Advertisement

Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 183–189 | Cite as

Watershed Controls on the Geomorphology of Small Coastal Lagoons in an Active Tectonic Environment

  • Andrew RichEmail author
  • Edward A. Keller
Article

Abstract

This study investigates the relations between watershed precipitation, upstream channel slope, and the geomorphology of 19 small (40 to 18,658 m2), fluvial-incised lagoons in the actively uplifting piedmont near Santa Barbara, CA. Lagoons in the study are funnel-shaped, shallow (<2 m), river-dominated, and enclosed by a sandy to cobble-sized beach barrier for much of the year. Results indicate a strong link between watershed processes and lagoon geomorphology, such that a significant portion of the variability in lagoon area, length, volume, average width, circularity, and lagoon width expansion can be explained by the variability of watershed precipitation and channel slope upstream of the lagoons. Performing multiple regression analysis with watershed precipitation and channel slope as independent variables, coefficients of determination for the power function regressions are 0.88 (lagoon area), 0.88 (lagoon volume), 0.83 (lagoon volume), and 0.74 (average width). Upstream slope is the best single predictor of lagoon geomorphology.

Keywords

Coastal lagoons Geomorphology Morphometry Ecogeomorphology 

References

  1. Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J.P. Palutikof (eds.). 2008. Climate Change and Water, 210. Geneva: IPCC. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck, K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, C.G. Hays, K. Hoshino, T.J. Minello, R.J. Orth, P.F. Sheridan, and M.R. Weinstein. 2001. The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51(8): 633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beighley, R.E., J.M. Melack, and T. Dunne. 2003. Impacts of California’s climatic regimes and coastal land use change on streamflow characteristics. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39(6): 1419–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond, M. 2006. Importance of estuarine rearing to central California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) growth and marine survival. Santa Cruz: University of California.Google Scholar
  5. Boon, J.D., and R.J. Byrne. 1981. On basin hyposmetry and the morphodynamic response of coastal inlet systems. Marine Geology 40(1–2): 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper, J.A.G. 2001. Geomorphological variability among microtidal estuaries from the wave-dominated South African coast. Geomorphology 40(1–2): 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costanza, R., R. dArge, R. deGroot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. ONeill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. vanden Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630): 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duvall, A., E. Kirby, and D. Burbank. 2004. Tectonic and lithologic controls on bedrock channel profiles and processes in coastal California. Journal of Geophysical Research 109: F03002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibbs, D.R. 1990. Precipitation Data Report. Santa Barbara: County of Santa Barbara Flood Control and Water Conservation District.Google Scholar
  10. Hack, J.T. 1973. Stream-profile analysis and stream-gradient indices. Journal of Research United State Geology Survey 1: 421–429.Google Scholar
  11. Hood, W.G. 2002. Application of Landscape Allometry to Restoration of Tidal Channels. Restoration Ecology 10(2): 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howard, A.D., and G. Kerby. 1983. Channel changes in badlands. Geological Society of America Bulletin 94(6): 739–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hume, T.M., and C.E. Herdendorf. 1988. A geomorphic classification of estuaries and its application to coastal resource management–A New Zealand example. Ocean and Shoreline Management 11(3): 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hume, T.M., T. Snelder, M. Weatherhead, and R. Liefting. 2007. A controlling factor approach to estuary classification. Ocean & Coastal Management 50(11–12): 905–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keller, E.A. and Gurrola, L.D. 2000. Final Report, July 2000 Earthquake hazard of the Santa Barbara fold belt, California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  16. Kench, P.S. 1999. Geomorphology of Australian estuaries: Review and prospect. Australian Journal of Ecology 24(4): 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Langbein, W.B. 1963. The Hydraulic Geometry of a Shallow Estuary. International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Bulletin 8(3): 84–94.Google Scholar
  18. Leopold, L.B., and T. Maddock. 1953. The hydraulic Geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications. Washington: US Geological Survey Printing Office.Google Scholar
  19. Lilliefors, H.W. 1967. On the Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association 62(318): 399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mattheus, C.R., and A.B. Rodriguez. 2010. Controls on late Quaternary incised-valley dimension along passive margins evaluated using empirical data. Sedimentology 58: 1113–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mattheus, C.R., A.B. Rodriguez, D.L. Greene Jr., A.R. Simms, and J.B. Anderson. 2007. Control of Upstream Variables on Incised-Valley Dimension. Journal of Sedimentary Research 77(3): 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roy, P.S., R.J. Williams, A.R. Jones, I. Yassini, P.J. Gibbs, B. Coates, R.J. West, P.R. Scanes, J.P. Hudson, and S. Nichol. 2001. Structure and function of south-east Australian estuaries. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 53(3): 351–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Snyder, N.P., K.X. Whipple, G.E. Tucker, and D.J. Merritts. 2002. Interactions between onshore bedrock-channel incision and nearshore wave-base erosion forced by eustasy and tectonics. Basin Research 14(2): 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sutula, M., C. Creager, and G. Wortham. 2007. Technical approach to develop nutrient numeric endpoints for california estuaries. Costa Mesa: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.Google Scholar
  25. Swenson, R.O. 1999. The ecology, behavior, and conservation of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi. Environment Biology of Fishes 55(1): 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vermeer, M., and S. Rahmstorf. 2009. Global sea level linked to global temperature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(51): 21527–21532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Williams, P.B., M.K. Orr, and N.J. Garrity. 2002. Hydraulic Geometry: A Geomorphic Design Tool for Tidal Marsh Channel Evolution in Wetland Restoration Projects. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wright, L.D., J.M. Coleman, and B.G. Thom. 1973. Processes of Channel Development in a High-Tide-Range Environment: Cambridge Gulf-Ord River Delta, Western Australia. Journal of Geology 81(1): 15–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Earth ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations