A FRAMEWORK FOR CHARACTERIZING FLUVIAL SEDIMENT FLUXES FROM SOURCE TO SINK IN COLD ENVIRONMENTS

A FRAMEWORK FOR CHARACTERIZING FLUVIAL SEDIMENT FLUXES FROM SOURCE TO SINK IN COLD

© The authors 2010Journal compilation © 2010 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography 155

A FRAMEWORK FOR CHARACTERIZING FLUVIAL SEDIMENT FLUXES FROM SOURCETO SINK IN COLD ENVIRONMENTS

BYJOHN F. ORWIN1*, SCOTT F. LAMOUREUX 2, JEFF WARBURTON3 AND ACHIM BEYLICH4, 5

1John F. Orwin, Department of Geography, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand2Department of Geography, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada

3Department of Geography, Durham University, UK4Geological Survey of Norway (NGU), Quaternary Geology and Climate Group, Trondheim, Norway

5 Department of Geography, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU),Trondheim, Norway

Orwin, J., Lamoureux, S.F., Warburton, J. and Beylich, A., 2010:A framework for characterizing fluvial sediment fluxes from sourceto sink in cold environments. Geogr. Ann. 92 A (2): 155–176.

ABSTRACT. Fluvial processes dominate sedimentflux from most cold environments and as such areparticularly sensitive to environmental change.However, these systems demonstrate high variabil-ity in flow and sediment transfer rates in both theshort and long-term which presents specific prob-lems for establishing integrated sediment flux stud-ies. The objective of this paper is to briefly reviewthe nature of fluvial and floodplain sediment sourc-es in cold environments and to make recommenda-tions on the measurement of fluvial sediment fluxesfrom these sources to sinks. The paper outlines aframework for examining fluvial sediment fluxes incold environments including: sources of sedimentin glacial and periglacial environments; techniquesfor measuring fluvial sediment transfers; and meth-ods for measuring contemporary deposition in la-custrine sediment sinks. Within this framework, westress that it is particularly important to provideconsistency in methods for monitoring sedimentflux and to adopt appropriate sampling frequencies.We recommend that the most appropriate methodsfor establishing integrated sediment flux studies inthese cold environments are: repeat surveys andterrestrial laser scanning of valley and slope sedi-ment stores on a monthly – daily frequency; weekly-daily sediment budgeting of bedload transfer usingrapid resurvey methods; hourly or better time seriesof suspended and solute transport using data log-ger acquisition systems; and monitoring of lacus-trine sedimentation using sediment accumulationsensors and/or weekly-daily estimates from passivesediment traps. Application of the proposed inte-grated framework will improve our understandingof sediment flux in cold environments and allow usto better assess the sensitivity of cold environmentsto environmental change within the context of con-temporary and past sediment flux.

Key words: fluvial sediment flux, cold environments, sedimentbudgets, sources, sinks

IntroductionSeasonal phase changes in water from liquid tosolid to liquid dominate sediment transfer proc-esses in cold environments. Often in these envi-ronments, the relative abundance of water is as im-portant as the severity of cold in determining ratesof sediment transfer as fluvial processes frequent-ly dominate the material flux from a catchment(Hewitt 2002; Hasholt et al. 2005). This domi-nance is illustrated in a number of seminal worksthat clearly demonstrate the significance of fluvialand channel processes in determining the overallsediment flux in many (but not all) cold climatelandsystems (Jäckli 1956; Rapp 1960; Church andRyder 1972; Hodgkins et al. 2003). However, theinterchange between water and ice makes theseenvironments, and therefore sediment flux, partic-ularly sensitive to climate change (Warburton1999, 2007; Slaymaker 2008). Warming temper-atures, for example, are likely to significantly el-evate fluvial sediment flux in Arctic rivers(Gordeev 2006). Similarly, changes in the nival re-gime may shift the timing and magnitude of down-stream water and sediment delivery and continuedglacial retreat may elevate sediment flux from al-pine basins (Church and Ryder 1972; Orwin andSmart 2004a). The significance of these changesfor sediment flux can only be established if wehave good contemporary process understanding;the necessary methods to carefully monitor suchchanges; and knowledge to apply these methods at

JOHN F. ORWIN, SCOTT F. LAMOUREUX, JEFF WARBURTON AND ACHIM BEYLICH

© The authors 2010Journal compilation © 2010 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography156

appropriate scales which integrate both sedimentsources and sinks (Warburton 2007).

One of the major barriers to our understandingof sediment flux in cold environments is the pau-city of high temporal resolution, long-term datasets that characterize sediment flux from source tosink. The data available indicate that sedimentflux varies significantly in space and time due todifferences in sediment sources, transfer process-es, the legacy of past glacial activity, and changesin the intensity and duration of precipitationevents (e.g. Hammer and Smith 1983; Gurnell andClark 1987; Warburton 1990a) (Table 1). Unfortu-nately, accurate characterization of this variabilityhas been limited primarily by data record lengthand differences in instrumentation and samplingstrategies. As a result, fully integrated studies onsediment flux variation from source to sink in coldenvironments are relatively rare.

The objective of this paper is to briefly reviewthe nature of fluvial and floodplain sediment sourc-es in cold environments and to focus on the meas-urement of fluvial sediment fluxes from thesesources to their sinks. The scope of the paper is lim-ited to terrestrial catchments of small to mediumsize (c. 10–100 km2) where processes can be di-rectly monitored and the contemporary local cli-mate is relatively homogeneous. Thus estimated

fluvial sediment fluxes can be viewed as ‘represent-ative’ of a particular cold environment type. Thepaper begins with a short introduction outlining aframework for examining fluvial sediment fluxesfrom sources to sinks in cold environments that isstructured into three main sections covering: (1)sources of sediment in glacial and periglacial envi-ronments; (2) techniques for measuring fluvial sed-iment transfers from sources; and (3) methods formeasuring contemporary deposition in down-stream sediment sinks. Finally, recommendationsare made as to the most appropriate methods for es-tablishing integrated sediment flux studies in thesecold environments.

Sediment budget framework for considering fluvial sediment fluxes from source to sinks in cold environmentsFigure 1 shows an example of a cold climatelandsystem, typical of a mid-latitude valley gla-cier setting. The upper diagram details a suite ofcharacteristic glacial and periglacial processesand sediment storage units (Slaymaker 2008).Highlighted on this diagram is a polygon that de-fines a sediment prism where fluvial processesdominate the sediment flux. In the lower diagram(Fig. 1B) the main sediment balance components

Table 1. Examples of annual fluvial sediment load estimates for small catchments in cold environments. Catchment area bracketed val-ues () indicate area glacierised.

Bedload:Catchment Bedload Suspended Dissolved Total t Suspended

Study River / Area Year area km2 (%) (%) (%) yr–1 ratio

GlacierizedMathews (1964) Athabasca, Alberta 1957 28.4 (13.5) 37 63 2089Church and Gilbert (1975) Lewis River, 1963 82 18 4.56

Baffin Island 1964 77 23 633 3.34Hasholt (1976) Semilikarea, 1972 38 (30) 5–6 72–78 17–22 0.07

East GreenlandKjeldsen and Østrem (1980) Engabreen, Norway 1979 37 63 19500 0.58

1980 50 (38) 36 64 24100 0.56Hammer and Smith (1983) Hilda, Alberta 1977 57 40 3 1374 1.43

1978 2.24 54 45 1 1817 1.21Ferguson (1984) Hunza, Karakoram 13200 2–10 88–96 2 0.02Gurnell et al. (1988) Tsidjore Nouve, 1986 43–51 49–57 0.75

Switzerland 1987 4.8 (3.4) 36–44 56–64 0.56Gurnell et al. (1988) Bas Arolla, 1986 74 24 2 31455 3.08

Switzerland 1987 7.6 (5.3) 63 36 1 52205 1.75Pearce et al. (2003) Matanuska, Alaska 2000 (280) < 1 99 46003 0.001

Non-GlacierizedBeylich and Kneisel (2009) Hrafndalur, Iceland 2001–2007 7.0 35 26 39 519 1.35Beylich and Kneisel (2009) Austdalur, Iceland 1996–2007 23.0 3.8 81 15 1195 0.04

A FRAMEWORK FOR CHARACTERIZING FLUVIAL SEDIMENT FLUXES


are shown. These define a basic sediment massbalance equation relating sediment inputs (I =from upstream, tributaries and slopes) to outputs(O = downstream sediment movement) and achange in sediment storage (S = deposition and

erosion of valley, floodplain and lacustrine sedi-ment stores):

I = O ± ΔS (1)

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a cold climate landsystem, typical of a mid-latitude valley glacier setting. (A) Suite of characteristic glacialand periglacial processes and sediment storage units. Highlighted is a polygon which defines a sediment prism where fluvial processesdominate. (B) Main sediment balance components for the fluvial sedimentation prism



The sediment mass balance equation, which con-trols sediment yield from cold climate catch-ments, is the fundamental concept that underpinssediment budget studies (Reid and Dunne 1996;Warburton 2007). This is important because esti-mates of fluvial sediment yield (including meas-urements of bedload, suspended load and dis-solved load flux) from cold environment catch-ments have been widely used to infer the relativeimportance of glacial versus non-glacial process-es (Hicks et al. 1990; Harbor and Warburton1992; 1993; Hallet et al. 1996); to assess the im-pact of climate change on cold climate land sys-tems (Hodgkins et al. 2003; Stott and Mount2007) and to compare catchments from differentcold environments (Beylich et al. 2006; Warburtonet al. 2007).

However, in cold environments, adequatelycharacterizing the sediment balance equation isnotoriously difficult even for small catchmentsand the results, often measured over the shortterm, are extremely difficult to extrapolate fromyear to year and to adjacent areas in similar envi-

ronments (Lawler et al. 1992; Lenzi et al. 2003).A major reason for this is the incommensurate na-ture of the measurement of fluvial sediment fluxesdue to differences in the methods used to estimatesediment transfer in small catchments (Harborand Warburton 1993; Warburton and Beecroft1993; Warburton 1999; Hallet et al. 1996). There-fore in constructing sediment budgets in cold en-vironments it is essential that two prerequisites bemet: firstly, we adequately define the system of in-terest in terms of sediment sources and stores(Fig. 1B) and secondly, we clearly establish themeasurement protocols used to estimate fluvialsediment fluxes.

