4.5 Article

Feedbacks between erosion and sediment transport in experimental bedrock channels

Journal

EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS
Volume 32, Issue 7, Pages 1048-1062

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/esp.1471

Keywords

bedrock channel; erosion; sediment transport; laboratory flume; Henry Mountains; Utah

Funding

  1. Division Of Earth Sciences
  2. Directorate For Geosciences [0821613] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Natural bedrock rivers flow in self-formed channels and form diverse erosional morphologies. The parameters that collectively define channel morphology (e.g. width, slope, bed roughness, bedrock exposure, sediment size distribution) all influence river incision rates and dynamically adjust in poorly understood ways to imposed fluid and sediment fluxes. To explore the mechanics of river incision, we conducted laboratory experiments in which the complexities of natural bedrock channels were reduced to a homogenous brittle substrate (sand and cement), a single sediment size primarily transported as bedload, a single erosion mechanism (abrasion) and sediment-starved transport conditions. We find that patterns of erosion both create and are sensitive functions of the evolving bed topography because of feedbacks between the turbulent flow field, sediment transport and bottom roughness. Abrasion only occurs where sediment impacts the bed, and so positive feedback occurs between the sediment preferentially drawn to topographic lows by gravity and the further erosion of these lows. However, the spatial focusing of erosion results in tortuous flow paths and erosional forms (inner channels, scoops, potholes), which dissipate flow energy. This energy dissipation is a negative feedback that reduces sediment transport capacity, inhibiting further incision and ultimately leading to channel morphologies adjusted to just transport the imposed sediment load. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available