You are on page 1of 40

Firas A.

(ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Geography Internal Assessment about Stream Discharge

Hypothesis: The discharge of a stream increases downstream. There


will be changes in the stream variables of depth, width and velocity.

Name: Firas A.
Candidate Number: 001

1
Illustration shows the Gulp river, obtained from http://www.landscapes.nl/zuid-limburg/

1
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 3
2. Fieldwork Method ....................................................................................... 6
3. Individual Description and Analysis ....................................................... 8
 Site 1…………………………………………….……………………8
 Site 2………………………………………………...………………11
 Site 3…………………………………………………...……………13
 Site 4……………………………………………………...…………15
 Site 5……………………………………………………...…………17
 Site 6…………………………………………………...……………19
 Site 7……………………………………………………...…………21
 Site 8……………………………………………………...…………23
 Site 9……………………………………………………...…………25
 Site 10……………………………………………………...………..28

4. Overall Analysis and Summary…..………………………..………….31


5. Conclusion………………………………………….………..…………..35
6. Bibliography……………………………………….………….…………36
7. Appendix………………………...…….………….…………..…………37

2
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

List of Illustrations
Figure 1 – illustrates the drainage basin of the river Maas and the area……………………….5
Figure 2 – showing the ten sites at which measurements were taken………………………….6
Figure 3 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 1…………………………………….8
Figure 4 – measuring the velocity at site 1 using a stopwatch and an orange…………………9
Figure 5 – showing how the depth is greatest at midstream (erosive impact)…….………….10
Figure 6 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 2…………………………..……….11
Figure 7 – series of photographs showing site 2…………………………………………...…11
Figure 8 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 2…………………..………12
Figure 9 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 3……………………………...……13
Figure 10 – series of photographs showing site 3…………………………………….………13
Figure 11 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 3…………………………14
Figure 12 – saltation in the river………………………………………………………...……14
Figure 13 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 4………………………….………15
Figure 14 – photograph showing site 4……………………………………………….………15
Figure 15 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 4…………………………16
Figure 16 – showing all kinds of possible inflows……………………………...……………16
Figure 17 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 5……………………………….…17
Figure 18 – photograph showing site 5……………………………………………….………17
Figure 19 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 5…………………………18
Figure 20 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 6…………………………….……19
Figure 21 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 6 ……………………...…19
Figure 22 – photograph showing site 6………………………………………………….……20
Figure 23 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 7……………………………….…21
Figure 24 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 7…………………………22
Figure 25 – photograph showing site 7…………………………………………………….…22
Figure 26 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 8………………………….………23
Figure 27 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 8…………………………24
Figure 28 – photograph showing site 8……………………………………………….………24
Figure 29 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 9………………………….………26
Figure 30 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 9…………………………26
Figure 31 – showing the principle of laminar and turbulent flow……………………………27
Figure 32 – photograph showing site 9……………………………………………….………28
Figure 33 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 10……………………………...…29
Figure 34 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 10……………………..…29
Figure 34b – photograph showing site 10…………………………………………….………29
Figure 35 – map showing confluence and location of site 10…………………………..……30
Figure 35b – photograph showing confluence at site 10……………………………..………30
Figure 36 – scatter graph showing a positive distance/discharge relationship………….……31
Figure 37 – showing all kinds of possible inflows………………………………………...…32
Figure 38 – average depth from source to mouth……………………………………….……33
Figure 39 – showing average velocity from source to mouth…………………………..……34
Figure 40 – showing width (from bank to bank) …………………………………….………34
Figure 41 – the process of velocity and depth-interaction at a glance (appendix)…...………40

