See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312660788

Fluvial Environments

Chapter · January 2016

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12127-7_129-1

CITATIONS READS

0 2,713

1 author:

James Evans
Bowling Green State University
65 PUBLICATIONS   669 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Synthesizing physical and ecological responses to dam removal View project

Historical changes in rivers in northern Ohio View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James Evans on 26 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

F

Fluvial Environments other words, a large feature such as a bar has a history of
multiple erosional and depositional events. Thus, the only
James E. Evans way to correctly interpret fluvial geomorphic features is
Department of Geology, Bowling Green State University, through sedimentological analysis. Similarly, the deposits
Bowling Green, OH, USA (sedimentary facies) can only be understood by reference to
features they form, for example, cross-bedded sands form
from the downstream propagation of dunes. The trend today
Definition is to regard fluvial environments as entities constructed from a
number of 3-D elements, where each architectural element
Sedimentary environments are places on the earth’s surface (or morpho-stratigraphic unit) consists of a suite of related
characterized by distinctive physical, chemical, and biologi- morphological features and sedimentary facies, separated
cal processes. Fluvial environments are one type of sedimen- from adjacent architectural elements by bounding surfaces
tary environment, describing where fluvial landforms (Miall 1996).
(geomorphology) and fluvial deposits (facies) are created, Fluvial environments are strongly affected by neighboring
modified, destroyed, and/or preserved through the erosion, sedimentary environments, particularly colluvial (hillslope)
transport, and deposition of sediment. Modes of fluvial sedi- environments, which introduce sediment into fluvial environ-
ment transport include bedload, suspended load, and ments by various processes including rock fall, debris ava-
dissolved load, and rivers are typically classified as bedload, lanches, slumps, debris flows, and sheet (unconfined) flows.
mixed-load, or suspended load rivers based on the predomi- In mountain environments, fluvial features such as rapids and
nance of these modes. Dissolved load transport will not be bars are typically located proximal to sediment source areas,
discussed further in this section because it has a greater which are debris fans fed by colluvial processes. In dryland
importance for water quality than for fluvial geomorphology areas, ephemeral stream features are typically sourced by
and facies, with the exception of the importance of saline debris flows and sheet flows. Other important adjacent envi-
dissolved constituents in creating features and deposits in ronments could include volcanic environments, glacial envi-
dryland environments. Most rivers also transport particulate ronments, eolian environments, lacustrine environments, and
and dissolved organic matter, and large woody debris (LWD) deltaic environments. Each of these could serve as major
can be a major factor creating features and deposits in rivers, sediment sources or sediment sinks for fluvial environments.
such as fluvial bars downstream of logjams. In some cases, such as natural lakes or dam-reservoir systems,
lacustrine and deltaic environments might interrupt the con-
tinuity of a through-going fluvial system. The processes
Introduction governing these sedimentary environments could have a
major impact on the fluvial system, for example, wave
Studies of fluvial environments are sometimes split between resuspension of sediment deposited in reservoirs could sig-
fluvial geomorphology and fluvial sedimentology, but this nificantly augment downstream suspended sediment loads.
distinction is artificial and should be avoided. Most observ- Human impacts on fluvial environments are complex, and
able features in streams (except small features such as ripple few fluvial environments can be understood without reference
marks) formed under one set of flow conditions and were to historical changes in rivers due to human activity such as
subsequently modified under different flow conditions; in land clearance for agriculture, mining, or urbanization.

# Springer International Publishing AG 2016

P.T. Bobrowsky, B. Marker (eds.), Encyclopedia of Engineering Geology,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-12127-7_129-1
2 Fluvial Environments

straight

meandering

anastomosing

bar surfaces covered

during flood stages
braided

Fluvial Environments, Fig. 1 Types of channels based on platform geometry and sinuosity (Miall 1977)

A useful approach is to consider human impacts on sediment tributary inflows), bed and bank materials, or channel pattern.
budgets, such that: The four recognized channel patterns are shown in Fig. 1.
Straight channels are relatively rare and more typical of high-
Sediment Inputs ¼ Sediment Outputs energy, gravel-rich rivers or bedrock-confined rivers. Anasto-
þ D Sediment Storage mosed channels may represent initial stages in avulsions, as
described below.
For example, there is widespread agreement that agricultural Meandering channels have a sinuous pathway with
land clearance increases sediment inputs due to soil erosion cutbanks and pools at the outer part of bends, point bars on
from farm fields. Typically this increases both sediment out- the inner part of bends, and riffles across the channel between
puts (bedload and suspended load) and sediment storage sequential bends (Fig. 2). Lateral channel migration (erosion
(aggradation of the fluvial system after exceeding conveyance on the outer bend and deposition on the point bar) occurs
capacity). The latter deposits are often referred to as anthro- episodically due to cutbank failure, typically on the falling
pogenic or legacy sediments (James 2013). For any river, stage. In the geologic record, these shifts in channel position
reconstructing the causes of legacy sediment accumulation produce lateral accretion surfaces (low-angle surfaces indi-
could provide key insights for river management and restora- cating sequential position of the point bar) in cross section
tion (e.g., Webb-Sullivan and Evans 2015). and scroll bar topography in plain view (Fig. 2). At any
location, point bar migration produces an overall fining-
upward sequence as coarse-grained pool deposits are sequen-
Morphologic Features tially overlain by medium-grained sandy dune deposits in the
lower point bar, fine-grained sandy ripples in the upper point
Fluvial environments are typically divided into channels (the bar, and finally silty-clay deposits from the floodplain. Chan-
location for both bedload and suspended load transport) and nels might also shift position by chute cut-offs (reoccupation
floodplains (typically dominated by suspended load trans- of swales in the scroll bar), by neck cut-offs (where loops of
port). Each of these can be subsequently divided into proxi- adjacent channels intersect), or by channel avulsions (where
mal and distal sub-environments. Proximal channel levee breach and sequential growth of a crevasse splay result
environments include main stem and tributary channels, in relocation of the channel). Oxbow lakes are abandoned
pools, riffles, channel bedforms (ripples, dunes, and bars), portions of the channel resulting from neck cut-offs and
and features on channel banks. Distal channel environments display an infilling history where channel substrates are over-
include chute channels, scroll bars, levees, crevasse splays, lain by suspended-load sediment from introduced flood
and oxbows and outwash plains (sandurs) in glacio-fluvial waters, interspersed with (and eventually replaced by) lacus-
environments. Proximal floodplain environments include trine gyttjas and peat.
floodplains, floodplain channels, flood-basin lakes, and wet- Braided streams are often divided into sandy braided
lands. Distal floodplain environments are transitional to streams (primarily sand dunes) and gravel braided streams
non-floodplain environments or may include infrequently (primarily gravel bars with some sand dunes). Classification
inundated terrace surfaces. of fluvial dunes and bars is mostly based upon long-axis
Channels are commonly subdivided into length segments orientation of the feature with respect to flow direction, for
called reaches defined by changes in discharge (such as example, longitudinal bars are oriented long-axis parallel to
Fluvial Environments 3

Fluvial Environments, SWAMP POINT BAR

Fig. 2 Sub-environments of a
meandering stream showing
morphostratigraphic units (Walker LEVEE
and Cant 1979; Horne et al. 1978)

SCALES
30 100
SANDSTONE

SILTSTONE AND SHALE

METERS FEET 50
PEBBLE LAG
COAL
ROOTING
TROUGH CROSS-BEDS 0 300 0 500 1000
BEDDING PLANES METERS FEET

Fluvial Environments,
Fig. 3 Unit bars and compound
bars in multiple-channel streams
(Bridge 2003)

flow, while transverse bars are oriented long-axis perpendic- bar-platform, bar-margin, bar-tail, and supra-bar platform
ular to flow (Ashley et al. 1990). However, large fluvial settings. Typically, bar-head deposits often contain imbricated
features commonly have complex histories where they gravels, bar platform deposits consist of crudely stratified
formed in one hydrologic event and were subsequently mod- gravels, and avalanche-face deposits at the bar margin or bar
ified. A useful approach (Fig. 3) is recognizing unit bars tail produce cross-bedded gravels (Bluck 1979).
which formed under certain flow conditions versus compound
bars where one or several unit bars amalgamated within the
channel or attached to the channel banks (Bridge 2003). Facies Analysis
Internally, sand dunes consist of cross-bedded sands
reflecting downstream migration of the avalanche face of Facies are the basic building blocks of any sedimentary
the dune. Gravel bars can be organized into bar-head, deposit and are both descriptive and genetic, for example,
4 Fluvial Environments

