CSIRO Publishing Books Journals About Us Shopping Cart You are here: Journals > Marine & Freshwater Research   
Marine & Freshwater Research
  Advances in the Aquatic Sciences
 
Search
 
 
  Advanced Search
   

Journal Home
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Contacts
Content
Online Early
Current Issue
Just Accepted
All Issues
Special Issues
Sample Issue
For Authors
General Information
Instructions to Authors
Submit Article
Open Access
For Referees
General Information
Review Article
Referee Guidelines
Early Career Referee Mentoring
For Subscribers
Subscription Prices
Customer Service
Print Publication Dates

 Early Alert
Subscribe to our email Early Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

 Connect with us
facebook   youtube

 

Article << Previous     |     Next >>   Contents Vol 57(8)

Sulfidic materials in dryland river wetlands

S. Lamontagne A C D, W. S. Hicks B C, R. W. Fitzpatrick A C, S. Rogers A C

A CSIRO Land and Water, Private Mail Bag No. 2, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia.
B CSIRO Land and Water, GPO Box 1666 Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
C CRC LEME, CSIRO Exploration and Mining, PO Box 1130, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: sebastien.lamontagne@csiro.au
 
PDF (6.7 MB) $25
 Supplementary Material
 Export Citation
 Print
  


Abstract

Due to a combination of river regulation, dryland salinity and irrigation return, lower River Murray floodplains (Australia) and associated wetlands are undergoing salinisation. It was hypothesised that salinisation would provide suitable conditions for the accumulation of sulfidic materials (soils and sediments enriched in sulfides, such as pyrite) in these wetlands. A survey of nine floodplain wetlands representing a salinity gradient from fresh to hypersaline determined that surface sediment sulfide concentrations varied from <0.05% to ~1%. Saline and permanently flooded wetlands tended to have greater sulfide concentrations than freshwater ones or those with more regular wetting–drying regimes. The acidification risk associated with the sulfidic materials was evaluated using field peroxide oxidations tests and laboratory measurements of net acid generation potential. Although sulfide concentration was elevated in many wetlands, the acidification risk was low because of elevated carbonate concentration (up to 30% as CaCO3) in the sediments. One exception was Bottle Bend Lagoon (New South Wales), which had acidified during a draw-down event in 2002 and was found to have both actual and potential acid sulfate soils at the time of the survey (2003). Potential acid sulfate soils also occurred locally in the hypersaline Loveday Disposal Basin. The other environmental risks associated with sulfidic materials could not be reliably evaluated because no guideline exists to assess them. These include the deoxygenation risk following sediment resuspension and the generation of foul odours during drying events. The remediation of wetland salinity in the Murray–Darling Basin will require that the risks associated with disturbing sulfidic materials during management actions be evaluated.

Keywords: ASS, monosulfide, Murray–Darling Basin, pyrite, sulfide.


   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

    


 
Top  Email this page
 
Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2012