4.5 Article

The distribution and residence time of suspended sediment stored within the channel margins of a gravel-bed bedrock river

期刊

EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 435-446

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/esp.1926

关键词

Fine sediment transport; Bomb radiocarbon dating; In-channel sedimentation; Gravel-bed river; Mercury contamination

资金

  1. DuPont

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previously undocumented deposits are described that store suspended sediment in gravel-bedded rivers, termed 'fine-grained channel margin' (FGCM) deposits. FGCM deposits consist of sand, silt, clay, and organic matter that accumulate behind large woody debris (LWD) along the margins of the wetted perimeter of the single-thread, gravel-bed South River in Virginia. These deposits store a total mass equivalent to 17% to 43% of the annual suspended sediment load. Radiocarbon, Pb-210 and C-137 dating indicate that sediment in FGCM deposits ranges in age from 1 to more than 60 years. Reservoir theory suggests an average turnover time of 1.75 years and an annual exchange with the water column of a mass of sediment equivalent to 10% to 25% of the annual sediment load. The distribution of ages in the deposits can be fitted by a power function, suggesting that sediment stored in the deposits has a wide variety of transit times. Most sediment in storage is reworked quickly, but a small portion may remain in place for many decades. The presence of FGCM deposits indicates that suspended sediment is not simply transported downstream in gravel-bed rivers in agricultural watersheds: significant storage can occur over decadal timescales. South River has a history of mercury contamination and identifying sediment sources and sinks is critical for documenting the extent of contamination and for developing remediation plans. FGCM deposits should lie considered in future sediment budget and sediment transport modeling studies of gravel-bed rivers in agricultural watersheds. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据