CHAPTER 1ALONG INCISING BEDROCK RIVERS
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT
Landscapes evolve through processes acting at the earth’s surface
in response to
tectonics and climate. Rivers that cut into bedrock are
particularly important since
they set the local baselevel and communicate changes in boundary
conditions across
the landscape through erosion and deposition; the pace of
topographic evolution
depends on both the rate of change of the boundary conditions and
the speed of the
bedrock channel network response. Much of the work so far has
considered the
effects of tectonically-controlled changes in slope and
climatically-controlled
changes in discharges to the rate of channel bed erosion while
considering bank
erosion, if active at all, to be of at best secondary importance to
landscape evolution.
Sprinkled throughout the literature of the past century are studies
that have
recognized lateral activity along incising rivers, but conflicting
interpretations have
left many unanswered questions about how to identify and measure
horizontal
erosion, what drives it, what effect it has on the landscape, and
how it responds to
climate and tectonics. In this thesis, I begin to answer some of
these questions by
focusing on bedrock river sinuosity and its evolution through
horizontal erosion of
the channel banks. An analysis of synoptic scale topography and
climatology of the
islands of eastern Asia reveals a quantitative signature of storm
frequency in a
regional measure of mountain river sinuosity. This is partly
explained through a
study of the hydro- and morphodynamics of a rapidly evolving
bedrock river in
Taiwan which shows how the erosive forces vary along a river to
influence the
spatiotemporal distribution of downcutting, sidecutting, and
sediment transport.
Through these analyses, I also present evidence that suggests that
the relative
frequency of erosive events is far more important than the absolute
magnitude of
extreme events in setting the erosion rate, and I show that the
horizontal erosion of
bedrock rivers is an important contributor to landscape evolution.
This thesis
comprises a new look at the processes at work in bedrock rivers
which suggests new
ideas about the ways that landscape and climate interact, new tools
for interpreting
landscape morphology, and new insights into the processes that
contribute to the
evolution of active orogens.
Chapter 2: Typhoon-driven discharge variability and bedrock
river meandering…………………………………… 48
shear stress along a rapidly eroding bedrock
mountain river……………………………………… 92
Conclusions………………………………………………………… 164
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks first of all to the Department of Earth and Environmental
Sciences
at Columbia University, NASA, the National Science Foundation, and
the
taxpayers of the United States of America for funding the research
summarized in
this dissertation.
Thanks to my advisory committee, Chris Scholz, Jeff Weissel,
and
especially my primary research advisor Colin Stark, who guided me
through each
project. Thanks to Art Lerner-Lam, Upmanu Lall, and Roger Buck for
serving on
my examination committees, and thanks to everyone else at
Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory, in particular: Mia Leo, Sally Odland, Regina Giacinto,
Felicia Taylor,
Carol Mountain, Missy Pinkert, Bree Burns, Greg Yetman, Rob
Kakascik, Bob
Arko, Doug Shearer, Art Lerner-Lam, Mark Cane, Nick Christie-Blick,
Steven
Chillrud, Chris Small, Roger Anderson, Andrea Taramelli, Thorsten
Nagel, Joe
Galewsky, Vicki Ferrini, Mladen Nedimovic, Kristina Czuchlewski,
Dalia Bach,
Kori Newman, Janet Baran, Rob Bialas, Angela Slagle, David Grass,
Mike Tischer,
Irina Gorodetskaya, Byrdie Renik, Tim Crone, Abby Spieler, Kevin
Jones, Louisa
Bradtmiller, Katie Leonard, Julie Bonczkowski, Rose Anne Weissel,
and
especially to Chadwick Holmes for saving me from countless Matlab
pitfalls.
Thanks to my undergraduate advisor at Yale University, Mark
Brandon,
and to Frank Pazzaglia at Lehigh University for encouraging me to
pursue this
degree.
ii
Thanks to Simon Dadson and Jens Turowski, and to their advisor
at
Cambridge University, Niels Hovius, for patiently answering my
questions and
arguing with me over interpretations of landforms and surface
processes in the
field and at meetings. Jens graciously brought me along for some of
his PhD
fieldwork in Taiwan and accompanied me for some of mine; his
curiosity,
enthusiasm, and positive outlook were always contagious. This
dissertation has
greatly benefited from his suggestions, criticisms, and
guidance.
Fieldwork in Taiwan was only possible through the support of
Hongey
Chen in the Department of Geosciences at the National Taiwan
University (NTU)
in Taipei, and of Ching-Weei Lin at the Disaster Prevention
Research Center
(DPRC) of the National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan.
Chia-Hong
Jen and Meng-Long Hsieh, Chung (Yellow Clock) Huang, and others at
NTU, and
Chin-Pin Ko, Te-Cheng (Xiao) Yi, Tsai-Tsung (Victor/Xiao Pang)
Tsai,Wei-Shu
(Xiao Shu) Chang, Shin- Ping (Morris) Lee,Wei-Lin (William) Lee,
Gong-Rey
He, Yun-Chung (Take-san) Tsang, Wen-Yi (Xiao) Lai, Wen-Chi (Da)
Lai, and
others at DPRC/NCKU were also instrumental in providing logistical
and
technical support, field assistance, data, insight, and…some very
interesting meals.
I also owe a large debt of gratitude to the Maolin firefighters who
risked their own
safety to help me cross a raging river to recover a notebook that
was accidentally
left behind, just before a heavy downpour, on the wrong side of a
river.
I am especially grateful for the collaborative efforts of Chung
(Yellow
Clock) Huang at NTU, and Te-Cheng (Xiao) Yi at DPRC. Their
resourcefulness,
iii
insightful suggestions, and technical expertise helped to shape
much of the field
methodology in this thesis over several seasons in Taiwan.
Fieldwork in Japan benefited from the logistical support of
Yasutaka Ikeda
at Tokyo University and the local knowledge and insights of
Yukitoshi Fukahata,
also at Tokyo University, Masayoshi Tajikara at the Japan Atomic
Energy Agency,
and Tsuyoshi Hattanji and Yuichi Hayakawa at Tsukuba
University.
Ming-Jame Horng at the Water Resources Agency of Taiwan, Joe Xu
at
Tsukuba University in Japan, and the Thomas Luellwitz at the Global
Runoff Data
Centre generously provided discharge data.
And finally, thanks to my friends, and most of all, to my family
for
supporting me and for putting up with my stress while I struggled
to complete this
dissertation.
As I am getting older, my memory has increasingly betrayed me, so
thanks
also to everyone I have forgotten. If you are my age, you probably
understand. If
you’re younger, just wait.
iv
v
PREFACE
William Morris Davis sparked a debate in 1893 when he wrote a
letter to
Science in which he described incised meanders along the Osage
River of Missouri
(Davis 1893). He argued that because meandering is a state of
alluvial rivers, the
incised meanders of the Osage indicate a series of erosion cycles
in which the river
once meandered across a flat plain until regional uplift of the
Ozark Mountains
rejuvenated incision along the stream, locking in the existing
planform. This
interpretation that incised meanders are inherited from a past
alluvial phase
continues to re-appear as a relatively common explanation for
meanders in
bedrock. However, even Davis’s contemporaries recognized that not
only is there
rarely evidence for planform inheritance, but there is also no need
to assume an
alluvial origin for meanders (e.g. Winslow 1893). Indeed, active
meandering is
ubiquitous along incising rivers (e.g. Mahard 1942, Tinkler 1970,
Ikeda et al. 1981,
Seminara 2006, Shyu et al. 2006), and it can have a strong
influence on the
morphology of mountain landscapes.
The processes of bedrock river incision have long been a focus of
attention
among those who study landscape evolution, in part because the
slopes of incising
channels and their variations downstream are thought to result
primarily from a
competition between bed erosion and rock uplift (e.g. Mackin 1948,
Whipple 2004)
which results in longitudinal profiles that encode information
about tectonics and
climate (e.g. Roe et al. 2002, Whipple 2006). However, if meanders
grow along
vi
these rivers, channel slopes will change, complicating the
relationships between
climate, tectonics, erosion, and bedrock channel longitudinal
profiles.
Theories of bedrock incision tend to treat bed erosion as an
increasing
function of boundary shear stress (e.g. Howard and Kerby 1983,
Whipple 2004),
which depends on channel slope and hydraulic geometry, while
theories of
meandering tend to treat bank erosion as an increasing function of
cross-channel
asymmetry in the flow speed around meander bends (e.g. Thomson
1876, Einstein
1926, Rhoads and Welford 1991, Seminara 2006). Since hydraulic
geometry and
flow speed vary with discharge, erosion of the walls and bed of
bedrock channels
should both increase as functions of some characteristic(s) of the
discharge
distribution, slope, and erodibility. It is likely that the
functional dependencies are
different for vertical bed and horizontal wall erosion,
particularly because only a
portion of the flows through the channel inundate the walls and
because bed
sediment cover (which may vary in thickness, extent, caliber, and
persistence with
discharge and/or erodibility) tends to armor the channel bed while
leaving the
banks exposed (Moore 1926, Turowski, 2008). However, data on how
discharge,
channel geometry, shear stress, erodibility, and sediment supply
affect horizontal
cutting rates and relative rates of horizontal and vertical erosion
are sparse,
limiting our ability to understand how bedrock channels and their
valleys evolve.
This thesis presents such empirical data on discharge, channel
and
hydraulic geometry, shear stress, and sediment supply, and it
assesses the role of
these parameters in the development of sinuosity along mountain
rivers. It
vii
approaches the problem from a historical perspective, at the scale
of a continent,
and at the scale of a relatively small mountain catchment. It has
three chapters:
Chapter 1, “Migration and meandering of bedrock rivers,” introduces
the
concepts addressed in this thesis through a survey of bedrock river
meandering
that brings together classic literature on incised meanders,
theories of river
meandering and bedrock river erosion, and original field
observations from
bedrock rivers. This chapter makes a case for more attention to
horizontal erosion
in studies of mountain landscapes based on observations that (1)
despite
widespread misconceptions, actively growing incised meanders are
common in
nature and have been recognized as such for more than a century,
(2) meander
theories apply to and account for meandering through bedrock
regardless of
whether or not the river is incising (3) meandering affects channel
slope, which is
a key parameter in all studies of bedrock river erosion and
landscape evolution, (4)
the relative rate of lateral erosion with respect to incision has a
first-order effect on
valley and ridge morphologies, and (5) neglecting horizontal
erosion can lead to
misinterpretations of the landscape and its boundary
conditions.
Chapter 2, “Typhoon-driven discharge variability and bedrock
river
meandering,” presents a mapping study that reveals a correlation
between explicit
measurements of channel network morphology extracted quantitatively
from
topographic data and measures of climate variability such as storm
frequency and
statistics of rainfall and discharge. The analysis is restricted to
areas of high relief
and to broadly similar lithologies across the islands of the
western North Pacific
Ocean, where the tropical cyclones dominate regional trends in
climate. The
viii
correlation suggests that the sinuosity of an ensemble of mountain
river network
segments is an unambiguous quantitative signature of climate in the
landscape.
Chapter 3 is an analysis of field observations and empirical data
on
discharge, hydraulic geometry, shear stress, and friction along a
meandering
bedrock river in the Central Mountains of Taiwan to account for
semi-annual to
decadal changes along this channel and to provide some explanation
for how the
channel has evolved to its present form over longer time scales. It
is presented in
two manuscripts. The first, “Magnitude-frequency distributions of
boundary shear
stress along a rapidly eroding bedrock mountain river,” is a study
of discharge
records, high-resolution satellite imagery, and topographic surveys
of the channel
to find the rating relationship of discharge and boundary shear
stress at a transect.
This rating function is used to convert a long time-series of
discharge to a
magnitude-frequency distribution of shear stress. The second
manuscript,
“Monitoring the flow conditions and morphological changes of a
typhoon flood-
prone bedrock river,” follows with similar empirical data from
additional transects,
and also includes data on flow speeds, flow depths, friction, and
incipient sediment
particle motion. These data indicate that although rare extreme
floods have
significantly greater discharges than semi-annual floods, they
produce shear
stresses that are only moderately more erosive and able to
transport only
moderately larger sediment grain sizes. Comparison to a
similarly-sized but much
more-slowly eroding catchment in the eastern United States
indicates that erosion
rates of these channels is a stronger function of the frequency of
erosive discharges
than it is of the absolute magnitude of the most extreme floods.
Observations of
ix
changes in shear stress and hydraulic geometry for given flows
through a series of
meander loops further indicate that changes channel geometry
control the
downstream variation of wall inundation frequency which, if
correlated to
planform curvature over the long term, could contribute to
meandering.
The final section of the thesis shows how the results from each
chapter
combine to reveal important ways that discharge
magnitude-frequency
distributions contribute to bedrock river erosion processes and
landscape evolution,
and identifies several outstanding questions that suggest
directions for future study.
REFERENCES
W. M. Davis. The topographic maps of the United States Geological
Survey, Science, 21 (534), 225–227, 1893.
A. Einstein. The cause of the formation of meanders in the courses
of rivers and of the so-called Baer’s law. In Ideas and Opinions,
pages 249–253. Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1926.
A. Howard, and G. Kerby. Channel changes in badlands, Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 94, 739-752, 1983.
S. Ikeda, G. Parker, and K. Sawai. Bend theory of river meanders.
Part 1. Linear development. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 112,
363–377, 1981.
J. H. Mackin. Concept of the graded river: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 59, 463–512, 1948.
R. H. Mahard. The origin and significance of intrenched meanders.
Journal of Geomorphology, 5, 32–44, 1942.
R. C. Moore. Origin of inclosed meanders in the physiographic
history of the Colorado Plateau country. Journal of Geology, 34,
29–57, 1926a.
G. H. Roe, Montgomery D.H., and Hallet B. Effects of orographic
precipitation variations on the concavity of steady-state river
profiles, Geology, 30 (2), 143-146, 2002.
x
B. L. Rhoads and M. R. Welford. Initiation of river meandering.
Progress in Physical Geography, 15, 127–156, 1991.
G. Seminara. Meanders. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 554, 271–297,
2006.
J. B. Shyu, K. Sieh, J.-P. Avuoac, W.-S. Chen, and Y.-G. Chen.
Millennial slip rate of the Longitudinal Valley Fault from river
terraces: Implications for convergence across the active suture of
eastern Taiwan. Journal of Geophysical Research,
111(B08403):doi:10.1029/2005JB003971, 2006.
J. Thomson. On the origin of windings of rivers in alluvial plains,
with remarks on the flow of water round bends in pipes. Proceedings
of the Royal Society, 16, 1876. Republished in Nature v.14 p.122,
June 1976. Also in ”Collected papers in physics and engineering”,
ch.16, p. 96-100, CUP, 1912.
K. J. Tinkler. Active valley meanders in South-Central Texas and
their wider significance. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
82, 1783–1800, 1971.
J. M. Turowski, N. Hovius, M.-L. Hsieh, D. Lague, and M.-C. Chen,
Distribution of erosion across bedrock channels, Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms, 33 (3), 353–363, 2008.
K. X. Whipple, Bedrock rivers and the geomorphology of active
orogens, Annual Review 625 of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 32,
151–185, 2004.
A. Winslow, The Osage river and its meanders. Science, 22 (546),
32–32, 1893.
xi
Migration and meandering of bedrock rivers*
* This manuscript is in preparation for submission to Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms with co-authors Colin P. Stark, Chingweei
Lin, and Hongey Chen.
1
Abstract
Studies of bedrock rivers and their role in landscape evolution
tend to focus on channel slope and its changes in response to a
com- petition between climate-driven erosion and relative baselevel
fall; a common simplifying assumption is that incising rivers do
not shift laterally. However, theories of meandering that predict
planform evo- lution along any channel with deformable boundaries
are supported by abundant field evidence of active meandering along
incising rivers, even ones in strong bedrock. Here we review a
century of interpreta- tions of incised meanders and discuss how
meander theory, developed primarily to explain alluvial meanders,
also applies to meanders in bedrock. However, we also present our
own observations to show that incised meanders have several
important differences from meanders in alluvium that are related to
the channel geometry, the role of bed sed- iment, and the
erodibility and heterogeneity of bank material, and we discuss how
these differences may induce feedback mechanisms that are unique to
incising meanders. If neglected, the effect of sinuosity growth on
channel slope at constant drainage area and in the absence of
tectonic influence may lead to misinterpretations of tectonics from
morphology.
1 Introduction
River meanders have sparked curiosity for centuries (e.g. Thomson
1876; Ein-
stein 1926; Alexander 1982), and continue to inspire a great deal
of scientific
research (e.g. Rhoads and Welford 1991; Seminara 2006); the
literature is
replete with theories to account for their origin and evolution,
descriptions
of their regular planforms, and empirical measurements that reveal
consis-
tent relationships among aspects of their geometry and hydrology.
Much
of the attention has focused on meanders through cohesive sediment
of flat
alluvial landscapes. However, some have examined how and why
meanders
2 2
also exist incised into the bedrock of plateaus, uplifting
mountains, offshore
canyons, and Martian highlands.
Meanders are actually quite common along the incising bedrock
rivers of
some areas of high relief, and the processes of active meandering,
which is
the result of horizontal bank erosion, must be important to the
evolution of
these landscapes. However, these processes tend to be neglected in
models
of landscape evolution which consider bedrock erosion to be a key
parameter
while fixing the river network planform. A long overdue review of
meander
theory and its application to bedrock rivers will inform
interpretations and
models of landscape evolution.
2 The Osage River debate
William Morris Davis sparked a debate in 1893 with letter to
Science in
which he presented a theory of the origin of incised meanders along
the Osage
River of Missouri (Davis 1893a,b; Winslow 1893, 1894)1. He believed
in
cycles of landscape evolution, in which young topography has high
relief with
incising rivers while old landscapes are flat and mantled with fine
grained
1The terminology in the incised meander literature cited in this
review has been in- consistent; words like intrenched (Mahard
1942), entrenched (Rich 1914), incised (Tarr 1924), inclosed (Moore
1926a), and in-grown (Rich 1914), have taken turns as labels for
all incised meanders and for each type. We prefer to use the
unambiguous words active and passive meandering, which refer
specifically the state of bank erosion processes in the channel.
Passive meandering may occur through planforms that were inherited
from an alluvial phase, or through channels that were shaped by
active meandering in higher stratigraphy. We further distinguish
between the inheritance of channel planform and the antecedence of
valley position (e.g. Powell 1875; Davis 1897; Emmons 1897; Jeffer-
son 1897; Sears 1924), since, for example, an actively meandering
river may traverse and incise into an anticline along a valley axis
that is antecedent to the uplift.
3 3
sediment through which rivers meander. The Osage seemed to defy
this
paradigm, since it is “extremely tortuous in a steep-sided valley,
trenched
two or three hundred feet below the level of the surrounding
upland” (Davis
1893a). Davis deduced that the curious morphology of the Osage
must
indicate a series of landscape evolution cycles; some time in the
past the
Osage had “worn down its basin to a surface of faint relief,” such
that “its
slope became gentle and its current had taken to a deviating path,
peculiar
to old streams, which so generally meander on their flat flood
plains.” As
the plateau began to rise, “the faithful stream once more turned
the task
of cutting down its channel...but in doing so, it retained in the
new cycle
of its life the meandering course that it had attained in its old
age in the
previous cycle.” That is, renewed uplift of old topography causes a
switch
from horizontal to vertical erosion; whatever planform happens to
exist when
this occurs is locked in place and is retained through the young
stages of the
next erosion cycle.
This was not an entirely new idea; twenty years earlier, John
Wesley Pow-
ell arrived at a similar sequence of events to explain the sinuous
canyons he
found in expeditions to Colorado Territory, arguing that along some
reaches,
“the drainage was established antecedent to the corrugation or
displacement
of the beds by folding and faulting” (Powell 1875). This is similar
to Davis’s
idea, but not quite the same, since the antecedence of valley
position that
Powell described does not require an inherited channel
planform.
If sinuosity, defined as the ratio of the curved along-channel
length l
4 4
to the straight down-valley length L, does not change during
incision, and
if channel widths adjust quickly to changes in discharge, then
empirical
scaling relationships of alluvial channel width and wavelength
imply that
inherited meanders are windows into the past conditions under which
the
sinuosity formed (e.g. Dury 1953; Carlston 1964, 1965; Schumm
1967). That
is, meander wavelengths correspond to particular channel widths, so
incised
meander wavelengths indicate the width of the channel when
meandering
was active. The variation of channel width with discharge further
indicates
that the past width inferred from an inherited meander wavelength
corre-
sponds to the past discharge conditions, which, if different from
the current
conditions, may reveal a change in climate or network structure
(Davis 1913;
Wright 1942; Dury 1954, 1955, 1964, 1970; Williams 1986).
Since planform inheritance requires baselevel to fall, it also
signifies a
physiographic history that may include either eustatic change in
mean sea
level, isostatic or tectonic uplift, or the breach of an ice or
landslide dam.
Gardner (1975)’s experiments indicated that sinuosity inheritance
occurs
when baselevel drops without regional tilting, such that, for
example, mean-
ders incised in Honduran highlands could reveal a regional
isostatic response
to the detachment of a subducted slab (Rogers et al. 2002).
Likewise, mean-
ders incised into the Sierra Foothills may have resulted from the
upstream
propagation of a knickpoint into a lava plateau over which the
rivers had
meandered through alluvium (Huber 1981).
Implicit in the concept of inheritance is an assumption that
incising
5 5
rivers either do not cut their banks, or they do so symmetrically.
Therefore
inherited incised meanders also reveal properties of the flow and
load that
would support either zero or symmetric bank erosion and that must
have
persisted through the time of incision.
However, these inferences are invalid if meandering occurs during
inci-
sion. For example, Missouri geologist Arthur Winslow disagreed with
Davis’s
interpretation of the Osage since he knew of no field evidence for
the pene-
planation required by inheritance (Winslow 1893). Instead, Winslow
said
that vertical incision along the Osage was always accompanied by
“lateral
degradation and movement.” He explained that “where the current
im-
pinges, sapping will increase the convexity and the sinuosity will
become
more pronounced,” even as “the channel sinks vertically at the same
time.”
(Winslow 1893).2 Only a single cycle of erosion is necessary for
the channel
to shape itself this way.
Although Davis continued to argue his case for the Osage, he soon
al-
lowed that active planform evolution can occur during incision,
even with
lateral migration rates that far outpace downcutting (Davis 1906,
1913).
Winslow, meanwhile, maintained his argument for the Osage based
mostly
on his knowledge of the geological history of the Ozark region
(Winslow
2Unfortunately, we can no longer revisit Winslow’s field area to
settle the Davis- Winslow debate over the nature of the Osage
planform; the meanders in question were submerged dozens of meters
below the surface of the Lake of the Ozarks by the con- struction
of Bagnell Dam, completed in 1931. Likewise, the rivers Powell
described were flooded by the construction of Glen Canyon Dam,
completed in 1966, which created the lake that takes his name.
These reservoirs remain popular vacation destinations, and together
their hydroelectric plants have the capacity to generate nearly
1500 megawatts of power (Lowry 2003; http://www.usbr.gov).
6 6
1894); however, he did not refute the possibility that inheritance
can oc-
cur elsewhere. The question therefore became one of classification:
what
features on a sinuous incised channel are indicative of inherited
sinuosity
versus active meandering? Most subsequent studies focused on the
cross-
valley shape, since downcutting with no centerline migration should
produce
symmetric valleys while downcutting with simultaneous centerline
migration
should produce valley asymmetry that, along a sinuous river, will
alternate
polarity downstream (e.g. Davis 1906, 1913; Rich 1914; Tarr 1924;
Moore
1926a,b; Hol 1938, 1939; Masuch 1935). A corollary set of features
is associ-
ated with the topography of the inter-meander spurs: on an
inherited train
of meanders, the spurs have co-planar surfaces that overlap at high
elevation
and, in a plateau, are continuous with the surrounding peneplain
(e.g. Tarr
1924); active meanders, however, have slip-off slope spurs that dip
into each
bend (Mahard 1942) (Figure 1).
Valley shape alone could be misleading, since the channel
curvature
should always induce some lateral cutting, and may lead to
asymmetry even
along inherited meanders (Mahard 1942). Instead, the best
discriminators
are meander cutoffs, which occur when adjacent bends intersect and
pinch
off a section of the channel. In an alluvial system, the abandoned
channel
segment becomes an oxbow lake which eventually fills with
fine-grain lacus-
trine sediment to form a plug within the alluvial plain. Erosional
resistance
of such plugs may promote the development of planform bend
asymmetry
and complex or multiple bends which exhibit reversals of curvature
within
7 7
Figure 1: Left: Passive meandering on an incised channel. The steep
and sym- metric valley walls indicate that this river has not
migrated much while it incises. The overlapping inter meander spurs
are flat and coplanar with the surrounding plateau, on which there
are alluvial indicators of an abandoned loop (gray dashed lines)
Right: Active meandering on an incised channel. The asymmetric
valley preserves slip-off slopes at each bend. Bend growth has been
sufficient to cut off and abandon a meander loop. On both rivers,
the dotted red line shows the minimum sinuosity required at the
onset of incision (after Mahard 1942)
8 8
120°E
slip-off slope
cut bank
Figure 2: Low-level aerial photographs of the Jukuo River in
southwestern Taiwan (a) and location maps (b and c). This reach
exhibits the characteristic landforms of incised meandering
including valley asymmetry with relatively gentle slip-off slopes φ
on the inner bends and steep hillslopes θ on cutbanks, cutbank
landsliding, and necking. The meander loop around Shetoushan will
become abandoned some time in the near future; high stage flows are
now attacking both sides of the intermeander spur (red arrows)
causing slopes to fail and reducing the ridge height to leave a
narrow, sharp, saddle-shaped spur neck. As the ridge continues to
fall, deep flows will overtop it and eventually cut off the loop
that surrounds Shetoushan.
9 9
a single loop. In an incising system the cutoff process leads to a
suite of
characteristic landforms. As adjacent bends come together, they
attack the
elevated intervening intermeander spur from both sides;
undercutting in the
channel induces slope failure, reducing both the width and
elevation of the
spur to form a narrow saddle-shaped neck behind a rounded hill at
the
end of the spur. The morphology of the spur at this point, prior to
cut-
off, resembles the head and neck of a snake; a famous example along
the
Jukou River (Zhuokoux) in southwestern Taiwan is even called
Shetoushan
(Shetoushan), which translates as snake head mountain. After
cutoff, the
head portion of the spur is surrounded by the abandoned channel
loop which
tends to fill with alluvium and colluvium to form a flat field in
otherwise high
relief terrain, well-suited for villages, farms, soccer fields,
etc. (Figure 3).
The position of cutoffs in the landscape and their associated
features
therefore correspond to the river’s position at the time of active
meandering.
Mahard (1942) recognized in particular that remnants of an alluvial
system,
such as oxbow lakes, preserved in the peneplain would be the
strongest
evidence of inheritance, although we know of no examples of these
in nature
or literature. Cutoff and abandoned meander loops at a variety of
elevations
above the channel, however, are very common.
Since active meanders form in situ, they obviate the need to invoke
a
past alluvial phase for explaining existing sinuosity; however,
this does not
preclude the possibility that the channel used to meander through
alluvium
(e.g. Winslow 1894; Hack and Young 1959; Leopold et al. 1964; Blank
1970),
10 10
Shetoushan
Figure 3: The Jukou River river (22.88 N, 120.65 E) in Taiwan in a
5 m DEM and SPOT (December 31, 2003), and Formosat-2 (March 17,
2006) images, left to right. This river shows all of the
characteristics of active meandering, including cutoff meander
loops (purple polygons in the DEM), alternating valley asymmetry
with gently-dipping slip-off slopes, and cutoffs. Two extreme
floods occured in this basin between the SPOT and Formosat-2 image
dates. Landslides that occured during these floods (marked by red
polygons in the DEM and arrows in the Formosat image) were limited
to the outer bends, indicating that the slopes were destabilized by
focused outward erosion around each meander loop.
11 11
or even that the existing planform may retain some features of a
geometry
that formed in higher stratigraphy (e.g. Harden 1990), perhaps even
in al-
luvium (Twidale 2004). For example, variation of lateral erosion
rates with
erodibility, or a negative feedback that slows the meandering
process with
incision (Stark et al. 2008) could each produce an existing
planform that is
not evolving today but that formed during incision through
overlying layers.
Whether or not these processes occur remains to be tested.
There is also a class of incised meanders which form consequent
to
bedrock features (e.g. Powell 1875; Jefferson 1897; Strahler 1946)
or other
external influences such as emerging topography or glacial
obstructions (e.g.
Challinor 1933). Well-known examples on the Conodoguinet Creek in
Penn-
sylvania and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River in Virginia
both have
a series of tight loops connected by long, straight, parallel
reaches that run
perpendicular to a strong cleavage in their shaley bedrock
(Strahler 1946;
Hack and Young 1959). Lateral cutting occurs on these rivers only
where
the flow direction matches the cleavage and the force required to
erode is
minimized. This sort of externally controlled sinuosity is
distinctly differ-
ent from sinuosity that is a function of the interaction of the
flow and its
boundaries.
There are published descriptions of incised meanders in a variety
of litho-
logic, climatic, and tectonic environments (Table 1), and many of
them show
clear evidence of active meandering. Countless more actively
meandering
bedrock rivers are visible with spatially variable abundance across
the planet
12 12
Incised Meander Location: References
Rich (1914); Tarr (1924); Lancaster (1998)
Colorado Plateau: Powell (1875); Sears (1924); Moore
(1926a,b)
Huber (1981); Harden (1990); Baars (1990)
French Lorraine: Davis (1906, 1909); Blache (1939, 1940)
Eifel region of Germany: Davis (1906); Flohn (1935)
Belgian Ardennes: Davis (1906)
Appalachian Mountains: Davis (1906); Bates (1939); Wright
(1942)
Strahler (1946); Hack and Young (1959); Braun (1983); Brakenridge
(1985)
Mills and Mills (2001); Twidale (2004)
Edwards Plateau of Texas: Blank (1970); Tinkler (1971, 1972)
Eastern Highlands of New South Wales, Australia: Young (1970)
California Sierra Nevada: Huber (1981)
Southern Sierra Nevada of Spain: Jansen (2006)
Central American Highlands of Honduras: Rogers et al. (2002)
Coast Range of Oregon: Kobor and Roering (2002)
Northern Cape Province of South Africa: McCarthy and Toth
(2004)
Watchung Hills of New Jersey: Ashley et al. (1988)
Foothills of the Canadian Rockies: Crickmay (1960)
Central and Coastal Mountains of Taiwan: Hovius and Stark
(2001)
Hsieh et al. (2001); Shyu et al. (2006)
13 13
in any web-based virtual globe program with high resolution
imagery. It is
clear that the processes of meandering are common not only in
alluvial rivers
but in incising ones, as well; indeed many theories of meandering
suggest
that this is entirely expected.
3 Meander theories and bedrock rivers
Rivers meander if their boundary shear stresses are erosive along
each bank
with offset periodicity. Theories of what brings about such a
condition
have evolved over time, with discussions that have focused on the
effects
of, for example, centripetal acceleration around bends (e.g.
Thomson 1876),
boundary shear friction (e.g. Einstein 1926), Coriolis-induced
secondary flow
currents (e.g. Kalkwijk and Booij 1986), topographic steering of
the high ve-
locity thread (e.g. Dietrich and Smith 1983), asymmetry of
turbulent eddy
generation (e.g. Hey 1976), variations in the vertical flow
velocity struc-
ture (Engelund and Skovgaard 1973), and periodic sediment bedforms
(e.g.
Callander 1969).
In a classic pair of papers, Langbein and Leopold (1966) and
Leopold and
Langbein (1966) wrote that river meanders have a shape that
simultaneously
minimizes the energy required to flow through the bent path and
minimizes
the variance in direction along that path. Although the curve
itself is not
a typical sine waveform, the angle Θ that it makes with the
down-valley
14 14
Θ = ω sin l, (1)
where l is the distance along the stream and ω is a coefficient
that varies
with the angle of the stream when it crosses the valley axis;
larger values of
ω correspond to fatter loops. This concept of a sine-generated
curve proved
useful as a mathematical description of meander planform for
subsequent
modelers (e.g. Parker et al. 1982; Johannesson and Parker 1989;
Edwards
and Smith 2002; Seminara 2006). However, the shape of anything
growing in
a periodic curvilinear geometry can be described at any point in
its evolution
by a sine-generated curve; therefore, while these curves do
approximate the
shape of many alluvial and incised meanders, they do not provide
insight
into the processes that cause meanders to form and evolve.
Others (e.g. Callander 1969; Parker 1976; Fredsoe 1978) found a
physically-
based explanation for meander initiation in an instability that
develops as
water flows over a mobile bed. Submerged sediment bars tend to grow
on
alternate sides of the channel; shoaling over these elevated bars
and into the
adjacent deep pools generates thalweg sinuosity which, they argued,
pre-
curses a meandering channel characterized by a wavelength that
matches
the periodicity of the original bars. This theory was supported by
flume
experiments in which alternate bars formed along a straight channel
prior
to the initiation of meandering (Schumm and Khan 1972). However,
these
bar theories fall short in their attempts to explain meandering
dynamics
15 15
for several reasons; most important, they do not include
descriptions of
bank erosion, which means they can explain sinuosity of the thalweg
but
not meandering of the channel (e.g. Rhoads and Welford 1991).
Further-
more, they require a mobile bed for bar formation and therefore
neglect the
meanders that form in supraglacial meltwater streams, ocean
currents, off-
shore canyons, and incising bedrock rivers which have at most
limited bed
sediment.
Ikeda et al. (1981) and others (e.g. Parker et al. 1982; Parker and
An-
drews 1986; Edwards and Smith 2002) have addressed these
shortcomings
by considering the stability of the channel planform to
perturbations of its
centerline. These bend theories focus on asymmetry in the flow
velocity pro-
file which results from such a perturbation through an interaction
of the
flow with channel curvature and boundary friction; friction at the
walls and
bed reduce the flow speed near the boundary, allowing this thread
to be
more effectively turned around the bends than the faster flow at
the free
surface (Thomson 1876; Einstein 1926). This causes a secondary flow
cur-
rent in which the high-velocity thread is displaced from bank to
opposite
bank along the channel; since the shear stress on the channel
boundary in-
creases with flow speed (e.g. Guo and Julien 2005), fastest
horizontal erosion
will tend to occur where the fastest flow thread most closely
approaches the
channel walls. It is common for the periodic displacement of the
fastest flow
to be offset with respect to the curvature of the channel
centerline; if erosion
is maximized downstream from the bend apex, the entire meander
train will
16 16
migrate down the valley.
At a transect on a bend, the flow asymmetry is characterized in
its
simplest form by an excess velocity at the concave bank relative to
the
convex bank; lateral migration of the channel centerline is then
explained
with an erosion rule that is based on the magnitude of this
across-channel
velocity variation. Since the redirection of a flow around a curved
channel
requires a force applied by the outer bank on the flow, a
corresponding force
is also applied by the flow on the outer bank (e.g. Begin 1981).
The likelihood
and rate of bank erosion is expected to increase with this force.
Increasing
curvature boosts the centrifugal acceleration around a bend,
enhancing the
divergence of near-boundary and near-free surface flow threads. At
constant
channel width and arc length, this increase in flow asymmetry
increases
the rate of outer bank erosion (Furbish 1988) in a positive
feedback which
operates until a stable form is achieved (e.g. Stark et al. 2008),
for example,
through negative feedbacks between bend growth and its associated
slope
reduction, or through wall buffering that increases as faster bank
erosion
produces greater volumes of sediment. On incising rivers, bank
erosion may
likewise slow with incision if wall buffering increases as
hillslopes lengthen.
If these negative feedbacks do not occur, erosion rates will
increase with
curvature until adjacent bends intersect and bypass the loop
entirely, cutting
it off and resetting the reach sinuosity to 1.
Factors that influence the production of secondary currents and the
rate
of bank erosion include curvature and friction as well as flow
speed, dis-
17 17
charge, water surface slope, flow width, and arc length. Bar
formation can
also play an important role in establishing the initial
perturbation (e.g. Blon-
deaux and Seminara 1985; Johannesson and Parker 1989), but it is
not re-
quired by bend theories, since curvature and friction alone are
sufficient to
produce the required flow asymmetry. Importantly, bend theories do
not
consider the role of sediment, but instead assume that erosion of
the outer
bank of an alluvial river is matched by bar formation at the other
side of the
channel. This assumption is not necessary for meandering of
incising rivers,
since the combination of vertical and horizontal erosion allow the
channel to
maintain its width passively. In this way, bend theory is arguably
more ap-
plicable to incising rivers than it is to alluvial ones; in fact
incised meanders
appear explicitly in several studies (e.g. Ikeda et al. 1981;
Parker et al. 1982;
Carson and Lapointe 1983; Kitanidis and Kennedy 1984; Blondeaux
and
Seminara 1985), indicating that for those developing meander
theory, there
is nothing particularly surprising or unusual about the active
meandering of
bedrock rivers. However, there are critical differences between
meandering
rivers that incise and those that do not, and these considerations
are the
focus of the following section.
18 18
4.1 Bankfull discharge
Meander models tend to specify flow in terms of some combination of
dis-
charge, velocity, or flow depth corresponding to a characteristic
event (e.g.
Blondeaux and Seminara 1985). For alluvial rivers, the bankfull
discharge
(e.g. Williams 1978) is a convenient and natural choice. However,
the con-
cept of a bankfull discharge has no meaning in incising bedrock
channels
(Tinkler 1971, 1972), since these are commonly bounded by valley
walls
with no floodplain; there is no way for an incising river to
dynamically adjust
the bankfull depth through the construction of natural levees. A
statistical
choice, such as the mean annual maximum or the 99th percentile
discharge,
could be an alternative. However, it is unlikely that a single
choice would
apply to both alluvial and incising rivers, since all floods are
confined to an
incising bedrock channel, whereas only those that are less than
bankfull are
confined to an alluvial one. This could significantly affect the
relationships
of discharge, shear stress, and erosion in bedrock versus alluvial
channels;
the same long term distribution of discharges should produce
different dis-
tributions of shear stress in channels with and without
floodplains.
The best option would be to avoid generalization and consider all
of
the discharges that occur in a channel, and combine them with
empirical
data on the hydraulic geometry of each flow. However, this is
impractical,
since hydraulic geometry depends on channel slope, bed roughness,
and
19 19
cross sectional geometry, and is therefore unique at every
transect. Instead,
empirical data on the spatiotemporal variation of hydraulic
geometry and
shear stress along alluvial and incising rivers may help to
identify a robust
statistic or set of statistics to use for generalizing
discharge.
4.2 Bank height
The erosion of channel banks can occur gradually through
shear-related pro-
cesses like plucking and abrasion, or incrementally through
collapses and
landslides that result when undercutting in the channel
destabilizes the
overriding slope. Collapses and landslides produce significant
volumes of
sediment which buffers the bank, protecting it from further erosion
until
subsequent flows are sufficiently powerful to erode or remove it;
the long
term ability of flows to eliminate this sediment may limit the long
term rate
of horizontal erosion (Seminara 2006). Since the amount of sediment
buffer-
ing the banks is an increasing function bank height and collapse
frequency,
an inverse relationship may exist between channel relief and
lateral erosion
rate (Hickin and Nanson 1975; Nanson and Hickin 1983).
Along alluvial rivers, the bank height subject to failure is simply
the
bankfull depth, but slope failures along incising bedrock channels
can ex-
tend from the thalweg to the drainage divide. We expect this to
result in
more buffering along incised channels than alluvial ones, and may
result
in more buffering with incision if hillslopes are simultaneously
lengthening.
However, the valley shape of incising rivers may compensate for
this by con-
20 20
fining all flows to the channel and maximizing the stresses
available to erode
the buffering boulders and carry them away; however, the details of
such
tradeoffs have yet to be addressed in theory, experiments, or
observations.
4.3 Bed buffering
Bed sediment in an incising channel can be both an agent of erosion
and
a protective covering against it, causing the rate of downcutting
to be a
nonlinear function of sediment supply with a positive correlation
at small
loads and a negative one at higher loads (Gilbert 1877). Moore
(1926a)
applied this idea to a curved channel and wrote that “the
effectiveness of
sideward cutting in proportion to downcutting seems to be
controlled by the
relative loading of the stream...if the load is relatively large,
and especially
if it consists in part of coarse material which is rolled and slid
along the
stream bed, there is a blanketing effect which partly protects the
bed...and
the effect of the erosion on the unprotected side walls which is
thus produced
is relatively very important.”
Similarly, (Tinkler 1971, 1972) argued that to accomplish any
downcut-
ting in a mixed bedrock-alluvial channel, there must be a recurrent
flood of
great enough magnitude to clear all of the sediment and expose the
bed to
erosion. Otherwise, only lateral erosion would be possible. This is
supported
by flume experiments in which flow through an initially sinuous
channel in
a simulated isotropic bedrock of sand, silt, and kaolinite clay
incises down-
ward only when all of the available sediment is entrained; while
there is bed
21 21
sediment, erosion occurs at the outer bank of the bends (Shepherd
1972;
Shepherd and Schumm 1974; Dury et al. 1976). Studies of natural
channels
have also shown that bedcover may induce widening (e.g. Pazzaglia
et al.
1998; Pazzaglia and Brandon 2001; Hancock and Anderson 2002),
which,
unless perfectly symmetric, results in centerline migration.
However, the effect of bed sediment is likely complicated by shape
of
the channel and the relative scale of the discharge variation and
the sedi-
ment extent, thickness, quality, and caliber. For example, flows of
a certain
magnitude may be required to wet the banks, and even greater flows
may
be required to accomplish bank erosion. These extreme floods that
erode
the channel walls may also carry enough sediment to protect and
cover the
bed, leaving the steeper banks exposed (Turowski et al. 2008).
Meanwhile,
discharges at lower stage than is required to wet the banks may be
sufficient
to move enough bed sediment to attack the channel bed. Thus the
most
powerful events may carve the channel walls while the bed is
protected by
bed sediment, while significantly less extreme discharges may be
required to
erode the bed while the banks remain dry.
Bed sediment on incising rivers is typically thin and intermittent,
but it is
commonly extensive enough to potentially form the alternate bars
which me-
ander bar theories require for the initiation of thalweg sinuosity,
and which
can produce the perturbations required by bend theories of
meandering to
initiate channel curvature (e.g. Ikeda et al. 1981). Thus bedload
need not
be eliminated from theories or models of meanders along incising
bedrock
22 22
rivers, although differences with respect to alluvial sediment in
grain size
and cohesion should be considered.
4.4 Erodibility
In general, incising rivers have stronger, less erodible banks than
alluvial
ones, which, all else equal, will result in slower meandering
(Davis 1913;
Tinkler 1971); along incising rivers, the meandering rate should
increase with
bedrock erodibility. Likewise, harder rocks should be more likely
to preserve
existing sinuosity against both loop enlargement and downstream
migration,
while weaker rocks would be more vulnerable to lateral erosion
(Jefferson
1897; Davis 1906). In soft or weak enough bedrock, sinuosity could
even
disappear through downstream migration or erosion of the
overlapping spurs
(Moore 1926a; Cole 1930, 1937). For example, in the Virginia
Appalachians,
meanders cut into weak shaley rocks tend to have amplitudes two to
three
times the size of nearby meanders with similar wavelength and
drainage
area that are cut into harder, massive carbonates; if these rivers
have been
evolving for the same amount of time, lateral erosion is at least
twice as fast
in the weaker rocks (Braun 1983; Abrahams 1985).
How erodibility influences the relative rates of centerline
migration and
downcutting is not immediately obvious, since a range processes may
be in
competition. For example, if erodibility promotes lateral erosion,
it may lead
to greater sediment loads which may act to protect the weaker bed,
thereby
slowing down vertical incision. Or, that same increased lateral
erosion may
23 23
be accomplished through undercutting and slope destabilization,
that con-
tributes to a negative feedback due to increased wall buffering.
Investigations
of rock strength and meandering rates may help to clarify whether
or not
these feedbacks exist and how they work.
4.5 Bank heterogeneity
Meander bend theories do not yet explicitly account for the
formation of
multiple loops, along which curvature changes more frequently than
the
dominant wavelength of sinuosity. However, Lancaster and Bras
(2002)’s nu-
merical experiments indicate that topographic steering (Dietrich
and Smith
1983) of the bed may be sufficient, but they noted that
heterogeneity of
bank erodibility is also likely to be important. Bank erodibility
varies along
alluvial meanders due to the lacustrine plugs that form in oxbow
lakes, and
along bedrock rivers due to changes in lithology and lithologic
structure, or
to anisotropy of structures that causes erodibility to vary with
flow direc-
tion. If heterogeneity is to be included in meander models, its
sources, which
differ in incising and alluvial meanders, should also be
considered.
5 Incised meander valley morphology and
mesurement of meander rate
Changes in channel width w and centerline migration dx/dt both
depend
on how each bank moves through erosion and deposition with respect
to
24 24
some fixed datum. If we consider the sign on the bank migration to
indicate
erosion (positive) or deposition (negative), then w at a given
transect will
always change unless the sum of the migrations of each bank is
zero. Such a
condition could occur at a transect where both banks have zero
migration,
or, on an alluvial river, from erosion on one bank and
equal-magnitude
deposition on the other. Along an incising river, no deposition is
required,
since erosion of the bed and one bank passively sets the position
of the
other bank according to the flow depth. Migration of the centerline
will
always occur unless the bank migrations are equal magnitude and
oppositely
directed.
banks, levees, swales, and paleosols, combined with radiocarbon
ages can
reveal rates and histories of lateral channel migration (e.g.
Brakenridge
1985). Time series imagery can also provide information on channel
mi-
gration (Crickmay 1960), although this is of limited use unless
migration
rates are exceedingly high and/or the temporal baseline of the
image series
is sufficiently long.
Where such data is not available, we can at least infer the
relative rates of
centerline migration and vertical incision from the shape of the
valley. Along
a channel transect with dx/dt = 0, the slope of the valley walls is
set by a
lithologically or structurally controlled hillslope angle θ. Where
dx/dt = 0, a
slip-off-slope angle φ is defined by the arctangent of the ratio of
bed erosion
dz/dt to dx/dt. The active or cut-bank side of a such a channel’s
valley will
25 25
have a slope set by θ, but the passive slip off slope side will
have a slope set
by θ or by φ, whichever is smaller (Figure 4).
If there is a fluvially set slip-off slope angle φ, and if the rate
of bed
erosion dz/dt is greater than zero, φ alone provides an estimate of
the relative
rates of horizontal and vertical erosion; estimation of the
absolute dx/dt also
requires a knowledge of dz/dt, since
dx
dt =
dz/dt
tanφ , (2)
for φ > 0. Although valley symmetry has long been considered an
indicator
of zero dx/dt, we expect any transect where dx/dt is relatively too
small
to produce a stable φ given the local value of θ to have a
symmetric cross
section. Thus the most we can say for a symmetric valley is
0 ≤ dx
dt ≤ dz/dt
tan θ . (3)
Since hillslope angle θ is strongly influenced by bedding,
cleavage, and joints,
it may be spatially non-uniform, resulting in
structurally-controlled cross-
valley asymmetry (e.g. Judson and Andrews 1955). Inferences about
dx/dt
made qualitatively through observations of valley geometry or
quantitatively
with Equation 2 should always be supported by field evidence that
the asym-
metry in question does not have this sort of structural
influence.
As a case study, we considered the Hsiukuluan (Xiuguluan) River
(Fig-
ure 5), which drains the Central Mountains of Taiwan and flows
north
26 26
|dx| dt
dz dt
Figure 4: Schematic valley shapes. a) A symmetric valley with walls
that have slopes set by the hillslope angle θ on both sides. This
valley shape does not indicate the direction or magnitude of
channel centerline migration since the rate of horizontal erosion
is too small relative to downcutting to preserve slip-off slopes;
however, lateral erosion and centerline migration may still occur
in such a valley, with a rate described by Equation 3. b) An
asymmetric valley with a stable slip-off slope angle φ on one side
and the hillslope angle θ on the other. Here horizontal erosion is
relatively fast enough to preserve a record of the relative rates
of horizontal and vertical erosion in the slip-off-slope, while the
cutbank slope is maintained by slope failure. c) A valley in which
the ratio of horizontal to vertical erosion decreased, either
through a reduction of horizontal erosion or through an increase in
downcutting. The dotted line marks the break in topographic slope,
but it does not necessarily denote the point in time when the
transition in erosion rate ratios occured. This is because the
relative increase in vertical erosion causes hillslopes on both
sides of the valley to fail: if the relative rates of horizontal
and vertical erosion match the hillslope angle, and horizontal
erosion continues to operate on the left side of this schematic
valley, then the slope break marks the point in time when a change
in erosion rate ratios occured; otherwise, slope failure on the
right side of the valley will cut into the slip-off slope,
eventually eliminating it entirely and forming a symmetric valley
like the one in (a).
27 27
through the Longitudinal Valley. It then makes a sharp turn to
cross highly
erodible flysch and turbidite sediments of the western flank of the
Coastal
Range. Near the range axis, it crosses the Chimei (Qme) fault and
crosses
harder andesitic volcanic rocks before reaching the Pacific Ocean
(e.g. Yu
and Kuo 2001; Shyu et al. 2006) (Figure 5). The valley position
appears
to be antecedent to the uplift of the coastal mountains, but the
river is ex-
tremely sinuous and along its bends are several cutoff meander
loops that
indicate this channel’s rapid planform evolution through
orogenesis. Allu-
vial deposits within the cutoff loops are proof that these are
abandoned
channel segments. Patches of similar deposits all along the
intermeander
slip-off slope spurs indicate that these are fluvial features
formed through
simultaneous incision and centerline migration. Shyu et al. (2006)
obtained
14C ages from several of the spurs (Figure 5) and found incision
rates to
vary along the channel and through time between 11.2 and 27.3 mm
y−1.
We measured the slip-off slope angles along the ridge of each
intermean-
der spur of the Hsiukuluan River from a 40m DEM of Taiwan. Using
these,
along with Shyu et al. (2006)’s estimates of dz/dt, we deduced
through Equa-
tion 2 the outward horizontal erosion rate at each of the bends
(Figure 6).
Since valley geometry is a function of the relative rates of dx/dt
and dz/dt,
its variation can result from along stream changes in either dx/dt
or dz/dt.
This is complicated along the Coastal Range Hsiukuluan since the
river
crosses both a growth anticline which has uplift rates that are
fastest near
the ridge axis (Lave and Avouac 2001), and a fault that brings hard
metased-
28 28
0 1 20.5 Km
Figure 5: Hillshaded 40m DEM of the Hsiukuluan River with inset
location map of Taiwan. Cross-valley profiles are drawn down the
ridge line of minimum slope on each meander spur and are shown in
figure 6. The approximate location of the Chimei Fault, a
lithologic boundary between hard andesitic volcanics to the east
and weaker flysch and turbidite sediments to the west, is also
shown. Stars indicate Shyu et al. (2006)’s sample locations along
with their inferred incision rates in mm yr−1. Contour interval is
100 m.
29 29
A B
El ev
at io
n a
b ov
e se
a le
ve l [
30 30
Figure 6: Valley topography looking downstream across the
Hsiukuluan River at locations shown in Figure 5. Transects AB, CD,
EF, and IJ are all almost entirely within the weaker flysh and
turbidite sediments. Transects OP, QR, and ST are entirely within
the stronger volcanics. KL, and MN are bisected by the fault, with
the cutbank of KL in harder rocks and the cutbank of MN in softer
rocks. In general, channel geometry has alternating asymemtry west
of the fault, and is symmetric to the east, indicating that the
relative rate of horizontal erosion corresponds to the erodibility
of the bedrock. Application of Equation 2 to Shyu et al. (2006)’s
incision rate estimates and the slope of a linear regression of the
inside bank’s valley wall (segments used for fitting are in thick
grey) yields rates of horizontal erosion. In this case, we applied
the range of incision rates for the upstream cluster of samples to
transects AB through GH, and the range of dates for the downstream
cluster of samples to transects IJ through MN. Without constraint
on the incision rates east of the Chimei fault, we are unable to
estimate horizontal erosion, but we know from the hillslope angles
the maximum erosion rate ratios. Note that the geometry of EF, and
MN are also complicated by a cutoff loop.
31 31
iments and volcanics next to weak turbidites. This lithologic
change occurs
a few kilometers from the coast, with the harder bedrock
downstream, and
seems to have a clear effect on the valley shape across the fault.
Although
there has yet to be a thorough investigation of the relative
response of dx/dt
and dz/dt to changes in uplift rate and erodibility, and although
there is lim-
ited constraint on dz/dt within the harder volcanics east of the
Chimei fault,
we found that the transects with fastest dz/dt tend also to have
the fastest
dx/dt within the flysch and turbidite sediments. Marked valley
asymmetry
in the weaker substrates has slip-off slopes on the inside of each
bend with
φ produced by the relative rates of centerline migration and
downcutting;
east of the fault, in the harder rocks, the valley is symmetric,
with lateral
erosion is relatively too slow to preserve stable slip-off slopes
and with valley
slopes on both sides set by θ.
6 Implications for inferences on tectonics
Fluvial incision into bedrock channels communicates local changes
in base
level throughout the channel network and ultimately sets the pace
of land-
scape evolution. The vertical component is commonly considered to
be a
function of stream power (e.g. Seidl and Dietrich 1992), or
boundary shear
stress (e.g. Howard 1994) through a stream power law,
dz
32 32
where dz/dt is the rate of vertical erosion, A is drainage area
which serves
as a surrogate for a characteristic discharge, and S is channel
slope. The
coefficient k may depend on anything other than slope and area that
may
affect incision, such as erodibility, climate, cross sectional
channel geometry,
flow hydraulics, roughness, and the volume, grain size, and cover
extent of
sediment load (e.g. Whipple et al. 2000; Wobus et al. 2006a).
Rearranged, Equation 4 gives a description of channel longitudinal
pro-
files,
n , (5)
where ks, the steepness index, is ((dz/dt)/k)1/n (e.g. Whipple
2004). The
exponents m and n also vary with several influences, including
erosion pro-
cess, channel hydraulic geometry, debris flow frequency, and
alluviation (e.g.
Whipple 2004). Their ratio m/n describes the concavity of the
channel long
profile and is commonly called the concavity index (e.g. Sklar and
Dietrich
1998; Whipple 2004; Wobus et al. 2006a).
A river which incises at a rate that matches rock uplift U has
widths
and slopes that are adjusted to maintain this balance; narrower and
steeper
channels counter faster uplift rates. If widths have simple scaling
with con-
tributing drainage area (e.g. Whipple 2004), the form of Equation 5
for
adjusted channels should vary with U , since ks is a function of
dz/dt. In
this case, plots of slope against area should provide information
about the
relative rates of uplift among nearby catchments; the scaling of
channel slope
versus upstream area has been shown to increase with uplift rate
(e.g. Kirby
33 33
et al. 2003; Wobus et al. 2006a), so that relative uplift rates may
be inferred
from the slopes of such plots.
However, absent tectonic complications, any increase in sinuosity
occurs
with an increase in reach length and results in a reduction of
slope, which
means meandering rivers have slopes that can change irrespective of
con-
tributing drainage area. This will reduce the scaling of slope and
area in
much the same way as we expect from a reduction of uplift rate
(Figure 7).
Therefore, inferences about tectonics drawn from a relationship of
slope to
area may be wrong unless the development of sinuosity is also
considered.
There is a limit to the magnitude of this effect, since cutoffs
prevent reach
sinuosities from growing indefinitely; however, it implies that a
condition of
equilibrium between uplift and incision rates may require channels
to narrow
in response to sinuosity-driven slope reduction, against the
assumptions of
how channels widen predictably downstream. More important, this
type of
narrowing is exactly opposite what we expect to occur based on the
increased
flux of sediment to the channel that should also result from
sinuosity growth,
since increased sediment supply tends to drive widening (e.g.
Pazzaglia et al.
1998; Pazzaglia and Brandon 2001; Hancock and Anderson 2002).
Alternatively, meandering rivers may be able to restore their
adjusted
slopes and maintain slope-area relationships that reveal U by
allowing the
entire catchment to tilt, something that has been shown to occur in
alluvial
channels (Harbor 1998). If it occurs in incising rivers as well, it
implies that
active meandering indicates a state of transience, and that passive
mean-
34 34
138°10'0"E
138°10'0"E
138°20'0"E
138°20'0"E
138°30'0"E
138°30'0"E
28 °1
0' 0"
b
p
35 35
Figure 7: Top: Hillshaded Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)
3- arcsecond digital elevation model (DEM) of the Shimanto River
with inset showing location in Shikoku, Japan. The black network
was derived through standard flow- routing over the SRTM topography
using a drainage-hillslope threshold of 1000 pixels (≈ 8 km2). The
heavy black line is the trunk channel of the catchment, selected as
the path of maximum upstream area at each junction. A reduced-
sinuosity version of the trunk stream path was drawn between nodes
of the channel network and is shown in red. The mean sinuosity of
the SRTM-derived channel is 1.64, but at the reach scale it varies
from 1.1 to 2.6. The elevations at each node were extracted from
the DEM and combined with the path lengths between nodes to
determine the long profiles and the slopes of the channel and its
straightened analog. Bottom: Long profile and slope-area plots of
the Shimanto River’s trunk channel and its straightened analog.
Sinuosity growth lengthens the channel and reduces the slope-area
scaling in a way that is similar to what Wobus et al. (2006b)
showed for slow versus fast zones of uplift. That is, the effect on
a slope-area plot from increasing sinuosity is the same as the
effect from reducing uplift.
36 36
dering should take over upon restoration of steady state. It also
implies
that catchment relief may increase through sinuosity development.
Since
meander models suggest that that bank erosion is strongly dependent
on
discharge, incised meandering may provide a previously unrecognized
mech-
anism through which climate can produce topographic relief.
At the very least, slope adjustments that occur with meandering
should
introduce considerable noise to a slope-area plot and could even
obscure the
differences in uplift rate these curves seek to reveal (Figure 7).
It may be
possible to infer tectonics from topography through Equation 5 for
some re-
gions, but doing so requires an assumption that any changes in
slope, width,
roughness, and sediment load character that are due to active
meandering
will be captured by the steepness index ks. A better option would
be to ex-
plore in detail the factors that contribute to and suppress
meandering along
incising rivers and to incorporate these into a new model of
bedrock erosion
that includes these considerations; until then, models of landscape
evolution
are unlikely to reproduce the landforms associated with
meandering.
7 Conclusions
The contribution of bedrock river erosion to landscape evolution
involves
processes that modify both the bed and the banks, so it is
important to
consider horizontal processes with as much attention as has been
afforded to
vertical incision. This requires the identification and analysis of
the forces
that drive bank erosion and the conditions that affect it in
incising rivers,
37 37
instead of ignoring them or simply collapsing them into a catch-all
prefactor
like the steepness index ks. It also requires a better
understanding of the
differences between meanders in bedrock and in alluvium so that
meander
theories can better address and account for these differences. In
particular,
theoretical, experimental, and empiricle observations on the role
of feedback
processes that may be unique to incising meanders are currently
lacking.
Greater attention to the planform evolution of bedrock rivers will
yield a
better physical understanding of bedrock river erosion and
landscape evolu-
tion.
References
A. D. Abrahams. Lithologic control of bedrock meander dimensions in
the appalachian valley and ridge province; a comment. Earth Surface
Pro- cesses and Landforms, 10(6):635–642, 1985.
D. Alexander. Leonardo da Vinci and fluvial geomorphology. American
Journal of Science, 282:735–755, 1982.
G. M. Ashley, W. H. Renwick, and G. H. Haag. Channel form and
processes in bedrock and alluvial reaches of the Raritan River, New
Jersey. Geology, 16:436–439, 1988.
D. L. Baars. Controlling factors in the distribution and
development of incised meanders in the central Colorado Plateau:
Discussion and reply. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
102:233–242, 1990.
R. E. Bates. Geomorphic history of the Kickapoo region, Wisconsin.
Geo- logical Society of America Bulletin, 50:819–880, 1939.
Z. B. Begin. Stream curvature and bank erosion: A model based upon
the momentum equation. Journal of Geology, 89:497–504, 1981.
38 38
J. Blache. Le probleme des meandres encaisses et les rivieres
Lorraines. Journal Geomorphology, 2:201–212, 1939.
J. Blache. Le probleme des meandres encaisses et les rivieres
Lorraines, II. Journal Geomorphology, 3:311–331, 1940.
H. R. Blank. Incised meanders in Mazon County, Texas. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 81:3135–3140, 1970.
P. Blondeaux and G. Seminara. A unified bar-bend theory of river
meanders. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 157:449–470, 1985.
G. R. Brakenridge. Rate estimates for lateral bedrock erosion based
on radiocarbon ages, Duck River, Tennessee. Geology, 13:111–114,
1985.
D. D. Braun. Lithologic control of bedrock meander dimensions in
the ap- palachian valley and ridge province. Earth Surface
Processes and Land- forms, 8(3):223–237, 1983.
R. A. Callander. Instability and river channels. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 36:465–480, 1969.
C. W. Carlston. Free and incised meanders in the United States and
their geomorphic and paleoclimatic implications. In Abstracts of
1963, pages 29–29. Geological Society of America, 1964.
C. W. Carlston. The relation of free meander geometry to stream
discharge and its geomorphic implications. American Journal of
Science, 263:864– 885, 1965.
M. A. Carson and M. F. Lapointe. The inherent asymmetry of river
meander planform. Journal of Geology, 91:41–55, 1983.
J. Challinor. The ”incised meanders” near Pont-erwyd,
Cardiganshire. The Geological Magazine, LXX:90–92, 1933.
W. S. Cole. The interpretation of intrenched meanders. Journal of
Geology, 38:423–436, 1930.
W. S. Cole. Modification of incised meanders by floods. Journal of
Geology, 45:648–654, 1937.
39 39
C. H. Crickmay. Lateral activity in a river of northwestern Canada.
Journal of Geology, 68(4):377–391, 1960.
W. M. Davis. The topographic maps of the United States Geological
Survey. Science, 21(534):225–227, 1893a.
W. M. Davis. The Osage River and the Ozark uplift. Science,
22(563): 276–279, 1893b.
W. M. Davis. Current notes on physiography. Science,
5(121):647–649, 1897.
W. M. Davis. Incised meandering valleys. The Bulletin of the
Geographical Society of Philadelphia, IV(4):182–192, 1906.
W. M. Davis. The Seine, the Meuse, and the Moselle, pages 587–616.
Ginn and Company, New York, 1909.
W. M. Davis. Meandering valleys and underfit rivers. Annals of the
Asso- ciation of American Geographers, III:3–28, 1913.
W. E. Dietrich and J. D. Smith. Influence of the point bar on flow
through curved channels. Water Resources Research, 19:1173–1192,
1983.
G. H. Dury. An approach to paleometeorology. Nature, 172:919,
1953.
G. H. Dury. Contribution to a general theory of meandering valleys.
Amer- ican Journal of Science, 252(4):193–224, 1954.
G. H. Dury. Bed-width and wavelength in meandering valleys. Nature,
176: 31–32, 1955.
G. H. Dury. Principles of underfit streams. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 452-A, pages A1–A67, 1964.
G. H. Dury. General theory of meandering valleys and underfit
streams, pages 264–275. Macmillan & Co., Little Essex Street,
London, 1970.
G. H. Dury, R. G. Shepherd, and S. A. Schumm. Experimental study of
river incision: Discussion and reply. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 87: 319–320, 1976.
B. F. Edwards and D. H. Smith. River meandering dynamics. Physical
Review E, 65(046303):1–12, 2002.
40 40
A. Einstein. The cause of the formation of meanders in the courses
of rivers and of the so-called Baer’s law. In Ideas and Opinions
(1954), pages 249–253. Crown Publishers, Inc., New York,
1926.
S. F. Emmons. The origin of the Green River. Science, 6(131):19–21,
1897.
F. Engelund and O. Skovgaard. On the origin of meandering and
braiding in alluvial streams. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
57:289–302, 1973.
H. Flohn. Beitrage zur problematik der talmaander. Frankfurter
Geographis- che Hefte, Hefte 1:1–96, 1935.
J. Fredsoe. Meandering and braiding of rivers. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 84:609–624, 1978.
D. J. Furbish. River bend curvature and migration: How are they
related? Geology, 16:752–755, 1988.
T. W. Gardner. The history of part of the colorado river and its
tribu- taries: An experimental study, pages 87–95. Canyonlands.
Four Corners Geological Society, eighth edition, 1975.
G. K. Gilbert. Report on the geology of the Henry Mountains. U.S.
Geograph- ical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region,
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1877.
J. Guo and P. Y. Julien. Shear stress in smooth rectangular open-
channel flows. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 131(1):30–37,
2005. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:1(30).
J. T. Hack and R. S. Young. Intrenched meanders of the North Fork
of the Shenandoah River, Virginia. U.S.G.S Professional Paper,
354-A, 1959.
G. S. Hancock and R. S. Anderson. Numerical modeling of fluvial
strath- terrace formation in response to oscillating climate.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 114(9):1131–1142,
2002.
D. J. Harbor. Dynamic equilibrium between an active uplift and the
Sevier River, Utah. Journal of Geology, 106:181–194, 1998.
D. R. Harden. Controlling factors in the distribution and
development of incised meanders in the central colorado plateau.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 102:233–242, 1990.
41 41
R. D. Hey. Geometry of river meanders. Nature, 262:482–484,
1976.
E. J. Hickin and G. C. Nanson. The character of channel migration
on the beatton river, northeast british columbia, canada.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 86:487–494, 1975.
J. B. L. Hol. Das problem der talmaander. Zeitscher.
Geomorphologie, Band 10:169–195, 1938.
J. B. L. Hol. Meanders, hun beteekenis en onstaan. K. nederl.
Aardrijksk. Genoot. Tijdschr., ser. 2(Deel 56):161–177, 1939.
N. Hovius and C. P. Stark. Actively meandering bedrock rivers. In
EOS, Transactions AGU, page 506, 2001.
A. D. Howard. A detachment-limited model of drainage basin
evolution. Water Resources Research, 30(7):2261–2285, 1994.
M.-L. Hsieh, P.-M. Liew, and Y. Ota. The dynamic hualien-taitung
coast, eastern taiwan: a treasure for studying active tectonics and
coastal evo- lution. Booklet, 2001. Field guide for the 2001
international meeting on sea-level changes, coastal evolution and
neotectonics (INQUA).
N. K. Huber. Amount and timing of Late Cenozoic uplift and tilt of
the Central Sierra Nevada, California - evidence from the upper San
Joaquin river basin. Geological Survey Professional Paper,
1197:1–28, 1981.
S. Ikeda, G. Parker, and K. Sawai. Bend theory of river meanders.
Part 1. Linear development. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
112:363–377, 1981.
J. D. Jansen. Flood magnitude-frequency and lithologic control on
bedrock river incision in post-orogenic terrain. Geomorphology,
82:39–57, 2006.
M. S. W. Jefferson. The antecedent Colorado. Science,
6(138):293–295, 1897.
H. Johannesson and G. Parker. Linear theory of river meanders. In
S. Ikeda and G. Parker, editors, River meandering, Water Resources
Monograph, pages 181–214. American Geophysical Union, Washington,
D.C., 1989.
S. Judson and G. W. Andrews. Pattern and form of some valleys in
the driftless area, Wisconsin. Journal of Geology, 63(4):328–340,
1955.
42 42
J. P. T. Kalkwijk and R. Booij. Adaptation of secondary flow in
nearly- horizontal flow. Journal of Hydraulic Research,
24(1):19–37, 1986.
E. Kirby, K. X. Whipple, W. Tang, and Z. Chen. Distribution of
active rock uplift along the eastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau:
Inferences from bedrock channel longitudinal profiles. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 108(B4, 2217):16–1–16–24, 2003.
P. F. Kitanidis and J. F. Kennedy. Secondary current and river
meander formation. Journal Fluid Mechanics, 144:217–229,
1984.
J. S. Kobor and J. J. Roering. Using the stream power law and
digital topographic data to quantify lateral migration rates in
bedrock channels, Oregon Coast Range. In Cordilleran Section - 98th
Annual Meeting. The Geological Society of America, 2002.
S. T. Lancaster. A nonlinear river meandering model and its
incorporation in a landscape evolution model. PhD thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
S. T. Lancaster and R. L. Bras. A simple model of river meandering
and its comparison to natural channels. Hydrological Processes,
16:1–26, 2002. doi:10.1002/hyp.273.
W. B. Langbein and L. B. Leopold. River meanders: Theory of minimum
variance. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper,
(422-H), 1966. 15 p.
J. Lave and J. P. Avouac. Fluvial incision and tectonic uplift
across the himalayas of central nepal. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 106:26561– 26591, 2001.
L. B. Leopold and W. B. Langbein. River meanders. Scientific
American, 214:60–70, 1966.
L. B. Leopold, M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. Fluvial processes in
geo- morphology. W. H. Freeman, New York, 1964. 522 p.
W. R. Lowry. Dam politics: Restoring America’s rivers. Georgetown
Uni- versity Press, Washington, DC, 2003. ISBN:0878403906.
R. H. Mahard. The origin and significance of intrenched meanders.
Journal of Geomorphology, 5:32–44, 1942.
43 43
K. Masuch. Zur frave der talmaander. Berliner Geog. Arb., Heft 9,
1935.
T. S. McCarthy and S. Toth. Incised meanders along the mixed
bedrock- alluvial Orange River, Northern Cape Province, South
Africa. Zeitschrift Fur Geomorphologie, 48(3):273–292, 2004.
H. H. Mills and R. T. Mills. Evolution of undercut slopes on
abandoned incised meanders in the Eastern Highland Rim of
Tennessee, usa. Geo- morphology, 38:317–336, 2001.
R. C. Moore. Origin of inclosed meanders in the physiographic
history of the Colorado Plateau country. Journal of Geology,
34:29–57, 1926a.
R. C. Moore. Significance of enclosed meanders in the physiographic
history of the Colorado Plateau country. Journal of Geology,
34(2):97–130, 1926b.
G. C. Nanson and E. J. Hickin. Channel migration and incision on
the beatton river. jhe, 109:327–337, 1983.
G. Parker. On the cause and characteristic scales of meandering and
braiding in rivers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 76:457–480,
1976.
G. Parker and E. D. Andrews. On the time development of meander
bends. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 162:139–156, 1986.
G. Parker, K. Sawai, and S. Ikeda. Bend theory of river meanders.
part 2. nonlinear deformation of finite amplitude bends. Journal of
Fluid Me- chanics, 115:303–314, 1982.
F. J. Pazzaglia and M. T. Brandon. A fluvial record of long-term
steady-state uplift and erosion across the Cascadia forearc high,
Western Washington state. American Journal of Science, 301:385–431,
2001.
F. J. Pazzaglia, T. H. Gardner, and D. J. Merritts. Bedrock fluvial
incision and longitudinal profile development over geologic time
scales determined by fluvial terraces. In E. E. Wohl and K. J.
Tinkler, editors, Rivers Over Rock: Fluvial Processes in Bedrock
Channels, Geophysical Monograph Se- ries 107, pages 207–235.
American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 1998.
J. W. Powell. Exploration of the Colorado River of the West and its
trib- utaries. Explored in 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872 under the
direction of
44 44
the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing
Office, Washington, 1875.
B. L. Rhoads and M. R. Welford. Initiation of river meandering.
Progress in Physical Geography, 15:127–156, 1991.
J. L. Rich. Certain types of stream valleys and their meaning.
Journal of Geology, 22:469–497, 1914.
R. D. Rogers, H. Karason, and R. D. van der Hilst. Epeirogenic
uplift above a detached slab in northern Central America. Geology,
30(11):1031–1034, 2002.
S. A. Schumm. Meander wavelength of alluvial rivers. Science,
157:1549– 1550, 1967.
S. A. Schumm and H. R. Khan. Experimental study of channel
patterns. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 83:1775–1770,
1972.
J. D. Sears. Relations of the Browns Park Formation and the Bishop
Con- glomerate, and their role in the origin of Green and Yampa
Rivers. Bul- letin of the Geological Society of America,
35:279–304, 1924.
M. A. Seidl and W. E. Dietrich. The problem of channel erosion into
bedrock. Catena Suppl., 23:101–124, 1992.
G. Seminara. Meanders. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 554:271–297,
2006.
R. G. Shepherd. Incised river meanders: Evolution in simulated
bedrock. Science, 178:409–411, 1972.
R. G. Shepherd and K. A. Schumm. Experimental study of river
incision. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 85:257–268,
1974.
J. B. Shyu, K. Sieh, J.-P. Avuoac, W.-S. Chen, and Y.-G. Chen.
Millennial slip rate of the Longitudinal Valley Fault from river
terraces: Implications for convergence across the active suture of
eastern taiwan, 2006.
L. Sklar and W. E. Dietrich. River longitudinal profiles and
bedrock inci- sion models: Stream power and the influence of
sediment supply. In E. E. Wohl and K. J. Tinkler, editors, Rivers
over Rock: Fluvial Processes in Bedrock Channels, Geophysical
Monograph Series, pages 237–260. Amer- ican Geoph. Union,
1998.
45 45
C. P. Stark, J. R. Barbour, N. Hovius, H. Chen, C.-W. Lin, M.-J.
Horng, C. Huang, C.-H. Jen, J. K.-Q. Xu, J. M. Turowski, S. Dadson,
C.-C. Wu, and Y. Fukahata. Dependence of mountain river sinuosity
on typhoon flood magnitude and frequency. Nature, 2008. in
prep.
A. N. Strahler. Elongate intrenched meanders of Conodoguinet Creek.
Amer- ican Journal of Science, 244:31–40, 1946.
W. A. Tarr. Intrenched and incised meanders of some streams on the
north- ern slope of the Ozark Plateau in Missouri. Journal of
Geology, 32:583– 600, 1924.
J. Thomson. On the origin of windings of rivers in alluvial plains,
with remarks on the flow of water round bends in pipes. Proceedings
of the Royal Society, 16, 1876. Republished in Nature v.14 p.122,
June 1976. Also in ”Collected papers in physics and engineering”,
ch.16, p. 96-100, CUP, 1912.
K. J. Tinkler. Active valley meanders in south-central texas and
their wider significance. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
82:1783–1800, 1971.
K. J. Tinkler. The superimposition hypothesis for incised meanders
– A general rejection and specific test. Area, 4(2):86–91,
1972.
J. M. Turowski, N. Hovius, M.-L. Hsieh, D. Lague, and M.-C. Chen.
Distri- bution of erosion across bedrock channels. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms, 33(3):353–363, 2008.
C. R. Twidale. River patterns and their meaning. Earth Science
Reviews, 67:159–218, 2004.
K. X. Whipple. Bedrock rivers and the geomorphology of active
orogens. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 32:151–185,
2004.
K. X. Whipple, G. S. Hancock, and R. S. Anderson. River incision
into bedrock: Mechanics and relative efficacy of plucking,
abrasion, and cavi- tation. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
112:490–503, 2000.
G. P. Williams. Bank-full discharge of rivers. Water Resources
Research, 14 (6):1141–1154, 1978.
G. P. Williams. River meanders and channel size. Journal of
Hydrology, 88: 147–164, 1986.
46 46
A. Winslow. The Osage river and its meanders. Science,
22(546):32–32, 1893.
A. Winslow. Meandering rivers in Missouri. Science,
23(580):152–153, 1894.
C. Wobus, K. X. Wipple, E. Kirby, N. Snyder, J. Johnson, K.
Spyropolon, B. Crosby, and D. Sheehan. Tectonics from topography:
Procedures, promise, and pitfalls. In M. T. B. Sean D. Willett,
Niels Hovius and D. M. Fisher,