PUBLICATIONS
Water Resources Research
RESEARCH ARTICLE
10.1002/2013WR015206
Key Points:
 Peat soil properties were related to
sediment erodibility and sediment
transport
 Increasing degree of humification
reduced erosion thresholds
 Armoring by fibers was observed for
moderately decomposed peat
Correspondence to:
T. Tuukkanen,
tapio.tuukkanen@oulu.fi
Citation:
Tuukkanen, T., H. Marttila, and B. Klïve
(2014), Effect of soil properties on peat
erosion and suspended sediment
delivery in drained peatlands, Water
Resour. Res., 50, 3523–3535,
doi:10.1002/2013WR015206.
Received 20 DEC 2013
Accepted 8 APR 2014
Accepted article online 15 APR 2014
Published online 30 APR 2014
TUUKKANEN ET AL.
Effect of soil properties on peat erosion and suspended
sediment delivery in drained peatlands
Tapio Tuukkanen1, Hannu Marttila1, and Bjïrn Klïve1
1
Water Resources and Environmental Engineering Research Group, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Abstract Erosion from peat extraction areas is known to cause siltation of water courses and poor water
quality. However, the main soil parameters affecting peat erosion and suspended sediment (SS) yields from
different catchments are not well understood. This paper used peat properties (degree of humification, peat
type, ash content, porosity, moisture content, bulk density, and shear strength) and novel erosion threshold
measurements from intact soil cores to explain peat erodibility and spatial variations in SS concentrations
(SSCs) and SS loads (SSLs) at 20 Finnish peat extraction sites. The erosion threshold measurements sug-
gested that critical shear stresses for particle entrainment decrease with increasing degree of humification
(von Post scale) and are significantly lower in well-decomposed peat than in slightly or moderately decom-
posed peat. Two critical shear stresses were obtained from moderately decomposed peat samples, indicat-
ing a degree of surface armoring by coarse peat fibers. Monitored long-term average SSC was highest at
study sites with well-decomposed peat, while very fine-grained mineral subsoil explained some of the high-
est long-term SSC in areas where drainage ditches penetrated below the upper peat layer. Average SSL
(kg d21) at the study sites was best explained (R2 5 0.89) by average discharge and surface peat decomposi-
tion level. Overall, this study provides new knowledge on peat erosion and critical shear stresses that can
be used in water conservation and sediment management practices for cutover peatlands and other similar
land uses.
1. Introduction
The total area of peat extraction for energy and horticultural use is about 40,000 km2 world wide [Clarke
and Rieley, 2010]. Erosion from these areas is known to cause siltation of water courses and poor water qual-
ity due to increased organic and inorganic sediment load and sediment-bound nutrients [Sallantaus, 1983;
Marja-aho and Koskinen, 1989; Laine and Heikkinen, 1991, 2000; Ouellette et al., 2006]. This is of particular
concern in vulnerable headwater streams and lakes. Erosion occurs from bare peat surfaces, drainage net-
works, and deposited ditch sediments [Sallantaus, 1983; Klïve, 1998; Pavey et al., 2007; Marttila and Klïve,
2008] due to rain splash, overland flow, and ditch runoff. Sediment yields are known to vary considerably
between extraction sites, but the causes of the variation are not well understood. In this study, peat soil
properties at 20 peat extraction sites were studied to determine their effects on peat erodibility and
observed variations in suspended sediment concentrations (SSCs) and yield. Specifically, a cohesive strength
meter (CSM) was used to measure erosion thresholds for peat core samples. CSM has been used previously
in studies of intertidal flat sediments [Paterson, 1989; Tolhurst et al., 1999, 2000], river sediments [Grabowski
et al., 2012], and river-bank erosion [Darby et al., 2010], but this study describes a novel use, for peat soils or
sediments.
Sediment bulk properties such as particle size distribution, bulk density, organic matter content, and water
content have been shown to play a significant role in sediment erosion [Jepsen et al., 1997; Roberts et al.,
1998; Lick and McNeil, 2001; Grabowski et al., 2011]. However, results obtained for inorganic soils are not
directly applicable to peat soils or sediments. Peat properties (bulk density, fiber content, degree of humifi-
cation, water content, compressibility, shear strength, etc.) and their interactions have been studied from a
hydrological perspective [Boelter, 1969; Pa €iva
€nen, 1973; Chow et al., 1992; Ronkanen and Klïve, 2005; Gna-
towski et al., 2010; Verry et al., 2011] and a geotechnical perspective [e.g., Landva and Pheeney, 1980; Hobbs,
1986; Mesri and Ajlouni, 2007]. However, only a few studies have examined the role of peat properties and
their impact on erosion and sediment delivery [Carling et al., 1997; Svahnba €ck, 2007; Marttila and Klïve,
2008]. Svahnba €ck [2007] conducted a set of laboratory-scale sprinkler experiments on milled surface peat
C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
V 3523
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

and found a positive relationship between degree of humification and SSC, whereas Marttila and Klïve
[2008] highlighted the impact of stabilization time on the erosion threshold of deposited peat sediment.
Carling et al. [1997] demonstrated that intact peat is highly resistant to erosion and that a water velocity of
5.7 m s21 (in a hydraulic flume) is required for continuous erosion of peat material ranging from amorphous
to fibrous. Wind erosion and peat properties in abandoned milled peatlands were studied by Campbell et al.
[2002], who found that the erodibility of loose surface peat decreased with increasing degree of decomposi-
tion at high wind speeds. Peat erosion from bare peat surfaces has been the subject of a relatively large
body of research in UK upland peatlands [see Evans and Warburton, 2007]. In these studies, frost action and
surface desiccation are often suggested to play a key role in producing erodible peat for water and wind
erosion.
Complex interactions between soil parameters, the heterogeneity of peat material, and the scarcity of
published values for critical shear stresses complicate the assessment of peat erosion and sediment
transport from peat extraction areas. Degree of humification affects peat particle size and fiber content
[e.g., Boelter, 1969; Hobbs, 1986] and to some extent may determine the susceptibility of peat to ero-
sion. However, plant composition, moisture, porosity, bulk density, and other physical and geochemical
properties can also have a significant impact on erodibility. The aim of the present study was to assess
the importance of various peat physical properties on the susceptibility of peat to erosion and,
together with hydrological factors and catchment characteristics, their contribution to suspended sedi-
ment (SS) delivery from peat extraction. Specific objectives were to: (1) define critical shear stresses for
undisturbed peat with different characteristics; (2) determine whether peat physical properties such as
degree of humification, bulk density, ash content, and shear strength explain peat erodibility; and (3)
examine whether conventional measurements of peat quality or novel shear strength measurements
from soil cores explain differences in in situ erosion and sediment yields between different study sites.
More knowledge on peat erosion and associated factors is needed to support the prediction of SSC
and SS loads (SSLs), the assessment of water treatment needs, and the allocation of water protection
measures and resources in peat extraction areas or similar land cover.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Areas
In order to obtain sufficient regional coverage and a large enough data set for statistical analyses, this
study was performed in 20 peat extraction areas located in different parts of Finland (Figure 1). The
study areas were selected on the basis of availability of long-term water quality and discharge monitor-
ing data (see section 2.4) relating to the section of the drainage system above the mandatory water
treatment structure, in this case, constructed wetlands, in the peat extraction area. The existing data
sets were complemented with intensive field measurements and soil sampling in summer 2011 and
2012, when all the study areas were still under active peat extraction. Peat extraction operations in
the study areas began between 1976 and 2004, giving rather new and old extraction areas in the data
set.
The so-called milled peat extraction method is mainly used in the study areas, although in some areas in
parallel with the sod peat extraction method. In the milled peat method, the top 1–3 cm of the peat surface
layer is first milled (broken into crumbs) and left to dry in the sun. It is then harrowed (turned over) 1–5
times to facilitate drying, gathered into ridges, and finally harvested into storage piles [Alakangas et al.,
2012]. In peat extraction areas, drainage ditches are usually about 0.8–1.0 m deep, but in old extraction
areas ditch depth may be lower. Ditch spacing is usually about 20 m. Peat extraction fields are cambered
toward the drainage ditches in order to enhance surface runoff and peat desiccation. Otherwise, the catch-
ment topography is usually rather flat; in our study areas, maximum altitude ranged from 0.8 to 15 m
(Table 1). Catchment size varied from approximately 61 to 380 ha (Table 1).
The climate in Finland is characterized by cold, wet winters and moderately warm, wet summers. The winter
season is usually longer, colder, and snowier in northern Finland than in southern Finland. According to
monthly precipitation and temperature averages (Finnish Meteorological Institute, 10 3 10 km gridded data),
mean annual temperature in the study areas (during water quality monitoring years) varied from around 0.5
to 5.2 C and annual precipitation from 599 to 731 mm (Table 1).

