OCTOBER 31 2022

Impacts of infauna, worm tubes, and shell hash on sediment

acoustic variability and deviation from the viscous grain
shearing model 
Kevin M. Lee ; Gabriel R. Venegas ; Megan S. Ballard ; Kelly M. Dorgan ; Erin Kiskaddon ;
Andrew R. McNeese ; Preston S. Wilson

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152, 2456–2474 (2022)

https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907

CrossMark

 
View Export
Online Citation

01 November 2023 23:59:45

 ARTICLE
...................................

Impacts of infauna, worm tubes, and shell hash on sediment

acoustic variability and deviation from the viscous grain
shearing model
Kevin M. Lee,1,a) Gabriel R. Venegas,2 Megan S. Ballard,1 Kelly M. Dorgan,3 Erin Kiskaddon,3,b)
Andrew R. McNeese,1 and Preston S. Wilson4,c)
1
Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78713, USA
2
Center for Acoustics Research and Education, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA
3
Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Dauphin Island, Alabama 36528, USA
4
Walker Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA

ABSTRACT:
Infauna influence geoacoustic parameters in surficial marine sediments. To investigate these effects, an experiment
was conducted in natural sand-silt sediment in the northern Gulf of Mexico. In situ acoustic measurements of sedi-
ment sound speed, attenuation, and shear speed were performed, and sediment cores were collected from the upper
20 cm of the seabed. Laboratory measurements of sound speed and attenuation in the cores were conducted, after
which the core contents were analyzed for biological and physical properties. Since no model currently accounts for
the effects of infauna, a deviation from model predictions is expected. To assess the extent of this, acoustic measure-
ments were compared with the viscous grain shearing model from Buckingham [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 1486
(2007); J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 148, 962 (2020)], for which depth-dependent profiles of sediment porosity and mean
grain size measured from the cores were used as input parameters. Comparison of acoustic results with distributions
of infauna, worm tubes, and shell hash suggests biogenic impacts on acoustic variability and model accuracy are

01 November 2023 23:59:45

important in surficial marine sediments. The presence of infauna and worm tubes were correlated with higher vari-
ability in both sound speed and attenuation and greater deviation from the model near the sediment-water interface.
C 2022 Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
V
(Received 26 January 2022; revised 1 August 2022; accepted 2 October 2022; published online 31 October 2022)
[Editor: Jie Yang] Pages: 2456–2474

I. INTRODUCTION features (e.g., smooth, rippled, or jagged). Sediment grain

Underwater acoustics in littoral and bottom-interacting
ocean environments is strongly controlled by seabed proper-
ties, and high-resolution geoacoustic data are needed to accu-
rately predict acoustic propagation and scattering in such
environments.1 Furthermore, seabed geoacoustic variability
introduced by geological, hydrodynamic, and biological pro-
cesses can occur over a wide range of spatial scales ranging
from fine-scale variability on the order of meters or less to
large-scale variability over kilometers.2 Understanding sea-
bed geoacoustic variability at multiple spatial scales and over
a wide frequency band is critical for the accurate prediction
of underwater acoustic propagation and unbiased estimation
of seabed properties in heterogeneous environments using
remote sensing methods.3,4
Marine sediments are complex physical and biological
systems. Bottom types can range from mud to sand to rock,
with various combinations of geologic and geomorphologic
a)
Electronic mail: kevin.lee@arlut.utexas.edu
b)
Current address: The Water Institute of the Gulf, Baton Rouge, LA 70802,
USA.
c)
Also at: Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX 78713, USA.
size distributions can be very narrow, as commonly seen
with well sorted sand, or be inclusive of diverse particle
sizes, as in heterogeneous muddy sediments which can
include clay, silt, and sand in varying proportions.
Additionally, organic matter can have a strong influence on
sediment cohesive properties, particularly for fine-grained
sediments,5 and infaunal organisms can contribute to hori-
zontal and vertical variability near the seabed surface,
known as the sediment-water interface.6
Infauna are marine organisms that live within sedi-
ments, generally within the top 10 cm of the surface.7
Depending on the community of organisms present, infauna
can re-work the sediment in different ways, altering sedi-
ment physical properties, contributing to surface and volume
scattering, and affecting sediment cohesion.2,8–10
Bioturbation (the mixing of sediments) and other biogenic
processes can influence sediment physical properties, such
as porosity, permeability, and the presence of gas due to
organic decomposition by microbial processes.2 Infauna can
affect grain size distributions through the production and
distribution of fecal pellets, which can be deposited on the
sediment surface or in subsurface sediments and may be
transported through bioturbation.11 Suspension feeders,

2456 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022 0001-4966/2022/152(4)/2456/19/$30.00 C 2022 Acoustical Society of America
V
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907

including bivalves and polychaetes, can capture fine sus-
pended particles, aggregate them, and deposit them as
fecal pellets on the sediment surface. Bioirrigation of bur-
rows transports oxygen to anoxic subsurface sediments,
creating sharp redox gradients and modifying sediment
chemistry.12 Increased cohesion by exopolymeric substan-
ces (EPS) secreted by microbes and microalgae can con-
tribute to enhanced shear strength near the sediment
surface;13 however, infaunal organisms can substantially
reduce the stabilizing effects of EPS through bioturba-
tion.14 These combined effects can manifest as temporal
and spatial variability in compressional and shear wave
propagation parameters in the seabed surficial sedi-
ment,15–19 which can impact acoustic scattering from and
propagation into the seabed.20–28 Further investigation is
needed to determine the effects of infauna on sound propa-
gation in ocean bottom sediments, which could better
inform sonar operation in various shallow-water applica-
tions, as well as the use of acoustics for remote sensing of
benthic ecosystems.29–31
A deficiency that exists in our present understanding of
sediment acoustics is that predictive models do not explic-
itly account for the physical impacts of volume heterogene-
ities (e.g., infauna bodies or burrows, worm tubes, or shell
hash) on geoacoustic properties.32–34 Part of this stems from
II. EXPERIMENT
A. Overview
A field experiment was conducted during May 8–11,
2017, in Petit Bois Pass, a channel that lies approximately
ten miles off the northern Gulf of Mexico coast and in
between the barrier islands of Petit Bois Island, Mississippi
to the west and Dauphin Island, Alabama to the east
(Fig. 1). A seabed lander with acoustic probes (Fig. 2) was
deployed from the vessel (the R/V E. O. Wilson) to the sea-
bed surface to collect in situ measurements of sediment
sound speed, sound attenuation, and shear speed within the
top 20 cm of the sediment, spanning the depth range within
the sediment in which infaunal activities are expected, gen-
erally in approximately the top 10 cm.7 Diver cores were
collected from each measurement location to sample the
sediment’s physical properties (bulk density, porosity, and
grain size distribution), the local infauna distribution, and
the biogenic features of shell hash and worm tubes. Prior to
destructive sampling, the cores were vertically scanned with
an acoustic core logger to provide additional sound speed
and attenuation measurements. Vertical gradients were
examined within two sites, as infauna are most abundant
near the sediment-water interface, and the experiment tar-
geted sites with different communities, specifically higher

01 November 2023 23:59:45

a paucity of broadband geoacoustic data that can be directly and lower abundances of tube-building worms, which have
compared with data on physical sediment properties from been shown to increase attenuation.19
cores and adequate characterization of the distribution of
infauna and other potential heterogeneities within the upper B. In situ sediment acoustic measurements
portion of the seabed. A goal of this work is to provide a
The in situ measurements and cores were collected at
new data set that facilitates such a comparison between
two sites that differed in infaunal biomass, number of worm
acoustic variability and data-model deviation with sediment
tubes, and amount of shell hash. The water depth at both
biological properties.
sites was approximately 6 m. Site 1 (30 14.7540 N, 88
The main hypothesis of this paper is that seabed
22.5900 W) was near the middle of the pass, and Site 2 (30
biological activity (1) increases variability in acoustic
13.7820 N, 88 24.3000 W) was 3.3 km to the west near Petit
properties over small spatial scales and (2) increases the
Bois Island. Bottom water sound speeds calculated from a
deviations from sediment acoustics model predictions.
This paper reports on a field experiment that was con-
ducted to test the prediction that (a) infaunal presence
and activities, (b) worm tubes, and (c) shell hash have
the potential to affect sediment acoustic properties. In
Sec. II, the field experiment, in which in situ sediment
acoustics measurements and diver cores were collected
in natural marine sediments, is described. The viscous
grain-shearing (VGS) sediment acoustics model33,35–40 is
summarized in Sec. III. Core analysis results describing
vertical profiles of sediment bulk properties (density and
porosity) and grain size distribution are presented in
Sec. IV, in addition to measurements characterizing the
vertical distributions of infauna, worm tubes, and shell
hash. The measured sediment acoustic properties and
data-model comparisons are presented in Sec. V, and
further analysis of the data-model deviation in the con-
text of the infauna, worm tube, and shell hash distribu-
FIG. 1. Map of the field experiment location. Petit Bois Pass is located in
tions is explored in Sec. VI. Finally, the results are
between Dauphin Island and Petit Bois Island. Site 1 (circle) was near the
discussed in Sec. VII, and conclusions are summarized middle of the pass. Site 2 (star) was on the western side of the pass near
in Sec. VIII. Petit Bois Island.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022 Lee et al. 2457

