Advertisement

Sediment Transfers from the Andes of Colombia during the Anthropocene

  • Juan D. Restrepo
Part of the Frontiers in Earth Sciences book series (FRONTIERS)

Abstract

This chapter reviews data, models, and analyses on Anthropocene-impacted sediment fluxes in the Andes of Colombia and provides examples on how direct human alteration has increased sediment flux during the last decades. Firstly, it describes the context of the northern Andes in terms of sediment production within the whole Andes Cordillera. Secondly, it presents a summary of major land cover changes witnessed in the region from 8000 years ago to the beginning of large-scale land transformation that occurred in Colombia during the last three decades and analyzes major human-induced drivers of change. Also, trends in sediment load during the 1980–2010 period are documented. Finally, it compares modern and prehuman conditions of sediment flux by using some applied models in global and Colombian rivers.

An inventory of per capita anthropogenic land cover change (ALCC) from 8 ka to AD 2000 for the Andes of Colombia reveals that a nearly pristine environment existed until 3 ka. Two thousand years later, by AD 1, ALCC only slightly increases. From AD 1500 to AD 1600, the ALCC scenarios show a decrease in anthropogenic land use in the Andes, as the indigenous populations of the Americas succumbed to disease and war brought by European explorers and colonists. The collapse of large precontact populations with advanced agriculture, which were especially concentrated in Mesoamerica and the Andes, led to high amounts of land abandonment. The low levels of ALCC shown at AD 1500 are almost entirely abandoned 100 years after conquest. By AD 1687, anthropogenic land use in the Andes accelerated with the spread of colonies and nations founded by Europeans. The Americas only start to result in substantial amounts of ALCC emissions during the last centuries.

Further studies on historical patterns and drivers of landscape change in Colombia since 1500 confirm that land conversion in the Andes started five centuries ago. The transformed area in the Andean region rose from 15 M ha in 1500 to 42 M ha in 2000. During the last two centuries, the annual rate of forest-transformed area increased two orders of magnitude, from 4330 ha y−1 in 1800 to 171,190 ha y−1 in 2000. By the year 2000, 80% of the natural vegetation in the Andes was cleared, with 20% remaining as scattered remnants. An assumed value of 30% was cleared in preconquest agricultural landscapes (before 1500), increasing to 80% in 2000. Demographic impacts of colonization and the introduction of cattle were major drivers of change.

Findings of land use and sediment load trends indicate that the extent of erosion within the Andes of Colombia has severely increased over the last 30 years. For example, the last decade has been a period of increased pulses in sediment transport and rates of deforestation as seen by the statistical significant trends in load and by a marked increase of 241% in forest clearance. As a whole, the Andean drainage basins have witnessed an increase in erosion rates of 33%, from 550 t km−2 y−1 before 2000 to 710 t km−2 y−1 for the 2000–2010 period. Levels of sediment transport are one order of magnitude higher in modern times than during prehuman conditions. The differences between prehuman and modern sediment load in South American rivers were more pronounced for the Magdalena River, with a difference ranging between −100 and −150 Mt. y−1. Thus, during pristine conditions and according to the observed total load of the Magdalena, 184 Mt. y−1, the Magdalena could have had an annual sediment load between 34 and 84 Mt. y−1 during prehuman times. Further results indicate that 35% of the sediment load in the Colombian Andes is due to deforestation; 1690 Mt. of sediments were produced due to forest clearance over the last three decades. Much of the river catchments (79%) are under severe erosional conditions due in part to the clearance of more than 80% natural forest during the last 500 years.

Keywords

Anthropocene Andes Sediment load Land cover change Magdalena River Colombia Fluvial transport Sediment yield Erosion Deforestation 

