Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pederson, Department of energy to the system as increased logic settings, such as in a delta, stream
Geosciences, University of Nebraska, recharge causes groundwater levels to piracy is a cyclic event. The final act of
Lincoln, NE 68588-0340, USA rise, accelerating stream piracy. stream piracy is likely a rapid event that
should be reflected as such in the geo-
INTRODUCTION logic record. Understanding the mecha-
The term stream piracy brings to mind nisms for stream piracy can lead to bet-
ABSTRACT an action of forcible taking, leaving the ter understanding of the geologic record.
Stream piracy describes a water-diver- helpless and plundered river poorer for Recognition that stream piracy has
sion event during which water from one the experience—a takeoff on stories of occurred in the past is commonly based
stream is captured by another stream the pirates of old. In an ironic sense, on observations such as barbed tribu-
with a lower base level. Its past occur- two schools of thought are claiming vil- taries, dry valleys, beheaded streams,
rence is recognized by unusual patterns lain status. Lane (1899) thought the term and elbows of capture. A marked
of drainage, changes in accumulating too violent and sudden, and he used change of composition of accumulating
sediment, and cyclic patterns of sediment “stream capture” to describe a ground- sediment in deltas, sedimentary basins,
deposition. Stream piracy has been re- water-sapping–driven event, which he terraces, and/or biotic distributions also
ported on all time and size scales, but its envisioned to be less dramatic and to be may signify upstream piracy (Bishop,
mechanisms are controversial. Some the common mechanism for stream 1995; Pissart et al., 1997; Mather et al.,
researchers conclude that stream piracy piracy. Crosby (1937) took issue with 2000; Johnsson, 1999). Recognition that
is a rare event and happens only on Lane (1899 and later papers) and argued piracy is happening now is based on
small scales; this is based on a recogni- that surface water is the principal agent observed higher erosion rates for streams
tion that surface-water energy decreases of stream piracy in most settings. This with steeper gradients on one side of a
near divides and the belief that ground- set up a debate on the relative roles of drainage divide relative to the other,
water-sapping processes decrease in surface-water erosion and groundwater- with the steeper gradient stream captur-
effectiveness near divides and are not sapping erosion that persists today. This ing the headwaters of the lower gradient
effective in rock and cohesive sediment. paper contends that groundwater-flow stream (Bates, 1961; Vogt, 1991; Ries et
In contrast, numerous studies show that patterns and groundwater-sapping pro- al., 1998). As variants, development of
groundwater-sapping is effective in rock cesses are important in most cases of karst aquifers can lead to underground
and cohesive sediment, focused by the stream piracy, and the final act of piracy capture of rivers over time, such as the
intersection of the extending channel can be rapid because of the developing recognition of loss of upper Danube
with the water table, and effective in geometry. There is a predictable imprint flows (Hötzl, 1996), and cyclic develop-
hillslope processes. Further, destruction of groundwater flow, and groundwater ment of lobes on the Holocene Missis-
of evidence by surface water is the rea- sapping is effective at all scales and in sippi River delta is modulated by stream
son for the general lack of recognition all geologic material. capture (Roberts, 1997).
of groundwater-sapping effects. I argue The issue of stream piracy is more While the identity of the villain (mech-
that the persistence of groundwater-flow than an academic discussion because it anism) remains controversial, there are
systems, coupled with the evolving geo- is an important geologic process—past common elements in stream piracy
metry as a pirating stream approaches a and present. Sediment-deposition pat- regardless of the erosion process. To
divide, can sustain breaching by ground- terns and mineralogy can be drastically have energy to do the work of erosion
water-sapping processes. The principal altered with the event of stream piracy. and transport, the pirating stream needs
determinant of the maintenance of Stream piracy can change migration pat- to be at a lower elevation or have a
energy is the position of the groundwa- terns for aquatic animals and can change steeper gradient. In addition, the geologic
ter divide as compared to the topo- rates of erosion in upland areas. Stream material near where the capture takes
graphic divide where streams in adjacent chemistry can be changed as a conse- place must be susceptible to disaggrega-
drainage basins are at different eleva- quence of stream piracy. In some geo- tion by mechanical or chemical processes
tions. Wetter climatic periods can add
GROUNDWATER
AND STREAM PIRACY
The phenomenon of groundwater
“sapping” has been identified with a
number of terms. Higgins (1984) expand-
ed the term “seepage erosion” to encom- Figure 1. Erosion by needle ice growth in a road bank, Boone, North Carolina, USA.
pass the more complex erosion of con- Groundwater extrusion represented by ice columns several cm long.
solidated rock. He included intensified
chemical weathering; leaching and dis-
solution within the seepage zone; and Lawler (1993) reported a similar result Groundwater Sapping Examined
enhanced physical weathering by granu- from needle-ice growth on the River The effect of positive pore-water pres-
lar disintegration or flaking owing to Ilston, South Wales, United Kingdom. sure in promoting erosion and increasing
wetting-drying, salt-crystal wedging, root Prosser et al. (2000) found that needle- instabilities of slopes is well known. An
wedging, rainbeat, congelifraction, and ice growth in winter and desiccation of expansion of the concept is needed to re-
needle-ice wedging. Howard (1988a) fur- clays in the summer control erosion on late it to stream piracy. In computer
ther expanded the overall concept Ripple Creek Canal, Tasmania. Surface- modeling and laboratory studies (Howard,
proposing “Groundwater sapping, as water flows were unable to erode firm, 1988b), headcuts spontaneously formed
distinct from piping, is a generic term for cohesive clay banks that had not been in response to groundwater seepage,
weathering and erosion of soils and rock preconditioned by groundwater sapping. and they migrated up gradient because
by emerging groundwater, at least par- I have found that needle-ice growth is of their intersection with the groundwa-
tially involving intergranular flow (as responsible for road-bank erosion (Fig. 1) ter table where positive pore pressures
opposed to the channelized throughflow and erosion of lakeshore banks (Fig. 2). occur, promoting erosion. With continued
involved in piping)” (p. 3). Groundwater
sapping is used in this context in this
paper.
