Establishing a sediment budget for a small agricultural catchment in southern Brazil, to support the development of effective sediment management strategies

Minella, Jean Paolo Gomes; Walling, Desmond E.; Merten, Gustavo Henrique

doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.013

Cited by 61 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The solution to problems arising from the origin and movement of sediment necessarily involves the need to identify the sources of sediment and its pattern of movement through a landscape (Owens et al, 1999;Bottrill et al, 2000;Collins and Walling, 2002;Stromqvist et al, 2008;Nyssen et al, 2008;Ballantine et al, 2009;Evrard et al, 2010;Minella et al, 2014). In this context, procedures for identifying the sources of sediment (Walling and Woodward, 1995;Collins et al, 1997) have greatly contributed to the quantitative understanding of processes acting in river channels and hillslopes.…”

Section: The Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hydrosedimentometric observations were taken using standard monitoring instrumentation with an automatic meteorological station, five recording rain gauges, and a Parshall flume at the catchment outlet, equipped with a pressure sensor that recorded the stage at 10-min intervals on a data logger. Additional information about hydrological and erosion process in this catchment has been given by Minella et al (2009Minella et al ( , 2014 and Barros et al (2014). Table I shows the sampled events and the main hydrological variables recorded.…”

Section: The Arvorezinha Catchmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating sampling efficiency when estimating sediment source contributions to suspended sediment in rivers by fingerprinting

Clarke

Minella

2016

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:A general method is proposed which measures the increase in uncertainty when sampling effort is reduced in sediment fingerprinting. The method gives quantitative measures of how reduced sampling of material in one of the source areas, and/or of suspended sediment in streams, increases the uncertainties in the proportions of sediment contributed from the sources. Because the proportions of sediment contributed by the source areas must add to one, standard errors of the estimated proportions cannot be used as the usual measures of uncertainty: the paper uses instead the volume of the joint 95% confidence region for the estimated proportions. The paper shows how the uncertainty in this volume changes as numbers of suspended sediment samples, and the numbers of samples collected from cropped fields, are reduced by successive steps from 24 (20, in the case of cropped fields) to 16, 12, 8, 4 and 2 samples. As expected, uncertainty increases rapidly as the number of samples -whether of suspended sediment or from cropped fields -is reduced drastically. The pattern of increasing uncertainty is similar both for reductions in suspended sediment sampling, and for reduced sampling from cropped areas. When the number of suspended sediment samples, and the number of samples from cropped fields, are reduced to the same values, the increase in uncertainty from fewer suspended sediment samples was always slightly greater than the increased uncertainty from the reduced sampling of cropped areas, although this finding took no account of differences in the costs of field sampling and laboratory analysis.

show abstract

Section: The Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Arvorezinha Catchmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating sampling efficiency when estimating sediment source contributions to suspended sediment in rivers by fingerprinting

Clarke

Minella

2016

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, results from these studies often fail to capture the complexities and interaction of conservation practices, biophysical settings, and land uses within a watershed (Duriancik et al 2008). The actual effect of conservation practices on soil erosion is extremely difficult to measure at the field and watershed scale due to the challenges of sampling and the diversity of sediment sources and sinks in fields and watersheds (Minella et al 2014). According to the 2007 National Resource Inventory, soil erosion of cropland between 1982 and 2007 was reduced by about 30% in the Corn Belt (Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska) and lower Mississippi River states (Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) as a result of soil conservation practices (USDA NRCS 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relation between erosion from individual fields and sediment yield at the basin outlet is largely unknown (Walling 1983;van Noordwijk et al 1998). Most eroded material never leaves the landscape to enter rivers (Minella et al 2014). This is one of the reasons why soil erosion equations such as the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE; Williams and Berndt 1977) and Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE; Renard et al 1997) are not good predictors of fluvial suspended sediment concentrations and loads.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of hydrology, watershed size, and agricultural practices on sediment yields in two river basins in Iowa and Mississippi

Merten¹,

Welch²,

Tomer³

2016

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The specific sediment yield (SSY) from watersheds is the result of the balance between natural, scale-dependent erosion and deposition processes, but can be greatly altered by human activities. In general, the SSY decreases along the course of a river as sediments are trapped in alluvial plains and other sinks. However, this relation between SSY and basin area can actually be an increasing one when there is a predominance of channel erosion relative to hillslope erosion. The US Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a study of suspended sediment in the Iowa River basin (IRB), Iowa, and the Yazoo River basin (YRB), Mississippi, from 2006 through 2008. Within each river basin, the SSY from four largely agricultural watersheds of various sizes (2.3 to 35,000 km 2 [0.9 to 13,513 mi 2 ]) was investigated. In the smallest watersheds, YRB sites had greater SSY compared to IRB sites due to higher rain erosivity, more erodible soils, more overland flow, and fluvial geomorphological differences. Watersheds in the YRB showed a steady decrease in SSY with increasing drainage basin area, whereas in the IRB, the maximum SSY occurred at the 30 to 500 km 2 (11.6 to 193 mi 2 ) scale. Subsurface tile drainage and limits to channel downcutting restrict the upstream migration of sediment sources in the IRB. Nevertheless, by comparing the SSY-basin size scaling relationships with estimated rates of field erosion under conservation and conventional tillage treatments reported in previous literature, we show evidence that the SSY-basin size relationship in both the IRB and YRB remain impacted by historical erosion rates that occurred prior to conservation efforts.Key words: agriculture-annual sediment loads-scale effect-sediment yield-soil management practices Watershed disturbance by changes in land use, soil management practices, dam construction, and dredging and straightening of channels has resulted in substantial changes in the sediment loads of rivers around the world (Walling 2008). In the United States, changes in sediment load by watershed disturbance have resulted in hydrologic, ecologic, and engineering effects both upstream and downstream (Walling 1999; Horowitz 2010). Changes in land use from forest and prairie to agricultural land during the 19th century accelerated the erosion process, transferring sediment from uplands to valleys and the fluvial system (Trimble 1999). Later, during the 20th century, reservoir construction and soil conservation programs implemented in agricultural areas reduced sediment transference from uplands to rivers and created new, artificial sediment sinks (Renwick et al. 2005). Horowitz (2010) identified the construction of dams on the Missouri River in the late 1950s, and the sediment trapped behind them, as the primary cause of reduced annual suspended sediment loads in the Mississippi River. Nonetheless, Meade and Moody (2010) reported that the MissouriMississippi dams trap only about 1 × 10 8 to 1.5 × 10 8 Mg (1.102 × 10 8 to 1.653 × 10 8 tn) of sediment per year, which is less than h...

show abstract

“…In certain settings, such as stream banks and gullies, sediment source contributions can be fingerprinted directly (Mukundan et al, 2010). Combining with the suspended sediment yields information, the fingerprinting method has been successfully applied to provide a range of information on sediment sources, including their type, spatial distributions, and erosion rates Minella et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new method for fingerprinting sediment source contributions using distances from discriminant function analysis

Liu

Storm

Zhang

et al. 2016

CATENA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishing a sediment budget for a small agricultural catchment in southern Brazil, to support the development of effective sediment management strategies

Cited by 61 publications

References 38 publications

Evaluating sampling efficiency when estimating sediment source contributions to suspended sediment in rivers by fingerprinting

Evaluating sampling efficiency when estimating sediment source contributions to suspended sediment in rivers by fingerprinting

Effects of hydrology, watershed size, and agricultural practices on sediment yields in two river basins in Iowa and Mississippi

A new method for fingerprinting sediment source contributions using distances from discriminant function analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About