Part I: Coupling Between Climate and

Tectonics
What is the Relation Between Climate
and Erosion Rate?
Between Erosion Rate and Tectonics?
Is there a Demonstrable Coupling (with
feedback loops) Between Climate and
Tectonics?
How Strong are the Feedbacks?
How Variable Among Mountain Belts?
Over what Time and Space Scales does
this Coupling Operate?

A ~6-fold Increase!

The Erosion and Rock Uplift Paradox

In an isostatically compensated orogen, most
(~5/6 total) rock uplift can be said to be a
response to erosion
At steady state, rock uplift equals erosion
the two are interchangeable
Thus it makes no sense to discuss how erosion
influences rock uplift rock uplift is erosion,
more or less
If erosion is not driven by rock uplift, but viceversa, what does drive erosion? And how is
relief generated?

Resolving the Paradox

Consider Three End-Member Cases:

Non-Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt (no

root)
Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt
Isostatic, Self-Similar Orogenic Wedge (Dynamic
Adjustment of Range Width)

For Each We Will Use a Simplified Erosion

Rule to Explore Fundamental Behavior
Inter-relationships among Erosion, Rock Uplift
Rate, Surface Uplift Rate, Isostatic Compensation,
and Topography

Definitions
Uplift rate (of surface or rock) is the
vertical component of motion measured
relative to a fixed datum (geoid) at the
Earths Surface (positive up) *
Erosion rate is positive down
Surface uplift rate is the difference
between rock uplift rate and erosion rate
*I Rock
discuss
uplift
onlyrate
regionally
typically
averaged
varies with
quantities
depth

Us U E

Defined at the Earths Surface (only)

Non-Isostatic Range: Siwalik Hills, Nepal

Structural Geometry: Mechanism to Convert Horizontal

Motion into Vertical Motion (Rock Uplift)
Uavg = Fa/W

U(x) = f (Fa, structural

geometry)

Fa

Rock Uplift Determined by Material Flux and Fault

Geometry: Erosion Plays no Role in this Simple Case of a
Fixed-Width, Non-Isostatic Mountain Belt

The Non-Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

Uavg = Fa/W

At all times!
R

Fa
W
Reminder: Only Discuss Average Rock Uplift Rate
(relative to geoid) measured at the Surface -not internal deformation field

Taiwan Central Range

GTOPO30 DEM

Time Since Collision

Increases at ~1Ma/60
km from south

Many Narrow Mountain Belts Exhibit 2-Sided Wedge

Geometry Consistent with Critical Taper Theory

Self-Similar Geometry Consistent with Critical Taper Theory

Provides a Simple, Powerful Constraint

80-90% Relief is on Bedrock Channels

Blue lines: drainage area > 1km2; Regime where

S = ksA-

80-90% Relief is on Bedrock Channels

Threshold hillslope gradients dominate no tectonic info

80-90% Relief is on Bedrock Channels

Relief strongly scale-dependent; records: surface

roughness, hillslope length, tributary relief, trunk relief

Regional Topographic Slope (tan )

schematic ridge
profile

Rhc

W
0
0

xc

10

15

20

Distance from Divide (km)

25

The Non-Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

Evolution Equation for Total Relief, R
dR
U s U E U nc E
dt

U nc

FA

Constant!

Orogen-Scale Erosion Rule (Whipple and Meade, 2004)

E CW

tan

C is Erosional Efficiency (set by Climate and Rock Properties)

Simplify: a = b = 1; W tan = R

dR
U nc CR
dt
Known Analytical Solution

R t R f Ri R f e

Ct

E t CR t

T1 e

The Non-Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

The Non-Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

The Non-Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

The Non-Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

Rock Uplift is Set by Tectonics U = Fa/W

A Step-function change in U is possible
Rock Uplift drives Erosion
Erosional Efficiency sets Relief, not the
Erosion rate
There is no Coupling between Climatedriven Erosion and Tectonics

No Tectonic Response to Change in Surface Morphology

The Non-Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

Uavg = Fa/W

At all times!
R

Fa
W

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

U (t) = Unc + Uiso(t)

By definition
R

Fa
[c/(m - c)] R/2 ~ 5R/2

W
Unc = Rock Uplift Rate in Absence of Isostatic
Compensation = Fa/W (as before)
(over thrusting assumption)

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

Define Rock Uplift as Sum of Unc and Uiso
U U nc U iso
U iso

c
U nc E
m

Isostatic
compensation

m c
c
U
E
m
m

U nc

Rate of crustal
Thickening (over thrust)

For E = 0 Case:

m c
U
m

For E = Unc Case:

U iso 0

U nc

U U nc

Rock Uplift = Unc minus isostatic compensation of the rate crustal

thickening; Erosion acts to reduce the rate of crustal thickening, thus
countering the effect of isostasy during Mountain growth (E < Unc)

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

m c
c
U
E
m
m

U nc

Evolution Equation for Total Relief, R

m c
dR
U s U E
dt
m

R t R f Ri R f e

m c
m

U nc CR

T1 e

Response time increased by ~6x

c
U t U nc
C f R f Ri e
m

m c
1 C
m

m c
m

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

Isostasy Slows:

Response times in
both Growth and
Decay increase by
a factor of ~6

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

Isostasy Sucks:

During Growth the

effect of Erosion is
to Counteract Isostasy

Isostasy Gives:
During Decay the
effect of Erosion is
to Induce Rebound

Response to Mass Influx: Non-zero difference between rock uplift and

Transient
Rock(surface
Uplift isuplift)
tightlywhich
Coupled
to Erosion,
erosion increases
relief
drives
enhanced erosion
but Steady State rate is Set by Tectonics: U = Fa/W

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

Isostasy Gives:
During Decay the
effect of Erosion is
to Induce Rebound

Isostasy Sucks:

During Growth the

effect of Erosion is
to Counteract Isostasy

Response
Transient
to Climate:
RockNon-zero
Uplift is tightly
difference
Coupled
between
to Erosion,
erosionbut
andthere
rock is
uplift
reduces
norelief
Coupling
(surface
between
uplift)
Erosion
which
and
induces
Tectonics
isostatic
(passive
rockisostatic
uplift (~5/6)
only)

The Isostatic, Constant Width Mountain Belt

Steady-State Rock Uplift rate is set by Tectonics
U = Fa/W = Unc
Erosion reduces the rate of crustal thickening, allowing
Rock Uplift to reach full steady state rate; which is the
same as in the non-isostatic case
Transient Rock Uplift rate is strongly coupled to the
Erosion rate (the two almost balance at all times)
TectonicChange:
Change:Erosion
Rock Uplift
drivesdrives
Rock Erosion
Uplift (small
(small
Climate
difference between E
U and
and U
E produces isostatic
Surface Uplift)
uplift)
A Step-function change in U is nearly impossible
Erosional Efficiency sets Relief, not the Erosion rate
There is no Coupling between Climate-driven Erosion and
Tectonics
No Tectonic Response to Change in Surface Morphology

Montgomery et al., 2001 Geology

Is the abrupt change in orogen width at 17S caused

by the steep gradient in rainfall?

Numerical Simulations:
Strong Climate-Tectonics Coupling

Willett, 1999 JGR

Beaumont et al., 2001

Nature
Hodges et al, 2001
Tectonics

Orogenic WedgeTheory:
Strong Climate-Tectonics Coupling

Mechanics of Deformation: Theory for Control of Orogen

Width; Strain Concentration Stolar et al, 2006 Penrose Volume

General Analytical Solution

Mass Balance in a 2-Sided Wedge at Flux
Steady State
Account for Recycling of Foreland Sediment

Critical Taper: Wedge Geometry (mean

topography)
Assumes Topographic Taper Invariant with
Accretionary Flux, Climate, Orogen Width

Generic Orogen-Scale Erosion Rule

Fluvial Scaling Empirical Data

Empirical data for well-adjusted fluvial systems around
the globe yield the following scaling:

S = ksA-

Linear relationship between log(S) and log(A)

ks is the channel steepness; is the concavity

Flints Law: Mixed Bedrock-Alluvial Stream (Appalachians, VA)

Flints Law: Mixed Bedrock-Alluvial Stream (Appalachians, VA)

S = ksA-
colluvial
reach

ks

ks is a more-general equivalent to the SL index:

No dependence on basin shape

Duvall, Kirby, and Burbank, 2004, JGR-ES

S = ksA-

ks

King Range: Concavity Invariant with

Rock Uplift Rate

Snyder et al, 2000, GSAB

Directly Contradicts Earlier Finding of Merritts and Vincent,
1989, GSAB

Steepness varies with U

Concavity invariant with U
Debris-flow chutes
expand with U

Channel Steepness Index Spatial

Information about Relative Rock
Uplift Rate
Siwalik Hills, Nepal
San Gabriel Mountains, CA
Nepal Himalaya (Wobus et al.)
Olympic Mountains, WA (Gasparini and Brandon)
Bolivian Andes (Safran et al)
Santa Ynez Mtns, CA (Duvall et al)
King Range, CA (Snyder et al)
Eastern Margin, Tibetan Plateau (Ouimet et al)

Siwalik Hills, Nepal

Flints Law: Mixed Bedrock-Alluvial Stream (Appalachians, VA)

S = ksA-
colluvial
reach

ks

ks is a more-general equivalent to the SL index:

No dependence on basin shape

For Fixed Mean Topographic Slope

What Matters to Orogen Evolution

(i.e., what sets C, a, and b)?
Bedrock Channel Incision Rate
Flood Frequency Distribution
Rock Properties
Channel Morphology/Bed State

Channel Network Structure

Relation between Channels and tan

Only Indirectly / Second order

Hillslope Processes
Vegetation

 = f (Kp/Kr); No Recycling of Foreland Sediment

 = f (Kp/Kr); No Recycling of Foreland Sediment

Dry Retro-Wedge

Uniform Precipitation

Wet Retro-Wedge

Implications

Wedge width and relief set by ratio F A / K; rock

uplift rate more sensitive to K than F A
For fixed FA, frictional strength, and basal thrust
dip, erosional efficiency sets wedge width, crustal
thickness, topographic relief, and rock uplift rate
Dynamic response of tectonics to erosion reflects
adjustment of wedge width and the pattern of
internal deformation
Details of the erosion process matter: sensitivity to
climate/lithology, particle paths through orogen

Taiwan Central Range

Parameters
T1/e ~ 1.2 Ma
90% Steady-State Wedge
Size, Erosional Flux ~3Ma

Time to 90% SteadyState Values much

shorter for Rock Uplift
and Erosion Rate

What about the Co-evolution of

Orographic Rainfall?
How Much Does this Change Orogen
Response Time?
How Does the Evolving Rainshadow
Influence Strain Partitioning within the
Orogen?
Can a Deepening Rainshadow Prevent
Attainment of a Flux Steady State?

Roe-Baker Orographic Rainfall Model

Simple Representation of Physics
Accounts for Co-evolution Topography
and Both Average Rainfall and Rainshadow Strength
Rainshadow Controlled by Moisture
Scale Height (Hm) and Wind Speed (Uw)
Total Rainfall by Moisture Content (qs)

Standard Case, Growth to Steady State

On all Plots, Pro-Wedge Values in Blue

Retro-Wedge Values in Red

Standard Case, Growth to Steady State

Dashed Lines Show Evolution with Rainfall Held Constant

at Final Steady-State Values

Standard Case, Growth to Steady State

Evolution of Wedge Size and Response Time Insensitive,

Changing Rainshadow Impacts Deformation Pattern

Standard Case, Growth to Steady State

Compare Next to Case with Same Erosional Efficiency, but

Stronger Rainshadow (reduce Hm, Uw, increase qs)

Enhanced Rainshadow, same net Erosional

Efficiency

Note Stronger Partitioning of Deformation to Pro-wedge

Due to Enhanced Rainshadow
But Overall Similarity in Wedge Size and Response Time

Retro-wind, Growth to Steady State

Note Stronger Precip Response to Steeper Retrowedge Taper

Standard Case, for Comparison

Retro-wind, Growth to Steady State

Note Stronger Partitioning of Deformation to Retro-wedge

Due to Steeper Retrowedge Taper & Ppt Response
But Overall Similarity in Wedge Size and Response Time

What about the Co-evolution of

Orographic Rainfall?
How Much Does this Change Orogen
Response Time?
How Does the Evolving Rainshadow
Influence Strain Partitioning within the
Orogen?
Can a Deepening Rainshadow Prevent
Attainment of a Flux Steady State?

Pro-wind, 80% Recycle: Runaway Case

Pro-wind, 80% Recycle: Runaway Case

Note 100% Recycle = One Sided Wedge Case

Recycle < 80% not Runaway for Standard Case
With Stronger Rainshadow, Runaway as low as 50%

Montgomery et al., 2001 Geology

Are the Central Andes/Altiplano an Example Runaway Case

With Strong Rainshadow and Pro-wedge Recycling?

Conclusions Part II
Response Time Set by Final Erosional Efficiency,
Insensitive to Orographic Rainfall Evolution
Strain Partitioning in Wedge Strongly Sensitive to
Evolving Rainshadow
A Deepening Rainshadow Can Cause a Runaway
Condition
2-Sided Wedge is Far More Stable than a 1-Sided
Wedge. Retro-wind Case Unconditionally Stable.
Pro-wind Case only Unstable for High % Recycling