Developing, choosing and using landscape evolution models to inform field‐based landscape reconstruction studies

Temme, A.J.A.M.; Armitage, John; Attal, Mikaël; Gorp, W. van; Coulthard, Tom; Schoorl, J.M.

doi:10.1002/esp.4162

Cited by 44 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 170 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also important to stress that the catchment responses and the predicted sediment fluxes out of these two model domains might be variously relevant to different erosional and depositional domains (see Lague, 2014;Temme et al, 2017). A model of instantaneous sediment transport might be more relevant for suspended sedimentary loads, for which transport times can be very small, while the transport model might be more appropriate for bedload-dominated systems, even in cases in which bedrock is clearly incised (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is good empirical evidence for 0.5 < h < 0.7 (e.g. Rigon et al, 1996), which fundamentally controls the plan view shape of catchments, yet there is not a complete consensus on the value of m (see Lague, 2014;Temme et al, 2017). A final key difference between the transient sediment flux responses of the two models is that the peak magnitude of system response to a change in precipitation rate is systematically larger for the transport model (Fig.…”

Section: Response To Different Magnitudes Of Precipitation Rate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This hypothesis is somewhat backed up by the analysis of response times for the transport model, as the response time increases with system length (Table 2) unlike the stream power model, which has a response that is only slightly modified by system length (Whipple, 2001;Baldwin et al, 2003). To date, physical constraints on landscape and sediment flux response times to climate changes in the geologic past are relatively scarce (Ganti et al, 2014;Romans et al, 2016;Temme et al, 2017) because real systems are complex. They include internal dynamics, such as vegetation and autogenic behaviour, which are often omitted from model studies, and because of the need for stratigraphic archives to be complete with well-established chronologies Forman and Straub, 2017).…”

Section: Response Times As a Function Of Model Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Numerical modelling of landscape and sediment flux response to precipitation rate change

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Laboratory-scale experiments of erosion have demonstrated that landscapes have a natural (or intrinsic) response time to a change in precipitation rate. In the last few decades there has been growth in the development of numerical models that attempt to capture landscape evolution over long timescales. However, there is still an uncertainty regarding the validity of the basic assumptions of mass transport that are made in deriving these models. In this contribution we therefore return to a principal assumption of sediment transport within the mass balance for surface processes; we explore the sensitivity of the classic end-member landscape evolution models and the sediment fluxes they produce to a change in precipitation rates. One end-member model takes the mathematical form of a kinetic wave equation and is known as the stream power model, in which sediment is assumed to be transported immediately out of the model domain. The second end-member model is the transport model and it takes the form of a diffusion equation, assuming that the sediment flux is a function of the water flux and slope. We find that both of these end-member models have a response time that has a proportionality to the precipitation rate that follows a negative power law. However, for the stream power model the exponent on the water flux term must be less than one, and for the transport model the exponent must be greater than one, in order to match the observed concavity of natural systems. This difference in exponent means that the transport model generally responds more rapidly to an increase in precipitation rates, on the order of 10 5 years for post-perturbation sediment fluxes to return to within 50 % of their initial values, for theoretical landscapes with a scale of 100 × 100 km. Additionally from the same starting conditions, the amplitude of the sediment flux perturbation in the transport model is greater, with much larger sensitivity to catchment size. An important finding is that both models respond more quickly to a wetting event than a drying event, and we argue that this asymmetry in response time has significant implications for depositional stratigraphies. Finally, we evaluate the extent to which these constraints on response times and sediment fluxes from simple models help us understand the geological record of landscape response to rapid environmental changes in the past, such as the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). In the Spanish Pyrenees, for instance, a relatively rapid (10 to 50 kyr) duration of the deposition of gravel is observed for a climatic shift that is thought to be towards increased precipitation rates. We suggest that the rapid response observed is more easily explained through a diffusive transport model because (1) the model has a faster response time, which is consistent with the documented stratigraphic data, (2) there is a high-amplitude spike in sediment flux, and (3) the assumption of instantaneous transport is difficult to justify for the transport of large grain sizes as an alluvi...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Response To Different Magnitudes Of Precipitation Rate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Response Times As a Function Of Model Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Numerical modelling of landscape and sediment flux response to precipitation rate change

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We refer to these models as landscape evolution models, or LEMs (e.g., Coulthard, 2001;Willgoose, 2005;Tucker and Hancock, 2010;Valters, 2016;Temme et al, 2017). With LEMs, the emphasis lies on computing the topographic elevation field, η(x, y, t).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing and exploring a theory for the lateral erosion of bedrock channels for use in landscape evolution models

Langston

Tucker

2018

Earth Surf. Dynam.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Understanding how a bedrock river erodes its banks laterally is a frontier in geomorphology. Theories for the vertical incision of bedrock channels are widely implemented in the current generation of landscape evolution models. However, in general existing models do not seek to implement the lateral migration of bedrock channel walls. This is problematic, as modeling geomorphic processes such as terrace formation and hillslopechannel coupling depends on the accurate simulation of valley widening. We have developed and implemented a theory for the lateral migration of bedrock channel walls in a catchment-scale landscape evolution model. Two model formulations are presented, one representing the slow process of widening a bedrock canyon and the other representing undercutting, slumping, and rapid downstream sediment transport that occurs in softer bedrock. Model experiments were run with a range of values for bedrock erodibility and tendency towards transport-or detachment-limited behavior and varying magnitudes of sediment flux and water discharge in order to determine the role that each plays in the development of wide bedrock valleys. The results show that this simple, physicsbased theory for the lateral erosion of bedrock channels produces bedrock valleys that are many times wider than the grid discretization scale. This theory for the lateral erosion of bedrock channel walls and the numerical implementation of the theory in a catchment-scale landscape evolution model is a significant first step towards understanding the factors that control the rates and spatial extent of wide bedrock valleys.

show abstract

“…Although existing numerical models have severe limitations they can provide a general overview of past events including the locations and ages of potential records (Briant et al, 2016;Temme et al, 2016). Calibrated models should be able to indicate where and when fluvial records were created and what conditions they represent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting reach‐specific properties of fluvial terraces to guide future fieldwork. A case study for the Late Quaternary River Allier (France) with the FLUVER2 model

Veldkamp

Schoorl

Viveen

2016

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerical models have not yet systematically been used to predict properties of fluvial terrace records in order to guide fieldwork and sampling. This paper explores the potential of the longitudinal profile model FLUVER2 to predict testable field properties of the relatively well‐studied, Late Quaternary Allier system in France. For the Allier terraces an overlapping 14C and U‐series chronology as well as a record of 10Be erosion rates exist. The FLUVER2 modelling exercise is focused on the last 50 ka of the upper Allier reach because for this location and period the constraints of the available dating techniques are tightest. A systematic calibration based on terrace occurrence and thicknesses was done using three internal parameters related to (1) the sediment erodibility; (2) the sediment transport distance; and (3) the sediment supply derived from the surrounding landscape. As external model inputs, the best available, reconstructed, tectonic, climatic and base‐level data were used. Calibrated model outputs demonstrate a plausible match with the existing fluvial record. Validation of model output was done by comparing the modelled and measured timing of aggradation and incision phases for the three locations. The modelled range of landscape erosion rates showed a reasonably good match with existing erosion rate estimates derived from 10Be measurements of fluvial sands. The quasi‐validated model simulation was subsequently used to make new testable predictions about the timing and location of aggradation and erosion phases for three locations along the Allier river. The validated simulations predict that along the Allier, reach‐specific dynamics of incision and aggradation, related to the variations in sediment supply by major tributaries, cause relevant differences in the local fluvial terrace stratigraphy. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Developing, choosing and using landscape evolution models to inform field‐based landscape reconstruction studies

Cited by 44 publications

References 170 publications

Numerical modelling of landscape and sediment flux response to precipitation rate change

Numerical modelling of landscape and sediment flux response to precipitation rate change

Developing and exploring a theory for the lateral erosion of bedrock channels for use in landscape evolution models

Predicting reach‐specific properties of fluvial terraces to guide future fieldwork. A case study for the Late Quaternary River Allier (France) with the FLUVER2 model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About