The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fluvial Landscape Response Time: How Plausible Is Steady-State Denudation?
Open accessAbstract
Whether or not steady-state topography and denudation are probable states depends on the timescale of system response to tectonic and climatic perturbations relative to the frequency of those perturbations. This paper presents analytical derivations of algebraic relations for the response time of detachment-limited fluvial bedrock channel systems both to tectonic and climatic perturbations. Detachmentlimited fluvial erosion is described by the stream-power incision model, and the derivations are limited to the applicability of that model. All factors likely to influence system response time that are not adequately captured by the stream-power incision model will tend to increase the response time. The calculations presented thus provide minimum estimates of landscape response time and therefore over-predict the probability of attaining and sustaining steady-state topography and denudation. The Central Range of Taiwan is used as a case study to estimate response times in a landscape often argued to be in steady state. Model parameters are fit to modern stream profiles by assuming that the topography represents a quasi-steady-state form. Estimated response times generally range from 0.25 to 2.5 Ma, depending on the non-linearity of the incision rule and the magnitude and type of perturbation. Thus it may be reasonably argued that steady-state topography and denudation are likely to prevail during periods of climatic stability (response time is sufficiently short compared with plate tectonic timescales). However, rapid climatic fluctuation in the Quaternary appears to preclude the attainment of steady-state conditions in modern orogens.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Geotectonic evolution of late Cenozoic arc-continent collision in Taiwan
Teng, L. S. (1990) · Tectonophysics · doi:10.1016/0040-1951(90)90188-e · Cited by 790
Some simple physical aspects of the support, structure, and evolution of mountain belts
Molnar, P., & Lyon-Caen, H. (1988) · Processes in Continental Lithospheric Deformation · doi:10.1130/spe218-p179 · Cited by 573
Cited by
Expression of active tectonics in erosional landscapes
Kirby, E., & Whipple, K. X. (2012) · Journal of Structural Geology · doi:10.1016/j.jsg.2012.07.009 · Cited by 1,093
Self-citationImplications of sediment‐flux‐dependent river incision models for landscape evolution
Whipple, K. X., & Tucker, G. E. (2002) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth · doi:10.1029/2000jb000044 · Cited by 687
Self-citationCrosby, B. T., & Whipple, K. X. (2006) · Geomorphology · doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.08.023 · Cited by 632
Self-citationTucker, G. E., & Whipple, K. X. (2002) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth · doi:10.1029/2001jb000162 · Cited by 451
Self-citationPaleovalley systems: Insights from Quaternary analogs and experiments
Blum, M., Martin, J., Milliken, K., & Garvin, M. (2013) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2012.09.003 · Cited by 451
Metadata
- Authors
- Whipple, K. X.
- Venue
- American Journal of Science
- Publisher
- American Journal of Science (AJS)
- Published
- 2001-04
- Volume
- 301
- Issue
- 4-5
- Pages
- 313-325
- ISSN
- 0002-9599 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-452X
- OpenAlex
- W2116292804
- Cited by
- 468
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 25.03
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fluvial Landscape Response Time: How Plausible Is Steady-State Denudation? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2475/ajs.301.4-5.313
- The paper
- Whipple, K. X. (2001). Fluvial Landscape Response Time: How Plausible Is Steady-State Denudation? American Journal of Science. https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.301.4-5.313
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.