The study of groundwater-sapping
processes and their extension to stream
piracy is complicated by the presence of
surface water, which in many cases
destroys evidence of groundwater sap-
ping. For example, I have observed
freezing groundwater in a vertical river-
bank near Cook, Nebraska, that led to
the dislodging of frozen bank material in
meter-sized blocks during January 1999.
Spring freeze-thaw cycles fragmented
the blocks into transportable sediment
that was carried away by a June flood. A
July visitor would recognize significant
bank erosion since the previous summer
visit, but, because all evidence for
groundwater sapping was destroyed,
would attribute this to the June flood. Figure 2. Erosion by groundwater sapping (one week of freeze-thaw cycles) on shoreline bank of
Lake Ashtabula, North Dakota, USA. With melting of lake ice, wave action removed the talus.
SURFACE WATER
AND STREAM PIRACY
The basics of a “surface water view”
of stream capture (the other potential
villain) were described by Crosby (1937)
and are still found in many textbooks.
Erosion is “gnawing back at the headwa-
ters of every stream” (p. 469) with the
rate of erosion dependent on the forma-
tions present, slope of the land, climatic
conditions, and protecting vegetation.
Weathering breaks rocks into fragments,
which are transported by hillslope pro-
cesses—including sheetwash, landslides,
and soil creep—to stream channels
where they are transported. Rates of ero-
sion are controlled by water velocity, Figure 4. Rainbow Falls, near Hilo, Hawaii, USA. There is a clear undercutting of the falls’ face
abrasion tools, and the underlying for- well beyond the zone of plunge. The presence of adjacent springs and water flowing from the
mation. Crosby acknowledged the cavelike feature suggests a complex system of knickpoint advancement in this setting.
“apparently impotent little brook” (p. 471)
in the headwaters, but credits weather- of channel extension “exhausts” these lumped under hillslope processes.
ing between floods for wearing away factors. Because of the inertia of the system,
these rocks and the floods themselves groundwater sapping is more continu-
for removing sediment. STREAM PIRACY: ous and persistent over time as com-
There are many complicating factors GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE pared to surface water.
in determining the mechanisms and WATER AS COOPERATORS Groundwater energy is little affected
rates for channel extension. Weissel and Water, the common element of surface by topographic divides as compared to
Seidl (1997) found that while bedrock water and groundwater, is obviously the surface-water energies. Surface-water
lithology and upstream drainage area major initiator and accelerator in erosion energy usually decreases near divides
had minimal impact on knickpoint and the key element in stream piracy. because of shrinking catchment areas
retreat, bedrock jointing profoundly The hardest rock can be broken down and sometimes decreased surface gradi-
affected the hillslope processes that con- by freeze-thaw cycles, and a cohesive ents. With breaching of the divide, con-
trol knickpoint migration rates. Whipple sediment can be fragmented by wet-dry siderable erosion would be required to
et al. (2000) determined that the efficacy cycles. Fractures in an “impermeable” develop a catchment area for surface
of fluvial erosion processes (plucking, rock leave them vulnerable to erosion runoff to feed the pirating stream on the
abrasion, cavitation, and solution) was a and enlargement by water. Water sup- pirated stream side of the drainage
strong function of substrate lithology ports living organisms that condition basin. This is unlikely because nearly all
and that joint spacing, fractures, and rock and sediment for erosion, and it sediment comes from the extending
bedding planes exert the most direct can dissolve interstitial cement and the channels. If there is insufficient flow in
control. Montgomery and Dietrich (1989) rock itself. Where there is water move- the channel, accumulating sediment in
identified thresholds of upslope catch- ment, there is an increasing probability the headcut can slow the erosion pro-
ment area needed to erode a channel of a chemical disequilibrium between cess, so availability of sediment transport
head. As a channel head approaches a the rock and the interstitial water. Posi- may control the rate of extension. This
divide, the catchment area will decrease, tive pore-water pressure undermines fact is an argument for the occurrence of
reducing runoff. Gomez and Mullen slopes, triggers landslides, and con- stream piracy being most likely during
(1992) recorded more than 90% of net- tributes to debris flows. As water erodes, wetter climatic periods. Finally, exten-
work growth in the first 10% of their it usually creates a preferred flow path, sion of a channel is often very rapid at
experiment’s duration. An exponential further accelerating the erosion process. first, implying that a threshold has been
curve for gully extension was suggested Groundwater-sapping processes are crossed. This also suggests that the final
by Rutherford et al. (1997). A broader equally effective in the presence of sur- act of stream piracy should occur as the
interpretation is that intrinsic and/or face water, but they are often not recog- consequence of an event rather than as
extrinsic factors may provide a threshold nized because either the evidence is the continuation of an average.
for initiation, and the physical effect destroyed by surface water or they are The only connection between the