Impact of historic land‐use change on sediment delivery to a Chesapeake Bay subestuarine delta

Historic land use in the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin induced large fluxes of fluvial sediment to subestuarine tributaries. Stratigraphic and palaeoecologic analyses of deltaic deposits may be used to infer changes on the landscape, but are not sufficient to quantify past sediment supply. When viewed as an inverse boundary-value problem, reconstruction of the sediment supply function may be achieved by combining deltaic sedimentation chronologies with an equation governing delta progradation. We propose that the diffusion equation is appropriate for simulating delta progradation and obtaining the sediment supply function provided a suitable diffusion constant (D) can be determined. Three new methods for estimating D are presented for the case of estuarine deltas. When the inverse boundary-value technique was applied to Otter Point Creek, a tidal freshwater delta at the head of Bush River in upper Chesapeake Bay, D values ranged from 3763 to 6199 m2 a−1. Delta growth simulations showed a 1740–1760 initial pulse, a 1760–1780 erosive/redistributive interval, a 1780–1920 growth period, and a 1920-present erosive/redistributive era. Coupling of simulated delta elevations with an empirical plant habitat predictive equation allowed for comparison of predicted versus actual relative habitat areas. Also, the model yielded reconstructed watershed erosion rates and stream suspended sediment concentrations that could be useful for development of water quality regulations. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  G. Brush,et al.  The Natural Forests of Maryland: An Explanation of the Vegetation Map of Maryland , 1980 .

[2]  V. T. Parker,et al.  RELATIONSHIPS OF SEED BANKS TO PLANT DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN A FRESHWATER TIDAL WETLAND , 1985 .

[3]  David R. Montgomery,et al.  A process-based model for colluvial soil depth and shallow landsliding using digital elevation data , 1995 .

[4]  Jan C. Rivenæs.  Application of a dual‐lithology, depth‐dependent diffusion equation in stratigraphic simulation , 1992 .

[5]  W. Dietrich,et al.  The soil production function and landscape equilibrium , 1997, Nature.

[6]  R. Simpson,et al.  Tidal freshwater wetland zonation: seed and seedling dynamics , 1994 .

[7]  C. Paola,et al.  The large scale dynamics of grain-size variation in alluvial basins , 1992 .

[8]  D. L. Turcotte,et al.  Morphology of a delta prograding by bulk sediment transport , 1985 .

[9]  Jack W. Pierce,et al.  Flux of particulate matter in the tidal marshes and subtidal shallows of the Rhode River estuary , 1986 .

[10]  G. Brush,et al.  Nutrient and metal accumulation in a freshwater tidal marsh , 1994 .

[11]  Robert S. Anderson,et al.  Hillslope and channel evolution in a marine terraced landscape , 1994 .

[12]  R. Simpson,et al.  SEED BANK OF A FRESHWATER TIDAL WETLAND: TURNOVER AND RELATIONSHIP TO VEGETATION CHANGE , 1987 .

[13]  F. Davis.  Historical Changes in Submerged Macrophyte Communities of Upper Chesapeake Bay , 1985 .

[14]  Peter B. Flemings,et al.  A synthetic stratigraphic model of foreland basin development , 1989 .

[15]  Z. Begin.  Application of a diffusion‐erosion model to alluvial channels which degrade due to base‐level lowering , 1988 .

[16]  Robert B. Jacobson,et al.  Stratigraphy and Recent evolution of Maryland Piedmont flood plains , 1986 .

[17]  G. Brush.  Patterns of recent sediment accumulation in Chesapeake Bay (Virginia—Maryland, U.S.A.) tributaries , 1984 .

[18]  I. Saunders,et al.  Rates of surface processes on slopes, slope retreat and denudation , 1983 .

[19]  G. Brush,et al.  Sedimentation cycles in a river-mouth tidal freshwater marsh , 1998 .

[20]  W. Marcus,et al.  Upland and Coastal Sediment Sources in a Chesapeake Bay Estuary , 1991 .

[21]  Robert E. Wallace,et al.  Modification of wave-cut and faulting-controlled landforms , 1984 .

[22]  Grace S. Brush,et al.  Rates and patterns of estuarine sediment accumulation , 1989 .

[23]  M. Kirkby,et al.  Hillslope Form and Process , 1972 .

[24]  L. C. Gottschalk,et al.  Effects of Soil Erosion on Navigation in Upper Chesapeake Bay , 1945 .

[25]  M. Church,et al.  Diffusion in Landscape Development Models: On The Nature of Basic Transport Relations , 1997 .

[26]  D. Nash,et al.  Forms of bluffs degraded for different lengths of time in emmet county, Michigan, U.S.A. , 1980 .

[27]  S. Colman,et al.  Ages Estimated from a Diffusion Equation Model for Scarp Degradation , 1983, Science.

[28]  R. DeFries,et al.  Comparisons of 210Pb and Pollen Methods for Determining Rates of Estuarine Sediment Accumulation , 1982, Quaternary Research.

[29]  S. Schumm,et al.  Development of longitudinal profiles of alluvial channels in response to base‐level lowering , 1981 .

[30]  H. Fischer.  Mixing in Inland and Coastal Waters , 1979 .

[31]  D. J. Andrews,et al.  Fitting degradation of shoreline scarps by a nonlinear diffusion model , 1987 .