Ethnographic Survey Report
Contents
Introduction and Aims
3 - Hypothesis 1
4 - Hypothesis 2
5 - Location map
Method
6 - Field sketch
7 - River mapping, Cross section
8 - Velocity
9 - Method Limitations
Data Presentation
10 - River mapping table
14 - River mapping
15 - Meander cross section results data set 1
16 - Straight cross section results data set 1
17 - Velocity/depth graphs for data set 1
18 - Meander cross section results data set 2
19 - Straight cross section results data set 2
20 - Velocity/depth graphs for data set 2
21 - Meander cross section sketch data set 1
22 - Straight cross section sketch data set 1
23 - Meander cross section sketch data set 2
24 …show more content…
- Straight cross section sketch data set 2
25 - Spearman’s rank for meander data set 1
26 - Spearman’s rank for straight data set 1
27 - Spearman’s rank for meander data set 2
28 - Spearman’s rank for straight data set 2
Analysis and Conclusion
29 - Meander 1 description and analysis
30 - Straight 1 and Meander 2 description and analysis
31 - Straight 2 description and analysis and hypothesis analysis
33 - Limitations of the study
35 - Bibliography and acknowledgements
Introduction and Aims
The aim of this investigation is to compare the characteristics of straight and meandering sections of a stream using data collected in the Harthope Valley, Northumberland.
My hypotheses for this investigation are:
Hypothesis 1
• The cross profiles of straight stream channels show greater symmetry than the cross profiles taken across the meander.
Rationale
In a straight section of a stream the thalweg is centrally located; this causes erosion of the river bed in the middle but deposition at the banks where the current is slowest. This is the symmetrical cross section across a straight stream or river:
Fig. 1.1
On the other hand, in a meander the thalweg is located at the outer bend while the slowest current, and therefore the deposition, is located on the inside of the meander. This means an asymmetrical cross section is formed. The deposition forms a slip off slope whilst the thalweg causes erosion of the river sides leading to the formation of a river cliff. This is a typical cross section of a river across a meander:
Fig. 1.2
The thalweg travels in a straight line and so when the river comes to a meander then, due to inertia, it continues into the bank. This causes heavy erosion to make the meander even more sinuous. The river bank, where the thalweg hits, deflects the thalweg down towards the next meander and in doing this it has to go through a straight section of the river. As the thalweg is being deflected from one meander to the next, it travels through this straight section in the centre of the channel. (Fig. 1.3)
Fig. 1.3
Hypothesis 2
The pattern of stream velocity shows a direct relationship with the pattern of channel depth.
Rationale
The deeper the channel is, the faster the water flows. This is because in shallower water there is a greater proportion of water in contact with the wetted perimeter. This means that more friction occurs and so the velocity of the water is decreased. In streams and rivers with a deeper bed and therefore a greater volume, the water in contact with the wetted perimeter has less effect in slowing down the river’s flow. In a meander (Fig 1.2) this relationship means that the water is slowest at the slip off slope. This is because the slow water means deposition, leading to a shallower bed, which in turn makes the water even slower. At the outer bend of the meander, the water is deeper and so the water moves faster. In the straight section of a river (Fig 1.1) the water can move faster in the centre as this is where the bed is deepest, it moves slower at either side due to deposition making the river shallower.
Location Map
= Location of fieldwork site
The Harthope Burn flows steeply towards the north-east from the saddle (grid reference NT907191) separating The Cheviot from Hedgehope Hill in north Northumberland.
(Fig 1.5)
The fieldwork site is located on the Harthope Burn immediately upstream of Langlee cottage (grid reference NT963232). It is within the valley about 5km from the source. It is a site of Special Scientific Interest so must be treated with care.
On a national scale, Harthope Burn is in the north east of England with the nearest major city being Newcastle. It is near to the Scottish boarder and is about 35km west of the North Sea. (Fig1.4)
Method
Field Sketch (Fig 2.1)
The first thing to be carried out was the field sketch, this was drawn from the bridge looking upstream and then annotated to show features such as slip off slopes and river cliffs. A photo was also taken (Fig. …show more content…
2.2)
River Mapping
Firstly, 4 ranging poles were set up to form a rectangle around the area of river from where readings were taken, they were placed 100m apart lengthways down the river and 24m apart across the river. Tape was laid along the two 100m sides in order to form baselines (Fig. 2.3).
[pic]
After this was set up, river mapping could commence. A tape was held across the 24m width by two people, both standing at 0m on the baseline, the tape was held taut so that the readings were as accurate as possible. Readings were taken across the 24m tape at every point there was a river feature. Slip off slopes, start of river, end of river and river terrace were all noted. They were measured from 0m across the tape, which was perpendicular to the baseline. The recorder then recorded this information into a table. The same process was continued at the next 2m interval and the river features were read out and recorded. This was done 50 times; every 2m along the baseline until 100m was reached.
Cross Section
Before starting, 4 tapes had to be set up across the river; 2 across the meander and 2 across the straight. A 1-meter rule was held perpendicular to the tape at 0cm then at 20cm and so on, every 20cm until the first dry depth measurement could be taken. The dry depth measurement is the distance from the tape to the ground. Dry depth measurements were continued to be taken every 20cm until the river. At the first measurement above the river a dry depth and a wet depth were taken. The dry depth is the distance from the river surface to the tape and the wet depth is the distance from the surface of the river to the river bed. From then on, only wet measurements were taken (fig. 2.4) as the dry measurements were considered to be constant until the far bank of the river was reached. Measurements were taken every 20cm across the tape unless a boulder was in the way. At a boulder, three dry depths were taken; one at the start, one in the middle and one at the end. This allowed any links between the presence of boulders and the velocity of the river, which was also recorded, to be seen. This was done over both the meander and the straight section of the river. This cross section data was taken to show the symmetry in the meander and in the straight in order to try to find a conclusion to Hypothesis 1.
River Velocity
A flow meter was placed in the water perpendicular to the tape at the first wet depth recorded from the cross-section. Thirty seconds was timed on a stopwatch to see how many revolutions took place. This number was then multiplied by two to find the number of revolutions per minute, which could then be converted into m/s. When the water was deep enough to record the velocity it was then counted as 0m/s. It was essential to stand downstream of where the velocity of the river was measured so that the flow of water was not interrupted. These recordings were taken to find a relationship between channel depth and river velocity in order to try to find a conclusion to Hypothesis 2.
Method limitations
There were several limitations to which solutions had to be found.
The first limitation encountered was during the river planning; the tape at the baseline was broken and so measurements began at 3m. This meant that 3m had to be taken off the results gathered so that they were accurate. Another major limitation was the presence of large boulders further upstream when the velocity readings were taken. Although there were no rocks in the area of water being worked on, there were large boulders just upstream which almost completely stopped the flow of water. This meant our results appear incorrect as the water was moving very slowly in an area where it should have been moving
fast.
Results table from River Mapping (Fig. 3.11)
Meander Cross Section Results (data set 1) (Fig. 3.21)
Straight Cross Section Results (data set 1) (Fig. 3.22)
Meander Cross Section Results (data set 2) (Fig. 3.23)
Meander Cross Section Results (data set 2) (Fig. 3.23)
Straight Cross Section Results (data set 2) (Fig. 3.24)
Straight Cross Section Results (data set 2) (Fig. 3.24)
Analysis and Conclusion
Using the data collected in the data presentation section of this project, several conclusions can be drawn. The following data can help prove or disprove the two hypotheses;
• River mapping table (Fig. 3.11) • River mapping sketch (Fig. 3.12) • Cross section data tables (Fig. 3.21-3.24)
Meander Data Set 1
By analysing the cross section drawn (Fig. 3.41) numerous conclusions can be made. The deepest part of the river is at the right side at 640cm across the profile from the left bank. The shallowest part of the river is at the left side. In addition, at the left side is a small area of sedementation due to deposition. This could indicate that this is where the slowest current is. A river cliff is found at the right side of the river, indicitating that this is an area of faster water, thus causing erosion. The thalweg continues into the river bank causing the most erosion, this occurs due to inertia. Looking at the graph produced using the data (Fig. 3.31) the velocity and depth of the river can be compared. It can be seen that there is a correlation between depth and velocity, this is most clearly shown between 540cm and 640cm. This is where the velocity and the depth are both greatest, both peaking at about 620cm. However, the link between velocity and depth seems less certain between 380cm and 500cm as the depth remains very high whereas the velocity is very low. This was due to a large boulder just upstream which impeded the flow of the water through this section. This meant that the velocity at the point was recorded at almost 0 rpm as the current passed around the large boulder and missed this area. The third piece of data showing correlation between velocity and depth is the Spearman’s Rank correlation co-efficient (Fig. 3.51). The rank produced was 0.587747, this shows a weak correlation as the nearer it is to 1 or –1, the stronger the correlation. The degree of freedom for this data was above 0.1%, this means that it is 99.99% certain that there is a correlation between depth and velocity and that it has not occured by chance. I think that the Spearman’s rank result would have been considerably higher if it weren’t for the boulder upstream which disrupted the data.
Straight Data Set 1
The straight cross section drawing (Fig. 3,42) shows symmetry; on both sides there is no slip off slope nor river cliff. However, there are large boulders on the left side of the river as opposed to a grassy bank on the right. The deepest are of water is in the middle of the river at 540cm from the left bank. There is a larger boulder breaking the surface at 380cm. Looking at the velocity/depth graph (Fig. 3.32) for the same cross section it can be seen clearly that the depth and velocity correlate. At 540cm, the deepest area of the river, the velocity is near its greatest with a rate of over 1100rpm. The depth and velocity match almost perfectly until 660cm. From this point on, the depth increases but the velocity stays at a minimum. This could again be due to boulder upstream disrupting both the flow of water and therefore the velocity at the point data was collected. The graph shows the boulder between 360cm and 400cm as there is neither velocity nor depth. The Spearman’s Rank correlation co-efficient (Fig. 3.52) is 0.894727105. This shows a stong correlation between depth and velocity. It would be almost 1.00 if the upstream boulder at the right side of the river had not been present. The degree of freedom was above 0.1% and so there is a 99.99% confidence in the correlation.
