Spatial variation in total element concentration in soil within the Northern Great Plains coal region and Regional soil chemistry in Bighorn and Wind River basins, Wyoming and Montana

R. C. Severson; R.R. Tidball

doi:10.3133/pp1134ab

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · pp1134AB

Spatial variation in total element concentration in soil within the Northern Great Plains coal region and Regional soil chemistry in Bighorn and Wind River basins, Wyoming and Montana

R. C. Severson·R.R. Tidball

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PART A: To objectively determine the changes in chemical character of an area subjected to mining and reclamation, prior information is needed. This study represents a broadscale inventory of total chemical composition of the surficial materials of the Northern Great Plains coal region (western North and South Dakota, eastern Montana, and northeastern Wyoming); data are given for 41 elements in A and C soil horizons. An unbalanced, nested, analysis-of-variance design was used to quantify variation in total content of elements between glaciated and unglaciated terrains, for four increasingly smaller geographic scales, and to quantify variation due to sample preparation and analysis. From this statistical study, reliable maps on a regional basis (>100 km) were prepared for C, K, and Rb in A and C soil horizons; for N a, Si, Th, D, and Zn in A-horizon soil; and for As, Ca, Ge, and Mg in C-horizon soil. The distribution of variance components for the remaining 29 elements did not permit the construction of reliable maps. Therefore, a baseline value for each of these elements is given as a measure of the total element concentration in the soils of the Northern Great Plains coal region. The baseline is expressed as the 95-percent range in concentration to be expected in samples of natural soils. PART B: A reconnaissance study of total concentrations of 38 elements in samples of soils (0-40 cm deep, composite) from the Bighorn and Wind River Basins of Montana and Wyoming indicates that the geographic variation for most elements occurs locally (5 km or less). However, in the Bighorn Basin, Zn exhibits significant regional variation (between geologic units); and in the Wind River Basin, AI, Cr, K, Mn, Mo, Ni, U, and V exhibit similar variation. For the remaining elements, the lack of regional variation suggests that a single summary statistic can be used to estimate a baseline value that reflects the range in concentration to be expected in samples of soils in each basin. The concentrations of most of these elements in both basins are not much different from those measured independently in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming or in the Western United States. In addition, data from an analysis of variance provide an estimate of the number of random samples within an area of specified size (10 km square, approximately a township) that are needed to prepare a reliable map of total element concentration in soils for each of the elements in each of the basins.

Explore related subjects

Professional Paper Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 42.84375132629021° to 50.13466432216694° latitude; -109.88525390624999° to -100.08544921874999° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

R. C. Severson, R.R. Tidball. 1979. Spatial variation in total element concentration in soil within the Northern Great Plains coal region and Regional soil chemistry in Bighorn and Wind River basins, Wyoming and Montana. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1134ab

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗

USGS2026

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗

USGS2026

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