INTRODUCTION

Our fieldwork question for Fresh water environments was “To what extent are the local channel factors in the upper
course of the River Lesse in Belgium more evident the Bradshaw model?”.  The field work investigation was carried
out to retrieve raw data that we can use to answer the question reliably, also to identify the key geographical
features. In relation to the course specification of Fresh Water Environments this study corresponds with the
specification point on Discharge, see figure 1.01.

Discharge is the volume of water passing a given point over a set time. You can calculate discharge by multiplying
the cross-sectional area of a river or stream by the mean velocity of the river and it is measured in metres 3 per
second (unit is CUMEC’s).
Hypothesis:

1. Channel width will increase further downstream

2. Bedload size will decrease as you move downstream
3. Discharge of the river will increase further downstream.
The geographical theory behind my hypothesises is related to the Bradshaw model, see figure 1.01. The channel
width increases downstream because there is no constraint of the mountain environment and more water is added
to the river from the rain in the catchment area, tributaries and streams that join along the way. There will be the
largest/roughest bed load upstream because downstream the water in the river erodes the rocks to
smaller/smoother sizes whereas upstream there is low velocity and depth meaning this process is slow and does
not happen. The discharge increases as both the velocity and the cross sectional areas increase downstream.
Figure 1.02 is another representation of how the characteristics in a river channel should change as you move
downstream. The Schumm model is different to the Bradshaw model because it shows more variation and displays
the type of graph you would expect when presenting the data collected. I will be using this in my evaluation to
further support the Bradshaw model and decide if local channel factors are more evident.
The Fieldwork Investigation was carried out in Belgium (figure 1.04), in the Ardennes at the upper course of the
River Lesse, shown in figure 1.06. We attempted to equally divide the section into 8 sites however due to legal and
safety regulations some were not accessible and this was not possible. 
METHODOLOGY
To collect the data, we used systematic sampling methods to ensure it was a fair test. This means we divided the
section of the river we were collecting data from into 4 equal intervals (6 including right and left bank) and measured
each of the data samples from each spot. We collected primary data to ensure it was up to date and we used
shared data within the groups. The data was collected on the 18/09/2015.
Methods:

 Velocity - Use a flow meter, put it in the water and time how long it takes for the propeller to travel down the rod.
In deeper waters do this on the surface and the further below the water level to get more accurate results.
 Channel depth - Use a metre ruler and take the reading from the bottom of the river to the surface, doing this at
all 6 intervals makes it systematic. Use the same ruler so the results are reliable.
 Channel width – see figure 1.5 
 Bed load – Use a random selection process (put your hand in the water and take the first stone you touch) and
measure the 2nd longest width with the calliper, this meant there was no bias as you are naturally drawn to the
biggest rocks. We also used the cailleux index to rank the rocks on a set scale, and to see if the rock shape
changed downstream. Being random helped me answer my hypothesis because it meant that the results were
more representative of the river.
 Wetted perimeter – Use a chain and run it across the bottom of the river making sure it is in all the stone gaps,
take it out and use the tape measure to record the length.
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS                                  
I collected results at the River Lesse that corresponded with my three hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1:

 The channel width will increase as you move further downstream

Primary data collected from the river:

