The etymology and historic usage of such terms as ‘anabranch’, ‘anastamose’ and ‘braided’ within river science are reviewed. Despite several decades of modern research to define river channel typologies inclusive of single channels and multiple channel networks, typologies remain ill‐conditioned and consequently ill‐defined. Conventionally employed quantitative planform characteristics of river networks possibly cannot be used alone to define channel types, yet the planform remains a central part of all modern classification schemes, supplemented by sedimentological and other qualitative channel characteristics. Planform characteristics largely have been defined using non‐standardized metrics describing individual network components, such as link lengths, braiding intensity and bifurcation angles, which often fail to separate visually‐different networks of channels. We find that existing typologies remain pragmatically utilitarian rather than fundamentally physics‐based and too often fail to discriminate between two distinctive and important processes integral to new channel initiation and flow‐splitting: (i) in‐channel bar accretion, and (ii) channel avulsion and floodplain excision. It is suggested that, first, if channel planform is to remain central to river typologies, then more rigorous quantitative approaches to the analysis of extended integral channel networks at extended reach scales (rather than network components) are required to correctly determine whether ‘visually‐different’ channel patterns can be discriminated consistently; and, second, if such visually‐different styles do in fact differ in their governing processes of formation and maintenance. A significant question is why do so many seemingly equilibrium network geometries possess a large number of anabranches in excess of predictions from theoretical considerations? The key research frontier with respect to initiating and maintaining multichannel networks remains the understanding and discrimination of accretionary‐bar flow splitting versus avulsive processes. Existing and new knowledge on flow splitting processes needs to be better integrated into channel typologies. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper explores the use of planview morphological metrics to quantitatively describe and distinguish mixed bedrock-alluvial multichannel networks from alluvial multichannel networks. The geometries of the channel planforms of two bedrock-constrained networks (Mekong and Orange rivers) are compared with the classic alluvial anastomosed Upper Columbia River and the wandering Ganga River. Widely recognized indices utilized include: channel link count and channel sinuosity, with additional emphasis being given to the less common metrics: network bifurcation angles and island shape characteristics (i.e. aspect ratio, compactness, roundness and convexity). Link count data, with one notable exception, conform to theoretical expectations. Bifurcation angles for all four multichannel rivers are significantly greater than angles reported for braiding rivers. Island convexity clearly discriminates the two alluvial rivers from the two bedrock-influenced rivers. The width of the macrochannel, in which each network develops, has a positive influence on the number of channel links and is further related to channel slope variations which, in turn, are influenced by terrain structure revealed using trend-surface analysis. The geometry of multichannel networks are often laterally constrained such that the values of channel bifurcation angles and link sinuosity values reduce as the network intensifies and channel links are shortened. These latter observations go some way to explain the oft-noted relatively 'straight' links seen within multichannel networks which are a necessary adjustment to space-filling constraints placed on a network.

No abstract