Meander Data Set 2
The cross section for this meander (Fig, 3.43) shows several properties common to meanders. The deeper areas of this cross section are towards the right hand bank but maybe not so much to the side as in the first meander cross section (Fig. 3.41). A large amount of rock at the right hand side of the meander has slowed down the current enough to cause deposition and therefore some sand is present. This is caused by the rocks slowing the water down and is contrary to the typical properties of a meander. A large rock breaks the surface at 210cm. There is no noticeable river cliff present, which indicates this is unlikely to be the area of inertia, where the thalweg hits the bank. The velocity/depth graph for the same meander cross section shows a strong link between depth and velocity. However, the overall pattern is not typical to that of a meander as it shows the symmetry more like in a straight. Velocity and depth both peak at 440cm from the left bank with a depth of around 28cm and a velocity of around 1200rpm. The Spearman’s rank correlation co-efficient (Fig. 3.53) for this meander is 0.918761726. This means that the correlation between depth and velocity is very strong; this figure is higher than the other cross sections because there were no boulders present to disrupt the flow of the water. A degree of freedom of 0.1% shows that a correlation is 99.99% definite.
Straight Data Set 2 The second straight cross section drawing (Fig. 3.44) shows symmetry typical to a straight. The water is of similar depth on both sides and the deepest area is towards the middle. The left bank is grass covered and the right is covered in sand and shingle although they are still of similar gradient. The surface of the water is broken by a boulder at 195cm across the cross section from the left bank. The bed of the river is covered in small rocks and boulders. The velocity/depth graph for this section (Fig. 3.34) shows a basic correlation between depth and velocity. For example, between 240cm and 280cm the velocity correlates perfectly with the depth, both increasing in value in similar proportion. However, there are several areas along the cross section where the velocity of the river is near 0rpm when the river is still quite deep. For example, at 540cm the depth is at its greatest at 30cm but the velocity is very small at around 50rpm. This could be due to boulders downstream. The Spearman’s rank (Fig 3.54) is 0.75849522 for this cross section. This shows quite a strong correlation, which may not be expected from looking at the velocity/depth graph. This shows us a general correlation throughout the cross section and that the effect of the boulders does not significantly alter the correlation. There is a 99.99% certainty that this correlation did not happen by chance as the degree of freedom was above the 0.1% significance level.
Hypotheses analysis
1) The cross profiles of straight stream channels show greater symmetry than cross profiles taken across the meander. -TRUE
From the data taken it can be concluded that the above hypothesis is true. Looking at the data of the cross section drawings (Fig. 3.42, 3.44) it can be seen there is a clear symmetry in the two straight cross sections, although data set 2 shows the greatest symmetry. The symmetry in straights is present because the thalweg is centrally located. This means that the current is slowest towards the banks and so deposition occurs. Erosion takes place in the centre of the river and so a symmetrical profile is maintained. The cross section of data set 1 is less symmetrical due to a large boulder at 380cm. The hypothesis states that straight cross sections have a greater symmetry than meander cross sections and this has been found to be true. Looking at the meander cross section drawing for data set 1 (Fig. 3.41), the thalweg is clearly at the right hand side of the cross profile in an asymmetrical fashion. In addition, the water is shallower at the slip off slope (left bank) where the current is slowest. A river cliff has formed at the right hand side to add to the lack of symmetry. On the other hand, the second set of meander data does not clearly support this hypothesis. The cross section drawing (Fig. 3.43) does not represent the typical features of a meander. There is no obvious slip off slope nor river cliff and the cross section looks more like that of a straight. However, on closer inspection the thalweg is still not centrally located and is more towards the right hand side as would be expected in a meander.
2) The pattern of stream velocity shows a direct relationship with the pattern of channel depth. -TRUE
The rational that the deeper the channel is, the faster the water flows, can be seen to be correct. The four velocity/depth graphs (Fig. 3.31-3.34) show this. In all four graphs, areas of strong correlation can be seen between velocity and depth. This is shown very clearly in figure 3.31 between the points 540cm and 640cm across the profile from the left bank. In these areas there is a greater volume of water as the channel is deeper. This means that a smaller proportion of the water is in contact with the wetted perimeter and so there is less friction acting. With less proportion of the water being affected by friction, the river can flow faster. This was true in all four sets of data taken. However, some of the data presented in the graphs makes this hypothesis seem doubtful. For example, in Fig 3.32 there is an area at around 780cm where the channel is very deep but the velocity is minimal. In this case the low velocity is not related to the depth of the stream as the presence of a boulder upstream is known to have affected the velocity.
Limitations of the Study
The main limitation which affected the results, was the presence of boulders in the area where the data was taken and also just upstream. As previously mentioned, these boulders disrupted the flow of the river and therefore affected the velocity readings. The boulders present at the actual cross section also affected the depth at certain points. However, these boulders had no negative effect as where there was no depth there was also no velocity and so the correlation was unaffected. A way to avoid this would be to conduct the cross sections in an area of a river where no boulders are present. A second limitation is that data was only taken from one river and so the data cannot be compared with any other results to create general hypotheses for all rivers. The river where the study was conducted could have been an exception. In order to prove these hypotheses completely, it would be essential to conduct the same study on a number of different streams and rivers, preferably of different sizes. Another limitation is that conditions of the river may have been very specific to the day on which the experiment was carried out. Recent rainfall had caused flooding in the whole of the north east and this may have affected the results. In order to check this was not the case, the experiment would also have to be conducted in the same stream in a time of little rainfall. Ideally it should be carried out over a period of time at regular intervals. A further limitation to this study could have been human error. Only one member of the team was responsible for recording the data and this could lead to confusion when looking over the results. In order to avoid this type of error, each set of data should have been checked before being recorded. Preferably all readings would have been taken at least twice so that any anomalies could have been spotted. A final limitation to the study could have been faulty equipment. When river mapping was taking place the tape measure across the river was actually faulty so in order to avoid this, measurements were started at 3m and then subtracted after. This could potentially have lead to big innacuracies in the study and so equipment is one aspect which could be improved.
In conclusion, there were several limitations to the study but the results were generally accurate throughout and helped the hypotheses to be proven. However if the limitations had not been present then the study would have been more accurate and the hypotheses would have been more clearly proven with no reservations.
Bibliography and Acknowledgements
Waugh,D. Wider World. Nelson Thornes, 2003
www.geography-site.co.uk
www.ordenancesurvery.co.uk
Set 2 data from James Sleight’s Group.
-----------------------
An Investigation into Stream Channel Characteristics In the Harthope Valley, Northumberland.
Erosion at centre of river due to the thalweg
Flood plain
Flood plain
Deposition
Deposition
Thalweg
Slowest current
Erosion
Flood plain
Flood plain
Thalweg
River cliff
Slip-off slope
Slowest water
Thalweg
Cross section of straight
Cross section of meander
Inertia
Thalweg deflected off bank
Fig. 1.4
Fig. 1.5
24m
100m
100m
Fig. 2.3
Fig 2.4 (Photo taken from www.geography-site.co.uk)
Deposition
Reading on flowmeter
Rotating blades at base of flowmeter
|Distance along cross profile |Bearing along section: 132 Degrees |
|from left bank (cm) | |
| |Position on baseline: 77.2m |
| |Dry depth(cm) |Wet Depth (cm) |Nature of channel material |Velocity (counts per minute) |
|0 |0 |0 |grass |0 |
|20 |3.5 |0 |grass |0 |
|40 |8.5 |0 |grass |0 |
|60 |10 |0 |grass |0 |
|80 |47.5 |0 |grass |0 |
|100 |48 |0 |grass |0 |
|120 |37.5 |0 |grass |0 |
|140 |49.5 |0 |rocks |0 |
|160 |49 |0 |rocks |0 |
|180 |49.5 |0 |rocks |0 |
|200 |36.5 |0 |rocks |0 |
|220 |38.5 |0 |rocks |0 |
|240 |52.5 |18 |water |614 |
|260 |52.5 |11.5 |water |572 |
|280 |52.5 |15 |water |60 |
|300 |52.5 |14.5 |water |278 |
|320 |52.5 |14 |water |460 |
|340 |52.5 |15 |water |360 |
|360 |51.5 |0 |rocks |0 |
|380 |47 |0 |rocks |0 |
|400 |52 |0 |rocks |0 |
|420 |52.5 |11 |water |652 |
|440 |52.5 |17 |water |678 |
|460 |52.5 |20 |water |1184 |
|480 |52.5 |16 |water |760 |
|500 |52.5 |12 |water |876 |
|520 |52.5 |15 |water |986 |
|540 |52.5 |35 |water |1102 |
|560 |52.5 |17 |water |850 |
|580 |52.5 |19 |water |560 |
|600 |52.5 |19 |water |514 |
|620 |52.5 |11 |water |358 |
|640 |52.5 |9 |water |108 |
|660 |52.5 |5 |water |0 |
|680 |52.5 |12 |water |58 |
|700 |52.5 |14.5 |water |48 |
|720 |52.5 |14.5 |water |126 |
|740 |52.5 |20 |water |86 |
|760 |52.5 |25.5 |water |10 |
|780 |50 |0 |grass |0 |
|800 |47 |0 |grass |0 |
|820 |41 |0 |grass |0 |
|840 |26 |0 |grass |0 |
|860 |17.5 |0 |grass |0 |
|880 |5 |0 |grass |0 |
|900 |0 |0 |grass |0 |
|Distances Along Across |Bearing Along Section: 142 Degrees |
|profile | |
|from left bank (cm) | |
| |Position on Baseline: 7.3m |
