Lecture
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,696
On Slideshare
1,696
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
29
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • All laws can be put into this form  SPL  similar predictions at SS: concave up profile with power relationship between S and A. Different prediction in terms of transient response but transient landscapes are difficult to characterize because evidences of erosion history have been eroded away + need good constraints on the perturbation
  • To date, this is the most convincing work done in terms of testing FI laws.
  • All laws can be put into this form  SPL  similar predictions at SS: concave up profile with power relationship between S and A. Different prediction in terms of transient response but transient landscapes are difficult to characterize because evidences of erosion history have been eroded away + need good constraints on the perturbation The idea is to analyze the transient response of fluvial systems to a disturbance (climatic or tectonic). Indeed, all models predict a quasi power relationship between S and A at equilibrium (“classic” concave up river profile). To illustrate that, I show the predictions of 2 fluvial incision laws form W & T, 2002. But, depending on the law used, the transient response of the system is really specific : we can then use it to discriminate between the FI laws. So one can use this transient response to reject or validate (+ calibrate) the fluvial incision laws. In this end, we combine a field study where the actual transient response of fluvial systems can be characterized with a numerical model of landscape evolution that we use to test the different FI laws in order to compare their predictions with the field observations.
  • The idea is to analyze the transient response of fluvial systems to a disturbance (climatic or tectonic). Indeed, all models predict a quasi power relationship between S and A at equilibrium (“classic” concave up river profile). To illustrate that, I show the predictions of 2 fluvial incision laws form W & T, 2002. But, depending on the law used, the transient response of the system is really specific : we can then use it to discriminate between the FI laws. So one can use this transient response to reject or validate (+ calibrate) the fluvial incision laws. In this end, we combine a field study where the actual transient response of fluvial systems can be characterized with a numerical model of landscape evolution that we use to test the different FI laws in order to compare their predictions with the field observations.
  • But, depending on the law used, the transient response of the system is really specific : we can then use it to discriminate between the FI laws. Example: in the DL case, we have the upper part of the catchment which is uplifted while a knickpoint is propagating upstream.
  • But, depending on the law used, the transient response of the system is really specific : we can then use it to discriminate between the FI laws. In the TL case, the response is more diffuse and the whole profile responds to the change in uplift rate. Most of the laws taking into account the role of sediments are characterized by such a diffuse response. So we can use these contrasts in transient response to discriminate between the FI laws. To do so, we can characterize the transient response of real fluvial systems in the field and compare it to the laws prediction in order to discriminate between these FI laws.
  • Different models  different predictions
  • Different models  different predictions
  • Different models  different predictions
  • Different models  different predictions
  • Different models  different predictions
  • Different models  different predictions
  • Different models  different predictions
  • Sediment mobility included in “transport processes”
  • Pebbles are rounded in between 2 and 10 km of transport distance
  •  we can have downstream coarsening, actually
  •  we can have downstream coarsening, actually
  •  we can have downstream coarsening, actually
  •  we can have downstream coarsening, actually
  •  we can have downstream coarsening, actually
  • even if it is far from being the most abundant rock type exposed
  • Roundness and quartz abundance = f (transport distance)
  • fluvial transport law including difference in sediment mobility

Transcript

  • 1. Sediments and bedrock erosion Mikaël ATTAL Marsyandi valley, Himalayas, Nepal Acknowledgements: Jérôme Lavé, Peter van der Beek and other scientists from LGCA (Grenoble) and CRPG (Nancy) Eroding landscapes: fluvial processes
  • 2. Lecture overview I. Field testing of fluvial erosion laws: do sediments matter? II. How do sediments modulate bedrock erosion rates? III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers?
  • 3. E = KA m S n .f(q s )
    • Stream Power Law(s) (laws 1, 2, 3): f(q s ) = 1
    Threshold for erosion (law 4), slope set by necessity for river to transport sediment downstream (law 5), cover effect (law 6), tools + cover effects (law 7).  Similar predictions at SS: concave up profile with power relationship between S and A.  Different predictions in terms of transient response of the landscape to perturbation.