3
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

1. Introduction

The main purpose of this internal assessment is to test the hypothesis stating that the
discharge2 of a stream increases downstream, and that there will be changes in the stream
variables of depth, width and velocity. In order to be able to test the above mentioned
hypothesis, data was collected at ten selected sites of the Gulp River. The research is expected
to reveal a positive relationship between stream discharge and distance from source, thus
moving further downstream is predicted to result in higher stream discharge. The reason for
such a positive relationship is foreseen to lie within the fact that increased amounts of water,
originating from precipitation, reach the river by means of surface runoff while traveling
further downstream. Moreover, naturally occurring phenomena along the riverbed such as the
deposition of sediment and erosion are expected to result in changes in stream variables of
depth, width and velocity whilst moving further downstream. The Spearman’s rank
correlation coefficient shall be engaged in order to assess the strength of the relationship
between the two variables. The Gulp River is a tributary of the river Geul3 and arises along
the Schwarzenberg near the village of Hombourg. The Schwarzenberg belongs to the northern
Ardennes plateau located in Belgium. In order for the Gulp River to reach the village of
Gulpen in southern Limburg4, it meanders its way through the hilly landscape in a
northwesterly direction. It should be mentioned that the Gulp is a first order stream. It attracts
many tourists whereas at the same the Gulp is essential for farming.

2
In the study of hydrology, the discharge of a river is the volume of water transported by it in a certain amount
of time. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrology
3
Geul is a river in Belgium and the Netherlands. It is a tributary to the river Meuse (major European river, rising
in France). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geul.
4
Limburg is the southern-most of the twelve provinces of the Netherlands, located in the south-east of the
country. Its capital is Maastricht. This information was obtained from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburg

4
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

In order to put this research into geographical context, the drainage basin5 of the river Maas
and its tributaries is shown in figure 1 below.

This is the Geul River


point where (tributary to
the Gulp the river
joins the Geul Maas)
(confluence)

Maastricht

Not to scale

Gulp River
(tributary of the
Geul River)

Not to scale

Figure 1 – illustrates the drainage basin of the river Maas and the area which this research focuses on 6

5
A drainage basin is an area of land drained by a river and its distributaries
6
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Meuse_basin.jpg

5
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

2. Fieldwork Method

The data collection took place at ten different sites along the Gulp River. The sites where
chosen at an average interval of 3 km in order to ensure sufficient coverage. At each of the ten
sites (figure 2 below) measurements were taken in order to determine the river velocity,
discharge, width and cross-section (depth across river channel). This section of the internal
assessment focuses on explaining what methods were engaged in collecting data and why they
were used.

Site number and name Distance from source (km)


1. Julien Chassis (first site) 0 km
2. De Medaelmolen – Hombourg 3.5 km
3. Nurpo – Teuven 7 km
4. Slenaken 9.5 km
5. Helenahoeve 10.5 km
6. Beutenaken 11.5 km
7. Waterop 14.5 km
8. Pesakerweg 18.5 km
9. Gulpen Pannekokenhuis 20.0 km
10. Gulpen (mouth joins Geul river) 23.0 km
Figure 2 – showing the ten sites at which measurements were taken

First, the cross-section of each of the above listed sites was measured. This was done using a
30 meter tape and a meter ruler. The tape was held tight from the left bank to the right bank,
close to the water surface. Starting from 0 on the tape, the depth of the water in centimeters
was measured. The measurement of the depth was repeated at 0.2 meter intervals, until the
right bank was reached. The results were recorded in a table and the average depth of each
site was calculated using the collected raw data. This method of determining cross-sections is
simple and accurate at the same time. Methods of
straightforward nature are most likely to keep the error
rate at its lowest and therefore produce precise results.

6
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Followed by the measurement of the cross-section of each site, the river velocity7 was
determined using a 30 meter tape, an orange and a stopwatch. The orange was found to float
optimally, as 50 percent of the orange remained above the water surface and the other 50
percent below. This ensured realistic velocity results. Starting near the left bank of the river,
the orange was placed in the water - timing how long (in seconds) it actually takes the orange
to travel 5 meters downstream. In total this process was repeated five times near the left bank,
five times at midstream and five times near the right bank of the river – resulting in 15
different values for each site. Occasionally the orange got stuck somewhere in the river and
did not move for a period of time, resulting in odd velocity values on the data table. Finally,
the average water velocity at the left bank, midstream and right bank was calculated using the
acquired data. Afterwards pictures of each site were taken in order to be able to analyze each
site with respect to its natural features, seen in the photograph. The discharge for each site
was calculated as follows: cross-sectional area × velocity.