The first site was closest to the source of the river with a width of 2.32m, while the final site being furthest away had
a width of 30.1m. Figure 3.01 and figure 3.02 show anomalies at site 5. From the map shown in the introduction you
can see that sites 4 and 5 were very far away from each other, meaning there is no reason for them to have similar
results. Moreover, site 5 is further downstream than site 4, so according to the Bradshaw model the width should be
greater. Site 5 was very close to a village, meaning that human interference such as extraction could have
narrowed the river to make space for houses.
From figure 1.7 it is visible that at sites 1, 3, and 5, the difference between the bank full width and the channel width
vary by a maximum of 1 metre, however at sites 2, 4 and 6 there is a greater difference of over 3m. This could be
due to a lack of vegetation at sites 1,3 and 5 meaning that the channel and bank stop at the same place (a
limitation). Local factors such as natural/man made floodplains can elongate the bank full width making it a lot
longer than the channel width.
A reason for the bank full width being smaller could be because the river varied in size and was narrower at one
point than at the others
In conclusion, the data shows that channel width increases as you move downstream, it follows the Bradshaw
model.
Hypotheses 2
Bedload decreases as you move downstream
The Bradshaw model suggests that site 1 (upstream) should have the largest particle size, and downstream (site 6)
should have the smallest, yet the data suggests that the bed load increases as you move downstream.
The capacity of the river varies greatly at each site meaning that the Bradshaw model cannot be applied to this
aspect of the river. Figure 3.07 shows that site 1 has an anomaly because it has the smallest particle length of 0.03
metres, while site 5 has the largest of 0.09 metres.
Site 5 had the deepest depth and the second fastest velocity meaning that hypothetically the bed load would be
eroded the fastest making it the smallest. This is a clear anomaly and completely disproves the Bradshaw model,
meaning that the local channel factors are evident.
Human activity such as creating weirs or adding stones to the river downstream can interfere with the natural
processes such as erosion and weathering and the sorting of the rocks. Either that, or due to limitations such as
inaccessibility it was harder to choose the rocks.
When choosing the bed load, it is a blind test meaning that you pick the first rock you choose, however you are
naturally drawn to the largest rock. Furthermore, we stayed mainly in the upper course of the river and did not
venture into a real downstream environment. This can provide a reason as to why the bed load size did not follow
the Bradshaw model or the Schumm model because we did not collect data from that section.  From the data there
is no clear relationship between the point on the river and the particle size.
The box and whisker diagrams show the differences in minimum, median, maximum and quartiles 1 and 3 of the
bed load data. Sites 4,5 and 1 have the smallest range of 7 while sites 2 and 3 have the greatest range of 10. This
shows how the bed load size varies within the river and that when randomly choosing the samples there will be
rocks of all different sizes. This is why it is so important to be random throughout the whole investigation and not be
bias.
Bed load size and roughness should decrease as you move downstream because the rivers velocity increases and
the flow picks up more sediment. Therefore, rocks are more likely to bump into each other and the erosion process
of attrition and abrasion happen – causing the bed load to reduce in size and be smoother.
 Figure 3.15 shows site 6. There are large rocks highlighted in green, site 6 has the highest caillex index yet the
second lowest bedload size. Site 6 is shallow in areas and much deeper in others which was a limit in that we could
not go in the water above our knees so would not be able to pick bed load from there. The rocks present here are
much larger than those at site one.
In reference to the hypotheses that bedload decreases downstream, the data does not support the claim.

Hypotheses 3
Discharge will increase downstream
Figure 3.17 and 3.18 shows clear correlations between the two variables as both graphs are the same shape. Sites
2 and 5 have the fastest velocity and the deepest depth. One local factor reason for the abnormal highs at site 2 is
that there is a bridge. Therefore, it is likely that humans have interfered and deepened the river to prevent it from
flooding or have straightened out the channel which would increase the flow, the velocity and make the depth
deeper.
The cross sectional area increases exponentially and shows a clear correlation between all the values. The
choropleth and isovel graphs show the fastest areas of flow are all in the centre of the channel even though the bed
shape varies. In figure 3.19 the river is an expected shape with the deepest part in the centre of the river and the
shallowest parts at the river banks, the fastest flow is in the centre with velocity getting slower as you reach the
outskirts. Figure 3.21 However has a more uneven river floor due to the size of bed load present at site 5 and the
fastest flow is in two separate areas reaching the peak speed at 1.2m/s at the 4 th interval.
Figure 3.23 shows that river discharge does increase as you move downstream. During sites 1-4 there is a shallow
gradient on the graph meaning that the discharge varies only slightly. However, from sites 4-6, there is a rapid
increase in river discharge and a very steep line gradient.
The Bradshaw model suggests that discharge should increase as you move downstream, which the data shows to
be correct. When comparing the Schumm model and the graph produced from the primary data you can see that
our graph does follow the normal stream discharge prediction, meaning that the local channel factors do not have
that much relevance in the feature of the river.
The discharge increases because both velocity and cross sectional area increase, site 5 was a lot closer to site 6,
than site 4 which provides a reason as to why there is a rapid increase of 1.5 cumecs between sites 4 and 5. 
Referring back to the hypothesis that discharge increases downstream, the data shows that the statement is
correct.
Spearman’s rank is a representation of the relationship between two sets of data. I have calculated the relationship
between Depth and Velocity. The values used to rank the variables were taken in a systematic format. The results
were taken from the third interval at each site and sub-site meaning the data was kept constant. The Spearman’s
rank correlation coefficient that was calculated was 0.05. This means there is no significance between depth and
velocity and the results are down to chance factors. Therefore, the idea of a correlation has been rejected and local
channel factors are more prominent.
The local channel factors that will have caused the velocity to increase downstream and the depth to increase down
stream is because the deeper sites will have had a faster flow because there will be a greater distance from the
wetted perimeter and less resistance.
The points in figure 3.26 do not show a clear increase in velocity as depth increases so by looking solely at the
scatter graph it is visible that there is no correlation. There are two anomalies highlighted in green, the first one
being the very shallowest depth yet with the second highest velocity, and the second one being the deepest depth
with the fastest velocity. Both of these points visibly do not sit within the general area where most of the points lie,
hence why they are anomalous.

CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the primary data retrieved shows that local channel factors are as prominent as the Bradshaw model.
The Bradshaw model suggests that the bed load size decreases as you move downstream, however the data
shows that it increases – at site one the average size is 0.03m and at site six 0.06m.
Contrastingly, the channel width supports the Bradshaw model in that it does increase as you move downstream.
Site one had a width of 2.32 and site six had a width of 30.1, local channel factors such as the widening of the
channel may have taken place yet the data still follows the geographic theory.
Finally, the third hypothesis of the discharge increasing as you move downstream does also support the Bradshaw
model. The discharge increases from 0.12 at site one to 2.77 at site 6 and follows the normal stream discharge
prediction of the Schumm model.
The spearman’s rank correlation coefficient has no correlation, meaning that the relationship between depth and
velocity are only down to chance. Even though the graphs for depth and velocity have the same shape, and appear
to have a direct correlation – they do not.
Doing this investigation, I have learnt that geographers cannot really predict what format a river will follow, because
local channel factors will always interfere.
EVALUATION
Overall the data collection method was sufficient to investigate the river however by having more sites we would be
able to analyse the river characteristics in more depth with more raw data to work with. Having more sites would
greatly improve the investigation because it would allow the averages to be more accurate, furthermore it would
create a wider range of data with a more specific focus. We would be able to identify more closely the changes that
take place along the river as the sites would show more variation.
The equipment used allowed us to accurately take measurements, especially as we had a flow metre to measure
the velocity it was a lot easier. We encountered some problems during the data collection such as some sites were
inaccessible due to extensive vegetation and also at site 6 the water was too deep and rough in places. The
systematic sampling of collecting the data at 6 intervals per site was very efficient and added an element of
reliability to our data.
Another improvement could be to repeat the investigation again on a day with similar controlled conditions such as
weather and no rain in the previous 4 days to have more results and more consistent averages. One factor that
effected the validity of the data is that different groups could have used different techniques so by collecting your
own data for each of the sites it is much more dependable and relevant to your own investigation.
To develop the investigation further we could add in more elements of geographic theory related to the river and we
could conduct questionnaires around the local village areas to see what they have changed about the river. This
would allow us to identify the local channel factors and make more connections. Overall, the main improvement for
the investigation would be to collect more primary data.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anon, (2016). [online] Available at: • http://ibgeog2009.wikispaces.com [Accessed 9 Mar. 2016].
Anon, (2016). [online] Available at: • http://coolgeography.co.uk/A-level/AQA/Year%2012/Rivers_Floods/Channel
%20characteristics/Channel%20Characteristics.htm [Accessed 9 Mar. 2016].
Geography fieldwork. (2016). [online] Geography-fieldwork.org. Available at:
http://www.geography-fieldwork.org/rivers/river-variables.aspx [Accessed 9 Mar. 2016].