槽头稳态高程的跨分水岭差异控制着排水分水岭的迁移

IF 2.8 3区 地球科学 Q2 GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL
Yijia Ye, Xibin Tan, Chao Zhou, Shuang Bian, Yiduo Liu, Feng Shi
{"title":"槽头稳态高程的跨分水岭差异控制着排水分水岭的迁移","authors":"Yijia Ye,&nbsp;Xibin Tan,&nbsp;Chao Zhou,&nbsp;Shuang Bian,&nbsp;Yiduo Liu,&nbsp;Feng Shi","doi":"10.1002/esp.5892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>It is generally agreed that the channel-head steady-state elevations (\n<span></span><math>\n <msub>\n <mi>z</mi>\n <mi>s</mi>\n </msub></math>) across a drainage divide are different when the drainage divide is moving. However, whether it is the hillslope or river channel that absorbs the cross-divide difference in channel-head steady-state elevation (\n<span></span><math>\n <mi>Δ</mi>\n <msub>\n <mi>z</mi>\n <mi>s</mi>\n </msub></math>) remains unclear. These different views have consequences for both the methods used to measure drainage-divide stability and tectonic reconstructions from channel profiles. Two methods for determining drainage-divide stability include Gilbert metrics and <i>χ</i>-plots, which emphasise the role of hillslopes and river channels, respectively. Here, we address this issue by deducing equations for estimating \n<span></span><math>\n <mi>Δ</mi>\n <msub>\n <mi>z</mi>\n <mi>s</mi>\n </msub></math> and identifying the absorbers of \n<span></span><math>\n <mi>Δ</mi>\n <msub>\n <mi>z</mi>\n <mi>s</mi>\n </msub></math> using numerical simulations and two natural cases. Our results show that both hillslopes and river channels absorb parts of \n<span></span><math>\n <mi>Δ</mi>\n <msub>\n <mi>z</mi>\n <mi>s</mi>\n </msub></math> in each case; however, the proportion absorbed varies from case to case. When the hillslope absorbs a greater proportion of \n<span></span><math>\n <mi>Δ</mi>\n <msub>\n <mi>z</mi>\n <mi>s</mi>\n </msub></math>, the river channel absorbs less, and vice versa. We suggest that both Gilbert metrics and <i>χ</i>-plots should be applied when evaluating drainage-divide stability; if either suggests the divide is unstable, then it is indeed unstable. Moreover, the river channel profiles on both sides of a drainage divide are in disequilibrium when the divide is moving, and the erosion rates are greater and less than the uplift rates at the expanding and shrinking sides, respectively. This underscores that drainage-divide migration can significantly hinder the extraction of uplift history from channel profiles.</p>","PeriodicalId":11408,"journal":{"name":"Earth Surface Processes and Landforms","volume":"49 11","pages":"3332-3343"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cross-divide difference in channel-head steady-state elevation controls drainage-divide migration\",\"authors\":\"Yijia Ye,&nbsp;Xibin Tan,&nbsp;Chao Zhou,&nbsp;Shuang Bian,&nbsp;Yiduo Liu,&nbsp;Feng Shi\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/esp.5892\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>It is generally agreed that the channel-head steady-state elevations (\\n<span></span><math>\\n <msub>\\n <mi>z</mi>\\n <mi>s</mi>\\n </msub></math>) across a drainage divide are different when the drainage divide is moving. However, whether it is the hillslope or river channel that absorbs the cross-divide difference in channel-head steady-state elevation (\\n<span></span><math>\\n <mi>Δ</mi>\\n <msub>\\n <mi>z</mi>\\n <mi>s</mi>\\n </msub></math>) remains unclear. These different views have consequences for both the methods used to measure drainage-divide stability and tectonic reconstructions from channel profiles. Two methods for determining drainage-divide stability include Gilbert metrics and <i>χ</i>-plots, which emphasise the role of hillslopes and river channels, respectively. Here, we address this issue by deducing equations for estimating \\n<span></span><math>\\n <mi>Δ</mi>\\n <msub>\\n <mi>z</mi>\\n <mi>s</mi>\\n </msub></math> and identifying the absorbers of \\n<span></span><math>\\n <mi>Δ</mi>\\n <msub>\\n <mi>z</mi>\\n <mi>s</mi>\\n </msub></math> using numerical simulations and two natural cases. Our results show that both hillslopes and river channels absorb parts of \\n<span></span><math>\\n <mi>Δ</mi>\\n <msub>\\n <mi>z</mi>\\n <mi>s</mi>\\n </msub></math> in each case; however, the proportion absorbed varies from case to case. When the hillslope absorbs a greater proportion of \\n<span></span><math>\\n <mi>Δ</mi>\\n <msub>\\n <mi>z</mi>\\n <mi>s</mi>\\n </msub></math>, the river channel absorbs less, and vice versa. We suggest that both Gilbert metrics and <i>χ</i>-plots should be applied when evaluating drainage-divide stability; if either suggests the divide is unstable, then it is indeed unstable. Moreover, the river channel profiles on both sides of a drainage divide are in disequilibrium when the divide is moving, and the erosion rates are greater and less than the uplift rates at the expanding and shrinking sides, respectively. This underscores that drainage-divide migration can significantly hinder the extraction of uplift history from channel profiles.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earth Surface Processes and Landforms\",\"volume\":\"49 11\",\"pages\":\"3332-3343\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Earth Surface Processes and Landforms\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/esp.5892\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth Surface Processes and Landforms","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/esp.5892","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们普遍认为,当分水岭移动时,跨分水岭的河道头稳态高程()是不同的。然而,究竟是山坡还是河道吸收了跨分水岭河道头稳态高程()的差异,目前仍不清楚。这些不同的观点对测量排水分水岭稳定性的方法和根据河道剖面进行构造重建都有影响。确定排水沟稳定性的两种方法包括 Gilbert 指标和 χ 图,它们分别强调山坡和河道的作用。在此,我们利用数值模拟和两个自然案例,推导出估算和识别吸收体的方程,从而解决这一问题。我们的结果表明,在每种情况下,山坡和河道都吸收了部分水量,但吸收的比例因情况而异。当山坡吸收的比例较大时,河道吸收的比例较小,反之亦然。我们建议在评估分水岭的稳定性时,同时采用 Gilbert 指标和 χ 图;如果其中任何一个指标表明分水岭不稳定,那么它就确实不稳定。此外,当分水岭移动时,分水岭两侧的河道剖面处于不平衡状态,扩张侧和收缩侧的侵蚀率分别大于和小于抬升率。这突出表明,排水分水岭的移动会严重阻碍从河道剖面中提取隆升历史。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Cross-divide difference in channel-head steady-state elevation controls drainage-divide migration

Cross-divide difference in channel-head steady-state elevation controls drainage-divide migration

It is generally agreed that the channel-head steady-state elevations ( z s ) across a drainage divide are different when the drainage divide is moving. However, whether it is the hillslope or river channel that absorbs the cross-divide difference in channel-head steady-state elevation ( Δ z s ) remains unclear. These different views have consequences for both the methods used to measure drainage-divide stability and tectonic reconstructions from channel profiles. Two methods for determining drainage-divide stability include Gilbert metrics and χ-plots, which emphasise the role of hillslopes and river channels, respectively. Here, we address this issue by deducing equations for estimating Δ z s and identifying the absorbers of Δ z s using numerical simulations and two natural cases. Our results show that both hillslopes and river channels absorb parts of Δ z s in each case; however, the proportion absorbed varies from case to case. When the hillslope absorbs a greater proportion of Δ z s , the river channel absorbs less, and vice versa. We suggest that both Gilbert metrics and χ-plots should be applied when evaluating drainage-divide stability; if either suggests the divide is unstable, then it is indeed unstable. Moreover, the river channel profiles on both sides of a drainage divide are in disequilibrium when the divide is moving, and the erosion rates are greater and less than the uplift rates at the expanding and shrinking sides, respectively. This underscores that drainage-divide migration can significantly hinder the extraction of uplift history from channel profiles.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
12.10%
发文量
215
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms is an interdisciplinary international journal concerned with: the interactions between surface processes and landforms and landscapes; that lead to physical, chemical and biological changes; and which in turn create; current landscapes and the geological record of past landscapes. Its focus is core to both physical geographical and geological communities, and also the wider geosciences
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信