Measuring the velocity at site 1 using a stopwatch and an orange

7
The velocity of a river is the speed at which the water flows.

7
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

3. Individual Description and Analysis

Site 1

Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge

0 km (source) 92 cm 1.45 m/s 1.76 cm 161 cm² 234 m³/s

Velocity measurements taken at the first site resulted in figure 3 below. The reason for the
low velocity (1.45 m/s) can be found considering factors such as little depth and massive
vegetation (increased friction). In order to prove the hypothesis the current discharge of 234
m³/s is supposed to increase further downstream.

Site 1 - Average Velocity (m/s)

0,8

0,7

0,6
Meter per Second

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
Left Bank Midstream Right Bank
Average speed (m/s) 0,65 0,67 0,39
River Bank

Figure 3 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 1

8
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

As visible in figure 4 below, the left bank (where the 1 is placed) is located on the outside of a
meander, whereas the right bank (where the 2 is placed) is located on the inside of a meander.
Thus, the velocity pattern shown in figure 3 above can be explained by considering the fact
that the water in a river generally flows faster on the outside of a meander (0.65 m/s) and
significantly slower (0.39 m/s) along the inside of a meander.

Figure 4 – measuring the velocity at site 1 using a stopwatch and an orange

9
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Graphing the cross-section8 data for site 1 resulted in figure 5 below. The reason for the depth
being greatest at midstream (5 cm) is the fact that this is exactly where the river’s velocity
(0.67 m/s) – and therefore erosive ability – is at its greatest level.

Site 1 - Cross-Section

0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9

-1

-2
Depth (cm)

-3

-4

-5

-6
Distance across river from left to right bank (m)

Figure 5 – showing how the depth is greatest at midstream because of the erosive impact of velocity

8
A river cross-section gives depth of the water across the river channel.

10
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Site 2

Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge

3.5 km 96 cm 0.95 m/s 12.16 cm 1167 cm² 1109 m³/s

Figure 6 below shows the average velocity values obtained for site 2. Compared to the
previous site, the discharge has increased 875 m³/s, supporting the hypothesis. The increase in
discharge can be explained considering the 10.4 cm increase in average depth. Greater depth
allows the water to travel faster without having to overcome friction caused by touching the
riverbed. As a consequence of not touching the riverbed, turbulation is kept at its lowest.

Figure 6 (above) – showing the average velocity pattern for site 2

Plenty of
overhanging
vegetation

Figure 7 – series of photographs showing site 2

11
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

In figure 8 below is it visible that the water is shallowest (10 cm) at the left bank. This can be
explained considering the low velocity (0.13 m/s) associated with the left bank, resulting in
increased deposition of sediment. Thus the results shown in figure 8 below reflect the average
velocity pattern of figure 6 above.

Figure 8 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 2

12
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Site 3

Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge

7 km 393 cm 1 m/s 8.9 cm 3497 cm² 3486 m³/s

Figure 9 below shows the velocity pattern for site 3. Compared to previous sites the width
increased about 300 cm and discharge increased about 2000 m³/s, actively supporting the
hypothesis. The significant increase in width is most likely to be the reason for the increase
discharge (more water can be carried).

Figure 9 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 3

Highest
velocity at
midstream
due to low
Overhanging friction
vegetation

Figure 10 – series of photographs showing site 3

13
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Graphing the cross-section data for site 3 resulted in figure 11 below. With 18 cm depth near
the right bank the depth increased a great deal compared to the previous sites.

Figure 11 - cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 3

The heavy fluctuations in depth seen in figure 11 above can be attributed to increased water
velocity. Increased water velocity makes the river capable of carrying more sediment. The
sediment in turn erodes the riverbed by means of saltation (figure 12 to the right), eventually
resulting in pot holes.

