Next Article in Journal
A Prediction Model of Labyrinth Emitter Service Duration (ESD) under Low-Quality (Sand-Laden Water) Irrigation
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of the IMERG-GPM Precipitation Product Analysis in Brazilian Midwestern Basins Considering Different Time and Spatial Scales
Previous Article in Journal
Mid- to Long-Term Runoff Prediction Based on Deep Learning at Different Time Scales in the Upper Yangtze River Basin
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hydrological Scenarios and Malaria Incidence in the Amazonian Context
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/w14111693
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Investigation and Quantification of Erosions in the Margins of Water Bodies: A Systematic Review

by
Viviane de Souza Dias
1,*,
Karla Maria Silva de Faria
1,
Marta Pereira da Luz
2,3 and
Klebber Teodomiro Martins Formiga
1
1
Environmental Engineering, Postgraduate Program CIAMB, Federal University of Goiás, Campus Samambaia, Goiania CEP 74045-155, GO, Brazil
2
Department of Dam Safety and Technology, Furnas Centrais Elétricas S.A., BR153, km 510, Zona Rural, Aparecida de Goiania CEP 74923-650, GO, Brazil
3
Industrial and Systems Engineering Postgraduate Program-MEPROS, Pontifical Catholic University of Goiás, Praça Universitária, 2-102-Setor Leste Universitário, Goiania CEP 74605-220, GO, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(11), 1693; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14111693
Submission received: 8 April 2022 / Revised: 25 April 2022 / Accepted: 7 May 2022 / Published: 25 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tropical Rivers and Wetlands in the Anthropocene)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Erosive processes along the margins of water bodies are driven by various phenomena. Understanding and quantifying these processes require multidisciplinary approaches spanning across geology, ecology, and engineering. Accordingly, a variety of quantification approaches and techniques have been previously applied. To this end, the objective of the present research was to conduct a systematic review of the subject literature, with an aim to identify the techniques adopted in the quantification of erosion in the margins of water bodies. This study used a systematic review strategy based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—PRISMA. The results showed that the primary focuses of the investigations were channel dynamics and the use and coverage of riparian soils. Two of the identified research focuses remain scarcely discussed due to the logistical difficulties surrounding continuous monitoring: (1) the direct impacts of rain on the removal of soil from the margin, and (2) the influence of water content on soil surfaces. Seven field techniques for measuring erosion in the margin were identified and summarily compared in this review. There is a consensus in the literature that the application of each technique is dependent on the characteristics of the study site, as well as the available resources for analysis; however, to overcome certain limitations, different techniques have been used simultaneously for a combination of data. The use of models has stood out in relation to the use of field techniques.

1. Introduction

Erosion processes on banks are an important geomorphological mechanism for river ecosystems, controlling the succession of vegetation and habitat dynamics; however, excessive and accelerated erosion can cause impacts beyond the provision of suspended sediment, such as changes in channel morphology, increased turbidity, as well as altered aquatic habitats via changes in water quality, flood risk, and loss of arable land [1,2,3,4].
Studies on monitoring and measuring erosion in the margins are important for assessing the risks imposed by this process, in addition to defining conservation and restoration practices [5]. Accordingly, correlated studies can maintain multiple investigational focuses across the factors that control margin erosion, such as subaerial factors (associated with moisture conditions within the material [6]), river entrainment, and mass failure. Approaches are often selected according to river environmental characteristics and study objectives. Additionally, some approaches can focus on direct measurements of erosion processes [3,7], or the direct assessment of channel changes over large spatial scales [8].
Three primary categories of erosive processes and their interrelations have been detailed by Grove et al. (2013) [5]; these are subaerial processes, fluvial entrainment, and mass failure processes. Subaerial processes decrease the shear resistance of the margin surface and include factors such as ice and thaw cycles, wetting and drying cycles, as well as the direct impact of rain on the margin surface. Fluvial entrainment involves the detachment of particles or aggregates from the margin face by flow force, which occurs when the shear stress of the water exceeds that of the soil. Mass failure processes occur when gravitational forces exceed the shear strength of the margin materials and are commonly influenced by the weight of vegetative cover or an increase in soil water content [5].
In a review of field techniques used to measure riverbank erosion, Lawler (1993) [9] identified seven main methods: botanical evidence, sedimentological evidence, planimetric surveys, historical sources, repeated cross-profiling, terrestrial photogrammetry, and erosion pins. Since then, the development of remote sensing and geographic information system (GIS) technologies has allowed for significant advancement in the spatiotemporal analysis of margin erosion processes.
More recently, several additional techniques are used to quantify bank erosion; some employ a more conventional approach (e.g., erosion pins) [10,11], whereas others take advantage of contemporary technologies (e.g., photogrammetry with movement structure algorithms—SFM) [1,12,13,14,15]. The consensus in the literature is that the application of each technique depends on analysis objectives, site conditions, as well as data and resource availability [16]. For example, to analyze erosive processes by seepage, techniques with high spatiotemporal precision are required because of the timescale at which these processes occur, as well as their spatial distribution. The seepage erosion process often lasts less than a few hours [17].
Accordingly, the present systematic review arises from the need to understand the research focus of recent studies based on the monitoring techniques for quantifying erosion in margins, which potentially provides a direction to future studies by identifying any gaps in the literature. Furthermore, the identification and evaluation of the most common techniques used can aid field researchers in selecting the appropriate techniques based on their applicability and limitations. Here, emphasis was placed on both field techniques, as in the studies of Lawler (1993) [9], as well as model-based analyses and experiments in soil laboratories, thereby providing insight into technological advancements over time.
In summary, the present systematic review aimed to identify: (1) the focus of investigations on erosion processes in margins over the past decade, and (2) the main techniques used to quantify erosion in the margins.
There is a consensus in the literature that the application of each technique is dependent on the characteristics of the study site, as well as the available resources for analysis; however, to overcome certain limitations, different techniques have been used simultaneously for a combination of data.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Strategy and Study Identification

This study used a systematic review strategy based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—PRISMA [18], and included articles published between 1 January 2010 and 31 July 2020.
The Web of Science Core Collection database was used as the primary search engine owing to the quality of indexed scientific journals, and the scope of the publication number. The employed search terms were “bank erosion,” “margin erosion,” “reservoir margin,” or “reservoir border”, and were selected based on previous research related to margin erosion. These terms were searched in the topic field (search for title, abstract, author keywords, and keywords plus).

2.2. Study Screening and Eligibility

The State of the Art through Systematic Review (StArt) software (Laboratory of Research on Software Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil; v. 2.3.4.2) was used to conduct the systematic review [19], as it represents a free tool capable of supporting the planning and execution of systematic reviews, thus allowing for the selection of studies and data extraction to be carried out using a previously established and implemented protocol [20,21]. The VOSviewer program (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands; v.1.6.15) was used to view keyword networks [22].
The following selection criteria were implemented for article selection: addresses erosive processes on the banks of rivers, reservoirs, or through laboratory experiments; quantifies/estimates erosion in margins; and originally published in English (Table 1). Articles were selected based on their title and abstract information.
Subsequently, the full texts of all selected articles were evaluated. For data extraction, each eligible study was compiled in StArt according to the following techniques: quantification/estimation of margin erosion, investigation focus, type of procedure (field study and/or laboratory experiment), study location (river or reservoir), and country where the study was conducted. The focuses of each investigation were identified based on the factors that control the erosion processes in the margins, as emphasized by the authors. Lastly, the results were summarized using StArt-generated reports, and interpreted via descriptive statistics.