| |Dry Depth (cm) |Wet Depth (cm) |Nature of Channel material |Velocity (Counts per Minute) |
|0 |0.2 |0 |Grass |0 |
|20 |0.3 |0 |Grass |0 |
|40 |0.3 |0 |Grass |0 |
|60 |0.5 |0 |Grass |0 |
|80 |19.5 |0 |Grass |0 |
|100 |58.5 |0 |Sediment |0 |
|120 |69 |0 |Sediment |0 |
|140 |70 |4 |Water |0 |
|160 |70 |5.5 |Water |0 |
|180 |70 |20.5 |Water |0 |
|200 |70 |19.5 |Water |768 |
|220 |70 |0 |Rock |742 |
|240 |66 |0 |Rock |0 |
|250 |67 |0 |Rock |0 |
|260 |70 |11.5 |Water |444 |
|280 |70 |14 |Water |284 |
|300 |70 |9 |Water |118 |
|320 |70 |15 |Water |294 |
|340 |70 |20 |Water |400 |
|360 |70 |22 |Water |296 |
|380 |70 |22 |Water |216 |
|400 |70 |22 |Water |104 |
|420 |70 |26 |Water |56 |
|440 |70 |31 |Water |2 |
|460 |70 |23 |Water |74 |
|480 |70 |30 |Water |64 |
|500 |70 |16 |Water |256 |
|520 |70 |6 |Water |692 |
|540 |70 |27 |Water |762 |
|560 |70 |24 |Water |844 |
|580 |70 |30 |Water |832 |
|600 |70 |35 |Water |750 |
|620 |70 |36 |Water |852 |
|640 |70 |37 |Water |526 |
|660 |70 |30 |Water |140 |
|680 |70 |19 |Water |0 |
|700 | 70 |7.5 |Water |0 |
|720 | 70 |0.5 |Water |0 |
|740 |26.5 |0 |Grass |0 |
|760 |11.5 | 0 |Grass |0 |
|780 |12 | 0 |Grass |0 |
|800 |10 | 0 |Grass |0 |
Fig. 2.5
Taking velocity readings
|Bearing along baseline: 240 degrees |
|distance along baseline (m) | |
| |Distance(m) |3.6 |9.1 |9.8 |14.8 |16.6 |23.3 |
|0 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |edge of river |edge of floodplain |edge of slip off|far edge of |edge of |top of river |
| | |terrace | |slope |river |floodplain |terrace |
| |Distance(m) |4.4 |9.1 |10 |15.1 |19.3 |23.2 |
|2 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |edge of river |edge of floodplain |edge of sos |fer |edge of fp |tot |
| | |terrace | | | | | |
| |Distance(m) |5.8 |10 |10.3 |16 |19.7 |24.9 |
|4 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |edge of river |edge of floodplain |edge of sos |fer |edge of fp |tot |
| | |terrace | | | | | |
| |Distance(m) |7.8 |10.4 |11.1 |16.8 |19.9 |24.5 |
|6 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |edge of river |edge of floodplain |edge of sos |fer |edge of fp |tot |
| | |terrace | | | | | |
| |Distance(m) |7.5 |10.7 |11.4 |16.8 |21.1 |24.5 |
|8 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |edge of river |floodplain |sos |fer |fp |tot |
| | |terrace | | | | | |
| |Distance(m) |7.6 |11 |11.8 |17.3 |20.1 |24.5 |
|10 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |sos |fer |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |7.6 |11.1 |11.6 |17.2 |20.5 |24.5 |
|12 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |sos |fer |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |8.3 |11.5 |11.7 |17.2 |20.4 |24.3 |
|14 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |sos |fer |fp |Tot |
| |Distance(m) |8.5 |11.5 |11.8 |17.5 |20.4 |24.5 |
|16 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |end of sos |fer |fp |Tot |
| |Distance(m) |8.8 |11.3 |15.9 |17.2 |20.3 |24.2 |
|18 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |far edge of |new sos |fp |tot |
| | | | |river | | | |
| |Distance(m) |8.2 |10.6 |15.8 |17.1 |20 |23.9 |
|20 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |8.1 |10 |15 |15.6 |20.3 |23.7 |
|22 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |7.4 | |14.5 |15.7 |19.8 |23.3 |
|24 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |7.0 | |14.2 |15.3 |19.7 |23.2 |
|26 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |6.1 | |13.1 |15.1 |19.8 |23.3 |
|28 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |4.8 | |11.8 |13.9 |19.1 |23.3 |
|30 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |4.1 | |11.8 |13.3 |19.1 |22.8 |
|32 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.3 |4.3 |11.2 |12.8 |18.3 |22.3 |
|34 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.2 |4.3 |10.4 |11.6 |18 |22.1 |
|36 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.8 |3.6 |9.8 |11 |16.7 |22.6 |
|38 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.7 |3.2 |9.4 |11.2 |16.4 |21.5 |
|40 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.7 |2.6 |9.2 |10.2 |16.3 |21.8 |
|42 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.8 |2.4 |8.7 |9.8 |15.3 |20.6 |
|44 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.6 | |8.9 |9.1 |14.2 |20.2 |
|46 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.4 | |8.9 | |13.9 |20.6 |
|48 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.4 |2.4 |8.9 | |13.4 |19.7 |
|50 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |deposition |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.9 |3.1 |8.9 | |11.8 |19.6 |
|52 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |Joins tributary |deposition |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.9 |2.4 |8.7 | |10.9 |18.8 |
|54 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |deposition |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.3 | |8.7 | |10.5 |18.3 |
|56 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.5 | |8.6 | |10.5 |17.9 |
|58 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.3 | |8.4 | |9.5 |17.3 |
|60 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.1 | |8.4 |8.5 | |16.8 |
|62 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |sos | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.7 | |7.5 |7.9 | |16.5 |
|64 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |sos | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.4 | |8.6 |9.4 | |16.4 |
|66 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |sos | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2 | | 8|9.5 | |16.4 |
|68 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | | fer |rock outcrop | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |3.1 | |6.9 |10.3 | |16 |
|70 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |ro | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.8 | |6.9 |9.3 | |16.2 |
|72 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |ro | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.3 | |8.1 |8.7 | |15.6 |
|74 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |ro | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2 | |8.3 | | |15.4 |
|76 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.4 | |8.6 | | |15.3 |
|78 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.3 | |9.3 | | |15.2 |
|80 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.6 | |9.7 | | |14.9 |
|82 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.1 |2.8 |9.7 | | |14.9 |
|84 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |slip off slope |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.5 |3 |8.9 | | |15 |
|86 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.5 |4 |10.3 | | |15.4 |
|88 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.6 |4 |9.3 | | |15.7 |
|90 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.7 |4.4 |10.2 | | |15.7 |
|92 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.6 |4.2 |9.5 | | |15.9 |
|94 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.5 |4.4 |10.8 | | |16.4 |
|96 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.8 |4.8 |10.3 | | |17.4 |
|98 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.4 |4.8 |11 | | |17.8 |
|100 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
Velocity/Depth Graph For Meander Cross Section (data set 1)
|Distances Along Across |Bearing Along Section: 140 Degrees |
|profile | |
|from left bank (cm) | |
| |Position on Baseline: 11.8m |
| |Dry Depth (cm) |Wet Depth (cm) |Nature of Channel material |Velocity (Counts per Minute) |
|0 |0 |0 |Grass |0 |
|20 |1 |0 |Grass |0 |
|40 |4 |0 |Grass |0 |
|60 |7 |0 |Grass |0 |
|80 |11 |0 |Grass |0 |
|100 |19 |0 |Grass |0 |
|120 |53 |0 |Gress |0 |
|140 |60 |0 |Water |0 |
|160 |67 |1 |Water |0 |
|180 |67 |1 |Water |0 |
|200 |67 |1 |Water |0 |
|210 |52 |0 |Rock |0 |
|220 |57 |0 |Rock |0 |
|240 |67 |12 |Water |120 |
|260 |67 |14 |Water |498 |
|280 |67 |12 |Water |560 |
|300 |67 |20 |Water |374 |
|320 |67 |24 |Water |402 |
|340 |67 |25 |Water |502 |
|360 |67 |10 |Water |642 |
|380 |67 |26 |Water |636 |
|400 |67 |22 |Water |1108 |
|420 |67 |29 |Water |1072 |
|440 |67 |29 |Water |1184 |
|460 |67 |26 |Water |942 |
|480 |67 |28 |Water |690 |
|500 |67 |26 |Water |536 |
|520 |67 |14 |Water |648 |
|540 |67 |27 |Water |872 |
|560 |67 |16 |Water |910 |
|580 |67 |2 |Water |818 |
|600 |67 |2 |Water |274 |
|620 |67 |1 |Water |4 |
|640 |67 |4 |Water |1 |
|660 |63 |0 |Rock |0 |
|680 |36 |0 |Grass |0 |
|700 |23 |0 |Grass |0 |
|720 |18 |0 |Grass |0 |
|740 |7 |0 |Grass |0 |
|760 |6 |0 |Grass |0 |
|Distance Along Cross Profile|Bearing along section: 138 degrees |
|From Left Bank (cm) | |
| |Position on Baseline: 77.8 |
| |Dry Depth (cm) |Wet Depth(cm) |Nature of Channel Material |Velocity (Counts per Minute) |
|0 |1 |0 |sand/grass |0 |
|20 |5 |0 |sand/grass |0 |
|40 |5 |0 |sand/grass |0 |
|60 |3 |0 |sand/grass |0 |
|80 |0 |0 |sand/grass |0 |
|100 |3 |0 |grass |0 |
|120 |79 |18 |pebbles |152 |
|140 |79 |18 |pebbles |388 |
|160 |79 |14 |pebbles |776 |
|180 |79 |9 |boulder |0 |
|195 |68 |0 |boulder |0 |
|210 |79 |8 |boulder |0 |
|220 |79 |11 |pebbles |76 |
|240 |79 |6 |pebbles |308 |
|260 |79 |14 |pebbles |804 |
|280 |79 |22 |pebbles |1032 |
|300 |79 |18 |pebbles |432 |
|320 |79 |17 |pebbles |16 |
|340 |79 |23 |large rock |224 |
|360 |79 |23 |large rock |640 |
|380 |79 |19 |pebbles |836 |
|400 |79 |25 |pebbles |820 |
|420 |79 |21 |pebbles |1160 |
|440 |79 |19 |pebbles |1400 |
|460 |79 |18 |pebbles |312 |
|480 |79 |16 |pebbles |60 |
|500 |79 |23 |pebbles |1600 |
|520 |79 |14 |pebbles |704 |
|540 |79 |22 |pebbles |68 |
|560 |79 |30 |pebbles |224 |
|580 |79 |28 |pebbles |76 |
|600 |79 |24 |pebbles |300 |
|620 |79 |6 |large rock |32 |
|640 |79 |17 |large rock |52 |
|660 |79 |13 |large rock |312 |
|680 |79 |19 |pebbles and rocks |308 |
|700 |79 |8 |pebbles and rocks |464 |
|720 |79 |7 |pebbles and rocks |340 |
|740 |79 |5 |pebbles |0 |
|760 |79 |6 |pebbles |0 |
|780 |79 |2 |pebbles |0 |
|800 |41 |0 |sand and shingle |0 |
|820 |33 |0 |sand and shingle |0 |
|840 |37 |0 |sand and shingle |0 |
|860 |31 |0 |sand and shingle |0 |
|880 |10 |0 |sand and shingle |0 |
[pic]
[pic]
Key
- Depth of River (cm)
- Velocity of River (rotations per minute)
[pic]
[pic]
Key
- Depth of River (cm)
- Velocity of River (rotations per minute)
Key = Depth of River (cm)
= Velocity (rotations per minute)
