Landscape ‘stress’ and reorganization from <i>χ</i>‐maps: Insights from experimental drainage networks in oblique collision setting

Guérit, Laure; Goren, Liran; Dominguez, Stéphane; Malavieille, Jacques; Castelltort, Sébastien

doi:10.1002/esp.4477

Cited by 29 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Topographic structure is primarily controlled by climate, tectonics, and lithological erodibility (Whipple, 2004;Anders et al, 2008;Han et al, 2015;Perron, 2017). Spatiotemporal variability in these controls can induce spatially variable erosion rates that can alter the planform topology of drainage networks and the longitudinal profiles of channels in regions with only metres to thousands of metres of relief (Gilbert, 1877;Giachetta et al, 2014;Forte et al, 2016;Willett et al, 2014;Whipple et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Topographic controls on divide migration, stream capture, and diversification in riverine life

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Drainages reorganise in landscapes under diverse conditions and process dynamics that impact biotic distributions and evolution. We first investigated the relative control that Earth surface process parameters have on divide migration and stream capture in scenarios of base-level fall and heterogeneous uplift. A model built with the Landlab toolkit was run 51 200 times in sensitivity analyses that used globally observed values. Large-scale drainage reorganisation occurred only in the model runs within a limited combination of parameters and conditions. Uplift rate, rock erodibility, and the magnitude of perturbation (base-level fall or fault displacement) had the greatest influence on drainage reorganisation. The relative magnitudes of perturbation and topographic relief limited landscape susceptibility to reorganisation. Stream captures occurred more often when the channel head distance to divide was low. Stream topology set by initial conditions strongly affected capture occurrence when the imposed uplift was spatially heterogeneous. We also integrated simulations of geomorphic and biologic processes to investigate relationships among topographic relief, drainage reorganisation, and riverine species diversification in the two scenarios described above. We used a new Landlab component called SpeciesEvolver that models species at landscape scale following macroevolutionary process rules. More frequent stream capture and less frequent stream network disappearance due to divide migration increased speciation and decreased extinction, respectively, especially in the heterogeneous uplift scenario in which final species diversity was often greater than the base-level fall scenario. Under both scenarios, the landscape conditions that led to drainage reorganisation also controlled diversification. Across the model trials, the climatic or tectonic perturbation was more likely in low-relief landscapes to drive more extensive drainage reorganisation that in turn increased the diversity of riverine species lineages, especially for the species that evolved more rapidly. This model result supports recent research on natural systems that implicates drainage reorganisation as a mechanism of riverine species diversification in lowland basins. Future research applications of SpeciesEvolver software can incorporate complex climatic and tectonic forcings as they relate to macroevolution and surface processes, as well as region- and taxon-specific organisms based in rivers and those on continents at large.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Topographic controls on divide migration, stream capture, and diversification in riverine life

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whether based on the geometry of hillslopes or river channels, previous studies on mobile divides generally focused on relative 55 differences in either one across several specific, manually selected drainage divides (e.g., Willett et al, 2014;Goren et al, 2015;Whipple et al, 2017;Buscher et al, 2017;Beeson et al, 2017;Gallen, 2018;Guerit et al, 2018;Forte and Whipple, 2018). Even if appropriate in these studies, such a procedure introduces unwanted subjectivity, both in the selection of divides and how any cross-divide comparison is done.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification and ordering of drainage divides in digital elevation models

Scherler

Schwanghart

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We propose a novel way to measure and analyse networks of drainage divides from digital elevation models. We developed an algorithm that extracts drainage divides, based on the drainage basin boundaries defined by a stream network. In contrast to streams, there is no straightforward approach to order and classify divides, although it is intuitive that some divides are more important than others. We thus propose a divide-network metric that orders divides based on the average distance one would have to travel down on either side of a divide to reach a common stream location. Because measuring these distances is computationally very expensive, we instead sort divide segments in a tree-like network, starting from endpoints at river junctions. The sorted nature of the network allows assigning distances to points along the divides, which can be shown to scale with the average distance downstream to the common location. Furthermore, because divide segments tend to have characteristic lengths, an ordering scheme in which divide orders increase by one at junctions, mimics these distances. We applied our new algorithm to a natural landscape and to results from landscape evolution model experiments to assess which parameters of divides and divide networks are diagnostic of divide mobility. Results show that stable drainage divides strive to attain a constant hillslope relief as well as flow distance from the nearest stream, provided a distance of > ~ 5 km from endpoints. Disruptions of such pattern can be related to mobile divides that are lower than stable divides, closer to streams, and often asymmetric in shape. In general, we observe that drainage divides high up in the network, i.e., at great distance from endpoints, are more vulnerable than divides closer to endpoints of the network and are more likely to record disturbance for a longer time period. We compared different topographic metrics to assess drainage divide mobility and found that cross-divide differences in hillslope relief proved more useful for assessing divide migration than other tested metrics. Finally, we introduced a new metric to assess divide junction stability, based on the connectivity of junctions with adjacent drainage divide segments.

show abstract

“…See Hovius 1996 for instance for a first review of this. Hovius, N. (1996). Regular spacing of drainage outlets from linear mountain belts.…”

Section: C6mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of River patterns reveal landscape evolution at the edge of subduction, Marlborough Fault System, New Zealand

Anonymous

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper by Duvall et al is interesting, well written, well illustrated and well worth publication in eSurf. 1 Response to eSurf's review guidelines. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of ESurf? YES Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? Data C1 ESurfD Interactive comment Printer-friendly version Discussion paper Are substantial conclusions reached? Partly regional (NZ northern tip), but with possible extension to other orogens. Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? Yes, but little criticism of the method (drainage anomalies) is presented. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? Yes for the conclusion regarding the data and interpretations presented. But the general conclusion is also the starting point of the study. Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)? Yes Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution? They do give credit mostly to their own work, but omit a body of literature. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper? Yes Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary? Yes Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? Yes Is the language fluent and precise? Yes Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used? Yes Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated? Not really needed for the paper to reach its conclusions. But perhaps they could extend their review of previous work, their assessment of the limits of their method to 1) pick drainage anomalies and 2) interpret drainage anomalies, and

show abstract

Landscape ‘stress’ and reorganization from χ‐maps: Insights from experimental drainage networks in oblique collision setting

Cited by 29 publications

References 71 publications

Topographic controls on divide migration, stream capture, and diversification in riverine life

Topographic controls on divide migration, stream capture, and diversification in riverine life

Identification and ordering of drainage divides in digital elevation models

Review of River patterns reveal landscape evolution at the edge of subduction, Marlborough Fault System, New Zealand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About