Estimating sediment and phosphorus loads from streambanks with and without riparian protection

Miller, Ron; Fox, Garey A.; Penn, Chad J.; Wilson, Stuart M.; Parnell, Abigail; Purvis, Rebecca A.; Criswell, Kelsey

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.016

Cited by 48 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Channel erosion is known to be a significant contributor to total sediment and nutrient loading (Simon and Darby 1999;Sekely et al 2002;Evans et al 2006;Wilson et al 2008;Miller et al 2014). As mentioned earlier, in many CEAP watersheds, studies report that "…sediment in streams originated more from channel and bank erosion than from soil erosion" (Tomer and Incised streams undergo a cycle of bank evolution according to the channel evolution model most recently proposed by Simon and Rinaldi (2006).…”

Section: Streambanks As Contributor To Sediment Load To Reservoirsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example on the Barren Fork Creek in eastern Oklahoma, a composite streambank with a gravel toe and cohesive silt loam topsoil layer, process-based modeling and observations of the failure process by Midgley et al (2012) and Daly et al (2015) indicate that the most extreme erosive events occur when the banks are primed for failure because of high soil water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 A concern not only exists in regard to sediment load from streambanks, but also nutrient loads from these banks. In a recent study of the Barren Fork Creek watershed, Miller et al (2014) estimated that approximately 36% of the streambanks are eroding along the 55-km length of the stream and contributing considerable amounts of both dissolved and total phosphorus to the stream. The streambanks were acting as a legacy source of phosphorus in the watershed.…”

Section: Streambanks As Contributor To Sediment Load To Reservoirsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reservoir Sedimentation and Upstream Sediment Sources: Perspectives and Future Research Needs on Streambank and Gully Erosion

Fox

Sheshukov

Cruse

et al. 2016

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The future reliance on water supply and flood control reservoirs across the globe will continue to expand, especially under a variable climate. Construction of additional reservoirs is less likely compared to simultaneous flow and sediment management in existing reservoirs. One aspect of this sediment management is related to the control of upstream sediment sources.However, key research questions remain regarding upstream sediment loading rates. Highlighted in this article are research needs relative to measuring sediment transport rates and loading due to streambank and gully erosion within a watershed. For example, additional in-stream sediment transport and reservoir sedimentation rate measurements are needed across a range of watershed conditions, reservoir sizes, and geographical locations. More research is needed to understand the intricate linkage between upland practices and in-stream response. A need still exists to clarify the benefit of restoration or stabilization of a small-reach within a channel system or maturing gully on total watershed sediment load. We need a better understanding of the intricate interactions between hydrological and erosion processes to improve prediction, location, and timing of streambank erosion and failure and gully formation. Also, improved process-based measurement and prediction techniques are needed that balance data requirements regarding cohesive soil erodibility and stability as compared to simpler topographic indices for gullies or stream classification systems. Such techniques will allow the research community to address the benefit of various conservation and/or stabilization practices at targeted locations within watersheds.

show abstract

Section: Streambanks As Contributor To Sediment Load To Reservoirsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Streambanks As Contributor To Sediment Load To Reservoirsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reservoir Sedimentation and Upstream Sediment Sources: Perspectives and Future Research Needs on Streambank and Gully Erosion

Fox

Sheshukov

Cruse

et al. 2016

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of these processes may dominate for some streambanks, but further analysis of the system is needed to determine which one. Composite streambanks, such as those found in the Eucha-Spavinaw watershed, commonly would be assumed to erode due to fluvial erosion Miller et al, 2014). Fluvial erosion depends on the applied shear stress, sinuosity, and stream discharge and/or stream power.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Boynton et al (1995) estimated that the eroding of Chesapeake Bay shorelines could account for up to 10% of the TP load in the system. Miller et al (2014) reported that streambanks along the Barren Fork Creek in Oklahoma contributed 10% of the dissolved P. The estimated TP load was approximately 9.0 × 10 4 kg TP yr. À1 , which exceeded the TP load estimated from streamflow gauge data, although TP is largely sediment-bound and thus subject to sediment transport dynamics such as floodplain deposition. Zaimes et al (2008) studied the P contribution from severely eroding banks along several streams in central, northeast, and southeast Iowa with varying land practices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Streambank sediment loading rates at the watershed scale and the benefit of riparian protection

Purvis

Fox

2016

Earth Surf Processes Landf

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Streambank erosion is a pathway for sediment and nutrient loading to streams, but insufficient data exist on the magnitude of this source. Riparian protection can significantly decrease streambank erosion in some locations, but estimates of actual sediment load reductions are limited. The objective of this research was to quantify watershed‐scale streambank erosion and estimate the benefits of riparian protection. The research focused on Spavinaw Creek within the Eucha‐Spavinaw watershed in eastern Oklahoma, where composite streambanks consist of a small cohesive topsoil layer underlain by non‐cohesive gravel. Fine sediment erosion from 2003 to 2013 was derived using aerial photography and processed in ArcMap to quantify eroded area. ArcMap was also utilized in determining the bank retreat rate at various locations in relation to the riparian vegetation buffer width. Box and whisker plots clearly showed that sites with riparian vegetation had on average three times less bank retreat than unprotected banks, statistically significant based on non‐parametric t‐tests. The total soil mass eroded from 2003 to 2013 was estimated at 7.27 × 107 kg yr.−1, and the average bank retreat was 2.5 m yr.−1. Many current erosion models assume that fluvial erosion is the dominant stream erosion process. Bank retreat was positively correlated with stream discharge and/or stream power, but with considerable variability, suggesting that mass wasting plays an important role in streambank erosion within this watershed. Finally, watershed monitoring programs commonly characterize erosion at only a few sites and may scale results to the entire watershed. Selection of random sites and scaling to the watershed scale greatly underestimated the actual erosion and loading rates. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…The material transport processes tend to be considered by hydrologists, sedimentologists, hydraulic engineers, agronomists, ecologists, and environmentalists (Kisi et al, 2013;Van Rijn et al, 2013;Miller et al, 2014), whereas the geomorphic evolution of a watershed is the primary concern of geomorphologists (Provansal et al, 2014;Toone et al, 2014).…”

Section: Preamblementioning

confidence: 99%

Sediment Flux and Its Environmental Implications

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sediment transport in fluvial systems is a key driver of basin-wide global soil loss, river sedimentation, and the movement and transformation of organic, inorganic, and nutrient materials, all of which can contribute to severe eco-environmental degradation. Since the late 1800s, much research effort has focused on the physics of sediment entrainment, transport, and deposition by river flows. This paper reviews ongoing research aimed at considering the simultaneous physical, chemical and biological processes that characterize riverine sediment flux. Four related issues are considered: riverine sediment flux; soil erosion and chemical transport; fluxes of dissolved organic carbon; and sediment-induced CO 2 emission/sequestration.Modelling of sediment flux has moved beyond empirical and statistical approaches to that of a generalized form of the universal integral solution of the basic flux equation, which is now anticipated to lead to a wide range of applications. Whereas soil erosion and riverine chemical transport are now known to cause soil degradation and reduced water quality, limited progress has been made to date on the quantification of erosion rates. As soils erode, CO 2 is emitted at erosion and transport sites and sequestered at deposition sites, the net effect being carbon sequestration. Howe ver, the rates of CO 2 emission/sequestration vary widely, owing to the large spatial variations in soil type, land-slope, rainfall intensity, etc. It is now well established that dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations and fluxes have been increasing over the past two decades, due to reduced atmospheric sulphur concentration, climate warming, and changes in precipitation patterns. The research discussed herein provides insight into the interaction between sediment and multiple material substances, leading to a better understanding of fluvial river ecosystems, which is essential for maintaining river health. KeywordsSediment flux, soil erosion, environmental implication, chemical transport, dissolved organic carbon, CO 2 flux, PreambleConventionally, the main surface material transport processes associated with sediment movement in a river basin may be categorized as runoff and sediment yield, soil erosion and nutrient loss, and river geomorphological evolution. The material transport processes tend to be considered by hydrologists, sedimentologists, hydraulic engineers, agronomists, ecologists, and environmentalists (Kisi et al., 2013;Van Rijn et al., 2013;Miller et al., 2014), whereas the geomorphic evolution of a watershed is the primary concern of geomorphologists (Provansal et al., 2014;Toone et al., 2014).In recent years, the environmental effects of sediment movement through a river basin ha ve been investigated in terms of variations in natural organic matter, nutrients, and contaminants in water-sediment two-phase systems, extending to multiphase systems of water-sediment-carbon, water-sediment-nitrogen, and water-sediment-phosphorous, owing to the considerable annual losses of carbon, tota...

show abstract

Estimating sediment and phosphorus loads from streambanks with and without riparian protection

Cited by 48 publications

References 36 publications

Reservoir Sedimentation and Upstream Sediment Sources: Perspectives and Future Research Needs on Streambank and Gully Erosion

Reservoir Sedimentation and Upstream Sediment Sources: Perspectives and Future Research Needs on Streambank and Gully Erosion

Streambank sediment loading rates at the watershed scale and the benefit of riparian protection

Sediment Flux and Its Environmental Implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About