Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction and context
Over the last few decades, there has been a large growth in the number of publications that have used the sediment source fingerprinting (SSF) technique to identify the dominant sources of fine-grained sediment in a range of environments. Reviews by Walling (2005) and Collins et al. (2020) show that the number of journal publications has increased from < 5 each year in the 1970s to > 40 per year today. The recent paper by Evrard et al. (2022) suggests that now is a good time to assess where the technique lies in terms of its evolution and what developments are required for future improvement. This article contributes to this discussion.
As Walling (2005, 2013) and others have identified, the SSF technique was developed in the 1970s. Early studies focused on determining the sources of sediment transported in rivers (e.g., Klages and Hsieh 1975; Wall and Wilding 1976; Oldfield et al. 1979; Walling et al. 1979; Grimshaw and Lewin 1980). Initially, results were mainly qualitative, in the form of plots and simple comparisons, and used color, mineralogy, geochemical, and mineral magnetic properties of materials as fingerprints. Over time, the technique has (i) become more quantitative, using increasingly advanced statistical and modeling techniques; (ii) utilized new properties as fingerprints; and (iii) expanded to include new environments and applications. Useful reviews of the history and principles of the SSF technique are provided by Walling (2005, 2013), Haddadchi et al. (2013), Owens et al. (2016), and Collins et al. (2017, 2020).
2 A shift in focus?
Sediment source fingerprinting was developed as a “tool” to help answer research questions about how landscapes function. Early applications were concerned with assessing erosion of the landscape, such as soil and channel bank erosion, especially in agricultural areas (e.g., Peart and Walling 1988; Walling and Woodward 1995; Collins et al. 1997). Additional applications included (i) determining the impacts of forest harvesting and wildfires on landscape erosion (e.g., Motha et al. 2003; Blake et al. 2006; Owens et al. 2012); (ii) assessing how urban development supplied additional sources of sediment (and contaminants) to aquatic systems (e.g., Charlesworth et al. 2000; Carter et al. 2003; Poleto et al. 2009); (iii) identifying sources in estuaries and coastal zones (e.g., Yu and Oldfield 1989; Gibbs 2008; Douglas et al. 2010); and (iv) reconstructing source changes over time using lake, floodplain, and estuarine sedimentary deposits (e.g., Dearing 1992; Foster et al. 1998; Owens et al. 1999). There is no doubt that these studies have greatly enhanced our understanding of earth surface processes and landscape evolution.
A second application addressed issues of watershed management. There is a vast literature that has discussed the problems associated with excessive soil erosion and with sediment and associated chemicals in aquatic systems (e.g., Montgomery 2007; Owens et al. 2005; Bilotta and Brazier 2008; Poesen 2018), i.e., the on-site and off-site consequences on landscape erosion. As such, the SSF technique provided an excellent means to assemble important information that could be used to develop advice to mitigate such problems. In other words, the SSF technique provided the scientific evidence to underpin management decision-making and policy development. In the earlier years of the technique, the attractiveness of SSF as a tool to the non-academic community (i.e., land owners, watershed managers and advisors, environmental regulators, policy developers) was that it was (i) conceptually simple and (ii) cost-effective. In terms of (i), the premise is that the properties of the problem sediment are compared to those of the potential sources and a link is established between the two types of materials. In the case of (ii), most of the properties used were easy to obtain in academic and commercial laboratories. For example, analysis of a soil or sediment sample for a suite of geochemical properties (> 30 elements) now typically costs in the range of US$10–$50. Thus, a study using 30 source samples (10 from three main source types) and 10 suspended samples might cost US$400–$2000. It was also cost-effective in that it did not require long-term monitoring of erosion and sediment transport dynamics; sampling and laboratory analysis could be done in a matter of months.
Over time, there has been a shift in the focus of many SSF studies. Numerous investigations are now concerned with “method development”, which represents a natural progression of scientific inquiry for what is a relatively new technique. There are many excellent studies that have:
-
examined the potential of new fingerprint properties, including compound-specific stable isotopes (CSSIs), eDNA, and spectral reflectance properties (e.g., Martinez-Carreras et al. 2010; Blake et al. 2012; Barthod et al. 2015; Evrard et al. 2019a; Reiffarth et al. 2019; Frankl et al. 2022);
-
assessed ways to better sample and characterize sediment and source materials (e.g., Wilkinson et al. 2015; Du and Walling 2017; Boudreault et al. 2019; Haddadchi et al. 2019; Lake et al. 2022);
-
developed protocols, statistical approaches, and numerical models that provide a more realistic and accurate estimate of source contributions and their uncertainties (e.g., Smith et al. 2018; Blake et al. 2018; Lizaga et al. 2020a; Upadhayay et al. 2020); and
-
evaluated the accuracy and precision of the results derived from these models using artificial and virtual mixtures (e.g., Gasper et al. 2019; Batista et al. 2022).
These studies and developments have greatly helped the SSF technique provide more rigorous and robust apportionment results and have increased its reputation within academia, in part, demonstrated by the growth of studies published in high-ranking journals. That said, the SSF community does need to be aware of the fact that too much method development can lead to a divergence of approaches and a lack of standardization. Perhaps more importantly, it can be argued that a change in focus to method development has resulted in a departure from the original objectives of the technique, namely, (i) improving our understanding of landscape evolution; and (ii) addressing the needs of watershed managers and regulators in terms of sediment-related problems.
3 Addressing Earth’s urgent environmental problems
Numerous reports and publications have identified a series of global-scale environmental crises—including the climate change emergency and concerns associated with food and water security—and identified that the scientific community needs to address these challenges (e.g., McLaughlin and Kinzelbach 2015; Wheater and Gober 2015; Owens 2020a; Ripple et al. 2020). As such, the SSF technique offers great potential in answering a range of important questions that include (i) evaluating multiple stressors on sediment sources and sediment dynamics in large and/or complex landscapes and watersheds (e.g., Gateuille et al. 2019); (ii) assessing the degree and rate by which landscapes are responding to global environmental changes like climate change and land use change (e.g., Wynants et al. 2021); and (iii) determining whether management and remediation actions are effective (e.g., Evrard et al. 2019b). In this context, the power of the SSF technique is likely to be greatly increased when it is combined with other lines of evidence, such as sediment flux monitoring, sediment budget investigations, remote sensing, landscape modeling, and incorporation of indigenous and community knowledge (e.g., Dambroz et al. 2022). Thus, it is recommended that SSF should be part of a larger framework of research which involves a transdisciplinary approach to science and its utilization (Owens 2020b).
Evrard et al. (2022) also advocate the need for forward-thinking, broader-scale projects that look to identify regional environmental patterns. In other words, a move away from applications in yet another watershed or landscape—unless it is in environmental settings where existing data are not available (e.g., Gholami et al. 2017; Navas et al. 2020; Sellier et al. 2020)—to applications that provide a mechanistic understanding of earth surface processes and determine landscape-scale patterns of responses to change.
4 Addressing the utilization of findings
In many respects, the SSF technique has not been utilized by watershed managers and regulators as much as hoped. Many publications justify the research that they describe in the context of its application to help managers and regulators to solve problems. But in reality, the up-take of the technique has not met its potential, which suggests that there may be a disconnect. There are several reasons for this disconnect between the academic and practical applications of SSF. One relates to the departure from the original attractiveness of the SSF technique; its conceptual simplicity and its cost-effectiveness compared to alternatives. The technique is now more advanced than its earlier incarnations, which has likely made it less appealing to those who wish to use it as an operational tool (Mukundan et al. 2012) and not a research tool or an intellectual exercise (i.e., method development). There are several ways forward. One is to allow the use of simple versions of the tool, and not be fixed upon the use of the most recent, state-of-the-art version. As others have recently advocated (e.g., Evrard et al. 2022; Pulley and Collins 2022), sometimes simple bi-plots of property values of source materials and sediments can be enough to provide the information needed for decision-making. Indeed, often watershed managers and regulators are looking for the rank order of the “main” sediment sources (e.g., topsoil erosion vs channel banks; agricultural land vs forested land) so as to make a decision and do not require accurate percent contributions. However, it should be recognized that quantitative scientific evidence is sometimes needed to leverage the incentive and funding required to implement management actions.
Another development is to provide ways that users can input the required data and obtain outputs without themselves having to perform complicated statistics and modeling. Thus, several recent modeling tools have been developed to enable this, many of which are open-access and with a user-friendly interface (e.g., Gorman Sanisaca et al. 2017; Pulley and Collins 2018; Lizaga et al. 2020b).
