Testing fluvial erosion models using the transient response of bedrock rivers to tectonic forcing in the Apennines, Italy
The transient response of bedrock rivers to a drop in base level can be used to discriminate between competing fluvial erosion models. However, some recent studies of bedrock erosion conclude that transient river long profiles can be approximately characterized by a transport‐limited erosion model,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 2011-06, Vol.116 (F2), p.n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | F2 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface |
container_volume | 116 |
creator | Attal, M. Cowie, P. A. Whittaker, A. C. Hobley, D. Tucker, G. E. Roberts, G. P. |
description | The transient response of bedrock rivers to a drop in base level can be used to discriminate between competing fluvial erosion models. However, some recent studies of bedrock erosion conclude that transient river long profiles can be approximately characterized by a transport‐limited erosion model, while other authors suggest that a detachment‐limited model best explains their field data. The difference is thought to be due to the relative volume of sediment being fluxed through the fluvial system. Using a pragmatic approach, we address this debate by testing the ability of end‐member fluvial erosion models to reproduce the well‐documented evolution of three catchments in the central Apennines (Italy) which have been perturbed to various extents by an independently constrained increase in relative uplift rate. The transport‐limited model is unable to account for the catchments' response to the increase in uplift rate, consistent with the observed low rates of sediment supply to the channels. Instead, a detachment‐limited model with a threshold corresponding to the field‐derived median grain size of the sediment plus a slope‐dependent channel width satisfactorily reproduces the overall convex long profiles along the studied rivers. Importantly, we find that the prefactor in the hydraulic scaling relationship is uplift dependent, leading to landscapes responding faster the higher the uplift rate, consistent with field observations. We conclude that a slope‐dependent channel width and an entrainment/erosion threshold are necessary ingredients when modeling landscape evolution or mapping the distribution of fluvial erosion rates in areas where the rate of sediment supply to channels is low.
Key Points
Channel width is slope dependent and uplift dependent in the study area
Detachment‐limited model with channel adjustment and threshold fits river profiles
Landscapes uplifted faster have narrower channels and respond faster |
doi_str_mv | 10.1029/2010JF001875 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_862262309</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2322650671</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4039-c78d547ca674d862c4200e52829101637bdb1a7a6616314583465269080026c93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFPGzEQha2qSI0ot_4Aq2e2Hc96vd4jQk0AoRRVUKReLMc72xoWO7UdSv49G1JVnDqX0Wi-955mGPsg4JMA7D4jCLiYAwjdNm_YDEWjKkTAt2wGQuoKENt37CjnO5hKNkqCmLHtNeXiw08-jJtHb0dOKWYfA3-IPY2Zb_JuWX4RL8mG7CkUniivY8jE48BX1Kfo7nnyj5QyL5EXciUG7_gQk9uJfXjRn6wpBB8oH_PzYsfte3Yw2DHT0d9-yG7mX65Pz6rLr4vz05PLykqou8q1um9k66xqZa8VOokA1KDGToBQdbvqV8K2VqlpELLRtVQNqg40ACrX1Yfs4953neLvzXStuYubFKZIM9mhwhp20PEectP5OdFg1sk_2LQ1Aszuveb1eydc7PE_fqTtf1lzsfg21y8R1V7jc6Gnfxqb7o1q6wm8XS7M8uyHXn6_ujVYPwOSh4li</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>862262309</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Testing fluvial erosion models using the transient response of bedrock rivers to tectonic forcing in the Apennines, Italy</title><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Attal, M. ; Cowie, P. A. ; Whittaker, A. C. ; Hobley, D. ; Tucker, G. E. ; Roberts, G. P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Attal, M. ; Cowie, P. A. ; Whittaker, A. C. ; Hobley, D. ; Tucker, G. E. ; Roberts, G. P.</creatorcontrib><description>The transient response of bedrock rivers to a drop in base level can be used to discriminate between competing fluvial erosion models. However, some recent studies of bedrock erosion conclude that transient river long profiles can be approximately characterized by a transport‐limited erosion model, while other authors suggest that a detachment‐limited model best explains their field data. The difference is thought to be due to the relative volume of sediment being fluxed through the fluvial system. Using a pragmatic approach, we address this debate by testing the ability of end‐member fluvial erosion models to reproduce the well‐documented evolution of three catchments in the central Apennines (Italy) which have been perturbed to various extents by an independently constrained increase in relative uplift rate. The transport‐limited model is unable to account for the catchments' response to the increase in uplift rate, consistent with the observed low rates of sediment supply to the channels. Instead, a detachment‐limited model with a threshold corresponding to the field‐derived median grain size of the sediment plus a slope‐dependent channel width satisfactorily reproduces the overall convex long profiles along the studied rivers. Importantly, we find that the prefactor in the hydraulic scaling relationship is uplift dependent, leading to landscapes responding faster the higher the uplift rate, consistent with field observations. We conclude that a slope‐dependent channel width and an entrainment/erosion threshold are necessary ingredients when modeling landscape evolution or mapping the distribution of fluvial erosion rates in areas where the rate of sediment supply to channels is low.