Sediment sources and storage in cold environmentsSediment budgets in cold climate catchments aredominated by three main groups of sediment sourc-es: glacial, colluvial and fluvial. The focus of thispaper is on fluvial transfers and sediment sourcesbut firstly we briefly consider the other two modes

Fig. 2. Spatial surveys of suspended sediment concentration on the Bas Arolla proglacial stream network during two summer ablationperiods (May 28-September 3, 1986 and June 8 – July 30, 1987). The diagram shows the typology of the stream network over timeand suspended sediment concentrations mg L–1.



that supply sediment to the fluvial sediment budget(valley fluvial system, Figure 1A). In many con-temporary cold environments glaciers will not bepresent but the past presence of glacier ice condi-tions future fluvial and colluvial processes and per-ennial snow is a significant feature (Church andRyder 1972).

Glacial transfer and sediment sourcesGlaciers can transfer significant amounts of sedi-ment to the proglacial zone through either flow inenglacial and subglacial streams or through en-trainment and transport within, or on, the ice itself(Hunter et al. 1996; Alley et al. 1997; Knight et al.2002). Supraglacial debris sourced from valleywalls is commonly dumped along ice margins andin terminus areas to form moraines where it is sub-sequently reworked by mass wasting and gla-ciofluvial processes (Fig. 1A). As a result, mo-raines can be viewed as both source and storageelements within the proglacial area (e.g. Knight etal. 2007). Sediment transported en- and subgla-cially is released into the proglacial zone throughablation. Some of this sediment will be transport-ed immediately out of the glacial/proglacial sys-tem through the glaciofluvial system whereassome will go into short or long-term channel orextra-channel storage before being remobilized(Orwin and Smart 2004b). Storage can occur inboth ice proximal or distal settings in the glacial/proglacial zone. Sediment may also be transport-ed subglacially via deforming bed layers wherethe mechanisms for entrainment and transfer arespatially and temporally variable and concentrat-ed in marginal areas away from subglacial streams(Alley et al. 1997). Thus, the amount of sedimenttransferred by glacial ice to the proglacial zone isdetermined by a number of variables including li-thology, relief, precipitation and climate regimeeffects on ice flux, thermal conditions and entrain-ment processes (Owen et al. 2003).

Data on glacially transferred sediment fluxes arescarce. Most approaches to measuring the flux ofsediment at ice margins are dominated by an icefacies approach where facies structure, debris con-centrations and knowledge of ice velocity and ab-lation at the terminus are used to estimate an annualdebris flux. In instances where a glacier is advanc-ing, estimates of debris flux can be made using pho-togrammetry and repeat surveys of ice marginalmoraines (e.g. Small et al. 1984). Supraglacial sed-iment flux can be estimated as the product of

glacier surface velocity and surficial debris thick-ness, as measured in the field.

Results from glacial sediment budgets indicatethat the sourcing and routing of glacially transferredsediment is highly variable. For example, Knight etal. (2002) show that sediment flux along the Green-land ice sheet margin was dominated by release frombasal ice layers with negligible transfer via glacioflu-vial, subglacial, englacial and supraglacial sources.In contrast, ice marginal data from Glacier DeTsidjiore Nouve in Switzerland indicate that sup-raglacial and englacial sources dominate sedimenttransfer (Small et al. 1984). However, they also notethat suspended sediment and bedload transfer in pro-glacial streams account for a minimum of 50% of theannual sediment flux from this glacier. Similarly, Or-win and Smart (2004a) showed that upwards of 80%of the total suspended sediment yield from a smallbasin in the Rocky Mountains was sourced from sed-iment stored within, or close by the proglacial chan-nel. Hunter et al. (1996) also demonstrate that forthree Alaskan tidewater glaciers, proglacial meltwa-ter transfer of sediment was several orders of mag-nitude greater than from glacial sources.

Mass movement transfer and colluvial sediment sourcesMeasuring sediment transfer as a result of massmovement in cold climates can be problematic.Mass movement transfer in these environments isoften episodic and transfer rates can be either slow,in the case of solifluction (Ridefelt et al. 2009) orcatastrophic in the case of slope failure (Fort et al.2009). Magnitude and frequency relationships are,therefore, an important component when assessingmass movement contributions to sediment budgets(Rapp 1960). There are also distinct differences inthe volume or mass of sediment transferred andsubsequent effects on the reworking and mobiliza-tion of these deposits by other transfer processes.For example, large slope failures can significantlyalter valley wall morphology by shifting interfluvesas well as introducing significant amounts of sed-iment from high elevations into low elevation flu-vial and lacustrine systems (Korup 2005; Hewitt etal. 2008; Johnson et al. 2008). Mass movement de-posits may persist in the landscape for considera-ble periods of time, elevating sediment transferfluxes or where deposits act as barriers, interruptthe transfer of sediment downstream (Fort et al.2009; Lamoureux and Lafrenière 2009). The varia-bility in both the timing and rate of mass movement



sediment transfer by necessity means that moni-toring programs need to be long-term in order toaccurately characterize mass movement transfer,regardless of spatial scale (Beylich and Warburton2007; Beylich 2008).

Fluvial sediment sourcesDue to the presence of glacier ice or a perennialsnowpack, cold-climate fluvial systems are oftenephemeral in nature and demonstrate tremendousvariability in flow over the short-term. These

Fig. 3. Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) images of the Odenwinkelkees braidplain, Austria (July, 2008). (A) Composite scan of thefull study reached scanned at 0.25 m resolution. (B) Small area scan of a diagonal river bar at the head of the study reach (yellow box– scan resolution 0.1 m). The images show ‘point clouds’ composed of thousands of individual scanned survey points. The black areasare the river channels which do not return a signal when scanned



changes are often associated with rapidly changingchannel morphology and the active tapping of newsediment sources (Warburton 1990a; Hodgkins etal. 2003; Morche et al. 2008). Therefore a signifi-cant challenge for monitoring fluvial sedimentfluxes under such conditions is to determine the or-igin of the various sediment-laden flows and char-acterize their spatial patterns. This can be achievedthrough multiple sediment monitoring station orspatial sampling programmes (Orwin and Smart2004a). Often resources prevent a multiple stationanalysis but when undertaking spatial samplingschemes at least one continuously monitoring sta-tion is required to demonstrate the context at thetime of sampling. Figure 2 shows the results of spa-tial surveys of suspended sediment concentrationon the Bas Arolla proglacial stream network fortwo summer ablation periods (May 28–September3, 1986 and June 8–July 30, 1987). The diagramshows the typology of the stream network over timeand illustrates several important characteristics ofthe fluvial suspended sediment flux:

1. Multiple runoff sources contribute to the patternof sediment concentration. These include glacial(supraglacial, englacial or subglacial), snow-melt, rainfall-runoff and groundwater discharge.Subglacial, snowmelt and rainfall-runoff are ofprincipal importance in transporting suspendedsediment (Bogen 1996).

2. The typology of the stream network varies overthe melt season and from year to year. In the firstyear the stream network was more braided andhad many active tributaries earlier in the ablationseason (from snowpack sources). Generallythere is a ‘rationalization’ of the stream typology(reduction in the number of tributaries andbraiding) with duration of the ablation season(Warburton 1994).

3. Downstream patterns of sediment concentrationare not particularly well developed. This reflectsthe short length of the river reach (260 m), thecomplex nature of the channel network and thevariable nature of the contributing runoff sourcesand episodic supply of sediment (Hodgkins etal. 2003).

In designing a suitable sediment budget all three ofthese factors must be accounted for in the samplingdesign.

The significance of fluvial reworking and sedi-ment storage in cold climate environments has longbeen recognized as an important control on sedi-

ment output from this type of catchment (Churchand Ryder 1972; Church and Slaymaker 1989;Dadson and Church 2005). Assessing the signifi-cance of this store can be analysed at two maintimescales: (1) assessment of long-term sedimentstorage; and (2) the assessment of short-term ‘dy-namic’ changes usually associated with channelchange and floodplain sedimentation. Both ap-proaches can make significant contributions tofluvial sediment budget studies.

The ability to assess sediment storage has beengreatly advanced in recent years by the applicationof geophysical survey methods (Hoffman andSchrott 2002; Schrott and Sass 2008). A good exam-ple of this approach is demonstrated by Hoffmannand Schrott (2002) who measured the sedimentthicknesses in an Alpine valley (Reintal, Bavaria)using 2D-seismic refraction techniques (Schrott etal. 2003). They found that geophysical derivedsediment thicknesses (3 to 24 m) were significant-ly smaller than those estimated from morphomet-rical analysis. This lead to significant differencesin rockwall retreat rates based on the revised esti-mates of sediment storage volumes. Schrott andSass (2008) provide a useful overview of the rel-ative merits of ground penetrating radar, 1-D/2-Dresistivity and seismic refraction measurementsin characterizing sediment storage units. Al-though these can be very powerful techniques inestimating sediment thicknesses and structuresoften multiple methods are required to do this ef-fectively and results should be checked by inde-pendent data (exposures, boreholes or cores, ifavailable).

