Stream Development and Longitudinal Stream Profiles
Download
Report
Transcript Stream Development and Longitudinal Stream Profiles
STREAM DEVELOPMENT AND
LONGITUDINAL STREAM
PROFILES
OBJECTIVE
Look
at factors that affect stream
development
Determine how streams vary by region
and difference in factors
Ultimately be able to compare stream
profiles and determine anomalous
segments in profile
OUTLINE
Longitudinal profiles and what controls stream
development
Profiles by region
Methods of obtaining stream profiles
Comparing stream profiles
LONGITUDINAL STREAM PROFILES
Shows distance vs. elevation of a stream
LONGITUDINAL STREAM PROFILES
Changes on tectonic conditions, climate, or geology cause
changes in profile (Cherkauer, 1972).
The main factors that affect its slope are discharge,
drainage area, and size of material in the stream bed
(Hack, 1957).
Typical profile is concave-up
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
Convex profile
Little uplift
Changes in base
level and geology
play a more
important role
than uplift.
Carlston (1969)
found 8 streams
draining to
Atlantic to be
convex
Ydtalk.com
PROFILES IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
Shorter streams that
help show variation in
geology
Schist & sandstone
slopes decrease more
gradually compared to
shale or less resistant
units (Hack, 1957)
TEXAS PROFILES
Most profiles in TX
have a long and
concave profile
Some exceptions are
nearly linear
(slightly concave)Rio Jemez and
Matthole River.
Constant incision
rate
Not very tectonically
active
Tinkler, K.J., 1998
PROFILE SEGMENTS
Not all profiles follow one pattern
Streams can be made up of segments based on differences in
slope and shape
ARIZONA STREAMS-SEGMENTED
Steep upstream (concave)
Due to greater rate of change
of particle size and drainage
area, and higher width to
depth ratio of stream
Straight line downstream
Ephemeral streams- exists
only after ppt (Cherkauer,
1972)
GLACIAL PROFILES
Wide and low gradient floors.
Profiles characterized by steps shortly after tributary joins
main glacier (MacGragor et al, 2000)
MAKING STREAM PROFILES
Plot of distance on x-axis vs. elevation above sea
level on y-axis
Can infer from topographic maps (Hack, 1957) or
DEMs (Snyder et al, 2000)
Survey in the field
Once full profile is acquired, it can be broken up
into many segments based on shape
STREAM-GRADIENT INDEX
Relates the slope of a stream to its length (Hack,
1973)
Allows you to compare different streams
Can determine small knickzones/irregularities
SL= stream-gradient index
∆H= Change in elevation
L= length of the Stream
∆L- Length of the specific reach of stream
STREAM GRADIENT
Hack, 1957
STREAM GRADIENT
Hack (1957) developed this formula based on
profiles in humid regions on the East Coast
Still useful because easy to calculate
CONCLUSION
Changes on tectonic conditions, climate, or
geology cause changes in profile
Different regions show different profiles
A single stream can have many segments
Stream-gradient index is a useful calculation to
compare profiles
REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, J.K., Wondzell, S.M., Gooseff, M.N., Haggerty, R., 2005, Patterns in stream longitudinal profiles and
implications for hyporheic exchange flow at the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon, USA: Hydrological
Processes, v. 19, p. 2931-2949.
Carlston, C.W., 1969, Longitudinal slope characteristics of rivers of the midcontinent and the Atlantic east gulf slopes:
International Association of Scientific Hydrology Bulletin, v. 14, no. 4, p. 21-31.
Cherkauer, D.S., 1972, Longitudinal profiles of ephemeral streams in southeastern Arizona: GSA Bulletin, v. 83, p.
353-366.
Goldrick, G., Bishop, P., 2007, Regional analysis of bedrock stream long profiles: evaluation of Hack’s SL form, and
formulation and assessment of an alternative (the DS form): Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 32, p. 649-671,
doi 10.1002/esp.1413.
Hack, J.T., 1957, Studies of Longitudinal Stream Profiles in Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 294-B, p. 42-97.
Hack, J.T., 1973, Stream-profile analysis and stream-gradient index: Journal Research U.S. Geological Survey, v. 1, no.
4, p. 421-429.
Larue, J.P., 2011, Longitudinal Profiles and Knickzones: the Example of the Rivers of the Cher in the Northern French
Massif Central: The Geologists’ Association, v. 122, p. 125-142.
MacGregor K.R., Anderson, R.S., Anderson, S.P., Waddington, E.D., 2000, Numerical simulations of glacial-valley
longitudinal profile evolution, v. 28, no. 11, p. 1031-1034.
Pazzaglia, F.J., Gardner, T.W., Merrits, D.J., 1998, Bedrock Fluvial Incision and Longitudinal Profile Development
Over Geologic Time Scales Determined by Fluvial Terraces: Rivers Over Rock: Fluvial Processes in Bedrock Channels,
p. 207-235.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994, A classification of natural rivers: Catena, v. 22, p. 169-199.
Snyder, N.P., Whipple, K.X., Tucker, G.E., Merritts, D.J., 2000, Landscape response to tectonic forcing: Digital
elevation model analysis of stream profiles in the Mendocino triple junction region, northern California: GSA Bulletin,
v. 112, no. 8, p. 1250-1263.
Woodside, J., Peterson, E. W., and Dogwiler, T., in review, Longitudinal profile and sediment mobility as geomorphic
indicators within a fluviokarst stream system: Journal of Cave and Karst Studies.
Zimmerman, A.E., Church, M., Hassan, M.A., 2008, Identification of Steps and Pools from Stream Longitudinal Profile
Data: Geomorphology, v. 102, p. 395-405.