Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomorphology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

Progressive evolution of thrust fold topography in the frontal Himalaya

Donny R. Wahyudi ⁎, Hugh D. Sinclair, Simon M. Mudd
School of GeoSciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The bulk of the crustal shortening across the Himalayas is accommodated across the Main Frontal Thrust (MFT),
Received 20 November 2020 forming the topographic ridges of the Siwalik Hills. Here, we quantify topographic metrics to document the geo-
Received in revised form 25 March 2021 morphic response to progressive shortening. We use the integral method of channel profile analysis to assess the
Accepted 25 March 2021
topographic response to the development of thrust anticline ridges in the eastern and western Churia, Dundwa,
Available online 1 April 2021
and Mohand Ranges. River channel steepness (ksn), the distribution of knickpoints, and channel concavity (θ) in
Keywords:
the Siwalik Hills indicate geomorphic evolution during ongoing shortening across the deformation front. Mean
Himalayan frontal range channel steepness indices increase with increasing shortening over the Quaternary amongst the eastern Churia
Topographic analyses (~3.8 km shortening), Mohand (~6.9 km shortening), and Dundwa Ranges (~9 km shortening). Higher channel
Drainage divide migration steepness at the western tip of the Churia Range (~0.4 km shortening) than in the eastern Churia and Mohand
Progressive landscape evolution Ranges may indicate that the topography is still responding to the initial stages of shortening and relative uplift.
Balanced cross sections reveal that there is spatial variability in the growth of these ranges, and as shortening in-
creases, the drainage divide migrates southward (away from the mountains) relative to the flat-ramp transition
of the underlying thrust; this results in steepening of the southward-draining catchments (basinward facing),
and elongation of the northward flowing catchments. Basinward facing channels also have more prominent
knickpoints and greater channel concavities caused by ongoing shortening between their fluvial base level and
the drainage divide; this contrasts with the mountain facing channels where there is net growth of the distance
between the drainage divide and the base level. Despite the asymmetry of erosional processes, the southward
displacement of the drainage divide over the underlying thrust ramp drives topographic advection into the fore-
land succession which eventually leads to the propagation of new thrust-cored ridges.
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Himalayan mountain range is formed by ongoing convergence be-
tween India and Asia at rates of 40–50 mm.a−1 (Gansser, 1964; Meghani,
2015; Patriat and Achache, 1984). Approximately 35–45% of this shorten-
ing is accommodated across the thin-skinned fold and thrust belt of the
Sub-Himalaya (Dey et al., 2016; Powers et al., 1998; Yin, 2006; Yin and
Harrison, 2000). The Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) emerges from a detach-
ment level in the lower Siwalik Group foreland basin succession, and rep-
resents the southern-most propagation of crustal shortening of the range,
initiated during early Quaternary times (Bilham et al., 2001; Lavé and
Avouac, 2001; Mukul et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 1993).
GPS data indicate historical shortening rates across the Himalaya of
between 13 and 20 mm.a−1 increasing from west to east, but locked be-
neath the Sub-Himalaya (Feldl and Bilham, 2006; Stevens and Avouac,
2015). The northern margin of the Sub-Himalaya is defined by the Main
Boundary Thrust (MBT) that overthrusts the mainly Palaeozoic rocks of
the Lesser Himalaya over the Siwalik Group (Fig. 1). The fold and thrust
structures of the Sub-Himalaya are classed as fault-propagation and
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: donny.wahyudi@ed.ac.uk (D.R. Wahyudi).
fault-bend folds (Mitra, 1990) that form characteristic topographic ridges
that run broadly parallel to the mountain front (Dey et al., 2016, 2018;
Hirschmiller et al., 2014; Husson and Mugnier, 2003; Khanal and
Robinson, 2013; Mugnier et al., 1999; Mukul, 2000; Powers et al., 1998;
Srivastava et al., 2018; Thakur et al., 2014). Alluviated, intermontane val-
leys called duns are commonly located immediately north of the topo-
graphic ridges, formed by sediment trapping behind the ridges (Barnes
et al., 2011; Densmore et al., 2016; Tandon and Singh, 2014).
The interaction between the topographic growth of Sub-Himalayan
ridges and the rivers that flow downstream from the Himalayan range
is critical to understanding sediment delivery to the Gangetic Plains.
The initiation and progressive surface uplift of the ridges can result in
gorges where rivers retain their course and incise through the uplifting
topography. Alternatively, river channels may be deflected as they are
blocked and forced to run parallel to the range, often forming a dun, be-
fore exiting to the plains (Burbank et al., 1996; Gupta, 1997); wind gaps
may be preserved along the ridgelines where abandoned river valleys
are preserved. Examples can be found in northwestern Sub-Himalaya,
where continuous convergence has created imbricated thrusts in the
Kangra basin, which deflect the river parallel to the regional strike and
preserve terraces as the topography is uplifted (Dey et al., 2016;
Thakur et al., 2014). The tendency to either incise or deflect a river

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107717
0169-555X/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd
Fig. 1. Simplified geological sketch map of the central and western Himalaya (modified after Parsons et al., 2016). The letter-coded lines (A-A'; B-B′; C-C′; D-D′) correspond to the
geological cross sections in Fig. 2. White arrows are showing the rate of shortening on each location (mm.a−1) (Stevens and Avouac, 2015). Red boxes are outlining the locations of
the study area.
channel results from the competition between the erosive capacity of
the river and the uplift rate of the ridge, which is a function of the short-
ening rate and the dip angle of the thrust plane (Champel, 2002). Where
rivers are able to incise through the growing topography, terraces re-
cord the progressive uplift of the floodplain. When dated, these terraces
can record shortening rates over the last few thousands of years as dem-
onstrated by the rivers that flow south across the Sub-Himalaya (Dey
et al., 2016; Gavillot et al., 2016; Lavé and Avouac, 2000; Mukul et al.,
2007; Paul Burgess et al., 2012; Vassallo et al., 2015).
As well as the interaction between the topographic growth of these
structures and the main through-flowing trunk rivers, studies have ex-
plored how the numerous smaller channels that are sourced at the drain-
age divide of the ridges respond to uplift. Differential rates of rock uplift
and varying lithologies determine the distribution of topographic relief
(Barnes et al., 2011), channel gradients normalised for upstream area, as
well as the rate of change of channel gradient (concavity) across these
structural ridges (Kirby and Whipple, 2012; Miller et al., 2007). In addi-
tion to the response of river channels to rock uplift, Miller and
Slingerland (2006) and Miller et al. (2007) emphasised the role played
by the component of horizontal advection of rock due to displacement
over gently dipping thrust planes. In most examples, such as the well-
documented Mohand Range (Fig. 2), the drainage divide is offset into
the hanging wall of fault-propagation folds (i.e., northward). The north-
ward offset of the drainage divide is associated with a southward offset
of the focus of erosion (Barnes et al., 2011). The balance between rock ad-
vection over the foreland succession and the erosion of the foreland-
oriented slopes of these ridges determines whether the topography
achieves a long-term steady state (Hilley and Strecker, 2004). If the topog-
raphy grows southward over the thrust ramp, then stresses grow in the
foreland basin succession, and new structures are initiated (Platt, 1988;
Naylor and Sinclair, 2007).
2
Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717
Here, we quantify the topographic characteristics of four locations
across topographic ridges generated by fault-propagation and fault-bend
folds in the Sub-Himalaya. Our localities are characterised by contrasting
degrees of shortening from <1 km to approximately 10 km. We use
these locations as a record of the progressive evolution of topography to
provide a first-order tectono-geomorphic model for the evolution of fold
and thrust cored ridges in the Sub-Himalaya. To achieve this, we present
total shortening across parts of the Mohand (initiated ~100 ka), Dundwa
(initiated ~500 ka) and Churia Ranges (initiated 700–129 ka) (Fig. 1)
over the Quaternary period based on published calculations and balanced
cross sections (Divyadarshini et al., 2020; Husson and Mugnier, 2003;
Khanal and Robinson, 2013; Lavé and Avouac, 2000; Mugnier et al.,
1999; Srivastava et al., 2018). Topographic metrics are derived from the
ALOS PALSAR 12.5 m resolution DEM with river channel long profiles
analysed using the integral method (Perron and Royden, 2012) to resolve
normalised channel steepness, concavity and the location and magnitude
of knickpoints using the approach of Gailleton et al. (2019).
2. Methods
2.1. Balanced and restored cross sections
Balanced and restored cross sections of the three ranges are plotted
relative to their cross-sectional topography. The cross section in the
Dundwa Range is sourced from Husson and Mugnier (2003) and
Mugnier et al. (1999), while the cross and restored sections in the
Mohand and eastern Churia Ranges are sourced from Srivastava et al.
(2018) and Khanal and Robinson (2013) respectively.
Although the Mohand Range was originally interpreted as an
antiform associated with a fault-bend fold of the MFT (Barnes et al.,
2011; Kirby and Whipple, 2012; Mukhopadhyay and Mishra, 2004;
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717

Fig. 2. Geologic cross section and restored cross section of (a) the western Churia Range, (b) the eastern Churia Range (Khanal and Robinson, 2013), (c) the Mohand Range (Srivastava et al.,
2018) and (d) the Dundwa Range (Husson and Mugnier, 2003). Dashed lines on the restored sections are the reconstructed stratigraphy that has been removed by erosion for each of the
ranges. Pink lines above the river profile are the segment of the river that we included for the analysis. The limitation of the river segment in this study is constrained across the bedrock
channel along the ridges, although some small portion dun/plain sediments were also included.

Rao et al., 1974; Singh and Jain, 2009; Thakur, 2004), recent studies (Srivastava et al., 2016, 2018; Srivastava and Mukul, 2020). We adopt
which incorporate microstructural deformation, grain-size variations, this later interpretation as it is based on new field observations and ki-
and finite strain have shown that the Mohand Range is a monocline as nematic modeling. Additionally, this model is consistent with Powers
a result of a fault-propagation fold associated with an emergent MFT et al. (1998) based on seismic cross sections.

