Lyell Collection

Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help


Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Small, I. F.
Right arrow Articles by Duck, R. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 2004; v. 232; p. 207-213;
DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.232.01.19
© 2004 Geological Society of London

Bayesian sediment fingerprinting provides a robust tool for environmental forensic geoscience applications

Ingrid F. Small1, John S. Rowan1, Stewart W. Franks2, Adam Wyatt2 & Robert W. Duck1

1 Environmental Systems Research Group, Department of Geography, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK i.f.small{at}dundee.ac.uk
2 School of Engineering, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, NSW, Australia

Sediment fingerprinting is an approach for the quantitative determination of sediment provenance (both spatial sources and types of sediment supply) over a range of temporal and spatial scales. Though widely adopted, studies often vary in their attention to the underlying assumptions and in their treatment of modelling uncertainty. A Bayesian approach to the multivariate problem of ‘unmixing’ sediment sources is reported, showing the significance of source group variability and source group sampling density to the accuracy of model output. The model produces results as median source group contributory coefficients (and associated 95% quantiles). The model was applied to environmental data obtained from selected soil erosion studies reported within the peer-reviewed literature. Good correspondence (r2=0.89) between reported mean source group contributory coefficients and median values were found when recalculated using the Bayesian analysis. However, confidence levels are highly variable, ranging from 2% to 97%. The robustness of any unmixing solution depends on factors such as the number of samples, the number of source groups and the variance of source group properties. It is concluded that ‘forensic-style’ investigations must recognize these uncertainties and be appropriately resourced to achieve tolerable accuracy and precision. The discussion considers additional confounding factors such as non-conservative tracer behaviour and enrichment/depletion during the sediment delivery process.