References

  1. Aalto R, Dunne T, Guyot JJ (2006) Geomorphic controls on Andean denudation rates. J Geol 114:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez-Berríos N, Aide M (2015) Global demand for gold is another threat for tropical forests. Environ Res Lett 10.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014006
  3. Bonachea J, Viola M, Bruschi MA, Hurtado L, Forte LM, da Silva M, Etcheverry R, Cavallotto J, Marcilene Dantas F, Osni J, Pejo J, Lázaro V, Zuquette M, Bezerra O, Remondo J, Rivas V, Gómez J, Fernández G, Cendrero A (2010) Natural and human forcing in recent geomorphic change; case studies in the Rio de la Plata basin. Sci Total Environ 408:2674–2695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carmona AM, Poveda G (2011) Detection of climate change and climate variability signals in Colombia and the Amazon River basin through empirical mode decomposition. International Statistical Institute Proceedings of the 58th World Statistics Congress 2011, Dublin (Session IPS081)Google Scholar
  5. Carmona AM, Poveda G (2014) Detection of long-term trends in monthly hydro-climatic series of Colombia through Empirical Mode Decomposition. Clim Change.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s/10584-013-1046-3
  6. Cendrero A, Remondo J, Bonachea J, Rivas V, Soto J (2006) Sensitivity of landscape evolution and geomorphic processes to direct and indirect human influence. Geogr Fis Din Quat 29:125–137Google Scholar
  7. Croke J, Nethery M (2006) Modeling runoff and soil erosion in logged forests: scope and application of some existing models. Catena 67:35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crutzen PJ (2002) Geology of mankind-the Anthropocene. Nature 415:23.  https://doi.org/10.1038/415023a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The Anthropocene. Global change. Newsletter 41:17–18Google Scholar
  10. Dadson SJ, Hovius N, Chen HG, Dade WB, Hsieh ML, Willet SD, Hu JC, Horng MJ, Chen MC, Stark CP, Lague D, Lin JC (2003) Links between erosion, runoff, variability and seismicity in the Taiwan orogen. Nature 426:648–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dávalos LM, Bejarando AC, Hall MA, Correa LH, Corthals A, Espejo OJ (2011) Forests and drugs: coca-driven deforestation in tropical biodiversity hotspots. Environ Sci Technol 45:1219–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erskine WD, Mahmoudzadeh A, Myers C (2002) Land use effects on sediment yields and soil loss rates in small basins of Triassic sandstone near Sydney, NSW, Australia. CATENA 49 (4):271–287Google Scholar
  13. Etter A, McAlpine C, Pullar D, Possingham H (2005) Modeling the age of tropical moist forest fragments in heavily-cleared lowland landscapes of Colombia. For Ecol Manag 2018:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etter A, McAlpine C, Phinn S, Pullar D, Possingham H (2006a) Unplanned land clearing of Colombian rainforests: spreading like disease ? Landsc Urban Plan 77:240–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etter A, McAlpine C, Wilson K, Phinn S, Possingham H (2006b) Regional patterns of agricultural land and deforestation in Colombia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etter A, McAlpine C, Pullar D, Possingham H (2006c) Modelling the conversion of Colombia lowland ecosystems since 1940: drivers, patterns and rates. J Environ Manag 79:74–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etter A, McAlpine C, Possingham H (2008) Historical patterns and drivers of landscape change in Colombia since 1500: a regionalized spatial approach. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 98:2–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (2010) State of the World’s forests 2009. Food Agr Organ United Nations Report 117.Google Scholar
  19. Ferretti-Gallon K, Busch J (2014) What drives deforestation and what stops it? A meta analysis of spatially explicit econometric studies. Center for Global Development (GD), CGD climate and Forest paper series, 361Google Scholar
  20. Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2001) What drives tropical deforestation? Land-Use and Land-Cover Change project (LUCC) report series no.4. Ciaco Printshop. Louvain-la- Neuve, Belgium, p 116Google Scholar
  21. Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience 52:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guns M, Vanacker V (2013) Forest cove change trajectories and their impact on landslide occurrence in the tropical Andes. Environ Earth Sci 70:2941–2952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guns M, Vanacker V (2014) Shifts in landslide frequency-area distribution after forest conversion in the tropical Andes. Anthropocene 6:75–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, Loveland TR (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342(6160):850–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harden CP (2006) Human impacts on headwater fluvial systems in the northern and central Andes. Geomorphology 79:249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrison CGA (2000) What factors control mechanical erosion rates? Int J Earth Sci 531:1–11Google Scholar