Prior to recent technical advances, surveyingchannel changes and floodplain sedimentationduring periods of high flow and at a frequencysuitable to characterize changes in floodplainstorage can be problematic unless data can be sur-veyed at high resolution over short periods(Westaway et al. 2003). Terrestrial Laser Scan-ning (TLS) provides an effective means of cap-turing high-resolution data very rapidly (Heritageand Hetherington 2007; Heritage and Large2009). The major benefit of terrestrial laser scan-ning over conventional survey techniques is itprovides automated, high-speed data capture ofcomplex surfaces in what are sometimes inacces-sible environments (Fig. 3). The technique is par-ticularly valuable in studies of cold climate fluvialsystems which are undergoing rapid landscapechange as the survey technique is very fast andcan collect complex surfaces at high resolution



(mm accuracy over 100 m range); can be executedremotely (e.g. away from a dangerous or hazard-ous environment) and provides a complete ar-chive of the current scene (Heritage and Large2009). The mass of 3D points recorded by thescanner is termed a point cloud. The point cloudsgenerated by the method are amenable to numer-ous 2D and 3D analyses and can be combinedwith ground photography to produce real colourlandscape models. However, care should be takenin implementing these surveys as there are severalpitfalls and limitations of the method which needto be carefully factored. Data voids may occur ifscan stations are not carefully selected, scan arte-facts can result due to uneven point densities ordifferences in surface reflectivity (e.g. rock, veg-etation and water) and scanning cannot be under-taken in poor weather (atmospheric moisture).Furthermore in fluvial applications the terrestriallaser scan pulses are not consistently returnedfrom the water surface of streams, rivers and pon-ded water. However in some situations, this can

often be used to delineate the wetted extent andchannel patterns. Heritage and Hetherington(2007) propose a protocol for the application oflaser scanning in fluvial geomorphology. Theirreview demonstrates the limitation of the methodand offers good practical advice on optimizingfield results. Hetherington et al. (2005) and Milanet al. (2007) have applied these techniques in as-sessing fine sediment dynamics and channel mor-phological change in a proglacial river/glacieroutwash plain in southern Switzerland. Usinghigh resolution data (> 500 points m–2) from a 10-day period early in the ablation season (June) thestudy successful quantified a major episode ofavulsion and medial bar erosion but also manytransient lobe features and minor changes such asbank accretion. Using the same data Milan et al.(2007) went on to demonstrate the precision of themethod and determine the effects of survey fre-quency on the sediment budget estimates. It wasfound that daily surveys increased erosion vol-ume estimates by 67% and deposition estimates

Fig. 4. Result of a simulated sampling experiment on a continuous suspended sediment series from the proglacial steam of Bas Glacierd’Arolla, Switzerland (Warburton 1990). The series covers a 5-day period of the June melt season during which a total of 57 separatesediment pulses were observed



by 14% compared with an 8-day survey interval.More recently Morche et al. (2008), as part of alarger sediment budget study, used terrestrial la-ser scanning to quantify the change in an activelyeroding talus cone in the Riental valley over a fourmonth summer period. The method proved veryuseful as the sediment store had complex topog-raphy, was inaccessible at high flow and very un-stable for direct access.

Techniques for measuring fluvial sediment fluxes in cold environmentsSuspended sedimentIn many cold climate environments, fluvial sedimentconcentration time series are often characterized by

frequent, non-periodic pulses in suspended sedi-ment (Gurnell et al. 1988; Gurnell and Warburton1990; Warburton 1999; Stott and Mount 2007).These suspended sediment pulses are important be-cause they can: (1) make up a significant proportionof the fluvial sediment flux; and (2) provide impor-tant information on sediment dynamics and poten-tial sediment sources with a catchment (Warburton1999; Hodgkins et al. 2003; Lenzi et al. 2003; Stottand Mount 2007). As a result, temporal changes insuspended sediment concentrations must be ade-quately characterized in a fluvial sediment-samplingscheme. Figure 4 shows the result of a sampling sim-ulation experiment on a continuous suspended sed-iment series from the proglacial steam of Bas Gla-cier d’Arolla, Switzerland (Warburton 1990a). The

Fig. 5. Suspended sediment load transport estimates during a 30-year return period storm event on North Proglacial Stream, Small RiverGlacier, Canada calculated using; 1) load derived from 10 minute turbidity measurements, 2) rating curve using 11 grab samples and3) 2 hourly automatic water sampler (AWS) samples. Note the significant differences in the timing of peak suspended sediment con-centrations during the course of the storm event. These differences can result in quite different interpretations of the data, sediment loadsand sediment sources. In this example, total loads vary by c. 20% and the turbidimeter and AWS data indicates clockwise hysteresis(in-channel or near sediment sources) whereas the rating curve approach suggests anti-clockwise hysteresis and therefore, more distantsediment sources



series covers a 5-day period of the June melt seasonduring which a total of 57 separate sediment pulseswere observed in the record. Results indicate an ex-ponential decline in the number of sediment pulsesidentified with increasing sampling interval length.For example, even when using a high frequencysampling interval of 10 minutes results in a 36% lossin the number of sediment pulses recorded. At 60minutes this is as great as 82%. Therefore discretesampling, or the use of suspended sediment ratingcurves, can significantly underestimate the nature ofthe suspended sediment flux where there is a noisysediment concentration record (Fig. 5) (Gurnell andWarburton 1990; Gurnell et al. 1992; Lawler et al.1992; Lawler and Wright 1999).

A number of alternative technologies exist forhigh temporal resolution monitoring of suspendedsediment concentration. These emerging technolo-gies include laser, pressure differential and hydroa-coustic instruments which offer improved sam-pling accuracy, in situ determination of particle sizedistributions as well as integrated sampling overmultiple verticals (Gray and Gartner, 2009). How-ever, despite these advantages, the majority of theseinstruments are as yet unproven for widespreadfield deployment in cold environments. As a result,we suggest that currently the best solution to cap-turing these non-periodic changes in suspendedsediment concentration is the deployment of con-tinuously recording, datalogger compatible turbi-dimeters (Orwin and Smart 2005) (Fig. 5). Turbi-dimeters indirectly monitor suspended sedimentconcentration through the measurement of turbidity,an optical property that causes light passing througha water column to be scattered by suspended sedi-ment rather than being transmitted (Finlayson 1985;Gippel 1989). As a result, the effectiveness of tur-bidimeters in measuring suspended sediment con-centrations relies on the establishment of a statis-tically significant relationship between turbidityand concentration, preferably using suspendedsediment samples taken from the fluvial systembeing monitored. However, the interaction be-tween light and suspended sediment concentra-tion is not entirely dependent upon the mass ofsediment but also responds to differences in par-ticle composition, color and size (Hach et al.1990; Gippel 1995). Because particle characteris-tics are often quite variable and suspended sedi-ment concentrations range can range from < 100mg L–1 to in excess of 15 000 mg L–1 in many coldenvironment fluvial systems, the design of the tur-bidimeter deployed is critical.

There are several turbidimeter designs availablecommercially and non-commercially (e.g. Lawlerand Brown 1992; Orwin and Smart 2005) but allfall into two main types: 1) attenuation turbidime-ters (or transmissometers) that measure the loss inintensity of a narrow, collimated light beam passingthrough a known path length and 2) nephelometricturbidimeters that measure scattered light in re-sponse to the effects of particle size and concentra-tion (Hach et al. 1990; Downing 1991; Gippel1995). Although attenuation is an inherently simpleoptical property to measure, the path length deter-mines the range of suspended sediment concentra-tion detectable by the instrument (Downing et al.1981). A short path length will extend the upper re-sponse limit at the cost of reduced sensitivity at lowconcentrations while a long path length will resultin increased sensitivity at low concentrations butlikely non-linearity or saturation at high-suspendedsediment concentrations (Vanous et al. 1982; Stottand Mount 2007). In contrast, nephelometric turbi-dimeters are configured to measure either forwardscattered; 90° scattered; or backscattered light. Thescatterance angle has been shown to be the mostcritical component of nephelometric turbidimeterdesign where backscattered light intensity at angles> 90° result in greater signal range, reduced sensi-tivity to bubbles and represented the independenteffect of particle size more effectively (Downing etal. 1981; Hach et al. 1990).

Scattering efficiency peaks where the particle ra-dius approximates the wavelength of the incidentlight (Vanous et al. 1982; Gippel 1989). Turbidime-ters that use longer wavelengths in the infrared ornear infrared spectrum will, therefore, be more sen-sitive to clay and silt size particles, the dominant par-ticle size transferred in suspension in most cold cli-mate fluvial systems. However, the relative influenceof the sizes present in suspension mean fine particleswill have a greater influence on the signal than coars-er particles. This is due, in part, to fine clay particleshaving larger surface areas than, for example, coarsesilt. This effect results in the same concentration offine material giving a higher turbidity reading thancoarser material. For example, Foster et al. (1992)showed that a suspended sediment concentration of200 mg L–1 produced a turbidimeter response of 50units for 16 to 32 μm (medium silt) and a responseof 250 units for the fraction less than 4 μm (clay) atthe same concentration. Similarly, Orwin and Smart(2005) demonstrated significant differences in theresponse of two infrared turbidimeters to the sameconcentrations of different particles sizes (Fig. 6).



Thus, the extent to which particle sizes vary withina catchment will determine the overall level of cor-relation between turbidity and suspended sedimentconcentration and highlights the necessity for fieldcalibration.

The major benefit of using turbidimeters to mon-itor suspended sediment concentrations in cold cli-mate fluvial systems is the ability of these instru-ments to capture non-periodic, transient pulses ofsediment. This increase in temporal resolution sig-nificantly reduces the amount of error in sedimentflux calculations but also allows for more detailedexamination of suspended sediment dynamics overtime.

BedloadOver the short-term many cold climate river sys-tems, typically gravel-bed rivers, are highly dynam-ic; depositing and eroding their channels and flood-plain in response to the hydrological extremes thattypify snowmelt/glacier melt regimes (Warburton1994; Hetherington et al. 2005; Milan et al. 2007).Because of these difficulties, accurate measure-ment of bedload transport in cold climate environ-ments is inherently problematic (Warburton 1992).

Because of the difficulties associated with fieldmeasurement of bedload, there has been a long his-tory of development and application of theoreticalapproaches to estimate bedload transport rates or

Fig. 6. Response of two different,nephelometric infrared turbidime-ters to changes in concentration ofdifferent particle sizes



yields. Bedload transport equations use the premisethat specific relations exist between the sedimen-tology and hydraulics of a river channel as a basisfor predicting bedload transport rates. Most formu-lae are based on a correlation between bedloadtransport and bed shear stress, stream discharge(e.g. the Schoklitsch equation), stochastic func-tions for sediment movement, or stream power. De-spite the widespread use of these formulae, severalstudies have questioned their value (Gomez andChurch 1989; Martin and Church 2000). For exam-ple, Martin (2003) tested the Bagnold stream powerformula and the Meyer-Peter and Müller formulaeon a 10-year data record from the Vedder River,British Columbia, Canada. She concluded that nei-ther formula were particularly reliable for predict-ing bedload magnitude and transport patterns. Sim-ilarly, Carson and Griffiths (1987) used data prima-rily from New Zealand braided gravel-bed rivers toconclude that transport rates predicted from severaldifferent formulae consistently underestimated theactual rates. It appears that currently, bedload for-mulae have met with mixed success in predictingbedload. In cold climate fluvial systems, these is-sues are particularly problematic as many rivershave temporally variable rates of erosion anddeposition.