3
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd
The eastern Churia Range balanced cross section was taken from
Khanal and Robinson (2013) who demonstrated that it was also a
fault-propagation fold, in contrast to Lavé and Avouac (2000) who sug-
gested it was a fault-bend fold. This more recent interpretation is sup-
ported by recent seismic cross section east of the Churia Range that
indicates that the fault-propagation fold model is appropriate
(Almeida et al., 2018). In this paper, we add to the above published
work by constructing a balanced cross section for the western Churia
Range using the transect swath (1.5 km wide window) topography to
project the cross section. The northern flank of the Churia ridge shows
a smooth, gently tilted surface compared to the rougher southern
flank, which is more incised. By correlating the low gradient surface of
the tilted northern flank with terrace levels in the northern Chitwan
Dun, we assume that the northern flank represents a partially incised
depositional surface, and the southern flank represents a fully incised
erosional morphology. This is comparable to the models shown by
Suppe et al. (1992) in the initial development of fault-propagation
folds. We reconstructed the Churia fold following the methodology of
Suppe et al. (1992). The fault-propagation fold, assumed in our ap-
proach, was inferred in western Churia from the transect swath topog-
raphy and the stratigraphy within the area where the Siwalik Group is
gradually exposed to the surface from west to east.
The balanced cross sections of the Dundwa and western Churia
Ranges were restored by pinning the south edge of the section and mea-
suring the individual lengths of each layer and unfolding them by
matching the hanging wall cutoff next to the footwall cutoff within
each fault block (Dahlstrom, 1969; Woodward et al., 1989). The short-
ening amount was calculated by comparing the length of restored and
balanced cross sections. The projected fold above the present topogra-
phy was used to approximate the erosion.
2.2. Topographic analysis
Analysis of channel profiles has been a valuable tool for evaluating
topographic change in response to tectonics (Castillo et al., 2014;
DiBiase et al., 2010; Kirby and Whipple, 2012), climate (Murphy et al.,
2016) and rock properties (Bernard et al., 2019; Bursztyn et al., 2015;
Gallen, 2018). Five decades ago, authors recognised a power law rela-
tionship between channel gradient (S) and drainage area (A) (Flint,
1974; Morisawa, 1962):
S ¼ ks A−θ
The channel steepness index, ks, allows comparison between the
steepness of channels with different drainage areas. This metric is sensi-
tive to θ, the concavity index, and so comparisons between channels
should be made using a reference value of θ; where the resulting steep-
nesses are referred to as the normalised steepness index, or ksn (Kirby
and Whipple, 2012; Wobus et al., 2006). A large number of studies
have shown that ksn values correlate with basinwide erosion rates de-
termined from concentrations of cosmogenic nuclides such as 10Be in
river sediments (e.g., Cyr et al., 2010; DiBiase et al., 2010; Harel et al.,
2016; Mandal et al., 2015; Ouimet et al., 2009; Safran et al., 2005;
Scherler et al., 2014).
Topographic gradients can be noisy, and drainage area does not vary
smoothly along channels: tributary junctions result in step changes to
drainage area. Royden et al. (2000) sought to circumvent these issues
by comparing river profile elevations directly to a coordinate, χ (chi),
that integrates drainage area along the channel:
Z x 
A0 θ
χ¼ dx
xb AðxÞ
where A0 is a reference drainage area to ensure the integrand in Eq. (2)
is dimensionless, and xb is an arbitrary base level location. If we
Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717
integrate Eq. (1), where S = dz/dx where z is elevation and x is flow dis-
tance, we find
!
ks
zðxÞ ¼ zðxb Þ þ χ ð3Þ
A0 θ
If A0 is set to 1 m2, then the slope of the channel profile in χ-elevation
space is simply the channel steepness index. All of the topographic anal-
ysis mentioned hereafter in this paper was performed using an open-
sourced software LSDTopoTools2 (Mudd et al., 2021).
2.2.1. Selection of basins
We have chosen our three study ridges because they are sufficiently
well documented in terms of balanced cross sections and have similar
structural style. In addition, they are oriented orthogonal to the strike
direction. Therefore, the impact of shortening on channel topography
will be comparable between these ridges. The northern base level of
the Churia Range was set from the elevation of the Narayani River
near the outlet in the Chitwan Dun. On the other side, the southern
base level of the Churia Range was chosen from the fourth order channel
in the southern basin where all rivers sourced from the ridge join.
In the Mohand Range, the northern flank channels flow into two
main rivers, the Ganga to the east and the Yamuna to the west. The
northern base level of the Mohand monocline is therefore determined
from the mean elevation of the northern flank streams as they exit
into both main rivers. There is only a small difference in elevation be-
tween the streams as they exit to the Ganga and Yamuna Rivers; there-
fore, the northern base level is set to the mean value of the Yamuna and
Ganga exit to the mountain front elevation. We also acknowledge the
existence of large dams at the exit points for the Ganga and Yamuna riv-
ers which influence the morphology. The dam impacts base level imme-
diately upstream, but doesn't influence the small north draining
catchments. On the other hand, the southern base level elevation is
the average elevation of the fifth order channel on the Mohand mono-
cline southern flank.
For the Dundwa Range, the northern base level is the elevation of the
West Rapti River near its exit in Deukhury Dun (Fig. 1). It is the location
where the north flowing channels in the Dundwa ridge are connected.
On the southern side, the base level was selected from the fifth order
ð1Þ
river where the south flowing streams on the Dundwa's southern
flank are connected.
2.2.2. Concavity index measurement
Before calculating the channel steepness index, we must first deter-
mine the concavity index, θ. To estimate the most likely concavity for a
steady state channel with uniform uplift and erosivity, Perron and
Royden (2012) proposed two independent criteria: (i) individual chan-
nels in the drainage area should be linear in χ-elevation space and (ii) all
channels in the drainage area should be collinear in χ-elevation space. In
transient landscapes, the former method does not work because chan-
nels will not have uniform channel steepness (e.g., Whipple and
Tucker, 2002), even if assumptions about uniform lithology and spa-
tially uniform uplift hold. The latter method, however, can be applied
in transient landscapes as “patches” of erosion are expected to move up-
slope at a constant rate in χ space, propagating into tributary channels
(e.g., Perron and Royden, 2012). The concavity will be obscured by spa-
tially heterogeneous uplift or bedrock erodibility (e.g., Kirby et al.,
2003), but Mudd et al. (2018) used numerical simulations to show
ð2Þ
that fitting the concavity index using the collinearity of tributaries and
main stem channels was much better at reproducing the correct con-
cavity index (imposed in the models) than methods using slope-area
data. There are various methods for determining the collinearity of
4
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd
channels. Here, we minimise a disorder statistic (e.g., Goren et al., 2014;
Hergarten et al., 2016; Mudd et al., 2018; Shelef, 2018), D:
! 2012; Stevens and Avouac, 2015). A 10–15 mm.a−1 rock uplift rate is re-
1 N   corded from displaced terraces along strike on the MFT within the fron-
D¼ ∑χ s,iþ1 −χ s,i −χ max ð4Þ
χ max i¼1
where χmax is the maximum value of χ in the channel network, and the
subscript s indicates that the χ values have been sorted based on their
corresponding elevations from lowest to highest; Mudd et al. (2018)
found this method to be the most accurate at reproducing imposed
values of the concavity index in numerical landscapes. We calculate
the D value for each basin over values of the concavity index ranging
from 0.01 to 1, in increments of 0.01. The most likely concavity index
is that for which the value of D is minimised in a basin.
Preliminary inspection of channel profiles revealed a strong
knickpoints signal in a number of channels, characterised by a change
in the channel steepness. In addition to calculating the concavity
index in individual basins, we also calculate the concavity index both
above and below these knickpoints.
2.2.3. Calculation of the steepness index
Once we have calculated the channel concavity index across our
study catchments, we also compare the channel steepness indices. We
base this on the slope of channel segments in χ-elevation space (i.e.,
using Eq. (3)). The channel segments are determined using the method
of Mudd et al. (2014).
2.2.4. Mapping of knickpoints
Knickpoints, defined as either vertical steps in the channel profile or
changes in the channel steepness (e.g., Wobus et al., 2006), can reveal
information about the history and character of a landscape (e.g.,
Crosby and Whipple, 2006; Harkins et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2013;
Mitchell and Yanites, 2019; Wobus et al., 2006). Knickpoints can be
formed by lithological heterogeneity where rivers flow through sub-
strates of different hardness, and they can also form from changes in
rock uplift or base level fall (Wobus et al., 2006). Differential uplift can
produce spatially correlated knickpoints along a growing tectonic struc-
ture (Burbank and Anderson, 2012). For example, by the rivers' evolu-
tion in the southern Upper Rhine Graben, rock uplift variation
associated with anticline growth found to likely drive the knickpoint
distribution (Carretier et al., 2006).
Here, we use transformed χ-elevation profiles to identify
knickpoints using the method of Gailleton et al. (2019). Knickpoints
are found based on both step changes in elevation and changes to the
channel steepness along our profiles, found using a statistical segmenta-
tion method outlined in Mudd et al. (2014). Channel profiles were first
segmented, then de-noised using a one-dimensional total variation de-
noising (TVD) filter (Condat, 2013), as described in Gailleton et al.
(2019). The relative magnitude of knickpoints were determined based
on changes to the ksn values across knickpoints.
3. Structural geometry of the ranges
3.1. The Churia Range
The Churia Range (Kimura, 1995) is an anticlinal ridge of Siwalik
sediments developed in the hanging wall of the MFT (Lavé and
Avouac, 2000, 2001). It is situated south of the Chitwan Dun, where
the Kali Gandaki River (also referred to as the Narayani River in south-
ern Nepal) exits the main range. The Chitwan Dun is bordered by the
MBT and MDT on the north and the MFT on the south. The Siwalik
Group (upper to lower) has been uplifted progressively from the east-
ern segment of the ridge to the western segment of the ridge (Fig. 2)
(Dhital, 2015; Divyadarshini and Singh, 2019). Based on optically stim-
ulated luminescence ages on river terraces in the Churia Range,
Divyadarshini et al. (2020) proposed the western side of the range
5
Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717
began uplifting between 70 and 25 ka. GPS derived historical shortening
rates across this part of the range are 19.4 ± 1.4 mm.a−1 (Ader et al.,
tal part of central Himalaya (Lavé and Avouac, 2000). This region has
been a focus of attention since the 2015 Gorkha earthquake; previous
studies have suggested that stress is accumulated within this area
(Avouac et al., 2015; Bilham, 2015; Bollinger et al., 2016).
The eastern part of the Churia Range is interpreted as a fault-
propagation fold (Khanal and Robinson, 2013). We view the new sec-
tion in western Churia as the embryonic stages of a fault-propagation
fold. We estimated the amount of shortening is ~0.4 km in the west
(Fig. 2) and ~3.8 km in the east (Fig. 2). The shortening distance in the
western Churia is consistent with an age range for initiation of the struc-
ture of 70–25 ka and a shortening rate of ~20 mm.a−1 suggested by pre-
vious studies. We assume the eastern Churia is older given the greater
offset. If the shortening rates in this area remained constant during
the Quaternary, our calculation from the cross section yield an age of
~190 ka for the eastern Churia Range. Our cross sections also suggest
that approximately ~1.45 km2 of the embryonic fold has been eroded
on the western part of the Churia Range and ~ 17.86 km2 of the fold
has been eroded on the eastern part of the Churia Range.
3.2. The Mohand Range
The Mohand Range is located in the northwestern Himalaya that
comprises folded and thrusted Siwalik sediments. Both Upper and
Middle Siwalik Groups have been exposed here revealing sandstones,
and thick-bedded and amalgamated conglomerates (Karunakaran and
Rao, 1979; Raiverman et al., 1984; Rao et al., 1974; Thakur, 1995). The
range has formed a piggyback basin (Dehra Dun) which separates it
from the Lesser Himalaya. The contrast in the average rock uplift rate
between the south and north of the range has caused the southern
flank to have greater relief (Barnes et al., 2011; Singh, 2008).
There has been a debate over whether the Mohand Range is a
fault-bend fold (Barnes et al., 2011; Kirby and Whipple, 2012;
Mukhopadhyay and Mishra, 2004; Rao et al., 1974; Singh and Jain,
2009; Thakur, 2004) or a fault-propagation fold (Powers et al., 1998;
Srivastava et al., 2016; Wesnousky et al., 1999). Recent studies have in-
dicated that the Mohand Range is in fact a monocline related to a fault-
propagation fold (Srivastava et al., 2018; Srivastava and Mukul, 2020).
The movement along the MFT in this region is thought to have initiated
ca. 1.9–1.5 Ma, based on magnetostratigraphic studies (Powers et al.,
1998; Thakur, 2004). The growth of the fold was initiated ca. 220–280
ka (Barnes et al., 2011) with the assumption of a regional slip rate of
18 mm.a−1 (Powers et al., 1998). However, a new optically stimulated
luminescence dating has indicated that the Mohand structure is seg-
mented into at least two sections with initial activity of the MFT on
the central and western segment thought to have been initiated ~100
ka and < 15 ka respectively (Srivastava et al., 2018). Approximately
~22.65 km2 and ~ 25.80 km2 of the monocline have been eroded on
the central segment and western segment respectively with a total
shortening of between ~6 to 7 km (Srivastava et al., 2018).
3.3. The Dundwa Range
The Dundwa Range is located in the western part of Nepal and is
formed as a fault-propagation fold at the Himalayan front (Husson
and Mugnier, 2003; Mugnier et al., 1999). We select the central part of
Dundwa Range as our focus of study in this area (Fig. 1), as it is perpen-
dicular to the regional shortening direction.
The stratigraphic units exposed along the ridge are primarily com-
posed of sandstones and conglomerates from the Lower to Upper
Siwalik Groups (Dhital, 2015; Husson and Mugnier, 2003). The Lower
and Middle Siwalik are characterised mostly by sandstones and mud-
stones; the Upper Siwalik comprises conglomerates (Dhital, 1995).
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd
Mugnier et al. (1999) describe the western tip of the ridge as a fault-
propagation fold, and Husson and Mugnier (2003) also characterise
the central part of the ridge as fault-propagation fold with greater short-
ening. The emergent MFT bounds the southern side of the ridge with a
basal decollement located at the base of the Siwalik Group at a depth
of ~4–5 km (Mugnier et al., 1999; Husson and Mugnier, 2003). North
of the MFT, the Sub-Himalaya comprises a series of duplexes with
north-dipping monoclines (Mugnier et al., 1999). This thrust has devel-
oped a piggyback basin known as the Deukhury Dun in the back limb of
the ridge. A back-thrust has been developed on the eastern part of the
ridge while an antiform and syncline has formed on the other tip of
this ridge (Husson and Mugnier, 2003).
A minimum shortening rate of 17 mm.a−1 has been calculated dur-
ing the Quaternary period based on the geological cross section
(Mugnier et al., 1999) and Holocene shortening rates across the MFT
in the region are estimated at 14 ± 4 mm.a−1 based on uplifted Holo-
cene terraces (Mugnier and Huyghe, 2004; Mugnier et al., 2005). A
value of 20.2 ± 1.1 mm.a−1 shortening rate has been measured across
this part of the range from geodetic observation (Ader et al., 2012;
Stevens and Avouac, 2015). Based on the balanced cross section and re-
stored section, we approximate that ~9 km of shortening has occurred,
and ~ 73.81 km2 of the fold has been eroded on the central Dundwa
Range with an almost equal proportion over the two flanks (Fig. 2).
Using the long term shortening rate, we estimate that the fold began
to develop around ~500 ka.
4. Topographic analyses
4.1. Channel steepness index
We extracted normalised channel steepness index values from
elevation-χ profiles of streams draining the Churia, Dundwa and
Mohand Ranges. The reference drainage area (A0 = 1 m2) and concavity
index (θ = 0.45) values are kept constant for all the drainage basins.
Normalised channel steepness varies spatially across these struc-
tures. Based on Fig. 3, the western tip of the Churia Range, where relief
starts to grow, channel steepness values are higher compared to the
eastern part of the range. The Dundwa Range, on the other hand, dem-
onstrates relatively constant ksn values across the range compared to
Churia. The southern flank of the Dundwa Range shows higher ksn
values than the northern flank. The ksn in the Mohand Range demon-
strates relatively uniform values across the range. However, there are
some spatial variations in the southern flank. The ksn values are gener-
ally lower upstream and are steeper downstream, where the channels
enter the Middle Siwalik Group. The ksn then gradually decreases in
the downstream direction. On the eastern tip of the ridge, there is a
rise in the ksn values. On the other hand, the ksn values are generally con-
stant on the northern flank.
To observe the ksn variation clearly, we calculated the ksn median
value of every catchment, which we plotted as a function of distance
along the ridgeline (Fig. 4). Based on panel (a) in Fig. 4, the Churia
Range can be divided based on its ksn values. The western part has a
ksn median value of around 21, with some basins having ksn values
that exceed 40; the ksn values along the eastern section of the ridge
are much more likely to fall below 20 with a median value of ~11. In
the following discussions, the Churia Range will be referred to in two
parts, the western and eastern regions.
The Dundwa Range demonstrates a relatively constant ksn along the
ridgeline with a median of ~30 (Fig. 4c). However, the southern flank
generally has higher ksn values, with some basins exceeding a ksn of
50. On the other hand, the northern flank has lower ksn values, with
some basins below 20. The Mohand Range also demonstrates a rela-
tively constant ksn along the ridgeline with a median value of ~17
(Fig. 4b). Based on this observation, the ksn values from the lowest to
the highest are eastern Churia, Mohand, western Churia and Dundwa
6
Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717
Ranges. Summaries of the channel steepness results for these ranges
can be seen in Table 1.
4.2. Distribution of knickpoints
In the western Churia Range, a series of knickpoints is observed on
the northern flank with an average elevation of ~435 m (Fig. 5a). The
southern flank has a rather dispersed knickpoint distribution with an
average elevation of ~350 m. As explained above, base level is different
to the north and the south of the ridge: the base level elevation is 150 m
for the north of the range and 70 m for the southern flank of the Churia
Range. We then normalised the knickpoints elevation to the base level
elevation for each catchment in order to consider the offset relative to
the plains into which the rivers flow. The results show that both flanks
in the western Churia have a similar distribution of knickpoints relative
to base level elevation (ΔZKP) with a height of ~300 m.
On the other hand, the eastern Churia Range demonstrates the op-
posite. A series of knickpoints is located along the southern flank with
an average elevation of 450 m. In comparison, the knickpoints on the
northern flank are more dispersed with an average elevation of 470 m
(Fig. 5a). Eastern Churia Range has the same base level elevation as
the western Churia Range. The southern flank has knickpoints to base
level height distribution that ranges from 380 m, while the northern
flank has a distribution of 320 m. There is a slight asymmetry in
knickpoints to base level height between the southern and northern
flank.
We also identify series of knickpoints on each flank of the Dundwa
Range (Fig. 5b). The distribution of knickpoints elevation in the Dundwa
Range varies between 310 m and 320 m in the northern and southern
flank, respectively. The base level elevation is 150 m and 50 m on the
north and south respectively. The southern flank knickpoints to base
level elevation has a mean value of 280 m, while the northern flank
has a mean value of 180 m. The asymmetry of the knickpoints to base
level elevation in Dundwa Range is higher (compared to eastern Churia)
with a difference of 100 m higher on the southern flank.
We identified another series of knickpoints on both flanks of the
Mohand Range (Fig. 5c). The knickpoints elevation ranges around 500
m for both flanks. The base level elevation is 310 and 250 m for the
northern and the southern flank respectively. The southern flank
knickpoints to base level elevation has a mean value of 260 m, while
the northern flank has a mean value of 190 m. The asymmetry of the
knickpoints elevation relative to base level in this range is slightly
lower than the asymmetry of the Dundwa Range. Table 1 includes sum-
maries of the knickpoint results.
4.3. Drainage best-fit concavity
We extracted normalised channel steepness indices using a refer-
ence concavity value of 0.45, which is based on the assumption that ero-
sion rates in channels scale with shear stress (Howard, 1994; Tucker
and Whipple, 2002). In a further consideration of the processes involved
in channel erosion in these catchments, we also performed a best-fit
concavity analysis that directly measures each basin's concavity value
draining the ridges.
The mapping of catchments' best-fit concavity shows that the con-
cavity varies across the ridgeline in most locations. In the western
Churia Range, catchments' concavity values appear relatively uniform
across both flanks (Fig. 6a). Although the concavity on the northern
flank seems to be slightly higher (mean θ = 0.35) compared to the
southern flank (mean θ = 0.3). In the eastern Churia Range, concavity
values are lower on the northern flank (mean θ = ~ 0.15; that is, chan-
nels are nearly linear) but higher on the southern flank (θ = ~ 0.4).
The best-fit concavity mapping on the Dundwa Range shows a very
distinctive asymmetry between the southern and the northern flank
(Fig. 6b). The mean of concavity in the southern flank is 0.48 with
some basins reaching 0.7. The northern flank has a lower mean
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd
Fig. 3. Mapping of channel steepness index for catchment draining north and southward of the Siwalik Hills in the Churia, Dundwa, and Mohand Ranges.
concavity (θ = 0.25). In the Mohand Range, concavity on the southern
flank also demonstrates a systematically higher concavity value (mean
θ = 0.35) compared to the northern flank (mean θ = 0.15; Fig. 6c).
Based on our observations, higher profile concavity values seem
to correlate with large knickpoints within the catchment. We com-
pared the channel concavities above and below the knickpoint by
matching the trunk and tributary channels' collinearity in the χ-
7
Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717
profiles; results show differences above and below the knickpoints
(Fig. 7). The concavity above the knickpoint appears to have a higher
value than below the knickpoint for most channels, except on the
southern flank of the Mohand Range. In the southern flank of the
Mohand Range, the concavity is higher within the channel's lower
reach (below the knickpoint) and lower for the upper reach (above
the knickpoint).
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717

Fig. 4. Scatter plot of channel steepness across the (a) Churia, (b) Dundwa, and (c) Mohand Ranges. The plotted ksn values are the median for each catchment, the error bars indicating the
25th and 75th percentile. Straight black lines are the mean value of ksn on each range. Dashed black lines are the standard deviation of ksn on each range. In panel (a), we can see that the ksn
values on the western Churia Range are higer compared to the eastern side. Unless at the eastern part of Mohand Range where the ksn values are higher compared to the rest of the range,
the ksn values in the Mohand and Dundwa Ranges show a relatively uniform pattern along the ridge. This could be that the Mohand and Dundwa range are more stable compared to the
Churia Range. We suspect the high ksn on Mohand's eastern range incorporated with the back thrust in that area.

5. Discussion and interpretation
5.1. Channel steepness across ranges
Based on the results in Table 1, we first focus on the eastern Churia,
Dundwa and Mohand Ranges. Amongst these ridges, the 25th percentile
ksn and median ksn all increase with increasing shortening. Between the
eastern Churia and Mohand Ranges, the differences are subtle. The
Dundwa Range, on the other hand, features higher ksn values (Fig. 8).
Meanwhile, western Churia has higher ksn values compared to eastern
Churia (Figs. 4 and 8). The satellite imagery and the NDVI image of the
Churia Range (Fig. 9a) show no evidence of sediment within the chan-
nels where the ksn values are high in the western Churia Range.
In contrast, in the eastern Churia Range, where the ksn values are
slightly lower, the channels are visibly filled with alluvium. It is possible
that there is some delay between the initiation of ridge uplift and the
ability of the channels to erode bedrock and generate alluvial bedload
(i.e., channels visible from satellite imagery with alluvial cover). This
may be caused by thick vegetative cover leading to steeper channels
in the western Churia Range.
The steepness index values in the Dundwa Range, on the other hand,
demonstrate a more constant value along the ridge, which indicates that
they are in a more stable phase compared to the Churia Range. We per-
formed satellite imagery and NDVI observation in the Dundwa Range
(Fig. 9b) and show that the drainages in the northern flank of the
range have significant accumulation of alluvium. As with the Churia
Range, it appears that this accumulation of sediment is associated
with lower channel steepness values on the northern flank.
Lithological differences between the Upper and Middle Siwalik also
seem to be associated with the contrast of channel steepness between

8
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717

Table 1
Summary of observations and results of the topographic analysis (ksn, knickpoint to base level elevation (ΔZKP) and channel concavity (θ)) according to the shortening amount from low to
high.

Shortening Location GPS derived shortening rates (mm.a−1) Fold erosion Median of Knickpoint height to base Channel concavity
(Stevens and Avouac, 2015) (km2) ksn level (ΔZKP) (θ)

0.4 km Western Churia 19.9 ± 1.4 mm.a−1 1.45 21.83 Symmetric Little asymmetry
3.8 km Eastern Churia 19.9 ± 1.4 mm.a−1 17.86 11.37 Little asymmetry Little asymmetry
6.9 km Mohand 18 ± 1 mm.a−1 29.86 17.96 Asymmetric Asymmetric
9 km Dundwa 19.6 ± 1.1 mm.a−1 73.81 30.97 Asymmetric Asymmetric

Fig. 5. Mapping of knickpoint in the Churia, Dundwa, and Mohand Ranges. The drop of channel steepness segmentation was calculated to identify the knickpoint locality across the ranges. The
colour-coded circles correspond to the z drop in χ (chi) elevation.

9
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd
Fig. 6. Mapping of catchments' channel concavity in the Churia, Dundwa, and Mohand Ranges. Concavity values across flanks are asymmetric in the eastern Churia, Dundwa and Mohand
Ranges.
the upper and lower reach in Mohand's southern flank. In Mohand's
northern flank, where there is no variation of lithology, the channel steep-
ness is distributed uniformly along the catchments (Figs. 1 and 2). High
ksn values on the eastern tip of the Mohand Range correspond with the
back-thrust fault locality.
We performed a two-sample Kolmogorov - Smirnov test on these
catchments' ksn median values between the northern and the southern
flank to see if ksn values are drawn from the same probability distribution.
The null hypothesis for each of these comparisons is that the distributions
of ksn on both flanks are the same. We find the channel steepness between
the northern and the southern flank are statistically the same for all
10
Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717
ranges (western Churia: p = 0.4797, eastern Churia: p = 0.1875,
Mohand: p = 0.08168) except for Dundwa Range (p = 0.001204)
(Fig. 10). That is, the ksn distributions are the same on each flank (except
for the Dundwa Range with the aforementioned explanation) regardless
of the asymmetry of the fold.
5.2. Role of the lateral advection of rock in driving the distribution of
knickpoints
The spatial distribution of knickpoints appears to respond to the rel-
ative displacement on the uplifting ridges. As highlighted in Fig. 9, the
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd
Fig. 7. Box plots of best fit concavity index according to their relative position from
knickpoint (KP) in the Churia (including western and eastern part), Dundwa, and
Mohand Ranges. Most of the best fit concavity is higher above the knickpoint except in
Mohand's southern flank, where the best fit concavity is higher below the knickpoint.
difference in elevation between knickpoints and base level (ΔZKP) in the
western Churia Range are similar across the ridge. It suggests that the
relative movement of the uplifting range is uniform on both flanks. On
the other hand, the difference in elevation between knickpoints and
base level in the eastern Churia Range is higher on the southern flank,
suggesting that relative movement of the uplifting range has shifted to-
wards the south.
In the Dundwa and Mohand Ranges, the difference in elevation be-
tween the knickpoints and base level demonstrates strong asymmetry,
with higher values on the southern flank. Assuming these knickpoints
are approximately time equivalent, this asymmetry implies a contrast
in rock uplift rates and must be linked to a component of lateral advec-
tion of rock over the thrust ramp (Miller et al., 2007). In embryonic fold
topography, such as in the western Churia Range, topographic surface
displacement is relatively uniform across the fold that has nucleated
over the ramp-flat transition, indicating that the vertical component of
displacement is dominant. As the fold grows, the horizontal component
of displacement increases relative to the vertical component, which is
expressed by the higher knickpoints to base level elevation on the fore-
limb as demonstrated by the Dundwa and Mohand Ranges (Fig. 11).
We performed a two-sample Kolmogorov - Smirnov test on the differ-
ence of elevation between knickpoints and base level (ΔZKP), between the
northern and the southern flank to check the asymmetry of ΔZKP distribu-
tion. The null hypothesis for each of these comparisons is that the distri-
butions of ΔZKP on both flanks are the same. We find the knickpoints to
base level elevation between the northern and the southern flank are sta-
tistically the same for the Churia Range (both western: p = 0.1014, and
eastern: p = 0.2779). The test confirms the asymmetry of ΔZKP in
Dundwa (p = 0.001204) and Mohand Ranges (p = 0.58687) (Fig. 10).
5.3. Channel concavity response to erosion
Miller et al. (2007) considered that the asymmetry of concavity in
the frontal Himalaya to be affected by lateral rock advection. We also
11
Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717
find asymmetry of concavity across the ranges, with higher values of
the concavity index in the southern flank of all but the western Churia
Range (Fig. 8). This signal is modulated by the presence of knickpoints.
In all but the Mohand southern flank, the concavity index values are
higher above the knickpoints (Fig. 7). The more concave southern flanks
of the Mohand and Dundwa Ranges also feature a greater elevation dif-
ference between the knickpoints and base level (Fig. 8), which suggests
more erosion and greater uplift relative to their base level on the south-
ern flank.
In the western Churia Range, the asymmetry is less pronounced, and
in fact the concavity is higher on the northern flank, which coincides
with a strong knickpoints alignment on the northern flank. This behav-
iour may relate to the embryonic growth of the fold, experiencing rela-
tively uniform rock uplift above a propagating thrust tip without a
significant component of lateral advection. As the structure records
more shortening towards the east, so it also shows a more asymmetric
form as the tip propagates towards the surface on the eastern Churia
Range. This is consistent with the model of the progressive develop-
ment of a fault-propagation fold (Suppe et al., 1992).
5.4. Drainage divide migration
The ability of the drainage divide to maintain its position relative to
the fault ramp depends on the erosive capacity of the river network rel-
ative to the horizontal displacement induced by lateral rock advection
(Sinclair et al., 2017). In the ridge developing over a thrust fold, erosion
is enhanced by the upstream migration of knickpoint. Based on the bal-
anced cross sections and the modern topography, we infer that the
drainage divide is advected southward relative to the ramp-flat transi-
tion during shortening. The reconstruction of fold geometry and bal-
anced cross sections suggests that the drainage divide initially
developed over the ramp-flat transition, as shown by the western
Churia anticline; this is to be expected based on model predictions
(Suppe et al., 1992). But as recorded shortening values increase, the
drainage divide appears to migrate southward relative to the flat-
ramp transition; this is documented by the Dundwa and Mohand
Ranges (Fig. 2).
The migration of the drainage divide southward from above the flat-
ramp transition suggests that the horizontal component of rock advec-
tion is sufficient to outcompete the erosion on the southern slopes of
the Dundwa and Mohand Ranges. The southward advection of the
drainage divide relative to the Gangetic Plains results in convergence
with the base level outlet to the south; this must drive further
knickpoint migration and steepening of the southern catchments as
shown (Fig. 8). The drainage divide migration can also be captured by
the χ (chi)-map (Fig. 12), with rivers that have lower χ tend to become
the aggressor (Willett et al., 2014).
5.5. Role of lithologies in channel profile analysis
We observed differences in channel concavity above and below
knickpoints (Fig. 7). To explain this, we compared the lithology below
the channel profile with the channel concavity since rock properties
such as rock strength is known to influence channel concavity (Duvall
et al., 2004; Mudd et al., 2018). We checked the χ-profiles that had
been generated with concavities that range from 0.01–1 on one of the
channels wherein the upper reach flows through the Upper Siwalik con-
glomerates while the lower reach flows through the Middle Siwalik
sandstones (basin 54 in Fig. 13). The collinearity of the upstream
reaches of this channel, which lies within the Upper Siwalik conglomer-
ates, shows that these reaches have a best-fit concavity of 0.3 (Fig. 13).
The lower reaches of this channel, which lie within the Middle Siwalik
sandstones, have a best fit concavity index of 0.42. The difference in
this channel coincides with the change in the underlying lithology. We
also assess another channel on the Mohand's southern flank (Basin 40
in Fig. 13) and found the same result. Therefore, the partition of
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717

Fig. 8. Box-whisker plots of topographic analysis summary (from top to bottom: ksn, elevation difference of knickpoint and base level (ΔZKP), and concavity (θ)) and the range of fold
eroded ((%) Erosion) across the ranges and flanks. Box-whisker represents the minimal, 25th percentiles, 75th percentiles and maximal values, the black lines represent the median
values and black diamond shapes represent the mean values. The ksn data which were taken to build these boxplots are the median value of ksn on each catchment. Fold eroded ((%)
Erosion) was measured from the cross section using the reconstructed layer above present topography.

concavity in the Mohand's southern flank is likely to be controlled by size in dictating channel concavity partition as it is hypothesized to in-
the underlying lithology. fluence fluvial network concavity (Gasparini et al., 2004; Wickert and
Furthermore, we also performed a radar backscatter analysis in de- Schildgen, 2019). However, the result suggested that there is no relation
termining channel roughness to observe the role of sediment grain between sediment grain size and channel concavity in this regard. To

12
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717

Fig. 9. Satellite imagery and Normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) (labelled) of (a) the Churia and (b) the Dundwa Ranges. Based on these images, channels in the western Churia
Range (delineated by square) show no evidence of sediment within the channels compared to the eastern part (recognised as pale brown and orange colour in the satellite image and NDVI
respectively). The northern flank of the Dundwa Range has been backfilled by sediment, which can be recognised as pale brown colour in the satellite imagery (white line delineated) and
yellow colour in the NDVI image (black line delineated).

see the result, please refer to the supplementary material available
online.
5.6. A tectono-geomorphic model
To synthesise the geomorphic evolution in response to the Himala-
yan frontal ranges' structural evolution, we have proposed a tectono-
geomorphic model (Fig. 14). We infer, based on both previous studies
and observations from field and topographic data, that the structures
developed as fault-propagation fold (Champel, 2002; Husson and
Mugnier, 2003; Khanal and Robinson, 2013; Mugnier et al., 1999;
Powers et al., 1998; Srivastava et al., 2018; Srivastava and Mukul,
2020). Based on the cross sections, the Churia and the Dundwa Ranges
demonstrate a progressive development of a fault-propagation fold.
The western part of the Churia Range records the initial, symmetrical
uplift of the fault-propagation fold above the ramp-flat transition
(Fig. 14a). The eastern part of the Churia Range records further
shortening and development of the fault-propagation fold as the fault
tip approaches the top strata (Fig. 14b). The Dundwa Range records fur-
ther shortening as the fault tip emerges to the surface (Fig. 14c). The
progressive increase in shortening between these structures is also
reflected in a progressive increase in channel concavity across the
ranges and erosion which becomes increasingly dominant on the
forelandward side (i.e., the southern side).
The western Churia Range, where the initial uplift of the fold occurs, is
characterised by higher channel steepness (compared to the eastern
Churia), which may be related to the lack of development of channels as
seen in Fig. 10, which do occur in the older and more shortened eastern
Churia Range. Symmetrical values of the difference in elevation between
knickpoints and base level across the north and south sides are also pres-
ent in the western Churia Range. The channel concavity index is asym-
metric with greater values on the northern flank. The eastern Churia
Range is characterised by low channel steepness and asymmetry of
knickpoints to base level elevation and channel concavity. In the Dundwa

13
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717

Fig. 10. Cumulative Density Function (CDF) plot of ksn, knickpoint to base level elevation (ΔZKP), and concavity (θ) across the flanks on the western Churia, eastern Churia, Dundwa and
Mohand. D values are the maximum vertical distance between the cumulative distribution function (CDF). P-value corresponds to the probability value from Kolmogorov-Smirnov test,
where it is <0.05; it rejects the null hypothesis for both flanks.

Range, which has experienced the most shortening, the channel morphol- and channel concavity indices. We suggest the spatially heterogeneous
ogy is characterised by high steepness indices (highest amongst studied uplift field has influenced the asymmetry of knickpoints to base level ele-
ranges) and asymmetric values of knickpoints to base level elevation vation and concavity index values. The greater relative displacement

Fig. 11. Sketch of the (a) normalised knickpoint elevation to the base level (ΔZKP) in the Churia Range, where the vertical component of uplift on both flanks are equal, and (b) in the
Dundwa and Mohand Ranges where the vertical component of uplift in the southern flank is greater compared to the northern flank. Black straight lines are the initial topography,
straight blue lines are the initial river profile, red dashed lines are displaced topographic surface and red straight lines are displaced river profile. The yellow arrow represents the
dominant direction of the advection component.

14
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717

Fig. 12. Chi maps of the (a) Churia, (b) Mohand, and (c) Dundwa Ranges. White arrows are showing the relative direction of drainage divide migration. In the Churia and Mohand Ranges,
the drainage divide migration is relatively shifting to the south except for the eastern tip of the Mohand Range that is showing the opposite. This is probably caused by the development of
the backthrust in that area. On the other hand, in the Dundwa Range, the drainage divide is relatively more stable compared to the other ranges, which is correlated to the erosion on both
flanks that are equal (as shown in Fig. 8).

between the drainage divide and the base level in the forelimb has caused
greater erosion which is reflected through multiple knickpoints. In the
fault-propagation fold monocline of the Mohand Range, the geomorphic
characteristics are similar to the Dundwa Range. Greater relative displace-
ment related to the lateral rock advection is associated with greater ero-
sion and multiple knickpoints which are also linked to higher
concavities and segmentation of concavity in the forelimb (i.e., different
values of concavity above and below the knickpoint). In contrast, slower
relative displacement over more uniform lithologies on the back limb
has generated lower values of the concavity index that are consistent
above and below the knickpoints; this agrees with similar observations
on this structure by Miller et al. (2007).
In terms of the drainage divide, we have found that most of the fold
eroded in the western Churia Range was accommodated within the

15
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717

Fig. 13. Partition of channel concavity index in Mohand south flank catchments as seen from χ profiles. The colinear χ space is indicating the best fit concavity index for specific river
segments. In basin 40, the best fit θ is 0.19 above the knickpoint with Upper Siwalik Group conglomerates underlying lithology, and θ = 0.46 in the below the knickpoint with Middle
Siwalik Group sandstones underlying lithology. The basin 54 χ-profiles have the best fit concavity divided into three. Above the knickpoint where underlying lithology is the Upper
Siwalik Group conglomerates (θ = 0.31), below the knickpoint where the underlying lithology is Middle Siwalik Group sandstones (θ = 0.42), and the fan deposit where it
demonstrates a very low concavity index (θ = 0.01).

southern flank. As the fold grows, as demonstrated by eastern Churia
Range, the amount of fold eroded on the northern flank increases. The
Dundwa Range also shows a larger proportion of the fold eroded on
the northern flank. Based on this observation, it seems that as the short-
ening increases, the drainage divide migrates south relative to the flat-
ramp transition. The advection of topography over the ramp provides
the means by which deviatoric stresses in the foreland succession lead
to failure, and the propagation of a new thrust ramp (Platt, 1988;
Naylor and Sinclair, 2007).
To summarise, based on the geological reconstruction (Fig. 2), the
lowest to the highest shortening across these ranges are the western
Churia, eastern Churia, Mohand, and Dundwa Ranges. The degree of
shortening correlates with knickpoint distribution and asymmetry of
the channel concavity, and drainage divide migration relative to the
fault ramp. Given the dates and amounts of shortening across these
structures, we view them as ‘active’ at the response timescale of most
landscapes (0.1–0.5 Ma). We assume that the topographic patterns de-
scribed in this study relate to the progressive evolution of the fault sys-
tem. As the system evolves, the initial symmetrical uplift transfers to
more asymmetrical uplift. Greater lateral rock advection relative to the
erosion rates shifts the drainage divide to the fault-ramp transition
and drives the asymmetry of the knickpoint and channel concavity.
These processes reflect the interplay of tectonic shortening with surface
processes in the generation of the topography of the frontal ranges. The
indication from the structural geology and topography is that horizontal
advection through shortening is outpacing erosion of the southern
flanks, and so the topography is propagating southward relative to the
foreland succession as opposed to being pinned by comparable erosion
rates (Hilley and Strecker, 2004).
6. Conclusion
This study provides data on river channel steepness, knickpoint and
channel concavity, combined with data on shortening and the distribu-
tion of erosion from four localities in the Siwalik Hills. These localities
record differing amounts of shortening and topographic development
in the region of the MFT. Following are the significant observations
and conclusions from this analysis:
• Based on balanced cross sections (Fig. 2), the four localities record in-
creasing shortening from the western Churia, eastern Churia, Mohand,
and Dundwa Ranges.
• Greater shortening results in increased asymmetry of elevation be-
tween knickpoint and base level (ΔZKP) (Fig. 8). The asymmetry of
knickpoint distribution records contrasting rock uplift rates across
the flanks.
• The asymmetry of channel concavity across the ranges modulated by
the presence of knickpoints (higher in the southern flank) also devel-
oped as the shortening increase. The more concave southern flanks of
the Mohand and Dundwa ridges feature a more significant elevation
difference between the knickpoint and base level (Fig. 8), suggesting
more erosion and greater deformation on the southern flank.

16
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd
Fig. 14. A tectono-geomorphic model of the fault propagation fold (a,b and c) summarising
the geomorphic characteristics of thrust-cored ridges in the Himalayan frontal ranges
associated with progressive shortening. Red lines represent the transect topography across
the ranges, black dots indicate the drainage divide and black arrows attached to the black
dots indicate the direction of drainage divide's migration. (a) projects the early stage of
fold growth with symmetrical distribution of knickpoint elevation to the base level (ΔZKP),
which reflects the uniform uplifted surface, and symmetrical concavity (θ). (b) projects the
intermediate stage of the fold growth with little asymmetry in the distribution of
knickpoint elevation to the base level (ΔZKP) and concavity (θ) values which reflects the
beginning of increased relative uplift in the southern flank. (c) reflects the further stage of
fold growth, which is characterised by strong asymmetry in the distribution of knickpoint
elevation to the base level (ΔZKP) and concavity (θ) magnitudes (higher on the southern
flank). In general, distribution of knickpoint elevation to base level (ΔZKP) and concavity
(θ) values correlate with the growth of the fold which accommodated within the southern
flank.
• As the shortening increases, the drainage divide is offset southwards
relative to the underlying ramp-flat transition of the thrust fault
(Fig. 14). This suggests that the erosion on the southern flank of the
ranges, characterised by stronger knickpoints and increased concavi-
ties, has not been able to outcompete the tectonic advection of rock
towards the foreland. The result is net growth of topography over
the foreland with the associated stress distribution increasing the like-
lihood of further thrust propagation into the Siwalik succession.
By comparing the folds' geometries, their degree of shortening, and
their geomorphic response on channel profile analysis, we suggest
that the variations in structures along the strike of the MFT characterise
a progressive topographic evolution for thrust ridges formed at the front
17
Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717
of the Himalaya. We also generated a space for time model for the pro-
gressive geomorphic evolution of the Himalayan frontal ranges and
demonstrated that they are likely to be in a state of topographic growth,
driving further propagation into the foreland.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer, Saptarshi Dey and
the editor, Martin Stokes, for their thorough review and providing con-
structive comments and suggestions, which significantly improved the
manuscript. This work is a part of the MPhil thesis of Donny Wahyudi
supported by Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (Lembaga
Pengelola Dana Pendidikan [LPDP 201808120213212]) and the author
thankfully acknowledges the support. The authors thank Mikael Attal
and Boris Gailleton for their helpful discussions. The authors also thank
Emma Graff, Mikael Attal, Mark Naylor, Vimal Sigh and Ananya
Divyadarshini for their support during the field excursion. All DEMs
used in the study are available online from https://asf.alaska.edu/. The
code used to perform the topographic analysis is available at https://
github.com/LSDtopotools/ with documentation available at https://
lsdtopotools.github.io/LSDTT_documentation/.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107717.
References
Ader, T., Avouac, J.-P., Liu-Zeng, J., Lyon-Caen, H., Bollinger, L., Galetzka, J., Genrich, J.,
Thomas, M., Chanard, K., Sapkota, S. N., Rajaure, S., Shrestha, P., Ding, L., and Flouzat,
M. (2012). Convergence rate across the Nepal Himalaya and interseismic coupling on
the Main Himalayan Thrust: Implications for seismic hazard. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Solid Earth, 117(B4), n/a-n/a. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB009071.
Almeida, R.V., Hubbard, J., Liberty, L., Foster, A., Sapkota, S.N., 2018. Seismic imaging of the
Main Frontal Thrust in Nepal reveals a shallow décollement and blind thrusting.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 494, 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2018.04.045.
Avouac, J.P., Meng, L., Wei, S., Wang, T., Ampuero, J.P., 2015. Lower edge of locked Main
Himalayan Thrust unzipped by the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. Nat. Geosci. 8 (9),
708–711. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2518.
Barnes, J.B., Densmore, A.L., Mukul, M., Sinha, R., Jain, V., Tandon, S.K., 2011. Interplay be-
tween faulting and base level in the development of Himalayan frontal fold topogra-
phy. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 116 (3). https://doi.org/10.1029/
2010JF001841.
Bernard, T., Sinclair, H.D., Gailleton, B., Mudd, S.M., Ford, M., 2019. Lithological control on
the post-orogenic topography and erosion history of the Pyrenees. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett. 518, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2019.04.034.
Bilham, Roger, 2015. Seismology: raising Kathmandu. Nat. Geosci. 8 (8), 582–584. https://
doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2498.
Bilham, R., Gaur, V. K., and Molnar, P. (2001). Earthquakes: Himalayan seismic hazard. In
Science (Vol. 293, Issue 5534, pp. 1442–1444). doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1062584.
Bollinger, L., Tapponnier, P., Sapkota, S.N., Klinger, Y., 2016. Slip deficit in Central Nepal:
Omen for a repeat of the 1344 AD earthquake? The 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake
and Himalayan Studies 4. Seismology. Earth, Planets and Space 68 (1), 1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40623-016-0389-1.
Burbank, D. W., and Anderson, R. S. (2012). Tectonic Geomorphology. In Willey-Blackwell
(2nd ed., Vol. 2). Willey-Blackwell. doi:https://doi.org/10.5408/0022-1368-32.5.310.
Burbank, D., Meigs, A., Brozović, N., 1996. Interactions of growing folds and coeval depo-
sitional systems. Basin Res. 8 (3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2117.1996.00181.x.
Bursztyn, N., Pederson, J.L., Tressler, C., Mackley, R.D., Mitchell, K.J., 2015. Rock strength
along a fluvial transect of the Colorado Plateau - quantifying a fundamental control
on geomorphology. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 429, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
epsl.2015.07.042.
Carretier, S., Nivière, B., Giamboni, M., Winter, T., 2006. Do river profiles record along-
stream variations of low uplift rate? J. Geophys. Res. 111 (F2), F02024. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2005JF000419.
Castillo, M., Muñoz-Salinas, E., Ferrari, L., 2014. Response of a landscape to tectonics using
channel steepness indices (ksn) and OSL: A case of study from the Jalisco Block,
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd
Western Mexico. Geomorphology 221, 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geomorph.2014.06.017.
Champel, B., 2002. Growth and lateral propagation of fault-related folds in the Siwaliks of
western Nepal: rates, mechanisms, and geomorphic signature. J. Geophys. Res. 107
(B6). https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jb000578.
Condat, L., 2013. A direct algorithm for 1-D total variation denoising. IEEE Signal Process-
ing Letters 20 (11), 1054–1057. https://doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2013.2278339.
Crosby, B.T., Whipple, K.X., 2006. Knickpoint initiation and distribution within fluvial net-
works: 236 waterfalls in the Waipaoa River, North Island, New Zealand. Geomorphol-
ogy 82 (1–2), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.08.023.
Cyr, A.J., Granger, D.E., Olivetti, V., Molin, P., 2010. Quantifying rock uplift rates using
channel steepness and cosmogenic nuclide-determined erosion rates: examples
from northern and southern Italy. Lithosphere 2 (3), 188–198. https://doi.org/
10.1130/L96.1.
Dahlstrom, C.D.A., 1969. Balanced cross sections. Can. J. Earth Sci. 6 (4), 743–757. https://
doi.org/10.1139/e69-069.
Densmore, A.L., Sinha, R., Sinha, S., Tandon, S.K., Jain, V., 2016. Sediment storage and re-
lease from Himalayan piggyback basins and implications for downstream river mor-
phology and evolution. Basin Res. 28 (4), 446–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bre.12116.
Dey, S., Thiede, R.C., Schildgen, T.F., Wittmann, H., Bookhagen, B., Scherler, D., Strecker, M.
R., 2016. Holocene internal shortening within the northwest Sub-Himalaya: Out-of-
sequence faulting of the Jwalamukhi Thrust, India. Tectonics 35 (11), 2677–2697.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015TC004002.
Dey, S., Kaushal, R. K., Sonam, and Jain, V. (2018). Spatiotemporal variability of
neotectonic activity along the Southern Himalayan front: a geomorphic perspective.
Journal of Geodynamics, August 2017, 0–1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jog.2018.09.003.
Dhital, R. M. (1995). Geology and structure of the Siwaliks and Lesser Himalaya in the
Surai Khola-Bardanda area, mid Western Nepal. Bull. Dept. Geol., Tribhuvan Univ., 4,
1–70. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10006710655.
Dhital, M.R., 2015. Geology of the Nepal Himalaya: Regional Perspective of the Classic Col-
lided Orogen. In Geology of the Nepal. Regional Perspective of the Classic Collided
Orogen, Himalaya https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02496-7.
DiBiase, R.A., Whipple, K.X., Heimsath, A.M., Ouimet, W.B., 2010. Landscape form and
millennial erosion rates in the San Gabriel Mountains, CA. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
289 (1–2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2009.10.036.
Divyadarshini, A., Singh, V., 2019. Investigating topographic metrics to decipher structural
model and morphotectonic evolution of the Frontal Siwalik Ranges, Central
Himalaya, Nepal. Geomorphology 337, 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geomorph.2019.03.028.
Divyadarshini, A., Singh, V., Jaiswal, M.K., Rawat, M., 2020. Exploring the roles of cli-
mate and tectonics in the geomorphic evolution of the Chitwan Intermontane
valley, Central Himalaya. Geomorphology 367, 107298. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107298.
Duvall, A., Kirby, E., Burbank, D., 2004. Tectonic and lithologic controls on bedrock channel
profiles and processes in coastal California. J. Geophys. Res. 109 (F3). https://doi.org/
10.1029/2003jf000086.
Feldl, N., Bilham, R., 2006. Great Himalayan earthquakes and the Tibetan plateau. Nature
444 (7116), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05199.
Flint, J.J., 1974. Stream gradient as a function of order, magnitude, and discharge. Water
Resour. Res. 10 (5), 969–973. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR010i005p00969.
Gailleton, B., Mudd, S.M., Clubb, F.J., Peifer, D., Hurst, M.D., 2019. A segmentation approach
for the reproducible extraction and quantification of knickpoints from river long pro-
files. Earth Surface Dynamics 7 (1), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-7-211-
2019.
Gallen, S.F., 2018. Lithologic controls on landscape dynamics and aquatic species evolu-
tion in post-orogenic mountains. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 493, 150–160. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.epsl.2018.04.029.
Gansser, A., 1964. Geology of the Himalayas. Wiley Interscience. 289.
Gasparini, N.M., Tucker, G.E., Bras, R.L., 2004. Network-scale dynamics of grain-size
sorting: implications for downstream fining, stream-profile concavity, and drainage
basin morphology. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 29 (4), 401–421. https://doi.org/
10.1002/esp.1031.
Gavillot, Y., Meigs, A., Yule, D., Heermance, R., Rittenour, T., Madugo, C., Malik, M., 2016.
Shortening rate and Holocene surface rupture on the Riasi fault system in the Kash-
mir Himalaya: active thrusting within the Northwest Himalayan orogenic wedge.
Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 128 (7), 1070–1094. https://doi.org/10.1130/B31281.1.
Goren, L., Fox, M., Willett, S.D., 2014. Tectonics from fluvial topography using formal lin-
ear inversion: theory and applications to the Inyo Mountains, California. Journal of
Geophysical Research F: Earth Surface 119 (8), 1651–1681. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2014JF003079.
Gupta, S., 1997. Himalayan drainage patterns and the origin of fluvial megafans in the
Ganges foreland basin. Geology 25 (1), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613
(1997)025<0011:HDPATO>2.3.CO;2.
Harel, M.A., Mudd, S.M., Attal, M., 2016. Global analysis of the stream power law param-
eters based on worldwide 10Be denudation rates. Geomorphology 268, 184–196.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.05.035.
Harkins, N., Kirby, E., Heimsath, A., Robinson, R., Reiser, U., 2007. Transient fluvial incision
in the headwaters of the Yellow River, northeastern Tibet, China. Journal of Geophys-
ical Research: Earth Surface 112 (3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000570.
Hergarten, S., Robl, J., Stuwe, K., 2016. Tectonic geomorphology at small catchment sizes-
extensions of the stream-power approachand the x method. Earth Surface Dynamics
4 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-1-2016.
18
Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717
Hilley, G.E., Strecker, M.R., 2004. Steady state erosion of critical Coulomb wedges with ap-
plications to Taiwan and the Himalaya. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
109 (B1).
Hirschmiller, J., Grujic, D., Bookhagen, B., Coutand, I., Huyghe, P., Mugnier, J.L., Ojha, T.,
2014. What controls the growth of the himalayan foreland fold-and-thrust belt? Ge-
ology 42 (3), 247–250. https://doi.org/10.1130/G35057.1.
Howard, A.D., 1994. A detachment-limited model of drainage basin evolution. Water
Resour. Res. 30 (7), 2261–2285. https://doi.org/10.1029/94WR00757.
Husson, L., Mugnier, J.L., 2003. Three-dimensional horizon reconstruction from outcrop
structural data, restoration, and strain field of the Baisahi anticline, Western Nepal.
J. Struct. Geol. 25 (1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(02)00044-5.
Karunakaran, C., C, K., A, R. Rao. (1979). Status of exploration for hydrocarbons in the Hi-
malayan region - Contributions to stratigraphy and structure. Misc. Publ.-geol. Surv.
India; ind; h.t. 18; 1–66.
Khanal, S., Robinson, D.M., 2013. Upper crustal shortening and forward modeling of the
Himalayan thrust belt along the Budhi-Gandaki River, central Nepal. Int. J. Earth Sci.
102 (7), 1871–1891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-013-0889-1.
Kimura, K. (1995). Terraced debris and alluvium as indicators of the Quaternary structural
development of the northwestern Chitwan Dun, Central Nepal. Science Reports -
Tohoku University, Seventh Series: Geography, 45(2), 103. http://www.scopus.com/
scopus/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0029420273andpartner=40andrel=R4.5.0.
Kirby, E., Whipple, K.X., 2012. Expression of active tectonics in erosional landscapes.
J. Struct. Geol. 44, 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2012.07.009.
Kirby, E., Whipple, K.X., Tang, W., Chen, Z., 2003. Distribution of active rock uplift along
the eastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau: Inferences from bedrock channel longitu-
dinal profiles. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 108 (B4). https://doi.org/
10.1029/2001jb000861.
Lavé, J., Avouac, J.P., 2000. Active folding of fluvial terraces across the Siwaliks Hills,
Himalayas of central Nepal. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 105 (B3),
5735–5770. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999jb900292.
Lavé, J., Avouac, J.P., 2001. Fluvial incision and tectonic uplift across the Himalayas of cen-
tral Nepal. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 106 (B11), 26561–26591.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jb000359.
Mandal, S.K., Lupker, M., Burg, J.P., Valla, P.G., Haghipour, N., Christl, M., 2015. Spatial var-
iability of 10Be-derived erosion rates across the southern Peninsular Indian escarp-
ment: a key to landscape evolution across passive margins. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
425, 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2015.05.050.
Meghani, N.A., 2015. Uplift and Shortening in the Nepalese and Indian Sub-Himalaya De-
termined with Quantitative Geomorphology.
Miller, S.R., Slingerland, R.L., 2006. Topographic advection on fault-bend folds: inheritance
of valley positions and the formation of wind gaps. Geology 34 (9), 769–772. https://
doi.org/10.1130/G22658.1.
Miller, S.R., Slingerland, R.L., Kirby, E., 2007. Characteristics of steady state fluvial topogra-
phy above fault-bend folds. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 112 (4),
1–21. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JF000772.
Miller, S.R., Sak, P.B., Kirby, E., Bierman, P.R., 2013. Neogene rejuvenation of central Appa-
lachian topography: evidence for differential rock uplift from stream profiles and ero-
sion rates. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 369–370, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
epsl.2013.04.007.
Mitchell, N.A., Yanites, B.J., 2019. Spatially variable increase in rock uplift in the Northern
U.S. Cordillera recorded in the distribution of river knickpoints and incision depths.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 124 (5), 1238–1260. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2018JF004880.
Mitra, S. (1990). Fault-propagation folds: geometry, kinematic evolution, and
hydrocarbon traps. In American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin (Vol. 74,
issue 6, pp. 921–945). GeoScienceWorld. doi:https://doi.org/10.1306/0C9B23CB-
1710-11D7-8645000102C1865D.
Morisawa, M.E., 1962. Quantitative geomorphology of some watersheds in the appala-
chian plateau. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 73 (9), 1025–1046. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-
7606(1962)73[1025:QGOSWI]2.0.CO;2.
Mudd, Simon M., Attal, M., Milodowski, D.T., Grieve, S.W.D., Valters, D.A., 2014. A statisti-
cal framework to quantify spatial variation in channel gradients using the integral
method of channel profile analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface
119 (2), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JF002981.
Mudd, Simon M., Clubb, F.J., Gailleton, B., Hurst, M.D., 2018. How concave are river chan-
nels? Earth Surface Dynamics 6 (2), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-505-
2018.
Mudd, S. M., Clubb, F., Wickert, A., Hurst, M., and Hutton, E. (2021). LSDtopotools/
LSDTopoTools2: LSDTopoTools2 v0.4. Zenodo. doi:https://doi.org/10.5281/
ZENODO.4577879.
Mugnier, J., Huyghe, P., 2004. Episodicity and rates of thrust sheet motion in the
Himalayas (western Nepal). In: McClay, K.R. (Ed.), Thrust Tectonics and Petroleum
Systems (January).
Mugnier, J.L., Leturmy, P., Mascle, G., Huyghe, P., Chalaron, E., Vidal, G., Husson, L.,
Delcaillau, B., 1999. The Siwaliks of western Nepal I. Geometry and kinematics.
J. Asian Earth Sci. 17 (5–6), 629–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1367-9120(99)
00038-3.
Mugnier, J.L., Huyghe, P., Gajurel, A.P., Becel, D., 2005. Frontal and piggy-back seismic rup-
tures in the external thrust belt of Western Nepal. J. Asian Earth Sci. 25 (5), 707–717.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2004.05.009.
Mukhopadhyay, D.K., Mishra, P., 2004. The Main Frontal Thrust (MFT), northwestern
Himalayas: Thrust trajectory and hangingwall fold geometry from balanced cross
sections. J. Geol. Soc. India 64 (6), 739–746.
Mukul, M., 2000. The geometry and kinematics of the Main Boundary Thrust and related
neotectonics in the Darjiling Himalayan fold-and-thrust belt, West Bengal, India.
J. Struct. Geol. 22 (9), 1261–1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(00)00032-8.
D.R. Wahyudi, H.D. Sinclair and S.M. Mudd
Mukul, M., Jaiswal, M., Singhvi, A.K., 2007. Timing of recent out-of-sequence active defor-
mation in the frontal Himalayan wedge: insights from the Darjiling sub-Himalaya,
India. Geology 35 (11), 999–1002. https://doi.org/10.1130/G23869A.1.
Mukul, M., Jade, S., Bhattacharyya, A.K., Bhusan, K., 2010. Crustal shortening in convergent
orogens: Insights from Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements in Northeast
India. J. Geol. Soc. India 75 (1), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-010-0017-9.
Murphy, B.P., Johnson, J.P.L., Gasparini, N.M., Sklar, L.S., 2016. Chemical weathering as a
mechanism for the climatic control of bedrock river incision. Nature 532 (7598),
223–227. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17449.
Naylor, M., Sinclair, H.D., 2007. Punctuated thrust deformation in the context of doubly
vergent thrust wedges: Implications for the localization of uplift and exhumation. Ge-
ology 35 (6), 559–562.
Ouimet, W.B., Whipple, K.X., Granger, D.E., 2009. Beyond threshold hillslopes: Channel
adjustment to base-level fall in tectonically active mountain ranges. Geology 37 (7),
579–582. https://doi.org/10.1130/G30013A.1.
Parsons, A.J., Phillips, R.J., Lloyd, G.E., Law, R.D., Searle, M.P., Walshaw, R.D., 2006. Mid-
crustal deformation of the Annapurna-Dhaulagiri Himalaya, central Nepal: an atypi-
cal example of channel flow during the Himalayan orogeny. Geosphere 12 (3),
985–1015. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01246.1.
Patriat, P., Achache, J., 1984. India-Eurasia collision chronology has implications for crustal
shortening and driving mechanism of plates. Nature 311 (5987), 615–621. https://
doi.org/10.1038/311615a0.
Paul Burgess, W., Yin, A., Dubey, C.S., Shen, Z.K., Kelty, T.K., 2012. Holocene shortening
across the main frontal thrust zone in the eastern Himalaya. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
357–358, 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.09.040.
Perron, J.T., Royden, L., 2012. An integral approach to bedrock river profile analysis. Earth
Surf. Process. Landf. 38 (6), 570–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3302.
Platt, J.P., 1988. The mechanics of frontal imbrication: a first-order analysis. Geol.
Rundsch. 77 (2), 577–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01832399.
Powers, P.M., Lillie, R.J., Yeats, R.S., 1998. Structure and shortening of the Kangra and
Dehradun reentrants. Geol. Soc 110 (8), 1010–1027.
Raiverman, V., Kunte, S.V., Mukherjea, A., 1984. Basin geometry, Cenozoic sedimentation
and hydrocarbon prospects in north western Himalaya and Indo-Gangetic plains. Pe-
troleum Asia Journal 6, 6792.
Rao, Y.S.N., Rahman, A.A., Rao, D.P., 1974. On the structure of the Siwalik range between
the rivers Yamuna and Ganga. Himal. Geol. 4, 137–150.
Royden, L.H., Clark, M.K., Whipple, K.X., 2000. Evolution of river elevation profiles by bed-
rock incision: Analytical solutions for transient river profiles related to changing up-
lift and precipitation rates. Eos Trans. AGU 81(48).
Safran, E.B., Bierman, P.R., Aalto, R., Dunne, T., Whipple, K.X., Caffee, M., 2005. Erosion
rates driven by channel network incision in the Bolivian Andes. Earth Surf. Process.
Landf. 30 (8), 1007–1024. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1259.
Scherler, D., Bookhagen, B., Strecker, M.R., 2014. Tectonic control on 10Be-derived erosion
rates in the Garhwal Himalaya, India. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface
119 (2), 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JF002955.
Shelef, E., 2018. Channel Profile and Plan-View Controls on the Aspect Ratio of River Ba-
sins. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45 (21), 11,712–11,721. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018GL080172.
Sinclair, H.D., Mudd, S.M., Dingle, E., Hobley, D.E.J., Robinson, R., Walcott, R., 2017. Squeez-
ing river catchments through tectonics: Shortening and erosion across the Indus Val-
ley, NW Himalaya. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 129 (1–2), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1130/
B31435.1.
Singh, T., 2008. Hypsometric analysis of watersheds developed on actively deforming
Mohand anticlinal ridge, NW Himalaya. Geocarto International 23 (6), 417–427.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10106040801965821.
Singh, T., Jain, V., 2009. Tectonic constraints on watershed development on frontal ridges:
Mohand Ridge, NW Himalaya. India. Geomorphology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geomorph.2008.11.001.
Srivastava, V., Mukul, M., 2020. Cataclastic strain from external thrust sheets in fold-thrust
belts: Insights from the frontal Indian Himalaya. J. Asian Earth Sci. 188 (October 2019),
104092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2019.104092.
19
Geomorphology 384 (2021) 107717
Srivastava, V., Mukul, M., Barnes, J.B., 2016. Main Frontal thrust deformation and topo-
graphic growth of the Mohand Range, northwest Himalaya. J. Struct. Geol. 93,
131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2016.10.009.
Srivastava, V., Mukul, M., Barnes, J.B., Mukul, M., 2018. Geometry and kinematics of Main
Frontal thrust-related fault propagation folding in the Mohand Range, northwest
Himalaya. J. Struct. Geol. 115 (March), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsg.2018.06.022.
Stevens, V.L., Avouac, J.P., 2015. Interseismic coupling on the main Himalayan thrust.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 42 (14), 5828–5837. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064845.
Suppe, J., Chou, G. T., and Hook, S. C. (1992). Rates of folding and faulting determined from
growth s trata. K. R. McClay (Ed.), Thrust Tectonics, 105–106.
Tandon, S. K., and Singh, V. (2014). Duns: Intermontane Basins in the Himalayan Frontal
Zone. In World Geomorphological Landscapes (pp. 135–142). Springer. doi:https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-017-8029-2_12.
Thakur, V.C., 1995. Geology of Dun Valley, Garhwal Himalaya, neotectonics and coeval de-
position with fault-propagation folds. J. Himal. Geol. 6, 1–8.
Thakur, V.C., 2004. Active tectonics of Himalayan Frontal Thrust and Seismic Hazard to
Ganga Plain. Curr. Sci. 86 (11), 1554–1560.
Thakur, V.C., Joshi, M., Sahoo, D., Suresh, N., Jayangondapermal, R., Singh, A., 2014.
Partitioning of convergence in Northwest Sub-Himalaya: Estimation of late Quater-
nary uplift and convergence rates across the Kangra reentrant, North India. Int.
J. Earth Sci. 103 (4), 1037–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-014-1016-7.
Tucker, G. E., and Whipple, K. X. (2002). Topographic outcomes predicted by stream ero-
sion models: Sensitivity analysis and intermodel comparison. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Solid Earth, 107(B9), ETG 1–1-ETG 1–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/
2001JB000162.
Vassallo, R., Mugnier, J.-L., Vignon, V., Malik, M.A., Jayangondaperumal, R., Srivastava, P.,
Jouanne, F., Carcaillet, J., 2015. Distribution of the Late-Quaternary deformation in
Northwestern Himalaya. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 411, 241–252. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.epsl.2014.11.030.
Wesnousky, S.G., Kumar, S., Mohindra, R., Thakur, V.C., 1999. Uplift and convergence
along the Himalayan Frontal Thrust of India. Tectonics 18 (6), 967–976. https://doi.
org/10.1029/1999TC900026.
Whipple, K.X., Tucker, G.E., 2002. Implications of sediment‐flux‐dependent river incision
models for landscape evolution. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 107
(B2), ETG-3. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JB000044.
Wickert, A.D., Schildgen, T.F., 2019. Long-profile evolution of transport-limited gravel-bed
rivers. Earth Surface Dynamics 7 (1), 17–43. https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-7-17-
2019.
Willett, S.D., McCoy, S.W., Taylor Perron, J., Goren, L., Chen, C.Y., 2014. Dynamic reorgani-
zation of River Basins. Science 343 (6175). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248765.
Wobus, C., Whipple, K.X., Kirby, E., Snyder, N., Johnson, J., Spyropolou, K., Crosby, B.,
Sheehan, D., 2006. Tectonics from topography: Procedures, promise, and pitfalls. Spe-
cial Paper of the Geological Society of America 398, 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1130/
2006.2398(04).
Woodward, N. B., Boyer, S. E., and Suppe, J. (1989). Balanced Geological Cross-Sections.
International Geological Congress, Short Course in Geology, 6, 132 p. http://books.goo-
gle.com/books?id=hqnPV7q9YRMC&lpg=PA1&ots=cPglwluNBK&dq=balanced
geological cross sections woodward&pg=PP8#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Yin, A., 2006. Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as constrained by
along-strike variation of structural geometry, exhumation history, and foreland
sedimentation. Earth Sci. Rev. 76 (1–2), 1–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
earscirev.2005.05.004.
Yin, A., Harrison, T.M., 2000. Geologic Evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan Orogen.
Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 28 (1), 211–280. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
earth.28.1.211.
Zhao, W., Nelson, K.D., Che, J., Quo, J., Lu, D., Wu, C., Liu, X., 1993. Deep seismic reflection
evidence for continental underthrusting beneath southern Tibet. Nature 366,
557–559. https://doi.org/10.1038/366557a0.