  27. Hess CG (1990) Moving up moving down: agro-pastoral land- use patterns in the Ecuadorian paramos. Mt Res Dev 10:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hibbard KA, Crutzen PJ, Lambin EF, Liverman DM, Mantua NJ, McNeill JR, Messerli B, Steffen W (2006) Decadal interactions of humans and the environment. In: Costanza R, Graumlich L, Steffen W (eds) Integrated history and future of people on earth, Dahlem workshop report 96. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 341–375Google Scholar
  29. Houghton RA (1994) The worldwide extent of land-use change: in the last few centuries, and particularly in the last several decades, effects of land-use change have become global. Bioscience 44:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hovius N (1998) Controls on sediment supply by large rivers. In: Relative role of eustacy, climate, and tectonism in continental rocks, vol 59. Soc. Sediment. Geol. Spec. Publ, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  31. Hovius N (2000) Macroscale process systems of mountain belt erosion. In: Summerfield MA (ed) Geomorphology and global tectonics. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 77–105Google Scholar
  32. Hovius N, Stark CP, Allen PA (1997) Sediment flux from a mountain belt derived by landslide mapping. Geology 25:231–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IDEAM (2014) Deforestation assessment in Colombia 2005-2010. IDEAM-REED Project. MODIS Land Cover Data Base, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaplan JO, Krumhardt KM, Ellis EC, Ruddiman WF, Lemmen C, Goldewijk KK (2010) The Holocene 21(5):775–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kettner A, Restrepo JD, Syvitski JPM (2010) Simulating spatial variability of sediment fluxes in an Andean drainage basin, the Magdalena River. J Geol 118:363–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kim DH, Sexton JO, Townshend JR (2015) Accelerated deforestation in the humid tropics from the 1990s to the 2000s. American Geophysical Union.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062777
  37. Latrubesse E, Restrepo J (2014) The role of Andean rivers on global sediment yield. Geomorphology 216:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Latrubesse EM, Stevauxs JC, Sinha R (2005) Tropical rivers. Geomorphology 70:187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McNeill JR, Engelke P (2016) The great acceleration. Harvard Univ, Press, Cambridge MassCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milliman JD, Syvitski JPM (1992) Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment transport to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers. J Geol 100:525–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mishra SK, Tyagi JV, Singh VP, Singh R (2006) SCS-CN-based modeling of sediment yield. J Hydrol 324(1–4):301–322Google Scholar
  42. Molina A, Govers G, Poesen J, Van Hemelryck H, De Bievre B, Vanacker V (2008) Environmental factors controlling spatial variation in sediment yield in a central Andean mountain area. Geomorphology 98:176–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Molina A, Vanacker V, Brisson E, Mora D, Balthazar V (2015) Long-term effects of climate and land cover change on freshwater provision in the tropical Andes. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morgan RPC (1986) Soil erosion and conservation. Longman, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  45. Mou J (1996) Recent studies of the role of soil conservation in reducing erosion and sediment yield in the loess plateau are of the Yellow River basin. In: Walling DE, Webb BW (eds) Erosion and sediment yield: global and regional perspectives. Proceedings of the Exeter symposium, July 1996, IAHS publication, vol 236. IAHS Press, Wallingford, pp 541–548Google Scholar
  46. Pinet P, Souriau M (1988) Continental erosion and large-scale relief. Tectonics 7:563–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Restrepo JD (2012) Assessing the effect of sea-level change and human activities on a major delta on the Pacific coast of northern South America: the Patía River. Geomorphology 151–152:207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Restrepo JD (2013) The perils of human activity on South American deltas: lessons from Colombia’s experience with soil erosion. Deltas: landforms, ecosystems and human activities, 358. IAHS Publ:143–152Google Scholar
  49. Restrepo JD, Escobar HA (2016) Sediment load trends in the Magdalena River basin (1980–2010): anthropogenic and climate-induced causes. Geomorphology.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.12.013
