4.6 Review

Evaluation of paleohydrologic models for terrestrial inverted channels: Implications for application to martian sinuous ridges

Journal

GEOMORPHOLOGY
Volume 107, Issue 3-4, Pages 300-315

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.12.015

Keywords

Fluvial geomorphology; Mars; Hydrologic models

Funding

  1. NASA Mars Fundamental Research [NNX06AB21 G]
  2. Smithsonian Institution
  3. Planetary Science Institute [444]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fluvial systems can be preserved in inverted relief on both Earth and Mars. Few studies have evaluated the applicability of various paleohydrological models to inverted fluvial systems. The first phase of this investigation focused on an extensive (spanning similar to 12 km) inverted paleochannel system that consists of four sandstone-capped, carbonate-cemented, sinuous ridges within the Early Cretaceous Cedar Mountain Formation located southwest of Green River, Utah. Morphologic and sedimentologic observations of the exhumed paleochannels were used to evaluate multiple numerical models for reconstructing paleofluvial hydrological parameters. Another objective of the study was to determine whether aerial or orbital observations yield model results that are consistent with those constrained by field data. The models yield an envelope of plausible dominant discharge values (100-500 m(3)/s), reflecting the limitations of the approach, and no single model can be used to reliably estimate paleodischarge. On Mars, landforms with attributes consistent with inverted channels have been identified. In spite of differences in the formation history between these martian landforms and the terrestrial analog described here, including potential differences in cement composition and the erosional agent that was responsible for relief inversion, these numerical models can be applied (with modification) to the martian landforms and yield an envelope of plausible values for dominant discharge. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available