Introduction
1.1 Why Are Rivers Important?
Rivers are integral to Earth's hydrological cycle as well as
major agents of landscape change. One of the distinguishing
characteristics of Earth is that much of its surface consists of
water. Oceans cover 71 % of Earth's surface, glacial ice about
10% of the total land surface, and lakes about 2.0% to 3.5% of
the total nonglaciated land area (Verpoorter et al., 2014;
Messager et al., 2016). The global surface area of rivers is
only about 0.58% of Earth's nonglaciated land surface (Allen
and Pavelsky, 2018). In addition to surface water, shallow
groundwater supports the growth of terrestrial plants, which
consist mainly of water. Through evapotranspiration, subli­
mation, advection, condensation, and precipitation, water is
transferred into the atmosphere, moved laterally to new loca­
tions, and redelivered to Earth's surface. Water supplied to
land surfaces moves back to the oceans through runoff, lateral
flow of groundwater, and atmospheric processes. Within this
hydrological cycle, rivers are the main natural features that
convey water from the land surfaces to the oceans. The move­
ment of water over and through landscapes induces solution
and erosion of earth materials, the products of which are
flushed into rivers. Thus, rivers convey not only water but
also sediment and a host of biogeochemical constituents.
Rivers are important for a variety of reasons. From a human
standpoint, rivers are a major source of water. Although they
contain only 0.006% of the freshwater on Earth (Shiklomanov,
1993), rivers supply drinking water for many communities
around the world. Water from rivers also is used in industrial
operations and for irrigation of agricultural land. Rivers afford
opportunities for recreational activities and aesthetic enjoy­
ment. Through the construction of dams for the generation of
hydropower, rivers contribute substantially to energy produc­
tion. As of 2016, hydropower accounted for about 16% of total
global electricity generation and supplied 71% of all renewable
electricity (World Energy Council, 2019). Large navigable rivers
serve as vital transportation corridors for the movement of
material goods of economic value. Historically, humans have
exploited rivers as convenient disposal receptacles for waste­
water from domestic, industrial, commercial, and agricultural
activities. Recognition of the adverse effects of wastewater dis­
posal on water quality has led to the development of manage­
ment strategies that seek to prevent or mitigate pollution of
rivers and protect clean water. The intersection between rivers
and humans also can have negative consequences for society.
Flooding is the most expensive natural hazard in the United
States, generating billions of dollars in losses each year. Erosion
of riverbanks can threaten structures located along rivers and
lead to loss of property. In some areas of the world, rivers have
been established as political boundaries, and changes in the
courses of rivers over time may result in disputes between
governments. From an ecological perspective, rivers are impor­
tant components of ecosystems, supporting diverse animal and
plant communities. Alteration or pollution of rivers through
human action can disrupt these communities, generating envir­
onmental concern about ecosystem degradation. Finally, from
a geomorphological perspective, rivers are primary agents of
landscape change on Earth, delivering the majority of sediment
eroded from terrestrial landscapes to the ocean basins. Clearly,
rivers are vital to human existence and integral components of
Earth's environment.
1.1.1 Why an Emphasis on River Dynamics?
A key emphasis of this book is that rivers are inherently dynamic
features. The flow of water in rivers is ever changing in response
to variations in precipitation and runoff. Hydrological fluctua­
tions occur over the short term with changes in weather and over
Introduction
the long term with changes in climate. Anthropogenic modifica-
tions of climate associated with greenhouse gas emissions have
the potential to change the hydrology of rivers on a global scale
(Nijssen et al., 2001; Arnell and Gosling, 2016). As flow varies, so
does the amount of transported sediment, which responds to
changes in the delivery of eroded material to the river from the
surrounding landscape and to changes in the capacity of the river
to move sediment derived from its bed and banks. Changes in
flow and the amount of transported sediment occur frequently
and are conspicuous to anyone who observes a river regularly.
Less obvious in many cases, even to a regular observer, is change
in the form of a river. Although many rivers appear, at least from
a human perspective, to change little over time, this lack of
evident change merely reflects the long timescales over which
change occurs. A view of almost any river in which timespans of
decades to centuries were compressed into a few minutes would
reveal considerable change. Over such timescales, rivers move
and shift across landscapes through processes of erosion and
deposition. Over timescales of thousands to millions of years,
rivers develop and are eradicated in conjunction with the evolu-
tion of entire landscapes.
1.1.2 How Is Fluvial Geomorphology Related to the
Study of Rivers?
The study of rivers as natural components of the Earth system
falls within the Science of fluvial geomorphology - an interdisci-
plinary field that is embedded within parent disciplines of geo-
graphy and geology, but that also draws upon and intersects with
concepts' from fluid mechanics, hydraulics, hydrology, and ecol-
ogy. Growth in scholarship in fluvial geomorphology over the
past 60 to 70 years has exploded as Earth scientists have fully
recognized the important role that rivers play in Earth surface
systems. Moreover, throughout human history, settlements ran-
ging from small villages to large cities have developed near rivers
to take advantage of access to water for human consumption, for
agriculture, for industry, for power generation, and for recrea-
tion. Increasing societal concern about management of rivers,
especially management aimed at protecting environmental
values and sustaining natural functions, has greatly enhanced
public awareness of the relevance of fluvial geomorphology for
generating useful knowledge to guide environmental policy and
decision-making. Thus, fluvial geomorphology - once a rather
small, esoterie branch of Science - has blossomed into a field of
considerable scholarly and societal importance.
1.1.3 What Is the Purpose of This Book?
This book presents foundational principles in fluvial geomor­
phology and explains wfliy these principles are important for
understanding rivers as dynamic agents of change in the Earth
system. It also relates scientific understanding of rivers to
important societal concerns, including the response of rivers
to global change; impacts on rivers of land-use change, dams,
channelization, and other human activities; and efforts to
manage rivers to balance considerations of natural hazards
versus environmental quality. It presents essential Informa­
tion on the current understanding of river dynamics and. at
least to some extent, relates this understanding to manage­
ment concerns. The goal is to provide a resource both for
scientists interested in fluvial geomorphology and for practi-
tioners dealing with river management issues.
The book is organized around questions related to topics
encompassed by fluvial geomorphology. As it is a scientific
field, research within fluvial geomorphology is driven by ques­
tions. Scientists, including fluvial geomorphologists, are curious
about the world and seek knowledge by asking questions and
then engaging in research to answer those questions. In some
cases, answers to the questions are concrete, whereas in many
cases, definite answers have yet to emerge. The search for defi-
nitive answers to research questions fuels the process of scientific
inquiry.
1.2 What Is a River?
At first glance, the answer to the question “What is a river?”
may seem obvious. At the broadest level, a river can be
thought of as a body of flowing water that follows a distinct
course. This general view, while not inaccurate, does not fully
capture the complexity and, to some extent, uncertainty of
what a river is or, for that matter, is not. A river is a stream of
water in the sense that stream refers to flow. Stream also is
a term typically used to describe a small river, but no absolute
scientific criteria exist for distinguishing a river from a stream.
The form and dynamics of rivers are generally similar over
a large range of scales, indicating that the distinction between
a stream and a river is mainly colloquial.
Rivers are commonly characterized as watercourses where
flow occurs within a channel with well-defined banks. This
characterization is generally consistent with the geomorphic
perspective of a river as a channeled flow of water.
Nevertheless, complications abound. Some rivers, those referred
to as intermittent or ephemeral, flow only occasionally and are
identified as such in the absence of flow based on the existence of
a dry riverbed. Others have multiple channels or poorly defined
channel banks. Thus, not all rivers flow all the time, well-defined
banks may not always exist, and the number of channels can
vary.
Rivers also do not occur in isolation but are components of
river networks. The identification of the path of any particular
river within a network can be somewhat subjective, based on
human preferences. For example, if average amount of flow