An important issue lies with knowledge transfer. It is likely that the information being generated from many SSF studies is not reaching those that need the information for management decision-making and policy development (Collins et al. 2020). There are several ways to address the issue of lack of communication. As Slob et al. (2008), Evrard et al. (2022), and others have advocated, one way is to engage stakeholders and end-users in the project development and application process. This will help the project to meet its objectives and generate the information required by end-users. Another is to have bi-directional knowledge exchange identified as a key objective of the project. This is a subtle, yet important, distinction from knowledge transfer in a single direction from researcher to end-user.
5 Concluding comments
The comments above are not meant to discourage researchers from further developing and improving the SSF technique. Indeed, such advancements are required to increase its value and will ultimately enhance its reputation. Recent reviews and position articles by Koiter et al. (2013), Laceby et al. (2017), Collins et al. (2020), Evrard et al. (2022), and others provide excellent guidance on what developments and considerations are required. However, it is important to recognize that we should not ignore the fact that the SSF technique is ultimately a tool that should be used to (i) answer fundamental questions about how landscapes, and especially modified landscapes, function in a changing world and (ii) provide local communities, managers, and regulators with the information that they require to make decisions and develop policy. The request comes amid warnings (e.g., IPBES 2018; IPCC 2022) that society needs to act quickly to address the global environmental crises that we are facing.
References
Barthod LR, Liu K, Lobb DA, Owens PN, Martínez-Carreras N, Koiter AJ, Petticrew EL, McCullough GK, Liu C, Gaspar L (2015) Selecting color-based tracers and classifying sediment sources in the assessment of sediment dynamics using sediment source fingerprinting. J Environ Qual 44:1605–1616. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.01.0043
Batista PVG, Laceby JP, Evrard O (2022) How to evaluate sediment fingerprinting source apportionments. J Soils Sediments 22:1315–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-022-03157-4
Bilotta GS, Brazier RE (2008) Understanding the effects of suspended solids on water chemistry and aquatic biota. Water Res 42:2849–2861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.03.018
Blake WH, Walsh RPD, Sayer AM, Bidin K (2006) Quantifying fine-sediment sources in primary and selectively logged rainforest catchments using geochemical tracers. Water Air Soil Pollut Focus 6:251–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11267-006-9046-1
Blake WH, Ficken KJ, Taylor P, Russell MA, Walling DE (2012) Tracing crop-specific sediment sources in agricultural catchments. Geomorphology 139–140:322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.10.036
Blake WH, Boeckx P, Stock BC, Smith HG, Bodé S, Upadhayay HR, Gaspar L, Goddard R, Lennard AT, Lizaga I, Lobb DA, Owens PN, Petticrew EL, Kuzyk ZZA, Gari BD, Munishi L, Mtei K, Nebiyu A, Mabit L, Navas A, Semmens BX (2018) A deconvolutional Bayesian mixing model approach for river basin sediment source apportionment. Sci Rep 8:13073. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30905-9
Boudreault M, Koiter AJ, Lobb DA, Liu K, Benoy G, Owens PN, Li S (2019) Comparison of sampling designs for sediment source fingerprinting in an agricultural watershed in Atlantic Canada. J Soils Sediments 19:3302–3318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-019-02306-6
Carter J, Owens PN, Walling DE, Leeks GJL (2003) Fingerprinting suspended sediment sources in an urban river. Sci Total Environ 314–316:513–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(03)00071-8
Charlesworth SM, Ormerod LM, Lees JA (2000) Tracing sediment within urban catchments using heavy metal, mineral magnetic and radionuclide signatures. In: Foster IDL (ed) Tracers in Geomorphology. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 345–368
Collins AL, Walling DE, Leeks GJL (1997) Source type ascription for fluvial suspended sediment based on a quantitative fingerprinting technique. Catena 29:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(96)00064-1
Collins AL, Pulley S, Foster IDL, Gellis A, Porto P, Horowitz AJ (2017) Sediment source fingerprinting as an aid to catchment management: a review of the current state of knowledge and a methodological decision-tree for end-users. J Environ Manage 194:86–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.075
Collins AL, Blackwell M, Boeckx P, Chivers CA, Emelko M, Evrard O, Foster IDL, Gellis A, Gholami H, Granger S, Harris P, Horowitz AJ, Laceby JP, Martinez-Carreras N, Minella J, Mol L, Nosrati K, Pulley S, Silins U, da Silva YJ, Stone M, Tiecher T, Upadhayay HR, Zhang YS (2020) Sediment source fingerprinting: benchmarking recent outputs, remaining challenges and emerging themes. J Soils Sediments 20:4160–4193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-020-02755-4
Dambroz APB, Minella JPG, Tiecher T, Moura-Bueno JM, Evrard O, Pedron FA, Dalmolin RSD, Bernardi F, Schneider FJA, Cerdan O (2022) Terrain analysis, erosion simulations, and sediment fingerprinting: a case study assessing the erosion sensitivity of agricultural catchments in the border of the volcanic plateau of Southern Brazil. J Soils Sediments 22:1023–1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-022-03139-6
Dearing JA (1992) Sediment yields and sources in a Welsh upland lake-catchment during the last 800 years. Earth Surf Process Landforms 17:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3290170102
Douglas GB, Kuhren M, Radke LC, Hancock G, Brooke B, Palmer MR, Pietsch T, Ford PW, Trefry MG, Packett R (2010) Delineation of sediment sources to a coastal wetland in the Great Barrier Reef catchment: influence of climate variability and land clearing since European arrival. Environ Chem 7:190–226. https://doi.org/10.1071/EN09089
Du PF, Walling DE (2017) Fingerprinting surficial sediment sources: exploring some potential problems associated with the spatial variability of source material properties. J Environ Manag 194:4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.066
Evrard O, Laceby JP, Ficetola GF, Gielly L, Huon S, Lefevre I, Onda Y, Poulenard J (2019a) Environmental DNA provides information on sediment sources: a study in catchments affected by Fukushima radioactive fallout. Sci Total Environ 665:873–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.191
Evrard O, Durand R, Foucher A, Tiecher T, Sellier O, Onda Y, Lefevre I, Cerdan O, Laceby P (2019b) Using spectrocolourimetry to trace sediment source dynamics in coastal catchments draining the main Fukushima radioactive pollution plume (2011–2017). J Soils Sediments 19:3290–3301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-019-02302-w
Evrard O, Batista PVG, Company J, Dabrin A, Foucher A, Frankl A, Garcia-Comendador J, Huguet A, Lake N, Lizaga I, Matrinez-Carreras N, Navratil O, Pignol C, Sellier V (2022) Improving the design and implementation of sediment fingerprinting studies: summary and outcomes of the TRACING 2021 Scientific School. J Soils Sediments 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-022-03203-1
Foster IDL, Lees JA, Owens PN, Walling DE (1998) Mineral magnetic characterization of sediment sources from an analysis of lake and floodplain sediments in the catchments of Old Mill Reservoir and Slapton Ley, South Devon, UK. Earth Surf Process Landforms 23:685–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199808)23:8%3c685::AID-ESP873%3e3.0.CO;2-8
Frankl A, Evrard O, Cammeraat E, Tytgat B, Verleyen E, Stokes A (2022) Tracing hotspots of soil erosion in high mountain environments: how forensic science based on plant eDNA can lead the way – an opinion. Plant Soil. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-021-05261-9
Gasper L, Blake WH, Smith HG, Lizaga I, Navas A (2019) Testing the sensitivity of a multivariate mixing model using geochemical fingerprints with artificial mixtures. Geoderma 337:498–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.005
Gateuille D, Owens PN, Petticrew EL, Booth BP, French TD, Déry SJ (2019) Determining contemporary and historical sediment sources in a large drainage basin impacted by cumulative effects: the regulated Nechako River, British Columbia, Canada. J Soils Sediments 19:3357–3373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-019-02299-2
Gibbs MM (2008) Identifying source soils in contemporary estuarine sediments: a new compound-specific isotope method. Estuar Coasts 31:344–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-007-9012-9
Gholami H, Telfer MW, Blake WH, Fathabadi A (2017) Aeolian sediment fingerprinting using a Bayesian mixing model. Earth Surf Process Landforms 42:2365–2376. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4189
Gorman Sanisaca LE, Gellis AC, Lorenz DL (2017) Determining the sources of fine-grained sediment using the Sediment Source Assessment Tool (Sed_SAT). U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2017–1062, 104. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20171062
Grimshaw DL, Lewin J (1980) Source identification for suspended sediments. J Hydrol 47(1–2):151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(80)90053-0
Haddadchi A, Ryder DS, Evrard O, Olley J (2013) Sediment fingerprinting in fluvial systems: review of tracers, sediment sources and mixing models. Int J Sediment Res 28:560–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6279(14)60013-5
Haddadchi A, Hicks M, Olley JM, Singh S, Srinivasan MS (2019) Grid-based sediment tracing approach to determine sediment sources. Land Degrad Develop 30:2088–2106. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3407
IPBES (2018) The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration. Montanarella L, Scholes R, Brainich A (Eds). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany, 744 pp. https://www.ipbes.net