FIG. 2. (Color online) Components of the in situ acoustic measurement
apparatus: (a) compressional wave receiver and source, (b) shear wave
receiver and source, (c) deployment platform with the acoustic measure-
ment apparatus.
conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) probe were 1518 m s1
and 1521 m s1 at Sites 1 and 2, respectively. Three separate
deployments of the in situ acoustic measurement system
were conducted at each site within approximately 3 m of each
other to sample intra-site variability in sediment acoustic
properties.
The in situ acoustic measurement system employed two
sets of probes to measure compressional (60–100 kHz) and
shear (0.2–0.9 kHz) waves in the sediment. Compressional
waves were generated and received by custom-built, spike-
like probes with pointed tips that housed cylindrical lead
zirconate titanate (PZT) transducers [Fig. 2(a)], and
circular-disk, bimorph piezoelectric benders housed in
custom-built, spear-like probes [Fig. 2(b)] transmitted and
received shear waves.41–43 The lander employed to deploy
the probes [Fig. 2(c)] was lowered from the ship’s A-frame
at each measurement location. Additional details of the mea-
surements and data analysis used to extract sound speed and
attenuation from the compressional wave measurements and
shear speed from the shear wave measurements are given in
Ref. 44.
C. Diver core collection
Several cores were collected by scuba divers at each in
situ measurement location so that sediment physical proper-
ties, shell hash, worm tubes, and infauna distribution could
be characterized. Three 15.2-cm-diameter cores and one
2458 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
7.6-cm-diameter core were collected from in between the in
situ acoustic probes at each deployment location. The cores
were capped on both ends underwater before being brought
to the surface by the divers. Two of the 15.2-cm-diameter
cores from each deployment location were cut into sections
aboard the research vessel and sieved (500-lm mesh) for
infauna, worm tubes, and shell fragments, which were sub-
sequently preserved in 95% ethanol and stored for later anal-
ysis and classification. The remaining cores from each
measurement location were stored vertically in an aerated
seawater tank for transport back to the laboratory for further
analysis and processing.
D. Core and resonance logger (CARL) measurements
Diver cores returned to the onshore laboratory under-
went non-invasive acoustic measurements using a custom-
built, vertically oriented, broadband acoustic core logger
called CARL45 before any destructive measurements were
performed on the cores (Fig. 3). CARL employed two
modes of operation: (i) a high-frequency (100–300 kHz)
transmission mode for depth-resolved measurements of
travel time and amplitude along the length of the core to
provide vertical profiles of sound speed and attenuation and
(ii) a low-frequency (8–30 kHz) resonance mode for deter-
mining the effective sound speed of the entire core. Details
01 November 2023 23:59:45
of the core logger operation and data analysis are given in
Ref. 44.
E. Diver core analysis
After the CARL measurements were completed, all
7.6-cm-diameter cores (three per site, one per deployment
location) were sectioned and analyzed for vertical profiles
of sediment bulk density, porosity, and grain size distribu-
tion. The sieved material from the 15.2-cm-diameter cores
(nine per site) was quantified by mass as well as abun-
dance or number of animals to account for differences in
size and density of infauna, hard worm tubes, and shell
hash. These quantities are reported both in terms of depth-
integrated biomass per area for overall site comparisons
and depth-separated biomass per core section volume for
comparison with the measured acoustic gradients. The
average worm tube diameter and shell fragment size are
also reported.
In addition to considering total infauna biomass,
infauna were sorted into functional groups based on charac-
teristics such as body type (hard or soft), sediment activity
(mixing or structuring), and type of worm tube (soft, hard,
or no worm tube). The four functional groups identified in
this work are Hard-bodied, No tube, Mixing (HNM), con-
sisting of animals like brittle stars or mollusks that scatter
sound and increase attenuation in the same way as other
physical inhomogeneities, e.g., shell fragments of similar
size; Soft-bodied, No tube, Mixing (SNM), which includes
various burrowing worms that modify bulk sediment proper-
ties by dilation or compaction; Soft-bodied, Hard-tube,
Structuring (SHS) worms that build tubes consisting of
Lee et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907

FIG. 3. (Color online) CARL apparatus: (a) photograph of CARL set up in the laboratory benchtop and schematics of (b) transmission and (c) resonance
modes. Diagrams in (b) and (c) are adapted from Ref. 45 with permission from Gabriel R. Venegas. (C) Copyright 2019, Gabriel R. Venegas.

sediment, shell hash, and mucus that may increase attenua- pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
cs =q
tion due to the scattering of acoustic energy;19 and Soft- cs ¼  1=2 ; (3)
bodied, Soft-tube, Structuring (SSS) worms that build tubes Re ðixTÞn gs ðxÞ
of fine-grained sediment and mucus that may increase shear
strength but are unlikely to substantially increase scattering. and
Additional details about the diver core analyses are provided rffiffiffiffi
q  1=2
in supplementary material.44 as ¼ x Im ðixTÞn gs ðxÞ ; (4)
cs

01 November 2023 23:59:45

III. VISCOUS GRAIN SHEARING (VGS) MODEL pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where i ¼ 1.
It is useful to compare the acoustic data with the pre- Familiar physical parameters in the above expressions
dictions of an established sediment acoustics model that are the sediment bulk density q, the angular acoustic fre-
relates wave speed and attenuation dispersion to sediment quency x ¼ 2pf , and the sediment sound speed c0 in the
physical properties that can be obtained from the cores. absence of inter-granular friction, i.e., the fluid limit, given
The VGS model treats unconsolidated marine sediment as by the Mallock-Wood equation,46,47
a dissipative two-phase continuum capable of supporting sffiffiffi
elastic wave propagation.36,37 Internal losses are attributed B
c0 ¼ : (5)
to shearing and stress relaxation at grain-to-grain contacts q
and viscous dissipation in the thin layer of pore fluid
between the grains. The VGS dispersion relations have Here, B is the effective bulk modulus of the sediment,
been shown to agree with various data sets in sediments
ranging from coarse-grained sand to fine-grained mud con- 1 b 1b
¼ þ ; (6)
sisting predominantly of silt and clay.33,40 The VGS model B Bf Bs
was chosen for this comparison because of its generality
and because it could be efficiently implemented with very where Bf is the pore fluid bulk modulus, Bs is the mineral
few fitting parameters. The model is briefly described grain bulk modulus, and b is the fractional porosity. The
here; however, for detailed derivation and description of bulk density is related to the porosity and the pore fluid and
the model, the reader is referred to the original grain densities qf and qs by the mixture rule,
literature.33,35–40 q ¼ ð1  bÞqs þ bqf : (7)
The VGS expressions for sound speed cp, attenuation
ap, shear speed cs, and shear attenuation as are given by The functions gp;s ðxÞ represent the effects of viscous
c0 dissipation,
cp ¼ " #1=2 ; (1)  n1
cp þ ð4=3Þcs 1
Re 1 þ ðixTÞn gp ðxÞ gp;s ðxÞ ¼ 1 þ ; (8)
qc20 ixsp;s
" #1=2
cp þ ð4=3Þcs where sp;s are the viscoelastic time constants for the compres-
x
ap ¼  Im 1 þ ðixTÞn gp ðxÞ ; (2) sional and shear waves, respectively. The compressional and
c0 qc20
shear viscoelastic time constants are related by the expression38
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022 Lee et al. 2459
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907

cp It is important to note that the VGS model does not

ss ¼ sp :
cs
The remaining VGS parameters related to the stresses
and strains associated with inter-granular motion are the
compressional and shear moduli, cp and cs, and the strain-
hardening index n. The arbitrary time normalization
constant T was introduced by Buckingham in his original
derivation of the grain-shearing theory to keep quantities
raised to the fractional power of n dimensionless; however,
he showed that the expressions for sound and shear speed
and attenuation are independent of the value of T, which
was taken to be T ¼ 1 s for convenience.36
The VGS model employs a sub-model that considers
the effects of overburden pressure on the grain-to-grain con-
tacts, which imparts dependence of compressional and shear
moduli on depth in the sediment d, grain size u, porosity b,
and the elastic properties of the mineral grains.33,40 In the
case where porosity, grain size, and elastic properties of the
grains are homogeneous with depth, the expressions for cp
and cs are given by
" #1=3
ð1  bÞduH1
cp ¼ cp0 (10)
ð1  b0 Þd0 u0 H01
(9)
explicitly include the effects of shell hash, worm tubes,
infauna, or other inhomogeneities in the medium, affecting
the accuracy of the model predictions when such inclusions
are present. This has been noted previously, particularly in
regard to comparison of sound attenuation predictions with
previous sediment acoustics measurements.33 Furthermore,
the model does not account for grain-size heterogeneity but
assumes a single grain size u. In practice, the mean grain
size is often used for this model input parameter, as is done
here, for sediments with a distribution of grain sizes.
IV. CORE ANALYSIS RESULTS
A. Sediment bulk properties and grain size
Comparison of depth profiles of the sediment bulk den-
sity, porosity, and grain size distribution from each core col-
lection location within both sites demonstrates the level of
intra-site variability in sediment properties (Fig. 4). For each
of these parameters, the measured profiles within a single
site tended to be consistent with each other, and there were
only a handful of outliers present.
In Site 1, the bulk density was highest near the
sediment-water interface and decreased with depth into the
sediment. In contrast, the bulk density profile at Site 2 was

