@article{d532a7d004bf4edaa112912cf09d5d63,
title = "Tectonic controls on Quaternary landscape evolution in the Ventura basin, southern California, USA, quantified using cosmogenic isotopes and topographic analyses",
abstract = "The quantification of rates for the competing forces of tectonic uplift and erosion has important implications for understanding topographic evolution. Here, we quantify the complex interplay between tectonic uplift, topographic development, and erosion recorded in the hanging walls of several active reverse faults in the Ventura basin, southern California, USA. We use cosmogenic 26Al/10Be isochron burial dating and 10Be surface exposure dating to construct a basin-wide geochronology, which includes burial dating of the Saugus Formation: an important, but poorly dated, regional Quaternary strain marker. Our ages for the top of the exposed Saugus Formation range from 0.36 +0.18/–0.22 Ma to 1.06 +0.23/–0.26 Ma, and our burial ages near the base of shallow marine deposits, which underlie the Saugus Formation, increase eastward from 0.60 +0.05/–0.06 Ma to 3.30 +0.30/–0.41 Ma. Our geochronology is used to calculate rapid long-term reverse fault slip rates of 8.6–12.6 mm yr-1 since ca. 1.0 Ma for the San Cayetano fault and 1.3–3.0 mm yr-1 since ca. 1.0 Ma for the Oak Ridge fault, which are both broadly consistent with contemporary reverse slip rates derived from mechanical models driven by global positioning system (GPS) data. We also calculate terrestrial cosmogenic nuclide (TCN)-derived, catchment-averaged erosion rates that range from 0.05–1.14 mm yr-1 and discuss the applicability of TCN-derived, catchment-averaged erosion rates in rapidly uplifting, landslide-prone landscapes. We compare patterns in erosion rates and tectonic rates to fluvial response times and geomorphic landscape parameters to show that in young, rapidly uplifting mountain belts, catchments may attain a quasi-steady-state on timescales of <105 years even if catchmentaveraged erosion rates are still adjusting to tectonic forcing.",
author = "A. Hughes and Rood, {D. H.} and DeVecchio, {D. E.} and Whittaker, {A. C.} and Bell, {R. E.} and Wilcken, {K. M.} and Corbett, {L. B.} and Bierman, {P. R.} and Swanson, {B. J.} and Rockwell, {T. K.}",
note = "Funding Information: The authors thank Ruth Davy, Alex Seal, and Charlie Singer for assistance during field work and sample collection and Jeff Knott for insightful and productive discussions on the age of the Saugus Formation. Well data in Figure 6 were taken from the online database provided by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources website, which is freely available at: https://gis-california.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/cadoc::well-finder (accessed August 2021). Work was supported by funding from the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), which is funded by National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement EAR-1033462 and U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Agreement G12AC20038. This work was funded by award numbers 13105 and 15100 to D.H. Rood and D.E. DeVec-chio, 17184 to D.H. Rood, 16049 to T.K. Rockwell, and 17024 to T.K. Rockwell. This is SCEC contribution number #11502. The authors also acknowledge financial support from the Australian Government for the Centre for Accelerator Science at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (AN-STO) through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS). This work was completed thanks to ANSTO award number 10125 to D.H. Rood. Additional funding was supplied by National Science Foundation EAR award number 1735676 to P.R. Berman supporting L.B. Corbett, a Royal Geological Society postgraduate research grant to A. Hughes, an Imperial College Janet Watson bursary to A. Hughes, and two postgraduate research grants from the British Society for Geomorphology to A. Hughes. Funding Information: The authors thank Ruth Davy, Alex Seal, and Charlie Singer for assistance during field work and sample collection and Jeff Knott for insightful and productive discussions on the age of the Saugus Formation. Well data in Figure 6 were taken from the online database provided by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources website, which is freely available at: https://giscalifornia.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/cadoc:wellfinder (accessed August 2021). Work was supported by funding from the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), which is funded by National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement EAR-1033462 and U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Agreement G12AC20038. This work was funded by award numbers 13105 and 15100 to D.H. Rood and D.E. DeVecchio, 17184 to D.H. Rood, 16049 to T.K. Rockwell, and 17024 to T.K. Rockwell. This is SCEC contribution number #11502. The authors also acknowledge financial support from the Australian Government for the Centre for Accelerator Science at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS). This work was completed thanks to ANSTO award number 10125 to D.H. Rood. Additional funding was supplied by National Science Foundation EAR award number 1735676 to P.R. Berman supporting L.B. Corbett, a Royal Geological Society postgraduate research grant to A. Hughes, an Imperial College Janet Watson bursary to A. Hughes, and two postgraduate research grants from the British Society for Geomorphology to A. Hughes. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 Geological Society of America",
year = "2022",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1130/B36076.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "134",
pages = "2245--2266",
journal = "Bulletin of the Geological Society of America",
issn = "0016-7606",
publisher = "Geological Society of America",
number = "9-10",
}