By resurvey, these changes in rates of erosionand deposition can be accounted for using reach-based fluvial sediment budgets and bedload trans-fer rates constructed. In some settings where melt-water streams are managed in hydroelectricschemes bedload trapping structures have beenbuilt and these have provided excellent structuresfor measuring bedload flux (Gurnell et al. 1988;Bezinge et al. 1989). However, these are rare. Di-rect measurements of bedload flux (for sedimentyield estimation) are also rare. Warburton (1990b)provides an example where the bedload flux was es-timated using a sediment trap, direct measurementusing a bedload sampler and rating curve approachand a bedload transport formula (SchoklitschFormula). If the sediment trap is taken to representthe true load, the bedload transport estimate overpredicts by 111% whilst the rating curve method(direct sampling) over predicts by 36%. In activecold climate river systems alternative means of es-timating bed load flux are unfeasible since sedi-ment traps cannot be easily constructed in mobilechannel reaches; direct measurement of bedloadtransport is fraught with difficulties in terms ofsampling logistics and the restricted range of flowsthat can be effectively sampled (Warburton 1990b;

Sterling and Church 2002). Painted or magnetical-ly/radioactively tagged tracers are also restricted toa limited flow range due to low recovery rates inmore active fluvial systems (Lenzi 2004). Althoughthe use of piezoelectric bedload impact sensors hasmet with some success, the instruments requirecareful calibration that can be hampered by varia-tions in bedload transport initiation/cessationthresholds and changes in particle size over thecourse of a flood event (e.g. Downing et al. 2003;Rickenmann and McArdell, 2007).

An alternative to these methods is the morpho-logic approach to fluvial sediment budgets that hasgrown greatly in popularity following a number ofpublications outlining the technique (Martin andChurch 1995; Ham and Church 2000; Fuller et al.2003) and the increased accuracy and speed ofmodern topographic survey equipment (Rumsby etal. 2008). Although requiring much less field effortthan some of the methods outlined above, Martinand Church (1995) note that there are a number ofmethodological issues including the requirementfor at least one transport rate and the assumptionthat there has not been equal erosion and deposi-tion between surveys. As discussed earlier, theease of using TLS to characterize changes in flood-plain morphology to a high degree of accuracy ina very short time frame would allow for increasedsite visits and therefore improve quantification ofshort-term changes in erosion and deposition.More widespread application of TLS and themorphologic approach to estimating bed materialtransport would greatly improve our understand-ing of bedload transport in cold environmentfluvial systems.

SolutesThe solute flux in cold environment fluvial systemsis most commonly estimated using electrical con-ductivity (EC) as a surrogate indicator of the totaldissolved solid (TDS) load (e.g. Campbell et al.2002; Beylich et al. 2005; Orwin et al. submitted2010). The EC of a fluid is a function of the abilityof the fluid to conduct an electrical current trans-ferred by ions in solution. The nature of this rela-tionship is therefore determined by the concentra-tion and species of these ions. A significant advan-tage of using EC to determine the TDS load is thecomparative ease and economy of using EC probes.In addition, many probes are datalogger controlledallowing high temporal resolution measurements.This resolution is a distinct advantage for long-term



monitoring of solute loads in remote sites. However,as noted by Fenn (1987), there are a number of lim-itations associated with the use of EC.

Fenn (1987) identified that the major limitationin using solely EC to determine TDS is that changesin ionic composition may result in variable contri-butions to the EC, particularly if ion pairings resultin conductance changes. This variability may resultin underestimates of solute load. Although likelyminor in cold environments, the relationship be-tween ionic concentration and EC is non-linear athigh concentrations and pH, dissolved CO2 and or-ganic material concentrations may induce signifi-cant changes in EC values not necessarily related tothe total ionic concentration (Fenn 1987). Suspend-ed sediment load may also impact ionic concentra-tions in cold environments through sorption anddissolution of ions on particles. Desorption and/ordissolution effects may be significant if EC ismeasured from filtered water samples where des-orption of ions from sediment can increase ECfrom that of unfiltered water (Collins 1977). Final-ly, water temperature directly determines the de-gree of ionization and thus EC. Most commerciallyavailable EC probes correct EC values to a standardtemperature of 20 or 25°C at 2% °C–1. Collins(1977) argued against this correction for cold envi-ronments as most water temperatures are close to0°C. As a result, EC data is commonly presenteduncorrected at ambient water temperatures (e.g.Gurnell et al. 1994). However, Smart (1992) dem-onstrates a linear dependence of EC on temperaturefrom 0.3 to 25°C, suggesting that temperature com-pensation for EC values to 0°C in cold environ-ments is necessary (e.g. Old et al. 2005).

Because of these issues with EC, a number of re-searchers have combined continuous monitoringof EC with grab sampling to determine major cat-ion (Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+ and K+) and anion (Cl–, NO3–

, SO42–) concentrations (e.g. Gurnell et al. 1994;

Wadham et al. 1998; Campbell et al. 2002). Asnoted by Gurnell et al. (1994), manual samples atleast twice daily are required to adequately char-acterize seasonal water chemistry in glacial envi-ronments and to produce reliable calibrations be-tween EC and solute concentration. However, ECis not necessarily a reliable indicator or predictorof individual ion concentration although some au-thors have demonstrated that this can be the casefor some, but not all solutes (e.g. Gurnell et al.1994). Thus, any field-based studies of solute loadshould include a grab sampling regime and labo-ratory determination of individual ion concentra-

tions. However, for longer-term studies, the lengthof field seasons and access to remote sites will limitthis type of sampling regime.

Despite some of the issues in using EC to esti-mate TDS, we suggest that the ability to monitorEC at high temporal resolutions using dataloggersoutweighs the disadvantages, especially for assess-ing annual and interannual variability in soluteload. As a result, the continuous monitoring of ECand water temperature for temperature compensa-tion currently represents the best method for mon-itoring solute flux in cold environments, especiallyif combined with periodic grab sampling and solutedetermination.

Sediment sinks as indicators of sediment fluxesIn ungauged basins, measurement of fluxes is notpossible. Similarly, the outflow of some basins maybe too large to safely or effectively sample. Finally,in many cold environments, the availability of sed-iment transport records may simply be too short toassess interannual variability and trends. Thesechallenges can be addressed to some extent,through modeling sediment fluxes (Syvitski et al.1998). However, this approach requires model pa-rameterization and does not necessarily contributeadditional knowledge about the specific processesin a given catchment.

An alternative is to evaluate sediment fluxesthrough the sedimentary record contained in down-stream lake and marine basins. These sedimentarysinks hold the potential for evaluating sedimentfluxes over a wide range of timescales, typically be-tween decades to millennia, and potentially pro-vide annual resolution of sediment fluxes. Addi-tionally, a number of approaches can be taken tomeasure contemporary fluxes into these basins thatcomplement the fluvial methods described in theprevious sections or can stand alone, where riversare unsuitable for conventional measurements.This section will provide an overview of these tech-niques and how they may be incorporated into sed-iment flux studies along with examples drawn fromcold regions.

Contemporary fluxes of sediment to lakes and marine environmentsStudy of sediment delivery to lakes and marine en-vironments has been undertaken in a wide range ofcold environments. Early work focused on turbidinflows from glacierized systems in the European



Alps and work expanded to many other alpine re-gions of the world (e.g. Smith 1978; Pickrill and Ir-win 1983; Gilbert 1975). In recent years, a substan-tial number of studies have been undertaken in highlatitude settings (e.g. Hardy 1996; Lewis et al.2002; Forbes and Lamoureux 2005). While muchof this work has been motivated by the use of lacus-trine and marine sedimentary records for paleoen-vironmental reconstruction (Bradley et al. 1996),these studies have also provided surrogate recordsof sediment deposition for evaluating long-termyield variations and dynamics (Lamoureux 2002)and to understand the role of hydroclimate changesin sediment yield (Cockburn and Lamoureux 2008).

Fluxes to lakes (for brevity, marine settings arealso intended with future mention of lakes) repre-sent a natural extension to river- and catchment-based approaches discussed in previous sections.The relatively low energy and protected nature ofthese water bodies provide a unique opportunity tomonitor contemporary sediment and related fluxesover long periods of time with potentially reducedrisk of damage by river break up, vandalism and ex-treme winter conditions. On the other hand, meas-urement of fluxes into lakes presents major chal-lenges in selection of the location of instruments toprovide a representative measure of river fluxes.

Two key approaches are used for contemporarymonitoring of sediment fluxes to lakes. The first,moored instruments, provide the means for contin-uous, detailed measurement of sediment inflowsand related hydrological properties. Typically, sen-sors are deployed in the lake at a location wheresurface ice movement and other potential hazardsare minimized. Sensor systems placed below lakeice in cold regions also affords substantial isolationfrom severe winter conditions and other hazards as-sociated with unattended deployments.

While some success has been demonstrated withqualitatively describing sediment deposition dy-namics in lakes from periodic profiling of watercolumn characteristics with an instrument sonde(e.g. Retelle and Child 1996; Lewis et al. 2002), of-ten referred to as a CTD (Conductivity, Temper-ature and Depth), it is difficult to relate these pointmeasurements to quantitative fluxes of sedimentsto the lake. Continuous monitoring with sensor net-works (Weirich 1986) or CTD moorings in the wa-ter body offer a more direct means of estimatingsediment flux to a lake (Cockburn and Lamoureux2008). The dilution effect of large water bodies of-ten reduces turbidity to levels that are effectivelymeasured by transmissivity (e.g. Retelle and Child

1996) or turbidity sensors. This is a particular ad-vantage in cases where river turbidity levels cansaturate turbidity sensors.

The second approach utilizes sediment traps thatpassively capture sediment into receptacles that arelater recovered. In studies where traps are recoveredat frequent intervals (days to weeks), an indication offluvial sediment fluxes into the lake may be gener-ated (Cockburn and Lamoureux 2008). Sedimenttrapping approaches are well developed in the ma-rine and lacustrine literatures (see Bloesch andBurns 1980 for a review) and represent an inexpen-sive means to collect sediment fluxes into a waterbody. Additional refinement of the trap system witha mechanized carousel of sediment receptacles con-trolled by a timer and motor mechanism allows col-lection of trapped sediments for defined intervals(Zeitzschel et al. 1978). Recently, a sediment accu-mulation sensor capable of resolving the timing ofaccumulation increments has been introduced(Lamoureux 2005), and provides for the first time,an opportunity to investigate fluxes from traps linkedto data loggers. The system utilizes a sediment ac-cumulation tube with matched light emission anddetection sensors. Progressive accumulation in thetube blocks the light path, which is integrated by thesensor into a signal suitable for common data log-gers (Lamoureux 2005). The approach has shownsuccess in a wide range of cold regions (Lamoureuxunpublished data) and it is likely that refinements inthe approach will provide additional functionality.While all of these approaches hold promise in quan-titative sediment flux studies, hydrodynamic biasesin traps due to currents can influence results(Bloesch and Burns 1980), and sediments that aredistributed in lakes via turbid underflows are likelyto be underrepresented by traps which capture sedi-ment deposited primarily through suspension set-tling (Cockburn and Lamoureux 2008). However,when carefully deployed, traps offer an importantmeans to assess sediment inflows to lakes.

While these monitoring tools are important fordetermining sediment inflow, they present signifi-cant difficulties in calibration to river sedimentfluxes. The difficulty of integrating sediment fluxesin the water column requires spatially extensivedata that is rarely available (e.g. Weirich 1986) andhence, the lacustrine instrumental records are notdirectly comparable to river transport rates. Fur-ther, delays in sediment distribution in lakes due tosubstantially lower flow velocities (typically <0.25m s–1) affect the timing of turbidity signals com-pared to the river inflow. Additional complication



arises in dynamic lakes where sediment plume dis-tribution varies in depth according to the relativelydensity of the inflow compared to the lake water.Turbid underflows are common in lakes with highsediment loads, while interflows or overflows mayalso occur when the inflow is less dense than thebottom water of the lake (Smith and Ashley 1985).Moreover, a lake may be subject to multiple plumepathways depending on the nature of inflow den-sity, which in most instances, is determined large-ly by suspended sediment concentration, and to alesser extent, on the temperature of the inflow andlake (Sturm 1979; Weirich 1986; Smith andAshley 1985). While some efforts have been un-dertaken to evaluate these processes in detail (e.g.Cockburn and Lamoureux 2008), each sedimen-tary setting needs to be evaluated in detail to de-termine the potential impact on sediment inflowestimates.

Sedimentary records of recent and long-term sediment fluxesSeveral approaches have been adopted to interpretrecent sediment fluxes from sedimentary records.While these studies have often emphasized interan-nual variability in sediment accumulation in terms ofhydroclimatic variability (e.g. Besonen et al. 2008;Lamoureux et al. 2006), some studies have focusedlargely on sediment yield aspects (e.g. Lamoureux2002; Scheifer and Gilbert 2007). Broadly, these ap-proaches are based on either annually resolved massaccumulation rates (MAR) or inferred sedimentaccumulation rates derived from deposition modelsof radioisotopes like 210Pb or 14C.

Annually laminated, or varved sedimentary se-quences have been found in a wide range of cold re-gion settings, including alpine glacial and polar ni-val systems. Varved sediments are structures whereclear, repeating patterns of sedimentary character-istics can be associated with the annual cycle ofdeposition (Gilbert 2003) (Fig. 7). Typically, indi-vidual varve thickness is transformed into an annu-al MAR by applying a density correction factor.Further conversion to a catchment sediment yieldrequires an understanding of the distribution ofsediment within the lake, information that is rela-tively uncommon (c.f. Foster and Lees 1999;Lamoureux 1999; Scheifer et al. 2006). In onestudy, Lamoureux (2000) used a network of sedi-ment cores to identify the lake-wide pattern of dep-osition of an Arctic lake, and through regression,identify a relationship between accumulation at a

single core site and deposition in the lake. Hence,in this manner, an estimate of interannual catch-ment sediment yield was possible from the 487-year sedimentary record (Lamoureux, 2000),which allowed further assessment of yield dynam-ics in response to large magnitude yield eventsthrough epoch analysis (Lamoureux 2002).

A second approach to estimating recent sedi-mentation is indirectly through the use of 210Pb dat-ing models. Lead-210 has a half-life of 22.3 yearsand is produced by decay of 226Ra in the atmos-phere (Appleby 2001). Models used to date recentsediments (typically the past 200 years or less) as-sume either a constant influx of 210Pb from thecatchment, or alternatively, a constant initial concen-tration of 210Pb at the sediment surface (Appleby2001). Hence, departures from the expected expo-nential decay of 210Pb activity in the upper sedi-ments indicate changes in sedimentation rates thatcan be quantified in the model (Foster and Lees1999; Appleby 2001). The inferred sedimentationrates are usually not confirmed by direct depositionmeasurements, but have been used to infer catch-ment yield in temperate catchments (Dearing andJones 2003). More direct sedimentation rates can

Fig. 7. An example of annually laminated (varved) sedimentsfrom Cape Bounty, Melville Island in the Canadian Arctic. Eachcouplet of coarse and fine sediment represents a single year ofdeposition (scale bar equals 1 mm)



be determined from 14C-dated sedimentary hori-zons, and provide evidence for notable changes insedimentation over intervals of typically centuriesor longer.

Longer-term sedimentary records have been de-veloped in a number of environments, but typically,these have been in the context of identifying hydro-climatic variability rather than catchment sedimentfluxes. Notable examples include the 14 000-yearvarve record from temperate Holtzmaar, Germany,where sediment yield variations were interpreted interms of past land use changes (Zolitschka 1998).Similarly, in Finland, Ojala and Alenius (2005) not-ed phases of increased sediment yield from a10 000-year record. More broadly, these and otherstudies point to the importance of catchment dis-turbance on sediment yields over long times scalesand provide a means to assess the dynamics of land-scape and anthropogenic processes over fluvialsediment fluxes (Dearing and Jones 2003).

Magnitude and frequency of extreme eventsLong sedimentary records from cold regions, par-ticularly those with annual resolution, offer an op-portunity to evaluate magnitude-frequency charac-teristics of sediment fluxes. Sedimentary recordsprovide indications of changes in the relative fre-quency of major sediment transport events (e.g.Noren et al. 2002), as well as the magnitude ofhigh-yield events (Lamoureux 2000), both ofwhich have been associated with changes in the re-currence of extreme hydroclimatic events in catch-ments. These records are important to extend avail-able instrumental records in order to document therange of potential sediment flux behaviour in a giv-en catchment, and to establish a quantitative fre-quency-magnitude framework to interpret sedi-

ment yields. For instance, Lamoureux (2000) used487 years of annual sediment yield from a HighArctic lake to determine sediment yield quantiles.This work also demonstrated that calculated quan-tiles were sensitive to the time period chosen, withsubstantial differences between 100-year recur-rence events observed during successive 50-yearintervals (Lamoureux 2000).

Additional assessments of sediment flux behav-iour are possible with long sedimentary records.Lamoureux (2002) evaluated yield anomalies lead-ing and lagging individual high-yield years in avarved sedimentary record. Results showed that thelargest magnitude events (>100-year recurrence)generated consistent, above-average sedimentyield during the following 15–20 years. By con-trast, moderate magnitude extreme events (10–25year recurrence) exhibited a consistent negativeyield anomaly in the leading 10-year period, andpositive anomaly in the lagging 10-year period.The persistence of this pattern was interpreted tosignal quasi-cyclic sediment exhaustion and re-plenishment by moderate magnitude yield years,while the largest magnitude events were interpretedto supply abundant sediment to the channel systemthat resulted in above-average yields for more thana decade (Lamoureux 2002). While this study isunique, it provides an indication of the potential in-sight into catchment sediment supply and flux dy-namics in cold regions and elsewhere.

Direct monitoring has also provided useful in-formation on the significance of large events intransporting fluvial sediment from cold regions.Table 2 summarizes a range of cold region studiesthat have estimated the significance of large eventson the total sediment load. In some cases upwardsof 60% of the total load transported occurs duringrelatively short-lived events, in particular high

Table 2. The significance of extreme events on the fluvial sediment flux in cold environments.

Specific % of total loadCold climate Nature sediment load (1. monitoring period,

Study Location environment of event (t km–2) 2. annual)

Østrem et al. (1967) Decade Glacier, Arctic High melt and 92 601

Baffin Island, Canada heavy rainfallWarburton (1990) Bas Glacier d’Arolla, Alpine Meltwater flood 1987 1528 52 2

SwitzerlandLenzi et al. (2003) Rio Cordon, Italy Alpine High intensity rain, 1994 487 60 1

Orwin and Smart (2004a) Small River Glacier, Alpine High intensity rain, 2000 5 181

CanadaOld et al. (2005) Skaftá River, Iceland Subarctic Two Jökulhlaups, 1997 1388 552

Orwin et al. Birch Hill Stream, Alpine High intensity rain, 2008 19 461

(submitted 2010) New Zealand



intensity rain and/or glacier outburst floods. Char-acterizing sediment dynamics and sources duringthese events is difficult without high-resolutiontemporal monitoring as the fluvial sediment fluxincludes both mobilized channel sediment and alsoepisodic inputs from extra channel surfaces. Forexample, Orwin and Smart (2004b) used dis-charge/suspended sediment hysteresis patternsand spatially sampled suspended sediment datafrom extra-channel surfaces to show that inputfrom extra-channel surfaces significantly in-creased sediment flux during rain events. They alsodemonstrated that extra-channel input variedthroughout the catchment depending on the mag-nitude of each rain event and surface age. However,this study was limited to only one ablation seasonthus making it difficult to assess the representative-ness of their results. This issue highlights that with-

out longer term records it is difficult to characterizethe impact of large events on the overall sedimentflux record. Long-term, direct monitoring of sedi-ment flux in cold regions would provide a usefulcontext, or analog, to further aid the interpretationsof flux records derived from long sedimentaryrecords and also provide a contemporary mecha-nism to identify shifts in magnitude-frequency re-lationships due to environmental change.

Summary and recommendationsFluvial processes dominate sediment flux from mostcold environments and as such are particularly sen-sitive to environmental change. This sensitivity isdue to most cold climate fluvial systems beingephemeral in nature where the abundance of water aswell as the severity of cold determines flow regimes

Fig. 8. Schematic of recommend-ed methods and sampling fre-quencies to characterize the mainsediment balance components ofthe fluvial sedimentation prismshown in Figure 1. Component 1includes valley, floodplain andslope sediment sources/storage,Component 2, fluvial transportand Component 3 transfer to la-custrine sinks. The gradient barsindicate a qualitative assessmentof the effect of sampling frequen-cy on the quality of flux data de-rived from the recommendedmethods from less ideal (white) toideal (black)



and therefore, sediment transfer. In addition, spatio-temporal variability in sediment sources can result inwidely fluctuating transfer patterns that are alsopunctuated by extreme events. As a result, most coldenvironment fluvial systems demonstrate high vari-ability in flow and sediment transfer rates in both theshort and long term. This variability presents somespecific problems for establishing integrated sedi-ment flux studies from source to sink. These prob-lems include inadequate characterization of changesin sediment sources and storage; a lack of high-tem-poral resolution, long-term monitoring of bed, sus-pended and dissolved fluxes, and limited work on theconnectivity between fluvial transfer processes anddeposition in downstream sediment sinks. Althoughwe recognize that in many cases resource availabilityand site access may preclude fully integrated studies,there exists a clear need for these types of studies(Beylich and Warburton 2007).

To fully characterize and monitor changes insediment flux from cold environments requires anintegrated approach. As discussed in this paper, anumber of different methods are available formeasuring sediment flux. However, in order for in-tegrated studies to be effective and broadly compa-rable across different cold environments, we sug-gest that there needs to be a common framework.This comparability can be achieved by 1) consist-ency in methods for monitoring sediment flux, and2) appropriate sampling frequencies.

Figure 8 shows the three main sediment balancecomponents of the fluvial sedimentation prism anda suggested framework for the most appropriatemethods for integrating the measurement of sedi-ment flux. The framework is presented as the ‘ide-al’ approach to characterizing fluxes but in somecases application of some or all of these methodswill not be possible. However, as a minimum wesuggest that particulate and dissolved componentsare measured using the methods suggested(Beylich and Warburton 2007). The diagram alsoprovides a qualitative indication of the impact ofsampling frequency on sediment flux estimates.Sampling frequency is particularly important incold environment fluvial systems because of hightemporal variability in sediment transfer. For exam-ple, estimates of suspended sediment flux based ondaily or weekly samples are less ideal than sub-hoursampling using a turbidimeter. The instruments rec-ommended here are, with a few exceptions, datalog-ger compatible with user defined sampling frequen-cies. Datalogger-equipped instrumentation allowseconomic, unattended monitoring of sediment flux

and thereby circumvents sampling frequency issuesand allows for long-term installation.

Application of the framework suggested here todifferent cold climate environments and integrationwith long-term sedimentary records and monitoredchanges in sediment sources and sinks will im-prove our understanding of sediment flux in coldenvironments. In turn, these data will allow us to as-sess the sensitivity of cold environments to envi-ronmental change within the context of contempo-rary and past sediment flux.

AcknowledgementsThe ideas presented in this paper have arisen, andbenefited, from many discussions with colleaguesinvolved with the ESF SEDIFLUX and IAG SED-IBUD programmes. We gratefully acknowledgetheir input. We also thank Tim Stott and an anony-mous reviewer for review comments.

Dr. John F Orwin, Department of Geography, TheUniversity of Otago, 85 Albany Street, Dunedin9016, New ZealandE-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Scott F. Lamoureux, Department of Geography,Queens University, Mackintosh-Corry Hall, RoomD201, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada

Dr. Jeff Warburton, Department of Geography,Durham University, South RoadDurham DH1 3LE, United Kingdom

Dr. Achim A. Beylich, Geological Survey of Nor-way (NGU), Quaternary Geology and ClimateGroup, Leiv Eirikssons vei 39, N-7491, Trondheim,NorwayandDepartment of Geography, Norwegian Universityof Science and Technology (NTNU), Dragvoll, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway

ReferencesAlley, R.B., Cuffey, K.M., Evenson, E.B., Strasser, J.C., Lawson,

D.E. and Larson, G.J., 1997: How glaciers entrain and trans-port basal sediment: physical constraints. Quaternary ScienceReviews, 16: 1017–1038.

Appleby, P.G., 2001: Chronostratigraphic techniques in recentsediments. In: Last, W.M. and Smol, J.P. (eds): Tracking en-vironmental change using lake sediments Volume 1: Basinanalysis, coring, and chronological techniques. Kluwer Aca-demic Publishers, Dordrecht: 171–203.

Besonen, M.R., Patridge, W., Bradley, R.S., Francus, P., Stoner,



J.S. and Abbott, M.B., 2008: A record of climate over the lastmillennium based on varved lake sediments from the Cana-dian High Arctic. The Holocene, 18: 169–180.

Beylich, A.A. 2008: Mass transfers, sediment budget and relief de-velopment in the Latnjavagge catchment, Arctic-oceanic Swed-ish Lapland. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, 52: 149–197.

Beylich, A.A. and Kneisel, C., 2009: Sediment budget and reliefdevelopment in Hrafndalur, subarctic oceanic Eastern Ice-land. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 41: 3–17.

Beylich, A.A. and Warburton, J. (eds), 2007: Analysis of source-to-sink fluxes and sediment budgets in changing high-latitudeand high-altitude cold environments. SEDIFLUX Manual, 1st

Edition, Norwegian Geological Survey Report, 2007.053:158 p.

Beylich, A.A., Etienne, S., Etzelmüller, B., Gordeev, V.V., Käyhkö,J., Rachold, V., Russell, A.J., Schmidt, K.-H., Sæmundsson, °.,Tweed, F.S. and Warburton, J., 2006: The European ScienceFoundation (ESF) Network SEDIFLUX – An introductionand overview. In: Beylich, A.A. (ed.): SEDIFLUX. Sedimen-tary source-to-sink-fluxes in cold environments. Special Is-sue. Geomorphology, 80: 3–7.

Beylich, A.A., Molau, U., Luthbom, K. and Gintz, D., 2005: Ratesof chemical and mechanical fluvial denudation in an arcticoceanic periglacial environment, Latnjavagge drainage basin,northernmost Swedish Lapland. Arctic, Antarctic, and AlpineResearch, 37: 75–87.

Bezinge A., Clark M.J., Gurnell A.M. and Warburton J., 1989:The management of sediment transported by glacial meltwa-ter streams and its significance for the estimation of sedimentyield. Annals of Glaciology, 13: 1–5.

Bloesch, J. and Burns, N.M., 1980: A critical review of sedimen-tation trap technique. Aquatic Sciences, 42: 15–55.

Bogen, J., 1996: Erosion rates and sediment yields of glaciers. An-nals of Glaciology, 22: 48–52.

Bradley, R.S., Retelle, M.J., Ludlam, S.D., Hardy, D.R., Zolitsch-ka, B. and Lamoureux, S.F., 1996: The Taconite Inlet LakesProject: A systems approach to paleoclimatic reconstruction.Journal of Paleolimnology, 16: 97–110.

Campbell, S.W., Dixon, J.C., Thorn, C.E. and Darmody, R.G.,2002: Chemical denudation rates in Kärkevagge, Swedish La-pland. Geografiska Annaler, 84A: 179–185.

Carson, M.A. and Griffiths, G.A., 1987: Bedload transport ingravel channels. Journal of Hydrology (NZ), 26: 1–151.

Church, M. and Gilbert, R., 1975: Proglacial fluvial and lacustrineenvironments. In: Jopling, A.V. and McDonald, B.C. (eds):Glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine sedimentation. Society ofEconomic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publica-tion No. 23: 22–100.

Church, M. and Ryder, J.M., 1972: Paraglacial sedimentation: aconsideration of fluvial processes conditioned by glaciation.Bulletin Geological Society of America, 83: 3059–3071.

Church, M. and Slaymaker, O., 1989: Disequilibrium of Holocenesediment yield in glaciated British Columbia. Nature, 337:452–454.

Cockburn, J.M.H. and Lamoureux, S.F., 2008: Inflow and lakecontrols on short-term mass accumulation and particle size ina High Arctic lake: implications for interpreting varved lacus-trine sedimentary records. Journal of Paleolimnology, 40:923–943.

Collins, D.N., 1977: Hydrology of an alpine glacier as indicatedby the geochemical composition of meltwater. Zeitschrift fürGletscherkunde und Glaziolgeologie, 13: 219–238.

Dadson, S.J. and Church, M.A., 2005: Post-glacial topographicevolution of glaciated valleys: A stochastic landscape evolu-tion model. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 30:1387–1403.

Dearing, J.A. and Jones, R.T., 2003: Coupling temporal and spa-tial dimensions of global sediment flux through lake and ma-rine sediment records. Global and Planetary Change, 39:147–168.

Downing, J.P., 1991: Instruction Manual: OBS-1 & 3 suspendedsolids and turbidity monitor. D&A Instrument Company.Washington State: United States of America.

Downing, J.P., Sternberg, R.W. and Lister, C.R.B., 1981: New in-strumentation for the investigation of sediment suspensionprocesses in the shallow marine environment. Marine Geol-ogy, 42: 19–34.

Downing, J.P., Farley, P.J., Bunte, K., Swingle, K., Ryan, S.E.,and Dixon, M., 2003: Acoustic gravel-transport sensor: de-scription and field tests in Little Granite Creek, Wyoming,USA. In: Bogen, J., Fergus, T., and Walling, D.E. (eds): Ero-sion and Sediment Transport Measurement in Rivers: Tech-nological and Methodological Advances, IAHS Publication283: 193–200.

Fenn, C.R., 1987: Electrical conductivity. In: Gurnell, A.M. andClark, M.J. (eds): Glacio-fluvial sediment transfer: and alpineperspective. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester: 377–414.

Ferguson, R.1., 1984: Sediment load of Hunza River. In: Miller,K.J. (ed.): The International Karakoram Project. CambridgeUniversity Press: 580–598.

Finlayson, B.L., 1985: Field calibration of a recording turbiditymeter. Catena, 12: 141–147.

Forbes, A.C. and Lamoureux, S.F., 2005: Climatic controls onstreamflow and suspended sediment transport in three largemiddle arctic catchments, Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut, Can-ada, Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research, 37: 305–315.

Fort, M., Cossart, E., Deline, P., Dzikowski, M., Nicoud, G., Rav-enel, L., Schoeneich, P. and Wassmer, P. 2009: Geomorphicimpacts of large and rapid mass movements: a review. Geo-morphologie-Relief Processus Environnement, 1: 47–63.

Foster, I.D.L. and Lees, J.A., 1999: Changing headwater suspend-ed sediment yields in the LOIS catchments over the last cen-tury: a paleolimnological approach. Hydrological Processes,13: 1137–1153.

Foster, I.D.L., Millington, R. and Grew, R.G., 1992: The impactof particle size controls on stream turbidity measurement;some implications for suspended sediment yield estimation.IAHS Publication, 210: 51–62.

Fuller, I.C., Large, A.R.G., Charlton, M.E., Heritage, G.L. andMilan, D.J., 2003: Reach-scale sediment transfers: an evalu-ation of two morphological budgeting approaches. Earth Sur-face Processes and Landforms, 28: 889–903.

Gilbert, R., 1975: Sedimentation in Lillooet Lake, British Colum-bia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 12: 1697–1711.

Gilbert, R., 2003: Varves. In: Middleton, G.V. (ed.): Encyclope-dia of sedimentology and sedimentary rocks. Kluwer Aca-demic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 764–766.

Gippel, C.J., 1989: The use of turbidimeters in suspended sedi-ment research. Hydrobiologia, 176/177: 465–480.

Gippel, C.J., 1995: Potential of turbidity monitoring for measur-ing the transport of suspended solids in streams. HydrologicalProcesses, 9: 83–97.

Gomez, B., and Church, M., 1989: An assessment of bed load sed-iment transport formulae for gravel bed rivers. Water Re-sources Research, 25: 161–186.

Gordeev, V.V., 2006: Fluvial sediment flux to the Arctic Ocean.Geomorphology, 80: 94–104.

Gurnell, A.M. and Clark, M.J. (eds), 1987: Glacio-fluvial sedi-ment transfer: an alpine perspective. John Wiley and Sons.London: 524 p.

Gurnell, A.M. and Warburton, J., 1990: The significance of sus-pended sediment pulses for estimating suspended sediment



load and identifying suspended sediment sources in glacierbasins. In: Proceedings International Conference on WaterResources in Mountainous Regions, IAHS Publication 193:463–470.

Gurnell, A.M., Brown, G.H. and Tranter, M., 1994: Sampling strat-egy to describe the temporal hydrochemical characteristics ofan alpine proglacial stream. Hydrological Processes, 8: 1–25.

Gurnell, A.M., Clark, M.J., Hill, C.T. and Greenhalgh, J., 1992:Reliability and representativeness of a suspended sedimentconcentration monitoring program for a remote alpine progla-cial river. IAHS Publication 210: 191–200.

Gurnell, A.M., Warburton, J. and Clark, M.J., 1988: A compari-son of the sediment transport and yield characteristics of twoadjacent glacier basins, Val d’Herens, Switzerland. In: Sedi-ment Budgets (Proceedings Porto Alegre Symposium De-cember 1988) IAHS Publication 174: 431–441.

Gray, J.R. and Gartner, J.W., 2009: Technological advances insuspended-sediment surrogate monitoring. Water ResourcesResearch, 45: W00D29.

Hach, C.C., Vanous, R.D. and Heer, J.M., 1990: Understandingturbidity measurements. Technical Information Series –Booklet No. 11, first edition. Hach Company, Loveland,Colorado: United States of America.

Hallet, B., Hunter, L. and Bogen, J., 1996: Rates of erosion and sed-iment evacuation by glaciers: a review of field data and their im-plications. Global and Planetary Change, 12: 213–235.

Ham, D.G. and Church, M., 2000: Bed-material transport estimat-ed from channel morphodynamics: Chilliwack River, BritishColumbia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 25:1123–1142.

Hammer, K.M. and Smith, N.D., 1983: Sediment production andtransport in a proglacial stream: Hilda Glacier, Alberta, Can-ada. Boreas, 12: 91–106.

Harbor, J. and Warburton J., 1992: Glaciation and denudationrates. Nature, 356: 751.

Harbor, J. and Warburton, J., 1993: Relative rates of glacial andnon-glacial erosion processes in Alpine environments. Arcticand Alpine Research, 25: 1–7.

Hardy, D.R., 1996: Climatic influences on streamflow and sedi-ment flux into Lake C2, northern Ellesmere Island, Canada.Journal of Paleolimnology, 16: 133–149.

Hasholt, B., 1976: Hydrology and Transport of Material in theSermilik Area 1972. Geografisk Tidsskrift, 75: 30–39.

Hasholt, B., Bobrovitskaya, N., Bogen, J., McNamara, J.,Mernild, S.H., Milburn, D. and Walling, D.E., 2005: Sedimenttransport to the Arctic Ocean and adjoining cold oceans. 15thInternational Northern Research Basins Symposium andWorkshop Luleå to Kvikkjokk, Sweden: 41–67.

Heritage, G.L. and Hetherington, D., 2007: Towards a protocolfor laser scanning in fluvial geomorphology. Earth SurfaceProcesses and Landforms, 32: 66–74.

Heritage, G.L. and Large, A.R.G., (eds) 2009: Laser scanning forthe environmental sciences. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester:288p.

Hetherington, D., Heritage, G.L. and Milan, D., 2005: Daily finesediment dynamics on an active Alpine glacier outwash plain.In: Walling, D.E. and Horowitz, A.J. (eds): Sediment Budgets1, IAHS Publication 291: 278–284.

Hewitt, K., 2002: Introduction: landscape assemblages and tran-sitions in cold regions. In: Hewitt, K., Byrne, M-L., English,M. and Young, G. (eds): Landscapes of transition: Landformassemblages and transformations in cold regions. Kluwer Ac-ademic Publishers. London. 1–8.

Hewitt, K., Clague, J.J. and Orwin, J.F., 2008. Legacies of rockslope failures in mountain landscapes. Earth Science Reviews,87: 1–38.

Hicks, D.M., McSaveney, M.J. and Chinn, T.J.H., 1990: Sedimen-tation in proglacial Ivory Lake, Southern Alps, New Zealand.Arctic and Alpine Research, 22: 26–42.

Hodgkins, R., Cooper, R., Wadham, J. and Tranter, M., 2003:Suspended sediment fluxes in a high-Arctic glacierised catch-ment: implications for fluvial storage. Sedimentary Geology,162: 105–117.

Hoffman, T. and Schrott, L., 2002: Modelling sediment thicknessand rockwall retreat in an Alpine valley using 2D-seimic re-fraction (Reintal, Bavarian Alps). Zeitschift für Geomorphol-ogie, 127: 153–173.

Hunter, L.E., Powell, R.D. and Lawson, D.E., 1996: Flux of debristransported by ice at three Alaskan tidewater glaciers. Journalof Glaciology, 42: 123–135.

Jäckli, H., 1956: Gegenwartsgeologie des undnerischen Rheinge-bietes-ein Beitrag zur exogenen Dynamik alpiner Gebirgs-landschaften. Beitrgae zur Geologie der Schweiz. Geotechni-cal Series, 36.

Johnson, R.M., Warburton, J. and Mills, A.J., 2008: Hillslope-channel sediment transfer in a slope failure event: Wet SwineGill, Lake District, Northern England. Earth Surface Proc-esses and Landforms, 33: 394–413.

Kjeldsen, O. and Østrem, G., 1980: Materialtrans-portunder-sokelser i Norske Breelver 1979. Norges Vassdrags-ogElek-trisitetsvesen. Vassdragsdirektoratet Hydrologisk AvdelingRapport: 1–80.

Knight, P.G., Jennings, C.E., Waller, R.I. and Robinson, Z.P.,2007: Changes in ice-margin processes and sediment routingduring ice-sheet advance across a marginal moraine. Geo-grafiska Annaler, 89A: 203–215.

Knight, P.G., Waller, R.I., Patterson, C.J., Jones, A.P. and Robin-son, Z.P., 2002: Discharge of debris from ice at the margin ofthe Greenland ice sheet. Journal of Glaciology, 48: 192–198.

Korup, O., 2005: Large landslides and their effect on sedimentflux in South Westland, New Zealand. Earth Surface Proc-esses and Landforms, 30: 305–323.

Lamoureux, S.F., 1999: Spatial and interannual variations in sed-imentation patterns recorded in nonglacial varved sedimentsfrom the Canadian High Arctic. Journal of Paleolimnology,21: 73–84.

Lamoureux, S.F., 2000: Five centuries of interannual sedimentyield and rainfall-induced erosion in the Canadian High Arc-tic recorded in lacustrine varves. Water Resources Research,36: 309–318.

Lamoureux, S.F., 2002: Temporal patterns of suspended sedimentyield following moderate to extreme hydrological events re-corded in varved lacustrine sediments. Earth Surface Proc-esses and Landforms, 27: 1107–1124.

Lamoureux, S.F., 2005: A sediment accumulation sensor for usein lacustrine and marine sedimentation studies. Geomorphol-ogy, 68: 17–23.

Lamoureux, S.F. and Lafrenière, M.J., 2009: Fluvial impact of ex-tensive active layer detachments, Cape Bounty, Melville Island,Canada. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research, 41: 59–68.

Lamoureux, S.F., Stewart, K.A., Forbes, A.C. and Fortin, D.,2006: Multidecadal variations and decline in spring dischargein the Canadian middle Arctic since 1550 AD. Geophysical Re-search Letters, 33: L02403.

Lawler, D.M. and Brown, R.M., 1992: A simple and inexpensiveturbidity meter for the estimation of suspended sediment con-centrations. Hydrological Processes, 6: 159–168.

Lawler, D.M. and Wright, L.J. 1999: The impact of recent climatechange on river flow and glaciofluvial suspended sedimentloads in South Iceland. In: Brown, A.G. and Quine, T. (eds)Fluvial processes and environmental change, John Wiley,Chichester: 385–407.



Lawler, D.M., Dolan, M., Tomasson, H. and Zophoniasson, S.,1992: Temporal variability of suspended sediment flux froma subarctic glacial river, southern Iceland. In: Bogen, J., Wall-ing, D.E. and Day, T.J. (eds): Erosion and Sediment TransportMonitoring Programmes in River Basins, IAHS Publication210: 233–243.

Lenzi, M.A., 2004: Displacement and transport of marked pebbles,cobbles and boulders during floods in a steep mountainstream. Hydrological Processes, 18: 1899–1914.

Lenzi, M.A., Mao, L. and Comiti, F., 2003: Interannual variationof suspended sediment load and sediment yield in an alpinecatchment. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 48: 899–915.

Lewis, T., Gilbert, R. and Lamoureux, S.F., 2002: Spatial and tem-poral changes in sedimentary processes at proglacial BearLake, Devon Island, Nunavut. Arctic, Antarctic and AlpineResearch, 34: 119–129.

Martin, Y., 2003: Evaluation of bed load transport formulae usingfield evidence from the Vedder River, British Columbia. Geo-morphology, 53: 75–95.

Martin, Y. and Church, M., 1995: Bed-material transport estimat-ed from channel surveys: Vedder River, British Columbia.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 20: 347–361.

