The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Inter-comparison between five devices for determining erodability of intertidal sediments

Inter-comparison between five devices for determining erodability of intertidal sediments
Inter-comparison between five devices for determining erodability of intertidal sediments
Five erosion devices were compared using five intertidal estuarine sites covering a range of sediment stability from newly settled mud to very cohesive mud at the margins of a saltmarsh. The erosion devices use different methods of fluid shearing from horizontal currents/bed shear stresses to vertical water jets, and have different ‘footprint’ areas. The devices included: (1) the annular flumes (AFs—diameter 64 cm; footprint area 0.17 m2) of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML); (2) PML's mini-annular flume (MAF—diameter 19 cm; area 0.026 m2); (3) the annular mini-flume (AMF—diameter 30.5 cm; area 0.032 m2) of the National Oceanography Centre Southampton (NOC); (4) NOC's Cohesive Strength Meter (CSM—diameter 3 cm; area 0.0007 m2); (5) NOC's EROMES (ER—diameter 10 cm; area 0.0079 m2). The quantification of threshold shear stress for bed erosion (?e) and sediment erosion rate was complemented by the measurement of physical, chemical and biological properties of the sediment (grain size, bulk density, water content, organic content, chlorophyll a, carbohydrates, macrofauna). The results demonstrated a significant correlation (r2=0.98) between the PML AF (laboratory measurement of undisturbed cored sediment) and PML MAF (in situ) for measurement of erosion thresholds for bed sediment. However, there were no significant correlations between AFs, the CSM and EROMES. There were no consistent correlations with physical or biological sediment properties due to the spatially unrelated sites and the marked differences in benthic assemblages. The sources of differences and the lack of correlations between erosion devices were due to several factors, including operational procedures (e.g., sediment resuspension during filling with water), definition of erosion threshold, the nature of the force applied to the bed, and method of calibration. In contrast to the CSM and EROMES, both types of AFs were able to record significant differences in the erodability of soft sediments from four sites. This indicates that the CSM and EROMES may not be very effective at measuring the differences in erosion thresholds of soft estuarine sediments.
Sediment, Mudflats, Erosion devices, Annular flumes, CSM, EROMES, Erosion threshold
0278-4343
1174-1189
Widdows, J.
bf510fc0-6c8d-4000-92eb-1bcd610a901d
Friend, P.L.
600afae0-5185-4e55-8322-34bb8e0ae1f4
Bale, A.J.
e6734bc7-1c57-416e-9338-693d9231e8a8
Brinsley, M.D.
4b03d873-48c2-4a3b-9753-c0449cb02780
Pope, N.D.
b56d5fea-6215-48d6-80ab-e65cadf3dada
Thompson, C.E.L.
2a304aa6-761e-4d99-b227-cedb67129bfb
Widdows, J.
bf510fc0-6c8d-4000-92eb-1bcd610a901d
Friend, P.L.
600afae0-5185-4e55-8322-34bb8e0ae1f4
Bale, A.J.
e6734bc7-1c57-416e-9338-693d9231e8a8
Brinsley, M.D.
4b03d873-48c2-4a3b-9753-c0449cb02780
Pope, N.D.
b56d5fea-6215-48d6-80ab-e65cadf3dada
Thompson, C.E.L.
2a304aa6-761e-4d99-b227-cedb67129bfb

Widdows, J., Friend, P.L., Bale, A.J., Brinsley, M.D., Pope, N.D. and Thompson, C.E.L. (2007) Inter-comparison between five devices for determining erodability of intertidal sediments. Continental Shelf Research, 27 (8), 1174-1189. (doi:10.1016/j.csr.2005.10.006).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Five erosion devices were compared using five intertidal estuarine sites covering a range of sediment stability from newly settled mud to very cohesive mud at the margins of a saltmarsh. The erosion devices use different methods of fluid shearing from horizontal currents/bed shear stresses to vertical water jets, and have different ‘footprint’ areas. The devices included: (1) the annular flumes (AFs—diameter 64 cm; footprint area 0.17 m2) of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML); (2) PML's mini-annular flume (MAF—diameter 19 cm; area 0.026 m2); (3) the annular mini-flume (AMF—diameter 30.5 cm; area 0.032 m2) of the National Oceanography Centre Southampton (NOC); (4) NOC's Cohesive Strength Meter (CSM—diameter 3 cm; area 0.0007 m2); (5) NOC's EROMES (ER—diameter 10 cm; area 0.0079 m2). The quantification of threshold shear stress for bed erosion (?e) and sediment erosion rate was complemented by the measurement of physical, chemical and biological properties of the sediment (grain size, bulk density, water content, organic content, chlorophyll a, carbohydrates, macrofauna). The results demonstrated a significant correlation (r2=0.98) between the PML AF (laboratory measurement of undisturbed cored sediment) and PML MAF (in situ) for measurement of erosion thresholds for bed sediment. However, there were no significant correlations between AFs, the CSM and EROMES. There were no consistent correlations with physical or biological sediment properties due to the spatially unrelated sites and the marked differences in benthic assemblages. The sources of differences and the lack of correlations between erosion devices were due to several factors, including operational procedures (e.g., sediment resuspension during filling with water), definition of erosion threshold, the nature of the force applied to the bed, and method of calibration. In contrast to the CSM and EROMES, both types of AFs were able to record significant differences in the erodability of soft sediments from four sites. This indicates that the CSM and EROMES may not be very effective at measuring the differences in erosion thresholds of soft estuarine sediments.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 1 May 2007
Keywords: Sediment, Mudflats, Erosion devices, Annular flumes, CSM, EROMES, Erosion threshold

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 49690
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/49690
ISSN: 0278-4343
PURE UUID: 1707a540-4914-46dc-9232-b40570bd8c24
ORCID for C.E.L. Thompson: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1105-6838

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 22 Nov 2007
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 03:14

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: J. Widdows
Author: P.L. Friend
Author: A.J. Bale
Author: M.D. Brinsley
Author: N.D. Pope
Author: C.E.L. Thompson ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×