Fluvial Environments, Table 1 Common fluvial lithofacies

Code Lithology Textures Sedimentary structures Interpretation
Gms Gravel Coarse to fine grained, poorly Massive Debris flow deposit
sorted
Gm Gravel Coarse to fine grained, Massive Bar platform deposit
moderately sorted
Gh Gravel Coarse to fine grained, Planar bedded Bar platform deposit
moderately sorted
Gt Gravel Coarse to fine grained, Trough cross-bedded Supra-bar platform minor channel fills
moderately sorted
Gp Gravel Coarse to fine grained, Planar-tabular cross- Linguoid bars or bar-margin avalanche face
moderately sorted bedded (small bar-pool deltas)
Sm Sand Coarse to fine grained, Massive, destratified Rapid deposition, or homogenized by roots
moderately sorted
Sh Sand v.cos. to med. grained, Planar bedded Upper/lower flow regime plane bed
moderately sorted
Sl Sand Coarse to fine grained, Low-angle (<100) cross- Scour fills, crevasse splays, antidunes
moderately sorted bedded
St Sand v.cos. to med. grained, Trough cross-bedded 3-D dunes (lower flow regime)
moderately sorted
Sp Sand v.cos. to med. grained, Planar-tabular cross- 2-D dunes (lower flow regime)
moderately sorted bedded
Sr Sand cos. to v. fine grained, Ripple marks or ripple Ripples (lower flow regime)
moderately sorted laminated
Se Sand v.cos. to fine grained, moderately Erosional scours with mud Scours and scour fills
sorted intraclasts
Ss Sand v.cos. to fine grained, moderately Shallow scours Scours and scour fills
sorted
Fl Sand, silt, mud Range of fine sizes, typically Planar lamination, flood Overbank or waning flow deposits
well sorted couplets
Fsc Silt, mud Range of fine sizes, typically Laminated to massive Backswamp deposits
well sorted
Fcf Mud Range of fine sizes, typically Massive with freshwater Backswamp pond deposits
well sorted molluscs
Fm Silt, mud Range of fine sizes, typically Massive, destratified, Overbank or drape deposits, soils
well sorted desiccation cracks
Fr Silt, mud Range of fine sizes, typically Massive, with rootlets Mineral soils (various types)
well sorted
C Carbonaceous mud, Mixture of fine-grained Peats, leaf litter layers Organic soils (incl. histosols)
peat/coal sediment/organic matter
P Pedogenic Soil hosted in sand/mud Carbonate nodules or Calcisols
carbonate rhizoliths
Source: Modified from Miall (1977)

trough cross-bedded sands are interpreted as the deposits of using properties of both living organisms (ecosystem struc-
3-D sand dunes. For fluvial environments, the most common ture) and dead organic materials (such as wood loads).
form of facies analysis designates lithofacies (based on the Lithofacies analysis of a particular river system would start
physical characteristics of the geologic material) as shown in with establishing a lithofacies classification system similar to
Table 1 (e.g., Miall 1977). However, there are alternative Table 1. This classification system is then used to describe
approaches, such as designating radar facies analysis using vertical and lateral trends observed in surficial deposits,
a ground-penetrating radar (e.g., Hickin et al. 2009), seismic trenches, or cores. As shown in Fig. 4, use of lithofacies
facies analysis using environmental seismic methods (e.g., codes helps organize observations and appreciably speeds
Grimm et al. 2013), and pedofacies analysis using properties up the description process. Surfaces, which are transitions
of soils (e.g., Wright and Marriott 1996). Although not fully between adjacent lithofacies, are particularly important
developed, there is also the potential of biofacies analysis, because these might represent time gaps (unconformities)
Fluvial Environments 5

Fluvial Environments, the related fluvial processes that produced any specific asso-
Fig. 4 Example of facies analysis ciation of lithofacies.
of braided stream deposits (Miall
1977)

Architectural Element Analysis

Architectural element analysis is reviewed by Miall (1985).