Martin, Y. and Church, M., 2000: Re-examination of Bagnold’sempirical bedload formulae. Earth Surface Processes andLandforms, 25: 1011–1024.

Mathews, W.H., 1964: Sediment transport from Athabasca Gla-cier, Alberta. IAHS, 65: 155–165.

Milan, D.J., Heritage, G.L. and Hetherington, D., 2007: Appli-cation of 3D laser scanner in the assessment of erosion anddeposition volumes and channel change in a proglacial river.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 32: 1657–1674.

Morche, D., Schmidt, K.H., Sahling, I., Herkommer, M. and Kut-schera, J., 2008: Volume changes of Alpine sediment storesin a state of post-event disequilibrium and the implications fordownstream hydrology and bed load transport. Norsk Geo-grafisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 62: 89–101.

Noren, A.J., Bierman, P.R., Steig, E.J., Lini, A. and Southon, J.,2002: Millennial-scale storminess variability in the northeast-ern United States during the Holocene epoch. Nature, 419:821–824.

Ojala, A.E.K. and Alenius, T., 2005: 10 000 years of interannualsedimentation recorded in the Lake Nautajärvi (Finland) clas-tic–organic varves. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology, 219: 285–302.

Old, G.H., Lawler, D.M. and Snorrason, Á., 2005: Discharge andsuspended sediment dynamics during two jökulhlaups in theSkaftá river, Iceland. Earth Surface Processes and Land-forms, 30: 1441–1460.

Orwin, J.F. and Smart, C.C., 2004a: Short-term spatial and tem-poral patterns of suspended sediment transfer in proglacialchannels, Small River Glacier, Canada. Hydrological Proc-esses, 18: 1521–1542.

Orwin, J.F. and Smart, C.C., 2004b: The evidence for paraglacialsedimentation and its temporal scale in the deglacierizing ba-sin of Small River Glacier, Canada. Geomorphology, 58:175–202.

Orwin, J.F. and Smart, C.C., 2005: An inexpensive turbidimeterfor monitoring suspended sediment. Geomorphology, 68: 3–15.

Orwin, J.F., Guggenmos M. and Holland, P.G., 2010: Changes insuspended sediment and solute yield ratios from an alpine ba-sin during the transition to winter, Southern Alps, New Zea-land. Geografiska Annaler, 92A (2): 247–261.

Østrem, G., Bridge, C.W. and Rannie, W.F., 1967: Glacio-hydrol-ogy, discharge and sediment transport in the Decade Glacier

area, Baffin Island, N.W.T. Geografiska Annaler, 49A: 268–282.

Owen, L.A., Derbyshire, E. and Scott, C.H. 2003: Contemporarysediment production and transfer in high-altitude glaciers.Sedimentary Geology, 155: 13–36.

Pearce, J.T., Pazzaglia, F.J., Evenson, E.B., Lawson, D.E., Alley,R.B., Germanoski, D. and Denner, J.D., 2003: Bedload com-ponent of glacially discharged sediment: Insights from theMatanuska Glacier, Alaska. Geology, 31: 7–10.

Pickrill, R.A. and Irwin, J., 1983: Sedimentation in a deep glacierfed lake – Lake Tekapo, New Zealand. Sedimentology, 30:63–75.

Rapp, A., 1960: Recent developments of mountain slopes inKärkevagge and surroundings, northern Scandinavia. Geo-grafiska Annaler, 42A: 71–200.

Reid, L.M. and Dunne, T., 1996: Rapid evaluation of sedimentbudgets. Catena Verlag GMBH, Reiskirchen, (GeoEcologyPaperback): 370p.

Retelle, M.J. and Child, J.K., 1996: Suspended sediment transportand deposition in a high Arctic meromictic lake. Journal ofPaleolimnology, 16: 151–167.

Rickenmann, D. and McArdell, B.W., 2007: Continuous measure-ment of sediment transport in the Erlenbach stream using pi-ezoelectric bedload impact sensors. Earth Surface Processesand Landforms, 32: 1362-1378.

Ridefelt, H., Boelhouwers, J. and Eiken, T. 2009: Measurement ofsolifluction rates using multi-temporal aerial photography.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 34: 725–737.

Rumsby, B.T., Brasington, J., Langham, J.A., McLelland, S.J.,Middleton, R. and Rollinson, G., 2008: Monitoring and mod-elling particle and reach-scale morphological change in grav-el-bed rivers: Applications and challenges. Geomorphology,93: 40–54.

Schiefer, E. and Gilbert, R., 2007: Proglacial sediment trapping inrecently formed Silt Lake, upper Lillooet Valley, CoastMountains, British Columbia. Earth Surface Processes andLandforms, 33: 1542–1556.

Schiefer, E., Menounos, B. and Slaymaker, O., 2006: Extremesediment delivery events recorded in the contemporary sedi-ment record of a montane lake, southern Coast Mountains,British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 43:1777–1790.

Schrott, L. and Sass, O., 2008: Application of field geophysics ingeomorphology: advances and limitations exemplified bycase studies. Geomorphology, 93: 55–73.

Schrott, L., Hufschmidt, G., Hankammer, M., Hoffman, T. andDikau, R., 2003: Spatial distribution of sediment storage typesand quantification of valley fill deposits in an alpine basin, Re-intal, Bavarian Alps, Germany. Geomorphology, 55: 45–63.

Slaymaker, O., 2008: Sediment budget and sediment flux studiesunder accelerating global change in cold environments.Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, 52: 123–148.

Small, R.J., Beecroft, I.R. and Stirling, D.M., 1984: Rates of depo-sition on lateral moraine embankments. Glacier de TsidjioreNouve, Valais, Switzerland. Journal of Glaciology, 30: 275–281.

Smart, C.C., 1992: Temperature compensation of electrical con-ductivity in glacial meltwaters. Journal of Glaciology, 38: 9–12.

Smith, N.D., 1978: Sedimentation processes and patterns in a gla-cier-fed lake with low sediment input. Canadian Journal ofEarth Sciences, 15: 741–756.

Smith, N.D. and Ashley, G.M., 1985: Proglacial lacustrine envi-ronment. In: Ashley, G.M., Shaw, J. and Smith, N.D. (eds):Glacial sedimentary environments, Society of EconomicPaleontologists and Mineralogists Short Course, Tulsa: 16 p.



Sterling, S.M. and Church, M., 2002: Sediment trapping charac-teristics of a pit trap and the Helley-Smith sampler in a cobblegravel bed river. Water Resources Research, 38: 19.1–19.11.

Stott, T. and Mount, N., 2007: Alpine proglacial suspended sedi-ment dynamics in warm and cool ablation seasons: implicationsfor global warming. Journal of Hydrology, 332: 259–270.

Sturm, M., 1979: Origin and composition of clastic varves. In:Scluchter, C. (ed.), Moraines and varves, origin/genesis/clas-sification. Rotterdam (NED): A.A. Balkema: 291–285.

Syvitski, J.P., Morehead, M.D. and Nicholson, M., 1998: HY-DROTREND: a climate-driven hydrologic- transport modelfor predicting discharge and sediment load to lakes or oceans.Computers and Geosciences, 24: 51–68.

Vanous, R.D., Larson, P.E. and Hach, C.C., 1982: The theory andmeasurement of turbidity and residue. In: Minear, R.A. andKeith, L.H. (eds): Water analysis, Volume 1, Academic Press:163–234.

Wadham, J.L., Hodson, A.J., Tranter, M. and Dowdeswell, J.A.,1998: The hydrochemistry of meltwaters draining a polyther-mal-based, high Arctic glacier, south Svalbard: I. The ablationseason. Hydrological Processes, 12: 1825–1849.

Warburton, J., 1990a: An Alpine proglacial fluvial sedimentbudget. Geografiska Annaler, 72A: 261–272.

Warburton, J., 1990b: Comparison of bed load yield estimates fora glacial meltwater stream. In: Proceedings InternationalConference on Water Resources in Mountainous Regions,IAHS Publication 193: 315–322.

Warburton, J., 1992: Observations of bed load transport and chan-nel bed changes in a proglacial mountain stream. Arctic andAlpine Research, 24: 195–203.

Warburton, J., 1994: Channel change in relation to meltwaterflooding, Bas Glacier d’Arolla, Switzerland. Geomorpholo-gy, 11: 141–149.

Warburton, J., 1999: Environmental change and sediment yield

from glacierized basins: the role of fluvial processes and sed-iment storage. In: Brown, A.G. and Quinne, T. (eds): Fluvialprocesses and environmental change. Wiley, Chichester:363–384.

Warburton, J., 2007: Sediment budgets and rates of sedimenttransfer across cold environments in Europe: a commentary.Geografiska Annaler, 89A: 95–100.

Warburton, J. and Beecroft, I., 1993: Use of meltwater stream ma-terial loads in the estimation of glacial erosion rates.Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, 37: 19–28.

Warburton, J., Beylich, A.A., Etienne, S., Etzelmüller, B., Gor-deev, V.V., Käyhkö, J., Rachold, V., Russell, A.J., Schmidt, K.-H., Sæmundsson, °. and Tweed, F.S., 2007: Editorial sedi-ment budgets and rates of sediment transfer across cold envi-ronments in Europe: introduction and background to the Eu-ropean Science Foundation (ESF) Network -SedimentarySource-to-Sink-Fluxes in Cold Environments- (SEDIFLUX).Geografiska Annaler, 89A: 1–3.

Weirich, F., 1986: The record of density induced underflows in aglacial lake. Sedimentology, 33: 261–277.

Westaway, R.M., Lane, S.N. and Hicks, D.M., 2003: Remote sur-vey of large-scale braided, gravel-bed rivers using digital pho-togrammetry and image analysis. International Journal of Re-mote Sensing, 24: 795–815.

Zeitzschel, B., Diekmann, P. and Uhlmann, L., 1978: A new mul-tisample sediment trap, Marine Biology, 45: 285–288.

Zolitschka, B., 1998: A 14,000 year sediment yield record fromwestern Germany based on annually laminated lake sedi-ments. Geomorphology, 22: 1–17.

Manuscript received May 2009 revised and accepted Nov. 2009.

A FRAMEWORK FOR CHARACTERIZING FLUVIAL SEDIMENT FLUXES FROM SOURCE TO SINK IN COLD ENVIRONMENTS

Documents

Transcript of A FRAMEWORK FOR CHARACTERIZING FLUVIAL SEDIMENT FLUXES FROM SOURCE TO SINK IN COLD ENVIRONMENTS