Key Points
Channel width is slope dependent and uplift dependent in the study area
Detachment‐limited model with channel adjustment and threshold fits river profiles
Landscapes uplifted faster have narrower channels and respond faster</description><identifier>ISSN: 0148-0227</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2169-9003</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2156-2202</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-9011</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2010JF001875</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Bedrock ; erosion ; Erosion rates ; Geomorphology ; Hydrology ; modeling ; Plate tectonics ; river ; Rivers ; Sediments ; Soil erosion ; tectonics ; transient landscapes</subject><ispartof>Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 2011-06, Vol.116 (F2), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union.</rights><rights>Copyright 2011 by American Geophysical Union</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4039-c78d547ca674d862c4200e52829101637bdb1a7a6616314583465269080026c93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4039-c78d547ca674d862c4200e52829101637bdb1a7a6616314583465269080026c93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2010JF001875$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2010JF001875$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,1427,11493,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46443,46808,46867</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Attal, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cowie, P. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whittaker, A. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobley, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tucker, G. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, G. P.</creatorcontrib><title>Testing fluvial erosion models using the transient response of bedrock rivers to tectonic forcing in the Apennines, Italy</title><title>Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface</title><addtitle>J. Geophys. Res</addtitle><description>The transient response of bedrock rivers to a drop in base level can be used to discriminate between competing fluvial erosion models. However, some recent studies of bedrock erosion conclude that transient river long profiles can be approximately characterized by a transport‐limited erosion model, while other authors suggest that a detachment‐limited model best explains their field data. The difference is thought to be due to the relative volume of sediment being fluxed through the fluvial system. Using a pragmatic approach, we address this debate by testing the ability of end‐member fluvial erosion models to reproduce the well‐documented evolution of three catchments in the central Apennines (Italy) which have been perturbed to various extents by an independently constrained increase in relative uplift rate. The transport‐limited model is unable to account for the catchments' response to the increase in uplift rate, consistent with the observed low rates of sediment supply to the channels. Instead, a detachment‐limited model with a threshold corresponding to the field‐derived median grain size of the sediment plus a slope‐dependent channel width satisfactorily reproduces the overall convex long profiles along the studied rivers. Importantly, we find that the prefactor in the hydraulic scaling relationship is uplift dependent, leading to landscapes responding faster the higher the uplift rate, consistent with field observations. We conclude that a slope‐dependent channel width and an entrainment/erosion threshold are necessary ingredients when modeling landscape evolution or mapping the distribution of fluvial erosion rates in areas where the rate of sediment supply to channels is low.