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3524
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

Figure 1. Location of the study sites in Finland.

2.2. Soil Sampling and Analyses

To obtain detailed information on peat properties at the study sites, core samples were taken during
summer 2011 (June to August) and August 2012. A 1 m long plastic pipe (diameter 10 cm) was hammered
into the peat and dug out in order to get an undisturbed peat core. Each study site was sampled with two
peat core samples taken from different parts of the extraction area. All samples were tightly sealed to mini-
mize soil oxidation and drying, and stored at 14 C until laboratory analysis. The peat cores were later split

Table 1. Some of the Main Catchment and Soil Properties in the 20 Peat Extraction Areas Studieda
Study Site Precipitation (mm a21) Temperature ( C a21) Area (ha) Relief (m) Start Peat Type (dominant) H Htop LOI (%) BD (g cm23) D50 (mm)
Hankilanneva 613 2.8 232 5.0 1994 Sphagnum 4 4 94.7 0.139
Hietalahdenaapa 647 0,5 68 12.5 1987 Carex 3 3 96.8 0.135 0.105
Hormaneva 677 3.9 380 3.0 1979 Carex 5 4 95.2 0.123
Isoneva 652 3.7 127 4.3 1999 Carex 5 5 98.2 0.170
J€ami€ankeidas 701 4.4 411 15 1980 Sphagnum 6 6 96.4 0.127 0.011
Karhunsuo 676 5.0 248 10 1998 Carex 4 4 91.6 0.108
Kiihansuo 655 4.5 73 4.5 2002 Sphagnum 4 2 96.9 0.101
Konnunsuo 729 2.5 250 10 1982 Carex 5 4 88.7 0.130 0.430
Kuivastensuo 731 3.2 82 8.0 1986 Carex 5 4 95.0 0.117 0.011
Laukkuvuoma 675 1.9 94 5.0 1991 Carex 4 4 85.7 0.158
Linnansuo 702 3.1 70 5.0 1978 Carex 4 4 90.0 0.112
Muljunaapa 640 0.9 152 1.0 Carex 4 4 94.2 0.122
Nanhiansuo 645 5.2 86 0.8 2004 Sphagnum 3 1 97.8 0.082 0.003
Puutiosuo 667 2.2 99 7.5 1991 Carex 4 4 98.3 0.108 0.095
Rajasuo 599 3.8 350 3.0 1981 Sphagnum 6 5 98.6 0.175 0.104
Ristineva 687 4.0 240 3.8 1979 Sphagnum 5 5 98.3 0.097
Sarvanneva 626 3.8 61 6.5 1982 Carex 7 6 78.2 0.165 0.004
Satamakeidas 698 4.5 510 3.5 1976 Carex 3 3 96.3 0.110 0.078
Savonneva 625 3.3 110 5.0 1977 Carex 5 3 97.3 0.101 0.042
Siivil€aniemenaapa 635 2.4 145 7.5 1978 Sphagnum 4 4 96.3 0.150
a
Mean annual precipitation and temperature in the study period, contributing catchment area (ha), basin relief (max. elevation 2 min. elevation), depth-averaged (H) and surface
layer (Htop) degree of humification (von Post scale), average loss on ignition LOI (550 C), and average dry bulk density BD (g cm23) from 1 m peat core samples and D50 particle size
of mineral subsoil beneath the peat layer.

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3525
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

lengthwise and analyzed for degree of humification (H1–H10 on the von Post scale [see Hobbs, 1986]) and
plant composition, i.e., peat type. Additionally, samples were taken from: (i) the top layer, 5–10 cm from the
surface (milled peat surface was excluded); (ii) the intermediate layer (35–50 cm); and (iii) the bottom layer
(70–100 cm), and analyzed for moisture, dry bulk density, porosity, loss on ignition (LOI), and erosion thresh-
old (see section 2.3). The larger range in sampling depths in the intermediate and bottom layers is due to
variable peat thickness between sites. For the determination of dry bulk density, samples were ovendried
overnight at 60 C, while for the determination of LOI, samples were incinerated at 550 C.
The prevailing conditions in drainage ditches were examined in situ and average ditch depth was estimated
for all peat extraction areas. Additionally, a vane tester (vane diameter 2 cm) was used in field conditions to
determine the shear strength of the surface peat. These measurements were performed near the peat sam-
pling points for two depths (5 and 20 cm), with five replicates per depth. In places where the ditches clearly
extended into the mineral subsoil, soil samples were collected for further analysis. Mineral soil samples
were taken beneath the eroded or sorted top layer so that the initial texture could be defined. The samples
were analyzed for particle size distribution by sieving analysis (0.063, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 mm sieves) and
by an aerometric method (for particle sizes <0.063). Fine particle content (FPC) was defined as percentage
mass of particles passing through the 0.063 mm sieve. Average (D50) particle size and main peat soil prop-
erties are shown in Table 1.

2.3. Shear Stress Measurements

To determine the erosional strength of the peat profiles, a cohesive strength meter (Partrac LTD, CSM model
MKIV 60 PSI) was used. The CSM measures erosion threshold in response to calibrated water jet pressures in
a small test chamber. Samples for the analyses were taken from the upper, intermediate, and bottom layers.
The milled peat surface was not included in the analysis. In CSM test runs, the testing chamber was inserted
carefully into peat surface and filled with water. Before using the CSM, the operator can choose from a
selection of test sequences examining different test parameters such as initial and final pulse strength,
pulse increments, optical transmission logging parameters, and pulse duration. In this study, preliminary
tests were conducted to select the most appropriate test. The jet nozzle was deployed at a height of 2.0 cm
above the soil surface. For peat sample analyses, the following selections were made: initial pulse pressure
3.4 kPa, increments at 3.4 kPa intervals to a maximum value of 414 kPa, pulse duration 1 s, and optical trans-
mission values were logged for 30 s at 1 s intervals after each pulse. The CSM detects the entrainment
threshold levels by monitoring optical transmission within the test chamber, which contains the brass jet
nozzle (1 mm internal diameter), infrared transmitter, and receiver diodes. For more detailed instructions
and details of CSM, see Tolhurst et al. [1999].
During each test run, the CSM data logger saves the jet pressure and optical transmission values. Afterward,
the optical transmission values can be plotted against jet pressure for each of the individual tests from peat
profiles. The threshold condition for peat erosion was defined as the point at which the optical transmission
value: (i) dropped suddenly [Tolhurst et al., 1999] or (ii) dropped below 90% of its initial value [Vardy et al.,
2007]. According to Tolhurst et al. [1999], the vertical jet pressure J (kPa) and the onset of erosion can be
calibrated to a horizontal critical shear stress (sc) using equation (1). While other relationships have since
been proposed [Grabowski et al., 2012], we selected equation (1) for our calculations as it has a larger range
(0–9.11 N m22).

     
2J 2J
sc 566:6734 12exp 2195:27552 12exp (1)
310:09433 1622:56738

Furthermore, soil erodibility factor (k) was calculated with equation (2) as developed by Hanson and Simon
[2001] and modified by Darby et al. [2010].

k52:031027 s20:5
c (2)

2.4. Discharge and Water Quality Monitoring Data

Discharge and SS monitoring data for the study were obtained from the peat extraction company Vapo Oy.
V-notch weirs and automatic water level loggers are used for continuous monitoring of water discharge at

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3526
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

Table 2. Suspended Sediment Concentrations (SSCs), Average Runoff, and Sediment Loads From the 20 Peat Extraction Sites Studieda
SSC (mg L21)

Study Site Monitoring Perioda n Minimum Mean Maximum Standard Q (L s21) R (mm d21) SS Yield (kg d21 km22) SS Load (kg d21)
Hankilanneva 2007–2012 37 5.0 14.2 29.0 5.9 50.8 1.9 26.7 62.0
Hietalahdenaapa 2004–2012 54 3.2 16.0 158.0 21.0 12.1 1.5 29.2 19.8
Hormaneva 2008–2012 60 2.3 9.1 45.0 7.5 94.4 2.0 26.5 105.4
Isoneva 2003–2012 69 3.0 18.9 80.0 14.9 29.7 2.0 45.0 57.1
J€ami€ankeidas 2006–2012 80 3.1 31.9 1700.0 189.1 38.4 0.8 22.7 93.4
Karhunsuo 2000–2012 119 2.0 14.9 140.0 18.3 20.3 0.7 11.8 30.1
Kiihansuo 2001–2012 81 2.0 12.5 86.0 13.9 6.0 0.6 6.4 5.3
Konnunsuo 2007–2012 73 3.0 16.7 110.0 17.0 39.9 1.4 23.9 59.8
Kuivastensuo 2003–2012 129 1.0 24.1 800.0 72.8 11.6 1.2 33.5 27.6
Laukkuvuoma 2004–2005 21 2.0 10.3 50.0 9.6 7.9 0.7 9.6 9.1
Linnansuo 2003–2012 146 <1.0 15.4 190.0 25.3 20.9 2.6 49.5 34.6
Muljunaapa 2004 10 10.0 17.6 30.7 6.8 38.2 2.2 43.6 66.2
Nanhiansuo 2006–2012 88 4.7 33.7 140.0 22.7 5.9 0.6 14.4 12.4
Puutiosuo 2002–2012 44 <1.0 12.8 250.0 37.3 12.5 1.1 25.3 25.1
Rajasuo 1998–2012 142 <1.0 29.0 190.0 20.8 24.1 0.6 13.8 48.3
Ristineva 2007–2012 75 2.0 13.4 72.0 14.4 24.1 0.9 10.3 24.8
Sarvanneva 2003–2012 32 6.0 62.4 660.0 114.7 4.3 0.6 39.1 23.9
Satamakeidas 2003–2012 115 1.7 9.2 92.0 10.6 20.6 1.1 12.3 19.1
Savonneva 2001–2004 39 2.4 21.1 170.0 33.6 7.0 0.6 15.8 17.3
Siivil€aniemenaapa 2005–2006 20 5.3 17.0 29.6 6.0 35.6 2.1 36.5 52.9
a
Observation period limited to frost-free season (May to October). Discharge Q and runoff R are daily averages over the observation period.

each catchment outlet. Above the discharge measuring point, runoff water is pumped into a constructed
treatment wetland and, after gravitational flow through the wetland, recollected in the outlet ditch. Water
discharge is recorded at 15 or 30 min intervals, from which average daily discharges are obtained. Water
samples are in principle taken biweekly (in some areas or in some periods weekly or monthly), from a ditch
or a pumping basin before the constructed wetlands. This provided a better data set for our purposes, with-
out the main water protection structure disturbing transported SS. The samples were analyzed for SSC by
filtering the water through a 1.2 mm glass fiber filter (Whatman GF/C) in accredited laboratories.
The water quality monitoring period in individual study sites varied from 1 to 15 years and the total number
of SS samples ranged from 10 to 146 (Table 2). The monitoring periods did not include the preparation or
initial drainage of the extraction areas. The average SSC (mg L21) for each of the study sites (Table 2) was
obtained by taking the mean value of all measured concentrations over the monitoring period. Daily SSL
(kg d21) was interpolated for all days by multiplying daily discharge by the measured SSC on the nearest
water sampling day [e.g., Walling and Webb, 1981]. In this context, only the measured SSC values were used,
not linear interpolation of the SSC between the sampling days. This was due to the relatively sparse sam-
pling routine and the assumption of high temporal variability in SSC. Average specific load (kg d21 km2)
was calculated from the daily load by dividing it by the contributing catchment area.
The long-term average SSC varied significantly between the study areas, ranging from 9.1 mg L21 at Horma-
neva to 62.4 mg L21 at Sarvanneva (Table 2). The minimum SSC was generally very low and varied only little
between the study areas. In contrast, the highest recorded SSC at the J€ami€ankeidas study site (1700 mg
L21) was more than 50 times the maximum SSC (29.0 mg L21) at Hankilanneva. Long-term average SS yield
in individual study areas ranged from 6.4 to 49.5 kg d21 km22 (Table 2). However, we must emphasize that
these SSC and SSL values represent the conditions before the constructed wetlands (Table 2), and loading
to downstream water bodies is likely to be 50–80% lower. It is also worth noting that the relatively infre-
quent sampling regime used in the study may introduce some uncertainty to actual sediment yields [Wall-
ing and Webb, 1981, 1982].

2.5. Data Analysis Framework

In the first stage of the analysis, the CSM data were studied in detail and critical shear stress values for the
sampled peat profiles were produced. The threshold values obtained were compared with peat soil proper-
ties (degree of humification, peat type, bulk density, porosity, moisture content, LOI, shear strength, and
sampling depth) in an effort to determine the main soil parameters controlling the erodibility of the peat.

