A comparison of Fluvial and Glacial Sediments (deposits) In the Glen Rosa area of Arran

The aim of my investigation is to compargon the fluvial and Glacial depositarys in the Glen Rosa bea. I ordain use a variety of experiments and methods to find out my results. My investigation go forth be based on proving these hypotheses are correct. I hope to show that* Fluvial sediment go away be in general sm on the whole(a)er than gelid sediment.* Fluvial sediment exit be much locomote than frozen(p) sediment.To provide express of these hypotheses I will face at river sediment on the fluvial pilfer withdraw gradient and compare it with that of a nippy deposit in the form of a terminal moraine.Slip finish up vendThe slip off tossTerminal moraineI will besides be consideringThe difference in B Axis length, Roundness, Sediment composition and Sorting.I expect the frozen(p) deposits to be more than angular than that of the fluvial deposits because the rate of erosion is different. In fluvial erosion the joggles are in constant erosion from often colliding (attrition) with separate rock material. I would expect more edges of the rock to be round because the chances are they would countenance been knocked off. The glaciated deposits however, I would expect to be more angular because they collide less.I am deprivation to imbibe a dictate of results which will hopefully provide evidence that my theories are correct. To suck in these results I will* Use appropriate methods to time and accurately constitution my results to prove my hypothesis correct.I will evaluate the length of a slip off slope (and moraine vertically if possible). The length dissever by twenty, will be the length of the separations for my measurements. At each musical interval I will proceed to measure these factors.I. RoundnessII. OrientationIII. distance of the B axis of rotation vertebra vertebra of rotation. (stone width)By doing this I will compile sufficient evidence to throw or disprove my hypothesis from the results. I am going to use twenty re moveings to give me an accurate s big of the whole geographic feature.Points to noteGlen Rosa is a NTS area conservation issues do not allow us to move scenery including rocks. This could be a constraining factor as we whitethorn not be able to commit all the results we need. And to what extent do we measure sediment? After all a grain of dirt is a form of sediment, but is it serviceable to measure a grain of dirt?My project also involves considering how glacial and fluvial deposits vary in* Sorting (division into coarse, medium and attractive sizes).* And the orientation course of the B axis.* And composition ( rock type )The orientation is the alignment of the B axis.River deposits are measured on a slip off slope and glacial deposits in a terminal moraine, with the following expectations* Water borne sediment will be sorted into size categories, the largest material being dumped upstream first, (upstream w here the water fly the coop is strongest) and the finest last (d a cceptstream where the flow is spinelessest). Glacial deposits however will be dumped irregularly because they melt out of the ice.* River sediment will have been rounded by river transport and attrition whereas glacial sediment, having only travelled a sort distance, will be angular.And slip off slope deposits will lie with their B axis at right angles to the flow of the river whereas glacial deposits are thought to lie in the ice with their A axis parallel to the direction of flow.Risk assessment.The axis of a rock are as followsThe A axis (duration of rock)The B axis (Width of rock)The C axis (Depth of the rock)Apparatus needed for my investigation* Callipers* Compass clinometer* A water-proof notebook computer/pad* A pencil* Hand lens* Sorting chart* Powers Roundness index* Measuring tape 20m length* Camera (to record messs and to provide secondary evidence)* Map to find location and note storage-battery grid referencesNoteBecause I was working in a group and am salt away data for the group it is imperative that each of us has their own role and each must keep to that role. This is because the sake of a comme il faut test. For example,If I read the callipers at the start I must read them throughout because the others eyesight and judgment whitethorn not be the very(prenominal) as mine, so if each person continues to do one lineage their judgment will not be too diverse.I am going to collect my evidence to prove my theory by doing indeedI. Firstly I am going to assess the possible location of a moraine and a slip off slope.II. Secondly I am going to travel to the Glen Rosa valley area.III. Then I will proceed to go to the site and take photographs.IV. I will measure the article in question by using a transect of the slip off slope/ terminal moraine.V. Then I will collect the evidence I need by accurately measuring and indite text my results. I shall be looking at the a. Roundnessb. Orientationc. Length of the B axis.I will measure the transect by measuring a point across the hole moraine / slip off slope and break it by 20.The results from that then apply to the collecting of the samples, at each interval one should proceed to measure the nearest sample.I will measure Roundness by- comparing sediment sample to the guide shown below, this may be difficult to decide which category the rock goes into however for the sake of hie it was my primary choice.I will measure orientation by status the b axis and using the compass clinometer I will measure the orientation.I will measure the length of the B axis by using callipers and reading off the rule.I will collect 10 (20 if possible) readings from each site to give me a sui card range of results. The locations I have chosen are highlighted on the map and the grid references are belowThe terminal moraine 987 382The slip off slope 987 383I will record my results on the attached bed sheet. I will beat my evidence as a range of graphs with attached section on collecting reco rding and presenting evidence.Stage 2 collecting, recording and presenting evidence.On the daytime when we travelled to these two grid references the terminal moraine on 987 382 and the slip off slope on 987 383, I worked with 2 other people to baffle evidence/results for my investigation, they were Matthew Cruse and Lawrence Card. This was the original plan for the results table we were going to use. notwithstanding during collecting the evidence our group decided we could double the amount of our results in ample time. So this is the real results table we developed.We were helped by 1 person in identifying some of the rocks, she was called Lucy and she was an instructor for this course. On the actual day we collected 20 samples from each site both the terminal moraine and the slip off slope.Our results table is as below chart sheet 1Some graphs may help to show the evidence. Firstly the length of the b axis against the length of the slip off slope. (Sample every 1 meter).Anomalo us pointGraph sheet 2These are the results for the composition of both fluvial and glacial deposits.hither O represents other specimen of rockP is Phyllite and G is graniteFluvial depositsGlacial depositsAs it is clear here the fluvial deposits have more variation that that of the glacial deposits, the glacial deposits contain no other rock types.Graph sheet 3Charts to compare roundness of fluvial deposits against the roundness of glacial deposits.It is clear here that glacial deposits are more randomised and do not follow both particular roundness, where as the fluvial deposits are mostly in-between the 2-3 categoryGraph sheet 4.Here are 2 charts to compare the orientation of the Baxis.Fluvial orientationGlacial orientationBoth graphs show completely enemy finding which was totally as I had expected, mainly the glacial deposits were all at right angles to the flow of direct which is what happens. The fluvial was parallel to the flow of water. The glacial sediments B axis was not parallel to the flow of the glacier because it travels on its A axis which is as I predicted.Stage 3 description, summary and interpretation of evidence.All of my data I collected I trust I collected accurately. But unfortunately my results do not support my farsightednesss very accurately which were* Fluvial sediment will be loosely humbler than glacial sediment.* Fluvial sediment will be more rounded than glacial sediment.The graphs which show sorting on the B axis for the fluvial sediment are vast variations than those predicted although they do provide weak evidence (graph sheet 1). For example, on the photograph below it is clear that thither is sorting on the slip off slope. This sorting is the absolute arctic to what I had expected in my prediction.This variation may exist because it is a frequently visited spot and people very often pick up rocks to study them and cast them use up in a different locations, this may have happened here. Or another reason could be my inac curate measurements, or even the choice of my samples.Section 4 drawing and soundifying conclusion and evaluation.Here were my main predictions* Fluvial sediment will be generally smaller than glacial sediment.* Fluvial sediment will be more rounded than glacial sediment.Here are the sub predictions* Sorting (division into coarse, medium and fine sizes).* And the orientation of the B axis.* And composition ( rock type )As farthermost as the sorting for the slip off slope is concerned, I put together that my results are conclusive but very weakly so. The results did support my prediction roughly but not the extent I had hoped for. You can correspond evidence for this though section 3. Because I found that the slip off slope is not how I expected I have use additional secondary evidence to show what my results should have been like fit to my prediction and the laws of fluvial deposition. There is only one reason I can see for my weak results for the slip off slope kind interfer ence, it is easy to pick up something and place it down somewhere else, could that of happened here? Since it is a widely used site I believe this is the case. I believe that the evidence for the sorting I obtained from the fluvial sample appeared to be back to motion the larger sediment should have been deposited at the front not the back.The composition is definitely as I had expected. So as far as the composition is concerned I found a definite conclusion that my sub-predictions were true, the fluvial deposits covered a wider range of rock type because it could transport more diverse material than the glacier. Although there is little evidence to support this there is a definite link.The orientation was not as I had of expected. I believed the glacier to be more randomised where as the fluvial to be more sorted.EvaluationWe had a few problems during this investigation mevery of them minor, but a few were major.For example, since we did not have any artificial light and light thr oughout the day was fading we may have made a few mistakes on measurements, this may be a reason for some if not all of the anomalous points. single person in my group noted all of the data down on the day so we could have misjudged his handwriting and could have written variable data.Below is a simple diagram of some of our problemsThe primary(prenominal) weaknesses and faults.The main weaknesses during my investigation were the lack of conclusive results as shown in the graphs. However this could be rectified by using secondary data, such as maps, other peoples results as shown during my project shown after this page. As always any investigation can be improved by the quantity of evidence, and also the quantity. If I could obtain more evidence from different locations, i.e. not just from Glen Rosa it would provide a much better supporting structure for my predictions. Although this would involve thousands of pounds it would have a very accurate conclusion.