Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 542

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 119 of the 119 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The stream power river incision model: evidence, theory and beyond

Lague, Dimitri·2014·Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
DOI 10.1002/esp.3462
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The stream power incision model (SPIM) is a cornerstone of quantitative geomorphology. It states that river incision rate is the product of drainage area and channel slope raised to the power exponents m and n, respectively. It is widely used to predict patterns of deformation from channel long profile inversion or to model knickpoint migration and landscape evolution. Numerous studies have attempted to test its applicability with mixed results prompting the question of its validity. This paper synthesizes these results, highlights the SPIM deficiencies, and offers new insights into the role of incision thresholds and channel width. By reviewing quantitative data on incising rivers, I first propose six sets of field evidence that any long‐term incision model should be able to predict. This analysis highlights several inconsistencies of the standard SPIM. Next, I discuss the methods used to construct physics‐based long‐term incision laws. I demonstrate that all published incising river datasets away from knickpoints or knickzones are in a regime dominated by threshold effects requiring an explicit upscaling of flood stochasticity neglected in the standard SPIM and other incision models. Using threshold‐stochastic simulations with dynamic width, I document the existence of composite transient dynamics where knickpoint propagation locally obeys a linear SPIM (n=1) while other part of the river obey a non‐linear SPIM (n>1). The threshold‐stochastic SPIM resolves some inconsistencies of the standard SPIM and matches steady‐state field evidence when width is not sensitive to incision rate. However it fails to predict the scaling of slope with incision rate for cases where width decreases with incision rate. Recent proposed models of dynamic width cannot resolve these deficiencies. An explicit upscaling of sediment flux and threshold‐stochastic effects combined with dynamic width should take us beyond the SPIM which is shown here to have a narrow range of validity. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/esp.3462

Cites

119 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 542

Metadata

Authors
Lague, D.
Venue
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-11-11
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
38-61
ISSN
  • 0197-9337 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9837
DOI
10.1002/esp.3462
OpenAlex
W2126041055
Cited by
542
References
119
FWCI
14.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.