Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 18, Issue 10, pp 3114–3130 | Cite as

Characterizing natural riparian vegetation for modeling of flow and suspended sediment transport

  • Kaisa Västilä
  • Juha Järvelä
Physical and Ecological Aspects of Mobile Sediments

Abstract

Purpose

Riparian vegetation imposes a critical control on the transport and deposition of suspended sediment with important implications for water quality and channel maintenance. This paper contributes (1) to hydraulic and morphological modeling by examining the parameterization of natural riparian vegetation (trees, bushes, and grasses) and (2) to the design and management of environmental channels by determining how the properties of natural floodplain plant stands affect the erosion and deposition of suspended sediment.

Materials and methods

Laboratory and field data were employed for enhancing the physical description of flow–plant–sediment interactions with a consideration of practical applicability. A drag force parameterization that takes into account the flexibility-induced reconfiguration, and the complex structure of foliated plants was validated for small natural trees under laboratory conditions, while the data from a small vegetated compound channel demonstrated the approaches at the field scale. Based on the field data, we identified three key vegetative factors influencing the net deposition and erosion on the floodplain. The significance of these factors was evaluated for vegetative conditions ranging from almost bare soil to sparse willows and dense grasses. Overall, the investigated conditions covered flexible and rigid vegetation with seasonal differences represented by foliated and leafless states.

Results and discussion

The drag and reconfiguration of woody plants were reliably predicted under leafless and foliated conditions. Subsequently, we present a new easy-to-use methodology for predicting vegetative drag and flow resistance. The methodology is based on a physically solid parameterization for five widely used coefficients or terms (Eqs. (2)–(6)), with the necessary parameter values presented for common riparian species. The methodology was coupled with existing approaches at the field scale, revealing that increasing vegetation density and the associated decreasing flow velocity within vegetation significantly increased net deposition. Further, deposition increased with increasing cross-sectional vegetative blockage and decreasing distance from the suspended sediment replenishment point. Thus, longitudinal advection was the most important mechanism supplying fine sediment to the floodplain, but long continuous plant stands limited deposition.

Conclusions

The proposed parameterization (Eqs. (2)–(6)) can be readily implemented into existing hydraulic and morphological models to improve the description of natural vegetation compared to the conventional rigid cylinder representation. The approach is advantageous for evaluating, for example, the effects of both natural succession and management interventions on floodplains. Finally, guidance is provided on how floodplain vegetation can be maintained to manage the erosion and deposition of suspended sediment in environmental channel designs.

Keywords

Cohesive sediment Deposition Drag force Flow resistance Suspended sediment Vegetation 

References

  1. Aberle J, Järvelä J (2013) Flow resistance of emergent rigid and flexible vegetation. J Hydraul Res 51(1):33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aberle J, Järvelä J (2015) Hydrodynamics of vegetated channels. In: Rowinski P, Radecki-Pawlik A (eds) Rivers—physical, fluvial and environmental processes. GeoPlanet: earth and planetary sciences. Springer, Berlin, pp 519–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arboleda AM, Crosato A, Middelkoop H (2010) Reconstructing the early 19th century Waal River by means of a 2D physics-based numerical model. Hydrol Process 24(25):3661–3675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayotte KW, Finnigan JJ, Raupach MR (1999) A second-order closure for neutrally stratified vegetative canopy flows. Bound-Layer Meteorol 90:189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belcher SE, Harman IN, Finnigan JJ (2012) The wind in the willows: flows in forest canopies in complex terrain. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 44:479–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boothroyd RJ, Hardy RJ, Warburton J, Marjoribanks TI (2015) The importance of accurately representing submerged vegetation morphology in the numerical prediction of complex river flow. Earth Surf Process Landforms 41(4):567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bos AR, Bouma TJ, de Kort GLJ, van Katwijk MM (2007) Ecosystem engineering by annual intertidal seagrass beds: sediment accretion and modification. Estuar Coast Shelf S 74:344–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Branß T, Dittrich A, Núñez-González F (2016) Reproducing natural levee formation in an experimental flume. In: Constantinescu G, Garcia M, Hanes D (eds) River flow 2016. CRC Press, London, pp 1122–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corenblit D, Steiger J, Gurnell AM, Tabacchi E, Roques L (2009) Control of sediment dynamics by vegetation as a key function driving biogeomorphic succession within fluvial corridors. Earth Surf Process Landforms 34(13):1790–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Stefano C, Ferro V, Mirabile S (2010) Comparison between grain-size analyses using laser diffraction and sedimentation methods. Biosyst Eng 106:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dittrich A, Aberle J, Schoneboom T (2012) Drag forces and flow resistance of flexible riparian vegetation. In: Rodi W, Uhlmann M (eds) Environmental fluid mechanics: memorial volume in honour of prof. Gerhard H. Jirka, IAHR monographs. CRC Press, London, pp 195–215Google Scholar
  12. Droppo I (2001) Rethinking what constitutes suspended sediment. Hydrol Process 15:1551–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleischer P, Soyeaux R (2013) Technical-biological bank protection on waterways with high traffic frequency—first experience gained from a test stretch at the River Rhine with regard to bank stability. In: Rigo P, Wolters M (eds) Proceedings, 6th International PIANC-Smart Rivers Conference, 23–27 September 2013, Liège, Belgium/Maastricht, the Netherlands, 10 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Ganthy F, Soissons L, Sauria PG, Verney R, Sottolichio A (2015) Effects of short flexible seagrass Zostera noltei on flow, erosion and deposition processes determined using flume experiments. Sedimentology 62:997–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geerling GW, Kater E, van den Brink C, Baptist MJ, Ragas AMJ, Smits AJM (2008) Nature rehabilitation by floodplain excavation: the hydraulic effect of 16 years of sedimentation and vegetation succession along the Waal River, NL. Geomorphology 99(1–4):317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gurnell A (2014) Plants as river system engineers. Earth Surf Process Landforms 39:4–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jalonen J, Järvelä J (2014) Estimation of drag forces caused by natural woody vegetation of different scales. J Hydrodyn 26:608–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jalonen J, Järvelä J, Aberle J (2013) Leaf area index as vegetation density measure for hydraulic analyses. J Hydraul Eng 139(5):461–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jalonen J, Järvelä J, Virtanen J-P, Vaaja M, Kurkela M, Hyyppä H (2015) Determining characteristic vegetation areas by terrestrial laser scanning for floodplain flow modeling. Water 7(2):420–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Järvelä J (2004) Determination of flow resistance caused by non-submerged woody vegetation. Int J River Basin Manag 2(1):61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jeffries R, Darby SE, Sear DA (2003) The influence of vegetation and organic debris on flood plain sediment dynamics: case study of a loworder stream in the New Forest, England. Geomorphology 51:61–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kang H, Choi S-U (2006) Turbulence modeling of compound open-channel flows with and without vegetation on the floodplain using the Reynolds stress model. Adv Water Res 29:1650–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kasvi E, Alho P, Lotsari E, Wang Y, Kukko A, Hyyppä H, Hyyppä J (2015) Two-dimensional and three-dimensional computational models in hydrodynamic and morphodynamic reconstructions of a river bend: sensitivity and functionality. Hydrol Process 29:1604–1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Konings AG, Katul GG, Thompson SE (2012) A phenomenological model for the flow resistance over submerged vegetation. Water Resour Res 48:W02522. doi: 10.1029/2011WR011000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kouwen N, Fathi-Moghadam M (2000) Friction factors for coniferous trees along rivers. J Hydraul Eng 126:732–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. de Langre E (2008) Effects of wind on plants. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 40:141–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li M-H, Eddleman KE (2002) Biotechnical engineering as an alternative to traditional engineering methods: a biotechnical streambank stabilization design approach. Landscape Urban Plan 60:225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li X, Zhang L, Zhang Z (2006) Soil bioengineering and the ecological restoration of riverbanks at the airport town, Shanghai, China. Ecol Eng 26:304–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. López F, García M (1998) Open-channel flow through simulated vegetation: suspended sediment transport modeling. Water Resour Res 34(9):2341–2352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luhar M, Nepf H (2013) From the blade scale to the reach scale: a characterization of aquatic vegetative drag. Adv Water Resour 51:305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luhar M, Rominger J, Nepf H (2008) Interaction between flow, transport and vegetation spatial structure. Environ Fluid Mech 8:423–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ma L, Zheng G, Eitel JUH, Magney TS, Moskal LM (2016) Determining woody-to-total area ratio using terrestrial laser scanning (TLS). Agric For Meteorol 228–229:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahl UH, Tank JL, Roley SS, Davis RT (2015) Two-stage ditch floodplains enhance N-removal capacity and reduce turbidity and dissolved P in agricultural streams. JAWRA 51(4):923–940Google Scholar
  34. Manners R, Wilcox AC, Kui L, Lightbody A, Stella J, Sklar L (2015) When do plants modify fluvial processes? Plant-hydraulic interactions under variable flow and sediment supply rates. Water Resour Res 120(2):325–345Google Scholar
  35. McGahey C, Samuels PG, Knight DW, O’Hare MT (2008) Estimating river flow capacity in practice. J Flood Risk Manage 1(1):23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Middelkoop H, Asselman NEM (1998) Spatial variability of floodplain sedimentation at the event scale in the Rhine-Meuse Delta, the Netherlands. Earth Surf Process Landforms 23:561–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Naiman RJ, Décamps H (1997) The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:621–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nepf H (2012) Flow and transport in regions with aquatic vegetation. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 44:123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Niklas KJ (1997) Size- and age-dependent variation in the properties of sap- and heartwood in black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) Annal Bot 79:473–478Google Scholar
  40. O’Hare M (2015) Aquatic vegetation—a primer for hydrodynamic specialists. J Hydraul Res 53(6):687–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Osterkamp WR, Hupp CR, Stoffel M (2012) The interactions between vegetation and erosion: new directions for research at the interface of ecology and geomorphology. Earth Surf Process Landforms 37:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Owens PN, Batalla RJ, Collins AJ, Gomez B, Hicks DM, Horowitz AJ, Kondolf GM, Marden M, Page MJ, Peacock DH, Petticrew EL, Salomons W, Trustrum NA (2005) Fine-grained sediment in river systems: environmental significance and management issues. River Res Applic 21:693–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pasquale N, Perona P, Francis R, Burlando P (2014) Above-ground and be-low-ground Salix dynamics in response to river processes. Hydrol Process 28:5189–5203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peltola HM (2006) Mechanical stability of trees under static loads. Am J Bot 93(10):1501–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peralta G, van Duren LA, Morris EP, Bouma TJ (2008) Consequences of shoot density and stiffness for ecosystem engineering by benthic macrophytes in flow dominated areas: a hydrodynamic flume study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 368:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schuurman F, Marra WA, Kleinhans MG (2013) Physics-based modeling of large braided sand-bed rivers: bar pattern formation, dynamics, and sensitivity. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 118:2509–2527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sellin RHJ, van Beesten DP (2004) Conveyance of a managed vegetated two-stage river channel. Water Management 157(1):21–33Google Scholar
  48. Sharpe RG, James CS (2006) Deposition of sediment from suspension in emergent vegetation. Water SA 32(2):211–218Google Scholar
  49. Shields FD Jr, Coulton KG, Nepf H (2017) Representation of vegetation in two-dimensional hydrodynamic models. J Hydraul Eng 02517002. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shiono K, Muto Y (1998) Complex flow mechanisms in compound meandering channels with overbank flow. J Fluid Mech 376:221–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Solari L, van Oorschot M, Belletti B, Hendriks D, Rinaldi M, Vargas-Luna A (2016) Advances on modeling riparian vegetation–hydromorphology interactions. River Res Applic 32:164–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Studer R, Zeh H (2014) Soil bioengineering—construction type manual. Verein für Ingenieurbiologie, European Federation for Soil Bioengineering. vdf Hochschulverlag AG der ETH Zürich, Switzerland. 440 pp. ISBN 978–3–7281-3642-8. [Open access, http://vdf-online.ch/soil-bioengineering/]
  53. Sukhodolov AN, Sukhodolova TA (2012) Vegetated mixing layer around a finite-size patch of submerged plants: part 2. Turbulence statistics and structures. Water Resour Res 48:W12506. doi: 10.1029/2011WR011805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thonon I, Roberti JR, Middelkoop H, van der Perk M, Burrough PA (2005) In situ measurements of sediment settling characteristics in floodplains using a LISST-ST. Earth Surf Process Landforms 30:1327–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thornton CI, Abt SR, Clary WP (1997) Vegetation influence on small stream siltation. J Am Water Resour As 33(6):1279–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. USDA (2007) Two-stage channel design. In National Engineering Handbook, part 654, stream restoration design. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation ServiceGoogle Scholar
  57. Uusitalo R, Yli-Halla M, Turtola E (2000) Suspended soil as a source of potentially bioavailable phosphorus in surface runoff waters from clay soils. Water Res 34(9):2477–2482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vargas-Luna A, Crosato A, Calvani G, Uijttewaal WSJ (2015a) Representing plants as rigid cylinders in experiments and models. Adv Water Resourc 93(B):205–222Google Scholar
  59. Vargas-Luna A, Crosato A, Uijttewaal WSJ (2015b) Effects of vegetation on flow and sediment transport: comparative analyses and validation of predicting models. Earth Surf Process Landforms 40:157–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Västilä K (2015) Flow–plant–sediment interactions: vegetative resistance modeling and cohesive sediment processes. Doctoral thesis, Aalto University School of Engineering, Espoo, Finland. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-6597-7
  61. Västilä K, Järvelä J (2011) Environmentally preferable two-stage drainage channels: considerations for cohesive sediments and conveyance. Int J River Basin Manage 9(3–4):171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Västilä K, Järvelä J (2014) Modeling the flow resistance of woody vegetation using physically-based properties of the foliage and stem. Water Resour Res 50(1):229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Västilä K, Järvelä J, Jalonen J (2015) Effect of floodplain vegetation on flow and transport of cohesive particles in an environmental two-stage channel. In: Proceedings, 36th IAHR World Congress, 28.6.–3.7.2015, Delft – The Hague, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  64. Västilä K, Järvelä J, Koivusalo H (2016) Flow–vegetation–sediment interaction in a cohesive compound channel. J Hydraul Eng 142(1):04015034. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Villada Arroyave JA, Crosato A (2010) Effects of river floodplain lowering and vegetation cover. Water management WM9:457–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vogel S (1994) Life in moving fluids—the physical biology of flow, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  67. Whittaker P, Wilson C, Aberle J (2015) An improved Cauchy number approach for predicting the drag and reconfiguration of flexible vegetation. Adv Water Res 83:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wood PJ, Armitage PD (1997) Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environ Manag 21(2):203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xavier P (2009) Floodplain woodland hydrodynamics. Doctoral thesis, Cardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
  70. Zinke P (2011) Modelling of flow and levee depositions in a freshwater delta with natural vegetation. Doctoral thesis. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  71. Zinke P, Olsen NRB, Bogen J (2011) Three-dimensional numerical modelling of levee depositions in a Scandinavian freshwater delta. Geomorphology 129:320–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zong L, Nepf H (2011) Spatial distribution of deposition within a patch of vegetation. Water Resour Res 47:W03516. doi: 10.1029/2010WR009516 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zou J, Yan G, Zhu L, Zhang W (2009) Woody-to-total area ratio determination with a multispectral canopy imager. Tree Physiol 29:1069–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Built EnvironmentAalto University School of EngineeringEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations