Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
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.
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.
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.
7
The velocity of a river is the speed at which the water flows.
7
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level
Site 1
Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Plenty of
overhanging
vegetation
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.
12
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level
Site 3
Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge
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).
Highest
velocity at
midstream
due to low
Overhanging friction
vegetation
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.
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.
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
Slop-off slope
created due to
low velocity
(sediment gets
dropped) Highest
water
velocity
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.
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
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
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.
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
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)
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)
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
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.
19
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level
Severe Rocks
undercutting obstructing
flow
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
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.
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.
22
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level
Site 8
Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge
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.
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).
The river
velocity is the
highest at left
Increased
bank
deposition
due to lower
water
velocity
24
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level
Site 9
Distance from source Width Average velocity Average depth Cross-sectional area Discharge
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).
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.
Rocks causing
turbulent water
Vegetation
flow, small
potholes and
odd velocity
values.
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
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).
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
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)
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)
29
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level
Geul River
Gulp River
joins Geul
River
(confluence)
Gulp River
30
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level
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)
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.
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.
33
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level
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)
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/
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
38
Firas A. (ISM IB2-A) – Geography Higher Level
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
4. Sediment
builds up
resulting in low
depth at the left
bank
40