IPCC (2022) Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Pörtner H-O et al. (Eds). Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
Klages MG, Hsieh YP (1975) Suspended solids carried by the Galatin River of Southwestern Montana: II. Using mineralogy for inferring sources. J Environ Qual 4:68–73. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1975.00472425000400010016x
Koiter AJ, Owens PN, Petticrew EL, Lobb DA (2013) The behavioural characteristics of sediment properties and their implications for sediment fingerprinting as an approach for identifying sediment sources in river basins. Earth Sci Rev 125:24–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.05.009
Laceby JP, Evrard O, Smith HG, Blake WH, Olley JM, Minella JPG, Owens PN (2017) The challenges and opportunities of addressing particle size effects in sediment source fingerprinting: a review. Earth Sci Rev 169:85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.04.009
Lake NF, Martínez-Carreras N, Shaw PJ, Collins AL (2022) High frequency un-mixing of soil samples using a submerged spectrophotometer in a laboratory setting–implications for sediment fingerprinting. J Soils Sediments 22:348–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-021-03107-6
Lizaga I, Latorre B, Gaspar L, Navas A (2020a) Consensus ranking as a method to identify non-conservative and dissenting tracers in fingerprinting studies. Sci Total Environ 720:137537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137537
Lizaga I, Latorre B, Gaspar L, Navas A (2020b) FingerPro: an R package for tracking the provenance of sediment. Water Resour Manag 34:3879–3894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02650-0
Martinez-Carreras N, Krein A, Gallart F, Iffly JF, Pfister L, Hoffmann L, Owens PN (2010) Assessment of different colour parameters for discriminating potential suspended sediment sources and provenance: a multi-scale study in Luxembourg. Geomorphology 118:118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.12.013
McLaughlin D, Kinzelbach W (2015) Food security and sustainable resource management. Water Resour Res 51:4966–4985. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017053
Motha JA, Wallbrink PJ, Hairsine PB, Grayson RB (2003) Determining the sources of suspended sediment in a forested catchment in southeastern Australia. Water Resour Res 39:1056. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000794
Montgomery DR (2007) Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:13268–13272. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611508104
Mukundan R, Walling DE, Gellis AC, Slattery MC, Radcliffe DE (2012) Sediment source fingerprinting: transforming from a research tool to a management tool. J Am Water Resour Assoc 48:1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00685.x
Navas A, Lizaga I, Gasper L, Lattore B, Dercon G (2020) Unveiling the provenance of sediments in the moraine complex of Aldegonga Glacier (Svalbard) after glacier retreating using radionuclides and elemental fingerprints. Geomorphology 367:107304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107304
Oldfield F, Rummery TA, Thompson R, Walling DE (1979) Identification of suspended sediment sources by means of magnetic measurements – some preliminary rests. Water Resource Res 15:211–218. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR015i002p00211
Owens PN (2020a) An introduction to advances in sediment science and management. J Soils Sediments 20:4111–4114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-020-02834-6
Owens PN (2020b) Soil erosion and sediment dynamics in the Anthropocene: a review of human impacts during a period of rapid global environmental change. J Soils Sediments 20:4115–4143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-020-02815-9
Owens PN, Walling DE, Leeks GJL (1999) Use of floodplain sediment cores to investigate recent historical changes in overbank sedimentation rates and sediment sources in the catchment of the River Ouse, Yorkshire, UK. Catena 36:21–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00010-7
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 21:693–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.878
Owens PN, Blake WH, Giles TR, Williams ND (2012) Determining the effects of wildfire on sediment sources using 137Cs and unsupported 210Pb: the role of natural landscape disturbance and driving forces. J Soils Sediments 12:982–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-012-0497-x
Owens PN, Blake WH, Gaspar L, Gateuille D, Koiter AJ, Lobb DA, Petticrew EL, Reiffarth DG, Smith HG, Woodward JC (2016) Fingerprinting and tracing the sources of soils and sediments: Earth and ocean science, geoarchaeological, forensic, and human health applications. Earth Sci Rev 162:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.08.012
Peart MR, Walling DE (1988) Techniques for establishing suspended sediment sources in two drainage basins in Devon, UK: a comparative assessment. In: Bordas MP, Walling DE (eds) Sediment Budgets, IAHS Pub 174. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK, pp 269–279