3. Results and Discussion

In total, 882 articles were identified in the database. After verification of the titles and abstracts, 139 articles were considered eligible for the full-text evaluation. Following the removal of 8 articles which did not present measurements of margin erosion, the summary of results was based on information from 131 studies that successfully met the inclusion criteria corresponding to the review’s objectives. Figure 1 shows the systematic review strategy based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
The most frequently used keyword in the 882 articles analyzed was “bank erosion” (n = 146 studies; 16.6%). Figure 2 shows the 25 main keywords used, as well as the three colored groups formed by their connection corresponding to the main research areas on this topic.

3.1. Focus of Margin Erosion Research

From 2010 to 2020, studies on margin erosion have emphasized channel dynamics (19.1%), the use and coverage of riparian soil (16%), and inundation (8.4%; Figure 3).
Accordingly, there is a consensus among researchers regarding the importance of channel dynamics, with an emphasis on understanding the processes of erosion and accretion, as well as the definition of management strategies [8,15,23]. The characterization of winding and braided rivers is related to variations in runoff patterns, which in turn are dependent upon floodplain characteristics, hydrodynamic forces, flow regime, and sediment transport. These factors must be considered when mapping morphological changes and quantifying erosion in riverbanks [8,23].
Several studies have investigated the influence of riverside vegetation on bank erosion [24,25,26,27]. According to these investigations, vegetation type, density, and depth of the root system affect margin stability. For example, Mcmahon et al. (2020) [27] concluded that a 1% increase in tree canopy cover reduced the magnitude of erosion by 2–3%. Alternatively, Purvis and Fox (2016) [28] showed a three-fold reduction of margin retreat in areas protected by vegetation when compared to margins without vegetation.
Riparian vegetation with extensive and deep root systems provides structural support to the margin material, thereby limiting the action of flow force [26]. Pizzuto et al. (2010) [29] noted the importance for corresponding studies to consider the interactions between flow and the spatial structure of riparian vegetation. In addition, Zaimes and Schultz (2015) [26] added the need for assessments of soil temperature and humidity, and Purvis and Fox (2016) [28] highlighted the need to analyze the width of the riparian vegetation buffer when determining the variability of erosion rates.
Additional research focusing on flooding impact [5,13,30] has shown that extreme precipitation events enhance flow strengths, and channel flooding may therefore increase erosion rates. These studies have also highlighted the importance of managing environmental flows, as riverbank morphology depends on monitoring and management actions [4,31]. The hydraulic force of the flow can trigger other processes (e.g., mass failure) through destabilizing mechanisms at the bottom of the margin [32]. Fluvial entrainment has a significant impact on margin set-aside rates; however, the type of riparian vegetation can make this category of erosion process non-dominant [26].
Regarding soil composition and properties, approaches have focused on the influences of margin material characteristics as they relate to the erosive processes along hydrographic basins. For example, Motta et al. (2012) [33] examined the influence of alluvial soil heterogeneity on the migration of meanders; however, Beck et al. (2018) [34] investigated the contributions of alluvial unit materials during margin recession, and the resulting transport of sediment and phosphorus.
Subaerial processes related to water content on the margin surface have also been the focus of some investigations. The relationship between the infiltration gradient and the time to break the margin was investigated in the field by Karmaker and Dutta (2013) [35], and laboratory analyses were carried out by Masoodi et al. (2018) [17]. Other subaerial processes, such as those related to the direct impact of rain on margin materials, still constitute a notable gap in the literature, and therefore require further investigation. According to Grove et al. (2013) [5], subaerial processes have a significant cumulative impact, but are more difficult to monitor continuously; thus, they are often assessed indirectly by considering their influence on other categories of erosive processes, such as mass failure and river entrainment.
Some studies maintained more than one investigation focus, such as the characteristics of soil and riverside vegetation [36], channel dynamics, physical characteristics of the margin and land use-land cover [37], channel dynamics and riparian vegetation [38], and river water depth close to the bank and bank height [39]. Other themes have also been investigated, such as the contribution of margin erosion to sediment transport [40,41,42].

3.2. Techniques for Quantifying and Monitoring Margin Erosion Processes

Over the past decade, researchers have primarily employed five field techniques to quantify erosion in margins: erosion pins, satellite imagery analysis, photogrammetry (classical or photogrammetry with SFM), laser scanning (aerial or terrestrial), and the dendrogeomorphological technique. Most studies, however, were based on the application of models (n = 43 studies; 32.8%; Figure 4), followed by field studies using erosion pins (n = 21 studies; 16%), and satellite imagery analyses (n = 20; 15.3% of studies). The dendrogeomorphological technique has also been used to estimate erosion rates, although there are relatively few application examples (n = 2 studies; 1.5%).
The global distributions of all such studies are listed in Table 2. Notably, most were concentrated in the United States (28.2%), followed by China (13%), and India (9.2%). Within the United States, the most commonly employed techniques were erosion pins and models, whereas models were predominant in China. In India, satellite imagery-based investigations have become more common.
Among the 131 publications selected in this review, the techniques used to quantify margin erosion, and their investigative focuses are summarized in Table 3. For example, monitoring with erosion pins is considered a conventional method of measuring margin erosion, and is carried out by installing metal pins perpendicular to the face of the margin, and subsequently measuring the exposed rods. According to Lawler 1993 [9], this technique has been applied since 1970, and remains widely used in a variety of fluvial environments and geomorphological contexts [3,7].
Over the years, there has also been an increase in the use of photoelectronic erosion pins [26]. The technique presents itself as an alternative in locations where the margin retreat rate tends to be low, as it allows the detection of small changes. Zaimes and Schultz (2015) [26] considered the daily erosional rates greater than 3 cm as major erosion events. In some circumstances, the use of erosion pins may not be satisfactory, as shown in Jugie et al. (2018) [12] who compared this technique with SFM photogrammetry. The results indicated that erosion pins underestimated the volume of the eroded margin by twice the volume quantified by photogrammetry in periods of higher morphological activity.
No studies using only the total station survey were found during analysis; however, this traditional technique was compared with terrestrial laser scanning in Resop and Hession (2010) [45], and combined with photogrammetry in Blanka and Kiss (2011) [119]. Using the total station, it is possible to monitor margin retreat by measuring the angles and distances based on the control points defined by a global positioning system (GPS). Notably, this technique has some measurement limitations based on margin shape, as lower cut margins can be a source of error in erosion rate estimates [16].
Technological advancements related to remote sensing have also expanded the possibility of analyzing margin erosion. Lawler (1993) [9] elaborated upon the need for improvements in the temporal resolution of erosion distribution for determining the moments of erosion occurrence, in addition to its relationship with promoter variables. This would allow inferences to be made regarding the main variables responsible for erosion. In addition, there was a need for techniques capable of detecting the spatial variability of erosion. At that time, advances in photogrammetry and the use of photoelectronic erosion pins were considered promising for resolving these limitations.
Photogrammetry has been widely used since 1990 and includes the application of classic [48], short-range [17,64], and SFM photogrammetry [15,63]. Innovations with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have enabled the development of a new generation of SFMs, permitting the restoration of the three-dimensional geometry of surfaces using randomly positioned images; however, classical photogrammetry was dependent upon overlapping strips of images acquired in parallel flight lines [136]. To this end, Hemmelder et al. (2018) [15] mapped erosion on the Buech River, France using SFM photogrammetry, and obtained a high-resolution time series of data (centimeter resolution). Mirijovsky and Langhammer (2015) [63] analyzed the applicability of SFM photogrammetry for tracking flood effects on channel changes in the Czech Republic, supporting the applicability of this technique in studies that require high levels of spatial detail, as well as highlighting the advantage of rapid mapping of flooding effects on rivers from a multitemporal perspective.
Some studies have explored the potential of UAVs to analyze channel dynamics, morphology, and margin erosion [1,14,15,63]. According to Hamshaw et al. (2019) [14], UAVs provide cost-effective and efficient data obtaining to monitor erosion processes in margins, capable of providing high spatiotemporal resolutions. Furthermore, limitations related to vegetation cover can be minimized through seasonal surveys, thereby enhancing data accuracy.
In satellite imagery analyses, the use of Landsat imagery was most common. Indeed, this technique has been applied with different emphases: channel migration and flood risks [4], assessment of channel morphological changes associated with river width and sinuosity [98], analysis of riverbank retreat line using a continuous wavelet transform [65], and estimation of changes in erosion area and accretion over time [99].
There was an equal balance between the number of studies that applied aerial and land laser scanning (four each), with one other study using a combination of these techniques [130]. Terrestrial laser scanning provides a detailed 3D point cloud, making it possible to detect changes in margin relief across multiple datasets. Compared with aerial laser scanning and photogrammetry, terrestrial laser scanning is more advantageous, as it allows for the analysis of steep margins. When compared with traditional methods, such as surveys with erosion pins and total stations, terrestrial laser scanning offers superior spatial resolutions and data collection time [137].
Notably, analyses of erosive processes in reservoir margins remain incipient. Studies have mainly focused on the reservoir influence area [7,128,130,131], whereas only one study has directly investigated reservoir bank erosion. Moraes et al. (2016) [62] monitored the erosion rates along the margins of Brazilian reservoirs using bat-mounted mobile laser-scanning equipment, allowing for the orthogonal visualization of erosive processes, as well as the analysis of areas obstructed by vegetation.
In dendrogeomorphological studies, erosive processes have been analyzed through anatomical changes in the roots, in addition to tree ring data. Dick et al. (2014) [110] conducted studies on the Michigan River in the United States, estimating the average annual erosion rates using this technique, and established a relationship between the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near Bank Stress (NBS). The BEHI has as its parameters bank height, bank full height, root depth, root density, surface protection, and bank angle; NBS includes near bank maximum depth and mean bank full depth [138]. Hosseinzadeh et al. (2020) [111] investigated erosion rates in the Lavij River, Iran through micro- and macroscopic dendrogeomorphological analyses. Statistical tests confirmed that there were no significant differences in the results, indicating the advantage of applying macroscopic analyses, as they facilitate survey and subsequent analyses.
Donovan et al. (2015) [41] highlighted the importance of spatiotemporal studies for evaluating bank erosion, and their contribution to sediment transport; however, the hydraulic and geotechnical processes related to margin erosion have been modeled (e.g., the Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model—BSTEM [24,57,91,133], and Bank Assessment for Non-Point Source Consequences of Sediment Model—BANCS [51,58].
Field measurements are necessary to acquire hydrological, hydraulic, and geomorphological variables when applying the BSTEM. This model estimates erosion based on the excess shear stress equation, and safety factor [57]. Alternatively, the BANCS is based on the evaluation of margin stress (NBS) and erodibility (BEHI) for estimating erosion rates [58]. According to the findings of this review, BSTEM use was primarily confined to the United States, but has also been applied in China and Mongolia, whereas the BANCS has been tested across different countries such as the US, India, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. This suggests the possibility of calibrating and modifying the model parameters according to the characteristics of different regions.
Some studies have focused on the application of more than one field technique, such as aerial photogrammetry and satellite imagery analyses [46,47], laser scanning and aerial photography [5,68,128], erosion pins and laser scanning [49], SFM photogrammetry and erosion pins [12], and SFM photogrammetry and scanning lasers [13]. In some cases, a comparison was made between the techniques, while in others, combinations of the two methods were applied. For example, a combination of techniques was used by Foucher et al. (2017) [49] to analyze the dynamics of margin erosion over time, where erosion pins were used for short-term analyses during winter, and a differential global positioning system combined with laser scanning was employed to estimate the average loss of margin material long term.
The literature is relatively limited regarding the comparability between techniques. Notably, each technique maintains some form of advantage according to the analysis location conditions [16,17]. For the terrestrial laser scanning technique, the presence of dense vegetation close to the margin can limit accuracy. In open streambanks with little vegetation, the terrestrial laser scanning can detect small erosion rates with a sub-centimeter error [16]. Comparably, limitations of total station surveys relate to the morphology of the margin (e.g., lower cuts). A comprehensive list of advantages and disadvantages for each of the primary techniques employed can be found in Table 4.

4. Conclusions

Over the analysis period, there has been a significant evolution in the use of photogrammetry, with an emphasis on the use of images with high spatial resolutions, as well as new technologies, such as photogrammetry-based UAVs (i.e., drones) for measuring margin retreat. This technique also overcomes some limitations of classical photogrammetry, allowing for a more cost-effective method of analysis in terms of economics, technology, and processing requirements, as well as the ability to analyze photos taken from different positions. UAVs also offer a much better/more flexible temporal resolution than conventional imagery. The use of photoelectronic pins has also been consolidated, allowing for continuous erosion records, although they are notably less frequently applied than conventional pins.
There is consensus in the literature that the application of each technique is dependent on the characteristics of the study site, as well as the available resources for analysis; however, to overcome certain limitations, different techniques have been used for a combination of data, such as erosion pins for point analyses, laser scanning for spatiotemporal analyses, and aerial photographs for assist in the densification and classification of point clouds when filling gaps in laser scanning data.
The analysis of steep margins and dense vegetation is a challenge that is gradually being addressed via advancements in laser scanning and improvements in filtering techniques. The use of boat-mounted mobile laser scanning represents a promising technique for the orthogonal visualization of erosive processes and analysis of areas obstructed by vegetation. Novel research can be carried out focusing on topics that have not been addressed in the literature, including subaeroerosive processes, such as the direct impacts of rain on the removal of soil from the margin, and the influence of water content on soil surfaces. Such erosive processes can result in a significant cumulative impact but remain scarcely discussed due to the logistical difficulties surrounding continuous monitoring.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, V.d.S.D.; writing—review and editing, K.T.M.F. and K.M.S.d.F.; supervision, project administration, funding acquisition, M.P.d.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Furnas Centrais Elétricas S.A. and Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL), project PD-ANEEL 0394-1705/2017.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Furnas Centrais Elétricas S.A. and Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL) for the technical coordination and funding, within the scope of the Research and Development Project (R&D) entitled “Modeling at Various Scales of Sediment Generation in Erosion and Contribution to Reservoirs of UHEs”, R&D ANEEL Sediments, code ANEEL PD.0394 -1705/2017. We would also like to thank the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for the granting of the doctoral scholarship that maintained the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Duró, G.; Crosato, A.; Kleinhans, M.G.; Uijttewaal, W.S.J. Bank Erosion Processes Measured with UAV-SfM along Complex Banklines of a Straight Mid-Sized River Reach. Earth Surf. Dyn. 2018, 6, 933–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Varouchakis, E.A.; Giannakis, G.V.; Lilli, M.A.; Ioannidou, E.; Nikolaidis, N.P.; Karatzas, G.P. Development of a Statistical Tool for the Estimation of Riverbank Erosion Probability. Soil 2016, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Henshaw, A.J.; Thorne, C.R.; Clifford, N.J. Identifying Causes and Controls of River Bank Erosion in a British Upland Catchment. Catena 2012, 100, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Das, A.K.; Sah, R.K.; Hazarika, N. Bankline Change and the Facets of Riverine Hazards in the Floodplain of Subansiri-Ranganadi Doab, Brahmaputra Valley, India. Nat. Hazards 2012, 64, 1015–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Grove, J.R.; Croke, J.; Thompson, C. Quantifying Different Riverbank Erosion Processes during an Extreme Flood Event. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2013, 38, 1393–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Couper, P.R.; Maddock, I.P. Subaerial River Bank Erosion Processes and Their Interaction with Other Bank Erosion Mechanisms on the River Arrow, Warwickshire, UK. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2001, 26, 631–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bao, Y.; He, X.; Wen, A.; Gao, P.; Tang, Q.; Yan, D.; Long, Y. Dynamic Changes of Soil Erosion in a Typical Disturbance Zone of China’s Three Gorges Reservoir. Catena 2018, 169, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bertalan, L.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Surian, N.; Šulc Michalková, M.; Kovács, Z.; Szabó, S.; Szabó, G.; Hooke, J. Detailed Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Variations in River Channel Changes and Meander Evolution as a Preliminary Work for Effective Floodplain Management. The Example of Sajó River, Hungary. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 248, 109–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lawler, D.M. The Measurement of River Bank Erosion and Lateral Channel Change: A Review. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 1993, 18, 777–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tufekcioglu, M.; Isenhart, T.M.; Schultz, R.C. High Stage Events and Stream Bank Erosion on Small Grazed Pasture Stream Reaches in the Rathbun Lake Watershed, Southern Iowa, USA. Int. J. Ecosyst. Ecol. Sci. 2019, 9, 775–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, N.; Rutherfurd, I.D. The Effect of Instream Logs on River-Bank Erosion: Field Measurements of Hydraulics and Erosion Rates. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2020, 45, 1677–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jugie, M.; Gob, F.; Virmoux, C.; Brunstein, D.; Tamisier, V.; Le Coeur, C.; Grancher, D. Characterizing and Quantifying the Discontinuous Bank Erosion of a Small Low Energy River Using Structure-from-Motion Photogrammetry and Erosion Pins. J. Hydrol. 2018, 563, 418–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Heritage, G.; Entwistle, N. Drone Based Quantification of Channel Response to an Extreme Flood for a Piedmont Stream. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Hamshaw, S.D.; Engel, T.; Rizzo, D.M.; O’Neil-Dunne, J.; Dewoolkar, M.M. Application of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) for Monitoring Bank Erosion along River Corridors. Geomatics, Nat. Hazards Risk 2019, 10, 1285–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Hemmelder, S.; Marra, W.; Markies, H.; De Jong, S.M. Monitoring River Morphology & Bank Erosion Using UAV Imagery—A Case Study of the River Buëch, Hautes-Alpes, France. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 73, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Myers, D.T.; Rediske, R.R.; McNair, J.N. Measuring Streambank Erosion: A Comparison of Erosion Pins, Total Station, and Terrestrial Laser Scanner. Water 2019, 11, 1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Masoodi, A.; Noorzad, A.; Majdzadeh Tabatabai, M.R.; Samadi, A. Application of Short-Range Photogrammetry for Monitoring Seepage Erosion of Riverbank by Laboratory Experiments. J. Hydrol. 2018, 558, 380–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Zamboni, A.; Hernandes, E.; Di Thommazo, A. START Uma Ferramenta Computacional de Apoio à Revisão Sistemática. In Proceedings of the Congresso Brasileiro de Software, Salvador, Brasil, 27 September–1 October 2010. [Google Scholar]
  20. Tenório, T.; Bittencourt, I.I.; Isotani, S.; Silva, A.P. Does Peer Assessment in On-Line Learning Environments Work? A Systematic Review of the Literature. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 64, 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Marchione, F.G.; Araújo, L.M.Q.; Araújo, L.V. Approaches That Use Software to Support the Prevention of Pressure Ulcer: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2015, 84, 725–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Van Eck, N.; Waltman, L. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Jia, D.; Shao, X.; Wang, H.; Zhou, G. Three-Dimensional Modeling of Bank Erosion and Morphological Changes in the Shishou Bend of the Middle Yangtze River. Adv. Water Resour. 2010, 33, 348–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Daly, E.R.; Miller, R.B.; Fox, G.A. Modeling Streambank Erosion and Failure along Protected and Unprotected Composite Streambanks. Adv. Water Resour. 2015, 81, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Miller, R.B.; Fox, G.A.; Penn, C.J.; Wilson, S.; Parnell, A.; Purvis, R.A.; Criswell, K. Estimating Sediment and Phosphorus Loads from Streambanks with and without Riparian Protection. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 189, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zaimes, G.N.; Schultz, R.C. Riparian Land-Use Impacts on Bank Erosion and Deposition of an Incised Stream in North-Central Iowa, USA. Catena 2015, 125, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. McMahon, J.M.; Olley, J.M.; Brooks, A.P.; Smart, J.C.R.; Stewart-Koster, B.; Venables, W.N.; Curwen, G.; Kemp, J.; Stewart, M.; Saxton, N.; et al. Vegetation and Longitudinal Coarse Sediment Connectivity Affect the Ability of Ecosystem Restoration to Reduce Riverbank Erosion and Turbidity in Drinking Water. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 707, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Purvis, R.A.; Fox, G.A. Streambank Sediment Loading Rates at the Watershed Scale and the Benefit of Riparian Protection. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2016, 41, 1327–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pizzuto, J.; O’Neal, M.; Stotts, S. On the Retreat of Forested, Cohesive Riverbanks. Geomorphology 2010, 116, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ross, D.S.; Wemple, B.C.; Willson, L.J.; Balling, C.M.; Underwood, K.L.; Hamshaw, S.D. Impact of an Extreme Storm Event on River Corridor Bank Erosion and Phosphorus Mobilization in a Mountainous Watershed in the Northeastern United States. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 2019, 124, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vietz, G.J.; Lintern, A.; Webb, J.A.; Straccione, D. River Bank Erosion and the Influence of Environmental Flow Management. Environ. Manag. 2018, 61, 454–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Darby, S.E.; Trieu, H.Q.; Carling, P.A.; Sarkkula, J.; Koponen, J.; Kummu, M.; Conlan, I.; Leyland, J. A Physically Based Model to Predict Hydraulic Erosion of Fine-Grained Riverbanks: The Role of Form Roughness in Limiting Erosion. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 2010, 115, F04003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Motta, D.; Abad, J.D.; Langendoen, E.J.; García, M.H. The Effects of Floodplain Soil Heterogeneity on Meander Planform Shape. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48, W09518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Beck, W.; Isenhart, T.; Moore, P.; Schilling, K.; Schultz, R.; Tomer, M. Streambank Alluvial Unit Contributions to Suspended Sediment and Total Phosphorus Loads, Walnut Creek, Iowa, USA. Water 2018, 10, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Karmaker, T.; Dutta, S. Modeling Seepage Erosion and Bank Retreat in a Composite River Bank. J. Hydrol. 2013, 476, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Konsoer, K.M.; Rhoads, B.L.; Langendoen, E.J.; Best, J.L.; Ursic, M.E.; Abad, J.D.; Garcia, M.H. Spatial Variability in Bank Resistance to Erosion on a Large Meandering, Mixed Bedrock-Alluvial River. Geomorphology 2016, 252, 80–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. McMillan, M.; Liebens, J.; Bagui, S. A Statistical Model for Streambank Erosion in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain. Catena 2018, 165, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Janes, V.; Holman, I.; Birkinshaw, S.; O’Donnell, G.; Kilsby, C. Improving Bank Erosion Modelling at Catchment Scale by Incorporating Temporal and Spatial Variability. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2018, 43, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Zhao, K.; Gong, Z.; Zhang, K.; Wang, K.; Jin, C.; Zhou, Z.; Xu, F.; Coco, G. Laboratory Experiments of Bank Collapse: The Role of Bank Height and near-Bank Water Depth. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 2020, 125, e2019JF005281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kessler, A.C.; Gupta, S.C.; Dolliver, H.A.S.; Thoma, D.P. Lidar Quantification of Bank Erosion in Blue Earth County, Minnesota. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Donovan, M.; Miller, A.; Baker, M.; Gellis, A. Sediment Contributions from Floodplains and Legacy Sediments to Piedmont Streams of Baltimore County, Maryland. Geomorphology 2015, 235, 88–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kronvang, B.; Andersen, H.E.; Larsen, S.E.; Audet, J. Importance of Bank Erosion for Sediment Input, Storage and Export at the Catchment Scale. J. Soils Sediments 2013, 13, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hupp, C.R.; Noe, G.B.; Schenk, E.R.; Benthem, A.J. Recent and Historic Sediment Dynamics along Difficult Run, a Suburban Virginia Piedmont Stream. Geomorphology 2013, 180, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Martin, D.J.; Ely, C.; Wemple, B.C. Bank Erosion in an Andean Páramo River System: Implications for Hydro-Development and Carbon Dynamics in the Neotropical Andes. J. Mt. Sci. 2019, 16, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Resop, J.P.; Hession, W.C. Terrestrial Laser Scanning for Monitoring Streambank Retreat: Comparison with Traditional Surveying Techniques. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2010, 136, 794–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yao, Z.; Ta, W.; Jia, X.; Xiao, J. Bank Erosion and Accretion along the Ningxia-Inner Mongolia Reaches of the Yellow River from 1958 to 2008. Geomorphology 2011, 127, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rowland, J.C.; Shelef, E.; Pope, P.A.; Muss, J.; Gangodagamage, C.; Brumby, S.P.; Wilson, C.J. A Morphology Independent Methodology for Quantifying Planview River Change and Characteristics from Remotely Sensed Imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 184, 212–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Spiekermann, R.; Betts, H.; Dymond, J.; Basher, L. Volumetric Measurement of River Bank Erosion from Sequential Historical Aerial Photography. Geomorphology 2017, 296, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Foucher, A.; Salvador-Blanes, S.; Vandromme, R.; Cerdan, O.; Desmet, M. Quantification of Bank Erosion in a Drained Agricultural Lowland Catchment. Hydrol. Process. 2017, 31, 1424–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hensley, K.J.; Ayers, P.D. Estimating Streambank Erosion Rates with a GPS-Based Video Mapping System. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2018, 54, 1185–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sass, C.K.; Keane, T.D. Application of Rosgen’s BANCS Model for NE Kansas and the Development of Predictive Streambank Erosion Curves. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2012, 48, 774–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Karmaker, T.; Dutta, S. Stochastic Erosion of Composite Banks in Alluvial River Bends. Hydrol. Process. 2015, 29, 1324–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Saadon, A.; Ariffin, J.; Abdullah, J.; Mat Daud, N. Dimensional Analysis Relationships of Streambank Erosion Rates. J. Teknol. 2016, 78, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Ghosh, K.G.; Pal, S.; Mukhopadhyay, S. Validation of BANCS Model for Assessing Stream Bank Erosion Hazard Potential (SBEHP) in Bakreshwar River of Rarh Region, Eastern India. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2016, 2, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Abderrezzak, K.E.K.; Die Moran, A.; Tassi, P.; Ata, R.; Hervouet, J.M. Modelling River Bank Erosion Using a 2D Depth-Averaged Numerical Model of Flow and Non-Cohesive, Non-Uniform Sediment Transport. Adv. Water Resour. 2016, 93, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Narasimhan, B.; Allen, P.M.; Coffman, S.V.; Arnold, J.G.; Srinivasan, R. Development and Testing of a Physically Based Model of Streambank Erosion for Coupling with a Basin-Scale Hydrologic Model SWAT. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2017, 53, 344–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Stryker, J.; Wemple, B.; Bomblies, A. Modeling Sediment Mobilization Using a Distributed Hydrological Model Coupled with a Bank Stability Model. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 2051–2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Allmanová, Z.; Vlčková, M.; Jankovský, M.; Jakubis, M.; Allman, M. Bank Erosion of the Tŕstie Stream: BANCS Model Predictions vs. Real Bank Erosion. J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 2019, 67, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Smith, H.G.; Spiekermann, R.; Dymond, J.; Basher, L. Predicting Spatial Patterns in Riverbank Erosion for Catchment Sediment Budgets. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2019, 53, 338–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Majumdar, S.; Mandal, S. Acceptance of BANCS Model for Predicting Stream Bank Erosion Potential and Rate in the Left Bank of Ganga River of Diara Region in Malda District, North East India. Spat. Inf. Res. 2020, 29, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Palmer, J.A.; Schilling, K.E.; Isenhart, T.M.; Schultz, R.C.; Tomer, M.D. Streambank Erosion Rates and Loads within a Single Watershed: Bridging the Gap between Temporal and Spatial Scales. Geomorphology 2014, 209, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Moraes, M.V.A.; Tommaselli, A.M.G.; Santos, L.D.; Rubio, M.F.; Carvalho, G.J.; Tommaselli, J.T.G. Monitoring Bank Erosion in Hydroelectric Reservoirs with Mobile Laser Scanning. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2016, 9, 5524–5532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Mirijovskỳ, J.; Langhammer, J. Multitemporal Monitoring of the Morphodynamics of a Mid-Mountain Stream Using UAS Photogrammetry. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 8586–8609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Qin, C.; Zheng, F.; Wilson, G.V.; Zhang, X.J.; Xu, X. Apportioning Contributions of Individual Rill Erosion Processes and Their Interactions on Loessial Hillslopes. Catena 2019, 181, 104099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mount, N.J.; Tate, N.J.; Sarker, M.H.; Thorne, C.R. Evolutionary, Multi-Scale Analysis of River Bank Line Retreat Using Continuous Wavelet Transforms: Jamuna River, Bangladesh. Geomorphology 2013, 183, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hamid, C.M.; Ashraf, M.; Hamid, Q.; Sarwar, S.M.; Saqib, Z.A. Geospatial Techniques for Assessment of Bank Erosion and Accretion in the Marala Alexandria Reach of the River Chenab, Pakistan. Sains Malays. 2017, 46, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mukherjee, R.; Bilas, R.; Biswas, S.S.; Pal, R. Bank Erosion and Accretion Dynamics Explored by GIS Techniques in Lower Ramganga River, Western Uttar Pradesh, India. Spat. Inf. Res. 2017, 25, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kessler, A.C.; Gupta, S.C.; Brown, M.K. Assessment of River Bank Erosion in Southern Minnesota Rivers Post European Settlement. Geomorphology 2013, 201, 312–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rogers, J.C.; Leigh, D.S. Modeling Stream-Bank Erosion in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains. Phys. Geogr. 2013, 34, 354–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rousseau, Y.Y.; Van de Wiel, M.J.; Biron, P.M. Simulating Bank Erosion over an Extended Natural Sinuous River Reach Using a Universal Slope Stability Algorithm Coupled with a Morphodynamic Model. Geomorphology 2017, 295, 690–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Deng, S.; Xia, J.; Zhou, M. Coupled Two-Dimensional Modeling of Bed Evolution and Bank Erosion in the Upper JingJiang Reach of Middle Yangtze River. Geomorphology 2019, 344, 10–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Deng, S.; Xia, J.; Zhou, M.; Lin, F. Coupled Modeling of Bed Deformation and Bank Erosion in the Jingjiang Reach of the Middle Yangtze River. J. Hydrol. 2019, 568, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Duan, G.; Shu, A.; Rubinato, M.; Wang, S.; Zhu, F. Collapsing Mechanisms of the Typical Cohesive Riverbank along the Ningxia-Inner Mongolia Catchment. Water 2018, 10, 1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Deng, S.; Xia, J.; Zhou, M.; Li, J.; Zhu, Y. Coupled Modeling of Bank Retreat Processes in the Upper Jingjiang Reach, China. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2018, 43, 2863–2875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Thi, T.D.; Minh, D.D. Riverbank Stability Assessment under River Water Level Changes and Hydraulic Erosion. Water 2019, 11, 2598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Veihe, A.; Jensen, N.H.; Schiøtz, I.G.; Nielsen, S.L. Magnitude and Processes of Bank Erosion at a Small Stream in Denmark. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 25, 1597–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Willett, C.D.; Lerch, R.N.; Schultz, R.C.; Berges, S.A.; Peacher, R.D.; Isenhart, T.M. Streambank Erosion in Two Watersheds of the Central Claypan Region of Missouri, United States. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2012, 67, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Kronvang, B.; Audet, J.; Baattrup-Pedersen, A.; Jensen, H.S.; Larsen, S.E. Phosphorus Load to Surface Water from Bank Erosion in a Danish Lowland River Basin. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Peacher, R.D.; Lerch, R.N.; Schultz, R.C.; Willett, C.D.; Isenhart, T.M. Factors Controlling Streambank Erosion and Phosphorus Loss in Claypan Watersheds. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2018, 73, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. McMahon, J.M.; Olley, J.M.; Brooks, A.P.; Smart, J.C.R.; Rose, C.W.; Curwen, G.; Spencer, J.; Stewart-Koster, B. An Investigation of Controlling Variables of Riverbank Erosion in Sub-Tropical Australia. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 97, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Lyons, N.J.; Starek, M.J.; Wegmann, K.W.; Mitasova, H. Bank Erosion of Legacy Sediment at the Transition from Vertical to Lateral Stream Incision. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 2015, 40, 1764–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Qin, C.; Wells, R.R.; Momm, H.G.; Xu, X.; Wilson, G.V.; Zheng, F. Photogrammetric Analysis Tools for Channel Widening Quantification under Laboratory Conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 191, 306–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Vandenberghe, J.; de Moor, J.J.W.; Spanjaard, G. Natural Change and Human Impact in a Present-Day Fluvial Catchment: The Geul River, Southern Netherlands. Geomorphology 2012, 159, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Deb, M.; Ferreira, C. Planform Channel Dynamics and Bank Migration Hazard Assessment of a Highly Sinuous River in the North-Eastern Zone of Bangladesh. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 6613–6623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lovric, N.; Tosic, R. Assessment of Bank Erosion, Accretion and Channel Shifting Using Remote Sensing and GIS: Case Study—Lower Course of the Bosna River. Quaest. Geogr. 2016, 35, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Xu, D.; Bai, Y.; Ma, J.; Tan, Y. Numerical Investigation of Long-Term Planform Dynamics and Stability of River Meandering on Fluvial Floodplains. Geomorphology 2011, 132, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Posner, A.J.; Duan, J.G. Simulating River Meandering Processes Using Stochastic Bank Erosion Coefficient. Geomorphology 2012, 163, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Asahi, K.; Shimizu, Y.; Nelson, J.; Parker, G. Numerical Simulation of River Meandering with Self-Evolving Banks. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 2013, 118, 2208–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. McMillan, M.; Hu, Z. A Watershed Scale Spatially-Distributed Model for Streambank Erosion Rate Driven by Channel Curvature. Geomorphology 2017, 294, 146–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Davidson, S.L.; Eaton, B.C. Beyond Regime: A Stochastic Model of Floods, Bank Erosion, and Channel Migration. Water Resour. Res. 2018, 54, 6282–6298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lammers, R.W.; Bledsoe, B.P. A Network Scale, Intermediate Complexity Model for Simulating Channel Evolution over Years to Decades. J. Hydrol. 2018, 566, 886–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Michalkova, M.; PieGay, H.; Kondolf, G.M.; Greco, S.E. Lateral Erosion of the Sacramento River, California (1942-1999), and Responses of Channel and Floodplain Lake to Human Influences. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2011, 36, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ondruch, J.; Máčka, Z. Response of Lateral Channel Dynamics of a Lowland Meandering River to Engineering-Derived Adjustments—An Example of the Morava River (Czech Republic). Open Geosci. 2015, 7, 588–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Dragićević, S.; Pripužić, M.; Živković, N.; Novković, I.; Kostadinov, S.; Langović, M.; Milojković, B.; Čvorović, Z. Spatial and Temporal Variability of Bank Erosion during the Period 1930–2016: Case Study—Kolubara River Basin (Serbia). Water 2017, 9, 748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Ahmed, A.A.; Fawzi, A. Meandering and Bank Erosion of the River Nile and Its Environmental Impact on the Area between Sohag and El-Minia, Egypt. Arab. J. Geosci. 2011, 4, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Haghiabi, A.H.; Mohammad, K. The Study of Bank Erosion in Kashkan River Meanders. Life Sci. J. 2012, 9, 3137–3142. [Google Scholar]
  97. Laskar, A.A.; Phukon, P. Erosional Vulnerability and Spatio-Temporal Variability of the Barak River, NE India. Curr. Sci. 2012, 103, 80–86. [Google Scholar]
  98. Hossain, M.A.; Gan, T.Y.; Baki, A.B.M. Assessing Morphological Changes of the Ganges River Using Satellite Images. Quat. Int. 2013, 304, 142–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wang, S.; Mei, Y. Lateral Erosion/Accretion Area and Shrinkage Rate of the Linhe Reach Braided Channel of the Yellow River between 1977 and 2014. J. Geogr. Sci. 2016, 26, 1579–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Neog, R. A GIS-Based Study on Channel Variation, Erosion and Deposition along the Bank of Dibru Saikhowa National Park (1967–2016), Assam, India. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2018, 4, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ophra, S.J.; Begum, S.; Islam, R.; Islam, M.N. Assessment of Bank Erosion and Channel Shifting of Padma River in Bangladesh Using RS and GIS Techniques. Spat. Inf. Res. 2018, 26, 599–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Billah, M.M. Mapping and Monitoring Erosion-Accretion in an Alluvial River Using Satellite Imagery—The River Bank Changes of the Padma River in Bangladesh. Quaest. Geogr. 2018, 37, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Islam, M.N.; Biswas, R.N.; Shanta, S.R.; Islam, R.; Jakariya, M. Morphological Dynamics of the Jamuna River in Kazipur Subdistrict. Earth Syst. Environ. 2019, 3, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Mahmud, M.I.; Mia, A.J.; Islam, M.A.; Peas, M.H.; Farazi, A.H.; Akhter, S.H. Assessing Bank Dynamics of the Lower Meghna River in Bangladesh: An Integrated GIS-DSAS Approach. Arab. J. Geosci. 2020, 13, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Pope, I.C.; Odhiambo, B.K. Soil Erosion and Sediment Fluxes Analysis: A Watershed Study of the Ni Reservoir, Spotsylvania County, VA, USA. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 186, 1719–1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Odhiambo, B.K.; Coxon, T.; Somers, H. Sediment and Phosphorous Fluxes Analysis in Aquia Creek, a Sub-Watershed of the Chesapeake Bay Basin, VA, USA. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 2018, 229, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Yang, S.; Bai, Y.; Xu, H. Experimental Analysis of River Evolution with Riparian Vegetation. Water 2018, 10, 1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Vargas-Luna, A.; Duró, G.; Crosato, A.; Uijttewaal, W. Morphological Adaptation of River Channels to Vegetation Establishment: A Laboratory Study. J. Geophys. Res. 2019, 124, 1981–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Gasser, E.; Perona, P.; Dorren, L.; Phillips, C.; Hübl, J.; Schwarz, M. A New Framework to Model Hydraulic Bank Erosion Considering the Effects of Roots. Water 2020, 12, 893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Dick, B.M.; Hey, R.; Peralta, P.; Jewell, I.; Simon, P.; Peszlen, I. Estimating Annual Riverbank Erosion Rates—A Dendrogeomorphic Method. River Res. Appl. 2014, 30, 845–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hosseinzadeh, M.M.; Matsh Beyranvand, S.; Esmaili, R. Analysis of Channel Bank Erosion Rate Using Exposed Roots of Trees: A Case Study of Lavij Stream, Northern Alborz Mountains, Iran. J. Mt. Sci. 2020, 17, 1096–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Tufekcioglu, M.; Isenhart, T.M.; Schultz, R.C.; Bear, D.A.; Kovar, J.L.; Russell, J.R. Stream Bank Erosion as a Source of Sediment and Phosphorus in Grazed Pastures of the Rathbun Lake Watershed in Southern Iowa, United States. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2012, 67, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Kang, R.S. Geomorphic Effects of Mosses in a Low-Order Stream in Fairfax County, Virginia. Phys. Geogr. 2012, 33, 360–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Greenwood, P.; Kuhn, N.J. Does the Invasive Plant, Impatiens Glandulifera, Promote Soil Erosion along the Riparian Zone? An Investigation on a Small Watercourse in Northwest Switzerland. J. Soils Sediments 2014, 14, 637–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Arnold, E.; Toran, L. Effects of Bank Vegetation and Incision on Erosion Rates in an Urban Stream. Water 2018, 10, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. O’Neal, M.A.; Pizzuto, J.E. The Rates and Spatial Patterns of Annual Riverbank Erosion Revealed through Terrestrial Laser-Scanner Surveys of the South River, Virginia. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2011, 36, 695–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Saikia, L.; Mahanta, C.; Mukherjee, A.; Borah, S.B. Erosion–Deposition and Land Use/Land Cover of the Brahmaputra River in Assam, India. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2019, 128, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Ghosh, D.; Sahu, A.S. Bank Line Migration and Its Impact on Land Use and Land Cover Change: A Case Study in Jangipur Subdivision of Murshidabad District, West Bengal. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2019, 47, 1969–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Blanka, V.; Kiss, T. Effect of Different Water Stages on Bank Erosion, Case Study on River Hernád, Hungary. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2011, 6, 101–108. [Google Scholar]
  120. Ashraf, M.; Shakir, A.S. Prediction of River Bank Erosion and Protection Works in a Reach of Chenab River, Pakistan. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ashraf, M.; Bhatti, M.T.; Shakir, A.S. River Bank Erosion and Channel Evolution in Sand-Bed Braided Reach of River Chenab: Role of Floods during Different Flow Regimes. Arab. J. Geosci. 2016, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Basumatary, H.; Sah, R.K.; Das, A.K. Analyzing Area Dynamics on a Protected Floodplain Using Long-Term Sequential Data: The Case of Kaziranga National Park. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2019, 47, 1557–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Saleem, A.; Dewan, A.; Rahman, M.M.; Nawfee, S.M.; Karim, R.; Lu, X.X. Spatial and Temporal Variations of Erosion and Accretion: A Case of a Large Tropical River. Earth Syst. Environ. 2020, 4, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Nardi, L.; Campo, L.; Rinaldi, M. Quantification of Riverbank Erosion and Application in Risk Analysis. Nat. Hazards 2013, 69, 869–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Morianou, G.G.; Kourgialas, N.N.; Karatzas, G.P.; Nikolaidis, N.P. Assessing Hydro-Morphological Changes in Mediterranean Stream Using Curvilinear Grid Modeling Approach—Climate Change Impacts. Earth Sci. Inform. 2018, 11, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Yu, M.; Xie, Y.; Wu, S.; Tian, H. Sidewall Shear Stress Distribution Effects on Cohesive Bank Erosion in Curved Channels. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Water Manag. 2019, 172, 257–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Tufekcioglu, M. Gully and Streambank Erosion and the Effectiveness of Control Measures in a Semi-Arid Watershed. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2018, 27, 8233–8243. [Google Scholar]
  128. Liro, M. Development of Sediment Slug Upstream from the Czorsztyn Reservoir (Southern Poland) and Its Interaction with River Morphology. Geomorphology 2016, 253, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Xia, J.; Li, T.; Li, X.; Zhang, X.; Zong, Q. Daily Bank Erosion Rates in the Lower Yellow River before and after Dam Construction. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2014, 50, 1325–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Tyszkowski, S.; Kaczmarek, H.; Linowski, S.; Marszelewski, W.; Kozyreva, E.A. Analysis of River Bank Erosion by Combined Airborne and Long-Range Terrestrial Laser Scanning: Preliminary Results on the Vistula River. Geodyn. Tectonophys. 2018, 9, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Legleiter, C.J. Downstream Effects of Recent Reservoir Development on the Morphodynamics of a Meandering Channel: Savery Creek, Wyoming, USA. River Res. Appl. 2015, 31, 1328–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Karmaker, T.; Dutta, S. Erodibility of Fine Soil from the Composite River Bank of Brahmaputra in India. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 25, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Zong, Q.; Xia, J.; Zhou, M.; Deng, S.; Zhang, Y. Modelling of the Retreat Process of Composite Riverbank in the Jingjiang Reach Using the Improved BSTEM. Hydrol. Process. 2017, 31, 4669–4681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Mishra, J.; Inoue, T.; Shimizu, Y.; Sumner, T.; Nelson, J.M. Consequences of Abrading Bed Load on Vertical and Lateral Bedrock Erosion in a Curved Experimental Channel. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 2018, 123, 3147–3161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Biswas, R.K.; Yorozuya, A.; Egashira, S. Numerical Model for Bank Erosion in the Brahmaputra River. J. Disaster Res. 2016, 11, 1073–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Fonstad, M.A.; Dietrich, J.T.; Courville, B.C.; Jensen, J.L.; Carbonneau, P.E. Topographic Structure from Motion: A New Development in Photogrammetric Measurement. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2013, 38, 421–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Longoni, L.; Papini, M.; Brambilla, D.; Barazzetti, L.; Roncoroni, F.; Scaioni, M.; Ivanov, V.I. Monitoring Riverbank Erosion in Mountain Catchments Using Terrestrial Laser Scanning. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Rosgen, D.L. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate. Proc. Seventh Fed. Interag. Sediment. Conf. 2001, 1, 97–106. [Google Scholar]
Water 14 01693 g001 550
Figure 1. Stages of the systematic review on erosion processes in margins.
Figure 1. Stages of the systematic review on erosion processes in margins.
Water 14 01693 g001
Water 14 01693 g002 550
Figure 2. Distribution of keyword occurrences in the relevant literature.
Figure 2. Distribution of keyword occurrences in the relevant literature.
Water 14 01693 g002
Water 14 01693 g003 550
Figure 3. Distribution of investigative focuses in the literature.
Figure 3. Distribution of investigative focuses in the literature.
Water 14 01693 g003
Water 14 01693 g004 550
Figure 4. Distribution of investigation techniques used to quantify margin erosion in the literature.
Figure 4. Distribution of investigation techniques used to quantify margin erosion in the literature.
Water 14 01693 g004
Table
Table 1. Inclusion criteria for reviewed studies.
Table 1. Inclusion criteria for reviewed studies.
CriterionInclusionExclusion
Type of literatureOriginal paperConference proceedings, review articles, early access, and editorial material
Timeline2010 to 2020Before 2010
Study locationRiver or reservoir banksCoastal zone
Investigation focusUse and coverage of riparian soils, physical characteristics of the margin, soil characteristics, floods, channel dynamics, river hydraulic force, direct impact of rain on the bank surface, soil wetting and drying cycle, abrasion by suspended sediment particles, changes in the flow regime caused by dams, more than one of these factors, other investigation focuses, methodological investigations (i.e., not directly addressing the impacts of these factors, but rather the application or comparison of techniques)Wave effects. Anthropogenic activities (e.g., cattle grazing) Ice–thaw cycle
LanguageEnglishOther languages
Table
Table 2. Study locations and techniques used for measuring erosion in margins.
Table 2. Study locations and techniques used for measuring erosion in margins.
Study SiteTechnique
>1 TechniqueModel ApplicationBiological EvidenceDirect MeasurementRemote Sensing
Dendrogeomorphological TechniqueErosion PinsLaser ScanningPhotogrammetryTotal StationSatellite Images
Australia1 22
Bangladesh11 7
Bosnia1
Brazil 1
Canada 3
China210 2 2 1
Colombia 1
Czech Republic 1 2
Denmark 3
Ecuador 1
Egypt 1
England 1
France21 2
Greece 1
Holland1
Hungary1 1
India 5 7
Iran 1 1 1
Italy11
Japan 2
Malaysia 1
Mexico 2
Morocco 1
Mongolia 1
New Zealand12
Pakistan1 2
Poland1 1
Serbia 1
Slovakia 1
South Korea 1
Switzerland 1
Turkey 1
United Kingdom 1
United States8711056
Vietnam 1
Total2143221915020
Table
Table 3. Techniques used to quantify and estimate margin erosion, as well as the focus of each study.
Table 3. Techniques used to quantify and estimate margin erosion, as well as the focus of each study.
Investigation Focus on Bank ErosionTechnique/Study
>1 TechniqueModel ApplicationBiological EvidenceDirect MeasurementRemote Sensing
Dendrogeomorphological
Technique		Erosion PinsLaser ScanningPhotogrammetryTotal StationSatellite Images
Other [42,43,44][40,41]
Methodological investigation[16,39,45,46,47,48,49,50][51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60] [61][62][1,14,63,64] [65,66,67]
Combination of factors[36,68][37,38,39,69,70,71,72,73,74,75] [3,76,77,78,79][80,81][82]
Channel dynamics[83,84,85][23,86,87,88,89,90,91] [8,15,92,93,94] [95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104]
Use and coverage riparian soil[105,106][24,107,108,109][110,111][10,26,112,113,114,115][27,29,116][25,28] [117,118]
Inundation[5,12,13,119,120] [31] [30] [4,121,122,123]
River hydraulic force [32,124,125,126] [11,127]
Changes in flow regime[128] [7,129][130][131]
Soil characteristics [33,132] [34]
Soil wetting and drying cycle [35,133] [17]
Abrasion by sediment particles [134]
Margin physical characteristics [135]
Direct impact of rain
Table
Table 4. Comparative analysis of field techniques for measuring erosion in margins.
Table 4. Comparative analysis of field techniques for measuring erosion in margins.
TechniqueAdvantagesDisadvantagesReferences
Total station surveyHigh precision. Technique can analyze the evolution of margin changes over time, and can be used on margins with vegetation with decreased risk of data loss. It is not necessary to leave the instruments in the field, thereby decreasing the possibility of research losses (compared to erosion pins). Difficulties in analyzing steeper margins or those with a lower cut. Lower spatial resolution.[16,119]
Direct measurement with erosion pinsCan be used in margins with vegetation with decreased risk of data loss. More cost effective (i.e., cheaper). Data processing does not require familiarity with software.Possibility of destabilizing the margin during installation and subsequent turbulence. Possible losses in research data due to pin loss via natural processes or human interference. Provides only a point estimate of erosion rate. Longer data collection times.[16,110]
Classical photogrammetryHigh spatial resolution. High precision.Decreased visibility from tree canopy. Limitations for evaluating margins with sloping surfaces. Relative inflexibility in image acquisition. Higher technology and processing costs when compared to SFM photogrammetry.[14,48]
SFM photogrammetryHigh spatial resolution. High precision (cm). High levels of image detail allow for the quantification margin retreat, and identification of erosive processes characteristics. High image operability and relatively lower operating costs. Rapid image acquisition and data processing. Technology allows the filtering of margin images with sparse vegetation.The presence of dense vegetation along the margins can generate error. Further difficulties imposed by solar glare on the water surface and shadows. Restrictive legislation. Requires technical knowledge for analysis and interpretation of certain phenomena. Camera resolution can be a limiting factor.[1,14,15,63]
Satellite imagesTechnique allows for multitemporal analysis. Enables large-scale investigations. Rapid data collection.Cloud cover can generate missing data. Image availability limited to specific time periods. Limited in separating the riverbank from water boundaries (water level fluctuations).[99,123]
Terrestrial laser scanningProvides a high-resolution data set. Multitemporal analysis. Allows for the analysis of steep margins. Ability to collect large data sets quickly.Equipment costs. Requires technical skills for GIS data processing. Limitations when scanning underwater topography, or measuring surfaces with dense vegetation.[16,137]
Aerial laser scanningProvides a high-resolution data set. Multitemporal analysis. Enables analysis in difficult-to-access areas. Helps detect margins that are the main sources of sediment. Ability to rapidly collect large data sets.Equipment costs. Limitations for evaluating margins with sloping surfaces.[27,40,80,130]
Dendrogeomorphological studyRapid field survey and ability to measure erosion over comparatively longer periods.Technique limited to areas with arboreal vegetation. Analyses depend on tree species. Lack of existing knowledge regarding how various species respond to root exposure.[110,111]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

de Souza Dias, V.; de Faria, K.M.S.; da Luz, M.P.; Formiga, K.T.M. Investigation and Quantification of Erosions in the Margins of Water Bodies: A Systematic Review. Water 2022, 14, 1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14111693

AMA Style

de Souza Dias V, de Faria KMS, da Luz MP, Formiga KTM. Investigation and Quantification of Erosions in the Margins of Water Bodies: A Systematic Review. Water. 2022; 14(11):1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14111693

Chicago/Turabian Style

de Souza Dias, Viviane, Karla Maria Silva de Faria, Marta Pereira da Luz, and Klebber Teodomiro Martins Formiga. 2022. "Investigation and Quantification of Erosions in the Margins of Water Bodies: A Systematic Review" Water 14, no. 11: 1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14111693

APA Style

de Souza Dias, V., de Faria, K. M. S., da Luz, M. P., & Formiga, K. T. M. (2022). Investigation and Quantification of Erosions in the Margins of Water Bodies: A Systematic Review. Water, 14(11), 1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14111693

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop