Erosi 2 Jurnal

Journal Pre-proof
Relationships between erosion rates and physiographic factors of

drainage basins through a regression analysis: The case of Tahiti-
Nui Island
Jeanne Godard, Jean-Pierre Barriot
PII: S0169-555X(22)00069-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2022.108176
Reference: GEOMOR 108176
To appear in: Geomorphology
Received date: 6 July 2021

Revised date: 14 February 2022
Accepted date: 15 February 2022
Please cite this article as: J. Godard and J.-P. Barriot, Relationships between erosion
rates and physiographic factors of drainage basins through a regression analysis: The
case of Tahiti-Nui Island, Geomorphology (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geomorph.2022.108176
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Journal Pre-proof
Relationships between erosion rates and physiographic factors of drainage
basins through a regression analysis: The case of Tahiti-Nui Island
Jeanne Godard1 and Jean-Pierre Barriot1*
1
Géopôle du Pacifique Sud, Université de la Polynésie française, BP 6570 – 98702 Faa’a, Tahiti
* Corresponding author. Email address: jean-pierre.barriot@upf.pf
of
Highlights
ro
The two best models of basin erosion are based on four or five physiographic factors
 Long-term erosion rates are highly correlated with the planar areas of the basins
 -p
Average annual rainfall has a low impact on erosion rates
re
 Erosion durations do not influence erosion rates
lP
Abstract
na
Tahiti-Nui is a quiescent tropical volcanic island (French Polynesia) characterized by an intense erosion
(up to 0.25 km3.kyr-1 over the last 1 Ma) that resulted in 27 main drainage basins radially distributed
ur
around a central depression. Those basins are characterized by different erosion rates (from 0.07 to 24.6
Jo
10-2 km3.kyr-1), ages (from 469 to 892 ka), micro-climate set-ups and other landform factors. In this study,
we assess, in terms of explicative power, possible links between the erosion rates and relevant
physiographic factors, through a regression analysis obeying the parsimony principle. The best regression
models include, in decreasing order of importance, the following factors: the size (Planar Area or
Maximal River Length) and/or the height (Maximal Altitude); the planar shape (Shape Factor or Relative
Width); the inclination (Main Longitudinal Slope, Mean Slope, Maximum Altitude or Depth) and the
mean precipitation (Average Annual Rainfall). The Erosion Duration and the positions along the North-
South and East-West directions, which were used to highlight a possible effect of the winds, did not show
significant effect on the erosion rates. In all the best fitting models, the greatest weight was associated
Journal Pre-proof
with the size or the height factors, revealing that the highest erosion rates are the ones measured on the
largest and/or highest basins. The best model is based on five physiographic factors per basin, in order of
importance: Planar Area, Relative Width, Maximum Altitude, Main Longitudinal Slope and Average
Annual Rainfall. The Planar Area factor seems to be the most relevant parameter since it explains by itself
the largest part of the erosion rates. Finally, the role of average annual rainfall is not consistent between
the regression models. This suggests that a more suitable physiographic factor to constrain the effect of
precipitations on erosion rates must be considered, probably linked to the temporal climate variability as
of
well as the frequency of cyclone-driven rainfall. Besides, the weight of the Average Annual Rainfall
factor was generally positive and small in most regression models, synonymous of a minor role.
ro
Key words
-p
Erosion rates; Physiographic factors; Linear regression; Tahiti
re
lP
1. Introduction
Small young shield volcanic islands exhibit unique erosional processes, given their simple climatic and
na
geological characteristics, in contrast with highly complex continental erosion mechanisms.
Geomorphological evolution of shield volcanoes is shaped by regressive erosion but is also often affected
ur
by landslides, that can be massive in some cases (Stearns, 1946; Duffield et al., 1982; Moore et al., 1994;
Jo
Hürlimann et al., 2001; Siebert, 2002). Furthermore, humid conditions are known to enhance erosion
(Stearns, 1946; Karátson et al., 1999; Ferrier et al., 2013). The volcanoes of the Hawai’i archipelago,
Réunion island and the Canary Islands are among the most studied hotspot volcanoes. However, the
Tahiti island is a rare case of a shield-volcanic island where it is possible to study 27 radially distributed
drainage basins with comparable significant sizes, different ages and climatic conditions (Figure 1)
(Hildenbrand et al., 2004; Hildenbrand et al., 2008).

Journal Pre-proof
of
ro
-p
re
Figure 1: Map of the 27 main drainage basins derived from the 20 m-DEM of Tahiti-Nui and their erosion rates
lP
(from Table 2 of Hildenbrand et al., 2008). The drainage basins are circled with white lines and their names are
written aside. Drainage basins with too small areas (inferior to 4 km2) were not considered by these authors and are
na
not represented in this map. The basin erosion rates are written inside the basins boundaries and are represented with
a pink color scale. The altitude is contoured every 250 meters. The highest summit Mont Orohena (2241 meters) is
ur
marked by a white dot. The capital city Pape’ete (black-and-white dot) is the origin of the distances along the sea-
Jo
shore road that encircles the island.
The Tahiti Island (17°30’S, 149°30' W) is the largest island of the Society Archipelago in the South
Pacific, a linear volcanic chain originating from a hotspot considered as fixed under the moving Pacific
plate. It was created around 5 Ma ago but the volcanic aerial history started 1.3 Ma ago with the
construction of two coalescent eruptive complexes (Duncan et al., 1994): Tahiti-Nui, the largest, with a
diameter of 35 km, and Tahiti-Iti, the smallest. The main edifice presents important mountain reliefs with
generally steep slopes and an average altitude of 440 meters, the highest altitude being Mount Orohena at
2241 meters.
Journal Pre-proof
The Society Archipelago is located in the South Pacific convergence zone (SPCZ) where Southeastern
and Northeastern tradewinds meet and usually beget a tropical depression. The high reliefs of Tahiti
enhance this effect by an orographic lift of the northeastern tradewinds. Consequently, rainfall on Tahiti
are unevenly distributed and mainly concentrated on the eastern side (Figure 2). Concerning the winds,
depending on the location on the island, even though they generally come from the East, they present
various intensities and directions (also in Figure 2). Besides, rainfall during the tropical wet season, from
November to April (Laurent & Maamaatuaiahutapu, 2019) can be extreme and strongly enhance erosion
of
over short periods (Wotling, 2000).
ro
The 27 main drainage basins of Tahiti-Nui present amphitheater-headed shapes (Hinds, 1925), which is
typical of valleys resulting from intense regressive erosion in humid and high relief areas (Karátson et al.,
-p
1999). This term is also commonly used to describe valleys on shield-volcanic islands such as Hawaii
re
(Stearns, 1946; Karátson et al., 1999; Lamb et al., 2007; Craddock et al., 2012) or Réunion Island
lP
(Karátson et al., 1999). The Piton des Neiges, which is a 1.2-Ma old shield volcano on Réunion Island, is
one of the most analogous volcanoes to Tahiti-Nui since both present similar age, climate and geological
na
characteristics. The Piton des Neiges, which represents two-thirds in size of Réunion island, is incised by
three 10 km-wide depressions: the Cilaos, Mafata and Salazie Cirques. Calculated erosion rate on the
ur
Mafate and Cilaos Cirques, 0.56 ± 0.24 and 0.63 ± 0.24 km3.kyr-1, are close to the erosion rate of Tahiti-
Jo
Nui, estimated at about 0.69 km3.kyr-1 (Salvany et al., 2012).

Journal Pre-proof
of
ro
-p
Figure 2: Isohyetal map and wind rose of Tahiti derived from (Laurent & Maamaatuaiahutapu, 2019). The isohyets,
re
which represent the average annual rainfall, are shown in dot lines. Drainage basins are circled with bold dark grey
lP
lines.
In this work, we complete the qualitative analysis of Hildenbrand et al. (2008) by a quantitative statistical
na
analysis, dedicated to the identification of the relationships between long term erosion rates and
ur
physiographic factors of the drainage basins of Tahiti-Nui.

Jo
2. Geological and geomorphological settings
Oldest lavas (~1.7 Ma) crop out in these deeply eroded drainage basins, while the main exposed shield
phase erupted between 1.3 and 0.6 Ma (Duncan et al., 1994). Afterwards, the accumulation of magma
along an E-W direction favored the collapse of the northern part of this initial volcano around 0.87 - 0.85
Ma ago (Hildenbrand et al., 2006b), then was followed by a huge southern landslide that probably
occurred between 0.7 and 0.9 Ma (Clouard et al., 2001). The subsequent volcanic activity, dated from 0.7
and 0.3 Ma (Duncan et al., 1994), was mainly represented by the infilling of the northern depression, and
reached the southern side around 650 ka (Hildenbrand et al., 2004). The remnants of the final activity of
Journal Pre-proof
the second shield outcrop at the upper part of Mount Orohena, suggesting a violent ignimbrite eruption
(Hildenbrand & Gillot, 2006a). A last volcanic activity period happened after an apparent hiatus of 250
kyr, around 250 ka ago, partly filling a few northern basins (Leroy, 1994; Hildenbrand et al., 2004).
A comprehensive discussion of the geological settings of Tahiti-Nui can be found in a triptych of papers
(Hildenbrand, 2002; Hildenbrand et al., 2004; Hildenbrand et al., 2008). In summary, the remnants of the
two shields are partially covered by the products of the erosion which occur as three different types of
units. The first type can be found in the inner parts of the main valleys and is composed of thick breccias
of
presenting high concentrations of dykes. This type of breccias result from the early erosion of the main
ro
shield mostly located along the East-West rift zone where the Punaruu and Papeihia basins were being
highly dissected. The infilling of the upper parts of those valleys with the breccias progressively stopped
-p
their incision and enhanced the erosion along the North-South direction, first creating the Papenoo basin,
re
then shaping the Taharuu basin. Another type of deposit is dated to the last 500 ka since it covers all the
lP
different volcano units. The third type is represented by detrital bodies found along the current streams.
The latest paper (Hildenbrand et al., 2008) also studied the erosional processes of Tahiti-Nui and
na
gathered various physiographic data on the drainage basins of the island. Those basins have different ages
ur
depending on which shield they incise but also different rain exposure depending on their location on the
island. In addition, they present different geomorphological characteristics and erosion rates. Those
Jo
differences can be explained by the age of the basins, the presence of dykes, geological discontinuities
and by the pluviometry (Hildenbrand et al., 2008). Indeed, basins incising the second shield, which are
younger than the ones incising the main shield, are generally narrower and more elongated. Those basins
mostly have higher slopes than the ones incising the main shield, which is a sign of high
geomorphological disequilibrium due to their younger age (Renwick, 1992). Basins incising the second
shield are also deeper, as the summits of the island constitute the remnants of the second shield.
Moreover, geological discontinuities distribution is the main cause of the chronology of the main basins
formation and explains the particular case of the largest basin of the Papenoo river. Finally, concerning
Journal Pre-proof
the rainfall distribution, the eastern side of Tahiti-Nui, which is exposed to the most important rainfall,
presents wider basins but with lower relief and average slope. Besides, according to (Hildenbrand et al.,
2004) the lithological effect on erosion is not significant as both shields are made of lavas of similar
mineralogy and composition.
The current annual erosion rates in Tahiti (Ye et al., 2010) highly depend on the so-called cover and
management C factor (see the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) short-term erosion model of
(Wischmeier & Smith, 1978)). This factor represents the effect of cropping but also ground, tree and grass
of
cover on reducing erosion. Variations of the C factor in Tahiti-Nui are mainly of anthropogenic origin. C
ro
ranges (Zhang et al., 2014) from 0 (for example, concrete) to 1 (for example, ploughed soils). The high
valley constructed sites such as the Tamanu plateau in the Punaruu valley and the soils along the Papenoo
-p
river present the highest C values in Tahiti-Nui. High C values can also be found along the Punaruu and
re
the Taharuu rivers. Furthermore, the Papenoo, the Punaruu and the Taharuu valleys globally present high-
lP
erodibility soils (see again Ye et al., 2010) and are associated to the three largest erosion rates of
Hildenbrand et al. 2008 (Table 1), with the Papenoo valley being the greatest. As our study deals with
na
long time scales, when human activity was not present, we therefore ignored the C factor. From a
mathematical point of view, this is equivalent in assuming a constant C factor everywhere.

ur
Let us note that the USLE equation also introduces, as a relevant factor of erosion, the so-called rainfall
Jo
and runoff erosivity factor R. The factor R is defined by Renard & Freimund (1994, Eq.5) as rainfall
intensity averaged by storm kinetic energy. Such an index cannot be built for Tahiti-Nui, even at present
times, for there has been, and still is, no collection of such data during storms.
3. Material and method
3.1 Data
The erosion rates, the environmental and geomorphological factors used in this study and their
uncertainties are listed in Table 1. They are taken from Tables 1 and 2 of Hildenbrand et al. (2008), which
Journal Pre-proof
gathers basic physiographic data extracted from an unreferenced 120 m-DEM, such as the Perimeter (P),
the Planar Area (A), the Mean Width (l), the Maximal River Length (L) and the average Slope (S) of each
basin. They also used topographic maps to get the total Maximum Altitude (H) and the Planar Area (A) of
the basins, to compare those values with the ones extracted from the 120 m-DEM. In addition, they
regroup standard geomorphological parameters, as the Coefficient of Compactness Kc of Gravelius
(Gravelius, 1914) (Kc = 0.28 P/A1/2), which is the ratio between the perimeter of a basin and the circle of
the same area, and the Shape Factor Rf (Rf = A/L2) (Horton, 1932), and the Relative Width w (w = l/L), in
of
order to study both the longitudinal and lateral evolution of the basins. Those three last geomorphological
parameters reflect the evolution of basins since basins usually enlarge with time as a result of capture of
ro
adjacent drainage systems (Pelletier, 2003). Finally, they introduced a fourth geomorphological parameter
-p
called the Depth d (d = H2/A), to allow comparisons between basins of highly different areas.
re
The method they applied to estimate the erosion rates, called ER in this present study, has been
lP
commonly used since then on volcanic islands with similar climate characteristics such as Réunion Island
(Salvany et al., 2012; Gayer et al., 2019) and Martinique Island (Germa et al., 2010). Firstly, the eroded
na
volumes are computed by comparing reconstructed pre-erosion surfaces and current surfaces (Székely &
Karátson, 2004). Secondly, the eroded volumes are divided by the maximal duration of erosion
ur
(Hildenbrand et al., 2004), called ED in this study. However, given the small variation of the maximal
Jo
durations of erosion (469-892 ka) among the basins compared to the eroded volume range (0.6-125.0
km3), the erosion rates are extremely close to the eroded volumes and the maximal durations of erosion
have a lesser impact on the erosion rates values. Therefore, the erosion duration was used as a factor in
this study to consider a possible effect of the duration of erosion on the erosion rates.
The erosion rates values range from 0.07 to 24.6 10-2 km3.kyr-1 with a median value of 1.1. The greatest
erosion rate corresponds to the Papenoo basin, probably caused by the high concentration of geological
discontinuities in this area (Hildenbrand et al., 2008).

Journal Pre-proof
We decided to work with the Maximum Altitude and the Planar Area extracted from the 120 m-DEM
instead of the ones extracted from maps since the eroded volumes and thus the erosion rates were
computed from this DEM. The uncertainties associated to these two factors were estimated to be 22 % for
the Planar Area and 15% for the Maximum Altitude from the comparison of these two sources.
Hildenbrand et al. (2008) data also include the position (PK, or “Kilometric Position”) along the sea-shore
road of Tahiti Nui, which can be seen as an angle given the circular shape of the island. We considered in
this study the cosine and sine of this angle (because an angle value is dependent of a given origin), in
of
order to study a possible link between the orientation of the basins and the direction of prevailing winds.
ro
We added to this dataset the Average Annual Rainfall for each basin, from the map of (Laurent &
-p
Maamaatuaiahutapu, 2019) (Figure 2) computed by the isohyetal method (Chow et al., 1988). As noted
in the previous section, the rainfall-runoff R factor of USLE might have been a better choice for the
re
regression analysis, but it cannot be computed on Tahiti for lack of data. Nevertheless, a study on the
lP
Hawaiian island of Kaua’i, which present similar climate conditions and geological history, shows that
the long-term erosion rates (at least tens of years) is correlated to the mean precipitation regime (Ferrier et
na
al., 2013). Therefore, we used the Average Annual Rainfall as a substitute of the R factor. Ye et al. (2010)
ur
also considered the same simplification for their soil loss modeling in Tahiti, from the work of Roose
(1977, Eq. 4). Besides, considering that the wind distribution is dominated by the trade winds, themselves
Jo
caused by Earth rotation (Coriolis effect), we assumed that the rainfall East-West gradient distribution has
not varied significantly since the formation of the island and that the modern precipitation regime is
representative, from the island inception, of the past rainfall distribution.
The unreferenced DEM used in Hildenbrand et al. (2008) has a 120 m spatial resolution. Here, for the
isohyetal method we used an updated DEM with a 20 m resolution provided by the “Service de
l’Urbanisme de Tahiti” (Shih et al., 2015).

Journal Pre-proof
Concerning the uncertainties on the physiographic factors, we first supposed that the uncertainty on the
Position PK was negligible so the same applies for the uncertainties on the East-West and North-South
positions. No specific information upon the uncertainties for the Average Annual Rainfall, the Slope and
the Perimeter were available, so we assumed a relative uncertainty at a 20% level. However, for the Mean
Width and the Maximal River Length, we chose conservative large absolute uncertainties of respectively
120 m and 200 m (≈ 120 × √2) since they were computed from a 120 m-DEM.
Regarding the Planar Area and the Maximum Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, we used the uncertainties
of
from Hildenbrand et al. (2008) which were computed by comparing the data extracted from the DEM
ro
with the data extracted from precise maps.
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
RU on RU on
AU on AU on AU on Maximum Maximum Maximum
Erosion Erosion AU on Average Maximal AU on Maximum Maximum
North- Erosion Average Maximal Mean Altitude Altitude Altitude
East-West Rate, ER Duration, Erosion Annual River Mean Altitude Altitude
Basins South Rate Annual River Width, l from from 120 from 20
position, x (10-2 ED (10-2 Duration Rainfall, Length, L Width (120 m- (20 m-
position, y (10-2 Rainfall Length (km) maps, H m-DEM, m-DEM
km3.kyr-1) kyr) (10-2 kyr) Pl (m) (km) (km) DEM vs DEM vs
km .kyr-1)
3
(m) (km) (km) H (km) (km)
maps) maps)
Ahonu 0,80 1,98 1.1 0.2 5.03 0.14 3.806 0.761 10.421 0.200 1.652 0.120 1.742 1.555 9.8 % 1.71 1.84 %
Tuauru 0,70 1,95 3.7 0.5 5.09 0.14 3.720 0.744 14.060 0.200 2.320 0.120 2.241 1.468 11.0 % 1.91 14.77 %
Fautaua 0,27 1,69 2.8 0.5 4.96 0.14 2.998 0.6 10.973 0.200 2.201 0.120 2.066 1.376 5.0 % 2.05 0.77 %
f
Hamuta 0,29 1,71 0.4 0.1 4.96 0.14 2.502 0.5 8.657 0.200 0.908 0.120 1.403 1.3 9.3 % 1.19 15.18 %
Nahoata 0,33 1,75 0.9 0.2 4.96 0.14 2.895 0.579 10.045 0.200 1.228 0.120 1.742 1.379 12.1 % 1.83 5.05 %
Tetiariiroa 0,94 2,00 0.12 0.02 5.03 0.14 3.662 0.732 6.503 0.200 0.985
o
0.120 1.053 1.995 0.6 % 1.03 2.18 %
ro
Fairaharaha 1,38 0,08 2.0 0.4 5.55 0.14 5.137 1.027 10.903 0.200 1.607 0.120 1.799 1.345 12.0 % 1.77 1.61 %
Faurahi 1,25 0,03 2.1 0.3 5.55 0.14 4.590 0.918 11.477 0.200 1.628 0.120 1.799 1.404 6.7 % 1.78 1.06 %
Moaroa 1,11 0,01 0.8 0.2 5.55 0.14 3.836 0.767 9.007 0.200 1.461 0.120 1.303 1.995 8.7 % 1.26 3.30 %
-p
Taharuu 0,94 0,00 6.4 0.7 4.69 0.14 3.884 0.777 17.020 0.200 2.994 0.120 1.638 1.19 5.1 % 1.41 13.92 %
Tahiria 1,43 0,10 2.1 0.3 5.55 0.14 6.109 1.222 11.341 0.200 1.267 0.120 1.493 1.258 1.7 % 1.59 6.50 %
e
Vaite 1,62 0,22 1.3 0.1 5.55 0.14 5.834 1.167 10.923 0.200 0.889 0.120 1.436 1.152 4.2 % 1.41 1.81 %
r
Titivari 1,67 0,25 1.5 0.3 5.55 0.14 6.286 1.257 9.900 0.200 1.528 0.120 1.419 1.238 8.4 % 1.39 2.04 %
Papeihia 2,00 1,00 3.9 0.5 6.14 0.14 8.863 1.773 10.970 0.200 3.491 0.120 1.493 1.574 7.6 % 1.48 0.87 %
Papenoo
Tahaute
Tipaerui
1,11
1,78
0,15
1,99
1,62
1,53
24.6
2.6
0.6
3.2
0.2
0.1
5.09
6.34
4.96
0.14
0.14
0.14
5.958
l
7.465
2.518 P
1.192
1.493
0.504
21.845
10.850
8.535
0.200
0.200
0.200
6.265
3.977
2.013
0.120
0.120
0.120
2.241
1.361
1.441
1.577
1.024
1.374
11.0 %
1.2 %
2.6 %
1.77
1.51
1.43
21.02 %
10.95 %
0.76 %
Punaruu 0,01 0,89 6.7 0.9 5.09 0.14
a
2.995 0.599 17.985 0.200 4.508 0.120 2.241 1.574 11.0 % 2.22 0.94 %
rn
Mahatearo 1,92 1,38 0.3 0.1 5.69 0.14 7.345 1.469 7.852 0.200 2.118 0.120 1.361 1.555 12.6 % 1.33 2.28 %
Mapuaura 1,97 0,78 0.6 0.1 6.65 0.14 6.644 1.329 8.370 0.200 2.072 0.120 1.368 1.468 8.0 % 1.2 12.28 %
Matatia 0,00 1,06 0.07 0.02 8.85 0.14 2.444 0.489 6.380 0.200 1.600 0.120 1.241 1.376 7.2 % 1.2 3.30 %
Hopuetamai
Orofero
0,10
0,15
0,57
0,47
0.18
2.8
0.02
0.2
o u
8.92
6.06
0.14
0.14
2.044
2.652
0.409
0.53
7.137
8.000
0.200
0.200
1.579
2.985
0.120
0.120
1.368
1.638
1.3
1.379
9.5 %
3.9 %
1.36
1.62
0.58 %
1.10 %
J
Tereia 0,33 0,25 0.13 0.01 7.73 0.14 2.500 0.5 6.922 0.200 1.410 0.120 1.525 1.995 3.4 % 1.58 3.61 %
Utuofai 2,00 1,00 0.13 0.05 6.14 0.14 6.433 1.287 5.302 0.200 1.204 0.120 1.200 1.345 14.7 % 1.35 12.50 %
Onoheha 1,48 1,88 0.7 0.2 7.08 0.14 6.053 1.211 7.955 0.200 2.983 0.120 1.530 1.404 10.2 % 1.53 0.00 %
Temarua 0,78 0,03 0.8 0.1 5.54 0.14 2.855 0.571 8.429 0.200 2.065 0.120 1.638 1.995 3.9 % 1.65 0.73 %
Table 1 (left part): Table adapted from Table 1 and Table 2 of (Hildenbrand et al., 2008). RU and AU refer respectively to Relative Uncertainty
and Absolute Uncertainty. Absolute uncertainties of the Average Annual Rainfall, the Perimeter, the Slope and the Main Longitudinal Slope factor
(Slope_b) correspond to a Relative Uncertainty of 20%.

Journal Pre-proof
Planar RU on
Planar Planar RU on
Area Planar AU
Area Area Planar AU on AU on Relative AU on Shape AU on Coefficient of AU on
from 120 Area Perimeter, Slope, on Slope_b, Depth, AU on
Basins from from 20 Area (20 Perimeter Slope_b Width, Relative Factor, Shape Compactness, Coefficient of
m-DEM, (120 m- P (km) S (°) Slope S_b (°) d Depth
maps, A m-DEM m-DEM (km) (°) w Width Rf Factor Kc Compactness
A (km2) DEM vs (°)
(km2) (km2) vs maps)
maps)
Ahonu 13,6 13.1 3.7 % 12.95 4.99 % 29.04 5.8 27 5 9 1.8 0.16 0.012 0.12 0.018 0.22 0.013 2.2 0.053
Tuauru 26,5 25.7 3.0 % 26.53 0.10 % 41.76 8.35 32 6 8 1.6 0.17 0.009 0.13 0.004 0.19 0.056 2.3 0.007
Fautaua 24 20.8 13.3 % 23.44 2.38 % 32.64 6.52 31 6 11 2.2 0.2 0.011 0.2 0.016 0.18 0.005 2 0.024
Hamuta 7,5 6 20.0 % 7.41 1.21 % 26.04 5.2 25 5 8 1.6 0.1 0.013 0.1 0.006 0.26 0.079 3 0.023
f
Nahoata 13,3 12.3 7.5 % 12.22 8.86 % 31.92 6.38 32 6 10 2.0 0.12 0.012 0.13 0.032 0.23 0.030 2.6 0.106
Tetiariiroa 4,9 4 18.4 % 6.36 22.97 % 17.04 3.4 20 4 9 1.8 0.15 0.019 0.11 0.099 0.23 0.069 2.4 0.358
Fairaharaha
Faurahi
14,6
16,8
13.4
15.8
8.2 %
6.0 %
16.73
16.65
12.71 %
0.91 %
30.12
33.36
6.02
6.67
34
31
7
6
9
9
1.8
1.8
0.15
o
0.15
o
0.012
0.011
0.12
0.13
0.053
0.006
0.22
0.19
0.033
0.004
2.3
2.4
0.168
0.014
r
Moaroa 9,6 8.3 13.5 % 9.48 1.40 % 24.84 4.97 25 5 8 1.6 0.16 0.014 0.12 0.007 0.18 0.012 2.4 0.020
Taharuu 34 32 5.9 % 33.31 2.08 % 50.76 10.15 30 6 5 1.0 0.18 0.008 0.12 0.008 0.08 0.022 2.5 0.026
Tahiria
Vaite
14,3
10,4
12.6
10.1
11.9 %
2.9 %
13.89
11.42
2.96 %
8.97 %
37.08
33.24
7.42
6.65
32
26
6
5
8
7
-
1.6
1.4
p 0.11
0.08
0.011
0.011
0.11
0.09
0.010
0.027
0.16
0.20
0.021
0.021
2.9
2.9
0.043
0.143
Titivari
Papeihia
Papenoo
15,9
33,5
91
14.2
32.1
89
10.7 %
4.2 %
2.2 %
15.21
32.26
89.64
4.52 %
3.85 %
1.51 %
33.6
36.48
72.48
6.72
7.3
14.5
32
28
26
6
6
5
r
8
8
5e 1.6
1.6
1.0
0.15
0.32
0.29
0.012
0.012
0.006
0.16
0.28
0.19
0.022
0.033
0.009
0.13
0.07
0.06
0.008
0.003
0.025
2.5
1.8
2.2
0.055
0.034
0.017
Tahaute
Tipaerui
37
14,7
34.4
16.4
7.0 %
11.6 %
36.60
13.73
1.10 %
7.07 %
43.8
30.6
8.76
6.12
23
l
23
P5
5
8
10
1.6
2.0
0.37
0.24
0.013
0.015
0.31
0.2
0.015
0.041
0.05
0.14
0.011
0.009
2.1
2.1
0.013
0.070
a
Punaruu 44,6 43.4 2.7 % 43.50 2.52 % 50.88 10.18 26 5 7 1.4 0.25 0.007 0.14 0.011 0.11 0.003 2.2 0.028
Mahatearo 11,4 12.3 7.9 % 10.85 5.09 % 23.76 4.75 21 4 10 2.0 0.27 0.017 0.18 0.028 0.16 0.011 1.9 0.047
rn
Mapuaura 13,9 14.6 5.0 % 14.03 0.92 % 25.56 5.11 28 6 8 1.6 0.25 0.016 0.2 0.011 0.13 0.032 1.9 0.013
Matatia 9,7 8.1 16.5 % 9.06 7.12 % 21.6 4.32 18 4 11 2.2 0.25 0.020 0.24 0.050 0.16 0.015 2.1 0.071
u
Hopuetamai 7,6 7.3 3.9 % 7.19 5.76 % 20.4 4.08 31 6 11 2.2 0.22 0.018 0.15 0.026 0.25 0.014 2.1 0.059
Orofero 21,9 21.3 2.7 % 21.52 1.79 % 31.92 6.38 30 6 12 2.4 0.37 0.018 0.34 0.025 0.12 0.003 1.9 0.018
Tereia
Utuofai
Onoheha
Temarua
7
6,7
16,1
14,1
6.5
5.2
18.7
12.6
7.1 %
22.4 %
16.1 %
10.6 %
5.85
6.53
15.71
13.79
19.71 %
J
2.68 %
2.50 %
2.25 %
o 19.2
14.64
29.04
27.12
3.84
2.93
5.81
5.42
23
26
23
32
5
5
5
6
13
15
11
11
2.6
3.0
2.2
2.2
0.2
0.23
0.37
0.24
Table 1 (right part): Table adapted from Table 1 and Table 2 of of (Hildenbrand et al., 2008). RU and AU refer respectively to Relative
0.018
0.025
0.018
0.015
0.15
0.24
0.25
0.2
0.075
0.026
0.022
0.016
0.33
0.21
0.15
0.19
0.059
0.053
0.004
0.005
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.1
0.173
0.028
0.024
0.025
Uncertainty and Absolute Uncertainty. Absolute uncertainties of the Average Annual Rainfall, the Perimeter, the Slope and the Main Longitudinal
Slope factor (Slope_b) correspond to a Relative Uncertainty of 20%.

Journal Pre-proof
The Shape Factor, the Coefficient of Compactness, the Relative Width and the Depth were also given
without error bars by Hildenbrand et al. (2008). We estimated these uncertainties by propagation from the
uncertainties of the underlying quantities used for their definition. For example, the uncertainty of the
Shape Factor (Rf = A/L2) is computed from the uncertainties on the Planar Area (A) and the Maximal
River Length (L). We emphasize that the Shape Factor (Rf = A/L2), the Coefficient of Compactness (Kc =
0.28 P/A1/2) and the Depth (d = H²/A) were computed with the Planar Area (A) and the Maximum Altitude
(H) extracted from maps, for which uncertainties were also not given in Hildenbrand et al. (2008). We
of
estimated these uncertainties to be at a 5% level on average for both, by recomputing these latest factors
from the 20 m-DEM and by comparing them with the values computed from maps (Table 1). We used 3-
ro
sigma error bars everywhere.
3.2 Method -p
re
The model proposed in this contribution has been inspired by the USLE (Universal Soil Loss Equation)
lP
erosion model (Wischmeier & Smith, 1978) and the stream power laws (Howard et al., 1994; Whipple &
Tucker, 1999) with the following relationship:

na
𝛼 𝛼
𝐸𝑅 = 𝐾 × 𝑐1 1 × 𝑐2 2 × … (1)
ur
where ER is the erosion rate, K is the scale factor which counterbalances the effect of the possible
Jo
differences of unit between the 𝑐𝑗 factors with the weight 𝛼𝑗 . The index j ranges from 1 to up to 14.
We used the same unit (km) for the Perimeter, the Planar Area, the Maximum Altitude, the Maximal
River Length and the Mean Width, in order to keep all factors with the same order of magnitude for better
numerical stability.
We took the logarithms of both sides to linearize the problem with respect to the 𝛼1 , 𝛼2 … coefficients and
to be able to solve it with an inverse problem approach (Annex A):
log(𝐸𝑅) = log(𝐾) + 𝛼1 log(𝑐1 ) + 𝛼2 log(𝑐2 ) + ⋯ (2)

Journal Pre-proof
For each regression, we computed the residuals (𝑟𝑒𝑠) which represent the differences between the
measured erosion rates from the dataset (Table 1) and the computed erosion rates of the model (Equation
1) (Annex A: Equations A.5 and A.9). We also computed the standard error on the residuals (𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 )
(Annex A: Equation A.10) which is an indicator of the goodness-of-fit of the models.
It should be stressed that the erosion rates and physiographic factors used in this study, from Hildenbrand
et al. (2008), are relative to the present epoch, and this is the reason what we use the term relationship in
the title of this study. Nevertheless, this relationship can be also seen from a causal point-of-view, as it is
of
the case for the USLE and fluvial erosion laws that deal with short-term erosion rates. The main key point
ro
is that the landscape physiographic factors are almost constant with respect to time, with maybe the
exception of the nascent stages of the valleys.
-p
The goal of this study was to establish erosion models obeying the principle of parsimony, or Ockham’s
re
razor, that states that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. To
lP
achieve this objective, we first performed a Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) on the non-square table
in Table 1 (see Appendix A) to determine the minimum number of factors needed to explain erosion rates.
na
Thereafter, we identified the redundant factors by computing the correlation coefficients between all the
ur
factors listed in Table 1. Factors closely related (correlation coefficients inferior to -0.6 or superior to 0.6)
were considered as redundant. This is a widely used method in large data processing (CORCHOP
Jo
program: Livingston & Rahr, 1989 and Whitley et al., 2000). We must note that some factors of this study
𝑙
are mathematically linked, for instance w (= 𝐿) and L, which can cause what some authors call “spurious
correlations” (Kenney, 1982; Brett, 2004). This is highly debatable, as the correlation coefficients simply
reflect links (causal or acausal) between quantities, of explicit or implicit origin. Indeed, “spurious
correlations” are problematic only when false causal relations are inferred from them (Yule, 1910). In this
study, even if correlations between some factors were partially due to shared underlying quantities, it did
not interfere with the goal of the study since we only used the correlations to remove redundant factors
(absolute values of correlation superior to 0.6, see Figure 4). Besides, the SVD analysis would make it
Journal Pre-proof
possible to define linear, fully uncorrelated, combinations of physiographic factors, but these
combinations would not have any geomorphological significance. We therefore chose to keep the original
physiographic parameters of Hildenbrand et al. (2004) because they are classical factors in the literature,
and they were identified by these authors as the most pertinent ones.
4. Results
4.1 Identification of possible redundancies between the data shown in Table 1
The SVD analysis of the normalized data of Table 1 shows that the first five singular values (ordered in
of
decreasing values) account for nearly 90% of the total variance of this data, with the first two explaining
ro
63% of it (Figure 3). This clearly indicates many physiographic factors are redundant and that around five
-p
of them are enough to explain a major part of the basin characteristics.
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Figure 3: Plot of the Singular Value Decomposition of the matrix regrouping the normalized physiographic factors
as columns (East-West position and North-South position (x and y), Erosion Rate, Erosion Duration, Average
Annual rainfall, Maximal River Length, Mean Width, Maximum Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, Planar Area from
the 120 m -DEM, Perimeter, Slope, Relative Width, Shape Factor, Depth, Coefficient of Compactness). The blue
crosses (‘×’) represent the singular values of the matrix ranged in the decreasing order. The red pluses (‘+’)
represent the cumulated proportion of the total variance each singular value accounts for.
Journal Pre-proof
4.2 Correlation matrices
Correlation coefficients between all the physiographic factors and the erosion rates are shown in Figure 4
and are quoted in terms of absolute value in the following text. Correlations over 0.7 were found between
the Perimeter, the Planar Area, the Maximal River Length and the Mean Width, which are factors that are
obviously linked. All those factors are highly correlated to the Erosion Rate as they present correlations
over 0.8 with the highest values being between the Erosion Rate and the Planar Area (𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟(𝐸𝑅, 𝐴) =
0.95). The Mean Width is also correlated to the Relative Width (𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟(𝑙, 𝑤) = 0.66). Except for the
of
Depth factor, all geomorphological parameters (Relative Width, Shape Factor and Coefficient of
Compactness) show correlations higher than 0.7 with respect to each other. Concerning the Depth, it is
ro
correlated to the Mean Width, the Planar Area and the Perimeter (𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟(𝑑, 𝑙) = −0.75, 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟(𝑑, 𝐴) =
-p
−0.68, 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟(𝑑, 𝑃) = −0.68). The East-West position (x) and the Average Annual Rainfall (Pl) are also
re
highly correlated (𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟(𝑥, 𝑃𝑙) = 0.94).
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 4: Correlation matrix between the erosion rates and all the physiographic factors listed in Table 1. All the
factors have been normalized (centered and scaled). Dark blue and dark red squares represent respectively high
correlations or anti-correlations between the associated factors (correlation values are written inside each square).
White squares represent very low correlations between the associated factors. x and y: East-West and North-South
positions, ER: Erosion Rate, ED: Erosion Duration, Pl: Average Annual Rainfall, L: Maximal River Length, l: Mean
Width, H: Maximum Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, A: Planar Area from the 120 m-DEM, P: Perimeter, S: Slope,
w: Relative Width, Rf: Shape Factor, d: Depth, Kc: Coefficient of Compactness
These results suggest that the erosion rates can probably be, in large part, explained by only one of the
of
basic physiographic factors (L, l, A or P), with the other basic factors that can be seen as redundant.
ro
4.3 Selection of regression models
-p
The correlation matrix of Figure 4 shows two groups of physiographic factors globally correlated between
re
each other. The first one regroups the Planar Area, the Perimeter, the Mean Width, the Maximal River
Length, the Maximum Altitude and the Depth, and the second one regroups the Shape Factor, the
lP
Coefficient of Compactness and the Relative Width. We first considered the 14 regression models listed
na
in Table 2, with different combinations of physiographic factors, keeping one (or two in some cases when
factors are sufficiently uncorrelated, such as the Maximum Altitude and the Mean Width) of each group.
ur
We decided to not consider the East-West position (x) as it is highly correlated to the Average Annual
Jo
Rainfall, with a weight (𝛼𝑥 ) that was close to zero in every regression of Equation (2). The regression
results on the remaining cases pointed to six “best” candidate models (Models 1b, 2b, 4b, 7b, 8b and 13b,
Figure 5 and Annex B: Table B.1,) among these 14 preliminary models, with respect to these arguments:
1/ Among the geomorphological factors (Shape factor, Coefficient of Compactness and Relative Width),
the Coefficient of Compactness was excluded, as it was associated with greater error bars than the other
two factors, whereas in general, the Shape Factor and the Relative Width presented similar weights and
error bars; 2/ Models based on either the Maximum Altitude and the Planar Area from the 120 m-DEM,
the Perimeter or the Maximal River Length had a better fit to the erosion rates than the models including
the Mean Width, so we excluded models based on the Mean Width. 3/ The North-South position factor
Journal Pre-proof
(y) had no significant effect (weight 𝛼𝑦 < 0.12, in absolute value) in any of the regressions, so we
excluded it. Models considering all the above modifications are listed in Table B.1 of Annex B with the
suffix “a”. 4/ The Erosion Duration weight was globally always close to “-1”, reflecting its role as a
denominator in the equation 𝐸𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝐸𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒⁄𝐸𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛. Therefore, we
excluded it from the regression models.
Models considering this removal are listed in Table B.1 of Annex B with the suffix “b”. Finally, we
chose to keep Model 4b instead of Model 5b and Model 13b instead of Model 12b as they gave a better fit
of
to the erosion rates.
ro
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Factors Associated weights Factors Associated weights Factors Associated weights Factors Associated weights
log K
y
-2.93 ± 44.41
-0.08 ± 0.54
log K
y
-3.01 ± 39.61
-0.07 ± 0.56
-p
log K
y
-2.88 ± 40.02
-0.08 ± 0.52
log K
y
-3.29 ± 44.31
-0.08 ± 0.54
re
ED -1.05 ± 13.04 ED -1.00 ± 12.32 ED -1.11 ± 11.76 ED -0.85 ± 13.06
Pl 0.72 ± 3.62 Pl 0.74 ± 3.37 Pl 0.76 ± 3.33 Pl 0.42 ± 4.01
lP
H 4.67 ± 7.80 H 4.56 ± 7.87 H 4.65 ± 7.77 H 1.07 ± 12.97

S -0.35 ± 8.09 S -0.39 ± 7.92 S -0.32 ± 8.16 A 1.58 ± 3.69
w -0.21 ± 5.14 Rf -0.28 ± 4.79 Kc 0.53 ± 10.18 S -0.41 ± 8.09
na
d -1.52 ± 3.82 d -1.50 ± 3.06 d -1.42 ± 2.58 w -0.54 ± 5.52

𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟎 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟎 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟎 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟒

ur
log K -0.74 ± 39.47 log K -2.20 ± 40.18 log K -3.74 ± 45.59 log K -4.27 ± 39.77
Jo
y -0.10 ± 0.54 y -0.09 ± 0.52 y -0.03 ± 0.46 y -0.04 ± 0.48

ED -1.50 ± 12.01 ED -1.20 ± 11.73 ED -1.79 ± 12.42 ED -1.75 ± 11.87
Pl 0.62 ± 3.5 Pl 0.58 ± 3.51 Pl 0.33 ± 2.78 Pl 0.22 ± 2.78
H 1.60 ± 12.08 H 1.58 ± 11.55 P 2.95 ± 3.50 P 3.15 ± 2.77
A 1.32 ± 2.61 A 1.33 ± 2.34 S -0.81 ± 7.71 S -0.73 ± 7.40
S -0.54 ± 7.99 S -0.40 ± 8.17 w 0.54 ± 3.87 Rf 0.66 ± 4.05
Rf -0.07 ± 4.53 Kc 0.82 ± 10.25
𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟔 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟒 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟏 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟎
log K -3.71 ± 36.79 log K 1.88 ± 40.13 log K -1.08 ± 40.79 log K -0.67 ± 43.15
y -0.06 ± 0.48 y -0.12 ± 0.54 y -0.09 ± 0.52 y -0.01 ± 0.5
ED -1.64 ± 11.18 ED -2.40 ± 11.73 ED -1.72 ± 11.68 ED -1.45 ± 12.91
Pl 0.28 ± 2.76 Pl 1.23 ± 2.82 Pl 1.10 ± 2.92 Pl 0.46 ± 3.51
Journal Pre-proof
P 3.28 ± 2.67 l 1.32 ± 2.94 l 1.46 ± 2.70 L 2.79 ± 4.99

S -0.96 ± 7.52 H 3.25 ± 10.13 H 2.98 ± 9.90 S -0.9 ± 7.85
Kc -2.28 ± 9.98 S -0.50 ± 8.10 S -0.30 ± 8.17 w 0.69 ± 5.22
Rf -0.06 ± 4.66 Kc 1.82 ± 10.79 d -0.23 ± 5.08
𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟔 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟎 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟐 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟖
Model 13 Model 14
Factors Associated weights Factors Associated weights
log K -0.78 ± 37.86 log K -1.48 ± 39.41
y -0.09 ± 0.57 y -0.01 ± 0.47
ED -1.42 ± 11.98 ED -1.09 ± 11.99
Pl 0.54 ± 3.22 Pl 0.33 ± 3.12
L 4.09 ± 6.78 L 2.90 ± 5.14
of
S -0.55 ± 7.81 S -0.97 ± 7.89
Rf 2.00 ± 6.56 Kc -1.61 ± 10.7
ro
d 0.74 ± 5.93 d -0.50 ± 3.82
𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟒 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟕
Table 2: Associated weights (αi. for the factor i) for each physiographic factors and for each possible model that are
-p
obtained by only keeping the uncorrelated factors from Figure 4. For example, Model 1 refers to : 𝐸𝑅 = 𝐾 ×
re
𝑦 −0.08 × 𝐸𝐷 −1.05 × 𝑃𝑙 0.72 × 𝐻4.67 × 𝑆 −0.35 × 𝑤 −0.21 × 𝑑 −1.52 , where ER is the Erosion Rate and K is the scale
lP
factor. The weight of each factor in the models is indicated as weight +/- 3 sigma error bars, where 𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 refers to the
standard error of the residuals for each model (Annex A: Equation A.10). log K: natural logarithm of the global
na
scale factor that is insuring the consistency in terms of physical dimensions of Eq (1), y: North-South position of the
basin, ED: Erosion Duration, Pl: Average Annual Rainfall, l: Mean Width, L: Maximal River Length, H: Maximum
ur
Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, A: Planar Area from the 120 m-DEM, P: Perimeter, S: Slope, w: Relative Width, Rf:
Shape Factor, Kc: Coefficient of Compactness

Jo
Subsequently, we removed the factors with the smallest weights 𝛼 in the “b” models to see their role on
the regression (Annex B: Figure B.1). Random distributions of the residuals around the x-axis indicates
that the chosen models are not contaminated by a systematic error.
For Models 1b, 2b and 4b, removing the Slope factor (weight 𝛼𝑆 ≤ 0.40, in absolute value, Annex B:
Table B.1) lead to better or similar fits of the erosion rates, so we discarded the Slope factor in these
models. Even though the associated weight 𝛼𝑃𝑙 to the Average Annual Rainfall factor has a low value in
Models 4b and 13b (𝛼𝑃𝑙 ≤ 0.29, Annex B: Table B.1), the misfits were much larger after its removal, so
Journal Pre-proof
we kept it in the regression. Removing the Depth factor (𝛼𝑑 = 0.21, Annex B: Table B.1) from Model
13b showed that this factor only slightly improves the fit, therefore we excluded it from this model.
All the models resulting from these removals are labeled with a suffix “c” (Table 3). When comparing
Models 7b and 8b to the Models 1c, 2c, 4c and 13c, which are also based on four factors, poorest fits were
found, so we discarded these models (Table 3, Annex B: Table B.1).
The four final “best” regression models in terms of fit are detailed in Table 3, with the Model 4c being the
top performer, with in decreasing weight order: Planar Area, Relative Width, Maximum Altitude and
of
Average Annual Rainfall. This is in total agreement with the correlation study of Figure 4, which shows
ro
that the highest correlation is found between the Erosion Rate and the Planar Area.
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Figure 5: Correlation sub-matrices (from Figure 4) between the erosion rate and the physiographic factors that are
the least correlated in Figure 4 and that lead to the best fitting models (Models 1b, 2b, 4b, 7b, 8b and 13b of Annex
B: Table B.1). Dark blue and dark red squares represent respectively high correlations or anti-correlations between
the associated physiographic factors (correlation values are written inside each square). White squares represent very
low correlations between the associated factors. y: North-South position, ER: Erosion Rate, ED: Erosion Duration,
Journal Pre-proof
Pl: Average Annual Rainfall, L: Maximal River Length, H: Maximum Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, A: Planar
Area from the 120 m-DEM, P: Perimeter, S: Slope, w: Relative Width, Rf: Shape Factor, d: Depth. We choose to
keep Model 4 instead of Model 5 and Model 13 instead of Model 12 as they gave a better fit to the erosion rates.
5. Discussion
We focus on this discussion to the four final “best” models identified in the previous steps. These models
(Table 3) are based on the Average Annual Rainfall, one geomorphological parameter reflecting the
planar shape of the basins (Relative Width or Shape Factor), one factor representing the size (Planar Area
of
or Maximal River Length) and/or the relief (Maximum Altitude) and one “steepness” factor (Maximum
ro
Altitude, Depth or Slope).
-p
The Average Annual Rainfall is associated to the lowest weight. This indicates that the uneven
re
distribution of the rainfall is probably not the main causal factor of the variation of erosion rates between
basins. Indeed, the second and third basins in terms of erosion rates (Punaruu and Taharuu) are located
lP
where the Average Annual Rainfall is the lowest. Furthermore, the wind effect, represented in this study
by the position (x and y) of the basin, as well as the position of the basin inside or outside the incised
na
shield, which is contained in the erosion duration factor (ER), do not intervene at a significant level. This
ur
shows that the possible lithological effect resulting from the differences between both shields is probably
marginal. This can be explained by their similar mineralogy and composition (Hildenbrand et al., 2004).
Jo
Nevertheless, Ye et al. (2010) noted that soils on the eastern side of Tahiti-Nui globally present lower
erodibility than the ones of the western side. This gradient is opposed to the average annual rainfall
gradient and thus, those two factors may balance each other, hiding the possible impacts of the
lithological properties and of the rainfall regime on the erosion rates.
Model 1c Model 2c Model 4c Model 13c

Pl 0.42 ± 3.09 Pl 0.57 ± 3.07 Pl 0.10 ± 3.38 Pl 0.23 ± 2.60
H 4.52 ± 5.13 H 4.33 ± 5.23 H 0.18 ± 10.30 L 3.50 ± 1.72
Journal Pre-proof
w -0.82 ± 3.46 Rf -0.83 ± 3.36 A 1.89 ± 2.83 S -0.64 ± 7.05

d -1.88 ± 2.90 d -1.69 ± 2.46 w -1.16 ± 3.75 Rf 0.95 ± 3.10
𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟕 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟕 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟑 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟔
Table 3: Associated weights (αi. for the factor i) of the physiographic factors for our four “best fitting” models,
derived from Models 1, 2 4 and 13 (Table 2). For example, Model 1c refers to: 𝐸𝑅 = 𝐾 × 𝑃𝑙 0.42 × 𝐻 4.52 𝑤 −0.82 ×
𝑑 −1.88 , where ER is the Erosion Rate and K is the scale factor. The weights are indicated with a +/- 3-sigma error
bars, where 𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 refers to the standard error of the residuals for each model (Annex A: Equation A.10). Pl: Average
Annual Rainfall, l: Mean Width, L: Maximal River Length, H: Maximum Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, A: Planar
Area from the 120 m-DEM, S: Slope Factor; w: Relative Width, Rf: Shape Factor; d: Depth
of
In each of our final models, the greatest weight, which is associated either to the Planar Area, the
ro
Maximal River Length, or the Maximum Altitude, is much higher than the others (in absolute values),
-p
with the second highest weight being on average 2.6 times lower. Therefore, each one of these three
factors can explain by itself the main part of the erosion rates and indicate that highest and/or largest
re
basins present the greatest erosion rates.
lP
na
ur
Jo
Figure 6: Comparison between the model based on the Planar Area and the Relative Width (A, B, C and D) and
Model 4c (E, F, G and H). For each model, the upper left plot (A and E) shows the weights of the factors
represented with red dots, and their associated error bars represented in green. The upper right scatter plot (B and G)
Journal Pre-proof
shows the computed erosion rates with respect to the measured erosion rates and the lower right scatter plot (D and
H) shows the natural logarithms of the computed erosion rates with respect to the natural logarithms of the measured
erosion rates. Lastly, the left lower scatter plot (C and F) represents the residuals for each basin. Residuals are
defined by the difference between the natural logarithms of the computed erosion rates with the natural logarithms
of the measured erosion rates (Annex A: Equation A.9). The blue lines represent the standard error of the residuals
(Annex A: Equation A.10). Pl: Average Annual Rainfall, H: Maximum Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, A: Planar
Area from the 120 m-DEM, w: Relative Width. * Measured and computed erosion rates are shown in 10-2 km3.kyr-1.
As regards to the best fitting model (Model 4c, see Figure 6) the SVD shows that 63% of the variability is
of
explained by only two physiographic factors, the Planar Area and the Relative Width (see Figure 3). In
ro
other words, large, high and elongated basins present higher erosion rates. This suggest that basins are
-p
more active, in terms of erosion, in the first part of their life when they are mostly elongating, rather than
in the second part, when they start widening by catching adjacent drainage systems (Pelletier, 2003).
re
Indeed, younger basins such as the Fairaharaha, the Faurahi and the Tahiria are more elongated and
lP
present higher erosion rates than older basins of comparable sizes such as the Onoheha and the Mapuaura
basins, even though they are under higher average rainfall regimes (Figure 1, Table 1).
na
The intermediate physiographic factors, which are the geomorphological parameters and the relief or
ur
steepness factors, show varying weights per model. These varying results can be explained by
Jo
counterbalancing effects between factors. For example, in Model 13c, the weights of the Maximal River
Length 𝛼𝐿 and of the Shape factor 𝛼𝑅𝑓 counterbalance each other (Table 3). Indeed, when developing
Model 13c equation with weights rounded to integer values (Equation 3), the actual weight of the
Maximal River Length (L) appears to be lower (𝛼𝐿 = 2) than its initial weight (𝛼𝐿 = 4). This
counterbalancing effect can also be seen in several other models, such as, for example, Model 13 (Table
1, Equation 4).
𝟏
Model 13c: 𝐸𝑅 = 𝐾 × … × 𝑹𝒇𝟏 × 𝑳𝟒 = 𝐾 × … × (𝑨⁄𝑳𝟐 ) × 𝑳𝟒 = 𝐾 × … × 𝑨 × 𝑳𝟐 (3)
Journal Pre-proof
𝟐
Model 13: 𝐸𝑅 = 𝐾 × … × 𝑹𝒇𝟐 × 𝑳𝟒 = 𝐾 × … × (𝑨⁄𝑳𝟐 ) × 𝑳𝟒 = 𝐾 × … × 𝑨𝟐 × 𝑳𝟎 (4)
The Slope factor was computed by Hildenbrand et al. in 2008 from the histograms of the slope gradients,
which considers all types of basin slopes. Observationally, these slopes are divided into two disjoint
families: the main longitudinal slopes (along the rivers) and the lateral slopes (mainly perpendicular to the
rivers and adjacent streams) that can be widely different (often 10 % versus 45 % or more). The use of
the Slope factor as a characteristic slope for regression analysis is therefore questionable, and in fact it
often degrades regression fits. To overcome this difficulty, and because the basins are all of elongated
of
shape, we tried a “Main Longitudinal Slope” factor defined as S_b = sin(H’/L) where H’ represents the
ro
maximum altitude extracted from the 20 m-DEM and L is the Maximal River Length. We tested this
-p
candidate regression parameter by replacing the Slope factor with it in several of the best fitting models,
initially based on the Slope factor (Models 2b, 4b, 8b and 13b, see Annex B: Table B.1).
re
This candidate Main Longitudinal Slope factor led to regressions with poorer fits except for Models 4b
lP
and 8b which slightly beneficiate of this substitution (𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 0.42 and 𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 0.47 for Model 4b , resp.
na
Model 8b, with the Main Longitudinal Slope factor, versus 𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 0.43 and 𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 0.49 for Model 4b,
resp. Model 8b, with the Slope factor; Annex B: Tables B.1 and B.2) (Figure 7). The “upgraded” Model
ur
4b also fits better the measured erosion rates than Model 4c (𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 0.43; Table 3), but at the expense of
Jo
error bars, that are larger.

Journal Pre-proof
of
ro
-p
re
Figure 7: Comparison of the effect of replacing the Slope factor by the Main Longitudinal Slope factor, which
represents the main longitudinal slope of the basins along the main river, on the quality of the Models 2b, 4b, 8b and
lP
13b. For each model, the upper scatter plot (A, C, E and G) shows, for each basin, the natural logarithms of the
computed erosion rates with respect to the natural logarithms of the measured erosion rates. The lower scatter plot
na
(B, D, F and H) represents the residuals for each basin. Residuals are defined by the difference between the natural
logarithms of the computed erosion rates with the natural logarithms of the measured erosion rates (Annex A:
ur
Equation A.9). The blue lines represent the standard error of the residuals (Annex A: Equation A.10). Models with
Jo
residuals globally closer to zero and with lower standard error are better fit to the observed erosion rates with Model
4b (C and D) being the best one. Models 1b and 7b are not presented as they show similar results to respectively
Models 2b and 8b. Pl: Average Annual Rainfall, H: Maximum Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, S_b: Main
Longitudinal Slope, A: Planar Area from the 120 m-DEM, P: Perimeter, L: Maximal River Length d: Depth, w:
Relative Width, Rf: Shape Factor.
In addition, the role of the Average Annual Rainfall is not consistent between models since its weight is
positive in almost all models tested (Table 1, Table 3 and Annex B: Table B.1) except for the Model 4b
based on the Slope factor and the Model 4b based on the Main Longitudinal Slope factor, which is also
Journal Pre-proof
the most suitable model. This may be because long-term erosion may also be dependent on precipitation
temporal variability. Gayer et al. (2019) showed that in the case of Réunion island, erosion is more
intense where there is the greatest difference between background precipitations and heavy rainfall events
and is also probably correlated to the frequency of heavy rainfall events such as cyclones or storms
(Dadson et al., 2003). Finally, it should be noted that the Average Annual Rainfall factor weight is
positive and low in most models, revealing the low impact of rainfall on erosion rates in the general case.
Another point of concern is the high erosion rate of the Papenoo basin (24.6 10-2 km3.kyr-1), which is 3.8
of
times larger than the second highest (Taharuu basin: 6.4 10-2 km3.kyr-1). This raises the question of the
ro
robustness of the regression models with respect to the Papenoo basin data. We therefore tested the effect
of the Papenoo basin data on the regression models by removing/adding this sub-dataset. This only
-p
slightly changed the model parameters (Annex B: Table B.3). In other words, the regression is robust with
re
respect to the presence or absence of the Papenoo data.
lP
In the best fitting models (Models 4c and 4b with the Main Longitudinal Slope factor) the Planar Area
factor shows the highest weight (Table 3, Annex B: Table B.2). It is also the factor that presents, in our
na
study, the highest correlation coefficient with the Erosion Rate (Figure 4). This prominent role was also
ur
noted by (Poulos & Chronis, 1997 and Grauso et al., 2008). Therefore, the Planar Area factor seems to be
the main player to explain the erosion rates per basin.

Jo
6. Conclusion
This study is based on the erosion data and ancillary physiographic parameters collected by Hildenbrand
et al. in 2008. The quantitative analysis of the erosion rates of the 27 main hydrographic basins
(amphitheater valleys) of the sub-island of Tahiti-Nui through a regression fit led to the identification of a
small set (4 or 5) physiographic factors linked to the erosion rates per basin over a set of 14 possible
physiographic factors. These factors are, in decreasing order of importance (weights of the values of the
physiographic factors in Eq. (1)): the size (Planar Area or Maximal River Length) and/or the height
Journal Pre-proof
(Maximal Altitude); the planar shape (Shape Factor or Relative Width); the inclination (Main
Longitudinal Slope, Mean Slope, Maximum Altitude or Depth) and the mean precipitation (Average
Annual Rainfall). The Erosion Duration and the positions along the North-South and East-West
directions, which were used to highlight a possible effect of the winds, did not show significant effect on
the erosion rates. In all our best fitting models, the greatest weight was associated with the Size or the
Height factors, revealing that the highest erosion rates are the ones measured on the largest and/or highest
basins.
of
Concerning the modeling of the slope of the basins, the main longitudinal slope (mainly along the main
ro
river of each basin) is more appropriate than the mean slope (which includes lateral slopes). As an
example, our best model, Model 4b, links the erosion rates to the Planar Area; the Relative Width; the
-p
Maximum Altitude; Main Longitudinal Slope and the Average Annual Rainfall as:
re
Model 4b: 𝐸𝑅 = 𝐾 × 𝑃𝑙 𝛼𝑃𝑙 × 𝐻 𝛼𝐻 × 𝐴𝛼𝐴 × 𝑆_𝑏 𝛼𝑆_𝑏 × 𝑤 𝛼𝑤 (5)
lP
𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 0.42
na
with Pl: Average Annual Rainfall, H: Maximum Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, A: Planar Area from the 120 m-
DEM, S_b: Main Longitudinal Slope, w: Relative Width and 𝛼𝑃𝑙 = −0.03 ± 4.05; 𝛼𝐻 = −0.80 ± 19.91; 𝛼𝐴 =
ur
2.42 ± 9.71; 𝛼𝑆𝑏 = 0.71 ± 12.34; 𝛼𝑤 = −1.64 ± 9.25 and 𝐾 = 3.53. 10−5 ± 5.86. 1024 . 𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 refers to the standard
Jo
error of the residuals (Annex A: Equation A.10).
If we exclude the Main Longitudinal Slope factor and the Slope factor from Model 4b, we obtain a model
that is second in terms of fit, but with smaller error bars on the weights, as
Model 4c: 𝐸𝑅 = 𝐾 × 𝑃𝑙 𝛼𝑃𝑙 × 𝐻 𝛼𝐻 × 𝐴𝛼𝐴 × 𝑤 𝛼𝑤 (6)
𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 0.43
Journal Pre-proof
with Pl: Average Annual Rainfall, H: Maximum Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, A: Planar Area from the 120 m-
DEM, w: Relative Width and 𝛼𝑃𝑙 = 0.10 ± 3.38; 𝛼𝐻 = 0.18 ± 10.3; 𝛼𝐴 = 1.89 ± 2.83; 𝛼𝑤 = −1.16 ± 3.75 and
𝐾 = 9.03. 10−4 ± 1.02. 104 . 𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 refers to the standard error of the residuals (Annex A: Equation A.10).
We note that in all the models, the first two factors (in terms of greatest weights) explain around two
thirds of the variability, while the others can be seen as refinements. The Planar Area factor seems to be
the most relevant parameter since it explains by itself the largest part of the erosion rates.
Finally, the role of average annual rainfall is not consistent between the regression models. This suggests
of
that a more suitable physiographic factor to constrain the effect of precipitations on erosion rates must be
ro
considered, probably linked to the temporal climate variability as well as the frequency of cyclone-driven
rainfall. But such a factor is difficult to define and, in any case, only the current average annual rainfall
-p
was available for our study. Besides, the weight of the Average Annual Rainfall factor was generally
re
positive and small in most regression models, synonymous of a minor role.
lP
Declaration of competing interest

na
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that
could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. This work was done as a partial
ur
fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of the joint Master of Science in Oceanian Island
Jo
Environment of the University of French Polynesia and Sorbonne University by Ms. Jeanne Godard under
the supervision of Professor Jean-Pierre Barriot.
Acknowledgements
We thank Météo-France and especially Ms. Victoire Laurent for their help on climate data. We are also
grateful to the Service de l’Urbanisme of French Polynesia for providing the 20 m-DEM. Suggestions and
comments from Mr. Anthony Hildenbrand, Ms. Su-Min Shen and Ms. Marania Hopuare were highly
appreciated. Jean-Pierre Barriot is funded through a DAR grant from the French Space Agency (CNES) to
the Geodesy Laboratory of Tahiti.

Journal Pre-proof
Annex A
Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)
The Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) is an extension of the Principal Component Analysis that
permits to pinpoint rank deficiencies in data sets (Gerbrands, 1981). The SVD is sensitive to the physical
units used for the data because the singular vectors are linear combination of the columns and rows in
data arrays. Therefore, we centered and normalized the data column in Table 1 to keep a physical point of
view. We remind that the singular values represent the statistical variances of the associated singular
of
vectors when they are centered and normalized (Jolliffe & Cadima, 2016).
ro
Correlation matrix
-p
The coefficients of the correlation matrix between physiographic factors / erosion rates were computed
re
with the formula: 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟(𝑐𝑗 , 𝑐𝑘 ) = 𝑐𝑜𝑣(𝑐𝑗 , 𝑐𝑘 )⁄𝜎𝑗 𝜎𝑘 , where k≠j, 𝑐𝑜𝑣(𝑐𝑗 , 𝑐𝑘 ) is the covariance between the
factors 𝑐𝑗 and 𝑐𝑘 and 𝜎𝑗 and 𝜎𝑘 are the standard errors of the factors 𝑐𝑗 and 𝑐𝑘
lP
Least-Squares Linear Regression

na
In natural and life sciences, the concept of regression was introduced, and is still widely understood, as a
ur
least-squares fit for estimating the relationships between a dependent variable (often called 'outcome',
'response', or ‘data’) and one or more other variables (often called 'predictors', 'covariates', 'explanatory
Jo
variables' or 'parameters’), under the assumption that these other variables must be ‘independent’ of each
other, a requirement that can extend to the columns of the regression matrix (i.e. the requirement of full
rank for this matrix). This requirement of ‘total’ independence was soon found to be too narrow in many
fields. For example, parameters in seismic models of the Earth mantle, such as density, temperature,
velocities of waves are known to be linked by physical relationships, albeit the relevant equations are
poorly understood or not even available. This leads to extremely poorly conditioned regression matrices
and/or correlations between all the quantities involved in the relative regression processes. The so-called
“inverse problems” set of methods was developed in the fifties-seventies in part to overcome the
Journal Pre-proof
assumption of ‘independent’ quantities in regression processes, by introducing, under the umbrella of
Bayesian statistics, the concepts of a priori and a posteriori state of knowledge of a system. The a priori
and a posteriori states of knowledge are defined by random vector variables characterized by second-
order statistics (expectations and associated (and if necessary full) covariance matrices). The regression is
then defined as the linear link from the a priori to the a posteriori state of knowledge through Bayes’
theorem. We refer to the two seminal papers of Tarantola & Valette (1982a, 1982b) for an in-depth
presentation, in its widest sense, of this concept of generalized regression in a least-squares framework. A
of
recent summary was done by (Menke, 2021). A discussion about the deepest meaning of a priori and a
posteriori states of knowledge in the framework of the schools of thought in statistics was done by
ro
Tarantola (2006). In the following, we just focused on the application in our case of this generalized
concept of regression.
-p
re
We first took the logarithm of Eq. (1), to be able to do a linear regression, as
lP
log(𝐸𝑅) = log(𝐾) + 𝛼1 log(𝑐1 ) + 𝛼2 log(𝑐2 ) + ⋯ , (A.1)

na
in matrix form 𝐴𝑥 = 𝑏 (A.2)

ur
where A is the regression (n, p) matrix with 𝐴𝑖𝑗 = log(𝑐𝑗𝑖 ) , where 𝑐𝑖𝑗 is the physiographic factor 𝑐𝑗 of the
basin i, x is the vector of the weights 𝛼𝑗 (the “parameters”), j ranging from 1 to p and b is the vector (the
Jo
“data”) with 𝑏𝑖 = log(𝐸𝑅 𝑖 ), i ranging from 1 to n. 𝐸𝑅 𝑖 is the Erosion Rate per basin i. The Ockham’s
razor rule corresponds, stricto sensu, to the mathematical requirement of full rank for the regression
matrix.
The regression formula in its widest “a priori / a posteriori” sense takes the form
−1 −1 −1
𝑥 ∗ = 𝑥0 + (𝐴𝑇 (𝐶𝑏0 + 𝐶𝐴 ) 𝐴 + 𝐶𝑥0 ) 𝐴𝑇 (𝐶𝑏0 + 𝐶𝐴 )−1 (𝑏0 − 𝐴𝑥0 ) (A.3)
with 𝐶𝑥∗ = 𝐶𝑥 − 𝐶𝑥0 𝐴𝑇 (𝐶𝐴 + 𝐶𝑏0 + 𝐴𝐶𝑥0 𝐴𝑇 )−1 𝐴𝐶𝑥0 (A.4)

Journal Pre-proof
−1
𝑏 ∗ = 𝑏0 − 𝐶𝑏0 (𝐶𝐴 + 𝐶𝑏0 + 𝐴𝐶𝑥0 𝐴𝑇 ) (𝑏0 − 𝐴𝑥0 ) (A.5)
𝐶𝑏∗ = 𝐴𝐶𝑥∗ 𝐴𝑇 (A.6)
where 𝑥0 , 𝐶𝑥0 represents the a priori state of knowledge about the weights 𝛼𝑗 (expectation and
covariance). 𝑥 ∗ , 𝐶𝑥∗ represents the a posteriori state of knowledge about the weights 𝛼𝑗 (the regression
solution and solution error in mundane words). The expectations and covariances 𝑏0 , 𝐶𝑏0 , and 𝑏 ∗ , 𝐶𝑏∗
represent the a priori and a posteriori state of knowledge about the erosion rates. 𝑏0 regroups the erosion
of
rates of Table 1, 𝐶𝑏0 being the associated covariance matrix (a priori errors on the erosion rates). 𝑏 ∗ is
the regression fit (computed erosion rates) to the data 𝑏0 , and comes with an associated covariance matrix
ro
𝐶𝑏∗ . As we have no information about the correlation of errors in the estimation of erosion rates from basin
-p
to basin, we assumed that the matrix 𝐶𝑏0 is diagonal. For these diagonal elements, we wrote 𝜎𝑖 =
re
log(𝜀𝑖 /𝑓), where 𝜀𝑖 is the absolute uncertainty on the erosion rate of the basin i and f is a rule-of-thumb
lP
scaling factor, to convert absolute uncertainties in standard deviations. We used f=3 by identifying a 3-
sigma error with an absolute error. The errors in the regression caused by the uncertainties present in the
na
A matrix are supposed to have a zero expectation and a deviation given by the 𝐶𝐴 matrix. 𝐶𝐴 was also
considered to be diagonal as the regressions were conducted by design with respect to low-correlation
ur
physiographic factors. We guessed the values of those diagonal elements through a Monte-Carlo
Jo
approach, by adding reasonable Gaussian perturbations to the elements of A, perturbations which were
derived from the errors in the physiographic factors listed in the main text (Material and Method section,
data subsection), and looking at the impact of these perturbations on b for a given x (eq. A.2). For each
physiographic factor, we used the value and the absolute uncertainty for the parameters of the Gaussian
distribution (resp. for the mean and the standard deviation). We found that the diagonal values of 𝐶𝐴 were,
on average, lower by a factor a 103 than the corresponding values of 𝐶𝑏0 (Eq. A.3) to which they are
added. An optimal implementation of the regression formula A.3 implies a good a priori knowledge of x.
Journal Pre-proof
In many research fields, regression analyses are performed by making the hidden assumptions 𝑥0 =
0, 𝐶𝑥0 = ∞, 𝐶𝐴 = 0, leading to the well-known formula
−1 −1
𝑥 ∗ = (𝐴𝑇 𝐶𝑏0 𝐴)−1 𝐴𝑇 𝐶𝑏0 𝑏 (A.7)
where the uncertainties on the estimated weights are given by
−1
𝐶𝑥∗ = (𝐴𝑇 𝐶𝑏0 𝐴)−1 (A.8)
We used these two restricted formulas A.7 and A.8 to obtain a first guess about 𝑥0 , 𝐶𝑥0 . Indeed, 𝑥 ∗ , 𝐶𝑥∗
of
obtained through formulas A.7 and A.8 identify to the 𝑥0 , 𝐶𝑥0 of formulas A.3 and A.4.
ro
For each tested model, we computed the residuals (res) which represent the subtraction between the
-p
measured erosion rates from the dataset and the computed erosion rates from the regression as
re
𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 𝑏 ∗ − 𝑏0 (A.9)
lP
We also computed the standard error on the residuals (𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 ) which appeared to be a good indicator of the
quality of the models after studying the residuals as

na
𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 = ∑27 2
𝑖=1(𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖 − 𝜇) /27 (A.10)
ur
Where 𝜇 is the mean of the residuals.

Jo
Annex B
Annex B presents the regression results that were used to select the “best” models discussed in the main
text.
Model 1a Model 2a Model 4a Model 5a

ED -1.19 ± 13.0 ED -1.14 ± 12.27 ED -1.02 ± 13.01 ED -1.82 ± 11.88
Pl 0.51 ± 3.33 Pl 0.60 ± 3.18 Pl 0.19 ± 3.71 Pl 0.44 ± 3.38
H 4.12 ± 6.87 H 3.96 ± 6.45 H 0.09 ± 11.27 H 0.59 ± 10.74
S -0.23 ± 8.04 S -0.34 ± 7.91 A 1.77 ± 3.48 A 1.43 ± 2.54
Journal Pre-proof
w -0.53 ± 4.66 Rf -0.58 ± 4.22 S -0.28 ± 8.04 S -0.43 ± 7.97

d -1.72 ± 3.56 d -1.63 ± 2.90 w -0.88 ± 5.05 Rf -0.43 ± 4.09
𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟒 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟑 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟗 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟑
Model 7a Model 8a Model 12a Model 13a

ED -1.82 ± 12.41 ED -1.79 ± 11.86 ED -1.44 ± 12.9 ED -1.53 ± 11.96
Pl 0.31 ± 2.77 Pl 0.22 ± 2.78 Pl 0.43 ± 3.30 Pl 0.4 ± 3.09
P 2.93 ± 3.49 P 3.08 ± 2.66 L 2.76 ± 4.75 L 3.44 ± 5.44
S -0.64 ± 7.32 S -0.54 ± 7.07 S -0.87 ± 7.67 S -0.47 ± 7.79
w 0.43 ± 3.57 Rf 0.50 ± 3.62 w 0.63 ± 4.33 Rf 1.27 ± 4.78
d -0.27 ± 4.68 d 0.22 ± 4.99
of
𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟑 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟑 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟖 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟎
Model 1b Model 2b Model 4b Model 5b
ro
Pl
H
S
0.41 ± 3.14
4.47 ± 5.74
-0.15 ± 8.00
Pl
H
S
0.54 ± 3.12
4.22 ± 5.81
-0.33 ± 7.91
-pPl
H
A
0.08 ± 3.44
0.06 ± 11.26
1.91 ± 2.96
Pl
H
A
0.37 ± 3.34
0.81 ± 10.64
1.54 ± 2.43
re
w -0.81 ± 3.51 Rf -0.82 ± 3.37 S -0.21 ± 8.00 S -0.37 ± 7.96
d -1.89 ± 3.03 d -1.73 ± 2.69 w -1.15 ± 3.78 Rf -0.79 ± 3.35
lP
𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟕 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟔 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟑 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟖

na
Pl 0.14 ± 2.51 Pl 0.09 ± 2.64 Pl 0.30 ± 3.08 Pl 0.29 ± 2.99
P 3.35 ± 2.05 P 3.39 ± 1.68 L 3.05 ± 4.00 L 3.70 ± 5.03
ur
S -0.55 ± 7.30 S -0.55 ± 7.07 S -0.84 ± 7.66 S -0.50 ± 7.79

w 0.14 ± 2.95 Rf 0.23 ± 3.14 w 0.40 ± 3.83 Rf 1.09 ± 4.55
Jo
d -0.33 ± 4.65 d 0.21 ± 4.99

𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟗 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟗 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟏 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟔
Table B.1: Associated weights (αi. for the factor i) of the physiographic factors in the models derived from Models
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 and 13 shown in Table 2. For example, Model 1b refers to: 𝐸𝑅 = 𝐾 × 𝑃𝑙 0.41 × 𝐻4.47 × 𝑆 −0.15 ×
𝑤 −0.81 × 𝑑 −1.89 , where ER is the Erosion Rate and K is the scale factor. The weight of each factor in the models is
indicated as weight +/- 3 sigma error bars, where 𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 refers to the standard error of the residuals of each model
(Annex A: Equation A.10). Models of the upper table (a) are the models derived from Models 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 and
13 (Table 1) after removing the North-South position factor. Models of the lower table (b) are the models derived
from the models of the upper table after removing the Erosion Duration factor. log K: natural logarithm of the scale
factor, ED: Erosion Duration, Pl: Average Annual Rainfall, L: Maximal River Length, H: Maximum Altitude from
Journal Pre-proof
the 120 m-DEM, A: Planar Area from the 120 m-DEM, P: Perimeter, S: Slope, w: Relative Width, Rf: Shape Factor,
d: Depth
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Figure B.1: Comparison of the effect of removing the physiographic factors associated with low weights (absolute
Journal Pre-proof
value inferior to 0.4) on the ability of the model to explain the erosion rates. For each tested model, the upper scatter
plot (A, C, E, G, I, K, M, O, Q, S, U and W) shows, for each basin, the natural logarithms of the computed erosion
rates with respect to the natural logarithms of the measured erosion rates. The lower scatter plot (B, D, F, H, J, L, N,
P, R, T, V and X) represents the residuals for each basin. Residuals are defined as the difference between the natural
logarithms of the computed erosion rates with the natural logarithms of the measured erosion rates (Annex A:
Equation A.9). The blue lines represent the standard error of the residuals (Annex A: Equation A.10). Models with
residuals globally closer to zero and with lower standard error are fitting better the observed erosion rates. For
instance, concerning Model 4b (I and J), the “Pl H A w” model (O and P) has a better fit of the erosion rates than the
of
original Model 4b and the other models derived from it. MER: Measured Erosion Rates (from Table 2 of
ro
Hildenbrand et al., 2008), CER: Computed Erosion Rates (obtained from the Model), Pl: Average Annual Rainfall,
L: Maximal River Length, H: Maximum Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, A: Planar Area from the 120 m-DEM, P:
-p
Perimeter, S: Slope, w: Relative Width, Rf: Shape Factor, d: Depth.
re
lP
Pl 0.51 ± 3.20 Pl -0.03 ± 4.05 Pl 0.23 ± 3.05 Pl 0.34 ± 3.09
na
H 4.15 ± 6.04 H -0.80 ± 19.91 P 3.97 ± 5.90 L 3.93 ± 5.67

S_b -0.74 ± 12.58 A 2.42 ± 9.71 S_b 0.86 ± 8.40 S_b 0.38 ± 13.4
Rf -0.37 ± 8.46 S_b 0.71 ± 12.34 Rf -0.07 ± 3.89 Rf 0.96 ± 7.9
ur
d -1.23 ± 8.10 w -1.64 ± 9.25 d 0.17 ± 7.75

𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟖 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟐 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟕 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟕
Table B.2: Associated weights (αi. for the factor i) of the physiographic factors of the Models 2b, 4b, 8b and 13b
Jo
shown in Table B.1, in which the Slope factor was replaced by the Main Longitudinal Slope factor. For example,
Model 2b refers to: 𝐸𝑅 = 𝐾 × 𝑃𝑙 0.51 × 𝐻4.15 × 𝑆_𝑏 −0.74 × 𝑅𝑓 −0.37 × 𝑑 −1.23 , where ER is the Erosion Rate and K is
the scale factor. The weight of each factor in the models is indicated as weight +/- 3 sigma error bars, where 𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠
refers to the standard error of the residuals for each model (Annex A: Equation A.10). All models show higher
standard errors after replacing the Slope factor by the Main Longitudinal Slope factor, except for the Model 4b,
which is the best fitting model among all the Models of the study. log K: natural logarithm of the global scale factor
that is insuring the consistency in terms of physical dimensions of Eq (1), Pl: Average Annual Rainfall, L: Maximal
River Length, H: Maximum Altitude from the 120 m-DEM, A: Planar Area from the 120 m-DEM, P: Perimeter,
S_b: Main Longitudinal Slope, w: Relative Width, Rf: Shape Factor, d: Depth
Journal Pre-proof

Pl 0.58 ± 3.75 Pl 0.02 ± 5.13 Pl 0.25 ± 3.12 Pl 0.39 ± 3.45
H 4.32 ± 7.28 H -0.55 ± 24.1 P 4.04 ± 6.34 L 4.15 ± 6.68
S_b -1.34 ± 21.67 A 2.39 ± 11.13 S_b 0.82 ± 8.53 S_b -0.17 ± 20.75
Rf -0.03 ± 13.78 S_b 0.60 ± 15.21 Rf -0.04 ± 4.07 Rf 1.39 ± 13.54
d -0.97 ± 12.01 w -1.58 ± 11.01 d 0.51 ± 11.91
𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟗 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟎 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟖 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟏
Model 1c Model 2c Model 4c Model 13c
Pl 0.39 ± 3.43 Pl 0.54 ± 3.41 Pl 0.16 ± 3.56 Pl 0.28 ± 2.80
of
H 4.44 ± 6.65 H 4.26 ± 6.72 H 0.20 ± 10.32 L 3.65 ± 3.71
w -0.82 ± 3.46 Rf -0.83 ± 3.36 A 1.97 ± 3.25 S -0.66 ± 7.07
ro
d -1.85 ± 3.18 d -1.67 ± 2.78 w -1.18 ± 3.78 Rf 1.01 ± 3.43
𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟖 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟖 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟐 𝝈𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟓
Table B.3: Associated weights (αi. for the factor i) of the physiographic factors in the Models 2b, 4b, 8b and 13b,
-p
shown in Annex: Table B.2, and in the Models 1c, 2c, 4c and 13c shown in Table 3, computed on the dataset of
re
Table 1 excluding the Papenoo basin. For example, Model 2b refers to: 𝐸𝑅 = 𝐾 × 𝑃𝑙 0.58 × 𝐻4.32 × 𝑆_𝑏 −1.34 ×
lP
𝑅𝑓 −0.03 × 𝑑 −0.97 , where ER is the Erosion Rate and K is the scale factor. The weight of each factor in the models is
indicated as weight +/- 3-sigma error bars, where 𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 refers to the standard error of the residuals for each model
na
(Annex A: Equation A.10). Pl: Average Annual Rainfall, L: Maximal River Length, H: Maximum Altitude from the
120 m-DEM, A: Planar Area from the 120 m-DEM, S_b: Main Longitudinal Slope; S: Slope Factor; w: Relative
ur
Width, Rf: Shape Factor; d: Depth

Jo
References
Brett, M. T. (2004). When is a correlation between non-independent variables “spurious”? Oikos, 105,
647-656. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12777.x
Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., & Mays, L. W. (1988). Applied Hydrology (Internationa Edition).
McGraw-Hill Book Compagny.
Clouard, V., Bonneville, A., & Gillot, P.-Y. (2001). A giant landslide on the southern flank of Tahiti
Island, French Polynesia. Geophysical Research Letters, 2253-2256. doi:10.1029/2000GL012604

Journal Pre-proof
Craddock, R. A., Howard, A. D., Irwin III, R. P., Tooth, S., Williams, R. M., & Chu, P.-S. (2012).
Drainage network development in the Keanakāko‘i tephra,Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai‘i:
Implications for fluvial erosionand valley network formation on early Mars. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 117. doi:10.1029/2012JE004074
Dadson, S. J., Hovius, N., Chen , H., Dade, W. B., Hsieh, M.-L., Willet, S. D., . . . Lin, J.-C. (2003).
Links between Erosion, Runoff Variability and Seismicity in the Taiwan Orogen. Nature, 426,
648-651. doi:10.1038/nature02150
of
Duffield, W. A., Stieltjes, L., & Varet, J. (1982). Huge landslide blocks in the growth of piton de la
ro
fournaise, La réunion, and Kilauea volcano, Hawaii. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal
Research, 12, 147-160. doi:10.1016/0377-0273

-p
re
Duncan, R. A., Fisk, M. R., White, W. M., & Nielsen, R. L. (1994). Tahiti: Geochemical evolution of a
French Polynesian Volcano. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99(B12), 24 341 - 24 357.

lP
doi:10.1029/94JB00991
na
Ferrier, K. L., Perron, J. T., Mukhopadhyay, S., Rosener, M., Stock, J. D., Huppert, K. L., & Slosberg, M.
(2013). Covariation of climate and long-term erosion rates across a steep rainfall gradient on the
ur
Hawaiian island of Kaua‘i. The Geological Society of America Bulletin, 125, 1146-1163.
Jo
Gayer, E., Michon, L., Louvat, P., & Gaillardet, J. (2019). Storm-induced precipitation variability control
of long-term erosion. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 61-70. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2019.04.003
Gerbrands, J. J. (1981). On the relationships between SVD, KLT and PCA. Pattern Recognition, 14(1-6),
375-381. doi:10.1016/0031-3203(81)90082-0.
Germa, A., Quidelleur, X., Labanieh, S., Lahitte, P., & Chauvel, C. (2010). The eruptive history of Morne
Jacob volcano (Martinique Island, French West Indies): Geochronology, geomorphology and
Journal Pre-proof
geochemistry of the earliest volcanism in the recent Lesser Antilles arc. Journal of Volcanology
and Geothermal Research, 297-310. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2010.09.013
Grauso, S., Pagano, A., De Bonis, P., De Bonis, P., Onori, F., Regina, P., & Tebano, C. (2008). Relations
between climatic–geomorphological parameters and sediment yield in a mediterranean semi-arid
area (Sicily, southern Italy). Environmental Geology, 54, 219-234. doi:10.1007/s00254-007-
0809-4
Gravelius, H. (1914). Grundrifi der gesamten Gewcisserkunde. Band I: Flufikunde. Compendium of
of
Hydrology, I.
ro
Hildenbrand, A. (2002). Etude géologique de l'île volcanique de TahitiNui (Polynésie française):
-p
évolution morpho-structurale, géochimique et hydrologique. Thesis University, Paris-Sud, Orsay,
re
France.
lP
Hildenbrand, A., & Gillot, P.-Y. (2006). Evidence for a differentiated ignimbritic activity endingthe
building-stage of Tahiti-Nui (French Polynesia). Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 280-287.

na
doi:10.1016/j.crte.2006.01.003
Hildenbrand, A., Gillot, P.-Y., & Bonneville, A. (2006). Offshore evidence for a huge landslide of the
ur
northern flank of Tahiti-Nui (French Polynesia). Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 1-12.

Jo
doi:10.1029/2005GC001003
Hildenbrand, A., Gillot, P.-Y., & Le Roy, I. (2004). Volcano-tectonic and geochemical evolution of an
oceanic intra-plate volcano: Tahiti-Nui (French Polynesia). Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
349-365. doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00599-5
Hildenbrand, A., Gillot, P.-Y., & Marlin, C. (2008). Geomorphological study of long-term erosion on a
tropical volcanic ocean island: Tahiti-Nui (French Polynesia). Geomorphology, 460-481.
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.03.012
Journal Pre-proof
Hinds, N. (1925). Amphitheater valley heads. Journal of Geology, 33, 816-818.
Horton, R. E. (1932). Drainage-basin characteristics. Transactions American Geophysical Union, 13(1),
350-361.
Howard, A. D., Dietrich, W. E., & Seidl, M. A. (1994). Modeling fluvial erosion on regional and
continental scales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 99, 13,971-13,986.
doi:10.1029/94JB00744
Hürlimann, M., Ledesma, A., & Martı́, J. (2001). Characterisation of a volcanic residual soil and its
of
implications for large landslide phenomena: application to Tenerife, Canary Islands. Engineering
ro
Geology, 59, 115-132.
-p
Jolliffe, I. T., & Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments.
re
Philosophical Transactions Royal Society A. doi:10.1098/rsta.2015.0202
lP
Karátson, D., Thouret, J.-C., Moriya, I., & Lomoschitz, A. (1999). Erosion calderas: origins, processes,
structural and climatic control. Bulletin of Volcanology, 61, 4-193.

na
Kenney, B. C. (1982). Beware of spurious self-correlations! Water Resources Research, 18(4), 1041-
ur
1048. doi:10.1029/WR018i004p01041
Jo
Lamb, M., Howard, A. D., Dietrich, W. E., & Perron, J. T. (2007). Formation of amphitheater-headed
valleys by waterfall erosion after large-scale slumping on Hawai'i. Bulletin of the Geological
Society of America, 119. doi:10.1130/B25986.1
Laurent, V., & Maamaatuaiahutapu, K. (2019). Atlas climatologique de la Polynésie Française. Météo-
France.
Leroy, I. (1994). Evolution des volcans en système de point chaud: Ile de Tahiti, Archipel de la Société
(Polynésie Française). Thesis.

Journal Pre-proof
Livingston, D. J., & Rahr, E. (1989). Corchop - an Interactive Routine for the Dimension Reduction of
Large QSAR Data Sets. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships, 8, 103-108.
doi:10.1002/qsar.19890080205
Menke, W. (2021). Tuning of Prior Covariance in Generalized Least Squares. Applied Mathematics,
12(3).
Moore, J. G., Normark, W. R., & Holcomb, R. T. (1994). Giant Hawaiian landslides. Annual Review Of
Earth And Planetary Sciences, 22, 119-144. doi:10.1146/annurev.ea.22.050194.001003
of
Pelletier, J. D. (2003). Drainage basin evolution in the Rainfall Erosion Facility:dependence on initial
ro
conditions. Geomorphology, 183-196. doi:10.1016/S0169-555X(02)00353-7
-p
Poulos, S. E., & Chronis, G. T. (1997). The importance of the river systems in the evolution of the Greek
re
coastline. Bulletin de l'Institut oceanographique, Monaco(18).
lP
Renard, K. G., & Freimund, J. R. (1994). Using monthly precipitation data to estimate the R-factor in the
revised USLE. Journal of Hydrology, 157, 287-306. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(94)90110-4

na
Renwick, W. H. (1992). Equilibrium, disequilibrium, and nonequilibrium landforms in the landscape.

ur
Geomorphology, 265-276.
Jo
Roose, E. (1977). Erosion et ruissellement en Afrique de l’Ouest : vingt années de mesures en petites
parcelles expérimentales. Travaux et Documents de l’ORSTOM(78).
Salvany, T., Lahitte, P., Nativel, P., & Gillot, P.-Y. (2012). Geomorphic evolution of the Piton des Neiges
volcano (Réunion Island, Indian Ocean): Competition between volcanic construction and erosion
since 1.4 Ma. Geomorphology, 132-147. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.009
Shih, H.-C., Hwang, C., Barriot, J.-P., Mouyen, M., Cooréia, P., Lequeux, D., & Sichoix, L. (2015).
High-resolution gravity and geoid models in Tahiti obtained from new airborne and land gravity
Journal Pre-proof
observations: data fusion by spectral combination. Earth, Planets and Space, 67(1), 1-16.
doi:10.1186/s40623-015-0297-9
Siebert, L. (2002). Landslides resulting from structural failure of volcanoes. Reviews in Engineering
Geology, XV, 209-235. doi:10.1130/REG15-p209
Stearns, H. T. (1946). Geology of the Hawaiian islands. Honolulu: Honolulu Advertiser.
Tarantola, A. (2006). Popper, Bayes and the inverse problem. Nature Physics, 2, 492-494.
of
Tarantola, A., & Valette, B. (1982). Generalized Nonlinear Inverse Problems Solved Using the Least
ro
Squares Criterion. France Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 20, 219-232.
doi:10.1029/RG020i002p00219
-p
Tarantola, A., & Valette, B. (1982). Inverse Problems = Quest for Information, Journal of Geophysics.
re
Journal of Geophysics, 50, 159–170.
lP
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
na
needs. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 104, 17661-17674.

ur
doi:10.1029/1999JB900120
Jo
Whitley, D. C., Ford, M. G., & Livingston, D. G. (2000). Unsupervised Forward Selection: A Method for
Eliminating Redundant Variables. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 40, 1160-
1168. doi:10.1021/ci000384c
Wischmeier, W. H., & Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation
planning. Agriculture Handbook No. 537. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, District
of Columbia, USA.
Wotling, G. (2000). Caractérisation et modélisation de l'aléa hydrologique à Tahiti. Univ. Thesis,
University Montpellier II, Montpellier, France.

Journal Pre-proof
Ye, F., Sichoix, L., Barriot, J., & Dumas, P. (2010). Modeling the erosion of shield volcanoes: the Tahiti
case. Proceedings of INTERPRAEVENT symposium, 26-30.
Yule, G. U. (1910). On the Interpretation of Correlations between Indices or Ratios. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, 73, 644-647.
Zhang, W., Zhang, Z., Lui, F., Oiao, Z., & Hu, S. (2011). Estimation of the USLE cover and management
factor C using satellite remote sensing: A review. Proceedings - 2011 19th International
Conference on Geoinformatics. doi:10.1109/GeoInformatics.2011.5980735
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Erosi 2 Jurnal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Erosi 2 Jurnal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

Relationships between erosion rates and physiographic factors of

Jeanne Godard, Jean-Pierre Barriot

To appear in: Geomorphology

Received date: 6 July 2021

© 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Relationships between erosion rates and physiographic factors of drainage

basins through a regression analysis: The case of Tahiti-Nui Island

Jeanne Godard1 and Jean-Pierre Barriot1*

* Corresponding author. Email address: jean-pierre.barriot@upf.pf

geological characteristics, in contrast with highly complex continental erosion mechanisms.

(Hildenbrand et al., 2004; Hildenbrand et al., 2008).

shore road that encircles the island.

Nui, estimated at about 0.69 km3.kyr-1 (Salvany et al., 2012).

physiographic factors of the drainage basins of Tahiti-Nui.

2. Geological and geomorphological settings

mineralogy and composition.

mathematical point of view, this is equivalent in assuming a constant C factor everywhere.

3. Material and method

regroup standard geomorphological parameters, as the Coefficient of Compactness Kc of Gravelius

discontinuities in this area (Hildenbrand et al., 2008).

representative, from the island inception, of the past rainfall distribution.

l’Urbanisme de Tahiti” (Shih et al., 2015).

(Slope_b) correspond to a Relative Uncertainty of 20%.

Slope factor (Slope_b) correspond to a Relative Uncertainty of 20%.

Tucker, 1999) with the following relationship:

to be able to solve it with an inverse problem approach (Annex A):

log(𝐸𝑅) = log(𝐾) + 𝛼1 log(𝑐1 ) + 𝛼2 log(𝑐2 ) + ⋯ (2)

(Annex A: Equation A.10) which is an indicator of the goodness-of-fit of the models.

exception of the nascent stages of the valleys.

4.2 Correlation matrices

w: Relative Width, Rf: Shape Factor, d: Depth, Kc: Coefficient of Compactness

denominator in the equation 𝐸𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝐸𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒⁄𝐸𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛. Therefore, we

excluded it from the regression models.

H 4.67 ± 7.80 H 4.56 ± 7.87 H 4.65 ± 7.77 H 1.07 ± 12.97

d -1.52 ± 3.82 d -1.50 ± 3.06 d -1.42 ± 2.58 w -0.54 ± 5.52

Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

y -0.10 ± 0.54 y -0.09 ± 0.52 y -0.03 ± 0.46 y -0.04 ± 0.48

P 3.28 ± 2.67 l 1.32 ± 2.94 l 1.46 ± 2.70 L 2.79 ± 4.99

Shape Factor, Kc: Coefficient of Compactness

that the chosen models are not contaminated by a systematic error.

found, so we discarded these models (Table 3, Annex B: Table B.1).

lithological properties and of the rainfall regime on the erosion rates.

Model 1c Model 2c Model 4c Model 13c

w -0.82 ± 3.46 Rf -0.83 ± 3.36 A 1.89 ± 2.83 S -0.64 ± 7.05

error bars, that are larger.

Relative Width, Rf: Shape Factor.

the main player to explain the erosion rates per basin.

error of the residuals (Annex A: Equation A.10).

Model 4c: 𝐸𝑅 = 𝐾 × 𝑃𝑙 𝛼𝑃𝑙 × 𝐻 𝛼𝐻 × 𝐴𝛼𝐴 × 𝑤 𝛼𝑤 (6)

Declaration of competing interest

the supervision of Professor Jean-Pierre Barriot.

the Geodesy Laboratory of Tahiti.

Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)

Least-Squares Linear Regression

assumption of ‘independent’ quantities in regression processes, by introducing, under the umbrella of

log(𝐸𝑅) = log(𝐾) + 𝛼1 log(𝑐1 ) + 𝛼2 log(𝑐2 ) + ⋯ , (A.1)

in matrix form 𝐴𝑥 = 𝑏 (A.2)

with 𝐶𝑥∗ = 𝐶𝑥 − 𝐶𝑥0 𝐴𝑇 (𝐶𝐴 + 𝐶𝑏0 + 𝐴𝐶𝑥0 𝐴𝑇 )−1 𝐴𝐶𝑥0 (A.4)

𝐶𝑏∗ = 𝐴𝐶𝑥∗ 𝐴𝑇 (A.6)

0, 𝐶𝑥0 = ∞, 𝐶𝐴 = 0, leading to the well-known formula

where the uncertainties on the estimated weights are given by

quality of the models after studying the residuals as