  50. Restrepo JD, Kettner A (2012) Human induced discharge diversion in a tropical delta and its environmental implications: the Patía River, Colombia. J Hydrol 424:124–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Restrepo JD, Kjerfve B (2000) Water discharge and sediment load from the western slopes of the Colombian Andes with focus on Rio San Juan. J Geol 108:17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Restrepo JD, Syvitski JPM (2006) Assessing the effect of natural controls and land use change on sediment yield in a major Andean river: the Magdalena Drainage Basin, Colombia. AMBIO J Hum Environ 35:44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Restrepo JD, Kjerfve B, Hermelin M, Restrepo JC (2006) Factors controlling sediment yield in a major South American drainage basin: the Magdalena River, Colombia. J Hydrol 316:213–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Restrepo JD, Kettner A, Syvitski J (2015) Recent deforestation causes rapid increase in river sediment load in the Colombian Andes. Anthropocene 10:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reusser L, Bierman P, Rood D (2014) Quantifying human impacts on rates of erosion and sediment transport at a landscape scale. Geology.  https://doi.org/10.1130/G36272.1
  56. Sánchez-Triana E, Ahmed K, Awe Y (2007) Prioridades ambientales para la reducción de la pobreza en Colombia: un análisis ambiental del país para Colombia. Informe del Banco Mundial, Direcciones para el Desarrollo, medio ambiente y desarrollo sustentable. Report No. 38610. Washington, DC, 522Google Scholar
  57. Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, Gaffney O, Ludwig C (2015) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. Anthropocene Rev 2(1):81–98.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Steffen W et al (2016) Stratigraphic and earth system approaches to defining the Anthropocene. AGU Publ Earth’s Fut 4Google Scholar
  59. Summerfield MA, Hulton NJ (1994) Natural controls of fluvial denudation in major world drainage basins. J Geophys Res 99:13871–13884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Syvitski JPM (2003) Supply and flux of sediment along hydrological pathways: research for the 21st century. Glob Planet Change 39:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Syvitski JPM, Kettner AJ (2011) Sediment flux and the Anthropocene. Phil Trans R Soc 369:957–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Syvitski JPM, Milliman JD (2007) Geology, geography, and humans battle for dominance over the delivery of fluvial sediment to the Coastal Ocean. J Geol 115:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Syvitski JPM, Vörösmartry CJ, Kettner AJ, Green P (2005) Impact of humans on the flux of terrestrial sediment to the Global Ocean. Science 308:376–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Trimble SW (1975) Denudation studies: can we assume steady state? Science 188:1207–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trimble SW, Crosson P (2000) Land use, US soil erosion rates myth and reality. Science 289:248–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. US Department of State (2001) The Andes under Siege; Environmental consequences of the drug trade. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/archive/
  67. Vanacker V, Vanderschaeghe M, Govers G, Willems E, Poesen J, Deckers J, De Biévre B (2003) Linking hydrological, infinite slope stability and land use change models through GIS for assessing the impact of deforestation on landslide susceptibility in high Andean watersheds. Geomorphology 52:299–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vanacker V, Bellin N, Molina A, Kubik PW (2014) Erosion regulation as a function of human disturbances to vegetation cover: a conceptual model. Landsc Ecol 29:293–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vanmaercke M, Poesen J, Verstraeten G, de Vente J, Ocakoglu F (2011) Sediment yield in Europe: spatial patterns and scale dependency. Geomorphology 130:142–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Walling DE (2006) Human impact on land–ocean sediment transfer by the world's rivers. Geomorphology 79:192–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walling DE, Fang D (2003) Recent trends in the suspended sediment loads of the world’s rivers. Glob Planet Chang 39:111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang H, Yang Z, Saito Y, Liu JP, Sun X (2006) Interannual and seasonal variation of the Huanghe (Yellow River) water discharge over the past 50 years: connection to impacts from ENSO events and dams. Glob Planet Change 50:212–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Waters CN et al (2016) The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351(6269):137.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Williams M et al (2016) The Anthropocene: a conspicuous stratigraphical signal of anthropogenic changes in production and consumption across the biosphere. AGU Publ Earth’s Fut 4:34–53Google Scholar
  75. Wunder S (1996) Deforestation and the uses of wood in the Ecuadorian Andes. Mt Res Dev 16:367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Xu JX (2003) Sediment flux to the sea as influenced by changing human activities and precipitation: example of the Yellow River, China. Environ Manag 31:328–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zalasiewicz J et al (2008) Are we now living in the Anthropocene. GSA Today 18:4–8.  https://doi.org/10.1130/GSAT01802A.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias de la TierraUniversidad EAFITMedellínColombia

Personalised recommendations