provided the basis for making such decisions, the Ohio River
would be designated as the Mississippi River (or, alternatively,
the lower Mississippi River would be renamed the Ohio River),
because the amount of flow in the Ohio River typically exceeds
fhat of the upper Mississippi River on an annual basis. The
arrangement of rivers in networks can also lead to debate
about the length of a particular river. For many years, the Rio
Apurimac basin in Peru was considered the source of the
Amazon River; however, in 2014, geographers claimed that the
Rio Mantaro basin is the most headward source, adding
75-92 km to the maximum length of the river (Contos and
Tripcevich, 2014).
Another complicating issue is whether features produced by
contemporary river processes should be included as part of the
river. Rivers often are associated with flow within a channel or
set of channels; however, in alluvial rivers, or those carved
within sediment deposited by the river itself, the development
of depositional areas of land known as floodplains (discussed in
detail in Chapter 14) is linked closely with processes that shape
and maintain the channel. In such cases, an appropriate per-
spective is to view the channel and floodplain as integrated
components of the river, rather than identifying the river with
the channel only and viewing the floodplain as a separate fea­
ture. By contrast, bedrock rivers, or those carved into rock, may
not develop floodplains. Also, rivers that are actively incising
may become disconnected from their floodplains, so that this
feature no longer is an integral component of the river system,
Such complications show that an answer to the question
“What is a river?” is more nuanced than it may first appear.
The contents of this book inform this question comprehen-
sively, at least from a geomorphological perspective. Rivers are
also vital components of ecosystems, an issue that will be
touched upon briefly but not treated in detail.
1.3 What Is a River System?
The concept of a system is useful for examining rivers as
geomorphological features. A system is a group of interacting
components that constitute a unified whole. It is delineated by
temporal or spatial boundaries and situated within an environ-
mental setting. In open systems, energy and matter can cross
system boundaries to influence internal interactions among
system components, which determine system dynamics.
Drainage basins, also known as watersheds and catchments,
provide natural geomorphological units for defining river Sys­
tems within terrestrial landscapes (Leopold et al., 1964).
A drainage basin delimits a portion of the Earth’s surface that
contributes runoff, sediment, and dissolved constituents to
a river system. It consists of two basic components: hillslopes
and the river network. The drainage divide, a topographic
boundary separating runoff between adjacent watersheds,
1.3 What Is a River System?
Figure 1.1. Three-dimensional view of a drainage basin for the upper
part of the Sangamon River in Illinois, United States, showing drainage
divide (black line), basin outlet (red dot), and stream network (blue
lines). (A black and white version of this figure will appear in some
formats. For the color version, please refer to the plate section.)
defines the boundary of a drainage basin (Figure 1.1). Runoff
within the boundary of the drainage basin will move over or
through hillslopes into the river network within the watershed.
The downstream locus, or mouth, of the watershed provides
a common outlet for all water and sediment exiting the watershed
(Figure 1.1). A drainage basin can be defined upstream of any
particular location along a river network, ranging from the down­
stream limit, where a large river flows into the ocean, to the most
headward locations, where the smallest streams begin. Thus,
drainage basins are arranged in a hierarchical, nested
configuration.
Rivers develop within drainage basins and are influenced by
inputs of precipitation to these basins, which produce runoff
on and through hillslopes, supplying water to rivers. Runoff
on hillslopes also erodes sediment that moves into the rivers.
Thus, rivers are open systems that receive fluxes of material
from hillslopes within drainage basins.
Three interrelated components - flow, sediment transport,
and morphology - characterize a river system (Figure 1.2).
Flow varies with changes in runoff and provides the mechan-
ism for erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediment
within the river system. Under certain circumstances, sediment
transported by the river can affect hydraulic characteristics of
the flow, leading to feedback between the flow and sediment
transport. The movement of sediment shapes the morphology
of the river, especially material mobilized along the boundaries
of channelized flow - the bed and banks of the river. In many
cases, the main morphological feature associated with the river
system is a channel, but morphology includes any component
of form that is part of the river system. Some morphological
features, such as floodplains, are influenced by deposition of
fine material delivered to the river from hillslopes. River mor­
phology constrains hydraulic conditions, thereby influencing
Introduction

characteristics of the flow. According to this view, river
dynamics involve inputs of water and sediment from drainage
basins that drive interaction among flow, sediment transport,
and morphology (Figure 1.2). This structure, which appears
simple, in reality leads to complex dynamics, in part because
the interdependence is typically highly nonlinear. For example,
the existence of thresholds in river systems can result in an
abrupt change in the state or morphology of a system when the
threshold is attained or surpassed.
1.4 What Is Fluvial Geomorphology?
The field of fluvial geomorphology derives its name from
fluvius - the Latin word for river, stream, or running water; gé
(rf|) - the Greek word for land or earth; and morphé (popcpf)) -
the Greek word for form or shape. This branch of Science not
only studies how rivers shape Earth’s surface; it also examines the
dynamics of rivers. It is a subfield of geomorphology, a relatively
young Science rooted in the development of the earth Sciences,
particularly geology and physical geography (Tinkler, 1985).
1.4.1 What Is the History of Fluvial Geomorphology?
Recognition of the importance of fluvial processes in shaping
Earth’s surface emerged in the eighteenth century and was
^ Hillsiope ^ p. 208), who undertook the first organized scientific expedition
Runoff
I
closely associated with the advent of uniformitarianism. This
principle holds that natural processes operating over long time-
spans govern the dynamics of the Earth system. The foundation
of uniformitarian thought was established by James Hutton
(1795), who has been referred to as the founder of modern
geology (Bailey, 1967), the first great fluvialist (Chorley and
Beckinsdale, 1964), and even the founder of geomorphology
(Orme, 2013). Hutton’s ideas emphasized the importance of
fluvial processes in ceaselessly reshaping Earth’s surface.
Although Hutton died shortly after publishing his work, his
ideas were championed by John Playfair (1802), who expanded
on Hutton’s scheme and expressed its central tenets with
a degree of inspirational clarity that greatly surpassed the con-
voluted prose of Hutton. What has become known as Playfair’s
Law is a shining example of his eloquent style and a beautiful
articulation of the way in which rivers, arranged in networks,
carve the landscape into a system of valleys (Box 1.1). At the
time it was written, the statement countered the prevailing
notion that Earth’s valleys were carved by one or more divinely
instigated catastrophic deluges (Orme, 2013).
The term “geomorphology” was introduced in the late 1800s,
probably by geologist W.J. McGee (Tinkler, 1985), at a time
when the nascent field of landform studies was growing rapidly
through insights gained from explorations of the dramatic
landscapes of the American West (Chorley and Beckinsdale,
1964; Sack, 2013). Fluvial processes stood at the center of ideas
emerging from these explorations. John Wesley Powell (1875,
of the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, noted in his
report: “AU the mountain forms of this region are due to
erosion; aU the canons, channels of living rivers and intermit-

River
/ Sediment
w tent streams, were carved by the running waters, and they
represent an amount of corrasion difficult to comprehend.”
Morphology <— Transport PoweU introduced the seminal concept of base level, the idea
V Hillsiope
/ / that erosion by rivers has a vertical limit. In the case of
a tributary, it is the level of the main river it joins, and in the
Erosion
case of a main river that flows into the ocean, it is sea level.
Grove Karl Gilbert, who worked under the direction of John
Figure 1.2. Basic structure of a river system. Runoff and erosion on Wesley Powell, set an example for much contemporary
hillslopes within drainage basins deliver water and sediment to research in geomorphology, induding fluvial studies (Pyne,
rivers, the dynamics of which are characterized by interaction among 1980). Through his training in geology and mechanics,
flow, sediment transport, and morphology, Gilbert approached problems of landform development by

BOX 1 PLAYFAIR'S (1802) LAW

Every river appears to consist of a main trunk, fed from a variety of branches, each running in a valley proportioned
to its size, and all of them together forming a system of vallies, communicating with one another, and having such a nice
adjustment of their declivities, that none of them joins the principal valley, either on too high or too low a level;
a circumstance which would be infinitely improbable, if each of these vallies were not the work of the stream that flows in it.

integrating field observations with physical theory. His work on
the Henry Mountains in Utah invoked systeras concepts, equi-
librium thinking, and force-balance relations to explain how
running water acts to shape landscapes through erosion and
deposition (Gilbert, 1877). He introduced the concept of grade,
a state of dynamic adjustment whereby a river attains a capacity
of transport equivalent to the amount of sediment supplied to
it. Later in his career, he conducted seminal experimental
research on the transportation of sediment by running water
(Gilbert, 1914) and tried to use knowledge he gained from these
experiments to understand how the introduction of vast
amounts of sediment by humans from hydraulic mining for
gold affected rivers of the Siërra Nevada (Gilbert, 1917) (see
Chapter 15).
The development of geomorphology accelerated between
the late 1800s and the early 1900s when William Morris
Davis, a geologist at Harvard who also championed the
development of geography as a formal academie discipline
in the United States, proposed his theory of the geographi
cal cycle, or cycle of erosion (Davis. 1889, 1899). This
theory held that landscapes uplifted above sea level and
eroded by fluvial action evolve through a systematic
sequence of distinctive stages (Figure 1.3). An uplifted
landscape progresses through stages of youth, maturity,
and old age as rivers incise into it and hillslopes produced
by river incision are worn down by surface runoff.
Eventually, the entire landscape, if not uplifted beforehand,
is beveled to a flat surface standing just above sea level -
a feature Davis referred to as a peneplain. The cyclic aspect
of the theory comes into play when uplift eventually recurs,
reinitiating the sequential stages of development. The scope
of the theory addressed the evolution of landscapes of
regional extent over timespans involving millions or tens
of millions of years. The impact of Davis and his theory
was enormous and dominated geomorphological inquiry
from the late 1800s to the middle of the twentieth century
(Chorley et al., 1973). This method of inquiry mainly
involved trying to classify landscapes into stages of the
cycle through visual observations or map-based analysis
of landscape characteristics combined with descriptive geo-
logical investigations that focused on defining the relative
timing of different stages of landscape evolution. Although
cyclic models were developed for landscapes other than
those dominated by fluvial erosion in humid-temperate
environments (e.g. Hobbs, 1921), and alternative perspec-
tives on landscape evolution emerged in response to the
Davisian view (e.g. King, 1953; Penck, 1972), all these
models also were qualitative. Thus, geomorphology text-
books published between 1900 and 1950 were largely
descriptive treatises on how landforms, including rivers,
develop and change (Rhoads, 2013).
1.4 What Is Fluvial Geomorphology?
Table 1.1. Elements of a dynamic basis of
geomorphology.
• Study of geomorphological processes and landforms as
various kinds of responses to gravitational and molecular
stresses acting on earth materials
• Quantitative determination of landform characteristics and
causative factors .
• Formulation of empirical equations by mathematical
statistics
• Building concepts of open dynamic systems and steady States
for all geomorphological processes
• Deduction of general mathematical models to serve as natural
quantitative laws ,
(from Strahler, 1952a)
Seminal work by Robert E. Horton (1945), a hydraulic engi-
neer, on the erosional development of drainage basins and
stream networks based on physical reasoning planted a seed
of change amongst a new generation of geomorphologists who
were increasingly dissatisfied with the qualitative Davisian
approach. A subsequent landmark paper by Arthur Strahler
(1952a) called for a dynamic basis of geomorphology focusing
on a quantitative approach to the study of landforms and the
processes that shape landforms (Table 1.1). This new perspec-
tive, which supplanted the Davisian view and has persisted
since the 1950s, emphasizes the importance of understanding
processes and process-form interactions in producing knowl­
edge of geomorphic systems (Rhoads, 2013). It is consistent
with Gilbert’s approach to geomorphological inquiry, which
was long overshadowed by Davis’s ideas. The conception of
geomorphic processes, including those related to rivers, as the
manifestation of mechanistic action has led to the infusion of
principles from classical (Newtonian) mechanics into geomor­
phology. Foundational work in fluid dynamics and hydraulics
by Daniël Bernoulli (1700-1782), Antoine de Chezy (1718-
1792), Robert Manning (1816-1897), William Froude (1810-
1879), and Osbourne Reynolds (1842-1912) has become rele­
vant to process-based studies of river dynamics. Thus, contem-
porary fluvial geomorphology has twin historica! roots: one
planted in the earth Sciences (geology and physical geography)
and the other in the development and application of classical
mechanics to topics related to rivers (hydraulics and fluid
dynamics) (Orme, 2013).
A major change in fluvial geomorphology that accompanied
the shift toward process-based inquiry has been a focus on
issues with time and space scales that coincide with societal
concerns related to rivers. Whereas the Davisian perspective
tended to examine how rivers shaped landscapes over regional
scales and millions of years, the process approach embraces
studies examining how individual rivers or sections of rivers
Introduction
C In late youth, valley slopes predominate but some interstream
uplands remain.
E In late maturity, relief is subdued, valley floors broad.
G Uplift of the region brings on a rejuvenation, or second cycle
of denudation, shown here to have reached early maturity.
Figure 1.3. Stages in the cycle of erosion (from Strahler, 1965).
are influenced by individual formative events or changes in the
frequency of these events, It also explores the role of humans
as geomorphic agents who are capable of changing rivers
directly and triggering responses to these changes. The rele-
vance of fluvial geomorphology to river management and to
attempts to protect, preserve, or improve the environmental
quality of river Systems has therefore increased, resulting in
rapid growth in research in this field of Science (Figure 1.4)
and in its visibility within the public domain.
D in maturity, the region consists of valley slopes and narrow
divldes.
F In old age, a peneplain with monadnocks is formed.
1.4.2 What Are the Different Styles of Scientific
Inquiry in Fluvial Geomorphology?
Scientific inquiry in fluvial geomorphology is diverse. Any
scheme that attempts to capture the full range of diversity
will almost certainly be incomplete. With that in mind, at least
seven different styles of inquiry can be recognized (Table 1.2).
These styles are not necessarily mutually exclusive and often
intersect to some extent within individual investigations.

Year
Figure 1.4. Increase in number of publications containing topic
wotds fluvial and geomorphology between 1970 and 2018 based on
a Web of Science© search.
Many theoretical principles in fluvial geomorphology derive
from the basic Sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology.
Examples from physics include conservation of mass and
momentum as well as force-resistance relations. Gravitational
forces and fluid forces are the principal types of forces acting in
river systems, and expressions for these forces typically are
derived from principles of mechanics, at least at the highest
level of formalism. Developing foundational principles within
fluvial geomorphology that have the same level of certainty as
principles from foundational Sciences has proven challenging.
For example, sediment transport is an essential fluvial process,
and considerable effort has been devoted to the search for
universal geomorphic transport laws (Dietrich et al, 2003;
Hicks and Gomez, 2016). Despite this effort, the development
of such universal relations remains elusive.
Other principles, sometimes referred to as regulative prin­
ciples, are qualitative. Regulative principles constrain possibi-
lities related to the structure or dynamics of a fluvial system
and therefore provide a basis for the development of explana-
tory frameworks (Rhoads and Thorn, 1993). Examples of such
principles include optimality conditions, such as a fluvial Sys­
tem tending toward a steady state or toward a state that
minimizes or maximizes a system property, and nonlinear
dynamical behavior, such as evolution of the system toward
an attractor state or along a distinct trajectory. Whether qua­
litative or quantitative, sets of principles provide guidance for
the development of models, either mathematical or concep-
tual, to represent the structure and dynamics of fluvial systems.
1.4 What Is Fluvial Geomorphology?
Table 1.2. Styles of inquiry in fluvial geomorphology.
Theoretical Development of conceptual, logical, or
mathematical principles that constitute
theoretical constructs
Experimental Production of Information through
constrained measurements under controlled
conditions
Hypothetical Development and evaluation of simple to
(modeling) sophisticated models developed through
analogical reasoning based on theoretical
knowledge Exploration of model
implications through simulations and
sensitivity testing
Taxonomie Ordering of variety through comparisons of
similarities and differences among individual
objects Discovery of natural affinities to
establish classes and categories
Statistical/ Assessment of expectations versus outcomes
probabilistic based on probabilities Documenting/
discovering statistical regularities and
associations
Historica! Analysis of development or change over time.
Postulation of causes that led to this
Case study Analysis of a single or small number of cases to
establish detailed case-specific knowledge that,
through informal inferences, can inform
theoretical knowledge
(after Rhoads, 1999)
Contemporary perspectives within geomorphology
embrace the model-theoretic view (MTV) of scientific theory
(Rhoads and Thorn, 2011). According to MTV, models are the
primary constituents of theory structure. Models connect
theoretical and regulative principles to testable hypotheses
about the real world (theoretical models) and also provide
data-based representations of these models (data models).
Empirical testing involves comparing hypotheses derived
from theoretical models with evidence embedded in data
models (Figure 1.5). Theoretical models are representational
devices that facilitate intellectual access to real-world phe-
nomena; in the case of fluvial geomorphology, representation
focuses on river systems. The manner of representation
includes descriptions, mathematical equations, probabilistic
functions, computer algorithms, diagrams, pictorial displays,
images, and physical artifacts (i.e., “hardware”) (Odoni and
Lane, 2011; Grant et al., 2013; van de Wiel et al, 2016).
However, no single model fully captures the content of
 Introduction
Theoretical Principles
Theoretical
. Definitions
Family of Theoretical Models
Model-based
Reasoning
Hypotheses
(Linking the Theoretical Model
to Real-world Phenomena)
Empirical
Testing
Figure 1.5. The model-theoretic view of scientific theory (adapted
from Rhoads and Thorn, 2011).
a theory. Because many different discrete representations of
theoretical principles are possible, these principles provide
support for an interconnected set, or family, of models.
Thus, according to MTV, a theory comprises a set of theore­
tical principles and a family of models that embodies these
principles (Giere, 1988).
Data models also are representational, hut these models
represent real-world phenomena through Information, or
data, collected about the phenomena. The collection and
processing of data are guided by theory and conducted
with a theoretical objective in mind - usually a hypothesis
or set of hypotheses derived from a theoretical model. The
'result of data processing is a data model. The processed
information embodied in the data model provides the basis
for testing the hypotheses derived from the theoretical
model. In cases where theoretical understanding of
a phenomenon is uncertain, data models may be developed
relatively autonomously from theoretical models. However,
scientists continuously strive to link data models that yield
intriguing patterns or outcomes to explanatory theoretical
principles through the development of theoretical models.
Thus, models and theory are intertwined at all levels of
scientific practice.
The MTV also provides a basis for embracing different
styles of inquiry (Table 1.2). Theoretical, hypothetical, and
taxonomie styles provide the basis for the formulation of
theoretical models, whereas experimental, historical, and
case study approaches relate closely to the production of
data models. Statistical/probabilistic styles of inquiry may
contribute to either type of model, depending on the specific
way in which the model is applied.
Over the past several decades, the development of analytical
and numerical models of river systems has increased drama-
tically (Coulthard and Van de Wiel, 2013a; Nelson et al, 2016;
Pizzuto, 2016). Such models provide the basis for the devel­
opment of sets of hypotheses about the dynamics of fluvial
systems. Predictions about some aspect of a river system
produced by a model represent hypotheses. In using the
model to generale predictions, it is assumed that the under-
lying governing equations of the model represent valid repre­
sentations of a river system. Hypothesis testing involves
comparing the model predictions with results of data models
derived from a systematic measurement program. Validated
models can then be used to develop additional predictions
about river systems that extend beyond the domain of the
information and setting on which the data model was based.
This use of validated mathematical models to explore poten-
tial real-world implications can be thought of as a form of
experimentation (Kirkby, 1996; Church, 2011); however, the
outcomes of numerical experiments, to be connected to the
real world, must be validated through empirical testing using
appropriate data models. Thus, numerical experimentation is
a method of hypothesis generation rather than a method of
generating observations for model testing, as is the case with
empirical experimentation. In this sense, predictions or fore-
casts generaled by mathematical models represent sophisti­
cated thought experiments (Kirkby, 1996).
Taxonomy, or classification, as in any scientific endeavor,
has played and continues to play an important role in fluvial
geomorphology (Buffington and Montgomery, 2013; Kondolf
et al., 2016). The stages in Davis’s cycle of erosion (Figure 1.3)
represent categories of landscape development. Today, fluvial
geomorphologists continue to try to determine general char-
acteristics of river systems to provide the basis for identifying
distinct kinds of rivers. This effort to classify constitutes
a basic form of theorizing, in the sense that generalization is
accomplished by hypothesizing that different kinds of rivers
exist and that each kind of river shares common properties
compared with other kinds. Classes, once established, also
provide the basis for further theorizing about causal mechan-
isms that lead to the development of different kinds of rivers.
Over time, however, classes may change as theoretical under­
standing evolves (Church, 2011).
Empirical experimental research in geomorphology, which
plays an important role in the development of data models, is
not restricted solely to the use of scaled physical (hardware)
models (e.g. Peakall et al, 1996) but can be viewed more

Table 1.3. Types of experimental research in
geomorphology.
Scaled Physical Use of a scaled physical model of a fluvial
Experiments feature, usually in a laboratory setting,
where an attempt is made to ensure
similarity of geometrical, kinematic, and
dynamical criteria between the model and
a field prototype
Classic Field Intentional direct interference with natural
Experiments conditions of a fluvial landscape to obtain
controlled results on processes that shape
the landscape or on the conditions that
govern landscape change
Unscaled Use of unscaled physical models or small-
(Analog) scale natural features to explore the possible
Experiments behavior of full-scale field prototypes
Paired Field Comparison of two or more similar fluvial
Experiments landscapes in which at least one of the
features is deliberately manipulated and at
least one is not manipulated
Statistical Field
Use of multiple cases or plots to evaluate
Experiments the effects of different treatments or case-
specific conditions
Inadvertent Field Manipulation of a fluvial feature for
Experiments a purpose other than experimentation that
provides an extraordinary opportunity to
document the response of the feature to
a specific type of change
(adapted from Church, 2011)
generously as encompassing a variety of field investigations
(Table 1.3). Unscaled physical models have been widely used
in fluvial geomorphology to explore the dynamics of river
systems (Schumm et al., 1987; Metivier et al, 2016). Insights
provided by such models, despite the lack of strict scaling with
field prototypes, have been substantial (Paola et al., 2009),
Inadvertent experimental opportunities to study river
responses to human-induced change are not uncommon,
given that humans have modified river channels in a variety
of ways for purposes other than scientific experimentation.
Intentional field experiments for a scientific purpose are less
common, but recent efforts have sought to attain at least
partial experimental control at field scales (Wohl, 2013a;
Sukhodolov, 2015).
Process-based field investigations in fluvial geomorphology
commonly implement rigorous measurement protocols
designed explicitly to test hypotheses derived from theoretical
models at a single site or a small number of sites. Measurement
1.4 What Is Fluvial Geomorphology?
protocols for such investigations are based on a theory-guided
experimental design, but in the field it is typically not possible to
control boundary conditions, such as the inputs of flow and
sediment to the reach under study or the composition and
morphology of the channel bed and banks within this reach.
It is possible, however, to document the boundary conditions in
detail. This information on boundary conditions provides the
basis for calibrating theoretical models to predict river
dynamics in the specific field situation of interest. Testing
involves comparing model predictions with outcomes of data
models generaled by field measurements. These process-based
case studies (Table 1.2) are pseudo-experimental in the sense
that complete experimental control is not achieved, but data are
collected using an experimental design aimed at testing theore­
tical models within specific field contexts (Richards, 1996).
Statistical analysis became prominent in fluvial geomor­
phology after the transition to process-based research in the
1950s. Many field studies in fluvial geomorphology involve
collection of data sets with large sample sizes and analysis of
the collected data using statistical methods to try to isolate the
independent covariance between variables of interest (Piegay
and Vaudor, 2016). Some of this work is highly exploratory
with only a weak connection to explanatory theoretical prin-
ciples. Other work, such as statistical modeling, intersects with
the hypothetical style of inquiry (Rhoads, 1992); statistical
models are often formulated a priori based on theoretical
reasoning, and then hypotheses embedded in the models are
evaluated through significance testing by statistically fitting
the model to empirical data. Many bivariate and multivariate
relations in fluvial geomorphology are expressed in the form
of power functions, given that variables related to rivers typi­
cally have log-normal probability distributions (Appendix A).
Familiarity with power functions and the method by which
such functions are derived statistically is therefore important
for understanding statistical associations related to river
systems.
Historical studies in fluvial geomorphology rely on two types
of information: historical records produced intentionally by
direct measurement or monitoring programs and geohistorical
data derived from the artifacts of human or biophysical activ-
ities. Systematic attempts to collect scientific data of relevance
to understanding rivers are relatively recent. Relevant sources
that can provide information about past conditions of rivers
include newspaper articles, old maps, land survey records,
stream gaging data, sediment discharge information, ground-
based photographs, bridge surveys, and travel accounts
(Trimble and Cooke, 1991; Trimble, 2008, 2013; Grabowski
and Gurnell, 2016). Aerial photography, available for areas in
the United States since the 1930s, and satellite remote-sensing
imagery, available for most areas of the world since the 1960s,
now afford remarkable opportunities to examine dynamic
I
Introduction
change in the characteristics of rivers over time (Gilvear and
Bryant, 2016), particularly given that most of these data are in
the public domain. Geohistorical data typically extend beyond
the limited temporal domain of human-generated information
on river Systems, Such data include sedimentological informa­
tion, methods of absolute and relative dating, biogeochemical
analyses, and archeological artifacts (Brown et al, 2016;
Jacobson et al., 2016).
1.4.3 What Are the Basic Types of Scientific
Reasoning in Fluvial Geomorphology?
Two distinct types of scientific reasoning are common in
fluvial geomorphology: deductive reasoning and abductive
reasoning. Both these types of reasoning are informed by
theory, but in different ways (Rhoads and Thorn, 1993).
Deductive reasoning is common in process-based approaches
to inquiry, which typically involve testing of theoretical
hypotheses about general process or process-form relations.
Theoretical hypotheses are derived deductively from theore­
tical models, Such hypotheses typically have the form if A,
then B, where commonly A is a cause and B is an effect.
Testing of deductive theoretical hypotheses in process-based
studies involves comparing the claims of these hypotheses
with results embodied in a data model. Ideally, the test should
involve generation of A and confirmation that A causes
B through data-based evidence embodied in a data model.
Of course, if B does not occur, or occurs because of a cause
other than A, the outcome of the test would not support the
hypothesis. In some instances (e.g., nonexperimental condi-
tions), it may not be possible to generale A directly; in such
cases, process-based studies typically rely on abductive
reasoning.
Many studies based on historical sources of information,
but particularly those that rely on geohistorical data, are
fundamentally reconstructive in nature in that the goal is to
determine the event or series of events (A) that caused the
development of a contemporary fluvial feature. In such cases,
data on the cause (A) are not directly or even indirectly
available (e.g., a large flood that occurred in the distant past
cannot be “remeasured” if it was not measured at the time it
occurred). As a result, abductive, rather than deductive, rea­
soning is common in geohistorical investigations. This rea­
soning involves first observing a feature B (an effect) for which
one seeks an explanatory cause (A). By Consulting background
knowledge, a potential explanation of the type “if A, then B” is
identified as providing a possible explanation for B. In other
words, A becomes a hypothetical cause of B. Abductive rea­
soning based on geohistorical information has an inherently
higher level of uncertainty than deductive reasoning based on
direct documentation of cause-effect relations because the
documentation of a particular effect (B) does not guarantee
the occurrence of a specific cause (A) (Rhoads and Thorn,
1993). Another cause (C) may also account for the particular
effect of interest (B). Typically, further work is needed to
evaluate the hypothesis. For example, if A causes D in addition
to B, and evidence for D can be confirmed in conjunction with
B, the hypothesis gains further support.
A complication of simple cause-effect reasoning in fluvial
geomorphology is that rivers are situated within complex
natural environments, where a variety of factors can affect
these systems. In particular, contingency is often a major
consideration in determining how rivers are structured and
how they change through time. This contingency includes
attributes of the particular contemporary environmental set­
ting in which the river is located as well as the particular
historical sequence of circumstances that have shaped the
characteristics of the river. In this sense, every river is unique.
Although this inherent contingency confounds determina-
tions of the extent to which general physical principles govern
river dynamics, it also highlights how manifestations of pro-
cesses governed by general principles develop in particular
instances. From a scientific perspective, the variety of different
methods of inquiry (Table 1.2) provide tools for trying to
unravel the interrelated roles of generality and specificity in
river dynamics. From a practical standpoint of river manage­
ment, consideration of the influence of contingent factors on
river dynamics is important, particularly when the focus of
management is on a particular river.
1.5 How Do the Dynamics of River Systems
Vary over Time and Space?
The dynamics of river systems, which are related to the hydro-
logical and hydraulic characteristics of river flow, vary over
a wide range of temporal and spatial scales. River flows are
turbulent (see Chapter 4); thus, the smallest relevant scales of
dynamic variability of these flows are defined by the smallest
length (femin) and time scales of turbulent flow, known as
Kolmogorov microscales:
0.25
fcmin 1 (1.1)
£d
(1.2)
where v is the kinematic viscosity of water and ej is the
turbulent dissipation rate (Tennekes and Lumley, 1972).
Assuming a value of v for water at 20 °C (1.00 x 10~6 m2 s_1)
and a value of for turbulent river flow of 0.0005 m2 s~3
(Sukhodolov et al, 1998) yields Kolmogorov microscales of
femin ~ 0.0002 m and Gnin = 0.04 s. The time-space domain
 1.5 How Do River Dynamics Vary?

