2456 1 Online

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

size distributions can be very narrow, as commonly seen
Underwater acoustics in littoral and bottom-interacting
with well sorted sand, or be inclusive of diverse particle
ocean environments is strongly controlled by seabed proper-
sizes, as in heterogeneous muddy sediments which can
ties, and high-resolution geoacoustic data are needed to accu-
include clay, silt, and sand in varying proportions.
rately predict acoustic propagation and scattering in such
Additionally, organic matter can have a strong influence on
environments.1 Furthermore, seabed geoacoustic variability
sediment cohesive properties, particularly for fine-grained
introduced by geological, hydrodynamic, and biological pro-
sediments,5 and infaunal organisms can contribute to hori-
cesses can occur over a wide range of spatial scales ranging zontal and vertical variability near the seabed surface,
from fine-scale variability on the order of meters or less to known as the sediment-water interface.6
large-scale variability over kilometers.2 Understanding sea- Infauna are marine organisms that live within sedi-
bed geoacoustic variability at multiple spatial scales and over ments, generally within the top 10 cm of the surface.7
a wide frequency band is critical for the accurate prediction Depending on the community of organisms present, infauna
of underwater acoustic propagation and unbiased estimation can re-work the sediment in different ways, altering sedi-
of seabed properties in heterogeneous environments using ment physical properties, contributing to surface and volume
remote sensing methods.3,4 scattering, and affecting sediment cohesion.2,8–10
Marine sediments are complex physical and biological Bioturbation (the mixing of sediments) and other biogenic
systems. Bottom types can range from mud to sand to rock, processes can influence sediment physical properties, such
with various combinations of geologic and geomorphologic as porosity, permeability, and the presence of gas due to
organic decomposition by microbial processes.2 Infauna can
a)
Electronic mail: kevin.lee@arlut.utexas.edu affect grain size distributions through the production and
b)
Current address: The Water Institute of the Gulf, Baton Rouge, LA 70802,
distribution of fecal pellets, which can be deposited on the
USA.
c)
Also at: Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at sediment surface or in subsurface sediments and may be
Austin, Austin, TX 78713, USA. 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- II. EXPERIMENT
pended particles, aggregate them, and deposit them as
A. Overview
fecal pellets on the sediment surface. Bioirrigation of bur-
rows transports oxygen to anoxic subsurface sediments, A field experiment was conducted during May 8–11,
creating sharp redox gradients and modifying sediment 2017, in Petit Bois Pass, a channel that lies approximately
chemistry.12 Increased cohesion by exopolymeric substan- ten miles off the northern Gulf of Mexico coast and in
ces (EPS) secreted by microbes and microalgae can con- between the barrier islands of Petit Bois Island, Mississippi
tribute to enhanced shear strength near the sediment to the west and Dauphin Island, Alabama to the east
surface;13 however, infaunal organisms can substantially (Fig. 1). A seabed lander with acoustic probes (Fig. 2) was
reduce the stabilizing effects of EPS through bioturba- deployed from the vessel (the R/V E. O. Wilson) to the sea-
tion.14 These combined effects can manifest as temporal bed surface to collect in situ measurements of sediment
and spatial variability in compressional and shear wave sound speed, sound attenuation, and shear speed within the
propagation parameters in the seabed surficial sedi- top 20 cm of the sediment, spanning the depth range within
ment,15–19 which can impact acoustic scattering from and the sediment in which infaunal activities are expected, gen-
propagation into the seabed.20–28 Further investigation is erally in approximately the top 10 cm.7 Diver cores were
needed to determine the effects of infauna on sound propa- collected from each measurement location to sample the
gation in ocean bottom sediments, which could better sediment’s physical properties (bulk density, porosity, and
inform sonar operation in various shallow-water applica- grain size distribution), the local infauna distribution, and
tions, as well as the use of acoustics for remote sensing of the biogenic features of shell hash and worm tubes. Prior to
benthic ecosystems.29–31 destructive sampling, the cores were vertically scanned with
A deficiency that exists in our present understanding of an acoustic core logger to provide additional sound speed
sediment acoustics is that predictive models do not explic- and attenuation measurements. Vertical gradients were
itly account for the physical impacts of volume heterogene- examined within two sites, as infauna are most abundant
ities (e.g., infauna bodies or burrows, worm tubes, or shell near the sediment-water interface, and the experiment tar-
hash) on geoacoustic properties.32–34 Part of this stems from 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
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-
FIG. 2. (Color online) Components of the in situ acoustic measurement mining the effective sound speed of the entire core. Details
01 November 2023 23:59:45

apparatus: (a) compressional wave receiver and source, (b) shear wave of the core logger operation and data analysis are given in
receiver and source, (c) deployment platform with the acoustic measure-
ment apparatus. Ref. 44.
E. Diver core analysis

conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) probe were 1518 m s1
and 1521 m s1 at Sites 1 and 2, respectively. Three separate After the CARL measurements were completed, all
deployments of the in situ acoustic measurement system 7.6-cm-diameter cores (three per site, one per deployment
were conducted at each site within approximately 3 m of each location) were sectioned and analyzed for vertical profiles
other to sample intra-site variability in sediment acoustic of sediment bulk density, porosity, and grain size distribu-
properties. tion. The sieved material from the 15.2-cm-diameter cores
The in situ acoustic measurement system employed two (nine per site) was quantified by mass as well as abun-
sets of probes to measure compressional (60–100 kHz) and dance or number of animals to account for differences in
shear (0.2–0.9 kHz) waves in the sediment. Compressional size and density of infauna, hard worm tubes, and shell
waves were generated and received by custom-built, spike- hash. These quantities are reported both in terms of depth-
like probes with pointed tips that housed cylindrical lead integrated biomass per area for overall site comparisons
zirconate titanate (PZT) transducers [Fig. 2(a)], and and depth-separated biomass per core section volume for
circular-disk, bimorph piezoelectric benders housed in comparison with the measured acoustic gradients. The
custom-built, spear-like probes [Fig. 2(b)] transmitted and average worm tube diameter and shell fragment size are
received shear waves.41–43 The lander employed to deploy also reported.
the probes [Fig. 2(c)] was lowered from the ship’s A-frame In addition to considering total infauna biomass,
at each measurement location. Additional details of the mea- infauna were sorted into functional groups based on charac-
surements and data analysis used to extract sound speed and teristics such as body type (hard or soft), sediment activity
attenuation from the compressional wave measurements and (mixing or structuring), and type of worm tube (soft, hard,
shear speed from the shear wave measurements are given in or no worm tube). The four functional groups identified in
Ref. 44. 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
C. Diver core collection
physical inhomogeneities, e.g., shell fragments of similar
Several cores were collected by scuba divers at each in size; Soft-bodied, No tube, Mixing (SNM), which includes
situ measurement location so that sediment physical proper- various burrowing worms that modify bulk sediment proper-
ties, shell hash, worm tubes, and infauna distribution could ties by dilation or compaction; Soft-bodied, Hard-tube,
be characterized. Three 15.2-cm-diameter cores and one Structuring (SHS) worms that build tubes consisting of
2458 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152 (4), October 2022 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
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
cp It is important to note that the VGS model does not

