4.3 Article

Quantifying regolith erosion rates with cosmogenic nuclides 10Be and 26Al in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica

Journal

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2009JF001443

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [OPP-338224]
  2. Directorate For Geosciences
  3. Division Of Earth Sciences [0851981] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. EPSCoR
  5. Office Of The Director [0814442] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica (MDV) are among the oldest landscapes on Earth, and some landforms there present an intriguing apparent contradiction such that millions of years old surface deposits maintain their meter-scale morphology despite the fact that measured erosion rates are 0.1-4 m Ma(-1). We analyzed the concentration of cosmic ray-produced Be-10 and Al-26 in quartz sands from regolith directly above and below two well-documented ash deposits in the MDV, the Arena Valley ash (40Ar/39Ar age of 4.33 Ma) and the Hart ash (K-Ar age of 3.9 Ma). Measured concentrations of Be-10 and Al-26 are significantly less than expected given the age of the in situ air fall ashes and are best interpreted as reflecting the degradation rate of the overlying sediments. The erosion rate of the material above the Arena Valley ash that best explains the observed isotope profiles is 3.5 +/- 0.41 x 10(-5) g cm(-2) yr(-1) (similar to 0.19 m Ma(-1)) for the past similar to 4 Ma. For the Hart ash, the erosion rate is 4.8 +/- 0.21 x 10(-4) g cm(-2) yr(-1) (similar to 2.6 m Ma(-1)) for the past similar to 1 Ma. The concentration profiles do not show signs of mixing, creep, or deflation caused by sublimation of ground ice. These results indicate that the slow, steady lowering of the surface without vertical mixing may allow landforms to maintain their meter-scale morphology even though they are actively eroding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available