USGS - science for a changing world

South Florida Information Access (SOFIA)


publications > paper > groundwater control of mangrove surface elevation: shrink and swell varies with soil depth > results

Results

Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
>Results
Discussion
Acknowledgments
Literature Cited
Figures, Tables & Equations
PDF Version
SITE HYDROLOGY

Both seasonal and monthly lunar influences were important for the hydrological conditions at the site (Fig. 2). The highest monthly mean stages at Shark River were in September and October (-0.23 and -0.19 m, respectively), typical for this drainage. The high river stage was a result of the maximum discharge of accumulated water from the wet season (June-September, Fig. 2). Groundwater piezometric head pressure was also high during September and October (0.06 and 0.12 m, respectively) due to hydrological recharge from the wet season. Daily river stage was a reflection of monthly lunar tidal flooding, wet season river discharge, and annual sea level variability (thermal expansion, Provost 1973).

There was moderate correlation between the two hydrological metrics used in the multiple regression with an r = 0.72 for Shark River stage to groundwater piezometric head pressure. Tolerance values were above 0.547 and variance inflation factors were less than 1.829, suggesting that despite some correlation between predictor variables, collinearity was not a serious issue for these data (Neter et al. 1996; Quinn and Keough 2002).

ACCRETION

The feldspar marker horizons did not become completely covered until 172 d after installation (September 10, 2002). The marker horizons were covered with mineral, organic, and root matter. The annual accretion rate was 6.64 ± 0.56 mm yr-1 (±1 SE). Sediment deposition values were intermittent in nature with high rates in October 2002 and March 2003 (Fig. 3). Slight erosion was evident during the November to December 2002 period (-1.8 mm) and the December 2002 to January 2003 (-0.8 mm) sampling.

SOIL ELEVATION

Changes in absolute soil surface elevation for both the deep-RSETs and original-SETs followed a similar pattern (Fig. 3). Both devices recorded the highest mean soil elevations at the end of the wet season (8.89 mm on October 10, 2002, for the original-SET and 15.14 mm on November 9, 2002, for the deep-RSET) and the lowest mean elevations during the dry season (January 9, 2003; -2.24 and -0.06 mm, respectively). The shallow-RSETs had a distinctly different pattern of soil surface elevation, with the highest elevation at the end of the wet season (6.83 mm on November 9, 2002) and the lowest early in the wet season (-0.66 mm on June 3, 2002, Fig. 3).

graphs showing mean absolute soil surface elevation for accretion, shallow-rod surface elevation table, original design surface elevation table, and deep-rod surface elevation table graphs showing mean rate of change for the 3 shallow-rod surface elevation table and the rate of change in river stage, 3 original design surface elevation tables and rate of change in groundwater piezometric head, and 3 deep-rod surface elevation tables and rate of change in groundwater piezometric head graphs showing mean absolute change in thickness of the entire profile, shallow zone, middle zone, and bottom zone
Fig. 3. (left) Mean absolute soil surface elevation (±1 SD) for accretion, shallow-RSET, original-SET, and deep-RSET. [larger image] Fig. 4. (middle) Mean (±1 SD) rate of change for the three shallow-RSETs and the rate of change in river stage, three original-SETs and rate of change in groundwater piezometric head, and three deep-RSETs and rate of change in groundwater piezometric head. [larger image] Fig. 5. (right) Mean (±1 SD) absolute change in thickness of the entire profile, shallow zone, middle zone, and bottom zone. [larger image]

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOIL ELEVATION AND HYDROLOGY

The daily rate of soil elevation change of the shallow-RSET was partially explained (Adjusted R2 = 0.16) by a negative relationship with the DRC of the river stage at the site (Table 2). That is, as river stage increased, the soil elevation that was influenced by the shallow soil zone decreased (Fig. 4). The rate of soil elevation change of the original-SET was positively related with the DRC of the groundwater head pressure (Adjusted R2 = 0.61; Fig. 4, Table 2). This model was run with a reduced data set (n = 28) due to a one time sampling error of original-SET number 2. The DRC of soil elevation for the deep-RSET had a strong positive relationship to the DRC of the groundwater head pressure (Adjusted R2 = 0.90; Fig. 4, Table 2). When groundwater head pressure increased the soil elevation increased for both the original-SET and the deep-RSET.

TABLE 2. Regression equations and statistical results for daily rate of change (DRC) of surface elevation and DRC of best fit hydrological parameters for the three SET types used in this study.
Y (dependent variable) m (slope) X (independent variable) b (intercept) F df Adjusted R2 n p
DRC shallow-RSET -0.012 DRC river stage 0.08 3.69 2,27 0.16 30 0.0383
DRC original-SET 0.040 DRC groundwater head pressure -0.068 42.35 1,26 0.61 28 0.0001
DRC deep-RSET 0.074 DRC groundwater head pressure -0.067 259.7 1,28 0.90 30 0.0001

CONTRIBUTION OF EACH ZONE TO EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION OF THE ENTIRE PROFILE

We calculated the variation in thickness of each of the four constituent soil zones (Eq. 2) and the entire soil profile. We determined how much each of these soil zones contributed to absolute change of the entire profile by using a stepwise multiple regression model in which absolute change in the thickness of the entire profile was the dependent variable and the absolute changes in thickness for each soil zone were independent variables.

The contribution of each soil zone was not equivalent to the relative proportion of soil profile it comprised (Fig. 5). The bottom zone (4-6 m) accounted for 63% of the variation in the absolute change in thickness of the complete profile whereas the middle zone (0.35-4 m) accounted for only 22% (Fig. 5, Table 3). The bottom zone comprises only 31% of the entire profile whereas the middle zone comprises 63%. Accretion and the shallow zone were not significant contributors to the overall absolute change in thickness of the entire profile (Table 3).

TABLE 3. Linear regression equations and statistical results for the absolute change in thickness of entire profile and the absolute change of each of the constituent components. Stepwise regression with p < 0.01 to enter and p < 0.9 to exit model. Overall model R2 = 0.85. ns = not significant.
Y (dependent variable) m (slope) X (independent variable) b (intercept) t p Proportion of R2 Proportion of soil profile
Change in thickness of entire profile 1.74     2.349 0.025    
    Middle zone 0.812 6.843 0.0001 0.22 0.63
    Bottom zone 1.197 13.340 0.0001 0.63 0.31
    Surface (accretion)     ns   <0.01
    Shallow zone     ns   0.06

< Materials & Methods | Discussion >



| Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | Accessibility |

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
This page is: http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/papers/mang_surf_elev/results.html
Comments and suggestions? Contact: Heather Henkel - Webmaster
Last updated: 04 September, 2013 @ 02:04 PM(KP)