Figure 12 – saltation in the river9

9
Source: http://earthsci.org/flood/J_Flood04/stream/saltation.gif

14
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Site 4
Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge

9.5 km 315 cm 0.97 m/s 14.82 cm 4668 cm² 4527 m³/s


The classical average velocity pattern can be observed in figure 10 below. The reason for the
velocity being greatest at midstream (0.46 m/s) lies within the fact that at midstream there is
least friction caused by the riverbanks. This allows the water to flow unobstructed and
therefore faster.

Figure 13 (above) – showing the average velocity pattern for site 4

This 1m deep Heavy


pool is the under-
result of high cutting
water erosion

Slop-off slope
created due to
low velocity
(sediment gets
dropped) Highest
water
velocity

Figure 14 – photograph showing site 4

15
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Figure 15 below graphically depicts what is described in figure 13 and 14 above. The low
velocity (0.37 m/s) at the left bank resulted in increased deposition of sediment. In figure 15
below it is clearly visible how increased deposition of sediment has lead to a reduction in
depth at the left bank.

Figure 15 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 4

The discharge further increased and reached 4527 m³/s. The increased discharge can be
explained considering the fact that increased amounts of water are reaching the river through
inflows while moving downstream. These inflows are depicted in figure 16 to the right.

Figure 16

1. Upstream or tributaries of the river.


2. Surface runoff.
3. Water seeping downhill through soil.
4. Ground water forced into the river through bedrock.
5. Storm drainage system from towns. 10

10
Source: http://www.naturegrid.org.uk/rivers/watercyclepages/riverbasin-stages.html

16
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Site 5
Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge

10.5 km 370 cm 0.45 m/s 18.9 cm 6993 cm² 3146 m³/s

In figure 13 below it is evident that, just like in most cases, at midstream the velocity is the
highest (being 0.22 m/s). Figure 18 below shall clarify the velocity pattern seen in figure 17 –
and point out its main features.

Site 5 - Average Velocity (m/s)

0,25

0,2

0,15
(m/s)

0,1

0,05

0
Left Bank Midstream Right Bank
Average speed (m/s) 0,16 0,22 0,21
River Bank

Figure 17 (above) – showing the average velocity pattern for site 5

The high
Slip off slope average water
resulting in low speed (0.22 m/s)
water velocity resulted in 27
(0.16 m/s) cm depth. (High
erosive ability)

This area of flat


ground
alongside the
river is its
floodplain. The
soil here is
particularly
fertile as
nutrients from
the river get
deposited here

Figure 18 – photograph showing site 5

17
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Figure 19 below reflects the velocity pattern shown in figure 17 above. Due to the large slip
off slope the water flows with particular low velocity next to the left bank, resulting in
increased deposition and therefore shallower water (at x-axis = 1 in figure 19 below).

Site 5 - Cross-Section

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
-5

-10
Depth (cm)

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35
Distance across river from left to right bank (m)

Figure 19 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 5

The discharge has decreased from 4527 m³/s to 3146 m³/s. The reason for this can be found
considering the large slip off slope to the left bank. The slip off slope resulted in a significant
decrease in depth and velocity. Depth and velocity in turn directly affect the discharge.
However, the general trend remains: discharge is generally increasing further downstream.
Values of depth, width and velocity keep changing while moving downstream.

18
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Site 6
Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge

11.5 km 446 cm 0.99 m/s 11.3 cm 5039 cm² 4989 m³/s

As evident in figure 16 below the highest velocity (found at the left bank) is associated with
the greatest depth in figure 21 below. This can be explained considering the positive
relationship between velocity and erosive ability. The discharge having increased 1843 m³/s,
agrees with the hypothesis.

Figure 20 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 6

Figure 21 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 6

19
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Severe Rocks
undercutting obstructing
flow

Figure 22 – photograph showing site 6

On the photograph above the long profile of the river is clearly visible. Increased velocity is
leading to more extreme undercutting. In the photograph above the tree on the left bank is
heavily affected by undercutting. The uneven cross-section visible in figure 21 above can be
explained considering the rocks (annotated in the photograph). As visible in the figure 21, this
site contains a number of small potholes.

20
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Site 7

Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge

14.5 km 290 cm 0.25 m/s 18.7 cm 5423 cm² 1355 m³/s

The width has decreased 156 cm compared to the previous site. Also the discharge has
decreased 3634 m³/s. Therefore the relationship between discharge and distance from source
cannot be a perfectly positive one. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient shall illustrate this
later.

Figure 23 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 7

The velocity pattern above does not coincide with the cross-section (figure 24) below. The
reason for this might be the unusual pattern of deposition created by the slip off slope (shown
on the photograph below).

21
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

An exceptionally large slip off slope is clearly visible in figure 24 below. The slip off slope is
not limited to the right bank, stretching over the entire site (see figure 25). This explains the
decrease in discharge and depth.

Figure 24 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 7

Huge slip off


slope almost
stretching
over the
whole site

Figure 25 – photograph showing site 7

22
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Site 8

Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge

18.5 km 397 cm 0.91 m/s 18.9 cm 6582 cm² 5899 m³/s

The width has increased about 107 cm compared to the previous site. Most importantly, the
discharge increased additional 4544 m³/s. This boost can be attributed to the increase in
velocity and cross-sectional area. These two factors have direct impact on discharge.

Figure 26 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 8

23
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

In the cross-section below the velocity pattern in figure 26 above is clearly reflected. The low
water velocity at the right bank results in increased deposition of sediment load (water
shallow at left bank).

Figure 27 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 8

The river
velocity is the
highest at left
Increased
bank
deposition
due to lower
water
velocity

Figure 28 – photograph showing site 8

24
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Site 9

Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge

20 km 430 cm 0.77 m/s 8.21 cm 2545 cm² 1959 m³/s

The width further increased 33 cm. However, the average velocity and depth decreased
considerably. This affected the discharge value negatively, resulting in a 3940 m³/s decrease
in discharge. This disagrees with the hypothesis. However, the reasons for the decrease are
due to human interference.

Large amounts of water are being diverted towards the nearby water wheel. The pictures
below show the facilities of the traditional restaurant called “De Pannekoeken Molen” (the
pancake mill). The “Gulp-water-driven” machineries seen in the pictures11 below are still
being used to grind grain for the production of traditional pancakes. Diverting the water has
lead to a 10 cm decrease in depth, 0.14 m/s decrease in average velocity and 4037 cm²
decrease in the cross-sectional area.

11
Source: http://www.depannekoekenmolen.nl/index2.html

25
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

The average velocity pattern in figure 29 below does not coincide with the cross-sectional
diagram (figure 30). For example, the high velocity at midstream should result in proportional
high depth at midstream (high erosive ability). However, in the cross-section the water is
shallowest at midstream. The reason for this anomaly is inaccurate measuring. The orange
(which was used to determine velocity) got stuck at midstream, resulting in such an odd value.
The reasons for the orange getting stuck were the numerous rocks situated at midstream, seen
in the photograph below (figure 32).

Figure 29 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 9

Figure 30 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 9

26
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

As can be seen in the photograph below, the water does not flow absolutely unobstructed.
Rocks in the riverbed cause the water to flow in a turbulent fashion (figure 31 below). This
may explain the uneven cross-section seen in figure 30 above. Turbulent flow encourages the
creation of potholes and braiding.

Figure 31 (above) – showing the principle of laminar and turbulent flow 12

Rocks causing
turbulent water
Vegetation
flow, small
potholes and
odd velocity
values.

Figure 32 – photograph showing site 9

12
Source: http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol111/streams.htm

27
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Site 10

Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge

23 km (confluence) 520 cm 1.18 m/s 13.42 cm 5233.8 cm² 6175 m³/s

Site 10 is located where the Gulp joins the Geul (this is also called confluence13). The left
bank is located on the outside of a meander and is therefore exposed to fast flowing water
with high erosive abilities. This results in high depth at the left bank (figure 34) and heavy
undercutting (figure 34b).

Site 10 - Average Velocity (m/s)

0,6

0,5

0,4
(m/s)

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
Left Bank Midstream Right Bank
Average speed (m/s) 0,55 0,52 0,35
River Bank

Figure 33 – showing the average velocity pattern for site 10

13
Confluence, in geography, describes the meeting of two or more bodies of water. It usually refers to the point
where a tributary joins a more major river. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confluence_%28geography%29

28
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

The shallow water to the right bank can be explained considering the low water velocity
associated with it. With 6175 m³/s site 10 shows the greatest discharge measured so far. This
may be due to the large amounts of water that reached the river through inflows while moving
downstream.

Site 10 - Cross-Section

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
-2

-4

-6

-8
Depth (cm)

-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20
Distance across river from left to right bank (m)

Figure 34 – cross-section showing depth results obtained for site 10

Overhanging
Heavy vegetation
undercutting
due to fast
flowing water
(with high
erosive
ability) at the
left bank Water flows
slowest on
the inside of a
meander
(more
deposition)

Outside of a
meander
(water flows
fastets here)

Figure 34b – photograph showing site 10

29
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Figure 35 (above) – map showing confluence and location of site 10

Geul River

Gulp River
joins Geul
River
(confluence)

Gulp River

Figure 35b – photograph showing confluence at site 10

30
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

4. Overall analysis and summary

In order to explore the relationship between discharge and distance from source, the discharge
values for all 10 sites were plotted in a scatter graph (figure 36 below). As can be observed by
looking at the scatter graph, a positive relationship between distance and discharge seems to
be present. This means that moving further downstream increases discharge, which proves the
hypothesis stated in the beginning of this internal assessment.
However, as can be seen by the example of sites 7 and 9, the relationship between distance
and discharge is not a perfectly positive one. There are quite a number of anomalies. In the
case of site 7, the reason for the considerable decrease in discharge was the presence of an
exceptionally large slip off slope. This slip off slope, almost stretching over the entire site,
reduced cross-sectional area and average velocity significantly – which in turn had a direct
negative effect on the discharge. In the case of site 9, the exceptionally low discharge can be
attributed to human interference. Large amounts of water have been diverted away from the
river for commercial purposes.

Discharge/Distance Relationship
7000

6000 Site 10
Site 8

5000 Site 6
Discharge (m³/s)

Site 4
4000
Site 3
3000 Site 5

2000 Site 9
Site 7
1000 Site 2

Site 1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from source (km)

Figure 36 – scatter graph showing a positive distance/discharge relationship

31
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

However, even though the relationship between distance and discharge shows some
anomalies, the general positive trend between these two variables remains.
To prove and measure this relationship in statistical terms the Spearman’s rank correlation
coefficient has been calculated. The exact calculations can be found in the appendix.

Spearman Rank Correlation - Ungrouped Data


Statistic Value
Correlation (not corrected) 0.612121
Correlation (corrected) 0.612121
t-Test (n>10) 2.189.453
Degrees of Freedom 8
Critical 2-sided T-value (5%) 2.306.000
Critical 1-sided T-value (5%) 1.860.000

D-square value (calculated) 64.000.000


D-square value (expected) 165.000.000
Standard Deviation 55.000.000
z-Test -1.836.364
Probability 0.065800

Observations (Sites) 10

Thus the corrected correlation being 0.612121 (rs = 0.612) and therefore rs > 0.5 means that the
positive relationship between discharge and distance from source has been proven to be a
relatively strong one.

The reason for increased discharge while travelling downstream was confirmed to be mainly
due to increased amounts of water reaching the river through inflows. These inflows,
increasing the rivers discharge, are depicted in figure 37 below.

Figure 37
1. Upstream or tributaries of the river.
2. Surface runoff.
3. Water seeping downhill through soil.
4. Ground water forced into the river through bedrock.
5. Storm drainage system from towns. 14

14
Source: http://www.naturegrid.org.uk/rivers/watercyclepages/riverbasin-stages.html

32
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

As can be clearly observed in diagrams 38, 39 and 40 below, there have been significant
changes in the variables of depth, width and velocity while moving downstream – which
supports the hypothesis stated earlier. Figure 40 clearly shows how there is a overall increase
in the bank sizes while moving downstream. This enables the river to carry larger amounts of
water, which is another explanation for the increase in discharge.

