USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · sir20265121

Stream sediment sources in Medicine Creek, northern Missouri and southern Iowa

Abstract

This report presents the results of a cooperative study by the U.S. Geological Survey and Missouri Department of Natural Resources to quantify sediment transport source contributions in the Medicine Creek drainage basin. Understanding relative source contributions provides valuable information for selecting the conservation practices that may be most effective in reducing sediment and sediment-associated nutrient transport in the Medicine Creek drainage basin and similar areas of the Lower Grand River drainage basin. Sediment samples were collected from potential contributing areas (source samples) and from fluvial-transported samples (target samples). Source sample types included streambanks, row crop fields, and a combined pastures and forests category. Samples were analyzed for particle size and quantity of carbon, nitrogen, stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen, and 49 mineral elements as potential tracers. Results for the carbon stable isotope ratio of carbon-13/carbon-12 (δ 13 C) and concentrations of total carbon, total nitrogen, calcium, potassium, and copper were selected by discriminant function analysis as the best combination of multiple tracers to differentiate each source type. The discriminant function analysis poorly differentiated pastures and forests, so these source types were combined. The sources defined by the discriminant function analysis were then used in an unmixing model to apportion sources for each target sample. In the study area, transported sediment was predominantly bank sediment, with an overall average of 86.9 percent of suspended-sediment samples and depositional streambed samples attributed to bank material. Suspended-sediment samples from the mainstem of Medicine Creek were dominated by bank sediments (average of 95.8 percent), and depositional streambed samples from throughout the drainage basin had more variable source contributions with an average of 71.1 percent attributed to bank material. The relative importance of upland sources (row crop fields and the combined pastures and forests category) varied seasonally and with streamflow but was not related to land use or drainage basin size. Relative contributions from upland sources were greater in the summer through winter rather than spring and during lower streamflow, though this may be driven by the seasonality of streamflow. These results indicate management practices that reduce bank erosion could be effective strategies for managing the dominant source of sediment and sediment-associated phosphorus.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jessica D. Garrett. 2026-03-02. Stream sediment sources in Medicine Creek, northern Missouri and southern Iowa. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20265121

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

Methodology for quantitative spatial sensitivity analysis of volcanic geodetic networks

Introduction This report introduces a methodology for assessing the state of the U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Observatories’ geodetic monitoring networks that measure how volcanoes deform or change shape. This new method uses a model-based approach that considers the uniqueness of the instrument environments at each volcano. This report focuses on simplified volcanic sources, is independent of the shape or size of the volcano, or the network geometry, and thus highlights the strengths and potential vulnerabilities of each volcano’s geodetic network in an actionable visual format. This analysis can help observatories to make informed decisions about whether volcanoes have an adequate level of geodetic monitoring and indicate where improvements are needed.

Lassen Peak, Mount Shasta

Assessment of water chemistry of the Coconino aquifer in northeastern Arizona

The Coconino aquifer was investigated as a potential groundwater resource for the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation in northeastern Arizona. Basic groundwater chemistry, including major ions, total dissolved solids, and selected trace metal concentrations, are presented and analyzed to characterize the Coconino aquifer. The geochemical compositions of groundwater are associated with changes in geology and groundwater movement and are compared to drinking-water standards to determine suitable areas for potential groundwater resource development. Dissolved-solids concentrations in much of the Coconino aquifer water were higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s secondary drinking-water standard of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) due to a buried halite body in the southeastern part of the study area. However, trace metal concentrations were generally low. Groundwater may need to be treated for high dissolved-solids concentrations before it is suitable for use as a resource for the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation.

Arizona

Water-resources inventory and assessment at Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service, prepared a water-resources inventory and assessment for Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument (KAWW). This compilation includes published and publicly accessible hydrologic data and resource assessments of streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, and groundwater in and near KAWW. It also includes reports and datasets summarizing attributes of KAWW’s hydrologic infrastructure, such as stream crossings, dams, wastewater discharge plants, groundwater monitoring wells, and U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations. Descriptions of data and details of current limitations in available datasets are included. Wetland, groundwater, streamflow, and water-quality information are all limited. Hydrography data are available; however, there are limited ground-truth data. Accurate streamlines within KAWW were developed from light detection and ranging (lidar) as a part of this work. Hydrologic infrastructure information is available from multiple sources; however, differences exist among the datasets. Datasets are summarized in appendix 1.

Maine