107 -
Seasonal Climate change
106 - variability \__
\
105 -
Inter-
annual
104 - Runoft variability
events
103 -

E. 102 —
t 101 -

io° -

KT1 -
Turbulence
IQ”2 -

KT
1 min 1 hr 1 day ,1 yr , 1000 yrs 1000000 yrs
10~ T 1----- I----1 1 rn i rn i
10“2 10_1 10° 101 102 1 03 1 04 1 05 106 1 07 1 08 109 1 01° 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 Figure 1.6. Time-space domains
Time (s) of flow dynamics in rivers.

Network Link Planform Bar Unit Bar Element Bedform Grain

Section of Segments of a integrated erosional- Erosional and depositional Bedforms Individual grains
Arrangement of
stream link that have depositional units elements of bar units (e.g., ripples,
streams in a
between uniform on the channel (e.g., pools, scour holes, dunes, antidunes)
network within
nodes or planform bed riffles, point bars,
a drainage basin
confluences characteristics alternate bars)

Figure 1.7. Hierarchical morphological structure of alluvial river systems.

of turbulence extends up to coherent turbulent structures that
in the world’s largest rivers may be a hundred meters in
diameter and evolve over timescales of many minutes
(Figure 1.6).
Variations in runoff associated with changing weather con-
ditions are a major source of flow variability in rivers. The
duration of individual hydrological events can vary from a few
minutes in the smallest streams to several weeks in large rivers.
Highly localized events may affect only a few hundreds of
meters of small streams, whereas large storms can produce
variations in flow that extend over hundreds of kilometers of
river length. Seasonal variability is another factor that can
produce spatial and temporal variation in river flow. The
timescale of this variability, which may affect broad geographic
areas, is typically several months. Weather conditions also vary
from year to year or over periods of years, resulting in inter-
annual variability in river flow. Over timescales of decades to
millennia, changes in climate can contribute to flow variability.
The spatial domain of climate change extends to the global
scale. Changes in river flow at this scale are of growing concern
in relation to humandnduced climate change.
The morphological structure of alluvial river systems within
drainage basins can be viewed hierarchically (Figures 1.7 and
1.8). At the largest scales, rivers form branching networks that
extend throughout drainage basins. Discrete segments of rivers
between nodes where streams join, also known as confluences,
12 Introduction
10'1 10° 101 102 103 104 105 106 10'
i ime (s)
constitute links. Within links, the pattern or planform of the
river - what it looks like when viewed from above - becomes
evident. Within rivers with different types of planforms, distinc-
tive patterns of erosion and deposition on the channel bed
produce bar units. Parts of bar units are associated with discrete
morphological features, or bar dements, that differ in substrate
composition and elevation of the channel bed. At still smaller
scales, different types of bedforms develop within the river
system. Individual grains represent the smallest morphological
units within river Systems, but the absolute size of individual
grains can vary over several orders of magnitude, ranging from
large boulders a meter or more in diameter to microscopie clay
particles.
The morphodynamics of river systems vary depending on
the morphological features of interest. Three relevant time-
scales can be identified: geologie, modem, and event (Figure
1.9) (Schumm and Lichty, 1965). Large drainage basins and
river networks evolve over thousands to millions or even tens
of millions of years. The evolution of watershed size, shape,
and relief; of vegetation throughout watersheds; and of the
characteristics of the stream networks within these water­
sheds generally occurs over geologie timescales. These
aspects of river system morphology are dependent mainly
on the climatic and geological conditions that exist over
these long time intervals (Figure 1.9), Geological conditions
include the type of rock into which the watershed is carved,
structural characteristics of this rock, such as folding and
faulting, and the spatial extent and rate of tectonic activity.
Over geologie timescales, drainage basins and river networks
NetWork
(also tectonics
drainage basinj
1000000 yrs
^«11 ,„13 ,„14 .„15
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Figure 1.8. Time-space domains of
fluvial morphodynamics.
come into existence, coevolve, and are eradicated as the
Earth’s terrestrial surfaces are affected by global changes in
climate and tectonism. Climate influences runoff and ero­
sion, which carve drainage basins and stream networks into
the geological framework of the landscape. It also plays
a major role in determining the type of vegetation on the
landscape. The properties of the drainage basin, river net­
werk, and vegetation, along with climate and geology, in turn
shape the form of bedrock channels, which typically evolve
over geologie timescales. Moreover, these factors determine
the past (paleo-) hydrology, hydraulics, and morphology of
rivers, evidence of which is sometimes preserved in the
sedimentary record.
Although the properties of drainage basins, stream net­
works, and river longitudinal profiles change continuously
over time through the interplay of erosional, depositional,
and tectonic activity, amounts of change usually are negligible
over timescales of decades to centuries. These properties,
along with characteristics of vegetation, are, in many
instances, relatively constant over modern timescales. The
hydrological and sediment regimes of a river system within
a drainage basin consist of flows and sediment fluxes of
different magnitudes and frequencies occurring through
time and over space in conjunction with characteristics of
climate, vegetation, and drainage-basin morphology.
Depending on the properties of these regimes and the extent
to which the regimes are stationary, characteristic forms can
develop in alluvial rivers. These aspects of river morphology
exhibit constancy over time in the sense that they vary not at
 1.5 How Do River Dynamics Vary?

Geologie Modern Event

103+ yrs 101-102+yrs <10° yrs
Geology River network
River network characteristics
Geology Climate and
Geology Climate characteristics weather River longitudinal
Climate profiles
River longitudinal Vegetation
Vegetation profiles River Drainage basin size,
paleomorphology shape, relief
River Drainage basin
paleomorphology size, shape, relief Hydrological/ Characteristic alluvial
▼
sedment regime channel form

Vegetation Drainage basin

size, shape, relief t 1
River network River longitudinal Event hydrology
Hydrological/sediment regime
characteristics profiles

i v ▼

Bedrock channel Characteristic alluvial Event hydraulics

River
channel form
paleomorphology form / \
River paleohydraulics/ Transient alluvial Event sediment
paleohydrology channel form ^ transport

Figure 1.9. Hierarchical structure of river morphodynamics and controlling factors over different timescales. Absolute times in years associated
with geologie, modern, and event timescales are approximate. Arrows indicate direction of causality (adapted from Schumm and Lichty, 1965).

all or fluctuate only a small amount about a constant average
state over modem timescales, even though the hydrologie and
sediment regimes encompass considerable variability in the
magnitudes of flows and sediment fluxes produced by discrete
hydrological events. The concept of characteristic forms often
is equated with the regulative principle of a steady or equili-
brium state; however, considerable confusion surrounds the
use of equilibrium terminology in geomorphology (Thorn
and Welford, 1994). Despite this confusion, the notion of
equilibrium States in river systems often provides the basis
for contemporary environmental management of rivers.
Over timescales of individual hydrological events or series
of events, i.e., event timescales, many aspects of channel form
exhibit transient dynamics (Figure 1.9). For many fluvial
systems, event dynamics occur within the context of charac­
teristic forms, which constrain these dynamics (Figure 1.9).
Transiency in rivers that develop characteristic forms is lim-
ited because unchanging aspects of channel form regulate
interaction among hydraulic conditions, sediment transport,
and channel form. Nevertheless, in many rivers, even those
that remain fairly constant in form, channel position can
change through event-driven avulsion or migration. Bar
forms and bed forms can be rearranged as flow varies within
an event or between events. Sorting of sediment on the surface
of bar dements may be altered as the flow rises and falls.
Not all rivers develop characteristic forms; some exhibit
marked transient morphodynamics, even over modern time­
scales. In rivers that are highly sensitive to change, virtually all
aspects of river morphology can be rearranged by discrete events.
The form of such rivers does not vary closely about a constant
average morphological state. For these rivers, event dynamics
may occur over timescales much greater than 10° years.
The hierarchical structure of morphodynamics over space
and time provides two important lessons for understanding
river systems. First, processes that occur elsewhere along
a river, within the network of which the river is part, and
within the watershed within which the river is situated influ-
ence the form and dynamics of a river at any particular loca-
tion. This lesson emphasizes the importance of spatial
connectivity within river systems (Czuba and Foufoula-
Georgiou, 2015), even though the understanding of this con­
nectivity is far from complete (Fryirs, 2013). Second, not all
aspects of the river system change dynamically at the same
rates or are influenced by the same temporal scales of flow
variability. Thus, rivers have morphological “memories”
related to historical change. A river is a “physical system
with a history” (Schumm, 1977, p. 10). Although it is clear
that river dynamics encompass an immense range of temporal
scales, understanding of interconnections among processes
and forms across this range of scales is far from complete.
Introduction
1.6 What Is the Role of Humans in River
Dynamics?
Missing from the time-space conceptual scheme (Figure
1.9) is the role of human agency. Increasingly, humans
have become agents of change in river systems. An abon­
dance of geomorphological research over the past several
decades shows that humans are substantially affecting river
systems at the event and modern timescales (see Chapter
15). In some cases, humans also appear to be producing
long-lasting effects that may persist over geologie time.
Through watershed-scale modifications of vegetation
cover and climate, hydrological and sediment regimes are
altered, resulting in changes in channel form. These same
modifications can affect the characteristics of individual
hydrological events and the responses of rivers to these
events. Moreover, humans have directly altered rivers by
reconfiguring the form of channels, by reshaping flood-
plains, and by constructing barriers, such as dams, along
rivers. These activities have been pursued through attempts
to manage rivers to achieve specific societal goals. Over the
past several decades, management strategies have arisen
that focus explicitly on environmental goals. Although
such strategies seek to enhance environmental quality, in
many cases they still involve active manipulation of rivers.
Proper understanding of river dynamics is essential for
effective river management. Past management efforts that
have failed to fully consider how rivers respond to human
intervention have often led to unanticipated and undesired
consequences. Only by understanding how rivers respond
to change can management attain the intended goals while
avoiding negative consequences.