ss ¼ sp : (9)
cs explicitly include the effects of shell hash, worm tubes,
infauna, or other inhomogeneities in the medium, affecting
The remaining VGS parameters related to the stresses the accuracy of the model predictions when such inclusions
and strains associated with inter-granular motion are the are present. This has been noted previously, particularly in
compressional and shear moduli, cp and cs, and the strain- regard to comparison of sound attenuation predictions with
hardening index n. The arbitrary time normalization previous sediment acoustics measurements.33 Furthermore,
constant T was introduced by Buckingham in his original the model does not account for grain-size heterogeneity but
derivation of the grain-shearing theory to keep quantities assumes a single grain size u. In practice, the mean grain
raised to the fractional power of n dimensionless; however, size is often used for this model input parameter, as is done
he showed that the expressions for sound and shear speed here, for sediments with a distribution of grain sizes.
and attenuation are independent of the value of T, which
was taken to be T ¼ 1 s for convenience.36 IV. CORE ANALYSIS RESULTS
The VGS model employs a sub-model that considers
A. Sediment bulk properties and grain size
the effects of overburden pressure on the grain-to-grain con-
tacts, which imparts dependence of compressional and shear Comparison of depth profiles of the sediment bulk den-
moduli on depth in the sediment d, grain size u, porosity b, sity, porosity, and grain size distribution from each core col-
and the elastic properties of the mineral grains.33,40 In the lection location within both sites demonstrates the level of
case where porosity, grain size, and elastic properties of the intra-site variability in sediment properties (Fig. 4). For each
grains are homogeneous with depth, the expressions for cp of these parameters, the measured profiles within a single
and cs are given by site tended to be consistent with each other, and there were
" #1=3 only a handful of outliers present.
ð1 bÞduH1 In Site 1, the bulk density was highest near the
cp ¼ cp0 (10) sediment-water interface and decreased with depth into the
ð1 b0 Þd0 u0 H01
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
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- group, which includes larger hard-bodied or hard-shelled
namic environment. Site 2 was near the western edge of the animals such as brittle stars, crustaceans, and mollusks that
pass and potentially less affected by current, and thereby burrow in the sediment. The body sizes of many of the
better able to retain finer grains near the seabed surface. For HNM animals were on the order of 1 cm or greater, thus
the grain size distributions here, the inclusive standard devi- they are potential acoustic scatterers at the upper end of the
ation was 1 < rI < 2:5, indicating poorly to very poorly acoustic frequencies used in this experiment.
sorted grain size distributions based on the descriptive ter- Another functional group of potential acoustic signifi-
minology of Folk and Ward,52 in contrast to sediment acous- cance at these sites was the soft-bodied, hard-tube, struc-
tic model assumptions of a well sorted distribution turing (SHS) group, which included hard-tube-building
characterized by the mean grain size. worms such as Owenia and Diopatra. These animals struc-
ture the sediment by building tubes made from shell frag-
B. Infauna, worm tubes, and shell hash ments, sediment, and mucus. Although the biomass of SHS
was lower than that of the hard-bodied group, the mass of
Because the distributions of the depth-integrated mass tubes was high, especially at Site 1, which had an approxi-
per surface area of infauna, worm tubes, and shell hash from mately six times greater median hard worm tube mass than
the cores at each site tend to have a great deal of spread and Site 2, primarily from the polychaete, Owenia fusiformis
contain several outliers, the results are reported in terms of (Table I). The diameter of the Owenia tubes ranged
median and interquartile range instead of mean and standard between 2 and 5 mm (2.6 6 1.0 mm at Site 1 and
deviation (Table I). For comparison, the depth-integrated 2.8 6 1.6 mm at Site 2, mean 6 standard deviation), but
mass per surface area was estimated from cores that were the tube can extend from above the surface down to
processed for sediment properties. Infauna, hard worm 5–10 cm depth; therefore, they are also good candidate
tubes, and shell hash represented approximately 0.02%, acoustic scatterers.
0.03%, and 0.3% of the mass per surface area of the overall The soft-bodied, soft tube, structuring (SSS) and soft-
seabed material, respectively. bodied, no tube, mixing (SNM) functional groups were also
The total infauna biomass per site was similar, with the present, although in small biomass quantities that were simi-
Site 1 median value being approximately 1.5 times greater lar between the sites. Thus, it is assumed that these animals
than Site 2. Most of the animal biomass at both sites fell had less potential influence on the sediment and, hence, the
into the hard-bodied, no tube, mixing (HNM) functional acoustics at these sites.
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 cussed. We then present broadband comparison of the
seen between the two sites in terms of hard worm tube mass acoustic data with the VGS model, and we examine vertical
density ntube vertical profiles. The mean value of ntube in the profiles of sound speed ratio, attenuation, and shear speed.
upper 7.5 cm of the sediment was approximately eight times
A. VGS model parameter selection
higher at Site 1 than at Site 2. The shell hash mass density
nsh profiles displayed less steep vertical gradients than As implemented here, the VGS model equations [Eqs.
infauna or worm tube mass density, thus they were (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.
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
X 2
physical parameters (b, qf, qs, Bf, Bs, H, d, and u), ten fixed E ¼ min Mðs0 ; fj Þ cð fj Þ ; (15)
0 s
constants (cp0 ; cs0 , b0, d0, u0, H0, qs0 , q0, n, and T), and the j
two viscoelastic time constants sp;s . All of the measurable
parameters can be obtained from either the literature or anal- where Mðs0 ; fj Þ is the modeled sound speed at the jth fre-
ysis of the sediment cores, pore fluid, or bottom water prop- quency for the value s0 of the viscoelastic time constant and
erties. Tabulated values for pore fluid density qf, grain cð fj Þ is the measured sound speed. After the best-fit value of
bulk modulus Bs, grain density qs, and H were taken from sp was found for each site, computed high-frequency values
the literature.2,40 Pore fluid bulk modulus was estimated of sound speed and shear speed well above the compres-
using the pore fluid density and mean measured bottom sional threshold frequency (ft;p ¼ 1=2psp ) were used to cal-
water sound speed, Bf ¼ qf c2f . For depth-dependent data- culate ss from Eq. (9).
model comparisons, vertical profiles of porosity b and mean The best-fit values of sp and ss for each site are listed in
grain size u averaged over the various core measurements Table III, and these parameters were then combined with
shown in Fig. 4 were directly input into the VGS model. vertical profiles of porosity and mean grain size from the
Although the grain size fraction varied with depth in the cores as inputs to the VGS model. Average vertical profiles
sediment, the predominate grain size classes were sand and were computed from the porosity and mean grain size data
silt; therefore, single values of qs, Bs, and H for quartz were shown in Fig. 4 and were used as direct inputs to the VGS
used. The fixed constants were given in previously pub- model to produce depth-dependent predictions of cp, ap, and
lished literature40 and are listed in Table II, and the visco- cs for comparison with the acoustic data. To calculate the
elastic time constants were determined by a fit to the depth-dependent compressional and shear moduli, each core
broadband sound speed ratio data. section was treated as a sediment layer, and the porosity,
The compressional viscoelastic time constant sp was grain size, and thickness of each section were input
obtained by fitting Eq. (1) to the broadband (8–300 kHz) directly into Eqs. (13) and (14). The depth-dependent VGS
combined in situ and CARL sound speed ratio data sets. models were then computed at the same frequencies as the
For this fit, the model was implemented with a homoge- in situ and high-frequency CARL measurements for direct
neous sediment with compressional and shear moduli 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
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
grain size decreased and the porosity increased with increas- exceed the model predictions at shallower depths. Scatter in the
ing depth, leading to a predicted sound speed ratio profile high-frequency sound speed data at Site 2 encompasses the
with a negative gradient (i.e., sound speed decreases with range of depth-dependent VGS predictions; however, there is
depth). Site 2 had more uniform porosity and mean grain little correlation between the shallower measurements and
size profiles, thus the predicted sound speed increases with predictions.
depth (a positive sound speed gradient). Site 1 sound speed ratio decreased with sediment depth
The low-frequency sound speed data from CARL’s reso- (Fig. 7), which was more evident in the CARL measure-
nance mode (Fig. 6) represent the effective sound speed of the ments because the in situ measurements had much coarser
entire core averaged over the entire 20-cm measurement depth depth-resolution and did not extend closer to the interface
interval. The measured low-frequency sound speed ratios than 5 cm. As noted previously, this decrease in sound speed
tended to be less than unity, indicating that at low frequencies ratio with depth was in part due to the increase in porosity
the sediment was acoustically similar to mud at both sites, and and decrease in mean grain size with depth at this site. In
the low-frequency CARL measurements approached the depth- situ sound speed ratio measurements at Site 1 tend to be
averaged VGS low-frequency limits for each site. Similar to higher than the VGS model predictions by approximately
the VGS prediction, there was an increase in sound speed 2%–5%, and this difference is greatest at the lowest frequen-
between the low-frequency CARL measurements and the cies where the in situ measurements partially overlapped the
higher frequency in situ measurements, and sound speed vari- transition region predicted by the VGS model. Site 1 high-
ability was greatest in the high-frequency CARL measure- frequency CARL measurements in the 4–20 cm depth inter-
ments. The high-frequency sound speed values at Site 1 were val are in good agreement with the predicted sound speed
approximately 2.5% higher than those at Site 2. The deeper ratio profile; however, the measurements deviate from the
high-frequency CARL measurements from Site 1 agree better predicted sound speed ratio in the 1–4 cm interval closest to
with the deeper VGS-predicted sound speed ratios, but they 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.
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 k ¼ 1.23 for Site 2, revealing a departure from linear fre-
increases. In contrast, both the in situ and CARL sound quency dependence.
speed ratio measurements are in better agreement with the Based on the porosity and grain size vertical profile
VGS model at Site 2; however, variability in the measure- measurements from the cores, the VGS model predicts
ments is greatest at this site in the 1–4 cm interval CARL increasing attenuation with depth at both sites, in which the
measurements, as is the discrepancy between the data and attenuation at Site 1 is expected to double with increasing
the model. Finally, both in situ and high-frequency CARL depth in the 1–20 cm interval and increase by a factor of 2.3
data sets include measurements at a frequency of 100 kHz, in the same interval at Site 2 (Fig. 8). Note that the measured
and it should be noted that the data points from these differ- and predicted gradients do not change much across the
ent measurement systems overlap at this frequency. 60–300 kHz band for both sites, whereas the measurement-
model deviation increases with frequency. The in situ atten-
2. Attenuation uation measurements at both sites are over-predicted by the
VGS model by factors between 1.4 and 2.7, with larger
Below the threshold frequency ft;p , the VGS model pre- data-model deviation observed at the lowest frequencies.
dicts that the attenuation scales with frequency squared, High-frequency CARL measurements at both sites are in
whereas above the threshold frequency the attenuation is good agreement between 100 and 140 kHz below 4 cm,
expected to scale approximately linearly with frequency. although the model tended to under-predict the data above
The lowest frequency in situ attenuation measurements 4 cm. Like the sound speed profiles, the variability in the
(60 kHz) are just above the expected threshold so no data attenuation measurements is highest in the 1–4 cm interval.
are available for comparison with the predicted sub- As noted, before, the high-frequency CARL attenuation
threshold frequency dependence (Fig. 6). The attenuation measurements are under-predicted by the VGS model in the
data between 60 and 140 kHz roughly agree with the VGS 180–300 kHz band, and this disagreement occurs over a
prediction, although a good deal of variability is present in greater portion of the measurement depth-interval as the fre-
the data, which is not captured by the depth-dependent quency increases (Fig. 8). This is most apparent at 300 kHz,
model predictions. Above 180 kHz, the attenuation data where there is higher attenuation measured than predicted
appear to depart from the approximately linear frequency for most of the measurement depth interval. There is greater
dependence predicted by the VGS model. Indeed, compar- deviation between the attenuation measurements and model
ing the high-frequency CARL data above 180 kHz to a at Site 1, particularly at higher frequencies, which could be
power law fit, ap f k , we find that k ¼ 1.31 for Site 1 and influenced by the greater abundance of hard worm tubes at
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
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
01 November 2023 23:59:45

plot.
Site 1, which might have more of an effect as frequency speeds tend to skew roughly 50% lower than the best-fit
increases. model predicts on average, indicating the sediment is
slightly softer than is predicted by the VGS model based on
3. Shear speed the porosity and mean grain size inputs from the cores.
Values of shear speed measured at both sites range
VI. RELATING DATA-MODEL DEVIATION
between 10 and 40 m s1 (Figs. 6 and 9). The VGS model TO BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
shear speed prediction overlaps with the measurements at
the lower end of the 0.2–0.9 kHz band; however, the mea- In this section, relationships between the deviation from
sured shear speed displays little variation with either depth the acoustic data to the VGS model and infauna, worm tube,
or frequency, which is in disagreement with the model. Note and shell hash mass density profiles are examined to test the
that the shear threshold frequency, ft;s ¼ 1=2pss , is 1.7 kHz hypothesis that the infaunal community alters sediment
for Site 1 and 1.5 kHz for Site 2, placing the measurement acoustic properties. Although correlations between the data-
band in the transition regime where greater dispersion would model deviation and benthic parameters (e.g., sound speed
be expected. If the shear viscoelastic time constant is set to deviation vs infauna biomass density) are not necessarily an
ss ¼ 1, however, the resulting VGS model prediction indication of cause-and-effect relationship, such correlations
(dashed lines in Fig. 6) exceeds the data by more than a fac- or the lack of correlation are useful in establishing what
tor of two with no overlap between the model and data. It is parameter combinations might be important and could lead
worth noting that in other recent applications of the VGS to more directed future research. Some general data-model
model, the shear viscoelastic time constant is taken to either deviation metrics are introduced first, followed by results of
be infinite39,40 or orders magnitude larger than the best fit the correlation analysis focused on the high-frequency
values here;53,54 however, there have been very little shear CARL data.
wave data in those applications to justify otherwise. The
A. Data-model deviation metrics
predicted shear speed gradient displays an approximately
cubic-root power-law depth dependence (Fig. 9). The in situ To quantify the data-model deviation at each measure-
shear speed data tend to cluster around the mean measured ment frequency and depth, the following quantity dk;j is
shear speed of 25.3 m s1, which is close to the predicted defined:
shear speed at 0.2 kHz at both sites; however, the data-
model deviation increases as the frequency increases for the Dk;j Mk;j
dk;j ¼ ; (16)
entire measurement depth interval. The measured shear Mk;j
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 deviation increases in the 1–4 cm interval, particularly for
prediction, respectively, at the kth frequency and jth depth. Site 1, where the absolute value of the sound speed devia-
Note that dk;j accounts for the sign of the deviation (i.e., tion reaches as high as 5% in the top centimeter for the
measurements higher or lower than predicted), which can be high-frequency CARL data.
readily observed in Figs. 7–9. Cumulative attenuation deviation (Fig. 10) is similar at
Another useful metric is the cumulative data-model both sites for the in situ and high-frequency CARL measure-
deviation, which is the root mean square over all frequencies ments in the 5–20 cm depth interval with absolute values
for a given depth: under 50%, but the CARL attenuation measurements in the
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1–4 cm interval show a steep increase in cumulative data-
1 X 2
jDj j ¼ dk;j ; (17) model deviation with absolute values reaching the
Nj k 100%–200% range. The cumulative attenuation deviation
skews higher at Site 1 than Site 2 in the upper 3 cm of
where Nj is the number of data-model pairs over all frequen-
sediment.
cies at a given depth. Vertical profiles of the cumulative
Finally, because shear speed data were only collected
data-model deviation can be computed separately for each
using the in situ system, measurements were only available
of the three measured acoustic parameters (cp, ap, and cs) to
in the 5–20 cm interval. The cumulative shear speed devia-
give a succinct picture of the data-model deviation as a
tion is between 7 and 27% in this interval and suggests that
function of sediment depth. In the following analysis and
deviation decreases with depth at Site 1 and increases with
discussion, the subscripts j and k will be suppressed for con-
depth at Site 2. However, because shear speed data were not
ciseness. The frequency-dependent data-model deviation
available in the 1–4 cm interval, it is not known whether any
will be denoted dcp ; dap , and dcs , and the cumulative
significant increase in the shear speed data-model deviation
absolute-value data-model deviation will be denoted jDcp j;
would be seen in this interval, as in the case of the sound
jDap j, and jDcs j for sound speed, attenuation, and shear
speed and attenuation deviation.
speed, respectively.
There was lower cumulative data-model deviation
B. Correlation analysis
(Fig. 10) associated with the high-frequency CARL sound
speeds compared to the in situ sound speeds for the A few comments are made on the acoustic data used for
5–20 cm depth interval, but absolute values of the cumula- the correlation analysis. The high-frequency CARL data set
tive sound speed error tend to stay below approximately provides greater depth resolution (1-cm steps in the 1–4 cm
2% for both data sets in this interval. The sound speed interval, 2-cm steps in the 6–20 cm interval) than the in situ
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
01 November 2023 23:59:45

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- the data from both sites were combined to increase the num-
ing a more detailed description of the depth-dependence, ber of data points N, and the Pearson correlation coefficient
particularly in the uppermost layer of sediment. Only the r was computed. Additionally, p-values were computed for
high-frequency CARL data extend into the 1–4 cm depth each variable pair to assess whether the reported correlation
interval and having data in this interval is crucial for com- was statistically significant, using the p < 0.05 criterion.
parison with the worm tube mass and infauna biomass, since There was statistically significant positive correlation
this interval has the highest concentration of those quanti- between infauna biomass density and the cumulative data-
ties. The high-frequency CARL measurements extend to the model deviation for sound speed (r ¼ 0.32, N ¼ 76) and atten-
frequency band where a significant deviation of the mea- uation (r ¼ 0.42, N ¼ 78) (Fig. 11). The highest correlation
sured attenuation from the VGS model was observed was found between hard worm tube mass density and cumu-
(f > 180 kHz). Therefore, this data set is most useful in lative attenuation error (r ¼ 0.62, N ¼ 61), although this was
investigating whether the data-model deviation is correlated driven primarily by two samples from Site 1 with very high
with the presence of the infauna, worm tubes, or shell hash. worm tube density (Fig. 5). No significant correlation was
Only CARL data from the 15.2-cm cores were used for found between hard worm tube mass density and cumulative
this analysis since these cores provided the measurements of sound speed deviation or between shell hash mass density
infauna biomass, worm tubes, and shell hash. The high- and either sound speed or attenuation deviation.
frequency CARL sound speed and attenuation data were Correlation coefficients were also computed as a func-
sorted into bins that matched the 15.2-cm-diameter core section of frequency for the frequency-dependent data-model
tions so the two data sets could be compared. These bins deviation dcp and dap . Each correlation coefficient value
were in the following intervals: 0–2.5 cm, 2.5–7.5 cm, was obtained from data pairs spanning all available sedi-
7.5–12.5 cm, 12.5–17.5 cm, and 17.5–22.5 cm. ment depths, similar to the scatter plots shown in Fig. 11,
The acoustic variables considered in this analysis were but for each measurement frequency (Fig. 12). Correlation
the depth-dependent cumulative and frequency-dependent of sound speed deviation with infauna biomass density had
sound speed and attenuation data-model deviation values between r ¼ 0.3 and r ¼ 0.4 for the 140–300 kHz
(jDcp j; jDap j; dcp ; dap ), and the biologically related varia- band, whereas there was no significant correlation at any
bles considered were depth-dependent densities of infauna frequency between sound speed deviation and hard worm
biomass, hard worm tube mass, and shell hash mass tube mass density or shell hash mass density. For attenuation
(ninf ; ntube ; nsh ). For each acoustic-biological variable pair, data-model deviation, there was significant correlation with
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 A deficiency of the data set is that there were only two
entire 100–300 kHz band (r > 0.5). sites, and they vary in more than two parameters. Therefore,
it is difficult to isolate the effects of the worm tubes, the
VII. DISCUSSION infauna themselves, specific functional groups, shell hash,
A. Spatial variability in biological and acoustic or gradients in grain size and porosity between the two sites
properties and which of these features result in higher variability and
model deviation. We note that the grain size and porosity
Although the two sites in this study were geographi- profiles are direct inputs to the VGS model; therefore, the
cally very close and both contained primarily silt and sand, depth-dependent heterogeneity in sediment type is captured
there were several key differences between the sites. Site 1 to some extent in the depth-dependent profiles of acoustic
had a gradient from sandy to siltier sediment with increas- parameters predicted by the model. Thus, by looking at
ing depth, whereas the sediment at Site 2 was more verti- where the data-model deviation is highest, we focus on bio-
cally mixed. Site 1 had nearly the same total infauna genic effects not accounted for by the model.
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 B. Depth-dependence of biological and acoustic
properties
worm tube density near the surface than Site 2, which is
notable because hard worm tubes have been shown to Comparison of the measured sound speed and attenua-
increase attenuation at acoustic frequencies greater than tion with the VGS model predictions indicated better overall
100 kHz.19 Also, noted, Site 1 had about twice as much data-model agreement at sediment depths greater than 5 cm
shell hash as Site 2. Consistent with our hypotheses, Site 1, below the sediment-water interface than in the near-surface
with greater biological activity, also had higher variability layer. Increased variability in the sound speed and attenua-
in acoustic properties and deviation from the acoustic tion measurements also occurred in the upper 1–4 cm of the
model. sediment at both sites. At both sites, most of the infaunal
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

FIG. 12. (Color online) Pearson correlation coefficient r as a function of Site 1 offers a possible explanation for this difference
frequency for sound speed and attenuation data-model deviation. Different between the two sites. Previous laboratory studies with sim-
colors indicate the biological variables: infauna biomass density ninf ulated infauna in homogenized sediment indicated that the
(circles), worm tube mass density ntube (squares), and shell hash mass den-
sity nsh (diamonds). Correlation coefficients with p < 0.05 are highlighted presence of a single worm tube comprised of shell material
with black outlines around the data markers. 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-
animals (70%) were found in the upper 7.5 cm of the sedi- tory experiment. In this previous study, the effect on sound
ment, consistent with global patterns.7 Of parameters not speed was negligible; however, multiple worm tubes and
included in the model, neither shell hash mass density nor burrows within the acoustic propagation path are expected
mean shell fragment size had significant vertical gradients, to lead to a larger effect. Although such a controlled com-
yet there were strong vertical gradients in the deviation and parison (tubes/no tubes) could not be made in the present
variability, suggesting that infauna or worm tubes had more field experiment, the increased data-model attenuation devi-
influence than shell hash. ation observed is likely, at least in part, due to the presence
First, we examine volume scattering from shell hash as of multiple tubes and burrows. Further, the variability in the
a potential cause of the data-model disagreement and the measurements in the top 1–4 cm interval is expected to
variability in the measurements. The shell hash mass density result from patchiness in the distribution of worm tubes and
was relatively constant in the top 20 cm (Fig. 5), compared burrows. The correlation analysis reported in Sec. VI sug-
to stronger vertical infauna and worm tube gradients that gests that the sound speed and attenuation data-model devia-
were observed. The high-frequency attenuation data-model tion was correlated to the total overall infauna biomass
deviation occurs over greater portion of the measurement
density and that there was an even stronger correlation
depth-interval instead of being limited to the top 1–4 cm, as
between the attenuation data-model deviation and hard
the frequency increases (Fig. 8). This disagreement is most
worm tube mass density, which provides a plausible expla-
pronounced for the CARL measurements at the highest two
nation for the difference in variability and data-model devia-
or three frequencies (in the 180–300 kHz band). Multiple
tion between the sites.
scattering effects are expected to become important for
kd ⲏ 0:5, where k is the wavenumber and d is the size of the
C. Potential sources of experimental error
scatterer, and can lead to negative sound speed dispersion
and enhanced attenuation.55 The shell fragment size in the As part of the data-model deviation discussion, several
measurement depth interval was dsh ¼ 3:5 6 1:6 mm at Site possible sources of error in the measurements should be
1 and dsh ¼ 2:3 6 1:3 mm at Site 2 (mean 6 standard devia- acknowledged, along with steps that were taken to mitigate
tion). Based on the average shell hash size and sound speed that error. Specifically, we discuss the following here:
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
(a) measurement of porosity from the cores, (b) the effect of and shell hash provide a unique data set for testing sediment
coupling between the in situ probes and the sediment on the acoustics models such as VGS or others and for evaluating
amplitude measurements, and (c) potential timing errors in potential reasons that the models fail. The increased data-
the time delay measurements. Further detail on the measure- model deviation for at high frequencies is particularly inter-
ment procedures and data analysis for all of the measured esting, as these are the frequencies at which we would
quantities are given in Ref. 44. expect inhomogeneities like infauna, tubes, and shell hash to
Regarding the porosity and bulk density measurements, have the largest effect.
evaluating water content from core samples is notoriously The low-frequency CARL resonance mode sound speed
difficult because manipulation of the sediment invariably measurements are consistent with the VGS model transition
involves loss of intergranular water; however, efforts were from high-frequency behavior to the Mallock-Wood sound speed
taken to minimize water loss during collection and labora- low-frequency limit, which is c0 =cf 0:985 for both sites. The
tory sampling of the cores.44 Furthermore, the expressions transition occurs at higher frequency (ft;p 26:5 kHz) than
used to derive porosity and bulk density from the water con- previously estimated for sand (ft;p 1:3 kHz)37,40 or mud
tent measurements did not rely on precise knowledge of the (ft;p < 100 Hz),40,53,54 as shown in Fig. 13. Furthermore, the
volume of the sediment samples, but rather on the wet and low-frequency shear speed measurements, with an average
dry weights of the samples, which were measured, and the value of approximately 25 m s1, are consistent with a shear
densities of the pore water and mineral grains, which are threshold frequency of ft;s 720 Hz, suggesting a softer sedi-
well known,2,44 thereby removing uncertainty contributed ment than would be predicted by lower values of ft;s that have
from the sample volume. been previously suggested for muddy sediment.40,53,54 In the
Another potential source of error in evaluating the data- VGS model, ft;p and ft;s are threshold frequencies above
model deviation could arise from inefficient coupling which the effects of pore fluid viscosity become negligible
between the in situ probes and sediment, particularly in the for compressional and shear waves, respectively. This can
top several centimeters of sediment where the sediment also be interpreted as a threshold wavelength kt, related to the
matrix is easily disturbed. Below 5 cm (the depth range of threshold frequencies via the wave speeds.38 For the sedi-
the in situ measurements), it was assumed that the loading ments here, kt 0:4 cm, which represents a much smaller
01 November 2023 23:59:45

of the sediment was the same on both in situ receivers, but it spatial scale compared to threshold wavelengths based on
is possible that heterogeneity in the sediment physical prop- previous estimates for viscoelastic time constants for either
erties or the distributions of shell hash, worm tubes, or sand or mud.
infauna could cause the two receivers to sense different There are two plausible physical explanations for the
loading. However, we note that the sound speed and attenua- best-fit values of the viscoelastic time constants being incon-
tion data from the upper few centimeters, where the data- sistent with previous findings. One possible explanation is
model deviation was greatest, came from the high-frequency that organic matter and clay flocs likely fill much of the inter-
CARL measurements. For these measurements, constant stitial spaces between the larger silt and sand grains and the
coupling was maintained between the transducers and the intergranular fluid behavior has changed. Quantification of
core liner so this would not have been a factor in the data- the organic matter from the core samples, for instance in
model deviation observed in the top several centimeters terms of total organic carbon or EPS, and comparison with
(0–5 cm). reported values of organic carbon or EPS for other sediments
Time delay measurements depend on accurate determi- would provide some insight. Although these data are not
nation of the cross correlation peak, which can be compli- available for the present experiment, previous work has indi-
cated that organic matter has an effect not only on the cohe-
cated when there is high attenuation or distortion of the
sive nature of sediment but potentially on the sediment
signal by scattering from inhomogeneities. Time delays
acoustic properties as well.42,56 An alternative possible expla-
were computed using the cross correlation between the two
nation is that the fit is erroneously capturing some physical
receivers for the in situ probe measurements and between
effect that is separate from the viscoelastic response of the
the source and receiver in the case of the high-frequency
sediment. Because the inhomogeneities (infauna, worm tubes,
CARL measurements. To mitigate this problem, the data we
shell hash) are expected to have an impact on the sediment
manually checked and adjusted if obvious misalignment
acoustic properties, it is reasonable to assume that they may
from selecting the wrong peaks was observed. In a very
impact those properties in ways that change the frequency-
small number of ambiguous or unreliable cases, those data
dependence of the sediment acoustic response and, in turn,
were omitted.
impact the values of the viscoelastic time constants deter-
mined from the model-data fit. This does not necessarily indi-
D. Applicability of VGS model
cate that the physics behind the time constants have changed,
Very few previous sediment acoustics data sets include but instead it suggests that erroneous values may have been
measurements of sound speed, attenuation, and shear wave found from the fitting process that does not reflect the actual
speed in as large of a frequency band as presented here. physics taking place between the grains.
These acoustic data coupled with the sediment physical Finally, the choice of sediment acoustics model is also
parameter profiles and distributions of infauna, worm tubes, a factor that should be considered regarding the data-model
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
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.
01 November 2023 23:59:45

deviation. The VGS model does not include losses arising VIII. CONCLUSIONS
from poroelastic effects,34 which would occur at higher fre-
The measurements of sediment acoustic, physical, and
quencies if relative motion between the pore fluid and the
biological parameters presented in this paper suggest that
sediment skeletal frame is important in this sediment. This
infauna and their activities (a) increase variability in sound
additional loss mechanism leads to a different frequency
speed and attenuation and (b) lead to deviation from the
dependence at high frequency (proportional to f2), and hence
VGS model predictions. Measurements of sound speed and
using a poroelastic model for mud, such as the one proposed
attenuation indicated a higher degree of acoustic variability
by Chotiros,57 could potentially improve the data-model
agreement; however, how important poroelastic effects are near the sediment surface where most of the infauna were
in sediments in which the interstitial spaces are largely filled present than at greater depths within the sediment. The
with clay or organic matter is an open question. Current acoustic variability was greatest at the site with more hard
implementations of the VGS and Biot models take only a worm tube mass. The sound speed and attenuation data were
single grain size as an input parameter, most often the mean compared with the VGS model to assess where the model
grain size, which is most appropriate for well sorted sedi- was in agreement with the measured wave speeds and atten-
ments, but perhaps not as appropriate for poorly sorted sedi- uation and where it was deficient. Depth-dependent porosity
ments, as found in this work. The silt-suspension mud and mean grain size were input directly into the VGS model
model58,59 explicitly incorporates the full grain size distribu- to account for variation in the sediment acoustic parameters
tion into a card-house matrix of clay platelets and flocs; due to variation in sediment physical parameters. Overall,
however, the silt-suspension model likely does not apply to the VGS model compared well with the measured sound
sediment containing as much sand as the one here, as large speeds across a wide range of frequencies; however, signifi-
sand grains would not be expected to hold in suspension. cant deviation between the measured high-frequency
None of the models mentioned here explicitly include (100–300 kHz) sound speeds and the VGS model was
effects of soft organic matter in the interstitial spaces or on observed in the depth interval closest to the sediment sur-
the surfaces of larger silt or sand grains. A model that incor- face. Attenuation measurements were typically higher than
porates the full grain size distribution, effects of clay floccu- the VGS predictions, again particularly close to the sedi-
lation and organic matter in interstitial spaces, and larger ment surface where infauna and worm tubes were most
scatterers (i.e., worm tubes or shell hash) would likely better abundant and also at the highest frequencies (> 180 kHz).
account for the variability observed in the acoustic data, as We note that the VGS model is intended to provide a predic-
long as the model inputs could be well defined; however, tion of the minimum intrinsic attenuation in clean sediment
such a model does not currently exist to the best knowledge without any other components, and should not be expected
of the authors. to predict the overall effective attenuation when infauna,
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
8
worm tubes, shell hash, or other inhomogeneities are present P. S. Meadows and J. Tait, “Modification of sediment permeability and
in the medium,33 and the measurements presented in this shear strength by two burrowing invertebrates,” Mar. Biol. 101, 75–82
paper are consistent with that notion. (1989).
9
H. Murray, A. Meadows, and P. S. Meadows, “Biogeomorphological
Another finding of this work was that the VGS com- implications of microscale interactions between sediment geotechnics and
pressional viscoelastic time constant determined from the marine benthos: A review,” Geomorphology 47, 15–30 (2002).
10
data-model fit was inconsistent with previous estimates for A. K. Hannides, S. M. Dunn, and R. C. Aller, “Diffusion of organic and
either sand or mud, and hence the associated threshold fre- inorganic solutes through macrofaunal mucus secretions and tube linings
in marine sediments,” J. Mar. Res. 63, 957–981 (2005).
quency was much higher. There are two possible explana- 11
D. C. Rhoads and L. F. Boyer, “The effects of marine benthos on physical
tions for this inconsistency that are related to the infauna: properties of sediments: A successional perspective,” in Animal-Sediment
(1) the properties of the inter-granular pore fluid have been Relations: The Biogenic Alteration of Sediments, edited by P. L. McCall
altered by seabed biological activity or (2) the fit has errone- and M. J. Teveszl (Plenum Press, New York, 1982), pp. 3–52.
12
N. Volkenborn, L. Polerecky, S. Hedtkamp, J. Beusekom, and D. Beer,
ously captured an unknown physical effect that is separate “Bioturbation and bioirrigation extend the open exchange regions in per-
from the viscoelastic response. Additionally, the shear speed meable sediments,” Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 1898–1909 (2007).
13
measurements indicated that the sediment at both sites was S. U. Gerbersdorf, R. Bittner, H. Lubarsky, W. Manz, and D. M.
Patterson, “Microbial assemblages as ecosystem engineers of sediment
softer than would be predicted by previous implementations
stability,” J. Soils Sed. 9, 640–652 (2009).
of the VGS model that did not include sufficiently small 14
E. Deckere, T. J. Tolhurst, and J. Brouwer, “Destabilization of cohesive
shear viscoelastic time constant. The fact that the shear vis- intertidal sediments by infauna,” Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 53, 665–669
coelastic time constant is coupled to the compressional vis- (2001).
15
M. D. Richardson, D. K. Young, and K. B. Briggs, “Effects of hydrody-
coelastic time constant though the threshold wavelength namic and biological processes on sediment geoacoustic properties in
suggests that the aforementioned possibilities also apply to Long Island Sound, U.S.A,” Mar. Geol. 52, 201–226 (1983).
16
the shear wave. However, the true causes of these disparities S. E. Jones and C. F. Jago, “In situ assessment of modification of
cannot be determined from the present work, and their reso- sediment properties by burrowing invertebrates,” Mar. Biol. 115,
133–142 (1993).
lution is left for a topic of further research. 17
K. B. Briggs and M. D. Richardson, “Small-scale fluctuations in acoustic
and physical properties in surficial carbonate sediments and their relation-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 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.
This work was supported by the Office of Naval Orsi, “The effects of biological and hydrodynamic processes on physical
Research Grant Nos. N00014-18-1–2227, N00014-21- and acoustic properties of sediments off the Eel River, California,” Mar.
1–2254, N00014-15-1–2602, N00014-17-1–2625, N00014- Geol. 182, 121–139 (2002).
19
K. M. Dorgan, W. Ballantine, G. Lockridge, E. Kiskaddon, M. S. Ballard,
21-1–2245, and the ARL:UT Independent Research and K. M. Lee, and P. S. Wilson, “Impacts of simulated infaunal activities on
Development Program. The authors would like to thank the acoustic wave propagation in marine sediments,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
participants in the field experiment: Will Ballentine, Grant 147, 812–823 (2020).
20
R. Self, P. A’Hearn, P. A. Jumars, D. R. Jackson, M. D. Richardson, and
Lockridge, Cy Clemo, Kara Gadeken, and Ryan Parker from
K. B. Briggs, “Effects of macrofauna on acoustic backscatter from the
Dauphin Island Sea Lab; and the crew of the R/V E. O. seabed: Field manipulations in West Sound, Orcas Island, Washington,
Wilson. The authors also thank Kimbell Bui and Jeremy U.S.A,” J. Mar. Res. 59, 991–1020 (2001).
21
King, formerly of ARL:UT, who assisted with analysis of E. Thorsos, K. Williams, N. Chotiros, J. Christoff, K. Commander, C.
Greenlaw, D. Holliday, D. Jackson, J. Lopes, D. McGehee, J. Piper, M.
physical properties from the cores; Dan Duncan of the Richardson, and D. Tang, “An overview of SAX99: Acoustic meas-
University of Texas at Austin Institute for Geophysics for urements,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng 26(1), 4–25 (2001).
22
assistance with the laser diffraction particle size analyzer; M. Richardson, K. Briggs, L. Bibee, P. Jumars, W. Sawyer, D. Albert, R.
and Dr. Allen Reed for lending us the core-logger Bennett, T. Berger, M. Buckingham, N. Chotiros, P. Dahl, N. Dewitt, P.
Fleischer, R. Flood, C. Greenlaw, D. Holliday, M. Hulbert, M. Hutnak, P.
transducers for this experiment. The contributions of the Jackson, J. Jaffe, H. Johnson, D. Lavoie, A. Lyons, C. Martens, D.
anonymous reviewers are also gratefully acknowledged. 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,
1
C. W. Holland and J. Osler, “High-resolution geoacoustic inversion in D. Walter, and R. Wheatcroft, “Overview of SAX99: Environmental con-
shallow water: A joint time- and frequency-domain technique,” J. Acoust. siderations,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 26(1), 26–53 (2001).
23
Soc. Am 107, 1263–1279 (2000). K. Williams, “Temporal fluctuations in the acoustic scattering from
2
D. R. Jackson and M. D. Richardson, High-Frequency Seafloor Acoustics bottom-deployed objects and localized biological treatments,” IEEE J.
(Springer, New York, (2007), pp. 65–72. Ocean. Eng 26(1), 63–69 (2001).
3 24
A. Lipinksi and D. Chapman, “The effects of ignored seabed variability in E. Pouliquen and A. Lyons, “Backscattering from bioturbated sediments
geoacoustic inversion,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 3524–3538 (2005). at very high frequency,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 27(3), 388–402 (2002).
4 25
C. W. Holland, “Propagation in a waveguide with range-dependent sea- C. F. Greenlaw, D. V. Holliday, and D. E. McGehee, “High-frequency
bed properties,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, 2596–2609 (2010). scattering from saturated sand sediments,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(6),
5
R. H. Bennett, N. R. O’Brien, and M. H. Hulbert, “Determinants of clay 2818–2823 (2004).
26
and shale microfabric signatures: Processess and mechanisms,” in K. L. Williams, D. R. Jackson, D. Tang, K. B. Briggs, and E. I. Thorsos,
Microstructure of Fine-Grained Sediments: From Mud to Shale, edited by “Acoustic backscattering from a sand and a sand/mud environment:
R. H. Bennett, W. R. Bryant, and M. H. Hulbert (Springer Verlag, Experiments and data/model comparisons,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 34(4),
New York, 1991), pp. 3–32. 388–398 (2009).
6 27
D. C. Rhoads, “Organism-sediment relationships on the muddy seafloor,” D. R. Jackson, M. D. Richardson, K. L. Williams, A. P. Lyons, C. D.
Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 12, 263–300 (1974). Jones, K. B. Briggs, and D. Tang, “Acoustic observation of the time
7
B. P. Boudreau, “Mean mixed depths of sediments: The wherefore and dependence of the roughness of sandy seafloors,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng.
the why,” Limnol. Oceanogr. 43, 524–526 (1998). 34(4), 407–422 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014907
28 43
A. P. Lyons and D. C. Brown, “The impact of the temporal variability of K. M. Lee, M. S. Ballard, A. R. McNeese, and P. S. Wilson, “Sound speed
seafloor roughness on synthetic aperture sonar repeat–pass inter- and attenuation measurements within a seagrass meadow from the water
ferometry,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 38(1), 91–97 (2013). column into the seabed,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141, EL402–EL406 (2017).
29 44
P. A. Jumars, D. R. Jackson, T. F. Gross, and C. Sherwood, “Acoustic See supplementary material at https://www.scitation.org/doi/suppl/
remote sensing of benthic activity: A statistical approach,” Limnol. 10.1121/10.0014907 for detailed descriptions of acoustic data collection,
Oceanogr. 41, 1220–1241 (1996). data processing, and diver core analysis.
30 45
R. N. Zajac, R. S. Lewis, L. J. Poppe, D. C. Twichell, J. Vozarik, and M. G. R. Venegas, “The impact of salinity diffusion, poroelasticity, and
L. DiGiacomo-Cohen, “Responses of infaunal populations to benthoscape organic carbon on sediment acoustics,” Ph.D. dissertation, The
structure and the potential importance of transition zones,” Limnol. Univertsity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX (2019).
46
Oceanogr. 48, 829–842 (2003). A. Mallock, “The damping of sound by frothy liquids,” Proc. R. Soc.
31
S. Degraer, G. Moerkerke, M. Rabaut, G. Van Hoey, I. Du Four, M. London, Ser. A 84, 391–395 (1910).
47
Vincx, J. Henriet, and V. Van Lancker, “Very-high resolution side-scan A. B. Wood, A Textbook of Sound (G. Bell and Sons Ltd., London, 1964),
sonar mapping of biogenic reefs of the tube-worm Lanice conchilega,” pp. 360–363.
48
Remote Sens. Env. 112, 3323–3328 (2008). R. L. Folk, Petrology of Sedimenary Rocks (Hemphill Publishing
32
M. D. Richardson and D. K. Young, “Geoacoustic models and bio- Company, Austin, TX, 1980), p. 26.
49
turbation,” Mar. Geol. 38, 205–218 (1980). J. A. Udden, “Mechanical composition of clastic sediments,” Bull. Geol.
33
M. J. Buckingham, “Compressional and shear wave properties of marine Soc. Am. 25, 655–744 (1914).
50
sediments: Comparisons between theory and data,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. C. K. Wentworth, “A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sed-
117, 137–152 (2005). iments,” J. Geol. 30, 377–392 (1922).
34 51
N. P. Chotiros, Acoustics of the Seabed as a Poroelastic Medium W. C. Krumbein, “Size frequency distributions of sediments,” J. Sed.
(Springer, New York, 2017), pp. 7–23. Petrol. 4(2), 65–77 (1934).
35 52
M. J. Buckingham, “Theory of acoustic attenuation, dispersion, and pulse R. L. Folk and W. C. Ward, “Brazos River Bar: A study in the signifi-
propagation in unconsolidated granular materials including marine sed- cance of grain size parameters,” J. Sed. Petrol. 27, 3–26 (1957).
53
iments,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 2579–2596 (1997). J. Belcourt, C. W. Holland, S. E. Dosso, J. Dettmer, and J. A. Goff,
36
M. J. Buckingham, “Wave propagation, stress relaxation, and grain-to- “Depth-dependent geoacoustic inferences with dispersion at the New
grain shearing in saturated, unconsolidated marine sediments,” J. Acoust. England Mud Patch via reflection coefficient inversion,” IEEE J. Ocean.
Soc. Am. 108, 2796–2815 (2000). Eng. 45, 69–91 (2020).
37 54
M. J. Buckingham, “On pore-fluid viscosity and the wave properties of D. P. Knobles, C. D. Escobar-Amado, M. J. Buckingham, W. S.
saturated granular materials including marine sediments,” J. Acoust. Soc. Hodgkiss, P. S. Wilson, T. B. Neilsen, J. Yang, and M. Badiey,
Am. 122, 1486–1501 (2007). “Statistical inference of sound speed and attenuation dispersion of a fine-
38
M. J. Buckingham, “Response to ‘Comments on “On pore-fluid viscosity grained marine sediment,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 47(3), 553–564 (2022).
55
and the wave properties of saturated granular materials including marine M. Kimura, “Velocity dispersion and attenuation in granular marine sedi-
01 November 2023 23:59:45

sediments [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 2095–2098 (2010)],” ’ ” J. Acoust. ments: Comparison of measurements with predictions using acoustic
Soc. Am. 127, 2099–2102 (2010). models,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129, 3544–3561 (2011).
39 56
M. J. Buckingham, “Analysis of shear wave attenuation in unconsolidated G. R. Venegas, A. F. Rahman, K. M. Lee, M. S. Ballard, and P. S.
sands and glass beads,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136, 2478–2488 (2014). Wilson, “Toward the ultrasonic sensing of organic carbon in seagrass-
40
M. J. Buckingham, “Wave speed and attenuation profiles in a stratified bearing sediments,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 5968–5977, https://doi.org/
marine sediment: Geo-acoustic modeling of seabed layering using the vis- 10.1029/2019GL082745 (2019).
57
cous grain shearing theory,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 148, 962–974 (2020). N. P. Chotiros, “A porous medium model for mud,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
41
M. S. Ballard, K. M. Lee, A. R. McNeese, P. S. Wilson, J. D. Chaytor, J. 149, 629–644 (2021).
58
A. Goff, and A. H. Reed, “In situ measurements of compressional wave A. D. Pierce, W. L. Siegmann, and E. M. Brown, “Characterization of
speed during gravity coring operations in the New England Mud Patch,” mud sediments using the frequency dependence of phase velocity and
IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 45, 26–38 (2020). attenuation of compressional waves,” Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 31, 070002
42
K. M. Lee, M. S. Ballard, A. R. McNeese, T. G. Muir, P. S. Wilson, R. D. (2017).
59
Costley, and K. K. Hathaway, “In situ measurements of sediment acoustic E. M. Brown, Y. Lin, J. D. Chaytor, and W. L. Siegmann, “Geoacoustic
properties in Currituck Sound and comparison to models,” J. Acoust. Soc. inversion for a New England Mud Patch sediment using the silt-
Am. 140, 3596–3606 (2016). suspension theory of mud,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 45, 144–160 (2020).

2456 1 Online

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2456 1 Online

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2456 1 Online

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCTOBER 31 2022

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

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

01 November 2023 23:59:45

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

01 November 2023 23:59:45

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

01 November 2023 23:59:45

7.6-cm-diameter core were collected from in between the in

D. Core and resonance logger (CARL) measurements

01 November 2023 23:59:45

E. Diver core analysis

01 November 2023 23:59:45

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

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

at each site, the corresponding frequencies above which

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

01 November 2023 23:59:45

You might also like