Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 355

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Erosion as a driving mechanism of intracontinental mountain growth

Open access
Avouac, J. P., Burov, E. B.·1996·Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
DOI 10.1029/96jb01344
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In nature, mountains can grow and remain as localized tectonic features over long periods of time (>10 m.y.). By contrast, according to current knowledge of lithospheric rheology and neglecting surface processes, any intracontinental range with a width that exceeds that which can be supported by the strength of the lithosphere should collapse within a few tens of millions of years. For example, assuming a quartz‐dominated crustal rheology, the relief of a range initially 3 km high and 300–400 km wide is reduced by half in about 15 m.y. as a result of lateral spreading of its crustal root. We suggest that surface processes might actually prevent such a “subsurface collapse.” Removal of material from topographic heights and deposition in the foreland oppose spreading of the crustal root and could eventually drive a net influx of material toward the orogeny. We performed a set of numerical experiments in order to validate this hypothesis. A section of a lithosphere, with a brittle‐elasto‐ductile rheology, initially loaded by a mountain range is submitted to horizontal shortening and to surface processes. If erosion is intense, material is removed more rapidly than it can be supplied by crustal thickening below the range, and the topography is rapidly smoothed. For example, a feature 3 km high and 300–400 km wide is halved in height in about 15 m.y. for an erosion coefficient k = 10 3 m 2/yr (the erosion rate is of the order of a few 0.1 mm/yr). This regime might be called “erosional collapse.” If erosion is not active enough, the crustal root spreads out laterally and “subsurface collapse” occurs. In the third intermediate regime, removal of the material by erosion is dynamically compensated by isostatic rebound and inward flow in the lower crust so that the range can grow. In this “mountain growth” regime the range evolves toward a characteristic graded shape that primarily depends on the erosion law. The erosion rate may be high (e.g., 0.5–0.9 mm/yr), close to the rate of tectonic uplift (e.g., 0.7–1.1 mm/yr), and few times higher than the rate of topographic uplift (0.15–0.2 mm/yr). These experiments show that surface processes can favor localized crustal shortening and participate in the development of an intracontinental mountain. Surface processes must therefore be taken into account in the interpretation and modeling of long‐term deformation of continental lithosphere. Conversely, the mechanical response of the lithosphere must be accounted for when large‐scale topographic features are interpreted and modeled in terms of geomorphologic processes.

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 · 10.1029/96jb01344

Cites

50 of 50 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 355

Metadata

Authors
Avouac, J. P., & Burov, E. B.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Published
1996-08-10
Volume
101
Issue
B8
Pages
17747-17769
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1029/96jb01344
OpenAlex
W2092352873
Cited by
355
References
50
FWCI
15.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.