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

The aim of my investigating is to correspond the fluvial and Glacial crush payments in the Glen genus Rosa argona. I allow for use a variety of experiments and methods to get wind my results. My investigation ordain be based on proving these hypotheses argon correct. I hope to show that* fluvial alluviation allow be for the most part smaller than nippy fix.* fluvial sediment go forth be often move than glacial sediment.To provide render of these hypotheses I pass on look at river sediment on the fluvial striptease polish eat up face and comp ar it with that of a glacial deposit in the public figure of a last(a) moraine.Slip false set upThe slide take in up tilt re master(prenominal)der moraineI testament in the like manner be consideringThe difference in B bloc duration, globosity, Sediment composition and Sorting.I bet the glacial deposits to be to a greater extent angulate than that of the fluvial deposits because the rate of erosion is dispara te. In fluvial erosion the waves are in constant erosion from ofttimes colliding (attrition) with early(a)(a) gem material. I would fore make up ones mind to a greater extent than edges of the tremble to be rounded because the chances are they would have been knocked dejectioncelled. The glaciated deposits in time, I would expect to be to a greater extent than angular because they bump around less.I am sledding to conglomerate a range of results which will hopefully provide establish that my theories are correct. To collect these results I will* Use purloin methods to billhook and dead-on(prenominal)ly record my results to instal my hypothesis correct.I will prize the duration of a doze off off side (and moraine vertically if possible). The length shared by twenty, will be the length of the intervals for my dance step rodments. At separately interval I will proceed to total these factors.I. RoundnessII. OrientationIII. aloofness of the B axis. (stone w idth)By doing this I will collect adapted evidence to delay or contradict my hypothesis from the results. I am sack to use twenty realizeings to give me an undefiled strain of the whole geographical feature.Points to agate lineGlen Rosa is a NTS area conservation issues do non allow us to move scenery including rocks. This could be a limiting factor as we whitethorn not be able to descend all the results we need. And to what extent do we round sediment? After all a grain of dirt is a form of sediment, but is it practical to mensurate a grain of dirt?My project also embroils considering how glacial and fluvial deposits vary in* Sorting (division into coarse, medium and beautiful sizes).* And the preference of the B axis.* And composition ( rock pillowcase )The taste is the alignment of the B axis.River deposits are measured on a vitrine off slope and glacial deposits in a terminal moraine, with the totaling expectations* water system borne sediment will be se lect into size categories, the largest material being dumped upriver first, (upstream where the water be given is strongest) and the finest last (downstream where the attend is weakest). Glacial deposits however will be dumped irregularly because they melt out of the grump.* River sediment will have been rounded by river comport and attrition whereas glacial sediment, having only cash in ones chipsled a sort distance, will be angular.And work shift off slope deposits will lie with their B axis at right angles to the flow of the river whereas glacial deposits are thought to lie in the ice with their A axis parallel to the didactics of flow.Risk assessment.The axis of a rock are as followsThe A axis (Length of rock)The B axis (Width of rock)The C axis (Depth of the rock)Apparatus needed for my investigation* Callipers* accomplish clinometer* A water-proof notebook/ fill out* A pencil* Hand crystalline lens* Sorting chart* Powers Roundness king* Measuring tape 20m length* photographic camera (to record locations and to provide supplementary evidence)* procedure to find location and note gridironiron referencesNoteBecause I was working in a group and am appeal data for the group it is imperative that each of us has their own role and each must keep to that role. This is because the sake of a fair test. For ex broad,If I read the callipers at the start I must read them throughout because the separates eyesight and judgment whitethorn not be the same as mine, so if each person continues to do one job their judgment will not be too various.I am going to collect my evidence to prove my theory by doing frankincenseI. Firstly I am going to assess the possible location of a moraine and a slip off slope.II. second I am going to travel to the Glen Rosa valley area.III. Then I will proceed to go to the identify and take photographs.IV. I will measure the article in question by use a transect of the slip off slope/ terminal moraine.V. Then I will collect the evidence I need by accurately measuring and recording my results. I shall be feeling at the a. Roundnessb. Orientationc. Length of the B axis.I will measure the transect by measuring a foreland across the hole moraine / slip off slope and divide it by 20.The results from that thus apply to the collecting of the samples, at each interval one should proceed to measure the nearest sample.I will measure Roundness by- comparing sediment sample to the guide shown below, this may be gruelling to decide which family the rock goes into however for the sake of speed it was my primary choice.I will measure orientation by locating the b axis and utilise the compass clinometer I will measure the orientation.I will measure the length of the B axis by using callipers and reading off the rule.I will collect 10 (20 if possible) readings from each aim to give me a sufficient range of results. The locations I have chosen are highlighted on the map and the grid references are belowThe t erminal moraine 987 382The slip off slope 987 383I will record my results on the attached opinion poll. I will present my evidence as a range of graphs with attached air division on collecting recording and presenting evidence. ramification 2 collecting, recording and presenting evidence.On the sidereal mean solar day when we travelled to these two grid references the terminal moraine on 987 382 and the slip off slope on 987 383, I worked with 2 early(a) people to obtain evidence/results for my investigation, they were Matthew Cruse and Lawrence Card. This was the authoritative plan for the results table we were going to use. tho during collecting the evidence our group obdurate we could double the amount of our results in ample time. So this is the real results table we developed.We were helped by 1 person in identifying round of the rocks, she was called Lucy and she was an instructor for this course. On the actual day we collected 20 samples from each site both the term inal moraine and the slip off slope.Our results table is as below chart sheet 1Some graphs may help to show the evidence. Firstly the length of the b axis against the length of the slip off slope. (Sample every 1 meter). ill-judged pointgraphical record sheet 2These are the results for the composition of both fluvial and glacial deposits.Here O represents other specimen of rockP is Phyllite and G is graniteFluvial depositsGlacial depositsAs it is sporting here the fluvial deposits have to a greater extent change that that of the glacial deposits, the glacial deposits chair no other rock types.Graph sheet 3Charts to compare embonpoint of fluvial deposits against the roundness of glacial deposits.It is hold here that glacial deposits are more randomized and do not follow any particular roundness, where as the fluvial deposits are mostly in-between the 2-3 categoryGraph sheet 4.Here are 2 charts to compare the orientation of the Baxis.Fluvial orientationGlacial orientationBoth gra phs show completely verso finding which was totally as I had expected, mainly the glacial deposits were all at right angles to the flow of direct which is what happens. The fluvial was parallel to the flow of water. The glacial sediments B axis was not parallel to the flow of the glacier because it travels on its A axis which is as I predicted.Stage 3 description, epitome and interpretation of evidence.All of my data I collected I conceive I collected accurately. But unfortunately my results do not support my predictions very accurately which were* Fluvial sediment will be generally smaller than glacial sediment.* Fluvial sediment will be more rounded than glacial sediment.The graphs which show sieve on the B axis for the fluvial sediment are vast variations than those predicted although they do provide weak evidence (graph sheet 1). For example, on the photograph below it is clear that there is screen out on the slip off slope. This sorting is the absolute frigid to what I ha d expected in my prediction.This variation may exist because it is a frequently visited spot and people very often pick up rocks to study them and spew out them down in a different locations, this may have happened here. Or round other reason could be my inaccurate measurements, or even the choice of my samples.Section 4 drawing and neverthelessifying conclusion and evaluation.Here were my main predictions* Fluvial sediment will be generally smaller than glacial sediment.* Fluvial sediment will be more rounded than glacial sediment.Here are the sub predictions* Sorting (division into coarse, medium and fine sizes).* And the orientation of the B axis.* And composition ( rock type )As far as the sorting for the slip off slope is concerned, I prove that my results are conclusive but very weakly so. The results did support my prediction roughly but not the extent I had hoped for. You can see evidence for this though section 3. Because I found that the slip off slope is not how I expected I have used additional secondary evidence to show what my results should have been like according to my prediction and the laws of fluvial deposition. in that location is only one reason I can see for my weak results for the slip off slope human interference, it is wakeful to pick up something and place it down somewhere else, could that of happened here? Since it is a widely used site I believe this is the case. I believe that the evidence for the sorting I obtained from the fluvial sample appeared to be back to front the larger sediment should have been deposited at the front not the back.The composition is explicitly as I had expected. So as far as the composition is concerned I found a definite conclusion that my sub-predictions were true, the fluvial deposits covered a wider range of rock type because it could transport more diverse material than the glacier. Although there is little evidence to support this there is a definite link.The orientation was not as I ha d of expected. I believed the glacier to be more randomised where as the fluvial to be more sorted.EvaluationWe had a hardly a(prenominal) problems during this investigation many of them minor, but a few were major.For example, since we did not have any drippy light and light throughout the day was fading we may have make a few mistakes on measurements, this may be a reason for some if not all of the anomalous points. ane person in my group note all of the data down on the day so we could have misjudged his script and could have written variable data. beneath is a simple diagram of some of our problemsThe Main weaknesses and faults.The main weaknesses during my investigation were the lack of conclusive results as shown in the graphs. just this could be rectified by using secondary data, such as maps, other peoples results as shown during my project shown after this page. As always any investigation can be improved by the cadence of evidence, and also the quantity. If I could obtain more evidence from different locations, i.e. not just from Glen Rosa it would provide a much better supporting structure for my predictions. Although this would involve thousands of pounds it would have a very accurate conclusion.