01 November 2023 23:59:45

and fairly uniform with depth in the top 20 cm. At Site 1, the
porosity had a positive gradient with depth, ranging
" #2=3 from approximately 50% near the seabed surface to 70% at
ð1  bÞduH 1
cs ¼ cs0 ; (11) 20-cm depth. In contrast, the porosity profile at Site 2 was
ð1  b0 Þd0 u0 H01 nearly constant, with a mean value near 60% throughout top
20 cm, with only a slight negative gradient.
where the scaling coefficients cp0 and cs0 and the normaliza- Both sites were predominantly sand and silt. For each
tion parameters b0, d0, u0, and H0 are constants, and site, the fraction of sand was the greatest near the seabed
surface, about 80% sand for Site 1 and 60% sand for Site 2.
Es As sediment depth increased, there was lower sand content
H¼ ; (12)
ð1  r2s Þ (approximately 40%–50% at 20 cm) and higher silt content
at both sites; however, the gradients were steeper at Site 1.
where Es and rs are the grain Young’s modulus and Gravel and clay fractions were low at both sites. Shell hash
Poisson’s ratio, respectively. In the case that the sediment was included in the grain size distribution as part of the
has MT layers, the compressional and shear moduli in layer gravel fraction, but it accounted for less than 1%–2% of the
M are given by40 sediment content by mass. Based on the Folk’s sand-silt-
2 31=3 clay ratio ternary diagram,48 the sediment at Site 1 was silty
X
M sand (50% < sand fraction < 90%; silt-clay ratio > 2:1) tran-
6uM HM1
ð1  bm Þðqsm  qf Þhm 7 sitioning into a sandy silt (10% < sand fraction < 50%; silt-
6 7
4 m¼1 5 clay ratio > 2:1) as the sediment depth increases, and Site 2
cpM ¼ cp0 (13)
u0 H01 ð1  b0 Þðqs0  qf 0Þd0 was comprised of sandy silt sediment that was more uniform
with depth.
and Mean grain size is given both in units of / (see Ref. 44)
2 32=3 to aid in comparison with sediment physical and acoustic
XM properties compiled in the literature2 and in micrometers
6u M HM1
ð1  bm Þðqsm  qf Þhm 7 because the VGS model uses SI units. Based on the Udden-
6 7
4 m¼1 5 Wentworth scale,49–51 the mean grain size at Site 1 ranged
csM ¼ cs0 1
: (14)
u0 H0 ð1  b0 Þðqs0  qf 0Þd0 from very fine sand near the surface (3 < / < 4, or between
125 and 62.5 lm) to coarse silt near 20-cm depth
Here, qs0 and qf 0 are additional normalizing constants, hm is (4 < / < 6, or between 62.5 and 15.6 lm). Site 2 was
the thickness of the mth layer, and all other parameters are coarse silt, with mean grain size in the 4–6-/ range. The
allowed to vary from layer to layer. larger mean grain size at Site 1 (near the middle of
2460 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022 Lee et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907

FIG. 4. (Color online) Depth dependence of sediment physical properties measured from the 7.6-cm-diameter cores. Grain size fractions are gravel (circles),

01 November 2023 23:59:45

sand (diamonds), silt (triangles), and clay (squares). Mean grain size is expressed in both units of micrometers and /, where the dashed line indicates the
boundary between sand (1 < / < 4) and silt (4 < / < 8) on the Udden-Wentworth scale. The inclusive standard deviation is expressed in units of / only,
and the dashed lines indicate divisions between moderately sorted (0:21 < / < 1), poorly sorted (1 < / < 2), and very poorly sorted (2 < / < 4) grain size
distributions based on Folk and Ward.

Petit Bois Pass) was potentially influenced by the hydrody-
namic environment. Site 2 was near the western edge of the
pass and potentially less affected by current, and thereby
better able to retain finer grains near the seabed surface. For
the grain size distributions here, the inclusive standard devi-
ation was 1 < rI < 2:5, indicating poorly to very poorly
sorted grain size distributions based on the descriptive ter-
minology of Folk and Ward,52 in contrast to sediment acous-
tic model assumptions of a well sorted distribution
characterized by the mean grain size.
B. Infauna, worm tubes, and shell hash
Because the distributions of the depth-integrated mass
per surface area of infauna, worm tubes, and shell hash from
the cores at each site tend to have a great deal of spread and
contain several outliers, the results are reported in terms of
median and interquartile range instead of mean and standard
deviation (Table I). For comparison, the depth-integrated
mass per surface area was estimated from cores that were
processed for sediment properties. Infauna, hard worm
tubes, and shell hash represented approximately 0.02%,
0.03%, and 0.3% of the mass per surface area of the overall
seabed material, respectively.
The total infauna biomass per site was similar, with the
Site 1 median value being approximately 1.5 times greater
than Site 2. Most of the animal biomass at both sites fell
into the hard-bodied, no tube, mixing (HNM) functional
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
group, which includes larger hard-bodied or hard-shelled
animals such as brittle stars, crustaceans, and mollusks that
burrow in the sediment. The body sizes of many of the
HNM animals were on the order of 1 cm or greater, thus
they are potential acoustic scatterers at the upper end of the
acoustic frequencies used in this experiment.
Another functional group of potential acoustic signifi-
cance at these sites was the soft-bodied, hard-tube, struc-
turing (SHS) group, which included hard-tube-building
worms such as Owenia and Diopatra. These animals struc-
ture the sediment by building tubes made from shell frag-
ments, sediment, and mucus. Although the biomass of SHS
was lower than that of the hard-bodied group, the mass of
tubes was high, especially at Site 1, which had an approxi-
mately six times greater median hard worm tube mass than
Site 2, primarily from the polychaete, Owenia fusiformis
(Table I). The diameter of the Owenia tubes ranged
between 2 and 5 mm (2.6 6 1.0 mm at Site 1 and
2.8 6 1.6 mm at Site 2, mean 6 standard deviation), but
the tube can extend from above the surface down to
5–10 cm depth; therefore, they are also good candidate
acoustic scatterers.
The soft-bodied, soft tube, structuring (SSS) and soft-
bodied, no tube, mixing (SNM) functional groups were also
present, although in small biomass quantities that were simi-
lar between the sites. Thus, it is assumed that these animals
had less potential influence on the sediment and, hence, the
acoustics at these sites.
Lee et al. 2461
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907

TABLE I. Median (and interquartile range) of depth-integrated masses per relatively constant over the upper 20 cm (Fig. 5). For the
surface area of infauna, worm tubes, and shell hash at each site. For com- most part, there was approximately twice as much shell hash
parison, the depth-integrated mass of sediment per surface area at each site
is given. The depth integration spans the upper 20 cm, and all quantities are
at Site 1 than Site 2 over all depths, with the exception of
given in units of g m2. one high shell hash mass density value observed close to
20 cm from one core at Site 2.
Quantity Site 1 Site 2 Overall, Site 1 had more hard worm tubes, SHS func-
Total infauna 155.8 (191.2) 102.9 (52.6) tional group infauna, and shell hash than Site 2, but two sites
Hard-bodied, no tube, mixing (HNM) 119.7 (189.5) 104.5 (41.8) had similar overall amounts of infauna. Both sites had simi-
Soft-bodied, no tube, mixing (SNM) 4.3 (4.5) 2.1 (7.3) lar depth-dependence of infauna (negative gradient) and
Soft-bodied, hard tube, structuring (SHS) 6.3 (16.9) 0.6 (6.1) shell hash (no gradient). Finally, Site 1 had a higher mass of
Soft-bodied, soft tube, structuring (SSS) 7.3 (6.2) 10.4 (10.1) hard worm tubes near the surface than Site 2.
Hard worm tubes 370.6 (407.9) 63.7 (79.6)
Shell hash 2906.0 (117.6) 1527.3 (647.6) V. ACOUSTIC RESULTS
Sediment 698  103 681  103
Acoustic results are presented in this section from the in
situ field measurements and the laboratory CARL measure-
Site 1 had roughly twice as much mass per surface area ments. By combining the in situ and CARL data sets, the
of shell fragments present compared to Site 2 (Table I). Site acoustic behavior of the sediment can be examined over
1 also had larger fragments of shell hash, 3.5 6 1.6 mm at many decades of frequency, between 8 and 300 kHz for
Site 1 compared to 2.3 6 1.3 mm at Site 2 (mean 6 standard sound speed ratio, 60–300 kHz for attenuation, and
deviation). 0.2–0.9 kHz for shear speed.
Vertical profiles of infauna biomass density ninf (Fig. 5) Rather than simply presenting the measurements by
displayed negative vertical gradients at both sites, where themselves, they are compared with the VGS model to place
most of the infauna resided in the upper 7.5 cm of the sedi- the acoustic measurements in context with the measured
ment, 72% at Site 1 and 69% at Site 2. Thus, the infauna profiles of sediment bulk properties and grain size distribu-
tion. Therefore, the selection of model inputs is first dis-

01 November 2023 23:59:45

biomass density in the upper portion of the sediment was
comparable between the two sites. Greater differences were
seen between the two sites in terms of hard worm tube mass
density ntube vertical profiles. The mean value of ntube in the
upper 7.5 cm of the sediment was approximately eight times
higher at Site 1 than at Site 2. The shell hash mass density
nsh profiles displayed less steep vertical gradients than
infauna or worm tube mass density, thus they were
cussed. We then present broadband comparison of the
acoustic data with the VGS model, and we examine vertical
profiles of sound speed ratio, attenuation, and shear speed.
A. VGS model parameter selection
As implemented here, the VGS model equations [Eqs.
(1)–(14)] are expressed in terms of a set of eight measurable

FIG. 5. (Color online) Vertical profiles of the infauna, worm tube, shell hash mass density, and mean shell fragment size for Site 1 (circles) and Site 2 (dia-
monds). All measurements from each core collection location within each site are plotted to demonstrate the level of intra-site variability. Data from individ-
ual cores are connected by lines.

2462 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022 Lee et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907

physical parameters (b, qf, qs, Bf, Bs, H, d, and u), ten fixed
constants (cp0 ; cs0 , b0, d0, u0, H0, qs0 , q0, n, and T), and the
two viscoelastic time constants sp;s . All of the measurable
parameters can be obtained from either the literature or anal-
ysis of the sediment cores, pore fluid, or bottom water prop-
erties. Tabulated values for pore fluid density qf, grain
bulk modulus Bs, grain density qs, and H were taken from
the literature.2,40 Pore fluid bulk modulus was estimated
using the pore fluid density and mean measured bottom
water sound speed, Bf ¼ qf c2f . For depth-dependent data-
model comparisons, vertical profiles of porosity b and mean
grain size u averaged over the various core measurements
shown in Fig. 4 were directly input into the VGS model.
Although the grain size fraction varied with depth in the
sediment, the predominate grain size classes were sand and
silt; therefore, single values of qs, Bs, and H for quartz were
used. The fixed constants were given in previously pub-
lished literature40 and are listed in Table II, and the visco-
elastic time constants were determined by a fit to the
broadband sound speed ratio data.
The compressional viscoelastic time constant sp was
obtained by fitting Eq. (1) to the broadband (8–300 kHz)
combined in situ and CARL sound speed ratio data sets.
For this fit, the model was implemented with a homoge-
neous sediment with compressional and shear moduli
X 2
E ¼ min Mðs0 ; fj Þ  cð fj Þ ; (15)
0 s
j
where Mðs0 ; fj Þ is the modeled sound speed at the jth fre-
quency for the value s0 of the viscoelastic time constant and
cð fj Þ is the measured sound speed. After the best-fit value of
sp was found for each site, computed high-frequency values
of sound speed and shear speed well above the compres-
sional threshold frequency (ft;p ¼ 1=2psp ) were used to cal-
culate ss from Eq. (9).
The best-fit values of sp and ss for each site are listed in
Table III, and these parameters were then combined with
vertical profiles of porosity and mean grain size from the
cores as inputs to the VGS model. Average vertical profiles
were computed from the porosity and mean grain size data
shown in Fig. 4 and were used as direct inputs to the VGS
model to produce depth-dependent predictions of cp, ap, and
cs for comparison with the acoustic data. To calculate the
depth-dependent compressional and shear moduli, each core
section was treated as a sediment layer, and the porosity,
grain size, and thickness of each section were input
directly into Eqs. (13) and (14). The depth-dependent VGS
models were then computed at the same frequencies as the
in situ and high-frequency CARL measurements for direct
comparison.

