How many grains are needed for quantifying catchment erosion from tracer thermochronology?
-
Published:2022-03-31
Issue:1
Volume:4
Page:177-190
-
ISSN:2628-3719
-
Container-title:Geochronology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geochronology
Author:
Madella AndreaORCID, Glotzbach ChristophORCID, Ehlers Todd A.ORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Detrital tracer thermochronology utilizes the relationship between bedrock thermochronometric age–elevation profiles and a distribution of detrital grain ages collected from riverine, glacial, or other sediment to study spatial variations in the distribution of catchment erosion. If bedrock ages increase linearly with elevation, spatially uniform erosion is expected to yield a detrital age distribution that mimics the shape of a catchment's hypsometric curve. Alternatively, a mismatch between
detrital and hypsometric distributions may indicate spatial variability of
sediment production within the source area. For studies seeking to identify
the pattern of sediment production, detrital samples rarely exceed 100
grains due to the time and costs related to individual measurements. With
sample sizes of this order, detecting the dissimilarity between two detrital
age distributions produced by different catchment erosion scenarios can be
difficult at a high statistical confidence level. However, there are no
established software tools to quantify the uncertainty inherent to detrital
tracer thermochronology as a function of sample size and spatial pattern of
sediment production. As a result, practitioners are often left wondering
“how many grains is enough to detect a certain signal?”. Here, we
investigate how sample size affects the uncertainty of detrital age
distributions and how such uncertainty affects the ability to infer a
pattern of sediment production of the upstream area. We do this using the
Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic as a metric of dissimilarity among
distributions. From this, we perform statistical hypothesis testing by means of Monte Carlo sampling. These techniques are implemented in a new tool (ESD_thermotrace) to (i) consistently report the confidence level allowed by the sample size as a function of application-specific variables and given a set of user-defined hypothetical erosion scenarios, (ii) analyze the statistical power to discern each scenario from the uniform erosion hypothesis, and (iii) identify the erosion scenario that is least dissimilar to the observed detrital sample (if available). ESD_thermotrace is made available as a new open-source Python-based script alongside the test data. Testing between different hypothesized erosion scenarios with this tool provides thermochronologists with the minimum sample size (i.e., number of bedrock and detrital grain ages) required to answer their specific scientific question at their desired level of statistical confidence.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference41 articles.
1. Andersen, T.: Detrital zircons as tracers of sedimentary provenance:
limiting conditions from statistics and numerical simulation, Chem. Geol.,
216, 249–270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2004.11.013, 2005. 2. Attal, M. and Lavé, J.: Pebble abrasion during fluvial transport:
Experimental results and implications for the evolution of the sediment load
along rivers, J. Geophys. Res., 114, F04023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001328,
2009. 3. Attal, M., Mudd, S. M., Hurst, M. D., Weinman, B., Yoo, K., and Naylor, M.: Impact of change in erosion rate and landscape steepness on hillslope and fluvial sediments grain size in the Feather River basin (Sierra Nevada, California), Earth Surf. Dynam., 3, 201–222, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-201-2015, 2015. 4. Avdeev, B., Niemi, N. A., and Clark, M. K.: Doing more with less: Bayesian
estimation of erosion models with detrital thermochronometric data, Earth
Planet. Sc. Lett., 305, 385–395, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2011.03.020, 2011. 5. Brewer, I. D., Burbank, D. W., and Hodges, K. V.: Modelling detrital
cooling-age populations: Insights from two Himalayan catchments, Basin Res.,
15, 305–320, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2117.2003.00211.x, 2003.
|
|