CSIRO Publishing Home Books & CDs Journals About Us Shopping Cart
Marine & Freshwater Research
  An international journal for marine, estuarine or freshwater research
You are here: Journals > Marine & Freshwater Research   
Search
 
 
  Advanced Search
   
Journal Home
General Information
Scope
Editorial Board
Print Publication Dates
Online Content
For Authors
For Referees
How to Order

 Most Read
Visit our Most Read page regularly to keep up-to-date with the most downloaded papers in this journal.

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

 

Sulfidic materials in dryland river wetlands

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


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.

Marine and Freshwater Research 57(8) 775–788    doi:10.1071/MF06057
Submitted: 11 April 2006    Accepted: 10 October 2006    Published: 28 November 2006





   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

 View
Issue Contents
PDF (6.7 MB) $25
Export Citation
Cited by
 Tools
Print
Email this page
    


 
Top  Email this page
 


Legal & Privacy | Sitemap | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2010