Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dynamics of the stream‐power river incision model: Implications for height limits of mountain ranges, landscape response timescales, and research needs

Whipple, Kelin X., Tucker, Gregory E.·1999·Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth

Abstract

The longitudinal profiles of bedrock channels are a major component of the relief structure of mountainous drainage basins and therefore limit the elevation of peaks and ridges. Further, bedrock channels communicate tectonic and climatic signals across the landscape, thus dictating, to first order, the dynamic response of mountainous landscapes to external forcings. We review and explore the stream‐power erosion model in an effort to (1) elucidate its consequences in terms of large‐scale topographic (fluvial) relief and its sensitivity to tectonic and climatic forcing, (2) derive a relationship for system response time to tectonic perturbations, (3) determine the sensitivity of model behavior to various model parameters, and (4) integrate the above to suggest useful guidelines for further study of bedrock channel systems and for future refinement of the streampower erosion law. Dimensional analysis reveals that the dynamic behavior of the stream‐power erosion model is governed by a single nondimensional group that we term the uplift‐erosion number, greatly reducing the number of variables that need to be considered in the sensitivity analysis. The degree of nonlinearity in the relationship between stream incision rate and channel gradient (slope exponent n) emerges as a fundamental unknown. The physics of the active erosion processes directly influence this nonlinearity, which is shown to dictate the relationship between the uplift‐erosion number, the equilibrium stream channel gradient, and the total fluvial relief of mountain ranges. Similarly, the predicted response time to changes in rock uplift rate is shown to depend on climate, rock strength, and the magnitude of tectonic perturbation, with the slope exponent n controlling the degree of dependence on these various factors. For typical drainage basin geometries the response time is relatively insensitive to the size of the system. Work on the physics of bedrock erosion processes, their sensitivity to extreme floods, their transient responses to sudden changes in climate or uplift rate, and the scaling of local rock erosion studies to reach‐scale modeling studies are most sorely needed.

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 · 10.1029/1999jb900120

Cites

1 of 1 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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 2,225

Metadata

Authors
Whipple, K. X., & Tucker, G. E.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
Published
1999-08-10
Volume
104
Issue
B8
Pages
17661-17674
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993999355
Cited by
2,225
References
1
FWCI
17.82
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dynamics of the stream‐power river incision model: Implications for height limits of mountain ranges, landscape response timescales, and research needs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/1999jb900120
The paper
Whipple, K. X., & Tucker, G. E. (1999). Dynamics of the stream‐power river incision model: Implications for height limits of mountain ranges, landscape response timescales, and research needs. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999jb900120

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.