2000
DOI: 10.1130/0091-7613(2000)028<0043:riodir>2.3.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

River incision or diversion in response to bedrock uplift

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
54
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
54
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5, this study provides a similar but different scenario for the river diversion described by Humphrey and Konrad (2000). They studied river incision or diversion in response to bedrock uplift by a simplified theoretical model over a long time scale, and concluded that river sediment flux and tectonic uplift rate, rather than stream power, are the most influential variables controlling the river diversion or incision.…”
Section: New Scenario Of Fluvial Response To Tectonic Upliftmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…5, this study provides a similar but different scenario for the river diversion described by Humphrey and Konrad (2000). They studied river incision or diversion in response to bedrock uplift by a simplified theoretical model over a long time scale, and concluded that river sediment flux and tectonic uplift rate, rather than stream power, are the most influential variables controlling the river diversion or incision.…”
Section: New Scenario Of Fluvial Response To Tectonic Upliftmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Accordingly, only the cause of the high sedimentary load should be researched as the cause of the avulsions in the entire modern Pastaza megafan complex, tectonic events being considered as opportunistic triggers. However, Jones and Schumm (1999, their Table 1) consider tectonics as a cause as well as a trigger of avulsion because tectonic uplift may decrease channel slope or increase the slope of the potential avulsion course as this is obvious in the case of piggy back basins formed upstream of growing anticlines (see e.g., Burbank et al 1996;Burbank and Anderson 2001 p. 194;Humphrey and Konrad 2000;van der Beek et al 2002). This is less obvious in the case of small relative increases in elevation such as those in front of the Cangaime anticline (see, however, Bridge and Leeder 1979;Alexander and Leeder 1987;Dumont and Hanagarth 1993) and this point will be discussed hereafter in each of the studied areas.…”
Section: Style Local Causes and Triggers Of Avulsions In The Pastazamentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Several researchers have analyzed stream interactions with active tectonics (Schumm et al, 1977;Adams, 1980;Burnnett and Schummn, 1983;Schumm, 1986;LavĂ© and Avouac, 2000;Simpson, 2004) and proposed numerical models of antecedent transverse drainage development (Tomkin and Braun, 1999;Humphrey and Konrad, 2000;Champel et al, 2002;Van der Beek et al, 2002). Ouchi (1983Ouchi ( , 1985 conducted the first known physical experimentation of transverse drainage incision and focused on the antecedence mechanism.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%