Each architectural element is a three-dimensional facies asso-
ciation separated from adjacent architectural elements by
bounding surfaces (surfaces of erosion or nondeposition).
The most common architectural elements are shown in
Table 2. In scale, each architectural element can be up to
meters thick and hundreds of meters in lateral dimensions,
and understanding their full extent and contact relations
requires exceptional exposures or correlating numerous
trenches and cores (Fig. 5). Other important aspects of the
internal fabric of an architectural element include the vertical
sequences, presence or absence of minor erosion surfaces,
orientation of features, paleoflow directions, and relationship
of internal bedding features to the enclosing bounding sur-
faces (which are described using terminology such as onlap,
downlap, parallel orientation, or truncation).
Architectural elements will exhibit a hierarchy based upon
the rank of the bounding surfaces. Relatively minor changes
between sequential elements would be indicative of a first-
order bounding surface, such as the transition from one cross-
bed set to another, indicating changes in transport energy or
flow direction between hydrologic events. A more significant
change would be represented by second-order bounding
surfaces (which truncate all first-order bounding surfaces),
such as sequential positions of lateral accretion surfaces. The
bounding surface ranking system continues to increase in
number, representing larger-scale combinations of features
and deposits, with each higher rank cross-cutting all lower
rank surfaces, until finally reaching the scale of the largest
element, such as the valley or paleo-valley.
due to erosion (such as scours) or due to nondeposition (such The analysis of a fluvial system, using architectural ele-
as weathered surfaces, soils, or paleosols). ment analysis, would reveal lateral changes in the type, scale,
The next steps in facies analysis look for which facies are and orientation of three-dimensional fluvial features and their
commonly found adjacent to one another vertically or later- related deposits and also vertical changes indicative of the
ally. Such facies associations represent key components in the evolution of the fluvial system through time. Such an analysis
depositional environment, for example, certain lithofacies provides a solid understanding to base interpretations about
would be commonly found in the downstream migration of controlling factors acting on the fluvial system. These might
a gravel bar. Statistical techniques can be used to improve the include the effects of tectonics (uplift and subsidence),
robustness of these binning efforts. Repetitive vertical suc- changes in sea level position (baselevel), changes in sediment
cessions, or facies sequences, can be interpreted as the evo- supply, changes in climate, or historical changes due to
lution (through time) of certain features and deposits, such as human impacts (Horn et al. 2012). Predictive models have
the fining-upward point bar sequence (Fig. 4). Statistical been constructed to determine the variations in channel types
methods, such as Markov chains, can improve these interpre- and stacking patterns (single-story channels or multistory
tations. Facies associations do not cross major unconformity channels) and sand-body connectivity under a range of dif-
surfaces because those time gaps interrupt the continuity of ferent combinations of controlling factors (Bridge and
Mackey 1993).
6 Fluvial Environments

Fluvial Environments, Table 2 Lithofacies composition and geometry of architectural elements

Element Symbol Principal facies assemblage Geometry and relationships
Channels CH Any combination Finger, lens or sheet; concave-up erosional base; scale and shape highly variable;
internal concave-up third-order erosion surfaces common
Gravel bars and GB Gm, Gp, Gt Lens, blanket; usually tabular bodies; commonly interbedded with SB
bedforms
Sandy bedforms SB St, Sp, Sh, Sl, Sr, Se, Ss Lens, sheet, blanket, wedge, occurs as channel fills, crevasse splays, minor bars
Upstream- UA St, Sp, Sh, Sl, Sr, Se, Ss Lens, resting on bar remnant or LA/DA deposit. Accretion surfaces dipping
accretion gently upstream
macroform
Downstream- DA St, Sp, Sh, Sl, Sr, Se, Ss Lens resting on flat or channeled base, with convex-up third-order internal
accretion erosion surfaces and upper fourth-order bounding surface. Accretion surfaces
macroform oriented downstream
Lateral-accretion LA St, Sp, Sh, Sl, Se, Ss – less Wedge, sheet, lobe; characterized by internal lateral-accretion third-order
macroform commonly Gm, Gt, Gp surfaces. Accretion surfaces oriented across channel. Typically downlaps onto flat
basal erosion surface
Scour hollows HO Gh, Gt, St, Sl Scoop-shaped hollow with asymmetric fill
Sediment gravity SG Gmm, Gmg, Gci, Gcm Lobe, sheet, typically interbedded with GB
flows
Laminated sand LS Sh, Sl – minor Sp, Sr Sheet, blanket
sheet
Source: modified from Miall (1996)

Fluvial Environments,
Fig. 5 Architectural element
analysis (Miall 1985)
Fluvial Environments 7