Poesen J (2018) Soil erosion in the Anthropocene: research needs. Earth Surf Process Landforms 43:64–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4250
Poleto C, Merten CH, Minella JP (2009) The identification of sediment sources in a small urban watershed in southern Brazil: an application of sediment fingerprinting. Environ Technol 30:1145–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330903112154
Pulley S, Collins AL (2018) Tracing catchment fine sediment sources using the new SIFT (SedIment Fingerprinting Tool) open source software. Sci Total Environ 635:838–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.126
Pulley S, Collins AL (2022) A rapid and inexpensive colour-based sediment tracing method incorporating hydrogen peroxide sample treatment as an alternative to quantitative source fingerprinting for catchment management. J Environ Manag 311:114780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114780
Reiffarth DG, Petticrew EL, Owens PN, Lobb DA (2019) Spatial differentiation of cultivated soils using compound-specific stable isotopes (CSSIs) in a temperate agricultural watershed in Manitoba, Canada. J Soils Sediments 19:3411–3426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-019-02406-3
Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Barnard P, Moomaw WR (2020) World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. Bioscience 70:8–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
Sellier V, Navratil O, Laceby JP, Allenbach M, Lefèvre I, Evrard O (2020) Investigating the use of fallout and geogenic radionuclides as potential tracing properties to quantify the sources of suspended sediment in a mining catchment in New Caledonia, South Pacific. J Soils Sediments 20:1112–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-019-02447-8
Slob AFL, Ellen GJ, Gerrits L (2008) Sediment management and stakeholder involvement. In: Owens PN (ed) Sustainable Management of Sediment Resources: Sediment Management at the River Basin Scale. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 199–216
Smith HG, Karam DS, Lennard AT (2018) Evaluating tracer selection for catchment sediment fingerprinting. J Soils Sediments 18:3005–3019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-1990-7
Upadhayay HR, Lamichhane S, Bajracharya RM, Cornelis W, Collins AL, Boeckx P (2020) Sensitivity of source apportionment predicted by a Bayesian tracer mixing model to the inclusion of a sediment connectivity index as an informative prior: illustration using the Kharka catchment (Nepal). Sci Total Environ 713:136703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136703
Wall GJ, Wilding LP (1976) Mineralogy and related parameters of fluvial suspended sediments in northwestern Ohio. J Environ Qual 5:168–173. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1976.00472425000500020012x
Walling DE (2005) Tracing suspended sediment sources in catchment and river systems. Sci Total Environ 344:159–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.02.011
Walling DE (2013) The evolution of sediment source fingerprinting investigations in fluvial systems. J Soils Sediments 13:1658–1675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-013-0767-2
Walling DE, Woodward JC (1995) Tracing suspended sediment sources in river basins: a case study of the River Culm, Devon, UK. Mar Freshw Res 46:327–336. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9950327
Walling DE, Peart MR, Oldfield F, Thompson R (1979) Suspended sediment sources identified by magnetic measurements. Nature 281:110–113. https://doi.org/10.1038/281110a0
Wheater HS, Gober P (2015) Water security and the science agenda. Water Resour Res 51:5406–5424. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR016892
Wilkinson SN, Olley JM, Furuichi T, Buton J, Kinsey-Henderson AE (2015) Sediment source tracing with stratified sampling and weightings based on spatial gradients in soil erosion. J Soils Sediments 15:2038–2051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1134-2
Wynants M, Munishi L, Mtei K, Bode S, Patrick A, Taylor A, Gilvear D, Ndakidemi P, Blake WH, Boeckx P (2021) Soil erosion and sediment transport in Tanzania: part I - sediment source tracing in three neighbouring river catchments. Earth Surf Process Landforms 46:3096–3111. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.5217
Yu L, Oldfield F (1989) A multivariate mixing model for identifying sediment source from magnetic measurements. Quat Res 32:168–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(89)90073-2
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my thanks to Olivier Evrard and Alex Koiter for comments on a draft of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Owens, P.N. Sediment source fingerprinting: are we going in the right direction?. J Soils Sediments 22, 1643–1647 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-022-03231-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-022-03231-x