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3527
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

Table 3. Different Erosion Factors in Peat With Increasing Degree of Humification (von Post scale), Sampling Depth, and Peat Type
Vertical Jet Pressurea Critical Shear Soil Erodibility Second Critical Shear
Degree of Humification J (kPa) Stressa,b sc (N m22) Factor k (m2 s kg21) Stress sc2 (N m22)
All (n 5 105) 93.61 6 10.46 4.44 6 1.12 1.39 3 1027 8.55 (n 5 19)
c
H1 (n 5 3) 55.16 6 26.10 3.99 6 1.62 1.19 3 1027
H2 (n 5 1) 13.79 1.25 1.79 3 1027
H3 (n 5 19) 120.66 6 24.69 5.67 6 0.82 1.14 3 1027 8.71 (n 5 4)
H4 (n 528) 112.91 6 22.82 4.84 6 0.71 1.41 3 1027 8.33 (n 5 3)
H5 (n 5 33) 98.41 6 18.53 4.83 6 0.56 1.24 3 1027 8.55 (n 5 12)
H6 (n 5 12) 82.17 6 32.45 4.02 6 0.86 1.24 3 1027
H7 (n 54) 6.90 6 1.41 0.64 6 0.13 2.65 3 1027
H8 (n 5 5) 6.90 6 1.09 0.64 6 0.10 2.62 3 1027
Depth (m)
0.05–0.1 (n 5 32) 114.09 6 20.56 5.06 6 0.62 1.23 3 1027 8.76 (n 5 7)
0.3–0.4 (n 5 38) 117.49 6 18.98 5.30 6 0.55 1.22 3 1027 8.28 (n 5 10)
>0.5 (n 5 35) 48.95 6 11.77 2.93 6 0.49 1.73 3 1027 9.11 (n 5 2)
Peat Type
Cd (n 5 33) 107.19 6 18.30 5.01 6 0.65 1.32 3 1027 8.79 (n 5 9)
SCe (n 5 32) 105.90 6 22.42 4.54 6 0.67 1.32 3 1027 8.71 (n 5 5)
CSf (n 5 26) 78.50 6 20.32 3.82 6 0.59 8.04 (n 5 4)
Sg (n 5 14) 61.56 6 15.44 4.01 6 0.79 7.61 (n 5 1)
a
Mean values 6 standard error.
b
Critical shear stresses calibrated from vertical jet pressures [Tolhurst et al., 1999]. Vertical jet pressures above 215 kPa (upper limit of
the empirical calibration curve) are considered as equivalent to critical shear stress of 9.11 N m22.
c
No second threshold limit observed.
d
Carex peat.
e
Sphagnum-Carex peat.
f
Carex-Sphagnum peat.
g
Sphagnum peat.

Peat properties, catchment characteristics, and erosion thresholds were then regressed against the long-
term SSC (minimum, maximum, mean, median, and upper and lower quartiles of SSC) using simple and
multiple linear regression models. Scatterplots were also examined for any nonlinear trends or outliers
among the variables. Finally, peat soil and erosion parameters were used together with discharge and run-
off data to create regression models for SSL and SS yields between the study sites.
To better highlight the effects of soil physical properties on erosion and sediment transport, only frost-free
months (from May to October) were considered in the regression analyses. In addition to comparison of soil
properties and long-term SSC and SSL, correlation and regression analysis was conducted for the time series
limited to the period 2010–2012. This approach was taken to enhance the comparability of field measure-
ments with water quality monitoring data. At some of the study sites, runoff water quality monitoring cov-
ered only a very limited period, but these sites were included in the analysis in order to improve the
statistical significance and geographical coverage. However, special attention was given to these areas
because of the uncertainty regarding whether the data reflect long-term catchment dynamics.

3. Results
3.1. Erosion Threshold and Peat Properties
Vertical jet pressure at the onset of erosion, as given by the CSM instrument, varied from 3.45 to 413.7 kPa
(Table 3). Converted to horizontal critical shear stress (equation (1)), the sc in individual soil samples
(n 5 105) varied from 0.32 to 9.11 N m22. Note that 9.11 N m22 is the upper limit in the empirical calibration
curve, so vertical jet pressures in excess of 215 kPa could not be calibrated to equivalent horizontal shear
stresses due to lack of calibration data [see Tolhurst et al., 1999]. The average critical shear stress (sc) cover-
ing all peat types and properties was 4.44 N m22 (Table 3). The corresponding soil erodibility factor (k) was
1.39 3 1027 m2 s kg21 (range 0.66 3 102723.52 3 1027 m2 s kg21; Table 3). These values are inversely pro-
portional to reported critical shear stress (equation (2)). Average critical shear stress and erodibility factor
classified by the degree of humification, sampling depth, and peat type are presented in Table 3. In some
CSM test runs (n 5 14), the maximum vertical jet pressure of the device (413.7 N m22) was not high enough
to cause obvious erosion of peat samples. These samples were typically moderately decomposed (H3–H6),
dry, fibrous peats which were very resistant to erosion. In two well-decomposed amorphous peat samples

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3528
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

(H8), the water jet pierced the sample surface but did not cause a distinct turbidity increase that could be
detected with CSM.
Critical shear stress values were significantly lower in highly decomposed peat (H7 and H8) than in peat
with other levels of humification (Table 3). Among the slightly decomposed peat samples (H3 and H4) and
moderately decomposed peat (H5 and H6), critical shear stress decreased on average with increasing
degree of humification (Table 3). However, the substantial intersample variation observed means that fac-
tors other than degree of humification also influenced critical shear stress within these von Post classes.
Among the 20 study areas, undecomposed (H1 and H2) peat layers were found only at Nanhiansuo (top-
most layers of both peat cores) and Kiihansuo (topmost layer of another peat core). In the samples from
these layers (n 5 4), critical shear stress was relatively low (Table 3), but the number of samples was prob-
ably too small to represent the whole H1 and H2 class.
Generally, the erosive properties of peat observed in the study could be divided into three groups accord-
ing to degree of humification: (i) weakly decomposed (H1–H4), dry, fiber-rich peat samples resisted erosion
well, and a clear threshold value for erosion was sometimes difficult to observe; (ii) moderately decomposed
peat (H5, also seen in H3 and H4) often produced two critical shear stress levels where more decomposed
parts of the peat material eroded first and then, at higher shear stress values, the whole sample eroded;
and (iii) highly decomposed samples (H7 and H8) gave notably lower threshold levels and after a critical
point the whole sample eroded at once.
Critical shear stress in the peat cores was significantly lower (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.01) in deeper (over
50 cm from the surface) peat layers than in upper layers (Table 3). This is partly because the degree of humi-
fication often increases with depth in the peat profile. Porosity and moisture content also increase with
depth, but dry bulk density decreases (from unsaturated to saturated soil). In individual samples (with differ-
ent peat properties and sampling depths), erosion thresholds were not affected by the bulk density, poros-
ity, moisture content, or LOI. Peat type did not reflect any statistically significant differences in erosion
behavior either, but on average, Carex peat (Carex and Sphagnum-Carex) produced slightly higher erosion
threshold values than Sphagnum (Sphagnum and Carex-Sphagnum) peat (Table 3).
Significant variations in mechanical shear strength in the topmost peat layers were detected by vane tester
measurements. At the peat surface, shear strength (expressed as the average value of five replicates) varied
between 0.46 and 4.96 N cm22, while at 20 cm depth it varied between 1.40 and 7.55 N cm22. Shear
strength in the surface layer was affected by the peat milling operations, so these values were conditional
on prevailing operational conditions on the sampling day. At 20 cm depth, shear strength was negatively
correlated with average moisture content in the peat profile (Pearson’s correlation r 5 20.55, P < 0.05) and
LOI (r 5 20.60, P < 0.01). By excluding an outlier point from the data set, a negative correlation was also
found with porosity (r 5 20.57, P < 0.05) and positive correlation with dry bulk density (r 5 0.58, P < 0.05).
In well-decomposed peat layers, mechanical shear strength was somewhat lower than in poorly decom-
posed peats, although the difference was not statistically significant. No correlation was found between
mechanical shear strength (vane tester measurements) and critical shear stress (CMS measurements).

3.2. Soil Properties and Sediment Delivery

Average SSC correlated positively with the degree of humification of the peat, as illustrated in Figure 2a.
Here peat decomposition levels for each study area are defined as depth-averaged values of the peat core
samples, while SSC values are long-term averages over the total sampling period. As can be seen in Figure
2a, the average SSC increased after H5 decomposition level and the single highest average SSC corre-
sponded to the highest degree of humification. In poorly decomposed peat extraction areas (H < 5), SSC
was generally rather low but not clearly dependent on the degree of humification (Figure 2a). The relatively
high average SSC measured at Nanhiansuo (H3, mean SSC 33.7 mg L21) was excluded from the best fit line
as an outlier (Figure 2a) because it was attributed to the erosion of fine-grained mineral soil (see Figure 3)
rather than to low degree of humification. Degree of humification correlated similarly with the upper quar-
tile (75% quartile) of the SSC, which emphasizes the role of peat decomposition in high erosion and trans-
port rates. The results are in good agreement with the interaction found between the degree of
humification and critical shear stress (see section 3.1), which is presented in Figure 2b. The data shown in
Figure 2b are the same found in Table 3 (average critical shear stress 6 standard error). The best fit line in
Figure 2b excludes critical shear stresses measured at H1 (n 5 3) and H2 (n 5 1).

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3529
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

Figure 2. (a) Mean suspended sediment concentration (SSC) and (b) critical shear stress as a function of degree of humification (von Post).
Peat decomposition is an average value measured from the 1 m peat core samples (weighted by layer thickness, two samples per study
area). Mean SSC is long-term average concentration (6standard error) at the 20 peat extraction sites. Critical shear stress is the average
value measured in peat samples with a certain degree of humification.

The average dry bulk density of the peat profiles ranged from 0.098 to 0.175 g cm23. The bulk density
showed a clear positive correlation with average SSC (r 5 0.74, P < 0.001) when the data set was limited to
the period 2010–2012. For the minimum values and lower quartile (25%) of the SSC, the corresponding cor-
relations were slightly higher (r 5 0.78, P < 0.001 and r 5 0.81, P < 0.001, respectively). However, for the
whole monitoring period, the correlation was not significant. Peat bulk density can vary over time (due to
drainage, peat subsidence, etc.), which probably explains the better fit with the more recent SSC monitoring
data. The Nanhiansuo study area was excluded from this analysis as an outlier.
Drainage ditches and/or collector ditches extended into the mineral subsoil (for some part of the drainage
network) in 10 study areas. Within this group, long-term mean SSC was significantly affected by the texture
of the mineral soil (Figures 3a and 3b). A positive correlation was observed between mean SSC and fine par-
ticle content (FPC; particle size <0.063 mm), indicating the significance of highly erodible mineral soil par-
ticles for total organic and inorganic sediment transport. The highest SSC values were recorded at
Sarvanneva and Nanhiansuo, where the soil under the peat deposit consists solely of silt and clay fractions.
A significant negative relationship was also found between D50 particle size and mean SSC (Figure 3b).
Apart from degree of humification, bulk density, and mineral soil texture, no other predictors of SSC (Mean
SS, Min SS, Max SS, Median SS, 25% quartile, or 75% quartile) could be identified by applying linear and
nonlinear regression models to the wide variety of peat physical properties and catchment characteristics
data obtained. Peat type, LOI, critical shear stress, soil erodibility factor, friction velocity, soil shear strength
(vane tester measurements), moisture content, porosity, contributing catchment area, basin relief, the age
of the extraction area, geographical location, or the average depth of drainage ditches were not significant

Figure 3. Variation in mean suspended sediment concentration (SSC 6 standard error) with (a) median D50 particle size and (b) fine parti-
cle content FPC (particle diameter d < 0.063 mm) at 10 extraction sites with drains extending into the mineral soil.

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3530
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

predictors in the analysis. The effect of peat

Figure 4. Predicted and measured suspended sediment concentra-
tions (SSCs) at 10 peat extraction sites with drains extending into
the mineral soil. Regression model is defined as:
SSC 5 223.659 1 6.537H 1 0.323FPC, where H is the degree of
humification and FPC is the fine particle content of the mineral sub-
soil. Dashed line represents 95% confidence interval for the
predictions.
extraction method on sediment delivery could
not be distinguished in this study, since both
milled peat and sod peat extraction techniques
were applied in parallel in the study areas.
The combinations of various explanatory variables
were examined using multilinear regression, but no
significant correlations were found to explain the
variation in SSC between the 20 study sites. This
was expected, as most of the individual parameters
had very weak correlations with measured SSC.
However, in 10 study areas with drains in contact
with the underlying mineral soil, a very good fit
(R2 5 0.82) with measured average SSC was
achieved by taking into account both degree of
humification (H) and FPC of the mineral soil. The
goodness of fit of the model is shown in Figure 4.
Equation (3) shows the regression equation used in
Figure 4. It should be noted that the regression
model is based on data from 10 peat extraction
sites only

SSC5223:65916:537H10:323FPC (3)

When weekly or biweekly monitored long-term data were used, no relationship was found between SSC
and discharge (L s21), as noted in many previous studies [Walling and Webb, 1981, 1982]. A sparse but long-
time monitoring strategy does not capture temporal variations very well. However, volumetric sediment
loads were strongly runoff dependent. Runoff (L s21 km22) explained 59% of the average SS yields (kg d21
km22) between the study areas, while discharge accounted for 79% of the variation in average SSL (kg d21)
transported. The correlation between average daily discharge and SSL was improved by entering the
decomposition level of the surface peat (Htop) into the regression model. This approach yielded a regression
where 86.3% of the variance in daily mean SSL could be explained by discharge Q (L s21) and Htop. The
regression model is shown in equation (4) and the model performance illustrated in Figure 5. This result
underlines the importance of the degree of humification for erosion and SS transport. Otherwise, incorpora-
tion of peat properties or erosion thresholds into regression equations did not improve the explanation of
the SSL loads or yields between the study sites.
SSL5215:73611:045Q17:783Htop (4)