Distance across from left bank (cm) |Depth (cm) |Rank |Velocity (rpm) |Rank |Difference in rank (d) |d squared | | | |0 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | |Sum of d squared | |20 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | |5090.5 | |40 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |60 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | |Spearman’s Rank | |80 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | |0.587747 | |100 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |120 |18 |15.5 |0 |33 |-17.5 |306.25 | |Degrees of Freedom | |140 |18 |15.5 |0 |33 |-17.5 |306.25 | |0.1% | |160 |14 |21 |0 |33 |-12 |144 | | | |180 |9 |25 |0 |33 |-8 |64 | | | |200 |0 |37.5 |768 |4 |33.5 |1122.25 | | | |220 |8 |26.5 |742 |7 |19.5 |380.25 | | | |240 |11 |24 |0 |33 |-9 |81 | | | |250 |6 |30 |0 |33 |-3 |9 | | | |260 |14 |21 |444 |10 |11 |121 | | | |280 |22 |8.5 |284 |14 |-5.5 |30.25 | | | |300 |18 |15.5 |118 |18 |-2.5 |6.25 | | | |320 |17 |17.5 |294 |13 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |340 |23 |6 |400 |11 |-5 |25 | | | |360 |23 |6 |296 |12 |-6 |36 | | | |380 |19 |12 |216 |16 |-4 |16 | | | |400 |25 |3 |104 |19 |-16 |256 | | | |420 |21 |10 |56 |22 |-12 |144 | | | |440 |19 |12 |2 |23 |-11 |121 | | | |460 |18 |15.5 |74 |20 |-4.5 |20.25 | | | |480 |16 |19 |64 |21 |-2 |4 | | | |500 |23 |6 |256 |15 |-9 |81 | | | |520 |14 |21 |692 |8 |13 |169 | | | |540 |22 |8.5 |762 |5 |3.5 |12.25 | | | |560 |30 |1 |844 |2 |-1 |1 | | | |580 |28 |2 |832 |3 |-1 |1 | | | |600 |24 |4 |750 |6 |-2 |4 | | | |620 |6 |30 |852 |1 |29 |841 | | | |640 |17 |17.5 |526 |9 |8.5 |72.25 | | | |660 |13 |23 |140 |17 |6 |36 | | | |680 |19 |12 |0 |33 |-21 |441 | | | |700 |8 |26.5 |0 |33 |-6.5 |42.25 | | | |720 |7 |28 |0 |33 |-5 |25 | | | |740 |5 |32 |0 |33 |-1 |1 | | | |760 |6 |30 |0 |33 |-3 |9 | | | |780 |2 |33 |0 |33 |0 |0 | | | |800 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |
Spearman’s Rank – Meander Data Set 1 (Fig. 3.51)
Distance across from left bank (cm) |Depth (cm) |Rank |Velocity (rpm) |Rank |Difference in rank (d) |d squared | | | |0 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |Sum of d squared | |20 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |10242 | |40 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |60 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |Spearman's Rank | |80 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |0.894727105 | |100 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |120 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |Degrees of Freedom | |140 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |0.1% | |160 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |180 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |200 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |220 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |240 |18 |7 |614 |9 |-2 |4 | | | |260 |11.5 |20 |572 |10 |10 |100 | | | |280 |15 |12 |60 |20 |-8 |64 | | | |300 |14.5 |15 |278 |16 |-1 |1 | | | |320 |14 |17 |460 |13 |4 |16 | | | |340 |15 |12 |360 |14 |-2 |4 | | | |360 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |380 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |400 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |420 |11 |21.5 |652 |8 |13.5 |182.25 | | | |440 |17 |8.5 |678 |7 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |460 |20 |3.5 |1184 |1 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |480 |16 |10 |760 |6 |4 |16 | | | |500 |12 |18.5 |876 |4 |14.5 |210.25 | | | |520 |15 |12 |986 |3 |9 |81 | | | |540 |35 |1 |1102 |2 |-1 |1 | | | |560 |17 |8.5 |850 |5 |3.5 |12.25 | | | |580 |19 |5.5 |560 |11 |-5.5 |30.25 | | | |600 |19 |5.5 |514 |12 |-6.5 |42.25 | | | |620 |11 |21.5 |358 |15 |6.5 |42.25 | | | |640 |9 |23 |108 |18 |5 |25 | | | |660 |5 |24 |0 |35 |-11 |121 | | | |680 |12 |18.5 |58 |21 |-2.5 |6.25 | | | |700 |14.5 |15 |48 |22 |-7 |49 | | | |720 |14.5 |15 |126 |17 |-2 |4 | | | |740 |20 |3.5 |86 |19 |-15.5 |240.25 | | | |760 |25.5 |2 |10 |23 |-21 |441 | | | |780 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |800 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |820 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |840 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |860 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |880 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |900 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |
Spearman’s Rank – Straight Data Set 1 (Fig. 3.52)
Distance across from left bank (cm) |Depth (cm) |Rank |Velocity (rpm) |Rank |Difference in rank (d) |d squared | | | |0 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |Sum of d squared | |20 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |5196 | |40 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |60 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |Spearman’s Rank | |80 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |0.918761726 | |100 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |120 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |Degrees of Freedom | |140 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |0.1% | |160 |1 |22.5 |0 |31 |-8.5 |72.25 | | | |180 |1 |22.5 |0 |31 |-8.5 |72.25 | | | |200 |1 |22.5 |0 |31 |-8.5 |72.25 | | | |210 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |220 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |240 |12 |15.5 |120 |19 |-3.5 |12.25 | | | |260 |14 |13.5 |498 |15 |-1.5 |2.25 | | | |280 |12 |15.5 |560 |12 |3.5 |12.25 | | | |300 |20 |11 |374 |17 |-6 |36 | | | |320 |24 |9 |402 |16 |-7 |49 | | | |340 |25 |8 |502 |14 |-6 |36 | | | |360 |10 |17 |642 |10 |7 |49 | | | |380 |26 |6 |636 |11 |-5 |25 | | | |400 |22 |10 |1108 |2 |8 |64 | | | |420 |29 |1.5 |1072 |3 |-1.5 |2.25 | | | |440 |29 |1.5 |1184 |1 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |460 |26 |6 |942 |4 |2 |4 | | | |480 |28 |3 |690 |8 |-5 |25 | | | |500 |26 |6 |536 |13 |-7 |49 | | | |520 |14 |13.5 |648 |9 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |540 |27 |4 |872 |6 |-2 |4 | | | |560 |16 |12 |910 |5 |7 |49 | | | |580 |2 |19.5 |818 |7 |12.5 |156.25 | | | |600 |2 |19.5 |274 |18 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |620 |1 |22.5 |4 |20 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |640 |4 |18 |1 |21 |-3 |9 | | | |660 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |680 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |700 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |720 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |740 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |760 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |
Spearman’s Rank – Meander Data Set 2 (Fig. 3.53)
Distance across from left bank (cm) |Depth (cm) |Rank |Velocity (rpm) |Rank |Difference in rank (d) |d squared | | | |0 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | |Sum of d squared | |20 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | |23496 | |40 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |60 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | |Spearman’s Rank | |80 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | |0.75849522 | |100 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |120 |18 |15.5 |152 |22 |-6.5 |42.25 | |Degrees of Freedom | |140 |18 |15.5 |388 |13 |2.5 |6.25 | |0.1% | |160 |14 |22 |776 |8 |14 |196 | | | |180 |9 |26 |0 |38 |-12 |144 | | | |195 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |210 |8 |27.5 |0 |38 |-10.5 |110.25 | | | |220 |11 |25 |76 |23.5 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |240 |6 |31 |308 |17 |14 |196 | | | |260 |14 |22 |804 |7 |15 |225 | | | |280 |22 |8.5 |1032 |4 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |300 |18 |15.5 |432 |12 |3.5 |12.25 | | | |320 |17 |18.5 |16 |29 |-10.5 |110.25 | | | |340 |23 |6 |224 |20.5 |-14.5 |210.25 | | | |360 |23 |6 |640 |10 |-4 |16 | | | |380 |19 |12 |836 |5 |7 |49 | | | |400 |25 |3 |820 |6 |-3 |9 | | | |420 |21 |10 |1160 |3 |7 |49 | | | |440 |19 |12 |1400 |2 |10 |100 | | | |460 |18 |15.5 |312 |15 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |480 |16 |20 |60 |26 |-6 |36 | | | |500 |23 |6 |1600 |1 |5 |25 | | | |520 |14 |22 |704 |9 |13 |169 | | | |540 |22 |8.5 |68 |25 |-16.5 |272.25 | | | |560 |30 |1 |224 |20.5 |-19.5 |380.25 | | | |580 |28 |2 |76 |23.5 |-21.5 |462.25 | | | |600 |24 |4 |300 |19 |-15 |225 | | | |620 |6 |31 |32 |28 |3 |9 | | | |640 |17 |18.5 |52 |27 |-8.5 |72.25 | | | |660 |13 |24 |312 |16 |8 |64 | | | |680 |19 |12 |308 |18 |-6 |36 | | | |700 |8 |27.5 |464 |11 |16.5 |272.25 | | | |720 |7 |29 |340 |14 |15 |225 | | | |740 |5 |33 |0 |38 |-5 |25 | | | |760 |6 |31 |0 |38 |-7 |49 | | | |780 |2 |34 |0 |38 |-4 |16 | | | |800 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |820 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |840 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |860 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |880 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |
Spearman’s Rank – Straight Data Set 2 (Fig. 3.54)
(Fig. 3.31)
Fig. 2.2
Fig. 2.1
Floodplain
Floodplain
V-shaped Valley
Top Of River Terrace
Undergrowth
Heather on hill sides
Heather on hill sides
Meander
The Cheviot
Hedgehope Hill
Boulders
River Cliff
River Cliff
Boulders
Hedgehope Hill
The Cheviot
Meander
Heather on hill sides Heather on hill sides
Undergrowth
Top Of River Terrace
V-shaped Valley
Floodplain
Floodplain
• Cross section graphs (Fig, 3.31-3.34) • Cross section drawings (Fig. 3.41-3.44) • Spearman’s rank (Fig. 3.51-3.54)
Introduction and Aims
3 - Hypothesis 1
4 - Hypothesis 2
5 - Location map
Method
6 - Field sketch
7 - River mapping, Cross section
8 - Velocity
9 - Method Limitations
Data Presentation
10 - River mapping table
14 - River mapping
15 - Meander cross section results data set 1
16 - Straight cross section results data set 1
17 - Velocity/depth graphs for data set 1
18 - Meander cross section results data set 2
19 - Straight cross section results data set 2
20 - Velocity/depth graphs for data set 2
21 - Meander cross section sketch data set 1
22 - Straight cross section sketch data set 1
23 - Meander cross section sketch data set 2
24 …show more content…
- Straight cross section sketch data set 2
25 - Spearman’s rank for meander data set 1
26 - Spearman’s rank for straight data set 1
27 - Spearman’s rank for meander data set 2
28 - Spearman’s rank for straight data set 2
Analysis and Conclusion
29 - Meander 1 description and analysis
30 - Straight 1 and Meander 2 description and analysis
31 - Straight 2 description and analysis and hypothesis analysis
33 - Limitations of the study
35 - Bibliography and acknowledgements
Introduction and Aims
The aim of this investigation is to compare the characteristics of straight and meandering sections of a stream using data collected in the Harthope Valley, Northumberland.
My hypotheses for this investigation are:
Hypothesis 1
• The cross profiles of straight stream channels show greater symmetry than the cross profiles taken across the meander.
Rationale
In a straight section of a stream the thalweg is centrally located; this causes erosion of the river bed in the middle but deposition at the banks where the current is slowest. This is the symmetrical cross section across a straight stream or river:
Fig. 1.1
On the other hand, in a meander the thalweg is located at the outer bend while the slowest current, and therefore the deposition, is located on the inside of the meander. This means an asymmetrical cross section is formed. The deposition forms a slip off slope whilst the thalweg causes erosion of the river sides leading to the formation of a river cliff. This is a typical cross section of a river across a meander:
Fig. 1.2
The thalweg travels in a straight line and so when the river comes to a meander then, due to inertia, it continues into the bank. This causes heavy erosion to make the meander even more sinuous. The river bank, where the thalweg hits, deflects the thalweg down towards the next meander and in doing this it has to go through a straight section of the river. As the thalweg is being deflected from one meander to the next, it travels through this straight section in the centre of the channel. (Fig. 1.3)
Fig. 1.3
Hypothesis 2
The pattern of stream velocity shows a direct relationship with the pattern of channel depth.
Rationale
The deeper the channel is, the faster the water flows. This is because in shallower water there is a greater proportion of water in contact with the wetted perimeter. This means that more friction occurs and so the velocity of the water is decreased. In streams and rivers with a deeper bed and therefore a greater volume, the water in contact with the wetted perimeter has less effect in slowing down the river’s flow. In a meander (Fig 1.2) this relationship means that the water is slowest at the slip off slope. This is because the slow water means deposition, leading to a shallower bed, which in turn makes the water even slower. At the outer bend of the meander, the water is deeper and so the water moves faster. In the straight section of a river (Fig 1.1) the water can move faster in the centre as this is where the bed is deepest, it moves slower at either side due to deposition making the river shallower.
Location Map
= Location of fieldwork site
The Harthope Burn flows steeply towards the north-east from the saddle (grid reference NT907191) separating The Cheviot from Hedgehope Hill in north Northumberland.
(Fig 1.5)
The fieldwork site is located on the Harthope Burn immediately upstream of Langlee cottage (grid reference NT963232). It is within the valley about 5km from the source. It is a site of Special Scientific Interest so must be treated with care.
On a national scale, Harthope Burn is in the north east of England with the nearest major city being Newcastle. It is near to the Scottish boarder and is about 35km west of the North Sea. (Fig1.4)
Method
Field Sketch (Fig 2.1)
The first thing to be carried out was the field sketch, this was drawn from the bridge looking upstream and then annotated to show features such as slip off slopes and river cliffs. A photo was also taken (Fig. …show more content…
2.2)
River Mapping
Firstly, 4 ranging poles were set up to form a rectangle around the area of river from where readings were taken, they were placed 100m apart lengthways down the river and 24m apart across the river. Tape was laid along the two 100m sides in order to form baselines (Fig. 2.3).
[pic]
After this was set up, river mapping could commence. A tape was held across the 24m width by two people, both standing at 0m on the baseline, the tape was held taut so that the readings were as accurate as possible. Readings were taken across the 24m tape at every point there was a river feature. Slip off slopes, start of river, end of river and river terrace were all noted. They were measured from 0m across the tape, which was perpendicular to the baseline. The recorder then recorded this information into a table. The same process was continued at the next 2m interval and the river features were read out and recorded. This was done 50 times; every 2m along the baseline until 100m was reached.
Cross Section
Before starting, 4 tapes had to be set up across the river; 2 across the meander and 2 across the straight. A 1-meter rule was held perpendicular to the tape at 0cm then at 20cm and so on, every 20cm until the first dry depth measurement could be taken. The dry depth measurement is the distance from the tape to the ground. Dry depth measurements were continued to be taken every 20cm until the river. At the first measurement above the river a dry depth and a wet depth were taken. The dry depth is the distance from the river surface to the tape and the wet depth is the distance from the surface of the river to the river bed. From then on, only wet measurements were taken (fig. 2.4) as the dry measurements were considered to be constant until the far bank of the river was reached. Measurements were taken every 20cm across the tape unless a boulder was in the way. At a boulder, three dry depths were taken; one at the start, one in the middle and one at the end. This allowed any links between the presence of boulders and the velocity of the river, which was also recorded, to be seen. This was done over both the meander and the straight section of the river. This cross section data was taken to show the symmetry in the meander and in the straight in order to try to find a conclusion to Hypothesis 1.
River Velocity
A flow meter was placed in the water perpendicular to the tape at the first wet depth recorded from the cross-section. Thirty seconds was timed on a stopwatch to see how many revolutions took place. This number was then multiplied by two to find the number of revolutions per minute, which could then be converted into m/s. When the water was deep enough to record the velocity it was then counted as 0m/s. It was essential to stand downstream of where the velocity of the river was measured so that the flow of water was not interrupted. These recordings were taken to find a relationship between channel depth and river velocity in order to try to find a conclusion to Hypothesis 2.
Method limitations
There were several limitations to which solutions had to be found.
The first limitation encountered was during the river planning; the tape at the baseline was broken and so measurements began at 3m. This meant that 3m had to be taken off the results gathered so that they were accurate. Another major limitation was the presence of large boulders further upstream when the velocity readings were taken. Although there were no rocks in the area of water being worked on, there were large boulders just upstream which almost completely stopped the flow of water. This meant our results appear incorrect as the water was moving very slowly in an area where it should have been moving
fast.
Results table from River Mapping (Fig. 3.11)
Meander Cross Section Results (data set 1) (Fig. 3.21)
Straight Cross Section Results (data set 1) (Fig. 3.22)
Meander Cross Section Results (data set 2) (Fig. 3.23)
Meander Cross Section Results (data set 2) (Fig. 3.23)
Straight Cross Section Results (data set 2) (Fig. 3.24)
Straight Cross Section Results (data set 2) (Fig. 3.24)
Analysis and Conclusion
Using the data collected in the data presentation section of this project, several conclusions can be drawn. The following data can help prove or disprove the two hypotheses;
• River mapping table (Fig. 3.11) • River mapping sketch (Fig. 3.12) • Cross section data tables (Fig. 3.21-3.24)
Meander Data Set 1
By analysing the cross section drawn (Fig. 3.41) numerous conclusions can be made. The deepest part of the river is at the right side at 640cm across the profile from the left bank. The shallowest part of the river is at the left side. In addition, at the left side is a small area of sedementation due to deposition. This could indicate that this is where the slowest current is. A river cliff is found at the right side of the river, indicitating that this is an area of faster water, thus causing erosion. The thalweg continues into the river bank causing the most erosion, this occurs due to inertia. Looking at the graph produced using the data (Fig. 3.31) the velocity and depth of the river can be compared. It can be seen that there is a correlation between depth and velocity, this is most clearly shown between 540cm and 640cm. This is where the velocity and the depth are both greatest, both peaking at about 620cm. However, the link between velocity and depth seems less certain between 380cm and 500cm as the depth remains very high whereas the velocity is very low. This was due to a large boulder just upstream which impeded the flow of the water through this section. This meant that the velocity at the point was recorded at almost 0 rpm as the current passed around the large boulder and missed this area. The third piece of data showing correlation between velocity and depth is the Spearman’s Rank correlation co-efficient (Fig. 3.51). The rank produced was 0.587747, this shows a weak correlation as the nearer it is to 1 or –1, the stronger the correlation. The degree of freedom for this data was above 0.1%, this means that it is 99.99% certain that there is a correlation between depth and velocity and that it has not occured by chance. I think that the Spearman’s rank result would have been considerably higher if it weren’t for the boulder upstream which disrupted the data.
Straight Data Set 1
The straight cross section drawing (Fig. 3,42) shows symmetry; on both sides there is no slip off slope nor river cliff. However, there are large boulders on the left side of the river as opposed to a grassy bank on the right. The deepest are of water is in the middle of the river at 540cm from the left bank. There is a larger boulder breaking the surface at 380cm. Looking at the velocity/depth graph (Fig. 3.32) for the same cross section it can be seen clearly that the depth and velocity correlate. At 540cm, the deepest area of the river, the velocity is near its greatest with a rate of over 1100rpm. The depth and velocity match almost perfectly until 660cm. From this point on, the depth increases but the velocity stays at a minimum. This could again be due to boulder upstream disrupting both the flow of water and therefore the velocity at the point data was collected. The graph shows the boulder between 360cm and 400cm as there is neither velocity nor depth. The Spearman’s Rank correlation co-efficient (Fig. 3.52) is 0.894727105. This shows a stong correlation between depth and velocity. It would be almost 1.00 if the upstream boulder at the right side of the river had not been present. The degree of freedom was above 0.1% and so there is a 99.99% confidence in the correlation.
Meander Data Set 2
The cross section for this meander (Fig, 3.43) shows several properties common to meanders. The deeper areas of this cross section are towards the right hand bank but maybe not so much to the side as in the first meander cross section (Fig. 3.41). A large amount of rock at the right hand side of the meander has slowed down the current enough to cause deposition and therefore some sand is present. This is caused by the rocks slowing the water down and is contrary to the typical properties of a meander. A large rock breaks the surface at 210cm. There is no noticeable river cliff present, which indicates this is unlikely to be the area of inertia, where the thalweg hits the bank. The velocity/depth graph for the same meander cross section shows a strong link between depth and velocity. However, the overall pattern is not typical to that of a meander as it shows the symmetry more like in a straight. Velocity and depth both peak at 440cm from the left bank with a depth of around 28cm and a velocity of around 1200rpm. The Spearman’s rank correlation co-efficient (Fig. 3.53) for this meander is 0.918761726. This means that the correlation between depth and velocity is very strong; this figure is higher than the other cross sections because there were no boulders present to disrupt the flow of the water. A degree of freedom of 0.1% shows that a correlation is 99.99% definite.
Straight Data Set 2 The second straight cross section drawing (Fig. 3.44) shows symmetry typical to a straight. The water is of similar depth on both sides and the deepest area is towards the middle. The left bank is grass covered and the right is covered in sand and shingle although they are still of similar gradient. The surface of the water is broken by a boulder at 195cm across the cross section from the left bank. The bed of the river is covered in small rocks and boulders. The velocity/depth graph for this section (Fig. 3.34) shows a basic correlation between depth and velocity. For example, between 240cm and 280cm the velocity correlates perfectly with the depth, both increasing in value in similar proportion. However, there are several areas along the cross section where the velocity of the river is near 0rpm when the river is still quite deep. For example, at 540cm the depth is at its greatest at 30cm but the velocity is very small at around 50rpm. This could be due to boulders downstream. The Spearman’s rank (Fig 3.54) is 0.75849522 for this cross section. This shows quite a strong correlation, which may not be expected from looking at the velocity/depth graph. This shows us a general correlation throughout the cross section and that the effect of the boulders does not significantly alter the correlation. There is a 99.99% certainty that this correlation did not happen by chance as the degree of freedom was above the 0.1% significance level.
Hypotheses analysis
1) The cross profiles of straight stream channels show greater symmetry than cross profiles taken across the meander. -TRUE
From the data taken it can be concluded that the above hypothesis is true. Looking at the data of the cross section drawings (Fig. 3.42, 3.44) it can be seen there is a clear symmetry in the two straight cross sections, although data set 2 shows the greatest symmetry. The symmetry in straights is present because the thalweg is centrally located. This means that the current is slowest towards the banks and so deposition occurs. Erosion takes place in the centre of the river and so a symmetrical profile is maintained. The cross section of data set 1 is less symmetrical due to a large boulder at 380cm. The hypothesis states that straight cross sections have a greater symmetry than meander cross sections and this has been found to be true. Looking at the meander cross section drawing for data set 1 (Fig. 3.41), the thalweg is clearly at the right hand side of the cross profile in an asymmetrical fashion. In addition, the water is shallower at the slip off slope (left bank) where the current is slowest. A river cliff has formed at the right hand side to add to the lack of symmetry. On the other hand, the second set of meander data does not clearly support this hypothesis. The cross section drawing (Fig. 3.43) does not represent the typical features of a meander. There is no obvious slip off slope nor river cliff and the cross section looks more like that of a straight. However, on closer inspection the thalweg is still not centrally located and is more towards the right hand side as would be expected in a meander.
2) The pattern of stream velocity shows a direct relationship with the pattern of channel depth. -TRUE
The rational that the deeper the channel is, the faster the water flows, can be seen to be correct. The four velocity/depth graphs (Fig. 3.31-3.34) show this. In all four graphs, areas of strong correlation can be seen between velocity and depth. This is shown very clearly in figure 3.31 between the points 540cm and 640cm across the profile from the left bank. In these areas there is a greater volume of water as the channel is deeper. This means that a smaller proportion of the water is in contact with the wetted perimeter and so there is less friction acting. With less proportion of the water being affected by friction, the river can flow faster. This was true in all four sets of data taken. However, some of the data presented in the graphs makes this hypothesis seem doubtful. For example, in Fig 3.32 there is an area at around 780cm where the channel is very deep but the velocity is minimal. In this case the low velocity is not related to the depth of the stream as the presence of a boulder upstream is known to have affected the velocity.
Limitations of the Study
The main limitation which affected the results, was the presence of boulders in the area where the data was taken and also just upstream. As previously mentioned, these boulders disrupted the flow of the river and therefore affected the velocity readings. The boulders present at the actual cross section also affected the depth at certain points. However, these boulders had no negative effect as where there was no depth there was also no velocity and so the correlation was unaffected. A way to avoid this would be to conduct the cross sections in an area of a river where no boulders are present. A second limitation is that data was only taken from one river and so the data cannot be compared with any other results to create general hypotheses for all rivers. The river where the study was conducted could have been an exception. In order to prove these hypotheses completely, it would be essential to conduct the same study on a number of different streams and rivers, preferably of different sizes. Another limitation is that conditions of the river may have been very specific to the day on which the experiment was carried out. Recent rainfall had caused flooding in the whole of the north east and this may have affected the results. In order to check this was not the case, the experiment would also have to be conducted in the same stream in a time of little rainfall. Ideally it should be carried out over a period of time at regular intervals. A further limitation to this study could have been human error. Only one member of the team was responsible for recording the data and this could lead to confusion when looking over the results. In order to avoid this type of error, each set of data should have been checked before being recorded. Preferably all readings would have been taken at least twice so that any anomalies could have been spotted. A final limitation to the study could have been faulty equipment. When river mapping was taking place the tape measure across the river was actually faulty so in order to avoid this, measurements were started at 3m and then subtracted after. This could potentially have lead to big innacuracies in the study and so equipment is one aspect which could be improved.
In conclusion, there were several limitations to the study but the results were generally accurate throughout and helped the hypotheses to be proven. However if the limitations had not been present then the study would have been more accurate and the hypotheses would have been more clearly proven with no reservations.
Bibliography and Acknowledgements
Waugh,D. Wider World. Nelson Thornes, 2003
www.geography-site.co.uk
www.ordenancesurvery.co.uk
Set 2 data from James Sleight’s Group.
-----------------------
An Investigation into Stream Channel Characteristics In the Harthope Valley, Northumberland.
Erosion at centre of river due to the thalweg
Flood plain
Flood plain
Deposition
Deposition
Thalweg
Slowest current
Erosion
Flood plain
Flood plain
Thalweg
River cliff
Slip-off slope
Slowest water
Thalweg
Cross section of straight
Cross section of meander
Inertia
Thalweg deflected off bank
Fig. 1.4
Fig. 1.5
24m
100m
100m
Fig. 2.3
Fig 2.4 (Photo taken from www.geography-site.co.uk)
Deposition
Reading on flowmeter
Rotating blades at base of flowmeter
|Distance along cross profile |Bearing along section: 132 Degrees |
|from left bank (cm) | |
| |Position on baseline: 77.2m |
| |Dry depth(cm) |Wet Depth (cm) |Nature of channel material |Velocity (counts per minute) |
|0 |0 |0 |grass |0 |
|20 |3.5 |0 |grass |0 |
|40 |8.5 |0 |grass |0 |
|60 |10 |0 |grass |0 |
|80 |47.5 |0 |grass |0 |
|100 |48 |0 |grass |0 |
|120 |37.5 |0 |grass |0 |
|140 |49.5 |0 |rocks |0 |
|160 |49 |0 |rocks |0 |
|180 |49.5 |0 |rocks |0 |
|200 |36.5 |0 |rocks |0 |
|220 |38.5 |0 |rocks |0 |
|240 |52.5 |18 |water |614 |
|260 |52.5 |11.5 |water |572 |
|280 |52.5 |15 |water |60 |
|300 |52.5 |14.5 |water |278 |
|320 |52.5 |14 |water |460 |
|340 |52.5 |15 |water |360 |
|360 |51.5 |0 |rocks |0 |
|380 |47 |0 |rocks |0 |
|400 |52 |0 |rocks |0 |
|420 |52.5 |11 |water |652 |
|440 |52.5 |17 |water |678 |
|460 |52.5 |20 |water |1184 |
|480 |52.5 |16 |water |760 |
|500 |52.5 |12 |water |876 |
|520 |52.5 |15 |water |986 |
|540 |52.5 |35 |water |1102 |
|560 |52.5 |17 |water |850 |
|580 |52.5 |19 |water |560 |
|600 |52.5 |19 |water |514 |
|620 |52.5 |11 |water |358 |
|640 |52.5 |9 |water |108 |
|660 |52.5 |5 |water |0 |
|680 |52.5 |12 |water |58 |
|700 |52.5 |14.5 |water |48 |
|720 |52.5 |14.5 |water |126 |
|740 |52.5 |20 |water |86 |
|760 |52.5 |25.5 |water |10 |
|780 |50 |0 |grass |0 |
|800 |47 |0 |grass |0 |
|820 |41 |0 |grass |0 |
|840 |26 |0 |grass |0 |
|860 |17.5 |0 |grass |0 |
|880 |5 |0 |grass |0 |
|900 |0 |0 |grass |0 |
|Distances Along Across |Bearing Along Section: 142 Degrees |
|profile | |
|from left bank (cm) | |
| |Position on Baseline: 7.3m |
| |Dry Depth (cm) |Wet Depth (cm) |Nature of Channel material |Velocity (Counts per Minute) |
|0 |0.2 |0 |Grass |0 |
|20 |0.3 |0 |Grass |0 |
|40 |0.3 |0 |Grass |0 |
|60 |0.5 |0 |Grass |0 |
|80 |19.5 |0 |Grass |0 |
|100 |58.5 |0 |Sediment |0 |
|120 |69 |0 |Sediment |0 |
|140 |70 |4 |Water |0 |
|160 |70 |5.5 |Water |0 |
|180 |70 |20.5 |Water |0 |
|200 |70 |19.5 |Water |768 |
|220 |70 |0 |Rock |742 |
|240 |66 |0 |Rock |0 |
|250 |67 |0 |Rock |0 |
|260 |70 |11.5 |Water |444 |
|280 |70 |14 |Water |284 |
|300 |70 |9 |Water |118 |
|320 |70 |15 |Water |294 |
|340 |70 |20 |Water |400 |
|360 |70 |22 |Water |296 |
|380 |70 |22 |Water |216 |
|400 |70 |22 |Water |104 |
|420 |70 |26 |Water |56 |
|440 |70 |31 |Water |2 |
|460 |70 |23 |Water |74 |
|480 |70 |30 |Water |64 |
|500 |70 |16 |Water |256 |
|520 |70 |6 |Water |692 |
|540 |70 |27 |Water |762 |
|560 |70 |24 |Water |844 |
|580 |70 |30 |Water |832 |
|600 |70 |35 |Water |750 |
|620 |70 |36 |Water |852 |
|640 |70 |37 |Water |526 |
|660 |70 |30 |Water |140 |
|680 |70 |19 |Water |0 |
|700 | 70 |7.5 |Water |0 |
|720 | 70 |0.5 |Water |0 |
|740 |26.5 |0 |Grass |0 |
|760 |11.5 | 0 |Grass |0 |
|780 |12 | 0 |Grass |0 |
|800 |10 | 0 |Grass |0 |
Fig. 2.5
Taking velocity readings
|Bearing along baseline: 240 degrees |
|distance along baseline (m) | |
| |Distance(m) |3.6 |9.1 |9.8 |14.8 |16.6 |23.3 |
|0 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |edge of river |edge of floodplain |edge of slip off|far edge of |edge of |top of river |
| | |terrace | |slope |river |floodplain |terrace |
| |Distance(m) |4.4 |9.1 |10 |15.1 |19.3 |23.2 |
|2 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |edge of river |edge of floodplain |edge of sos |fer |edge of fp |tot |
| | |terrace | | | | | |
| |Distance(m) |5.8 |10 |10.3 |16 |19.7 |24.9 |
|4 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |edge of river |edge of floodplain |edge of sos |fer |edge of fp |tot |
| | |terrace | | | | | |
| |Distance(m) |7.8 |10.4 |11.1 |16.8 |19.9 |24.5 |
|6 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |edge of river |edge of floodplain |edge of sos |fer |edge of fp |tot |
| | |terrace | | | | | |
| |Distance(m) |7.5 |10.7 |11.4 |16.8 |21.1 |24.5 |
|8 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |edge of river |floodplain |sos |fer |fp |tot |
| | |terrace | | | | | |
| |Distance(m) |7.6 |11 |11.8 |17.3 |20.1 |24.5 |
|10 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |sos |fer |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |7.6 |11.1 |11.6 |17.2 |20.5 |24.5 |
|12 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |sos |fer |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |8.3 |11.5 |11.7 |17.2 |20.4 |24.3 |
|14 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |sos |fer |fp |Tot |
| |Distance(m) |8.5 |11.5 |11.8 |17.5 |20.4 |24.5 |
|16 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |end of sos |fer |fp |Tot |
| |Distance(m) |8.8 |11.3 |15.9 |17.2 |20.3 |24.2 |
|18 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |far edge of |new sos |fp |tot |
| | | | |river | | | |
| |Distance(m) |8.2 |10.6 |15.8 |17.1 |20 |23.9 |
|20 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |8.1 |10 |15 |15.6 |20.3 |23.7 |
|22 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |floodplain |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |7.4 | |14.5 |15.7 |19.8 |23.3 |
|24 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |7.0 | |14.2 |15.3 |19.7 |23.2 |
|26 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |6.1 | |13.1 |15.1 |19.8 |23.3 |
|28 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |4.8 | |11.8 |13.9 |19.1 |23.3 |
|30 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |4.1 | |11.8 |13.3 |19.1 |22.8 |
|32 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.3 |4.3 |11.2 |12.8 |18.3 |22.3 |
|34 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.2 |4.3 |10.4 |11.6 |18 |22.1 |
|36 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.8 |3.6 |9.8 |11 |16.7 |22.6 |
|38 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.7 |3.2 |9.4 |11.2 |16.4 |21.5 |
|40 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.7 |2.6 |9.2 |10.2 |16.3 |21.8 |
|42 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.8 |2.4 |8.7 |9.8 |15.3 |20.6 |
|44 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.6 | |8.9 |9.1 |14.2 |20.2 |
|46 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer |sos |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.4 | |8.9 | |13.9 |20.6 |
|48 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |no fp |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.4 |2.4 |8.9 | |13.4 |19.7 |
|50 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |deposition |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.9 |3.1 |8.9 | |11.8 |19.6 |
|52 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |Joins tributary |deposition |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.9 |2.4 |8.7 | |10.9 |18.8 |
|54 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |deposition |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.3 | |8.7 | |10.5 |18.3 |
|56 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.5 | |8.6 | |10.5 |17.9 |
|58 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.3 | |8.4 | |9.5 |17.3 |
|60 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | |fp |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.1 | |8.4 |8.5 | |16.8 |
|62 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |sos | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.7 | |7.5 |7.9 | |16.5 |
|64 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |sos | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.4 | |8.6 |9.4 | |16.4 |
|66 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |sos | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2 | | 8|9.5 | |16.4 |
|68 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | | fer |rock outcrop | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |3.1 | |6.9 |10.3 | |16 |
|70 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |ro | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.8 | |6.9 |9.3 | |16.2 |
|72 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |ro | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.3 | |8.1 |8.7 | |15.6 |
|74 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer |ro | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2 | |8.3 | | |15.4 |
|76 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.4 | |8.6 | | |15.3 |
|78 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.3 | |9.3 | | |15.2 |
|80 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |2.6 | |9.7 | | |14.9 |
|82 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace | |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.1 |2.8 |9.7 | | |14.9 |
|84 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |slip off slope |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.5 |3 |8.9 | | |15 |
|86 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.5 |4 |10.3 | | |15.4 |
|88 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.6 |4 |9.3 | | |15.7 |
|90 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.7 |4.4 |10.2 | | |15.7 |
|92 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.6 |4.2 |9.5 | | |15.9 |
|94 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.5 |4.4 |10.8 | | |16.4 |
|96 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |0.8 |4.8 |10.3 | | |17.4 |
|98 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
| |Distance(m) |1.4 |4.8 |11 | | |17.8 |
|100 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |Feature |river terrace |sos |fer | | |tot |
Velocity/Depth Graph For Meander Cross Section (data set 1)
|Distances Along Across |Bearing Along Section: 140 Degrees |
|profile | |
|from left bank (cm) | |
| |Position on Baseline: 11.8m |
| |Dry Depth (cm) |Wet Depth (cm) |Nature of Channel material |Velocity (Counts per Minute) |
|0 |0 |0 |Grass |0 |
|20 |1 |0 |Grass |0 |
|40 |4 |0 |Grass |0 |
|60 |7 |0 |Grass |0 |
|80 |11 |0 |Grass |0 |
|100 |19 |0 |Grass |0 |
|120 |53 |0 |Gress |0 |
|140 |60 |0 |Water |0 |
|160 |67 |1 |Water |0 |
|180 |67 |1 |Water |0 |
|200 |67 |1 |Water |0 |
|210 |52 |0 |Rock |0 |
|220 |57 |0 |Rock |0 |
|240 |67 |12 |Water |120 |
|260 |67 |14 |Water |498 |
|280 |67 |12 |Water |560 |
|300 |67 |20 |Water |374 |
|320 |67 |24 |Water |402 |
|340 |67 |25 |Water |502 |
|360 |67 |10 |Water |642 |
|380 |67 |26 |Water |636 |
|400 |67 |22 |Water |1108 |
|420 |67 |29 |Water |1072 |
|440 |67 |29 |Water |1184 |
|460 |67 |26 |Water |942 |
|480 |67 |28 |Water |690 |
|500 |67 |26 |Water |536 |
|520 |67 |14 |Water |648 |
|540 |67 |27 |Water |872 |
|560 |67 |16 |Water |910 |
|580 |67 |2 |Water |818 |
|600 |67 |2 |Water |274 |
|620 |67 |1 |Water |4 |
|640 |67 |4 |Water |1 |
|660 |63 |0 |Rock |0 |
|680 |36 |0 |Grass |0 |
|700 |23 |0 |Grass |0 |
|720 |18 |0 |Grass |0 |
|740 |7 |0 |Grass |0 |
|760 |6 |0 |Grass |0 |
|Distance Along Cross Profile|Bearing along section: 138 degrees |
|From Left Bank (cm) | |
| |Position on Baseline: 77.8 |
| |Dry Depth (cm) |Wet Depth(cm) |Nature of Channel Material |Velocity (Counts per Minute) |
|0 |1 |0 |sand/grass |0 |
|20 |5 |0 |sand/grass |0 |
|40 |5 |0 |sand/grass |0 |
|60 |3 |0 |sand/grass |0 |
|80 |0 |0 |sand/grass |0 |
|100 |3 |0 |grass |0 |
|120 |79 |18 |pebbles |152 |
|140 |79 |18 |pebbles |388 |
|160 |79 |14 |pebbles |776 |
|180 |79 |9 |boulder |0 |
|195 |68 |0 |boulder |0 |
|210 |79 |8 |boulder |0 |
|220 |79 |11 |pebbles |76 |
|240 |79 |6 |pebbles |308 |
|260 |79 |14 |pebbles |804 |
|280 |79 |22 |pebbles |1032 |
|300 |79 |18 |pebbles |432 |
|320 |79 |17 |pebbles |16 |
|340 |79 |23 |large rock |224 |
|360 |79 |23 |large rock |640 |
|380 |79 |19 |pebbles |836 |
|400 |79 |25 |pebbles |820 |
|420 |79 |21 |pebbles |1160 |
|440 |79 |19 |pebbles |1400 |
|460 |79 |18 |pebbles |312 |
|480 |79 |16 |pebbles |60 |
|500 |79 |23 |pebbles |1600 |
|520 |79 |14 |pebbles |704 |
|540 |79 |22 |pebbles |68 |
|560 |79 |30 |pebbles |224 |
|580 |79 |28 |pebbles |76 |
|600 |79 |24 |pebbles |300 |
|620 |79 |6 |large rock |32 |
|640 |79 |17 |large rock |52 |
|660 |79 |13 |large rock |312 |
|680 |79 |19 |pebbles and rocks |308 |
|700 |79 |8 |pebbles and rocks |464 |
|720 |79 |7 |pebbles and rocks |340 |
|740 |79 |5 |pebbles |0 |
|760 |79 |6 |pebbles |0 |
|780 |79 |2 |pebbles |0 |
|800 |41 |0 |sand and shingle |0 |
|820 |33 |0 |sand and shingle |0 |
|840 |37 |0 |sand and shingle |0 |
|860 |31 |0 |sand and shingle |0 |
|880 |10 |0 |sand and shingle |0 |
[pic]
[pic]
Key
- Depth of River (cm)
- Velocity of River (rotations per minute)
[pic]
[pic]
Key
- Depth of River (cm)
- Velocity of River (rotations per minute)
Key = Depth of River (cm)
= Velocity (rotations per minute)
Distance across from left bank (cm) |Depth (cm) |Rank |Velocity (rpm) |Rank |Difference in rank (d) |d squared | | | |0 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | |Sum of d squared | |20 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | |5090.5 | |40 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |60 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | |Spearman’s Rank | |80 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | |0.587747 | |100 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |120 |18 |15.5 |0 |33 |-17.5 |306.25 | |Degrees of Freedom | |140 |18 |15.5 |0 |33 |-17.5 |306.25 | |0.1% | |160 |14 |21 |0 |33 |-12 |144 | | | |180 |9 |25 |0 |33 |-8 |64 | | | |200 |0 |37.5 |768 |4 |33.5 |1122.25 | | | |220 |8 |26.5 |742 |7 |19.5 |380.25 | | | |240 |11 |24 |0 |33 |-9 |81 | | | |250 |6 |30 |0 |33 |-3 |9 | | | |260 |14 |21 |444 |10 |11 |121 | | | |280 |22 |8.5 |284 |14 |-5.5 |30.25 | | | |300 |18 |15.5 |118 |18 |-2.5 |6.25 | | | |320 |17 |17.5 |294 |13 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |340 |23 |6 |400 |11 |-5 |25 | | | |360 |23 |6 |296 |12 |-6 |36 | | | |380 |19 |12 |216 |16 |-4 |16 | | | |400 |25 |3 |104 |19 |-16 |256 | | | |420 |21 |10 |56 |22 |-12 |144 | | | |440 |19 |12 |2 |23 |-11 |121 | | | |460 |18 |15.5 |74 |20 |-4.5 |20.25 | | | |480 |16 |19 |64 |21 |-2 |4 | | | |500 |23 |6 |256 |15 |-9 |81 | | | |520 |14 |21 |692 |8 |13 |169 | | | |540 |22 |8.5 |762 |5 |3.5 |12.25 | | | |560 |30 |1 |844 |2 |-1 |1 | | | |580 |28 |2 |832 |3 |-1 |1 | | | |600 |24 |4 |750 |6 |-2 |4 | | | |620 |6 |30 |852 |1 |29 |841 | | | |640 |17 |17.5 |526 |9 |8.5 |72.25 | | | |660 |13 |23 |140 |17 |6 |36 | | | |680 |19 |12 |0 |33 |-21 |441 | | | |700 |8 |26.5 |0 |33 |-6.5 |42.25 | | | |720 |7 |28 |0 |33 |-5 |25 | | | |740 |5 |32 |0 |33 |-1 |1 | | | |760 |6 |30 |0 |33 |-3 |9 | | | |780 |2 |33 |0 |33 |0 |0 | | | |800 |0 |37.5 |0 |33 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |
Spearman’s Rank – Meander Data Set 1 (Fig. 3.51)
Distance across from left bank (cm) |Depth (cm) |Rank |Velocity (rpm) |Rank |Difference in rank (d) |d squared | | | |0 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |Sum of d squared | |20 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |10242 | |40 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |60 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |Spearman's Rank | |80 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |0.894727105 | |100 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |120 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |Degrees of Freedom | |140 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | |0.1% | |160 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |180 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |200 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |220 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |240 |18 |7 |614 |9 |-2 |4 | | | |260 |11.5 |20 |572 |10 |10 |100 | | | |280 |15 |12 |60 |20 |-8 |64 | | | |300 |14.5 |15 |278 |16 |-1 |1 | | | |320 |14 |17 |460 |13 |4 |16 | | | |340 |15 |12 |360 |14 |-2 |4 | | | |360 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |380 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |400 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |420 |11 |21.5 |652 |8 |13.5 |182.25 | | | |440 |17 |8.5 |678 |7 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |460 |20 |3.5 |1184 |1 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |480 |16 |10 |760 |6 |4 |16 | | | |500 |12 |18.5 |876 |4 |14.5 |210.25 | | | |520 |15 |12 |986 |3 |9 |81 | | | |540 |35 |1 |1102 |2 |-1 |1 | | | |560 |17 |8.5 |850 |5 |3.5 |12.25 | | | |580 |19 |5.5 |560 |11 |-5.5 |30.25 | | | |600 |19 |5.5 |514 |12 |-6.5 |42.25 | | | |620 |11 |21.5 |358 |15 |6.5 |42.25 | | | |640 |9 |23 |108 |18 |5 |25 | | | |660 |5 |24 |0 |35 |-11 |121 | | | |680 |12 |18.5 |58 |21 |-2.5 |6.25 | | | |700 |14.5 |15 |48 |22 |-7 |49 | | | |720 |14.5 |15 |126 |17 |-2 |4 | | | |740 |20 |3.5 |86 |19 |-15.5 |240.25 | | | |760 |25.5 |2 |10 |23 |-21 |441 | | | |780 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |800 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |820 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |840 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |860 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |880 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |900 |0 |35.5 |0 |35 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |
Spearman’s Rank – Straight Data Set 1 (Fig. 3.52)
Distance across from left bank (cm) |Depth (cm) |Rank |Velocity (rpm) |Rank |Difference in rank (d) |d squared | | | |0 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |Sum of d squared | |20 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |5196 | |40 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |60 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |Spearman’s Rank | |80 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |0.918761726 | |100 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |120 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |Degrees of Freedom | |140 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | |0.1% | |160 |1 |22.5 |0 |31 |-8.5 |72.25 | | | |180 |1 |22.5 |0 |31 |-8.5 |72.25 | | | |200 |1 |22.5 |0 |31 |-8.5 |72.25 | | | |210 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |220 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |240 |12 |15.5 |120 |19 |-3.5 |12.25 | | | |260 |14 |13.5 |498 |15 |-1.5 |2.25 | | | |280 |12 |15.5 |560 |12 |3.5 |12.25 | | | |300 |20 |11 |374 |17 |-6 |36 | | | |320 |24 |9 |402 |16 |-7 |49 | | | |340 |25 |8 |502 |14 |-6 |36 | | | |360 |10 |17 |642 |10 |7 |49 | | | |380 |26 |6 |636 |11 |-5 |25 | | | |400 |22 |10 |1108 |2 |8 |64 | | | |420 |29 |1.5 |1072 |3 |-1.5 |2.25 | | | |440 |29 |1.5 |1184 |1 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |460 |26 |6 |942 |4 |2 |4 | | | |480 |28 |3 |690 |8 |-5 |25 | | | |500 |26 |6 |536 |13 |-7 |49 | | | |520 |14 |13.5 |648 |9 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |540 |27 |4 |872 |6 |-2 |4 | | | |560 |16 |12 |910 |5 |7 |49 | | | |580 |2 |19.5 |818 |7 |12.5 |156.25 | | | |600 |2 |19.5 |274 |18 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |620 |1 |22.5 |4 |20 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |640 |4 |18 |1 |21 |-3 |9 | | | |660 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |680 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |700 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |720 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |740 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |760 |0 |32.5 |0 |31 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |
Spearman’s Rank – Meander Data Set 2 (Fig. 3.53)
Distance across from left bank (cm) |Depth (cm) |Rank |Velocity (rpm) |Rank |Difference in rank (d) |d squared | | | |0 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | |Sum of d squared | |20 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | |23496 | |40 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |60 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | |Spearman’s Rank | |80 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | |0.75849522 | |100 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |120 |18 |15.5 |152 |22 |-6.5 |42.25 | |Degrees of Freedom | |140 |18 |15.5 |388 |13 |2.5 |6.25 | |0.1% | |160 |14 |22 |776 |8 |14 |196 | | | |180 |9 |26 |0 |38 |-12 |144 | | | |195 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |210 |8 |27.5 |0 |38 |-10.5 |110.25 | | | |220 |11 |25 |76 |23.5 |1.5 |2.25 | | | |240 |6 |31 |308 |17 |14 |196 | | | |260 |14 |22 |804 |7 |15 |225 | | | |280 |22 |8.5 |1032 |4 |4.5 |20.25 | | | |300 |18 |15.5 |432 |12 |3.5 |12.25 | | | |320 |17 |18.5 |16 |29 |-10.5 |110.25 | | | |340 |23 |6 |224 |20.5 |-14.5 |210.25 | | | |360 |23 |6 |640 |10 |-4 |16 | | | |380 |19 |12 |836 |5 |7 |49 | | | |400 |25 |3 |820 |6 |-3 |9 | | | |420 |21 |10 |1160 |3 |7 |49 | | | |440 |19 |12 |1400 |2 |10 |100 | | | |460 |18 |15.5 |312 |15 |0.5 |0.25 | | | |480 |16 |20 |60 |26 |-6 |36 | | | |500 |23 |6 |1600 |1 |5 |25 | | | |520 |14 |22 |704 |9 |13 |169 | | | |540 |22 |8.5 |68 |25 |-16.5 |272.25 | | | |560 |30 |1 |224 |20.5 |-19.5 |380.25 | | | |580 |28 |2 |76 |23.5 |-21.5 |462.25 | | | |600 |24 |4 |300 |19 |-15 |225 | | | |620 |6 |31 |32 |28 |3 |9 | | | |640 |17 |18.5 |52 |27 |-8.5 |72.25 | | | |660 |13 |24 |312 |16 |8 |64 | | | |680 |19 |12 |308 |18 |-6 |36 | | | |700 |8 |27.5 |464 |11 |16.5 |272.25 | | | |720 |7 |29 |340 |14 |15 |225 | | | |740 |5 |33 |0 |38 |-5 |25 | | | |760 |6 |31 |0 |38 |-7 |49 | | | |780 |2 |34 |0 |38 |-4 |16 | | | |800 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |820 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |840 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |860 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |880 |0 |40.5 |0 |38 |2.5 |6.25 | | | |
Spearman’s Rank – Straight Data Set 2 (Fig. 3.54)
(Fig. 3.31)
Fig. 2.2
Fig. 2.1
Floodplain
Floodplain
V-shaped Valley
Top Of River Terrace
Undergrowth
Heather on hill sides
Heather on hill sides
Meander
The Cheviot
Hedgehope Hill
Boulders
River Cliff
River Cliff
Boulders
Hedgehope Hill
The Cheviot
Meander
Heather on hill sides Heather on hill sides
Undergrowth
Top Of River Terrace
V-shaped Valley
Floodplain
Floodplain
• Cross section graphs (Fig, 3.31-3.34) • Cross section drawings (Fig. 3.41-3.44) • Spearman’s rank (Fig. 3.51-3.54)