Summary and Conclusions RD, Lancaster N, Middleton GV, Paola C, Rubin DM, Smith JD,
Southard JB, Terwindt JHJ, Twitchell DC (1990) Classification of
large-scale subaqueous bedforms: a new look at an old problem.
Fluvial environments have been widely studied, but unfortu- J Sediment Petrol 60:160–172
nately the literature is highly and artificially compartmental- Bluck BJ (1979) Structure of coarse-grained braided stream alluvium.
ized, such as making a strong distinction between features Trans R Soc Edinb 70:181–221
(fluvial geomorphology) and deposits (fluvial sedimentol- Bridge JS (2003) Rivers and floodplains: forms, processes, and sedimen-
tary record. Blackwell, Oxford, 491 p
ogy). A more recent approach is to recognize that fluvial Bridge JS, Mackey SD (1993) A revised alluvial stratigraphy model. In:
environments are constructed from distinctive combinations Marzo M, Puigdefabregas C (eds) Alluvial sedimentation,
of genetically related features and deposits (architectural vol 17, Internat Assoc Sedimentol Special Publ., pp 319–336
elements) separated laterally and vertically from adjacent Grimm RP, Eriksson K, Carbaugh J (2013) Tectono-sedimentary evolu-
tion of Early Pennsylvanian alluvial systems at the onset of the
architectural elements by bounding surfaces of different Alleghanian orogeny, Pocahontas basin, Virginia. Basin Res
rank. Each architectural element is described by its facies 25:450–470. doi:10.1111/bre.12008
association (group of related lithofacies), scale, geometry, Hickin AS, Kerr B, Barchyn TE, Paulen RC (2009) Using ground-
and orientation. Architectural element analysis provides an penetrating radar and capacitively coupled resistivity to investigate
3-D fluvial architecture and grain-size distribution of a gravel flood-
understanding of the processes acting at a particular place and plain in northeast British Columbia, Canada. J Sediment Res
time on a fluvial system. Tracking spatial and temporal 79:457–477. doi:10.2110/jsr2009.044
changes in architectural elements provides insights into Horn JD, Fielding CR, Joeckel RM (2012) Revision of Platte River
changes of the external and internal factors controlling the alluvial facies model through observations of extant channels and
barforms, and subsurface alluvial valley fills. J Sediment Res
fluvial system (tectonics, eustasy, sediment supply, climate, 82:72–91. doi:10.2110/jsr2012.9
and human activity). Horne JC, Ferm JC, Carruccio FT, Baganz BP (1978) Depositional
models in coal exploration and mine planning in the Appalachian
region. Am Assoc Petrol Geologist Bull 86:2379–2411
James LA (2013) Legacy sediment: definitions and processes of episod-
Cross-References ically produced anthropogenic sediment. Anthropocene 2:16–26.
doi:10.1016/j.ancene.2013.04.001
▶ Alluvial Environments Miall AD (1977) A review of the braided river depositional environment.
▶ Dams Earth Sci Rev 13:1–62
Miall AD (1985) Architectural-element analysis: a new method of facies
▶ Facies analysis applied to fluvial deposits. Earth Sci Rev 22:261–308
▶ Glacial Environments Miall AD (1996) The geology of fluvial deposits: sedimentary facies,
▶ Lacustrine Environments basin analysis, and petroleum geology. Springer, Berlin, 582 p
▶ Landforms Walker RG, Cant DJ (1979) Facies models 3. Sandy fluvial systems. In:
Walker RG (ed) Facies models. Geological Association of Canada,
▶ Mountain Environments Toronto, pp 23–32
▶ Reservoirs, Sediments Webb-Sullivan LD, Evans JE (2015) Sediment budget approach to
▶ Volcanic Environments understanding historical stages of the Ottawa River in the context
of land-use change, northwestern Ohio and southeastern Michigan.
Anthropocene 7:42–56. doi:10.1016/j.ancene.2015.03.005
Wright VP, Marriott SB (1996) A quantitative approach to soil occur-
References rence in alluvial deposits and its application to the Old Red Sandstone
of Britain. J Geol Soc London 153:907–913
Ashley GM, Boothroyd JC, Bridge JS, Clifton HE, Dalrymple RW,
Elliot T, Flemming BW, Harms JC, Harris PT, Hunter RE, Kreisa

View publication stats