01 November 2023 23:59:45

given by Eqs. (10) and (11). Furthermore, the depth-
dependence of the in situ and high-frequency CARL pitch- B. Acoustic data and model comparison
catch data were not taken into account for this fit because
1. Sound speed ratio
the low-frequency CARL resonator measurements return
effective sound speeds for the entire core and are inher- The low-frequency asymptote of the VGS sound speed
ently depth-independent in the 20-cm measurement prediction is the Mallock-Wood sound speed, given by Eq.
interval. Therefore, to find the best-fit sp, the in situ and (5), depth-averaged values of which are within 1% of each
high-frequency CARL pitch-catch measurements were other for the two sites (Fig. 6). The VGS model predicts a
depth-averaged at each frequency before being input into transition to higher sound speed ratio between low- and
the fitting routine. Best fits between the modeled and high-frequency, and based on the best-fit values of sp, the
measured sound speed ratio were obtained using an uncon- transition between low- and high-frequency regimes (at the
strained nonlinear curve-fitting algorithm to minimize the threshold frequency ft;p ¼ 1=2psp ) occurs approximately at
objective function 27 6 3 kHz for Site 1 and 26 6 2.7 kHz for Site 2. The VGS
compressional and shear moduli [Eqs. (10) and (11)] both
TABLE II. Fixed parameters used in evaluation of the VGS model. increase with increasing depth, increasing mean grain size
(u), and decreasing porosity, leading to a complex effective
Parameter Symbol Value
dependence of sound speed on depth in the presence of both
3
Pore fluid density (kg m ) qf 1019 porosity and mean grain size gradients. At Site 1, the mean
Pore fluid bulk modulus (GPa) Bf 2.36
Grain density (kg m3) qs 2650 TABLE III. Best-fit values of the viscoelastic time constants sp and ss for
Grain bulk modulus (GPa) Bs 38 each site, given with the uncertainty (standard deviation) estimated from
H-function (GPa) H 78.78 the fit. Depth-averaged values of b, u, and d used in Eqs. (10) and (11) to
Compressional coefficient (MPa) cp0 354.53 obtain the fits are also given, along with their standard deviations.
Shear coefficient (MPa) cs0 44.699
Parameter Symbol Site 1 Site 2
Strain-hardening index n 0.08854
Time normalization constant (s) T 1 Compressional viscoelastic sp 5.9 6 0.7 6.1 6 0.6
Sediment-depth normalization constant (m) d0 0.3 time constant (ls)
Porosity normalization constant b0 0.377 Shear viscoelastic ss 117.0 6 13.3 127.3 6 13.2
Grain size normalization constant (lm) u0 1000 time constant (ls)
Pore fluid density normalization constant (kg m3) qf 0 1023 Porosity b 0.62 6 0.04 0.64 6 0.03
Grain density normalization constant (kg m3) qs0 2650 Mean grain size (lm) u 62.0 6 28.5 56.2 6 13.1
H-function normalization constant (GPa) H0 74.14 Sediment depth (cm) d 11.0 6 6.5 10.7 6 6.3

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022 Lee et al. 2463
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907

grain size decreased and the porosity increased with increas-
ing depth, leading to a predicted sound speed ratio profile
with a negative gradient (i.e., sound speed decreases with
depth). Site 2 had more uniform porosity and mean grain
size profiles, thus the predicted sound speed increases with
depth (a positive sound speed gradient).
The low-frequency sound speed data from CARL’s reso-
nance mode (Fig. 6) represent the effective sound speed of the
entire core averaged over the entire 20-cm measurement depth
interval. The measured low-frequency sound speed ratios
tended to be less than unity, indicating that at low frequencies
the sediment was acoustically similar to mud at both sites, and
the low-frequency CARL measurements approached the depth-
averaged VGS low-frequency limits for each site. Similar to
the VGS prediction, there was an increase in sound speed
between the low-frequency CARL measurements and the
higher frequency in situ measurements, and sound speed vari-
ability was greatest in the high-frequency CARL measure-
ments. The high-frequency sound speed values at Site 1 were
approximately 2.5% higher than those at Site 2. The deeper
high-frequency CARL measurements from Site 1 agree better
with the deeper VGS-predicted sound speed ratios, but they
exceed the model predictions at shallower depths. Scatter in the
high-frequency sound speed data at Site 2 encompasses the
range of depth-dependent VGS predictions; however, there is
little correlation between the shallower measurements and
predictions.
Site 1 sound speed ratio decreased with sediment depth
(Fig. 7), which was more evident in the CARL measure-
ments because the in situ measurements had much coarser
depth-resolution and did not extend closer to the interface
than 5 cm. As noted previously, this decrease in sound speed
ratio with depth was in part due to the increase in porosity
and decrease in mean grain size with depth at this site. In
situ sound speed ratio measurements at Site 1 tend to be
higher than the VGS model predictions by approximately
2%–5%, and this difference is greatest at the lowest frequen-
cies where the in situ measurements partially overlapped the
transition region predicted by the VGS model. Site 1 high-
frequency CARL measurements in the 4–20 cm depth inter-
val are in good agreement with the predicted sound speed
ratio profile; however, the measurements deviate from the
predicted sound speed ratio in the 1–4 cm interval closest to
the seabed surface, where the measured sound speed ratio

01 November 2023 23:59:45

FIG. 6. (Color online) Comparison of measured sound speed ratio, attenuation, and shear speed with VGS model predictions for both sites. Data are repre-
sented by monochrome circles (LF CARL resonance mode sound speed ratio), variegated circles (HF CARL transmission mode sound speed ratio and atten-
uation), and variegated diamonds (in situ sound speed ratio, attenuation, and shear speed), where darker hued markers indicate shallow sediment depths and
the shading becomes lighter for increasing depth (in situ and HF CARL only). Vertical error bars indicate the measurement uncertainty. VGS model predic-
tions for depth-averaged porosity and mean grain size are short-dashed black lines, and the solid gray lines indicate VGS model predictions at depths
between 1 cm and 21 cm in 4-cm increments (darker represents shallower depths). Thinner, long-dashed lines in the bottom row are the depth-averaged VGS
shear speed prediction with ss ¼ 1.

2464 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022 Lee et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907

FIG. 7. (Color online) Comparison of measured and modeled sound speed ratio profiles for both sites. Vertical profiles for Site 1 are displayed on the top
row, Site 2 profiles are on the bottom row. Measurement frequency increases from left to right. For comparison with Fig. 6, the same variegated symbols are
used to represent in situ data (diamonds) and high-frequency CARL data (circles). The solid lines are the VGS model predictions using the average porosity

01 November 2023 23:59:45

and mean grain size profiles as inputs, and the gray-shaded area indicate the confidence bound the model based on variability from the core data. The thin
dashed lines indicate a sound speed ratio of unity.

gradient steepens and the variability in the measurements
increases. In contrast, both the in situ and CARL sound
speed ratio measurements are in better agreement with the
VGS model at Site 2; however, variability in the measure-
ments is greatest at this site in the 1–4 cm interval CARL
measurements, as is the discrepancy between the data and
the model. Finally, both in situ and high-frequency CARL
data sets include measurements at a frequency of 100 kHz,
and it should be noted that the data points from these differ-
ent measurement systems overlap at this frequency.
2. Attenuation
Below the threshold frequency ft;p , the VGS model pre-
dicts that the attenuation scales with frequency squared,
whereas above the threshold frequency the attenuation is
expected to scale approximately linearly with frequency.
The lowest frequency in situ attenuation measurements
(60 kHz) are just above the expected threshold so no data
are available for comparison with the predicted sub-
threshold frequency dependence (Fig. 6). The attenuation
data between 60 and 140 kHz roughly agree with the VGS
prediction, although a good deal of variability is present in
the data, which is not captured by the depth-dependent
model predictions. Above 180 kHz, the attenuation data
appear to depart from the approximately linear frequency
dependence predicted by the VGS model. Indeed, compar-
ing the high-frequency CARL data above 180 kHz to a
power law fit, ap  f k , we find that k ¼ 1.31 for Site 1 and
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
k ¼ 1.23 for Site 2, revealing a departure from linear fre-
quency dependence.
Based on the porosity and grain size vertical profile
measurements from the cores, the VGS model predicts
increasing attenuation with depth at both sites, in which the
attenuation at Site 1 is expected to double with increasing
depth in the 1–20 cm interval and increase by a factor of 2.3
in the same interval at Site 2 (Fig. 8). Note that the measured
and predicted gradients do not change much across the
60–300 kHz band for both sites, whereas the measurement-
model deviation increases with frequency. The in situ atten-
uation measurements at both sites are over-predicted by the
VGS model by factors between 1.4 and 2.7, with larger
data-model deviation observed at the lowest frequencies.
High-frequency CARL measurements at both sites are in
good agreement between 100 and 140 kHz below 4 cm,
although the model tended to under-predict the data above
4 cm. Like the sound speed profiles, the variability in the
attenuation measurements is highest in the 1–4 cm interval.
As noted, before, the high-frequency CARL attenuation
measurements are under-predicted by the VGS model in the
180–300 kHz band, and this disagreement occurs over a
greater portion of the measurement depth-interval as the fre-
quency increases (Fig. 8). This is most apparent at 300 kHz,
where there is higher attenuation measured than predicted
for most of the measurement depth interval. There is greater
deviation between the attenuation measurements and model
at Site 1, particularly at higher frequencies, which could be
influenced by the greater abundance of hard worm tubes at
Lee et al. 2465

FIG. 8. (Color online) Comparison of measured and modeled attenuation profiles for both sites. For comparison with Fig. 6, the same variegated symbols
are used to represent in situ data (diamonds) and high-frequency CARL data (circles). The solid lines are the VGS model predictions using the average
porosity and mean grain size profiles as inputs. The confidence bounds on the model based on variability from the core data are too small to be visible in the
plot.
Site 1, which might have more of an effect as frequency
increases.
3. Shear speed
Values of shear speed measured at both sites range
between 10 and 40 m s1 (Figs. 6 and 9). The VGS model
shear speed prediction overlaps with the measurements at
the lower end of the 0.2–0.9 kHz band; however, the mea-
sured shear speed displays little variation with either depth
or frequency, which is in disagreement with the model. Note
that the shear threshold frequency, ft;s ¼ 1=2pss , is 1.7 kHz
for Site 1 and 1.5 kHz for Site 2, placing the measurement
band in the transition regime where greater dispersion would
be expected. If the shear viscoelastic time constant is set to
ss ¼ 1, however, the resulting VGS model prediction
(dashed lines in Fig. 6) exceeds the data by more than a fac-
tor of two with no overlap between the model and data. It is
worth noting that in other recent applications of the VGS
model, the shear viscoelastic time constant is taken to either
be infinite39,40 or orders magnitude larger than the best fit
values here;53,54 however, there have been very little shear
wave data in those applications to justify otherwise. The
predicted shear speed gradient displays an approximately
cubic-root power-law depth dependence (Fig. 9). The in situ
shear speed data tend to cluster around the mean measured
shear speed of 25.3 m s1, which is close to the predicted
shear speed at 0.2 kHz at both sites; however, the data-
model deviation increases as the frequency increases for the
entire measurement depth interval. The measured shear
2466 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
01 November 2023 23:59:45
speeds tend to skew roughly 50% lower than the best-fit
model predicts on average, indicating the sediment is
slightly softer than is predicted by the VGS model based on
the porosity and mean grain size inputs from the cores.
VI. RELATING DATA-MODEL DEVIATION
TO BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
In this section, relationships between the deviation from
the acoustic data to the VGS model and infauna, worm tube,
and shell hash mass density profiles are examined to test the
hypothesis that the infaunal community alters sediment
acoustic properties. Although correlations between the data-
model deviation and benthic parameters (e.g., sound speed
deviation vs infauna biomass density) are not necessarily an
indication of cause-and-effect relationship, such correlations
or the lack of correlation are useful in establishing what
parameter combinations might be important and could lead
to more directed future research. Some general data-model
deviation metrics are introduced first, followed by results of
the correlation analysis focused on the high-frequency
CARL data.
A. Data-model deviation metrics
To quantify the data-model deviation at each measure-
ment frequency and depth, the following quantity dk;j is
defined:
Dk;j  Mk;j
dk;j ¼ ; (16)
Mk;j
Lee et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907

FIG. 9. (Color online) Comparison of measured and modeled shear speed profiles for both sites. For comparison with Fig. 6 the same color-shaded symbols
are used to represent in situ data (diamonds). The solid lines are the VGS model predictions using the average porosity and mean grain size profiles as inputs,
and the gray-shaded area indicate the confidence bound the model based on variability from the core data. The thin dashed lines indicate the mean shear
speed over all of the measurements, 25.3 m s1.

01 November 2023 23:59:45

where Dk;j and Mk;j are the measurement quantity and model
prediction, respectively, at the kth frequency and jth depth.
Note that dk;j accounts for the sign of the deviation (i.e.,
measurements higher or lower than predicted), which can be
readily observed in Figs. 7–9.
Another useful metric is the cumulative data-model
deviation, which is the root mean square over all frequencies
for a given depth:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 X 2
jDj j ¼ dk;j ; (17)
Nj k 100%–200% range. The cumulative attenuation deviation
where Nj is the number of data-model pairs over all frequen-
cies at a given depth. Vertical profiles of the cumulative
data-model deviation can be computed separately for each
of the three measured acoustic parameters (cp, ap, and cs) to
give a succinct picture of the data-model deviation as a
function of sediment depth. In the following analysis and
discussion, the subscripts j and k will be suppressed for con-
ciseness. The frequency-dependent data-model deviation
will be denoted dcp ; dap , and dcs , and the cumulative
absolute-value data-model deviation will be denoted jDcp j;
jDap j, and jDcs j for sound speed, attenuation, and shear
speed, respectively.
There was lower cumulative data-model deviation
(Fig. 10) associated with the high-frequency CARL sound
speeds compared to the in situ sound speeds for the
5–20 cm depth interval, but absolute values of the cumula-
tive sound speed error tend to stay below approximately
2% for both data sets in this interval. The sound speed
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
deviation increases in the 1–4 cm interval, particularly for
Site 1, where the absolute value of the sound speed devia-
tion reaches as high as 5% in the top centimeter for the
high-frequency CARL data.
Cumulative attenuation deviation (Fig. 10) is similar at
both sites for the in situ and high-frequency CARL measure-
ments in the 5–20 cm depth interval with absolute values
under 50%, but the CARL attenuation measurements in the
1–4 cm interval show a steep increase in cumulative data-
model deviation with absolute values reaching the
skews higher at Site 1 than Site 2 in the upper 3 cm of
sediment.
Finally, because shear speed data were only collected
using the in situ system, measurements were only available
in the 5–20 cm interval. The cumulative shear speed devia-
tion is between 7 and 27% in this interval and suggests that
deviation decreases with depth at Site 1 and increases with
depth at Site 2. However, because shear speed data were not
available in the 1–4 cm interval, it is not known whether any
significant increase in the shear speed data-model deviation
would be seen in this interval, as in the case of the sound
speed and attenuation deviation.
B. Correlation analysis
A few comments are made on the acoustic data used for
the correlation analysis. The high-frequency CARL data set
provides greater depth resolution (1-cm steps in the 1–4 cm
interval, 2-cm steps in the 6–20 cm interval) than the in situ
Lee et al. 2467

FIG. 10. (Color online) Vertical profiles of cumulative data-model deviation for each of the acoustic observables, reported as fractional values here instead
of percent error. The symbols and shading are the same as using in Figs. 6–9.
measurements (5-cm steps in the 5–20 cm interval), provid-
ing a more detailed description of the depth-dependence,
particularly in the uppermost layer of sediment. Only the
high-frequency CARL data extend into the 1–4 cm depth
interval and having data in this interval is crucial for com-
parison with the worm tube mass and infauna biomass, since
this interval has the highest concentration of those quanti-
ties. The high-frequency CARL measurements extend to the
frequency band where a significant deviation of the mea-
sured attenuation from the VGS model was observed
(f > 180 kHz). Therefore, this data set is most useful in
investigating whether the data-model deviation is correlated
with the presence of the infauna, worm tubes, or shell hash.
Only CARL data from the 15.2-cm cores were used for
this analysis since these cores provided the measurements of
infauna biomass, worm tubes, and shell hash. The high-
frequency CARL sound speed and attenuation data were
sorted into bins that matched the 15.2-cm-diameter core sec-
tions so the two data sets could be compared. These bins
were in the following intervals: 0–2.5 cm, 2.5–7.5 cm,
7.5–12.5 cm, 12.5–17.5 cm, and 17.5–22.5 cm.
The acoustic variables considered in this analysis were
the depth-dependent cumulative and frequency-dependent
sound speed and attenuation data-model deviation
(jDcp j; jDap j; dcp ; dap ), and the biologically related varia-
bles considered were depth-dependent densities of infauna
biomass, hard worm tube mass, and shell hash mass
(ninf ; ntube ; nsh ). For each acoustic-biological variable pair,
2468 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
01 November 2023 23:59:45
the data from both sites were combined to increase the num-
ber of data points N, and the Pearson correlation coefficient
r was computed. Additionally, p-values were computed for
each variable pair to assess whether the reported correlation
was statistically significant, using the p < 0.05 criterion.
There was statistically significant positive correlation
between infauna biomass density and the cumulative data-
model deviation for sound speed (r ¼ 0.32, N ¼ 76) and atten-
uation (r ¼ 0.42, N ¼ 78) (Fig. 11). The highest correlation
was found between hard worm tube mass density and cumu-
lative attenuation error (r ¼ 0.62, N ¼ 61), although this was
driven primarily by two samples from Site 1 with very high
worm tube density (Fig. 5). No significant correlation was
found between hard worm tube mass density and cumulative
sound speed deviation or between shell hash mass density
and either sound speed or attenuation deviation.
Correlation coefficients were also computed as a func-
tion of frequency for the frequency-dependent data-model
deviation dcp and dap . Each correlation coefficient value
was obtained from data pairs spanning all available sedi-
ment depths, similar to the scatter plots shown in Fig. 11,
but for each measurement frequency (Fig. 12). Correlation
of sound speed deviation with infauna biomass density had
values between r ¼ 0.3 and r ¼ 0.4 for the 140–300 kHz
band, whereas there was no significant correlation at any
frequency between sound speed deviation and hard worm
tube mass density or shell hash mass density. For attenuation
data-model deviation, there was significant correlation with
Lee et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907

01 November 2023 23:59:45

FIG. 11. (Color online) Scatter plots comparing relationships between cumulative data-model deviation in sound speed (top row) and attenuation (bottom
row) with infauna biomass density, worm tube mass density, and shell hash mass density. Data for Site 1 (circles) and Site 2 (diamonds) are shown sepa-
rately, with the shading indicating shallow to deeper depths (dark to light shading). The dashed line in each panel indicates least squares linear fit to data
from both sites. Pearson correlation coefficients r are listed for each data pair along with p-values. Values of r and p for data-pairs with a statistically signifi-
cant relationship (p < 0.05) are denoted by the gray-shaded boxes. Values of root mean square error (RSME) from the linear regressions are also displayed
to indicate the goodness of fit.

both infauna biomass and worm tube mass densities in the
entire 100–300 kHz band (r > 0.5).
VII. DISCUSSION
A. Spatial variability in biological and acoustic
properties
Although the two sites in this study were geographi-
cally very close and both contained primarily silt and sand,
there were several key differences between the sites. Site 1
had a gradient from sandy to siltier sediment with increas-
ing depth, whereas the sediment at Site 2 was more verti-
cally mixed. Site 1 had nearly the same total infauna
biomass as Site 2; however, the infaunal community at Site
1 exhibited a higher fraction of tube-building worms
(group SHS) and approximately eight times higher hard
worm tube density near the surface than Site 2, which is
notable because hard worm tubes have been shown to
increase attenuation at acoustic frequencies greater than
100 kHz.19 Also, noted, Site 1 had about twice as much
shell hash as Site 2. Consistent with our hypotheses, Site 1,
with greater biological activity, also had higher variability
in acoustic properties and deviation from the acoustic
model.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
A deficiency of the data set is that there were only two
sites, and they vary in more than two parameters. Therefore,
it is difficult to isolate the effects of the worm tubes, the
infauna themselves, specific functional groups, shell hash,
or gradients in grain size and porosity between the two sites
and which of these features result in higher variability and
model deviation. We note that the grain size and porosity
profiles are direct inputs to the VGS model; therefore, the
depth-dependent heterogeneity in sediment type is captured
to some extent in the depth-dependent profiles of acoustic
parameters predicted by the model. Thus, by looking at
where the data-model deviation is highest, we focus on bio-
genic effects not accounted for by the model.
B. Depth-dependence of biological and acoustic
properties
Comparison of the measured sound speed and attenua-
tion with the VGS model predictions indicated better overall
data-model agreement at sediment depths greater than 5 cm
below the sediment-water interface than in the near-surface
layer. Increased variability in the sound speed and attenua-
tion measurements also occurred in the upper 1–4 cm of the
sediment at both sites. At both sites, most of the infaunal
Lee et al. 2469

FIG. 12. (Color online) Pearson correlation coefficient r as a function of
frequency for sound speed and attenuation data-model deviation. Different
colors indicate the biological variables: infauna biomass density ninf
(circles), worm tube mass density ntube (squares), and shell hash mass den-
sity nsh (diamonds). Correlation coefficients with p < 0.05 are highlighted
with black outlines around the data markers.
animals (70%) were found in the upper 7.5 cm of the sedi-
ment, consistent with global patterns.7 Of parameters not
included in the model, neither shell hash mass density nor
mean shell fragment size had significant vertical gradients,
yet there were strong vertical gradients in the deviation and
variability, suggesting that infauna or worm tubes had more
influence than shell hash.
First, we examine volume scattering from shell hash as
a potential cause of the data-model disagreement and the
variability in the measurements. The shell hash mass density
was relatively constant in the top 20 cm (Fig. 5), compared
to stronger vertical infauna and worm tube gradients that
were observed. The high-frequency attenuation data-model
deviation occurs over greater portion of the measurement
depth-interval instead of being limited to the top 1–4 cm, as
the frequency increases (Fig. 8). This disagreement is most
pronounced for the CARL measurements at the highest two
or three frequencies (in the 180–300 kHz band). Multiple
scattering effects are expected to become important for
kd ⲏ 0:5, where k is the wavenumber and d is the size of the
scatterer, and can lead to negative sound speed dispersion
and enhanced attenuation.55 The shell fragment size in the
measurement depth interval was dsh ¼ 3:5 6 1:6 mm at Site
1 and dsh ¼ 2:3 6 1:3 mm at Site 2 (mean 6 standard devia-
tion). Based on the average shell hash size and sound speed
2470 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
at each site, the corresponding frequencies above which
scattering from shell hash might be expected to become
important are approximately 350 kHz and 530 kHz at the
two sites, respectively, which are higher than the upper end
of the high-frequency CARL measurements. Although very
little evidence of negative sound speed dispersion was
observed (Fig. 6), it is clear that the measured attenuation
dependence has a steeper slope than the approximately lin-
ear dependence predicted by the VGS model; therefore, it is
possible that either (a) scattering from shell hash contributes
to the higher than predicted attenuation or (b) the high-
frequency attenuation dependence predicted by the VGS
model is not correct for these sediments. The lack of correla-
tion between the shell hash and the data-model deviation is
likely influenced by the fact that there was less depth-
dependence in the shell hash vertical distribution, whereas
the acoustic variability and data-model deviation were great-
est near the seabed surface.
Infauna biomass density, sound speed, and attenuation
variability, and the data-model deviation were all highest in
the sediment surface layer at both sites. Furthermore, Site 1
displayed greater deviation from model predictions in both
sound speed and attenuation and greater variability in the
measurements in the 1–4 cm depth interval than Site 2. The
greater abundance of hard worm tubes near the surface at
01 November 2023 23:59:45
Site 1 offers a possible explanation for this difference
between the two sites. Previous laboratory studies with sim-
ulated infauna in homogenized sediment indicated that the
presence of a single worm tube comprised of shell material
can impact sound speed and attenuation at high frequencies
(f > 100 kHz).19 As much as 30 dB/m greater attenuation
was observed with the structured tube in place in the labora-
tory experiment. In this previous study, the effect on sound
speed was negligible; however, multiple worm tubes and
burrows within the acoustic propagation path are expected
to lead to a larger effect. Although such a controlled com-
parison (tubes/no tubes) could not be made in the present
field experiment, the increased data-model attenuation devi-
ation observed is likely, at least in part, due to the presence
of multiple tubes and burrows. Further, the variability in the
measurements in the top 1–4 cm interval is expected to
result from patchiness in the distribution of worm tubes and
burrows. The correlation analysis reported in Sec. VI sug-
gests that the sound speed and attenuation data-model devia-
tion was correlated to the total overall infauna biomass
density and that there was an even stronger correlation
between the attenuation data-model deviation and hard
worm tube mass density, which provides a plausible expla-
nation for the difference in variability and data-model devia-
tion between the sites.
C. Potential sources of experimental error
As part of the data-model deviation discussion, several
possible sources of error in the measurements should be
acknowledged, along with steps that were taken to mitigate
that error. Specifically, we discuss the following here:
Lee et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
(a) measurement of porosity from the cores, (b) the effect of
coupling between the in situ probes and the sediment on the
amplitude measurements, and (c) potential timing errors in
the time delay measurements. Further detail on the measure-
ment procedures and data analysis for all of the measured
quantities are given in Ref. 44.
Regarding the porosity and bulk density measurements,
evaluating water content from core samples is notoriously
difficult because manipulation of the sediment invariably
involves loss of intergranular water; however, efforts were
taken to minimize water loss during collection and labora-
tory sampling of the cores.44 Furthermore, the expressions
used to derive porosity and bulk density from the water con-
tent measurements did not rely on precise knowledge of the
volume of the sediment samples, but rather on the wet and
dry weights of the samples, which were measured, and the
densities of the pore water and mineral grains, which are
well known,2,44 thereby removing uncertainty contributed
from the sample volume.
Another potential source of error in evaluating the data-
model deviation could arise from inefficient coupling
between the in situ probes and sediment, particularly in the
top several centimeters of sediment where the sediment
matrix is easily disturbed. Below 5 cm (the depth range of
the in situ measurements), it was assumed that the loading
of the sediment was the same on both in situ receivers, but it
is possible that heterogeneity in the sediment physical prop-
erties or the distributions of shell hash, worm tubes, or
infauna could cause the two receivers to sense different
loading. However, we note that the sound speed and attenua-
tion data from the upper few centimeters, where the data-
model deviation was greatest, came from the high-frequency
CARL measurements. For these measurements, constant
coupling was maintained between the transducers and the
core liner so this would not have been a factor in the data-
model deviation observed in the top several centimeters
(0–5 cm).
Time delay measurements depend on accurate determi-
nation of the cross correlation peak, which can be compli-
cated when there is high attenuation or distortion of the
signal by scattering from inhomogeneities. Time delays
were computed using the cross correlation between the two
receivers for the in situ probe measurements and between
the source and receiver in the case of the high-frequency
CARL measurements. To mitigate this problem, the data we
manually checked and adjusted if obvious misalignment
from selecting the wrong peaks was observed. In a very
small number of ambiguous or unreliable cases, those data
were omitted.
D. Applicability of VGS model
Very few previous sediment acoustics data sets include
measurements of sound speed, attenuation, and shear wave
speed in as large of a frequency band as presented here.
These acoustic data coupled with the sediment physical
parameter profiles and distributions of infauna, worm tubes,
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
and shell hash provide a unique data set for testing sediment
acoustics models such as VGS or others and for evaluating
potential reasons that the models fail. The increased data-
model deviation for at high frequencies is particularly inter-
esting, as these are the frequencies at which we would
expect inhomogeneities like infauna, tubes, and shell hash to
have the largest effect.
The low-frequency CARL resonance mode sound speed
measurements are consistent with the VGS model transition
from high-frequency behavior to the Mallock-Wood sound speed
low-frequency limit, which is c0 =cf  0:985 for both sites. The
transition occurs at higher frequency (ft;p  26:5 kHz) than
previously estimated for sand (ft;p  1:3 kHz)37,40 or mud
(ft;p < 100 Hz),40,53,54 as shown in Fig. 13. Furthermore, the
low-frequency shear speed measurements, with an average
value of approximately 25 m s1, are consistent with a shear
threshold frequency of ft;s  720 Hz, suggesting a softer sedi-
ment than would be predicted by lower values of ft;s that have
been previously suggested for muddy sediment.40,53,54 In the
VGS model, ft;p and ft;s are threshold frequencies above
which the effects of pore fluid viscosity become negligible
for compressional and shear waves, respectively. This can
also be interpreted as a threshold wavelength kt, related to the
threshold frequencies via the wave speeds.38 For the sedi-
ments here, kt  0:4 cm, which represents a much smaller
01 November 2023 23:59:45
spatial scale compared to threshold wavelengths based on
previous estimates for viscoelastic time constants for either
sand or mud.
There are two plausible physical explanations for the
best-fit values of the viscoelastic time constants being incon-
sistent with previous findings. One possible explanation is
that organic matter and clay flocs likely fill much of the inter-
stitial spaces between the larger silt and sand grains and the
intergranular fluid behavior has changed. Quantification of
the organic matter from the core samples, for instance in
terms of total organic carbon or EPS, and comparison with
reported values of organic carbon or EPS for other sediments
would provide some insight. Although these data are not
available for the present experiment, previous work has indi-
cated that organic matter has an effect not only on the cohe-
sive nature of sediment but potentially on the sediment
acoustic properties as well.42,56 An alternative possible expla-
nation is that the fit is erroneously capturing some physical
effect that is separate from the viscoelastic response of the
sediment. Because the inhomogeneities (infauna, worm tubes,
shell hash) are expected to have an impact on the sediment
acoustic properties, it is reasonable to assume that they may
impact those properties in ways that change the frequency-
dependence of the sediment acoustic response and, in turn,
impact the values of the viscoelastic time constants deter-
mined from the model-data fit. This does not necessarily indi-
cate that the physics behind the time constants have changed,
but instead it suggests that erroneous values may have been
found from the fitting process that does not reflect the actual
physics taking place between the grains.
Finally, the choice of sediment acoustics model is also
a factor that should be considered regarding the data-model
Lee et al. 2471

FIG. 13. (Color online) Comparison of VGS model predictions for three different values of viscoelastic time constant, corresponding to the fit-determined
values from the present case (sp ¼ 6 ls), sand (sp ¼ 0:12 ms), and mud (sp ¼ 0:01 s), with the data. For all curves shown here, the following depth- and
site- averaged parameters are used: b ¼ 0:62, u ¼ 59 lm, and d ¼ 0.1 m. The remaining model input parameters are given in Table II.
deviation. The VGS model does not include losses arising
from poroelastic effects,34 which would occur at higher fre-
quencies if relative motion between the pore fluid and the
sediment skeletal frame is important in this sediment. This
additional loss mechanism leads to a different frequency
dependence at high frequency (proportional to f2), and hence
using a poroelastic model for mud, such as the one proposed
by Chotiros,57 could potentially improve the data-model
agreement; however, how important poroelastic effects are
in sediments in which the interstitial spaces are largely filled
with clay or organic matter is an open question. Current
implementations of the VGS and Biot models take only a
single grain size as an input parameter, most often the mean
grain size, which is most appropriate for well sorted sedi-
ments, but perhaps not as appropriate for poorly sorted sedi-
ments, as found in this work. The silt-suspension mud
model58,59 explicitly incorporates the full grain size distribu-
tion into a card-house matrix of clay platelets and flocs;
however, the silt-suspension model likely does not apply to
sediment containing as much sand as the one here, as large
sand grains would not be expected to hold in suspension.
None of the models mentioned here explicitly include
effects of soft organic matter in the interstitial spaces or on
the surfaces of larger silt or sand grains. A model that incor-
porates the full grain size distribution, effects of clay floccu-
lation and organic matter in interstitial spaces, and larger
scatterers (i.e., worm tubes or shell hash) would likely better
account for the variability observed in the acoustic data, as
long as the model inputs could be well defined; however,
such a model does not currently exist to the best knowledge
of the authors.
2472 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
01 November 2023 23:59:45
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
The measurements of sediment acoustic, physical, and
biological parameters presented in this paper suggest that
infauna and their activities (a) increase variability in sound
speed and attenuation and (b) lead to deviation from the
VGS model predictions. Measurements of sound speed and
attenuation indicated a higher degree of acoustic variability
near the sediment surface where most of the infauna were
present than at greater depths within the sediment. The
acoustic variability was greatest at the site with more hard
worm tube mass. The sound speed and attenuation data were
compared with the VGS model to assess where the model
was in agreement with the measured wave speeds and atten-
uation and where it was deficient. Depth-dependent porosity
and mean grain size were input directly into the VGS model
to account for variation in the sediment acoustic parameters
due to variation in sediment physical parameters. Overall,
the VGS model compared well with the measured sound
speeds across a wide range of frequencies; however, signifi-
cant deviation between the measured high-frequency
(100–300 kHz) sound speeds and the VGS model was
observed in the depth interval closest to the sediment sur-
face. Attenuation measurements were typically higher than
the VGS predictions, again particularly close to the sedi-
ment surface where infauna and worm tubes were most
abundant and also at the highest frequencies (> 180 kHz).
We note that the VGS model is intended to provide a predic-
tion of the minimum intrinsic attenuation in clean sediment
without any other components, and should not be expected
to predict the overall effective attenuation when infauna,
Lee et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
worm tubes, shell hash, or other inhomogeneities are present
in the medium,33 and the measurements presented in this
paper are consistent with that notion.
Another finding of this work was that the VGS com-
pressional viscoelastic time constant determined from the
data-model fit was inconsistent with previous estimates for
either sand or mud, and hence the associated threshold fre-
quency was much higher. There are two possible explana-
tions for this inconsistency that are related to the infauna:
(1) the properties of the inter-granular pore fluid have been
altered by seabed biological activity or (2) the fit has errone-
ously captured an unknown physical effect that is separate
from the viscoelastic response. Additionally, the shear speed
measurements indicated that the sediment at both sites was
softer than would be predicted by previous implementations
of the VGS model that did not include sufficiently small
shear viscoelastic time constant. The fact that the shear vis-
coelastic time constant is coupled to the compressional vis-
coelastic time constant though the threshold wavelength
suggests that the aforementioned possibilities also apply to
the shear wave. However, the true causes of these disparities
cannot be determined from the present work, and their reso-
lution is left for a topic of further research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the Office of Naval
Research Grant Nos. N00014-18-1–2227, N00014-21-
1–2254, N00014-15-1–2602, N00014-17-1–2625, N00014-
21-1–2245, and the ARL:UT Independent Research and
Development Program. The authors would like to thank the
participants in the field experiment: Will Ballentine, Grant
Lockridge, Cy Clemo, Kara Gadeken, and Ryan Parker from
Dauphin Island Sea Lab; and the crew of the R/V E. O.
Wilson. The authors also thank Kimbell Bui and Jeremy
King, formerly of ARL:UT, who assisted with analysis of
physical properties from the cores; Dan Duncan of the
University of Texas at Austin Institute for Geophysics for
assistance with the laser diffraction particle size analyzer;
and Dr. Allen Reed for lending us the core-logger
transducers for this experiment. The contributions of the
anonymous reviewers are also gratefully acknowledged.
1
C. W. Holland and J. Osler, “High-resolution geoacoustic inversion in
shallow water: A joint time- and frequency-domain technique,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am 107, 1263–1279 (2000).
2
D. R. Jackson and M. D. Richardson, High-Frequency Seafloor Acoustics
(Springer, New York, (2007), pp. 65–72.
3 24
A. Lipinksi and D. Chapman, “The effects of ignored seabed variability in
geoacoustic inversion,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 3524–3538 (2005).
4 25
C. W. Holland, “Propagation in a waveguide with range-dependent sea-
bed properties,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, 2596–2609 (2010).
5
R. H. Bennett, N. R. O’Brien, and M. H. Hulbert, “Determinants of clay
and shale microfabric signatures: Processess and mechanisms,” in
Microstructure of Fine-Grained Sediments: From Mud to Shale, edited by
R. H. Bennett, W. R. Bryant, and M. H. Hulbert (Springer Verlag,
New York, 1991), pp. 3–32.
6 27
D. C. Rhoads, “Organism-sediment relationships on the muddy seafloor,”
Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 12, 263–300 (1974).
7
B. P. Boudreau, “Mean mixed depths of sediments: The wherefore and
the why,” Limnol. Oceanogr. 43, 524–526 (1998).
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
8
P. S. Meadows and J. Tait, “Modification of sediment permeability and
shear strength by two burrowing invertebrates,” Mar. Biol. 101, 75–82
(1989).
9
H. Murray, A. Meadows, and P. S. Meadows, “Biogeomorphological
implications of microscale interactions between sediment geotechnics and
marine benthos: A review,” Geomorphology 47, 15–30 (2002).
10
A. K. Hannides, S. M. Dunn, and R. C. Aller, “Diffusion of organic and
inorganic solutes through macrofaunal mucus secretions and tube linings
in marine sediments,” J. Mar. Res. 63, 957–981 (2005).
11
D. C. Rhoads and L. F. Boyer, “The effects of marine benthos on physical
properties of sediments: A successional perspective,” in Animal-Sediment
Relations: The Biogenic Alteration of Sediments, edited by P. L. McCall
and M. J. Teveszl (Plenum Press, New York, 1982), pp. 3–52.
12
N. Volkenborn, L. Polerecky, S. Hedtkamp, J. Beusekom, and D. Beer,
“Bioturbation and bioirrigation extend the open exchange regions in per-
meable sediments,” Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 1898–1909 (2007).
13
S. U. Gerbersdorf, R. Bittner, H. Lubarsky, W. Manz, and D. M.
Patterson, “Microbial assemblages as ecosystem engineers of sediment
stability,” J. Soils Sed. 9, 640–652 (2009).
14
E. Deckere, T. J. Tolhurst, and J. Brouwer, “Destabilization of cohesive
intertidal sediments by infauna,” Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 53, 665–669
(2001).
15
M. D. Richardson, D. K. Young, and K. B. Briggs, “Effects of hydrody-
namic and biological processes on sediment geoacoustic properties in
Long Island Sound, U.S.A,” Mar. Geol. 52, 201–226 (1983).
16
S. E. Jones and C. F. Jago, “In situ assessment of modification of
sediment properties by burrowing invertebrates,” Mar. Biol. 115,
133–142 (1993).
17
K. B. Briggs and M. D. Richardson, “Small-scale fluctuations in acoustic
and physical properties in surficial carbonate sediments and their relation-
ship to bioturbation,” Geomar. Lett. 17, 306–315 (1997).
18
01 November 2023 23:59:45
M. D. Richardson, K. B. Briggs, S. J. Bentley, D. J. Walter, and T. H.
Orsi, “The effects of biological and hydrodynamic processes on physical
and acoustic properties of sediments off the Eel River, California,” Mar.
Geol. 182, 121–139 (2002).
19
K. M. Dorgan, W. Ballantine, G. Lockridge, E. Kiskaddon, M. S. Ballard,
K. M. Lee, and P. S. Wilson, “Impacts of simulated infaunal activities on
acoustic wave propagation in marine sediments,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
147, 812–823 (2020).
20
R. Self, P. A’Hearn, P. A. Jumars, D. R. Jackson, M. D. Richardson, and
K. B. Briggs, “Effects of macrofauna on acoustic backscatter from the
seabed: Field manipulations in West Sound, Orcas Island, Washington,
U.S.A,” J. Mar. Res. 59, 991–1020 (2001).
21
E. Thorsos, K. Williams, N. Chotiros, J. Christoff, K. Commander, C.
Greenlaw, D. Holliday, D. Jackson, J. Lopes, D. McGehee, J. Piper, M.
Richardson, and D. Tang, “An overview of SAX99: Acoustic meas-
urements,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng 26(1), 4–25 (2001).
22
M. Richardson, K. Briggs, L. Bibee, P. Jumars, W. Sawyer, D. Albert, R.
Bennett, T. Berger, M. Buckingham, N. Chotiros, P. Dahl, N. Dewitt, P.
Fleischer, R. Flood, C. Greenlaw, D. Holliday, M. Hulbert, M. Hutnak, P.
Jackson, J. Jaffe, H. Johnson, D. Lavoie, A. Lyons, C. Martens, D.
McGehee, K. Moore, T. Orsi, J. Piper, R. Ray, A. Reed, R. Self, J.
Schmidt, S. Schock, F. Simonet, R. Stoll, D. Tang, D. Thistle, E. Thorsos,
D. Walter, and R. Wheatcroft, “Overview of SAX99: Environmental con-
siderations,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 26(1), 26–53 (2001).
23
K. Williams, “Temporal fluctuations in the acoustic scattering from
bottom-deployed objects and localized biological treatments,” IEEE J.
Ocean. Eng 26(1), 63–69 (2001).
E. Pouliquen and A. Lyons, “Backscattering from bioturbated sediments
at very high frequency,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 27(3), 388–402 (2002).
C. F. Greenlaw, D. V. Holliday, and D. E. McGehee, “High-frequency
scattering from saturated sand sediments,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(6),
2818–2823 (2004).
26
K. L. Williams, D. R. Jackson, D. Tang, K. B. Briggs, and E. I. Thorsos,
“Acoustic backscattering from a sand and a sand/mud environment:
Experiments and data/model comparisons,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 34(4),
388–398 (2009).
D. R. Jackson, M. D. Richardson, K. L. Williams, A. P. Lyons, C. D.
Jones, K. B. Briggs, and D. Tang, “Acoustic observation of the time
dependence of the roughness of sandy seafloors,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng.
34(4), 407–422 (2009).
Lee et al. 2473

28
A. P. Lyons and D. C. Brown, “The impact of the temporal variability of
seafloor roughness on synthetic aperture sonar repeat–pass inter-
ferometry,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 38(1), 91–97 (2013).
29
P. A. Jumars, D. R. Jackson, T. F. Gross, and C. Sherwood, “Acoustic
remote sensing of benthic activity: A statistical approach,” Limnol.
Oceanogr. 41, 1220–1241 (1996).
30
R. N. Zajac, R. S. Lewis, L. J. Poppe, D. C. Twichell, J. Vozarik, and M.
L. DiGiacomo-Cohen, “Responses of infaunal populations to benthoscape
structure and the potential importance of transition zones,” Limnol.
Oceanogr. 48, 829–842 (2003).
31
S. Degraer, G. Moerkerke, M. Rabaut, G. Van Hoey, I. Du Four, M.
Vincx, J. Henriet, and V. Van Lancker, “Very-high resolution side-scan
sonar mapping of biogenic reefs of the tube-worm Lanice conchilega,”
Remote Sens. Env. 112, 3323–3328 (2008).
32
M. D. Richardson and D. K. Young, “Geoacoustic models and bio-
turbation,” Mar. Geol. 38, 205–218 (1980).
33
M. J. Buckingham, “Compressional and shear wave properties of marine
sediments: Comparisons between theory and data,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
117, 137–152 (2005).
34
N. P. Chotiros, Acoustics of the Seabed as a Poroelastic Medium
(Springer, New York, 2017), pp. 7–23.
35
M. J. Buckingham, “Theory of acoustic attenuation, dispersion, and pulse
propagation in unconsolidated granular materials including marine sed-
iments,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 2579–2596 (1997).
36
M. J. Buckingham, “Wave propagation, stress relaxation, and grain-to-
grain shearing in saturated, unconsolidated marine sediments,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 108, 2796–2815 (2000).
37
M. J. Buckingham, “On pore-fluid viscosity and the wave properties of
saturated granular materials including marine sediments,” J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 122, 1486–1501 (2007).
38
M. J. Buckingham, “Response to ‘Comments on “On pore-fluid viscosity
and the wave properties of saturated granular materials including marine
sediments [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 2095–2098 (2010)],” ’ ” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 127, 2099–2102 (2010).
39
M. J. Buckingham, “Analysis of shear wave attenuation in unconsolidated
sands and glass beads,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136, 2478–2488 (2014).
40
M. J. Buckingham, “Wave speed and attenuation profiles in a stratified
marine sediment: Geo-acoustic modeling of seabed layering using the vis-
cous grain shearing theory,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 148, 962–974 (2020).
41
M. S. Ballard, K. M. Lee, A. R. McNeese, P. S. Wilson, J. D. Chaytor, J.
A. Goff, and A. H. Reed, “In situ measurements of compressional wave
speed during gravity coring operations in the New England Mud Patch,”
IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 45, 26–38 (2020).
42
K. M. Lee, M. S. Ballard, A. R. McNeese, T. G. Muir, P. S. Wilson, R. D.
Costley, and K. K. Hathaway, “In situ measurements of sediment acoustic
properties in Currituck Sound and comparison to models,” J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 140, 3596–3606 (2016).
2474 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
43
K. M. Lee, M. S. Ballard, A. R. McNeese, and P. S. Wilson, “Sound speed
and attenuation measurements within a seagrass meadow from the water
column into the seabed,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141, EL402–EL406 (2017).
44
See supplementary material at https://www.scitation.org/doi/suppl/
10.1121/10.0014907 for detailed descriptions of acoustic data collection,
data processing, and diver core analysis.
45
G. R. Venegas, “The impact of salinity diffusion, poroelasticity, and
organic carbon on sediment acoustics,” Ph.D. dissertation, The
Univertsity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX (2019).
46
A. Mallock, “The damping of sound by frothy liquids,” Proc. R. Soc.
London, Ser. A 84, 391–395 (1910).
47
A. B. Wood, A Textbook of Sound (G. Bell and Sons Ltd., London, 1964),
pp. 360–363.
48
R. L. Folk, Petrology of Sedimenary Rocks (Hemphill Publishing
Company, Austin, TX, 1980), p. 26.
49
J. A. Udden, “Mechanical composition of clastic sediments,” Bull. Geol.
Soc. Am. 25, 655–744 (1914).
50
C. K. Wentworth, “A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sed-
iments,” J. Geol. 30, 377–392 (1922).
51
W. C. Krumbein, “Size frequency distributions of sediments,” J. Sed.
Petrol. 4(2), 65–77 (1934).
52
R. L. Folk and W. C. Ward, “Brazos River Bar: A study in the signifi-
cance of grain size parameters,” J. Sed. Petrol. 27, 3–26 (1957).
53
J. Belcourt, C. W. Holland, S. E. Dosso, J. Dettmer, and J. A. Goff,
“Depth-dependent geoacoustic inferences with dispersion at the New
England Mud Patch via reflection coefficient inversion,” IEEE J. Ocean.
Eng. 45, 69–91 (2020).
54
D. P. Knobles, C. D. Escobar-Amado, M. J. Buckingham, W. S.
Hodgkiss, P. S. Wilson, T. B. Neilsen, J. Yang, and M. Badiey,
“Statistical inference of sound speed and attenuation dispersion of a fine-
grained marine sediment,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 47(3), 553–564 (2022).
55
M. Kimura, “Velocity dispersion and attenuation in granular marine sedi-
01 November 2023 23:59:45
ments: Comparison of measurements with predictions using acoustic
models,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129, 3544–3561 (2011).
56
G. R. Venegas, A. F. Rahman, K. M. Lee, M. S. Ballard, and P. S.
Wilson, “Toward the ultrasonic sensing of organic carbon in seagrass-
bearing sediments,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 5968–5977, https://doi.org/
10.1029/2019GL082745 (2019).
57
N. P. Chotiros, “A porous medium model for mud,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
149, 629–644 (2021).
58
A. D. Pierce, W. L. Siegmann, and E. M. Brown, “Characterization of
mud sediments using the frequency dependence of phase velocity and
attenuation of compressional waves,” Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 31, 070002
(2017).
59
E. M. Brown, Y. Lin, J. D. Chaytor, and W. L. Siegmann, “Geoacoustic
inversion for a New England Mud Patch sediment using the silt-
suspension theory of mud,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 45, 144–160 (2020).
Lee et al.