4. Discussion
4.1. Erodibility of Peat
The significant variation in erosion thresholds between the 105 CSM tests conducted (Table 3) indicates the
heterogeneity of peat material and the influence of various peat properties on the erosion threshold of
peat. Among the peat properties, degree of humification had the most obvious effect on erosion thresholds,
suggesting that well-decomposed peat (H  7) is much more prone to erosion than slightly or moderately
decomposed, fiber-rich peat. An interesting finding was the two separate erosion thresholds observed in
some moderately decomposed peat samples. In these samples, we assume that the parts of the peat mate-
rial with high degrees of humification eroded first, at relatively low shear stress, but the existence of the
undecomposed plant remains (fibers) prevented the whole sample from eroding until shear stress reached
a much higher level. This behavior is somewhat similar to the formation of an armoring layer often reported
in rivers with unsorted inorganic bed material. The first observations of formation of a fibrous peat mat that
protects peat against erosion were made by Carling et al. [1997]. It can be hypothesized that erosion and SS
transport from moderately decomposed, bare peat surfaces decreases after easily erodible parts of the peat

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3531
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

have been detached and transported by rain

splash impact and runoff. In peat extraction areas,
however, this kind of action would be of minor
importance, as surface peat is regularly milled
(disturbed).
Significant particle entrainment started when hori-
zontal shear stress reached about 0.6 N m22 in the
well-decomposed peat, while for peat in other
humification classes average critical shear stress
varied from around 4 to 6 N m22 (Table 3). This
suggests that peat extraction sites with highly
decomposed peat are likely to cause increased
transport of organic suspended matter. As degree
of humification often increases and critical shear
Figure 5. Measured daily mean suspended sediment load SSL (kg stress decreases with sampling depth, it is also
d21) described as a linear function of mean discharge Q (L s21) and apparent that the potential risk for peat erosion
degree of humification of the topmost peat layer (Htop). Regression
increases when peat extraction reaches deeper
model: SSL 5 215.736 1 1.045Q 1 7.783Htop.
peat layers. In comparison with our reported val-
ues (Table 3), critical shear stress for eroded peat
sediment (vertical shear stress) is about 0.1 N m22 [Marttila and Klïve, 2008]. This indicates that deposited
ditch sediment is much more susceptible to erosion than intact peat soil. However, we excluded the milled
surface peat from the CSM analysis, as its occurrence is dependent on the extraction phase and would have
impeded the comparability of our results. The erosion threshold in milled peat might be lower than in
undisturbed peat. The difference in critical shear stress between intact soil and ditch sediment supports the
claim made by Klïve [1998], and confirmed by Marttila and Klïve [2008], that erosion of deposited peat sedi-
ment is the main source of sediment in peat extraction areas during individual summer storm events. Dur-
ing longer time frames, however, it can be assumed that highly erodible peat layers supply more sediment
to the ditch network. In other words, short-term SSC variation is under hydrometeorological control and
sediment storage but long-term average yields under material control.
Measured erosion threshold and soil shear strength were not correlated in this study. Shear strength was
measured in situ in the topmost peat layers, where only undecomposed and moderately decomposed peat
was present. Measured critical shear stress was particularly low in well-decomposed peat layers, in which
soil shear strength might also have been lower. In slightly or moderately decomposed peat, fibrous and
undecomposed parts of the peat probably control the mechanical shear strength, whereas in critical shear
stress the more decomposed parts of the peat erode first at relatively low shear stress values. The relation-
ship between critical shear strength and shear stress has been found in several studies in inorganic soils,
but contradictory results have also been reported [Leonard and Richard, 2004]. Our results indicate that
shear strength is not a valid estimate of particle entrainment threshold in peat soils. Measured shear
strength or critical shear stress did not correlate with average SSC in the long term or in 2010–2012. This
indicates the need for frequent measures to estimate SSC and determine the role of mineral subsoil erosion
in controlling SSC at some sites. However, the results from both measurement strategies highlight the
importance of soil physical properties for the erodibility and strength of peat.
Measured average shear stress in different humification classes (Table 3) can be used to make a rough esti-
mate of peat erodibility in different peat soils. However, the observed variation between the samples, espe-
cially in moderately decomposed peats, suggests that case-specific measurements are needed for tasks or
applications demanding high accuracy. The results from this study demonstrate that the CSM instrument can
be used as a practical tool to measure erosion thresholds in peat soils. However, the conversion of vertical jet
pressures to equivalent horizontal shear stresses [Vardy et al., 2007] can cause some uncertainty in the results.
4.2. Impact of Soil Properties on Suspended Sediment Concentrations and Loads
In this study, degree of humification explained much of the variation in long-term average SSC between peat
extraction areas (Figure 2a). Although SS transport is a dynamic process and SSC is very much time dependent,
as a long-term average and beyond a certain limit, well-decomposed peat soil generated higher runoff water
SSC than poorly decomposed peat (Figure 2a). This result agrees well with the critical shear stress values

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3532
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

measured in the peat profiles (Table 2), and thus highlights the significance of the degree of humification on
peat erodibility and sediment transport. Although the impact of high degree of humification on SSC is clearly
seen only at three study sites with very well-decomposed peat (Figure 2a), the relationship between H and SSC
is strongly supported by our physical and conceptual understanding, and the direct erosion measurements.
However, the relationship between degree of humification and SSC was not apparent among more poorly
decomposed peat deposits (H < 5), in which other erosion and transport factors are apparently more important.
The second highest long-term average SSC was measured at Nanhiansuo, although its peat layer is very poorly
decomposed (surface layer H1 and H2). Thus, Nanhiansuo did not comply with the general behavior observed
in other study areas with undecomposed peat. However, the high SSC measured at Nanhiansuo may be attribut-
able to the erosion of fine-grained mineral subsoil (Figure 3). The highest SS concentrations were measured at
the study sites with both well-decomposed peat layer and very fine-grained mineral subsoil (Figures 2a and 4).
We hypothesize that the role of peat decomposition in erosion and transport of peat is twofold. First, as
highlighted in this study, critical shear stress for particle entrainment decreases with increasing degree of
humification. Second, as saturated hydraulic conductivity has been shown to be a decreasing function of
peat humification [Boelter, 1969; Pa €iva€nen, 1973; Verry et al., 2011], infiltration excess overland flow, sheet
erosion, and rill formation may be more likely in well-decomposed peat extraction areas. In our data, the
degree of humification in the topmost peat layer together with average discharge explained 89% of the var-
iation in SS loads (Figure 5). Thus, it is evident that very well-decomposed peat tends to generate a signifi-
cantly higher risk of peat erosion (Figure 2) and loads of suspended material (Figure 5). The increasing
effect of peat decomposition level on the erodibility of peat and the resulting SS transport has been dem-
onstrated previously in a laboratory-scale sprinkler experiment [Svahnba €ck, 2007] and discussed in several
publications [e.g., Sallantaus, 1983; Marja-aho and Koskinen, 1989], but to our knowledge, this is the first
study to verify the concept using catchment-scale SS monitoring data (Figure 4).
The average bulk density of the peat profile exhibited a strong positive correlation with monitored SSC when
data from the period 2010 to 2012 were used. The reasoning behind this result is similar to that for the effects
of degree of humification. As the saturated hydraulic conductivity of peat decreases with increasing bulk den-
€iva
sity [e.g., Pa €nen, 1973; Chow et al., 1992], the tendency for overland flow is higher in peat soils with higher
bulk density. Accordingly, bulk density can affect erosion and sediment transport through the changes in run-
off generation, rather than through its effect on the susceptibility of peat to erosion. There is evidence in the
literature that sediment erosion rate (in inorganic and cohesive sediments) is a decreasing function of bulk
density [Grabowski et al., 2011], which is somewhat contradictory to our findings. In this study, bulk density
was not correlated with the erosion thresholds measured directly in the peat profiles. However, we found a
mild positive correlation (r 5 0.54, P < 0.05) between bulk density and degree of humification. In long-term
data, peat decomposition appears to better describe the erosion conditions and overall sediment transport,
whereas in shorter time frames, bulk density appears to be a more important factor.
In addition to peat soil properties, the results show that the characteristics of mineral subsoil may play a piv-
otal role in transported SSC in those peat extraction areas where drainage ditches penetrate into mineral
soil. Long-term SSC was significantly higher in areas with a high proportion of fine-grained particles (Figure
3a), or small average (D50) particle size (Figure 3b). It is to be expected that critical shear stress and flow
velocity for particle entrainment decrease with decreasing particle size (excluding cohesive soils). This, in
conjunction with decreasing settling velocity, indicates that fine-grained mineral soil potentially generates a
higher risk of SS delivery than coarse-textured mineral soils. The stand-alone impact of particle size distribu-
tion on average SSC between the study areas (Figure 3) clearly indicates that in certain conditions, mineral
soil properties may have a primary effect on erosion and total organic and inorganic SS delivery. However,
it should be noted that in many cases organic and mineral sediment inputs cannot be separated.
We suggest that more attention be paid to erosion and SS controls in peat extraction areas with fine-grained
mineral subsoil. However, peat soil properties such as degree of humification must also be taken into account
when the potential risk of erosion and SS loading is being assessed (Figure 4). Degree of peat humification
and fine particle content of the mineral soil provided rather good estimates of the average long-term SSC (Fig-
ure 4), suggesting that both peat and mineral soil properties affect erosion and total sediment loads from
peat extraction. As peat humification often decreases with depth in the peat profile and contact with mineral
soil is more likely in old extraction areas (because of extraction of the upper peat layer), it can be assumed
that the overall erodibility of peat in extraction areas and the risk for organic and inorganic suspended matter

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3533
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

is likely to increase with the operating lifetime of these areas. We found that the average SSC was not depend-
ent on average discharge on the water sampling days. Thus, it is evident that SSC is not dependent on hydro-
dynamic forces alone, but appears to be controlled by different soil properties, sediment storage, and
sediment supply. However, as far as total volumetric sediment load is concerned, a relatively high change in
runoff volume often overrides any changes in sediment concentration.

5. Conclusions
The effects of various peat soil properties on peat erosion and suspended sediment (SS) yields were studied at
20 Finnish peat extraction sites. A clear positive correlation was found between long-term average runoff water
SS concentration and degree of humification of the peat deposit. Average SS concentration was significantly
higher from extraction areas with well-decomposed peat, while among areas with slightly and moderately
decomposed peat, the role of decomposition level was unclear. This finding was confirmed by critical shear
stresses measurements in peat core samples with different degrees of humification. To our knowledge, this is
the first time the influence of peat decomposition on critical shear stress and SS delivery has been examined
using direct measurements and extensive catchment-scale data. The study showed that SS concentration was
dependent on the particle size distribution of mineral soil in those extraction areas where ditches reached into
the underlying mineral soil. The highest SS concentrations were measured in areas with very fine-grained sub-
soil, indicating that in drained peatlands, drainage ditch erosion may significantly affect total organic and inor-
ganic sediment concentrations. The soil properties tested affected SS concentration rather than volumetric SS
load, which was strongly controlled by runoff. However, average SS load was best explained by a multilinear
regression model with the decomposition level of surface peat and average discharge as explanatory variables.
A cohesive strength meter (CSM) was successfully employed here to measure erosion threshold directly in
undisturbed peat core samples. The shear stress values obtained can enable parameterization of shear
stress erosion models without recourse to calibration and provide a strong physical basis for erosion studies
in peatlands. The CSM measurements revealed the existence of two separate erosion thresholds in many
moderately decomposed peat samples. Well-decomposed parts of the sample eroded first, at relatively low
shear stress, while undecomposed parts of the peat material eroded later, at higher critical shear stress val-
ues. Hence, the fibrous peat material in moderately decomposed peat surfaces can form an armoring layer,
preventing further erosion. Although the accurate prediction of SS loads in peat extraction areas remains a
great challenge, some important causes and factors influencing erosion and SS delivery from peat extraction
areas were identified: In peat extraction areas with very well-decomposed peat (often found in old extrac-
tion areas) or fine-grained mineral subsoil, severe erosion can occur and particular emphasis must be placed
on sediment management strategies and water purification. Here sediment yield was measured before the
discharge entered the treatment wetland, so the impact of treatment on sediment loads must be taken into
account when the final load to water courses is estimated. Our data did not enable us to analyze the tempo-
ral variation in SS concentration and its dependence on the rainfall-runoff process. Further studies are
needed to compare temporal SS dynamics in different peatland areas in relation to peat soil properties.

Acknowledgments References
The work was funded by Vapo Oy
Alakangas, E., P. H€ oltt€a, M. Juntunen, and T. Vesisenaho (Eds.) (2012), Fuel Peat Production Technology—Training Material, vol. 140, JAMK
(Sulka project), the Academy of Finland
Univ. of Appl. Sci., Jyv€askyl€a, Finland.
(ModStream-project), and the doctoral
Boelter, D. H. (1969), Physical properties of peats as related to degree of decomposition, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 33(4), 606–609, doi:
program in the Built Environment
10.2136/sssaj1969.03615995003300040033x.
(RYM-TO). Vapo Oy provided discharge,
Campbell, D. R., C. Lavoie, and L. Rochefort (2002), Wind erosion and surface stability in abandoned milled peatlands, Can. J. Soil Sci., 82(1),
suspended sediment, and sieving data
85–95, doi:10.4141/S00-089.
for the study sites. The authors wish to
Carling, P. A., M. S. Glaister, and T. P. Flintham (1997), The erodibility of upland soils and the design of preafforestation drainage networks
thank V. Brotherus for his help in peat
in the United Kingdom, Hydrol. Processes, 11(15), 1963–1980, doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199712)11:15<1963::AID-HYP542>3.0.CO;2-M.
sample collection and M. Alapuranen
Chow, T. L., H. W. Rees, I. Ghanem, and R. Cormier (1992), Compactibility of cultivated sphagnum peat material and its influence on hydro-
for the analyses of peat type and
logic characteristics, Soil Sci., 153(4), 300–306.
degree of peat decomposition. A.
Clarke, D., and J. Rieley (Eds.) (2010), Strategy for Responsible Peatland Management, Int. Peat Soc., Saarij€arvi, Finland.
Karppinen did the first screening and
Darby, S. E., H. Q. Trieu, P. A. Carling, J. Sarkkula, J. Koponen, M. Kummu, I. Conlan, and J. Leyland (2010), A physically based model to pre-
selection of the study areas, for which
dict hydraulic erosion of fine-grained riverbanks: The role of form roughness in limiting erosion, J. Geophys. Res., 115, F04003, doi:
the authors are grateful. The authors
10.1029/2010JF001708.
would also like to acknowledge M.
Evans, M., and J. Warburton (2007), Geomorphology of Upland Peat: Erosion, Form and Landscape Change, RGS-IBG Book Ser., Blackwell,
Evans and the anonymous reviewer for
Oxford, U. K.
their valuable comments and
Gnatowski, T., J. Szatylowicz, T. Brandyk, and C. Kechavarzi (2010), Hydraulic properties of fen peat soils in Poland, Geoderma, 154(3–4),
suggestions. The original data used in
188–195, doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.02.021.
this study are available from the
Grabowski, R. C., I. G. Droppo, and G. Wharton (2011), Erodibility of cohesive sediment: The importance of sediment properties, Earth Sci.
authors on request.
Rev., 105(3–4), 101–120, doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.01.008.