Key Points
Channel width is slope dependent and uplift dependent in the study area
Detachment‐limited model with channel adjustment and threshold fits river profiles
Landscapes uplifted faster have narrower channels and respond faster</description><subject>Bedrock</subject><subject>erosion</subject><subject>Erosion rates</subject><subject>Geomorphology</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>modeling</subject><subject>Plate tectonics</subject><subject>river</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Sediments</subject><subject>Soil erosion</subject><subject>tectonics</subject><subject>transient landscapes</subject><issn>0148-0227</issn><issn>2169-9003</issn><issn>2156-2202</issn><issn>2169-9011</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEFPGzEQha2qSI0ot_4Aq2e2Hc96vd4jQk0AoRRVUKReLMc72xoWO7UdSv49G1JVnDqX0Wi-955mGPsg4JMA7D4jCLiYAwjdNm_YDEWjKkTAt2wGQuoKENt37CjnO5hKNkqCmLHtNeXiw08-jJtHb0dOKWYfA3-IPY2Zb_JuWX4RL8mG7CkUniivY8jE48BX1Kfo7nnyj5QyL5EXciUG7_gQk9uJfXjRn6wpBB8oH_PzYsfte3Yw2DHT0d9-yG7mX65Pz6rLr4vz05PLykqou8q1um9k66xqZa8VOokA1KDGToBQdbvqV8K2VqlpELLRtVQNqg40ACrX1Yfs4953neLvzXStuYubFKZIM9mhwhp20PEectP5OdFg1sk_2LQ1Aszuveb1eydc7PE_fqTtf1lzsfg21y8R1V7jc6Gnfxqb7o1q6wm8XS7M8uyHXn6_ujVYPwOSh4li</recordid><startdate>201106</startdate><enddate>201106</enddate><creator>Attal, M.</creator><creator>Cowie, P. A.</creator><creator>Whittaker, A. C.</creator><creator>Hobley, D.</creator><creator>Tucker, G. E.</creator><creator>Roberts, G. P.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201106</creationdate><title>Testing fluvial erosion models using the transient response of bedrock rivers to tectonic forcing in the Apennines, Italy</title><author>Attal, M. ; Cowie, P. A. ; Whittaker, A. C. ; Hobley, D. ; Tucker, G. E. ; Roberts, G. P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4039-c78d547ca674d862c4200e52829101637bdb1a7a6616314583465269080026c93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Bedrock</topic><topic>erosion</topic><topic>Erosion rates</topic><topic>Geomorphology</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>modeling</topic><topic>Plate tectonics</topic><topic>river</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Sediments</topic><topic>Soil erosion</topic><topic>tectonics</topic><topic>transient landscapes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Attal, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cowie, P. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whittaker, A. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobley, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tucker, G. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, G. P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Attal, M.</au><au>Cowie, P. A.</au><au>Whittaker, A. C.</au><au>Hobley, D.</au><au>Tucker, G. E.</au><au>Roberts, G. P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Testing fluvial erosion models using the transient response of bedrock rivers to tectonic forcing in the Apennines, Italy</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface</jtitle><addtitle>J. Geophys. Res</addtitle><date>2011-06</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>116</volume><issue>F2</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>0148-0227</issn><issn>2169-9003</issn><eissn>2156-2202</eissn><eissn>2169-9011</eissn><abstract>The transient response of bedrock rivers to a drop in base level can be used to discriminate between competing fluvial erosion models. However, some recent studies of bedrock erosion conclude that transient river long profiles can be approximately characterized by a transport‐limited erosion model, while other authors suggest that a detachment‐limited model best explains their field data. The difference is thought to be due to the relative volume of sediment being fluxed through the fluvial system. Using a pragmatic approach, we address this debate by testing the ability of end‐member fluvial erosion models to reproduce the well‐documented evolution of three catchments in the central Apennines (Italy) which have been perturbed to various extents by an independently constrained increase in relative uplift rate. The transport‐limited model is unable to account for the catchments' response to the increase in uplift rate, consistent with the observed low rates of sediment supply to the channels. Instead, a detachment‐limited model with a threshold corresponding to the field‐derived median grain size of the sediment plus a slope‐dependent channel width satisfactorily reproduces the overall convex long profiles along the studied rivers. Importantly, we find that the prefactor in the hydraulic scaling relationship is uplift dependent, leading to landscapes responding faster the higher the uplift rate, consistent with field observations. We conclude that a slope‐dependent channel width and an entrainment/erosion threshold are necessary ingredients when modeling landscape evolution or mapping the distribution of fluvial erosion rates in areas where the rate of sediment supply to channels is low.
Key Points
Channel width is slope dependent and uplift dependent in the study area
Detachment‐limited model with channel adjustment and threshold fits river profiles
Landscapes uplifted faster have narrower channels and respond faster</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1029/2010JF001875</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0148-0227 |
ispartof | Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 2011-06, Vol.116 (F2), p.n/a |
issn | 0148-0227 2169-9003 2156-2202 2169-9011 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_862262309 |
source | Wiley Free Content; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Bedrock erosion Erosion rates Geomorphology Hydrology modeling Plate tectonics river Rivers Sediments Soil erosion tectonics transient landscapes |
title | Testing fluvial erosion models using the transient response of bedrock rivers to tectonic forcing in the Apennines, Italy |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T21%3A12%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Testing%20fluvial%20erosion%20models%20using%20the%20transient%20response%20of%20bedrock%20rivers%20to%20tectonic%20forcing%20in%20the%20Apennines,%20Italy&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Geophysical%20Research:%20Earth%20Surface&rft.au=Attal,%20M.&rft.date=2011-06&rft.volume=116&rft.issue=F2&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=0148-0227&rft.eissn=2156-2202&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2010JF001875&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2322650671%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=862262309&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |