Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Sediment source analysis in the Linganore Creek watershed, Maryland, USA, using the sediment fingerprinting approach: 2008 to 2010

  • WATERSHED SEDIMENT SOURCE IDENTIFICATION: TOOLS, APPROACHES, AND CASE STUDIES
  • Published:
Journal of Soils and Sediments Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Fine-grained sediment is an important pollutant in streams and estuaries, including the Chesapeake Bay in the USA. The objective of this study was to determine the sources of fine-grained sediment using the sediment fingerprinting approach in the Linganore Creek watershed, a tributary to the Chesapeake Bay.

Materials and methods

The sediment fingerprinting approach was used in the agricultural and forested, 147-km2 Linganore Creek watershed, Maryland from 1 August 2008 to 31 December 2010 to determine the relative percentage contribution from different potential sources of fine-grained sediment. Fine-grained suspended sediment samples (<63 μm) were collected during storm events in Linganore Creek using an automatic sampler and manual isokinetic samplers. Source samples were collected from 40 stream bank sites, 24 agricultural (cropland and pasture) sites, and 19 forested sites. Suspended sediment and source samples were analyzed for elements and stable isotopes.

Results and discussion

Results of sediment fingerprinting for 194 samples collected in 36 separate storm events indicate that stream banks contributed 53% of the annual fine-grained suspended sediment load, agriculture contributed 44%, and forests contributed 3%. Peak flows and sediment loads of the storms correlate to stream bank erosion. The highest peak flows occurred in the winter and, along with freeze–thaw activity, contributed to winter months showing the highest rate of stream bank erosion. Peak flow was negatively correlated to sediment sources from agricultural lands which had the greatest contribution in non-winter months. Caution should be observed when trying to interpret the relation between sediment sources and individual storms using the sediment fingerprinting approach. Because the sediment fingerprinting results from individual storms may not include the temporal aspects of the sourced sediment, sediment that is in storage from previous events, remobilized and sampled during the current event, will reflect previous storm characteristics. Stream bank sediment is delivered directly to the channel during an event, whereas the delivery of upland sediment to the stream is lower due to storage on hillslopes and/or in channels, sediment from stream banks are more likely to be related to the characteristics of the sampled storm event.

Conclusions

Stream banks and agricultural lands are both important sources of fine-grained sediment in the Linganore Creek watershed. Peak flows and sediment loads for the 36 storms show a significant relation to sediment sources from stream bank erosion. Attempting to link upland sediment sources to flow and seasonal characteristics is difficult since much of the upland sediment eroded in an event goes into storage. By averaging sediment sources over several storms, it may be possible to determine not only the sediment sources that are directly contributed during the current event but also sediment from previous events that was in storage and remobilized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.”

References

  • Banks WSL, Gellis AC, Noe G (2010) Sources of fine-grained suspended sediment in Mill Stream Branch watershed, Corsica River Basin, a tributary to the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, 2009. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Joint Federal Interagency, Las Vegas, NV, 27 June–1 July, CD-ROM, ISBN 978-0-0779007-3-2, 6B, 12 pp

  • Brakebill JW, Ator SW, Schwarz GE (2010) Sources of suspended sediment flux in streams of the Chesapeake Bay watershed: a regional application of the SPARROW model. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46:757–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins AL, Walling D (2002) Selecting fingerprint properties for discriminating potential suspended sediment sources in river basins. J Hydrol 261:218–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collins AL, Walling DE (2007) Sources of fine sediment recovered from the channel bed of lowland groundwater-fed catchments in the UK. Geomorphology 88:120–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins AL, Walling DE, Leeks GJL (1997) Sediment sources in the Upper Severn catchment: a fingerprinting approach. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 1:509–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins AL, Walling DE, Webb L, King P (2010) Apportioning catchment scale sediment sources using a modified composite fingerprinting technique incorporating property weightings and prior information. Geoderma 155:249–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coplen TB, Brand WA, Gehre M, Gröning M, Meijer HAJ, Toman B, Verkouteren RM (2006) New guidelines for δ 13C measurements. Anal Chem 78:2439–2441

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Darby SE, Rinaldi M, Dapporto S (2007) Coupled simulations of fluvial erosion and mass wasting for cohesive river banks. J Geophys Res 112, F03022. doi:10.1029/2006JF000722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Maesschalck R, Jouan-Rimbaud D, Massart DL (2000) The Mahalanobis distance. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 50:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devereux OH, Prestegaard KL, Needelman BA, Gellis AC (2010) Suspended-sediment sources in an urban watershed, Northeast Branch Anacostia River, Maryland. Hydrol Process 24:1391–1403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiLisio JE (1983) Maryland: a geography. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, 233 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Duijsings JJHM (1986) Seasonal variation in the sediment delivery ratio of a forested drainage basin in Luxembourg. In: Hadley RF (ed) Drainage basin sediment delivery, IAHS publication no. 159. IAHS Press, Wallingford, pp 153–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox GA, Chu-Agor ML, Wilson GV (2007) Seepage erosion: a significant mechanism of stream bank failure. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, 15–19 May, Tampa, FL, USA, 14 pp

  • Fry J, Xian G, Jin S, Dewitz J, Homer C, Yang L, Barnes C, Herold N, Wickham J (2011) Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77:858–864

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatto LW (1995) Soil freeze–thaw effects on bank erodibility and stability. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Special Report 95-24, 17 pp

  • Gellis AC (2013) Factors influencing storm-generated suspended-sediment concentrations and loads in four basins of contrasting land use, humid-tropical Puerto Rico. Catena 104:39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellis AC, Brakebill JW (2013) Sediment sources and transport in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. US Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay activities. Available at http://chesapeake.usgs.gov/sciencesummary-sedimentsourcesandtransport.html

  • Gellis AC, Walling DE (2011) Sediment-source fingerprinting (tracing) and sediment budgets as tools in targeting river and watershed restoration programs. In: Simon A, Bennett S, Castro JM (eds) Stream restoration in dynamic fluvial systems: scientific approaches, analyses, and tools, vol 194, American Geophysical Union Monograph Series., pp 263–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellis AC, Banks WSL, Langland MJ, Martucci S (2005) Suspended-sediment data for streams draining the Chesapeake Bay watershed, water years 1952–2002. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5056, 59 pp

  • Gellis AC, Hupp CR, Pavich MJ, Landwehr JM, Banks WSL, Hubbard BE, Langland MJ, Ritchie JC, Reuter JM (2009) Sources, transport, and storage of sediment at selected sites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5186, 95 pp

  • Hedges JL, Stern JH (1984) Carbon and nitrogen determination nitrogen-15 natural abundance in crop residues and soil organic of carbonate-containing solids. J Limnol Oceanogr 29:657–663

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (1997) Statistical methods in water resources. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 529 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman J, Hupp C, Langland M (2003) Watershed sediment deposition and storage. In: Langland M, Cronin TA (eds) Summary report of sediment processes in Chesapeake Bay and watershed. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4123, Reston, VA, USA, chapter 4, pp 42–48

  • Hooke JM (1979) An analysis of the processes of river bank erosion. J Hydrol 42:39–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz AJ (1991) A primer on sediment trace element chemistry. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-76, 136 pp

  • Julian J, Torres R (2006) Hydraulic erosion of cohesive riverbanks. Geomorphology 76:193–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlin R (1980) Sediment sources and clay mineral distributions off the Oregon Coast. J Sediment Petrol 50:543–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Koltun GF, Eberle M, Gray JR, Glysson GD (2006) User’s manual for the Graphical Constituent Loading Analysis System (GCLAS). U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 4, chapter C1, Reston, Virginia, USA, 51 pp

  • Kraft JS (2002) Soil survey of Frederick County, Maryland. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, 231 pp

  • Kwaad FJPM (1991) Summer and winter regimes of runoff generation and soil erosion on cultivated loess soils (The Netherlands). Earth Surf Process Landforms 16:653–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langland M, Blomquist J, Moyer D, Hyer K (2012) Nutrient and suspended-sediment trends, loads, and yields and development of an indicator of streamwater quality at nontidal sites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 1985–2010. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5093 Reston, Virginia, USA, 26 pp

  • Lawler DM (1986) River bank erosion and the influence of frost: a statistical examination. Trans Instit Brit Geogr 11:227–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maryland Department of the Environment (2008) Total maximum daily load of sediment in the lower Monocacy River watershed, Frederick, Carroll, and Montgomery Counties, Maryland. Maryland Department of the Environment, Lower Monocacy River Sediment TMDL Document Version, 28 September, 82 pp

  • Minella JPG, Walling DE, Merten GH (2008) Combining traditional monitoring and sediment source tracing techniques to assess the impact of improved land management on catchment sediment yields. J Hydrol 348:546–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motha JA, Wallbrink PJ, Hairsine PB, Grayson RB (2003) Determining the sources of suspended sediment in a forested catchment in southwestern Australia. Water Resour Res 39:1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukundan R, Walling DE, Gellis AC, Slattery MC, Radcliffe DE (2012) Sediment source fingerprinting: transforming from a research tool to a management tool. J Amer Water Resour Assoc 48:1241–1257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagle GN, Fahey TJ, Ritchie JC, Woodbury PB (2007) Variations in sediment sources and yields in the Finger Lakes and Catskills regions of New York. Hydrol Process 21:828–838

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Noe GB, Hupp C (2005) Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus accumulation in floodplains of Atlantic Coastal Plain rivers, USA. Ecol Appl 15:1178–1190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ongley ED (1996) Control of water pollution from agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 55. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

  • Papanicolaou AN, Fox JF, Marshall J (2003) Soil fingerprinting in the Palouse Basin, USA using stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes. Int J Sediment Res 18:291–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulenard J, Perrette Y, Fanget B, Quetin P, Trevisan C, Dorioz JM (2009) Infrared spectroscopy tracing of sediment sources in a small rural watershed (French Alps). Sci Total Environ 407:2808–2819

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rankl JG (2004) Relations between total-sediment load and peak discharge for rainstorm runoff on five ephemeral streams in Wyoming. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4150, Reston, VA, USA, 12 pp

  • Révész K, Qi H (2006) Determination of the δ(15N/14N) and δ(13C/12C) of total N and C in solids. RSIL Lab Code 1832, chap. C5 of Révész, Kinga, and Coplen, Tyler B (eds) Methods of the Reston Stable Isotope Laboratory: Reston, Virginia, USA, U.S. Geological Survey, Techniques and Methods, book 10, sec. C, chap. 5, 31 pp

  • SAS Institute (1985) SAS user’s guide. Statistics, version 5 edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA

  • Schenk ER, Hupp CR, Gellis A, Noe G (2013) Developing a new stream metric for comparing stream function using a bank–floodplain sediment budget: a case study of three Piedmont streams. Earth Surf Process Landforms 38:771–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekellick AJ, Banks WSL (2010) Water volume and sediment accumulation in Lake Linganore, Frederick County, Maryland, 2009. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5174, Reston, VA, USA, 14 pp

  • Simon A, Curini A, Darby SE, Langendoen EJ (2000) Bank and near-bank processes in an incised channel. Geomorphology 35:183–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skalak K, Pizzuto J (2010) The distribution and residence time of suspended sediment stored within the channel margins of a gravel-bed bedrock river. Earth Surf Proc Land 35:435–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Slattery MC, Walden J, Burt TP (2000) Fingerprinting suspended sediment sources using mineral magnetic measurements—a quantitative approach. In: Foster I (ed) Tracers in geomorphology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 309–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprague E, Burke D, Claggett S, Todd A (eds) (2006) The State of Chesapeake Forests. The Northeastern Area Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Program. USDA Forest Service, Annapolis, MD, USA, 115 pp. Available at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_19673.pdf. Accessed June 2013

  • Steegen A, Govers G, Beuselinck L, Nachtergaele J, Takken I, Poesen P (1998) Variations in sediment yield from an agricultural drainage basin in central Belgium. In: Summer W, Klaghofer E, Zhang W (eds) Modelling soil erosion, sediment transport and closely related hydrological processes, IAHS publication no. 249. IAHS Press, Wallingford, pp 177–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart A, Ord KJ (1991) Kendall’s advanced theory of statistics, vol. 2, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York, 1323 pp

  • Taylor KG, Owens PN (2009) Sediments in urban river basins: a review of sediment-contaminant dynamics in an environmental system conditioned by human activities. J Soils Sediments 9:281–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (2009) 2007 Census of Agriculture Maryland and County Data. Washington, DC, USA, pp 250–252

  • US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center (2009) Available at http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgibin/climaps/climaps.pl. Accessed November 11, 2009

  • US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) (2011) Climatic data online, global summary of the day: National Climatic Data Center. US Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. Available at http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdosubqueryrouter.cmd. Accessed July 11, 2011

  • Wainer H (1976) Robust statistics. A survey and some prescriptions. J Educ Stat 1(4):285–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walling DE (2009) The impact of global change on erosion and sediment transport by rivers: current progress and future challenges. The United Nations World Water Development Report 3. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001850/185078e.pdf. Accessed May 2013

  • Walling DE, Woodward JC (1992) Use of radiometric fingerprints to derive information on suspended sediment sources. In: Bogen J, Walling DE, Day T (eds) Erosion and sediment transport monitoring programmes in river basins, IAHS publication no. 210. IAHS Press, Wallingford, pp 153–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Walling DE, Owens PN, Leeks GJL (1999) Fingerprinting suspended sediment sources in the catchment of the River Ouse, Yorkshire, UK. Hydrol Process 13:955–975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf KL, Ahn C, Noe GB (2011) Development of soil properties and nitrogen cycling in created wetlands. Wetlands 31:699–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolman MG (1959) Factors influencing erosion of a cohesive river bank. Amer J Sci 257:204–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynn T (2006) Streambank retreat—a primer: watershed update, January–March 2006. Am Water Resour Assoc Hydrol Watershed Manag Tech Comm 4(1):1–14

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge several persons who assisted in this study. We would like to thank Michael Marschner and Shannon Moore, Frederick County, who were quintessential in getting this project started. Scott Phillips and Joel Blomquist, USGS Chesapeake Bay Program, for their support and assistance in developing this study. Art Horowitz for suggestions on sediment chemistry interpretations. Desmond Walling for assistance with sediment fingerprinting analysis. Carol Kendall for suggestions on stable isotope analysis. To all the property owners in the Linganore Creek watershed that gave us permission to collect sediment samples on their property.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. US Geological Survey, 5522 Research Park Drive, Baltimore, MD, 21228, USA

    Allen C. Gellis

  2. US Geological Survey, 430 National Center, Reston, VA, 20192, USA

    Gregory B. Noe

Authors
  1. Allen C. Gellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory B. Noe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allen C. Gellis.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Rajith Mukundan

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(XLS 218 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gellis, A.C., Noe, G.B. Sediment source analysis in the Linganore Creek watershed, Maryland, USA, using the sediment fingerprinting approach: 2008 to 2010. J Soils Sediments 13, 1735–1753 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-013-0771-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-013-0771-6

Keywords