    • Laws including the role of the sediments: f(q s ) ≠ 1
    General form: fluvial incision laws
  • 4. I. Field testing of fluvial incision laws (1) Basal shear stress: Fluvial erosion law: Excess shear stress model (law 4): Lav é & Avouac, 2001  τ = ρ g R S, where R = WD / (W+2D)  τ = ρ g D S, if W >10 D. E = K ( τ - τ c ) V D
  • 5. Fluvial incision along Himalayan rivers MFT
  • 6. Fluvial incision measured using terraces
  • 7. [Lavé and Avouac, 2001] Comparison between fluvial incision (terraces) and excess shear stress (channel geometry) Shields stress (non-dimensional): τ * = τ / ( ρ s – ρ ) gD 50
  • 8. E = K ( τ* - τ c * ) Independent measurements: E from terraces and τ from channel geometry. τ c * value used = 0.03 See Buffington and Montgomery, 1997, for extensive description of the critical shear stress concept. Important role of lithology
  • 9. Modified from Lavé & Avouac, 2001 TSS HHC LH S Lavé & Avouac, 2001: maximum fluvial erosion rate in the HHC zone for 6 main Himalayan rivers
  • 10. Modified from Lavé & Avouac, 2001 TSS HHC LH S Lavé & Avouac, 2001: maximum fluvial erosion rate in the HHC zone for 6 main Himalayan rivers
  • 11.
    • All laws predict similar steady-state topographies (concave-up profile, etc.) ,
    • Predicted transient response to a disturbance depends on the fluvial incision law chosen.
    I. Field testing of fluvial incision laws (2) Using the transient response of the landscape
  • 12. (2002) (2002) Detachment-limited law (SPL, laws 1, 2, 3) Transport limited law (law 5) Transient response of fluvial systems
  • 13. (2002) (2002) Transient response of fluvial systems Detachment-limited law (SPL, laws 1, 2, 3) Transport limited law (law 5)
  • 14. (2002) (2002) Transient response of fluvial systems Detachment-limited law (SPL, laws 1, 2, 3) Transport limited law (law 5)
  • 15. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~gdevries/maps/maps.cgi Fiamignano, Italy Xerias, Greece 0 600 km Transient response to tectonic disturbance (Whittaker et al., 2007a, b, 2008; Cowie et al., 2008, Attal et al., 2008)
  • 16. Fiamignano, Italy Xerias, Greece Transient response to tectonic disturbance (Whittaker et al., 2007a, b, 2008; Cowie et al., 2008, Attal et al., 2008)
  • 17. Fiamignano, Italy Xerias, Greece Transient response to tectonic disturbance Italy closer to DL end-member, Greece closer to TL end-member (Cowie et al., 2008) SEDIMENTS DO MATTER! Erosion efficiency f(Q s ) Q s /Q c 0 1
  • 18. Sklar & Dietrich, 2001 Role of sediment: the “tools and cover” effects (Gilbert, 1877) Experimental study of bedrock abrasion by saltating particles Tools Cover II. How do sediments modulate bedrock erosion rates?
  • 19. Sklar & Dietrich, 1998, 2004 Role of sediment: the “tools and cover” effects 2004: mechanistic 1998: theoretical E = V i I r F e V i = volume of rock detached / particle impact, I r = rate of particle impacts per unit area per unit time, F e = fraction of the river bed made up of exposed bedrock.
  • 20. Turowski et al., 2007 Role of sediment: the “tools and cover” effects Erosion efficiency f(Q s ) Q s /Q c 0 1 Sediment SUPPLY / Q c Sediment SUPPLY ≤ Q c  Q s /Q c = Sediment SUPPLY / Q c Sediment SUPPLY > Q c  Q s /Q c = 1 Sklar & Dietrich Turowski et al. Maximum bedrock erosion for sediment supply = Q c (“dynamic cover effect”)
  • 21. Effect of grain size? (Sklar & Dietrich, 2004) Role of sediment: the “tools and cover” effects But very simplistic model: bedload is made of only 1 grain size!
  • 22. Effect of grain size? Bedload is made of a wide range of grain sizes Role of sediment: the “tools and cover” effects At low flow: bedload is motionless and protects bedrock from erosion. During floods, the smallest particles will be put in motion (  tools) while the largest might remain motionless (  cover): difference in sediment MOBILITY will affect bedrock erosion Not only size will affect sediment mobility: interactions between particle will do it as well (e.g. patches, gravel-bars)
  • 23. Movement probability 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.2 Sediment mobility in bedrock rivers Courtesy Rebecca Hodge, University of Glasgow Cellular Automata model
  • 24. Hodge et al., work in progress Role of sediment: the “tools and cover” effects Erosion efficiency f(Q s ) Q s /Q c 0 1 Sediment SUPPLY / Q c Sediment SUPPLY ≤ Q c  Q s /Q c = Sediment SUPPLY / Q c Sediment SUPPLY > Q c  Q s /Q c = 1 Sklar & Dietrich Turowski et al. Lower erosion rates for higher sediment supply because of increasing likelihood of jams
  • 25. Calder River, Renfrewshire Characterizing sediment mobility in the field
  • 26. Schmeeckle et al. Characterizing sediment mobility in the lab http:// www.markschmeeckle.com / Modelling sediment motion… Ideally, we would include pebble and bedrock abrasion in such models. But the computer that can do that efficiently doesn’t exist yet…
  • 27. What does control the characteristics of sediments in (1)?  (2) Characteristics of the source of sediment (location, amount, grain size distribution, lithology)  (3) Transport and abrasion processes along the channel III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers?
    • Bedrock erosion in (1) will depend on sediment characteristics in (1):
    • what proportion of sediment is bedload? (  tools and cover)
    • what is the grain size distribution of the bedload? (  for a given flood, what will be tools, what will be cover, and how efficient the tools will be)
    • what is the lithologic content of the bedload? (  how efficient the tools will be)
    Sediment mobility (2) (3) (1) http://projects.crustal.ucsb.edu/nepal/
  • 28. Sediments entering the channel are usually angular Marsyandi River, Nepal III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers? Pebble abrasion during fluvial transport
  • 29.  Angular pebbles in the river Marsyandi River, Nepal Pebbles are abraded during fluvial transport Each pebble is reduced in size and gets more rounded III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers? Pebble abrasion during fluvial transport
  • 30. Common pebble abrasion processes: Marsyandi River, Nepal Chipping Crushing Cracking Splitting Grinding These processes reduce the size of pebbles and tend to make them more rounded III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers?
  • 31. Downstream fining? Not necessarily, because fresh material is added along the river course in mountain rivers (≠ alluvial rivers) III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers? Pebble abrasion during fluvial transport
  • 32. Change in rock type proportion? If the 2 rock types are eroded at the same rate A B Distance downstream (km) A B Rock-type content in bedload (coarse fraction, > ~1 mm) 100% 50% 0% III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers? Pebble abrasion during fluvial transport
  • 33. Change in rock type proportion? If the pink rock type is more resistant than the orange one A B Distance downstream (km) A B 100% 50% 0% Rock-type content in bedload (coarse fraction, > ~1 mm) III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers? Pebble abrasion during fluvial transport
  • 34. Experimental study of pebble abrasion during fluvial transport Scale 1/5 model
  • 35. The « machine a laver » Piping suspended 1.35m above the ground The circular flume … on its frame
  • 36. Non-abrasive floor condition Videos: the flume in action…  physical laws of pebble abrasion Abrasion = f (pebble size, velocity, lithology, amount of sediment)
  • 37. Differences in pebble abrasion rates can be up to a factor 200! Attal and Lav é , 2006 Pebble abrasion rate (% / km) Experimental study of pebble abrasion during fluvial transport
  • 38. III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers? Colchen et al., 1986, modified Field study: the sediments of the Marsyandi river (Himalayas) DOMINANT LITHOLOGIES: Limestone Gneiss Schist Sandstone & Schist Measurement sites: Gravel bar Source of sediment Size distributions Rock type proportions
  • 39. Increase in grain size due to change from moraine-type source (a) to landslide-type source (b) Distance from source (km) Gravel bar D 50 (cm) Shear stress (N/m²) Lavé and Avouac, 2001 (a) (b) Increase in grain size due to drop in shear stress  the river is less likely to move large particles supplied from hillslopes and upstream Attal and Lavé, 2006 “ Source” and “transport” effects “ Source” and “transport” effects
  • 40. Resistant rock types (Quartzite, Gneiss + Granite) are overrepresented with respect to poorly resistant rock types (Schist, Sandstones) – “Abrasion” effect Attal and Lavé, 2006 Gravel bar content Distance from source (km) % Weight % Area Lithologies exposed Distance from source (km) Gneiss and granite Schist Sandstone Quartzite Limestone
  • 41. Red Deer River, Alberta, Canada (Parker, 1991) After a few hundreds of km of transport, Quartz becomes the dominant rock type in bedload Kali Gandaki - Narayani, Nepal (Mezaki and Yabiku, 1984) III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers? % (km) Downstream
  • 42. TO SUMMARIZE Marsyandi River, Nepal Pebbles are abraded during fluvial transport Angular pebbles, varied rock types Rounded pebbles, resistant rock types dominant What happens to the other rock types? They are turned into sand, silt  transported to sedimentary basins, mostly in suspension III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers?
  • 43. Perfectly rounded quartz pebbles on the Isle of Arran III. What does control sediment characteristics in bedrock rivers?
  • 44. The ideal model of fluvial erosion and landscape evolution?
    • - characteristics of the sources of sediment (2),
    • fluvial transport law (3),
    • law of pebble abrasion during fluvial transport (3),
    • law of bedrock abrasion due to impacts by moving particles,
    • particles tracking, from hillslopes to rivers, from mountain range to basins.
    Sediment characteristics strongly influence bedrock erosion rates. To better understand and predict how these characteristics evolve along rivers, the ideal model would need to include: (2) (3) (1) http://projects.crustal.ucsb.edu/nepal/