Criteria and tools for determining drainage divide stability

Adam M. Forte, Kelin Whipple

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Watersheds are the fundamental organizing units in landscapes and thus the controls on drainage divide location and mobility are an essential facet of landscape evolution. Additionally, many common topographic analyses fundamentally assume that river network topology and divide locations are largely static, allowing channel profile form to be interpreted in terms of spatio-temporal patterns of rock uplift rate relative to base level, climate, or rock properties. Recently however, it has been suggested that drainage divides are more mobile than previously thought and that divide mobility, and resulting changes in drainage area, could potentially confound interpretations of river profiles. Ultimately, reliable metrics are needed to diagnose the mobility of divides as part of routine landscape analyses. One such recently proposed metric is cross-divide contrasts in χ a proxy for steady-state channel elevation, but cross-divide contrasts in a number of topographic metrics show promise. Here we use a series of landscape evolution simulations in which we induce divide mobility under different conditions to test the utility of a suite of topographic metrics of divide mobility and for comparison with natural examples in the eastern Greater Caucasus Mountains, the Kars Volcanic Plateau, and the western San Bernadino Mountains. Specifically, we test cross-divide contrasts in mean gradient, mean local relief, channel bed elevation, and χ all measured at, or averaged upstream of, a reference drainage area. Our results highlight that cross-divide contrasts in χ only faithfully reflect current divide mobility when uplift, rock erodibility, climate, and catchment outlet elevation are uniform across both river networks on either side of the divide, otherwise a χ-anomaly only indicates a possible future divide instability. The other metrics appear to be more reliable representations of current divide motion, but in natural landscapes, only cross-divide contrasts in mean gradient and local relief appear to consistently provide useful information. Multiple divide metrics should be considered simultaneously and across-divide values of all metrics examined quantitatively as visual assessment is not sufficiently reliable in many cases. We provide a series of Matlab tools built using TopoToolbox to facilitate routine analysis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)102-117
Number of pages16
JournalEarth and Planetary Science Letters
Volume493
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018

Fingerprint

drainage
Drainage
Rivers
Rocks
rivers
landscape evolution
rocks
climate
Caucasus Mountains (U.S.S.R.)
relief
uplift
Watersheds
river
Catchments
gradients
mountain
erodibility
organizing
Topology
rock property

Keywords

  • drainage divides
  • East Anatolia Plateau
  • Greater Caucasus
  • San Bernadino Mountains
  • topographic analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geophysics
  • Geochemistry and Petrology
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Space and Planetary Science

Cite this

Criteria and tools for determining drainage divide stability. / Forte, Adam M.; Whipple, Kelin.

In: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 493, 01.07.2018, p. 102-117.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{260351ca190f40638bf9d8cae4f3e2a9,
title = "Criteria and tools for determining drainage divide stability",
abstract = "Watersheds are the fundamental organizing units in landscapes and thus the controls on drainage divide location and mobility are an essential facet of landscape evolution. Additionally, many common topographic analyses fundamentally assume that river network topology and divide locations are largely static, allowing channel profile form to be interpreted in terms of spatio-temporal patterns of rock uplift rate relative to base level, climate, or rock properties. Recently however, it has been suggested that drainage divides are more mobile than previously thought and that divide mobility, and resulting changes in drainage area, could potentially confound interpretations of river profiles. Ultimately, reliable metrics are needed to diagnose the mobility of divides as part of routine landscape analyses. One such recently proposed metric is cross-divide contrasts in χ a proxy for steady-state channel elevation, but cross-divide contrasts in a number of topographic metrics show promise. Here we use a series of landscape evolution simulations in which we induce divide mobility under different conditions to test the utility of a suite of topographic metrics of divide mobility and for comparison with natural examples in the eastern Greater Caucasus Mountains, the Kars Volcanic Plateau, and the western San Bernadino Mountains. Specifically, we test cross-divide contrasts in mean gradient, mean local relief, channel bed elevation, and χ all measured at, or averaged upstream of, a reference drainage area. Our results highlight that cross-divide contrasts in χ only faithfully reflect current divide mobility when uplift, rock erodibility, climate, and catchment outlet elevation are uniform across both river networks on either side of the divide, otherwise a χ-anomaly only indicates a possible future divide instability. The other metrics appear to be more reliable representations of current divide motion, but in natural landscapes, only cross-divide contrasts in mean gradient and local relief appear to consistently provide useful information. Multiple divide metrics should be considered simultaneously and across-divide values of all metrics examined quantitatively as visual assessment is not sufficiently reliable in many cases. We provide a series of Matlab tools built using TopoToolbox to facilitate routine analysis.",
keywords = "drainage divides, East Anatolia Plateau, Greater Caucasus, San Bernadino Mountains, topographic analysis",
author = "Forte, {Adam M.} and Kelin Whipple",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.epsl.2018.04.026",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "493",
pages = "102--117",
journal = "Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters",
issn = "0012-821X",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Criteria and tools for determining drainage divide stability

AU - Forte, Adam M.

AU - Whipple, Kelin

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Watersheds are the fundamental organizing units in landscapes and thus the controls on drainage divide location and mobility are an essential facet of landscape evolution. Additionally, many common topographic analyses fundamentally assume that river network topology and divide locations are largely static, allowing channel profile form to be interpreted in terms of spatio-temporal patterns of rock uplift rate relative to base level, climate, or rock properties. Recently however, it has been suggested that drainage divides are more mobile than previously thought and that divide mobility, and resulting changes in drainage area, could potentially confound interpretations of river profiles. Ultimately, reliable metrics are needed to diagnose the mobility of divides as part of routine landscape analyses. One such recently proposed metric is cross-divide contrasts in χ a proxy for steady-state channel elevation, but cross-divide contrasts in a number of topographic metrics show promise. Here we use a series of landscape evolution simulations in which we induce divide mobility under different conditions to test the utility of a suite of topographic metrics of divide mobility and for comparison with natural examples in the eastern Greater Caucasus Mountains, the Kars Volcanic Plateau, and the western San Bernadino Mountains. Specifically, we test cross-divide contrasts in mean gradient, mean local relief, channel bed elevation, and χ all measured at, or averaged upstream of, a reference drainage area. Our results highlight that cross-divide contrasts in χ only faithfully reflect current divide mobility when uplift, rock erodibility, climate, and catchment outlet elevation are uniform across both river networks on either side of the divide, otherwise a χ-anomaly only indicates a possible future divide instability. The other metrics appear to be more reliable representations of current divide motion, but in natural landscapes, only cross-divide contrasts in mean gradient and local relief appear to consistently provide useful information. Multiple divide metrics should be considered simultaneously and across-divide values of all metrics examined quantitatively as visual assessment is not sufficiently reliable in many cases. We provide a series of Matlab tools built using TopoToolbox to facilitate routine analysis.

AB - Watersheds are the fundamental organizing units in landscapes and thus the controls on drainage divide location and mobility are an essential facet of landscape evolution. Additionally, many common topographic analyses fundamentally assume that river network topology and divide locations are largely static, allowing channel profile form to be interpreted in terms of spatio-temporal patterns of rock uplift rate relative to base level, climate, or rock properties. Recently however, it has been suggested that drainage divides are more mobile than previously thought and that divide mobility, and resulting changes in drainage area, could potentially confound interpretations of river profiles. Ultimately, reliable metrics are needed to diagnose the mobility of divides as part of routine landscape analyses. One such recently proposed metric is cross-divide contrasts in χ a proxy for steady-state channel elevation, but cross-divide contrasts in a number of topographic metrics show promise. Here we use a series of landscape evolution simulations in which we induce divide mobility under different conditions to test the utility of a suite of topographic metrics of divide mobility and for comparison with natural examples in the eastern Greater Caucasus Mountains, the Kars Volcanic Plateau, and the western San Bernadino Mountains. Specifically, we test cross-divide contrasts in mean gradient, mean local relief, channel bed elevation, and χ all measured at, or averaged upstream of, a reference drainage area. Our results highlight that cross-divide contrasts in χ only faithfully reflect current divide mobility when uplift, rock erodibility, climate, and catchment outlet elevation are uniform across both river networks on either side of the divide, otherwise a χ-anomaly only indicates a possible future divide instability. The other metrics appear to be more reliable representations of current divide motion, but in natural landscapes, only cross-divide contrasts in mean gradient and local relief appear to consistently provide useful information. Multiple divide metrics should be considered simultaneously and across-divide values of all metrics examined quantitatively as visual assessment is not sufficiently reliable in many cases. We provide a series of Matlab tools built using TopoToolbox to facilitate routine analysis.

KW - drainage divides

KW - East Anatolia Plateau

KW - Greater Caucasus

KW - San Bernadino Mountains

KW - topographic analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046344502&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046344502&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.epsl.2018.04.026

DO - 10.1016/j.epsl.2018.04.026

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85046344502

VL - 493

SP - 102

EP - 117

JO - Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters

JF - Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters

SN - 0012-821X

ER -