Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 543–554 | Cite as

Erodibility and erosion patterns of mudflat sediments investigated using an annular flume

  • Urs NeumeierEmail author
  • Cathy H. Lucas
  • Michael Collins


Laboratory flume experiments were carried out, to measure the effect of biota on erodibility of mudflat sediments. The experiments sought to reproduce the environment of the lower mudflat at Hythe, Southampton Water, Southern England; this is characterised by fine grain-size and a surface layer of very fluid mud. Natural sediments were used to produce settled beds in the Lab Carousel, an annular flume of 2 m diameter. The following bed conditions were investigated diatom biofilms; the addition of cockles (Cerastoderma edule); and abiotic sediment, obtained by the addition of sodium hypochlorite. The erosion threshold (τcrit, calculated with the TKE method) was in the range 0.02–0.20 Pa. Bioconsolidation increased τcrit considerably: compared to the abiotic sediment experiment, τcrit was 5–10 times higher depending on the biofilm development. The relationship between τcrit and water content of sediment (the best proxy for sediment compaction) was as good, or better than between τcrit and chlorophyll a (proxy for biofilm development). When cockles were introduced, τcrit was significantly lower (reduction by 50–75% compared with the diatom biofilm experiments), reflecting the surface disturbance by the bivalves. The biofilm erosion was characterised by a patchy pattern: the bed surface stayed mainly uneroded and erosion was visible only on a few elongated patches commencing at some weakness points of the biofilm, then progressing downstream. The results illustrate the importance of the surface heterogeneity: the irregularities of a natural bed (weak points of the biofilm, bioturbations, microrelief, larger roughness elements like shells or algae, etc.) have a determinant effect on the erodibility of biofilms. Such characteristics may have more influence than biofilm strength, because the erosion starts from the weaker areas.


Biofilm Cockles Erosion threshold 



critical shear stress (erosion threshold)


quadratic friction law method


suspended sediment concentration


turbulent kinetic energy method


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. C.L. Amos, G.R. Daborn, H.A. Christian, A. Atkinson and A. Robertson, In situ erosion measurements on fine-grained sediments from the Bay of Fundy. Mar. Geol. 108 (1992a) 175-196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. C.L. Amos, J. Grant, G.R. Daborn and K. Black, Sea carousel – a benthic, annular flume. Estuarine Coastal Shelf. Sci. 34 (1992b) 557-577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. C.L. Amos, T. Feeney, T.F. Sutherland and J.L. Luternauer, The stability of fine-grained sediments from the Fraser River Delta. Estuarine Coastal Shelf. Sci. 45 (1997) 507-524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. C.L. Amos, M. Brylinsky, T.F. Sutherland, D. O’Brien, S. Lee and A. Cramp, The stability of a mudflat in the Humber estuary, South YorkshireUK. In: K.S. Black, D.M. Paterson and A. Cramp (eds.) Sedimentary Processes in the Intertidal Zone. London: Geological Society, Special Publication (1998) pp. 25-43Google Scholar
  5. R.S.K. Barnes, The intertidal lamellibranchs of Southampton Waterwith particular reference to Cerastoderma edule C. glaucum. Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 40 (1973) 413-433Google Scholar
  6. K.S. Black, Microbiological factors contributing the erosion resistance in natural cohesive sediments. In: N. Burt, R. Parker and J Watts (eds.) Cohesive Sediments. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons (1997) pp. 231-244Google Scholar
  7. K.S. Black, T.J. Tolhurst, D.M. Paterson and S.E. Hagerthey, Working with natural cohesive sediments. J. Hydraulic Engin. 128 (2002) 2-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cappucci S. 2002. The stability and evolution of intertidal areas in Venice Lagoon, Italy. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, unpublished.Google Scholar
  9. Day S.C. 2000. The erodibility of the intertidal sediments of Southampton Water. M.Sc. thesis, University of Southampton, unpublished.Google Scholar
  10. V.N. Jonge de and J. Bergs van den, Experiment on the resuspension of estuarine sediments containing benthic diatoms. Estuarine Coastal Shelf. Sci. 24 (1985) 725-740Google Scholar
  11. Dransfeld L. 2000. The environmental and photo-physiological control of microphytobenthos primary production on an intertidal mudflat. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, unpublished.Google Scholar
  12. Friend P.L., Ciavola P., Cappucci S. and Santos R. 2003. Biodependent bed parameters as a proxy tool for sediment stability in mixed habitat intertidal areas. Continental Shelf Research 23: 1899–1917.Google Scholar
  13. A. Fung, Accurate calibration measurements of flow in Lab Carousel under varying lid rotations. Dartmouth, Canada: Bedford Institute of Oceanography (1995).Google Scholar
  14. Good M. 1996. Community structure and production of benthic macrofauna of Hythe saltmarsh intertidal mudflats, Southampton Water, UK. M.Sc. thesis, University of Southampton, unpublished.Google Scholar
  15. A.F. Holland, R.G. Zingmark and J.M. Dean, Quantitative evidence concerning the stabilization of sediments by marine benthic diatoms. Mar. Biol. 27 (1974) 191-196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. J.A. Kelly, C. Honeywill and D.M. Paterson, Microscale analysis of chlorophyll-a in cohesive intertidal sediments: the implications of microphytobenthos distribution. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK 81 (2001) 151-162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis J.T. 1999. The record of deposition and migration of elements in saltmarshes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, unpublished.Google Scholar
  18. H. Manzenrieder, Die biologische Verfestigung von Wattflächen aus der Sicht des Ingenieurs. Miteilungen Leichtweiss-Instituts Wasserbau, T.U. Braunschweig 79 (1983) 135-193Google Scholar
  19. T.M. Parchure and A.J. Mehta, Erosion of soft cohesive sediment deposits. J. Hydraulic Eng. 111 (1986) 1308-1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. T.R. Parsons, Y. Maita and C.M. Lalli, A Manual of Chemical and Biological Methods for Seawater Analysis. Oxford: Pergamon Press (1984).Google Scholar
  21. D.M. Paterson, L.J. Stal and P. Caumette, Microbiological mediation of sediment structure and behaviour. Microbial Mats. NATO ASI ser. G35 (1994) 97-109Google Scholar
  22. D.M. Paterson, T.J. Tolhurst, J.A. Kelly, C. Honeywill, E.M.G.T. Deckere de, V. Huet, S.A. Shayler, K.S. Black, J. Brouwer de and I. Davidson, Variations in sediment properties, Skeffling mudflatHumber Estuary, UK. Continental Shelf. Res. 20 (2000) 1373-1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. D. Price and I. Townend, Hydrodynamic, sediment processes and morphological modelling. In: M.B. Collins and K. Ansell (eds.) Solent Science – A review. Amsterdam: Elsevier (2000) pp. 55-70Google Scholar
  24. Quaresma V.S. 2004. The Influence of shell transport on the morphology and erosion of a salt marsh: Hythe, South-Southampton Water. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, unpublished.Google Scholar
  25. R.L. Soulsby, Field observation of wave-current interaction at the sea bed. In: A. Torum and O.T. Gudmestad (eds.) Water Wave Kinematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic (1990) pp. 413-428Google Scholar
  26. K.R. Stapleton and D.A. Huntley, Seabed stress determination using the inertial dissipation method and the turbulent kinetic energy method. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 20 (1995) 807-815Google Scholar
  27. R.W. Sternberg, Predicting initial motion and bedload transport of sediment particles in the shallow marine environment. In: D.J.P. Swift, D.B. Duane and O.H. Pilkey (eds.) Shelf Sediment Transport: Process and Pattern. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross Inc. (1972) pp. 61-82Google Scholar
  28. T.F. Sutherland, J. Grant and C.L. Amos, The effect of carbohydrate production by the diatom Nitzschia curvilineata on the erodibility of sediment. Limnol. Oceanogr. 43 (1998) 65-72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. C.E.L. Thompson, C.L. Amos, T.E.R. Jones and J. Chaplin, The manifestation of fluid-transmitted bed shear stress in a smooth annular flume – a comparison of methods. J. Coast. Res. 19 (2003) 1094-1103Google Scholar
  30. T.J. Tolhurst, K.S. Black, S.A. Shayler, S. Mather, I. Black, K. Baker and D.M. Paterson, Measuring the in situ erosion shear stress of intertidal sediment with the Cohesive Strength Meter (CSM). Estuarine Coastal Shelf. Sci. 49 (1999) 281-294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. C.T. Tubbs, The Ecology, Conservation and History of the Solent. Chichester: Packard Publishing (1999).Google Scholar
  32. N.B. Webber, Hydrography and circulation in the Solent. The Solent Estuarine System: An Assessment of Present Knowledge. NERC Publ. Series C 22 (1980) 25-35Google Scholar
  33. J. Widdows, M.D. Brinsley, P.N. Salkeld and M. Elliot, Use of annular flumes to determine the influence of current velocity and bivalves on material flux at the sediment-water interface. Estuaries 51 (1998) 552-559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. J. Widdows, S. Brown, M.D. Brinsley, P.N. Salkeld and M. Elliott, Temporal changes in intertidal sediment erodability: influence of biological and climatic factors. Continental Shelf. Res. 20 (2000) 1275-1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R.J.S. Whitehouse, P. Bassoullet, K.R. Dyer, H.J. Mitchener and W. Roberts, The influence of bedforms on flow and sediment transport over intertidal mudflats. Continental Shelf. Res. 20 (2000) 1099-1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. M.L. Yallop, B. de Winder, D.M. Paterson and L.J. Stal, Comparative structureprimary production and biogenic stabilization of cohesive and non-cohesive marine sediments inhabited by microphytobenthos. Estuarine Coastal Shelf. Sci. 39 (1994) 565-582Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Urs Neumeier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cathy H. Lucas
    • 1
  • Michael Collins
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Ocean and Earth Science, Southampton Oceanography CentreUniversity of SouthamptonEuropean WayGreat Britain

Personalised recommendations