The CRONUS-Earth Project: A synthesis

The CAIRN method: automated, reproducible calculation of catchment-averaged denudation rates from cosmogenic nuclide concentrations

“…We use this uncertainty for both 10 Be and 26 Al based on our production rates reported in Table 2. Although the recent CRONUSEarth calibration has produced new production rates for both 10 Be and 26 Al, the production rate uncertainties remain in the same range as those used here (Phillips et al, 2016a).…”

“…Time-dependent scaling schemes are far more computationally expensive than the timeindependent scheme of Lal/Stone, which does not consider variations in geomagnetic field strength. Recent calibration results Phillips et al, 2016a), including a low-latitude, high-altitude site in Peru (Kelly et al, 2015;Phillips et al, 2016b) suggest that the timeindependent Lal/Stone scheme performs similarly to the physics-based schemes presented in Lifton et al (2014) and fits the data better than several other scaling schemes (Dunai, 2000;Desilets and Zreda, 2003;Lifton et al, 2005). For these reasons, we scale production rates using the Lal/Stone scheme.…”

“…The CRONUS-2.2 calculator (Balco et al, 2008) implements the scheme of Heisinger et al (2002a, b), which requires computationally expensive integration of muon stopping over a depth profile. Field-based estimates of muon production demonstrate that Heisinger et al (2002a) significantly overestimate production by muons (Braucher et al, 2011(Braucher et al, , 2013Phillips et al, 2016a). Other authors have used empirical fits of cosmogenic profiles from the field, typically using a sum of exponential functions, to describe muon production (e.g., Granger and Smith, 2000;Vermeesch, 2007;Braucher et al, 2009;Schaller et al, 2009).…”

<sup>10</sup>Be systematics in the Tsangpo-Brahmaputra catchment: the cosmogenic nuclide legacy of the eastern Himalayan syntaxis

“…For this work, we used the most recent nucleonic SLHL production rate of 4.01 ± 0.10 at g −1 yr −1 compiled by Phillips et al (2016) and the slow and fast muonic contribution of Braucher et al (2011). Given the high variability in muonic production rates reported in the literature (e.g., Heisinger et al, 2002a, b;Braucher et al, 2003Braucher et al, , 2011Phillips et al, 2016), we propagated a 50 % uncertainty on the SLHL muonic production rates. Altitude scaling was based on the 3 arcsec SRTM-4 DEM data set (Jarvis et al, 2008).…”

<sup>10</sup>Be depth profiles in glacial sediments on the Swiss Plateau: deposition age, denudation and (pseudo-) inheritance

“…We used a reference production rate for neutrogenic spallation of 3.93 atoms g −1 a −1 (Heyman, 2014) and the scaling model by Lal (1991) and Stone (2000) to calculate the production rate for each site. Because the standard files for calculating muogenic production rate after Heisinger et al (2002a, b) yield too-high values (Braucher et al, 2003(Braucher et al, , 2013Phillips et al, 2016), we used the .m files provided Ruszkiczay-Rüdiger et al (2016). Calculations were done until 100 000 solutions were found.…”