1 / 23

Large-scale geomorphology: Classical concepts reconciled and integrated with contemporary ideas via a surface process mo

Large-scale geomorphology: Classical concepts reconciled and integrated with contemporary ideas via a surface process model. Kooi and Beaumont 1996. Photo credit: John S. Shelton. 3 Scales. Micro Uniform gradient No channels or hillslopes represented Meso Groups of microscale subsystems

speranza
Download Presentation

Large-scale geomorphology: Classical concepts reconciled and integrated with contemporary ideas via a surface process mo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Large-scale geomorphology: Classical concepts reconciled and integrated with contemporary ideas via a surface process model Kooi and Beaumont 1996 Photo credit: John S. Shelton

  2. 3 Scales • Micro • Uniform gradient • No channels or hillslopes represented • Meso • Groups of microscale subsystems • Individual interfluves • Macro • Groups of mesoscale subsystems • Model landscape which consists of many drainage basins • When this is in steady state, so are the smaller subsystems

  3. Model Formulation Equations Short range transport modeled as linear diffusion (hillslope) Diffusivity Long range transport (fluvial) Local discharge Downstream slope Transport coefficient Precipitation Sediment flux Erosion length scale Local undercapacity of the river

  4. What variable is key for M1? Is this model useful? What can we learn from it?

  5. Steady state landscape as envisaged by Hack (1960) and Penck (1972), and adjustement to liothology as envisaged by Hack (1960)

  6. Resistant rock band – need greater relief and steeper slopes to achieve steady state. As envisaged by Hack (1960)

  7. Penck Framework How do the conditions of this model differ from M1-M4?

  8. Shows many characteristics of Davis’ (1899) cycle of erosion

  9. King (1953, 1962)

  10. “Evolves more by Davis type downwearing than by King type backwearing”

  11. Summation • Role of baselevels, grade, steady state equilibrium landforms • Davis type (downwearing peneplanation) • Penck type (waxing and waning development) • King type (escarpment retreat, pediplanation) • Hack type (dynamic equilibrium, response times, geometrical complex response) • “The key factors that control the integration of these concepts in the model framework are the nature of the tectonic uplift geometry and its timescales.”

More Related