere 19(4):486–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang Y, Shao M, Gao L (2010) Spatial variability of soil particle size distribution and fractal features in water-wind erosion crisscross region on the loess plateau of China. Soil Sci 175:579–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang JJ, Cheng YZ, Zhang HP, Deng DP (2015) Effects of particle size on compaction behavior and particle crushing of crushed sandstone–mudstone particle mixture. Environ Earth Sci 73(12):8053–8059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang ZJ, Jiao JY, Rayburg S, Wang QL, Su Y (2016) Soil erosion resistance of “grain for green” vegetation types under extreme rainfall conditions on the loess plateau, China. Catena 141:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wendling V, Legout C, Gratiot N, Michallet H, Grangeon T (2016) Dynamics of soil aggregate size in turbulent flow: respective effect of soil type and suspended concentration. Catena 141:66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woodward JC, Walling DE (2007) Composite suspended sediment particles in river systems: their incidence, dynamics and physical characteristics. Hydrol Process 21:3601–3614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Xu J (1999) Erosion caused by hyperconcentrated flow on the loess plateau of China. Catena 36:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Xu J (2000) Grain-size characteristics of suspended sediment in the Yellow River, China. Catena 38:243–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Xu J (2002) Implication of relationships among suspended sediment size, water discharge and suspended sediment concentration: the Yellow River basin, China. Catena 49:289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Xu XZ, Liu ZY, Wang WL, Zhang HW, Yan Q, Zhao C, Guo WZ (2015a) Which is more hazardous: avalanche, landslide, or mudslide? Nat Hazards 76:1939–1945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Xu XZ, Liu ZY, Xiao PQ, Guo WZ, Zhang HW, Zhao C, Yan Q (2015b) Gravity erosion on the steep loess slope: behavior, trigger and sensitivity. Catena 135:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Xu XZ, Zhang HW, Wang WL, Zhao C, Yan Q (2015c) Quantitative monitoring of gravity erosion using a novel 3d surface measuring technique: validation and case study. Nat Hazards 75:1927–1939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Xu XZ, Guo WZ, Liu YK, Ma JZ, Wang WL, Zhang HW, Gao H (2017) Landslides on the loess plateau of China: a latest statistics together with a close look. Nat Hazards 86:1393–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhang JY, Gu PF, Li LY, Zong LY, Zhao WJ (2016) Changes of soil particle size fraction along a chronosequence in sandy desertified land: a fundamental process for ecosystem succession and ecological restoration. J Soils Sediments 16:2651–2656CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water ConservationNorthwest Agriculture and Forestry UniversityYanglingChina
  2. 2.School of Hydraulic EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  3. 3.Department of Geography, Urban, Environment and Sustainability StudiesUniversity of Minnesota DuluthDuluthUSA
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations