Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T06:56:01.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Alluvial fan depositional records from north and south-facing catchments in semi-arid montane terrain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2017

Michael J. Poulos*
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, Idaho 83725, USA
Jennifer L. Pierce
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, Idaho 83725, USA
*
*Corresponding author at: Department of Geosciences, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, Idaho 83725, USA. E-mail address: MikeJPoulos@gmail.com; MikePoulos@BoiseState.edu (M. Poulos).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Valley asymmetry reflects differences in landform evolution with aspect; however, few studies assess rates and timing of asymmetric erosion. In south-central Idaho, we combine alluvial fan volume reconstructions with radiocarbon deposit dating to compare the source-catchment normalized fan deposition rates of catchments incised into north (n=5) and south-facing (n=3) valleys, which differ during the late Holocene from 7.7 to 10.1 mm/ka, respectively, but are not significantly different. South-facing catchments produced 1.3× more fan sediment per unit source-area during the late Holocene, whereas over the last 10 Ma they have evolved to be 2.1× larger with 2.8× greater eroded volumes and 7.6° gentler slopes (24.5° versus 32.1°, average). Late Holocene differences in sediment yields with aspect cannot fully explain differences in landforms. Potential bias in sediment deposition and/or remobilization cannot fully explain the similarity of erosion rates during the late Holocene. Valley asymmetry appears to have developed primarily during different conditions. While valley asymmetry development may be quicker during glacial climates, development is likely accelerated early in a valley’s history, such as during initial valley incision, because asymmetric degradation serves as a negative feedback that reduces aspect-related differences in erosion and drives valleys towards steady state.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © University of Washington. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2017 
Figure 0

Figure 1 (color online) Aspect-related variability in vegetation cover and landforms in the Dry Creek Experimental Watershed (DCEW). Note asymmetries in hillslope steepness, ridgeline linearity, land surface length, and vegetation cover.

Figure 1

Figure 2 (color online) Location and overview of the Dry Creek Experimental Watershed (DCEW). Right panels show alluvial fan charcoal excavation sites and source catchments. Note steeper northern aspects, with shorter and less-developed drainages, and denser coniferous forest cover.

Figure 2

Figure 3 (color online) Example of alluvial fan reconstruction. (a) Depiction of a dissected alluvial fan with reconstructed volume in grey. (b) Example of reconstructed of the dissected fan for catchment 13 (see Supplement 1 for all fan reconstructions).

Figure 3

Figure 4 Sequence showing how catchments are filled by projecting ridgeline elevations across catchments, with the total volumes of material removed from each catchment calculated by summing the height differences within each catchment. Note that these estimates cannot account for ridgeline lowering.

Figure 4

Figure 5 (color online) Fire record showing the summed calibrated age probabilities for charcoal from north (n = 13) and south-facing (n = 7) catchments (top). Samples making up each probability distribution plotted as weighted mean sample ages with 2-sigma age ranges (bottom; error bars). Vertical position on lower graph is sorted by aspect and age for display. Overlapping age distributions indicate samples are likely from the same episode of fire-related erosion, and in some cases the same deposit. The absence of samples younger than 500 cal yr BP may reflect the preference for dating of samples from deeper in the deposits in order to obtain time-averaged erosion rates.

Figure 5

Table 1 Alluvial fan deposit charcoal ages and sampling depths.

Figure 6

Figure 6 (color online) Stratigraphic profiles of alluvial fan deposits for two fans. Most alluvial fan deposits for south-facing catchments did not exhibit distinct boundaries or stratigraphy related to processes, such as sheetflood couplets, large matrix-supported clasts, sediment sorting, or charcoal-rich layers. Note that bottom of pit is seen obliquely in these HDR vertically stitched photos, falsely giving the appearance of plate-like structure in the south-facing pit.

Figure 7

Figure 7 (color online) (a) Relationship between charcoal age and burial depth, tangential to the fan surface, for north and south-facing catchments. Aggradation rates are depicted by the slopes of trend lines. (b) Relationship between charcoal age and catchment-averaged deposition. Rates of deposition are depicted by the slopes of trend. We only fit trend lines for datasets with samples at multiple depths that exhibited statistically different ages.

Figure 8

Table 2 Alluvial fan aggradation rates, reconstructed surface areas, volumetric rates of deposition, and dissection.

Figure 9

Figure 8 (color online) (a) Aggradation, (b) volumetric deposition, and (c) catchment-averaged deposition rates calculated using the deepest samples for each north (n = 5) and south-facing (n = 3) catchment alluvial fan. Differences between aspects become greater for volumetric deposition because south-facing fans are larger on average, but decrease for source-catchment averaged deposition rates because south-facing catchments are also larger.

Figure 10

Table 3 Source catchment areas, catchment averaged deposition rates, sediment yields, and total volumes eroded from catchments.

Figure 11

Table 4 Individual deposit thicknesses, volumes, and sediment yields for years of events.

Figure 12

Figure 9 (color online) (a) Time-averaged sediment yields with propagated uncertainty ranges and timescales of measurement. (b) The time-averaged sediment yields and yields from individual deposits are compared to sediment yields from elsewhere in the region (modified from Meyer and Pierce, 2003).

Supplementary material: PDF

Poulos and Pierce supplementary material

Poulos and Pierce supplementary material 1

Download Poulos and Pierce supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.7 MB