Figure 38 (above) – average depth from source to mouth

33
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Average velocity from source to mouth

1,5

1
Velocity (m/s)

0,5

0
0 km 3,5 km
7 km 9,5 km 10,5 km
11,5 km 14,5 km D
18,5 km 20 km 23 km
Distance in km from source (site 1) to mouth (site 10)

Figure 39 – showing average velocity from source to mouth

Figure 40 – showing width (from bank to bank)

34
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

5. Conclusion

The main hypothesis of this internal assessment was that the discharge of a stream increases
downstream and that there will be changes in the stream variables of depth, width and
velocity. Through analyzing the visible environment and relating it to collected variables of
depth, width and velocity, the main reasons for changing variables of depth, width and
velocity were successfully identified. Additionally, these variables were found to directly
impact the discharge of a river. Finally, by engaging Spearman’s correlation rank, the
discharge has statistically proven to increase while moving further downstream. In fact, the
positive relationship between distance and discharge was found to be rather significant, as the
Spearman’s correlation rank was calculated to be rs = 0.612.

The main reason for increased discharge while moving downstream was found considering
the increased amounts of water joining the river through tributaries, surface runoff, water
seeping downhill through soil, ground water and storm drainage systems from towns. The
increased amounts of water joining the river mainly resulted in increased width of the river,
which in turn greatly added to the river’s capability of carrying additional amounts of water.

Quite a number of anomalies can be found looking at the graphs and collected data. This can
be attributed to the suboptimal methods of data collection. For example, instead of using an
orange to determine water velocity, a digital water velocity meter could have been used. Such
devices are extremely easy to use and highly accurate. The orange got stuck at several
occasions, leaving odd velocity values on graphs and tables. However, the anomalies are not
always due to suboptimal equipment. Rivers are unpredictable in nature and constantly
changing (dynamic) systems. Human interference (such as the watermill at site 9) causing
unnatural conditions, further add to the number of odd results in charts and graphs.

The validity of the above stated conclusions could have been improved by taking
measurements at more than 10 sites. Taking into account data obtained from 20 different sites
would have provided more reliable results. Additionally, instead of only measuring how the
stream discharge increases downstream, the way the stream discharge decreases upstream
could have been measured. This way more reliable results could have been obtained, as the
same measurement is done twice, which might help to discover mistakes done during the data
collection.

35
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

6. Bibliography

Software:

Wessa, P. (2007), Free Statistics Software, Office for Research Development and Education,
version 1.1.21, URL http://www.wessa.net/

Information from the Internet:

 Canterbury Environmental Education Centre, River Basin Stages, 25/03/2007, URL


http://www.naturegrid.org.uk/rivers/watercyclepages/riverbasin-stages.html

 Minnesota State University Moorhead, Calculating Correlation with the Excel


Spreadsheet Program, 02/03/2007, URL
http://www.mnstate.edu/wasson/ed602calccorr.htm

 Wikipedia de vrije encyclopedie, Stroomgebied van de Maas, 18/02/2007, URL


http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroomgebied_van_de_Maas

Word count: 2432 after subtracting maps, diagrams, graphs and statistical tables and other
supplementary information such as the title page, the contents page and references section.

36
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

Appendix

37
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

The corrected correlation was calculated using the following formulas:

This is the main formula:

38
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

This is the ranking of the different sites, with respect to discharge:

39
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level

1. Left bank on
2. Lower
the inside of a
velocity at left
meander
bank

Factors
determining
river depth

5. Low x and y- 3. Increased


values on the deposition of
cross-section sediment at left
diagram bank

4. Sediment
builds up
resulting in low
depth at the left
bank

Appendix figure 41 - The process of velocity and depth-interaction at a glance

40

You might also like