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3534
 Water Resources Research 10.1002/2013WR015206

Grabowski, R. C., G. Wharton, G. R. Davies, and I. G. Droppo (2012), Spatial and temporal variations in the erosion threshold of fine riverbed
sediments, J. Soils Sediments, 12(7), 1174–1188, doi:10.1007/s11368-012-0534-9.
Hanson, G. J., and A. Simon (2001), Erodibility of cohesive streambeds in the loess area of the midwestern USA, Hydrol. Processes, 15(1), 23–
38, doi:10.1002/hyp.149.
Hobbs, N. B. (1986), Mire morphology and the properties and behaviour of some British and foreign peats, Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol., 19,
7–80, doi:10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1986.019.01.02.
Jepsen, R., J. Roberts, and W. Lick (1997), Effects of bulk density on sediment erosion rates, Water Air Soil Pollut., 99(1–4), 21–31, doi:
10.1007/BF02406841.
Klïve, B. (1998), Erosion and sediment delivery from peat mines, Soil Tillage Res., 45(1–2), 199–216, doi:10.1016/S0933-3630(97)00018-4.
Laine, A., and K. Heikkinen (1991), Fishery Impacts of Peat Production, Ser. A, vol. 82 [in Finnish with English summary], Water and Environ.
Admin., Finland.
Laine, A., and K. Heikkinen (2000), Peat mining increasing fine-grained organic matter on the riffle beds of boreal streams, Arch. Hydrobiol.,
148(1), 9–24.
Landva, A. O., and P. E. Pheeney (1980), Peat fabric and structure, Can. Geotech. J., 17(3), 416–435, doi:10.1139/t80-048.
Lick, W., and J. McNeil (2001), Effects of sediment bulk properties on erosion rates, Sci. Total Environ., 266(1–3), 41–48, doi:10.1016/S0048-
9697(00)00747-6.
L
eonard, J., and G. Richard (2004), Estimation of runoff critical shear stress for soil erosion from soil shear strength, Catena, 57(3), 233–249,
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2003.11.007.
Marja-aho, J., and K. Koskinen (1989), Limnological effects of peat production, Rep. 36 [in Finnish with English summary], Natl. Boards of
Waters and Environ., Finland.
Marttila, H., and B. Klïve (2008), Erosion and delivery of deposited peat sediment, Water Resour. Res., 44, W06406, doi:10.1029/
2007WR006486.
Mesri, G., and M. Ajlouni (2007), Engineering properties of fibrous peats, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133(7), 850–866, doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:7(850).
Ouellette, C., S. C. Courtenay, A. St-Hilaire, and A. D. Boghen (2006), Impact of peat moss released by a commercial harvesting operation
into an estuarine environment on the sand shrimp Crangon septemspinosa, J. Appl. Ichthyol., 22(1), 15–24, doi:10.1111/j.1439-
0426.2006.00697.x.
P€aiv€anen, J. (1973), Hydraulic conductivity and water retention in peat soils, Acta For. Fennica, 129, 1–70.
Paterson, D. M. (1989), Short term changes in the erodibility of intertidal cohesive sediments related to the migratory behaviour of epipelic
diatoms, Limnol. Oceanogr., 34(1), 223–234.
Pavey, B., A. Saint-Hilaire, S. Courtenay, T. Ouarda, and B. Bob ee (2007), Exploratory study of suspended sediment concentrations down-
stream of harvested peat bogs, Environ. Monit. Assess., 135(1–3), 369–382, doi:10.1007/s10661-007-9656-8.
Roberts, J., R. Jepsen, D. Gotthard, and W. Lick (1998), Effects of particle size and bulk density on erosion of quartz particles, J. Hydraul. Eng.,
124(12), 1261–1267, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1998)124:12(1261).
Ronkanen, A.-K., and B. Klïve (2005), Hydraulic soil properties of peatlands treating municipal wastewater and peat harvesting runoff, Suo,
56(2), 43–56.
Sallantaus, T. (1983), Turvetuotannon Vesist€ okuormitus, the Load to Watercourses From Peat Mining, Ser. D, vol. 29 [in Finnish], Dep. of Lim-
nol., Univ. of Helsinki, Finland.
Svahnb€ack, L. (2007), Precipitation-induced runoff and leaching from milled peat extraction mires by peat types: A comparative method
for estimating the loading of water bodies during peat production, PhD thesis, Dep. of Geol., Univ. of Helsinki, Finland.
Tolhurst, T. J., K. S. Black, S. A. Shayler, S. Mather, I. Black, K. Baker, and D. M. Paterson (1999), Measuring the in situ erosion shear stress of
intertidal sediments with the cohesive strength meter (CSM), Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci., 49(2), 281–294, doi:10.1006/ecss.1999.0512.
Tolhurst, T. J., K. S. Black, D. M. Paterson, H. J. Mitchener, G. R. Termaat, and S. A. Shayler (2000), A comparison and measurement standard-
isation of four in situ devices for determining the erosion shear stress of intertidal sediments, Cont. Shelf Res., 20(10–11), 1397–1418,
doi:10.1016/S0278-4343(00)00029-7.
Vardy, S., J. E. Saunders, T. J. Tolhurst, P. A. Davies, and D. M. Paterson (2007), Calibration of the high-pressure cohesive strength meter
(CSM), Cont. Shelf Res., 27(8), 1190–1199, doi:10.1016/j.csr.2006.01.022.
Verry, E. S., D. H. Boelter, J. P€aiv€anen, D. S. Nichols, T. Malterer, and A. Gafni (2011), Physical properties of organic soils, in Peatland Biogeo-
chemistry and Watershed Hydrology at the Marcell Experimental Forest, edited by R. K. Kolka et al., pp. 135–176, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Fla.
Walling, D. E., and B. W. Webb (1981), The reliability of suspended sediment load data, in Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurements,
Proceedings of Florence Sympium, IAHS Publ. 133, 177–194.
Walling, D. E., and B. W. Webb (1982), Sediment availability and the prediction of storm-period sediment yields, in Recent Developments in
the Explanation and Prediction of Erosion and Sediment Yields, Proceedings of Exeter Symposium, IAHS Publ. 137, 327–337.

TUUKKANEN ET AL. C 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

V 3535