Watershed sediment source identification: tools, approaches, and case studies

Gellis, Allen C.; Mukundan, Rajith

doi:10.1007/s11368-013-0778-z

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Legacy sediments introduce two key problems for water quality. Firstly, erosion of deeply incised, fine-grained stream banks is a significant non-point source of suspended sediment and nutrients entrained in the sediment, which can contribute to contemporary nutrient loading to downstream waterways (Trimble, 1997;Walter and Merritts, 2008a;Gellis et al, 2009;Gellis and Mukundan, 2013). In the midAtlantic, legacy sediments constitute a substantial volume of sediment stored in stream corridors (Banks et al, 2010;Massoudieh et al, 2013;Gellis and Noe, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nitrate retention capacity of milldam-impacted legacy sediments and relict A horizon soils

Weitzman

Kaye

2017

SOIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. While eutrophication is often attributed to contemporary nutrient pollution, there is growing evidence that past practices, like the accumulation of legacy sediment behind historic milldams, are also important. Given their prevalence, there is a critical need to understand how N flows through, and is retained in, legacy sediments to improve predictions and management of N transport from uplands to streams in the context of climatic variability and land-use change. Our goal was to determine how nitrate (NO − 3 ) is cycled through the soil of a legacy-sediment-strewn stream before and after soil drying. We extracted 10.16 cm radius intact soil columns that extended 30 cm into each of the three significant soil horizons at Big Spring Run (BSR) in Lancaster, Pennsylvania: surface legacy sediment characterized by a newly developing mineral A horizon soil, mid-layer legacy sediment consisting of mineral B horizon soil and a dark, organic-rich, buried relict A horizon soil. Columns were first preincubated at field capacity and then isotopically labeled nitrate ( 15 NO − 3 ) was added and allowed to drain to estimate retention. The columns were then air-dried and subsequently rewet with N-free water and allowed to drain to quantify the drought-induced loss of 15 NO − 3 from the different horizons. We found the highest initial 15 N retention in the mid-layer legacy sediment (17 ± 4 %) and buried relict A soil (14 ± 3 %) horizons, with significantly lower retention in the surface legacy sediment (6 ± 1 %) horizon. As expected, rewetting dry soil resulted in 15 N losses in all horizons, with the greatest losses in the buried relict A horizon soil, followed by the mid-layer legacy sediment and surface legacy sediment horizons. The 15 N remaining in the soil following the post-drought leaching was highest in the mid-layer legacy sediment, intermediate in the surface legacy sediment, and lowest in the buried relict A horizon soil. Fluctuations in the water table at BSR which affect saturation of the buried relict A horizon soil could lead to great loses of NO − 3 from the soil, while vertical flow through the legacy-sediment-rich soil profile that originates in the surface has the potential to retain more NO − 3 . Restoration that seeks to reconnect the groundwater and surface water, which will decrease the number of drying-rewetting events imposed on the relict A horizon soils, could initially lead to increased losses of NO − 3 to nearby stream waters.Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nitrate retention capacity of milldam-impacted legacy sediments and relict A horizon soils

Weitzman

Kaye

2017

SOIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the last several decades, there has been significant progress in the application and development of the sediment source fingerprinting technique to contribute to the improved management of water bodies around the world. There have been multiple comprehensive review papers on fingerprinting techniques (Collins and Walling 2002;Davis and Fox 2009;D'Haen et al 2012;Guzmán et al 2013;Haddadchi et al 2013;Koiter et al 2013b;Owens et al 2016;Davies et al 2018) and several special issues dedicated to advancing the sediment source fingerprinting technique and facilitating targeted sediment management strategies (Gellis and Mukundan 2013;Walling et al 2013;Smith et al 2015;Collins et al 2017). Although the sediment source fingerprinting technique has advanced significantly, it has simultaneously drifted away from one of its original foci, researching fundamental Earth system science processes.…”

Section: Sediment Source Fingerprintingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preface—evaluating the response of critical zone processes to human impacts with sediment source fingerprinting

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Quantifying the effect of shale development on siltation is difficult, but the factors that determine siltation (eg well density and proximity to surface waters) are relatively well studied. In the US, more than 6000 rivers are impaired as a result of sediment pollution (US EPA 2014), and the causes, consequences, and mitigation of siltation have been studied for decades (Berkman and Rabeni 1987; Donohue and Garcia Molinos 2009; Gellis and Mukundan 2013). The contribution of shale development to sediment load will vary geographically, depending on local hydrology, geology, and existing forms of land disturbance.…”

Section: Deterministic Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biotic impacts of energy development from shale: research priorities and knowledge gaps

Souther

Tingley

Popescu

et al. 2014

Frontiers in Ecol & Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although shale drilling operations for oil and natural gas have increased greatly in the past decade, few studies directly quantify the impacts of shale development on plants and wildlife. We evaluate knowledge gaps related to shale development and prioritize research needs using a quantitative framework that includes spatial and temporal extent, mitigation difficulty, and current level of understanding. Identified threats to biota from shale development include: surface and groundwater contamination; diminished stream flow; stream siltation; habitat loss and fragmentation; localized air, noise, and light pollution; climate change; and cumulative impacts. We find the highest research priorities to be probabilistic threats (underground chemical migration; contaminant release during storage, during disposal, or from accidents; and cumulative impacts), the study of which will require major scientific coordination among researchers, industry, and government decision makers. Taken together, our research prioritization outlines a way forward to better understand how energy development affects the natural world.

show abstract

Watershed sediment source identification: tools, approaches, and case studies

Cited by 20 publications

References 14 publications

Nitrate retention capacity of milldam-impacted legacy sediments and relict A horizon soils

Nitrate retention capacity of milldam-impacted legacy sediments and relict A horizon soils

Preface—evaluating the response of critical zone processes to human impacts with sediment source fingerprinting

Biotic impacts of energy development from shale: research priorities and knowledge gaps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About