<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ESurf</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Earth Surface Dynamics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ESurf</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Earth Surf. Dynam.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2196-632X</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/esurf-7-949-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Experiments on patterns of alluvial cover and bedrock erosion in a
meandering channel</article-title><alt-title>Experiments on patterns of alluvial cover and bedrock erosion</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Experiments on patterns of alluvial cover and bedrock erosion}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{R. Fern\'{a}ndez et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Fernández</surname><given-names>Roberto</given-names></name>
          <email>fernan25@illinois.edu</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4075-0263</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Parker</surname><given-names>Gary</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5973-5296</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Stark</surname><given-names>Colin P.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Ven Te Chow Hydrosystems Laboratory, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
Urbana, IL 61801, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
Urbana, IL 61801, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Roberto Fernández (fernan25@illinois.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>9</day><month>October</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>7</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <fpage>949</fpage><lpage>968</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>22</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>27</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>1</day><month>August</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>28</day><month>August</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 Roberto Fernández et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019.html">This article is available from https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e113">In bedrock rivers, erosion by abrasion is driven by sediment particles that
strike bare bedrock while traveling downstream with the flow. If the
sediment particles settle and form an alluvial cover, this mode of erosion
is impeded by the protection offered by the grains themselves. Channel
erosion by abrasion is therefore related to the amount and pattern of
alluvial cover; these are functions of sediment load and hydraulic
conditions, which in turn are functions of channel geometry, slope, and
sinuosity. This study presents the results of alluvial cover experiments
conducted in a meandering channel flume of high fixed sinuosity. Maps of
quasi-instantaneous alluvial cover were generated from time-lapse imaging of
flows under a range of below-capacity bedload conditions. These maps were
used to infer patterns of particle impact frequency and likely abrasion
rates. Results from eight such experiments suggest the following: (i) abrasion
through sediment particle impacts is driven by fluctuations in alluvial
cover due to the movement of freely migrating bars; (ii) patterns of
potential erosion are functions of sediment load and local curvature; (iii) low sediment supply ratios are associated with regions of potential erosion
located closer to the inner bank, but this region moves toward the outer
bank as sediment supply increases; and (iv) the threads of high erosion
rates are located at the toe of the alluvial bars, just where the alluvial
cover reaches an optimum for abrasion.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\allowdisplaybreaks}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e127">In his report on the geology of the Henry Mountains, Gilbert (1877)
advocated that the process of mechanical erosion of a bedrock riverbed by
material transported by the current depends on the hardness of the bedrock,
the hardness, size, and number of particles in transport, and the velocity of
the stream. He noted that the number of sediment particles striking the bed
and eroding it could increase up to the sediment transport capacity of the
stream. At this point, the bed would be so crowded with particles that
instead of colliding against the bed, they would collide against each other
and the bedrock would be protected from erosion. Based on this observation,
Gilbert (1877) stated that it is probable that the maximum work of
mechanical erosion is performed when the load is far below the transport
capacity of the stream.</p>
      <p id="d1e130">During the last 2 decades, particular attention to the
previously described phenomenon has motivated experimental (e.g., Mishra et
al., 2018; Hodge et al., 2016; Hodge and Hoey, 2016; Johnson and Whipple,
2010, 2007; Chatanantavet and Parker, 2008; Finnegan et al., 2007; Sklar and
Dietrich, 1998) and theoretical or numerical studies (e.g., Turowski, 2018; Turowski and
Hodge, 2017; Zhang et al., 2015; Inoue et al., 2014; Johnson, 2014; Nelson et
al., 2014; Nelson and Seminara, 2012, 2011; Lague, 2010; Chatanantavet and
Parker, 2009; Turowski et al., 2007; Whipple et al., 2000) as well as fieldwork (e.g.,
Ferguson et al., 2017; Beer et al., 2017, 2016; Beer and Turowski, 2015;
Johnson and Finnegan, 2015; Inoue et al., 2014; Cook et al., 2013, 2009;
Hodge et al., 2011) examining the relation between sediment supply,
degree of alluviation, and bedrock incision in mixed<?pagebreak page950?> bedrock–alluvial
rivers. Although Gilbert did not specifically use the terms “tools” and
“cover” effects, he described them vividly. Saltating bedload particles in a
bedrock river are one of the tools needed to cause incision. As sediment
supply increases to a river reach, the ability to incise eventually decays
due to the appearance of sediment deposits that protect the bed from
further abrasion (cover effect). Therefore, in order for bedrock erosion
to occur, a balance must exist between the cover and tools effects such
that there are enough sediment particles in the system striking the bed, but
not so many as to cover it and protect it from abrasion.</p>
      <p id="d1e133">The experimental work of Sklar and Dietrich (2001) has led to a better
understanding of the tools and cover effects. In their work, the cover
effect was parameterized in terms of a cover factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which represents
the areal fraction of bedrock that is covered by sediment. The exposed
fraction is thus defined as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The tools effect was
parameterized as a linear dependence on sediment supply. The
saltation–abrasion model of Sklar and Dietrich (2004) was the first to
include these effects in a bedrock erosion model. The cover model used by
Sklar and Dietrich (2006, 2004) to compute erosion linearly relates the
areal fraction of the bed that is covered by sediment to the ratio of
sediment supply to the sediment transport capacity of a bed fully covered with
alluvium. The linear cover model has been validated
via experimentation under certain conditions (e.g., Chatanantavet and Parker, 2008; Finnegan et al.,
2007; Johnson and Whipple, 2010, 2007). Turowski et al. (2007) proposed an
exponential cover model, which assumes that at below-capacity transport
conditions, sediment grains have equal probability of forming deposits over
any part of the bed and cover could be static (immobile sediment) or dynamic
(mobile sediment but still protects the bed from abrasion due to grain–grain
interactions). Turowski and Rickenmann (2009), using a piezoelectric bedload
sensor, show some field evidence for the dynamic effect in the Pitzbach in
Austria. Lague (2010) also proposed a bedrock channel morphodynamics model
based on stochastic variations of discharge and sediment supply that
accounts for alluvial thickness and its effect on limiting bedrock incision.
His cover model is equivalent to the former two when working with the mean
sediment thickness.</p>
      <p id="d1e169">Recently, Zhang et al. (2018, 2015) proposed the macro-roughness
saltation–abrasion alluviation model, which treats the cover factor as the
ratio between the alluvial thickness at a river cross section to the
characteristic macro-roughness height of the bedrock surface. The advantages
of this approach over the ones previously described is that by relating
cover to alluvial thickness rather than sediment supply, it can deal with
waves of alluviation and bed stripping and their dynamic effect on incision
or the cessation thereof due to complete alluvial cover. Turowski (2018)
presented a model that links alluvial cover to the width, slope, and
sinuosity of mixed bedrock alluvial rivers and postulates that change in
channel width and sinuosity over time depends only on the amount of alluvial
bed cover. Finally, Mishra et al. (2018) conducted experiments in a U-shaped
meandering channel with constant curvature and showed that (i) lateral
erosion increases with sediment supply ratio, (ii) vertical incision
initially grows with sediment supply but shows a more complex relation due
to the interplay between bedrock erosion and sediment deposition, and (iii) zones of erosion along the toe of the point bar result in the formation of
outer bedrock benches.</p>
      <p id="d1e173">In spite of these developments, the cover factor definitions used so far by
the different authors lack one or more important aspects required for the
development of a model of bedrock incision in mixed bedrock–alluvial
meandering rivers, namely the following.
<list list-type="custom"><list-item><label>i.</label>
      <p id="d1e178">What are the roles of sediment supply and local curvature and how do
they affect the areas of potential erosion in meandering bedrock–alluvial
channels? With the exception of the recent work by Mishra et al. (2018),
Inoue et al. (2017, 2016), Nelson et al. (2014), and Nelson and Seminara (2012), all models of bedrock incision by abrasion, or the morphodynamics of
mixed bedrock–alluvial rivers, are either “0-D” or “1-D” and most experiments
have been conducted in straight channels (e.g., Johnson and Whipple, 2010,
2007; Chatanantavet and Parker, 2008; Finnegan et al., 2007). Even though
Shepherd (1972) and Shepherd and Schumm (1974) did experiments with alluvial
cover in bedrock analog substrates and report on erosion patterns in mixed
bedrock–alluvial channels with some sinuosity, there is still no baseline
set of experiments describing how the pattern of spatial cover is
established in a meandering channel and how it varies with local curvature
and sediment supply.</p></list-item><list-item><label>ii.</label>
      <p id="d1e182">What is the appropriate averaging window to characterize the areal
fraction of alluvial cover? The model based on the areal fraction of cover
uses an average value defined over an “appropriate” averaging window, but
different definitions regarding its length scale and timescale have been
provided to date. Moreover, this mean cover value assumes that the alluvial
deposits covering the bed are transient. Field observations (Inoue et al.,
2014; Cook et al., 2013, 2009) and laboratory experiments (Johnson and
Whipple, 2010, 2007; Chatanantavet and Parker, 2008; Finnegan et al., 2007)
indicate that zones of persistent cover and persistent exposure coexist with
transient deposits in mixed bedrock–alluvial rivers.</p></list-item><list-item><label>iii.</label>
      <p id="d1e186">What is the role of alluvial cover fluctuations on erosion? Current
models rely on a mean cover value, but temporal alluvial cover fluctuations
provide a better representation of the frequency of the saltating bedload
particle impacts on the bed that are responsible for bedrock erosion. Some
authors have addressed this issue with probabilistic frameworks (e.g.,
Turowski and Hodge,<?pagebreak page951?> 2017; Lague, 2010; Turowski, 2009), but physical
measurements are still lacking and experimental data are required for
development and validation purposes.</p></list-item><list-item><label>iv.</label>
      <p id="d1e190">What is the relation between alluvial cover and sediment supply? Most
available models typically treat the relation between sediment supply and
the areal extent of alluvial cover by using a linear function. This relation has
prevailed due to its simplicity and because it has been shown to be an
acceptable approximation under certain circumstances (e.g., Chatanantavet and
Parker, 2008). Nevertheless, there are models that predict a much wider
range of behaviors (e.g., Turowski and Hodge, 2017; Hodge and Hoey, 2012).</p></list-item></list>
We addressed these questions by conducting experiments in a high-amplitude
laboratory meandering flume to characterize the statistics of alluvial cover
as they relate to the sediment supply ratio and local curvature. We also
addressed the fourth question by conducting a simple experiment on a flat
(non-sloping) bedrock slab. Before describing our experimental methods, we
present the relevant definitions needed for our analysis.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Bedrock erosion and alluvial cover</title>
      <p id="d1e199">The time rate of bedrock incision (erosion) by mechanical wear <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has
been quantified with Eq. (1) by different authors (e.g., Sklar and Dietrich,
2004, 2006; Turowski et al., 2007; Chatanantavet and Parker, 2009) as
follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M4" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          In Eq. (1), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the volume of bedrock lost per particle impact,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the particle impact rate per unit area per unit time, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the fraction of exposed bedrock. The areal fraction of alluvial
cover, i.e., the cover factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, is thus defined as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. A
closely related equation to compute erosion is presented in Eq. (2) (e.g.,
Turowski et al., 2008; Chatanantavet and Parker, 2009). Let <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> equal a
parameter that relates to the fraction of bedrock volume that is lost per
particle impact at the end of each saltation; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the capacity
bedload transport rate per unit width for a bed fully covered with alluvium,
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> – the actual bedload transport rate per unit
width assuming that particles can only be mobilized from portions of
the bed that have an alluvial cover. Then,
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M13" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bt</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          But it is readily seen that the above relation breaks down for throughput
load, bedload transport that enters and leaves a reach without depositing
on the bed and does not contribute to cover in any meaningful sense. In
Sklar and Dietrich (2004) and other works based on their cover model (e.g.,
Turowski et al., 2007; Lamb et al., 2008), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the areal
fraction of exposed bedrock and is related to the sediment supply ratio (Eq. 3). In the Zhang et al. (2015) cover model, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the fraction
of bed elevation at a given cross section that is not covered by alluvium
and is instead related to the ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a measure of the thickness of alluvium, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a
measure of the intrinsic macro-roughness height of the bedrock surface
itself (Eq. 4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e471">Schematic representations of <bold>(a)</bold> the fraction of exposed bedrock
showing surface areal cover (Sklar and Dietrich, 2004) and <bold>(b)</bold> a cross
section illustrating the filling of a rough bedrock surface with alluvium (Zhang
et al., 2015).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=327.206693pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e486">Both definitions are presented schematically in Fig. 1. In general,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a function of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and commonly used forms are given by Eqs. (3) and (4).

                <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M22" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>3</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>if </mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>if </mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>4</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="" open="{"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>if </mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>if </mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Equation (3) or (4) in combination with Eq. (1) must be employed in terms of an
appropriate averaging window over which to determine the cover fraction
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and open fraction <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For example, Sklar and
Dietrich (2006), Gasparini et al. (2007), and Chatanantavet and Parker (2008)
assume, explicitly or implicitly, that (a) the averaging window is at least
as large as channel width and (b) that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fluctuates temporally between
0 and 1 within the window. If this were not the case, zones along the reach
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> persistently takes the values 0 and 1 would never be subject
to incision, and channel geometry would not change over time in those
reaches. However, if these assumptions are met over an appropriate timescale, all the reach would, in the long-term average, erode at the same rate
(Sklar and Dietrich, 2004).</p>
      <p id="d1e788">In the case of mixed bedrock–alluvial meandering rivers, wherein persistent
alluvium deposits may form in, e.g., point bars, the assumptions just
described break down. In such rivers, erosion occurs only in areas with
transient cover and is not expected to occur in areas that are persistently
covered or exposed. Under certain conditions, specific areas of the channel
might have little to no probability of being struck by sediment particles,
thus limiting the areas that could undergo erosion.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Flume</title>
      <p id="d1e807">Experiments were conducted in the Kinoshita flume at the Ven Te Chow
Hydrosystems Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. The
flume, shown in Fig. 2b, is 0.60 m wide, 0.40 m deep, 33 m long (along
the centerline, not including upstream and downstream tanks), and has a
sinuosity of 3.7. All three meander bends are identical and have a
down-channel wavelength of 10 m. All results presented herein correspond to
experiments conducted with water flowing from right to left as indicated in
Fig. 2c, i.e., with the bends skewed in the upstream direction. The flume is
a closed system in which water and sediment are recirculated. Readers
interested in more specific details about the Kinoshita flume are referred
to Abad and Garcia (2009a, b).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e812"><bold>(a)</bold> Bedrock bathymetry built inside the Kinoshita flume. Streamwise
locations 10, 15, and 20 m are indicated; <bold>(b)</bold> 3-D rendering of the Kinoshita flume
showing the location of tank measuring tapes, point gages, eTapes, a sediment trap
and sediment diffuser, flow direction, and the middle bend where all
measurements were made. <bold>(c)</bold> Kinoshita shape with streamwise stations
indicated. Flow direction from right to left.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<?pagebreak page952?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Bed material properties and bed characteristics</title>
      <p id="d1e837">The alluvium used in the experiments was crushed walnut shells, which have a
specific gravity in the range 1.3–1.4. A bedrock basement was built in the
flume using the bathymetry measured by Czapiga (2013), who conducted
experiments under fully alluvial conditions using the crushed walnut shells.
The Supplement (S3) shows the bathymetry from those experiments.
Transverse slopes were measured from the bathymetry, and a relation between
the transverse slope and streamwise location was fit to the data. Using it,
transverse slopes every 0.5 m were calculated. Based on the computed
transverse slopes, cross-sectional bathymetric slices were cut out of foam
and placed inside the flume every 0.5 m. Pea gravel was used to fill the
flume following the profile established by the foam slices. The region
between streamwise stations CS07 and CS23 (Fig. 2c) was filled with gravel
to an elevation slightly below the maximum given by the foam slices. This
section was then covered with a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm layer of concrete and
used to create the bedrock surface. We filled the rest of the flume (CS00–CS07 and CS23–CS30) with pea gravel to maintain an average centerline
elevation throughout the flume. The size of the gravel was chosen so as to
prevent it from being transported by the flow in the experiments. Figure 3c
shows the bedrock bed built inside the Kinoshita flume, and Fig. 2a shows
its bathymetry. The concrete was painted white to enhance the contrast
between the bedrock and the alluvium. The Supplement (S1, S3) has
a set of images and diagrams that provide additional information regarding
the construction of the bedrock bed inside the flume and the premixed
concrete used.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e852"><bold>(a)</bold> Grain size distributions for the alluvium (crushed walnut
shells), dry concrete mix used to build the bedrock, and the pea gravel
underlying the bedrock basement. Insert shows residual elevations of
as-built bedrock bed, measured with laser scans at different cross sections
inside the Kinoshita flume. Mean macro-roughness (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm) is
also indicated in the main plot. <bold>(b)</bold> Image of crushed walnut shells with
a ruler for scale and <bold>(c)</bold> bedrock bed partially covered with alluvium inside
the Kinoshita flume.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e879">The grain size distributions of the crushed walnut shells, the pea gravel,
and the dry concrete mix (including gravel, sand, and cement) are shown in
Fig. 3a. The inset figure includes the results of laser scans conducted to
measure the as-built bedrock macro-roughness, i.e., the difference between
the maximum and minimum elevations according to Zhang et al. (2015).</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Bed laser scans</title>
      <p id="d1e891">A Keyence LB-1201 laser (Keyence Corporation, 1992) with sub-millimeter precision (250 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m) was used to scan the bed at five different locations, namely
CS10, CS12, CS15, CS17, and CS20 (Fig. 2c). These locations were chosen
because they are representative of the bedrock topography at the apices
(CS10, CS15, and CS20) and the crossings (CS12 and CS17). A polynomial was
fit to the scans, and residual elevations were calculated by subtracting the
actual reading from the polynomial. This removed the local topography from
the signal. The average residual elevation along the cross sections was
calculated and used to estimate the macro-roughness of the bedrock bed. The
resulting value (10 mm) is also indicated in Fig. 3a. More details about the
scans and the polynomial fit are included in the Supplement (S1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Areal alluvial cover measurements</title>
      <p id="d1e910">The percentage of areal alluvial cover was calculated by analyzing
time-lapse images of the flume bed. Images were taken, on average, every 10 s (0.1 Hz) during the duration of every run and processed in MATLAB. A
region of interest (ROI) was selected for each image series. In this study,
the ROI corresponds to the middle bend of the Kinoshita flume, i.e., between
streamwise locations 10 and 20 m (Fig. 2).</p>
      <?pagebreak page954?><p id="d1e913">Images were first converted to grayscale, and then the method of Otsu (1979), as implemented in MATLAB (“graythresh” function), was used to make
the images binary. The resulting black (alluvial cover) and white (bedrock)
images were used to calculate the percent of areal cover. The fraction of
alluvial cover was determined as shown in Eq. (5).
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M30" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ROI</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          In Eq. (5), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ROI</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the percent of areal alluvial cover inside the region
of interest, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total number of pixels inside the region of interest
(i.e., total area), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the value of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th pixel in the binary
image (white pixels are equal to one and black pixels are equal to zero).
The pixel size in the images was approximately 2.8 mm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.8 mm. This
resolution is not enough to capture individual sediment grains (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm). Nevertheless, if a single grain lies in a pixel,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % of its area would be alluvium, leading to a gray
pixel (as seen by MATLAB). Depending on the threshold determined by Otsu's
method for the region of interest, a single grain could be enough to be
interpreted as alluvial cover. More details regarding the image acquisition
and processing are included in the Supplement (S2).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Relation between alluvial cover and sediment supply</title>
      <p id="d1e1047">A rectangular bedrock slab was built with the same materials used to build
the bedrock basement in the flume. The bedrock slab was built over a piece
of foam laid on a floor so as to have no longitudinal or transverse slope.
Pea gravel was placed over the foam and a thin layer of concrete was poured
over it. It was then painted white to increase the contrast between the bedrock
and the alluvium. The purpose of this bedrock slab, which was 0.6 m long by
0.4 m wide, was to measure (i) the relation between areal alluvial cover and
sediment mass fraction and (ii) the relation between areal alluvial cover
and the ratio of alluvial cover thickness to bedrock macro-roughness. Images
of this simple experiment are included in the Supplement (S1).</p>
      <p id="d1e1050">To quantify the cumulative sediment mass fraction, known weights of sediment
were incrementally added to the slab and spread evenly until the bed was
fully covered with alluvium. A total of 11 iterations were necessary to cover the
bed completely. The total amount of mass used was 646 g. Mass increments
used in every iteration are shown in Supplement S1. The cumulative sediment
mass fraction was calculated as the cumulative weight of sediment in every
iteration divided by the total weight of sediment used to fully cover the
bed. Areal alluvial cover was quantified using images and following the
approach described in Sect. 2.4. The ratio of alluvial cover thickness to
bedrock macro-roughness was quantified by scanning nine cross sections of
the bedrock slab with a sub-millimeter-precision Keyence laser (Keyence Corporation,
1992). The cross sections were 4 cm away from each other. The first set of
scans were conducted over the bare bedrock slab, and then they were repeated
each time that alluvium was added over the slab. The entire process was
conducted two times to verify that the results would not change due to any
human-induced errors in the measurements or the way in which the alluvium
was distributed over the bed after each iteration. After the first set of
measurements, the alluvium was initially removed with a brush and then with
an air-pressure hose to make sure no grains were left on the slab. Images
related to this experiment are included in the Supplement (S1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <label>2.6</label><title>Experimental conditions</title>
      <p id="d1e1061">Table 1 shows the general experimental conditions used in this study. The
flow discharge rate used in all runs was 12.3 liters per second (L s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>),
which corresponds to the flow rate used by Czapiga (2013). This flow rate
created the alluvial bathymetry used to build the bedrock bed in these
experiments. The flow discharge was measured with<?pagebreak page955?> electromagnetic flowmeters. Given that the sediment recirculating pump only works at a constant
discharge of 3.1 L s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, the main pump was set to have a discharge of 9.2 L s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1103">Hydraulic parameters common to all experimental conditions.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col2">Parameter </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Value</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Flow discharge</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.0123</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Channel width</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Centerline depth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.11</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Reach-averaged velocity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.19</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hydraulic radius</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.08</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Froude number</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (–)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.18</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1285">Experiment parameters specific to each run.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Run</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Reach-averaged</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Water</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Average bedload</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Water surface</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Water surface</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Kinematic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Reynolds</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">ID</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">fraction of</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">temperature</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">transport</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">slope,</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">slope,</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">viscosity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">number</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">cover</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">rate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">middle bend</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">entire flume</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(–)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (–)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (g s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (mm m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (mm m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><italic>Re</italic>  (–)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">pc00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.9131</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">16 328</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">pc19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.97</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.0034</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">14 859</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">pc27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.9131</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">16 328</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">pc38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.55</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.8539</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">17 460</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">pc46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.9795</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">15 221</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">pc54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">22</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.9565</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">15 587</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">pc72</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.72</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.97</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.8539</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">17 460</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">pc79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.97</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.9131</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">16 328</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e1288"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bedload transport rate not measured for this condition.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Slopes estimated based on the average ratio between middle-bend
slopes and flume slopes of the previous five experimental conditions.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1814">The volume of sediment inside the Kinoshita flume was modified between runs
so as to obtain different reach-averaged areal ratios of alluvial cover.
Runs in this study are identified based on this value (Table 2). For
example, run pc79 had 79 % of the total bed area covered with alluvium
after averaging in space (one wavelength) and time (1 h). The first run
conducted was pc79. After this run, we removed sediment from the flume,
leading to lower percent of areal alluvial cover (pc) conditions. The values obtained were not planned. The
two following runs were pc72 and pc54. Afterwards, all the sediment was
removed from the system to run the bare bedrock condition, pc00. The
following runs were pc19, pc27, pc38, and pc46, conditions that were achieved
after progressively adding sediment to the flume.</p>
      <p id="d1e1817">We allowed the bed to adjust for at least 8 h between runs. The 60 min we report in the study are after the bed had adapted to the new
condition. We computed the alluvial cover statistics throughout the
transition from one state to another and once it had reached equilibrium we
continued measuring. We report only the values once the system had reached
equilibrium for each condition. Water surface slopes were initially
calculated by using the water level elevation changes in the upstream and
downstream tanks of the Kinoshita flume. Both tanks have a measuring tape
glued to the upstream- and downstream-most walls (Fig. 2b). These measuring
tapes were used to guarantee that runs always started at the desired water
elevation. Before turning on the pumps, desired water elevations were
verified, and after the run had started, readings were taken every 20–30 min.</p>
      <p id="d1e1820">Water surface elevations were also measured with eTapes in runs pc00, pc19,
and pc79 (Fernández, 2018). An eTape is a sensor with a resistive output
that varies with the level of fluid in which it is immersed. The resistive
output of the sensor is inversely proportional to the height of the water.
Low water depths correspond to high output resistance. Conversely, high
water depths correspond to low output resistance. Details about the eTape
installation, calibration, and operation are given in S4, and further
information may be found in Fernández (2018). After runs pc79, pc72, and
pc54 were finished, we noticed that the water surface slopes in the
Kinoshita flume were different depending on if they were calculated for the
total length of the flume, i.e., between tanks, or for the middle bend of the
flume only. Figure 4 shows an example of the water surface elevations
measured with the eTapes (middle zone of the flume) and the measuring tapes
(entire flume) for run pc79. To accurately measure the middle-bend water
surface slopes in runs pc00–pc46, point gages were placed on the flume at
streamwise locations 9 and 21 m (Fig. 2). The slopes calculated with the
point gage readings are shown in Table 1. The average ratio of the slopes
calculated with the point gages to those calculated with tank elevations in
runs pc00–pc46 was used to estimate the slopes in the middle bend of the
flume for runs pc54, pc72, and pc79.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1825">Average water surface elevation profiles and corresponding slopes
based on the eTape readings and the levels measured in the upstream and
downstream tanks for run pc79.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=170.716535pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1834">The sediment transport rates were measured by collecting material in a box
fitted to the diffuser at the upstream end of the flume (Abad and Garcia,
2009b). This box is not shown in Fig. 2. Table 2 shows the average
sediment transport rates measured.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS7">
  <label>2.7</label><title>Quantifying erosion potential</title>
      <p id="d1e1845">Based on Eq. (2), a dimensionless erosion potential <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> may be expressed
as a function of the areal fraction of alluvial cover as shown in Eq. (6)
below. We use this (Sect. 3.5) to assess the spatiotemporal average erosion
potential for the seven experimental conditions with alluvium.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M69" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sp</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          At the microscopic level, the value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can only take values of zero
(exposed bedrock) or one (covered with alluvium). In the context of the
areal images obtained during the experiments, this means that pixels may
change between white and black throughout the run. This information may be
used to quantify erosion potential based on alluvial cover fluctuations.</p>
      <?pagebreak page956?><p id="d1e1899">Bedrock incision can only occur when a particle strikes the bed. If a pixel
changes from white to black between consecutive images, it means that
sediment particles traveled into the area and struck the bed. If the pixel
remains black or white in consecutive images, no strikes occurred; if
the pixel changes from black to white, sediment particles have left and
thus did not strike the bed. With these definitions, the erosion potential
may be quantified by counting the number of times that a pixel changes from
white to black, i.e., by quantifying the fluctuations in alluvial cover.</p>
      <p id="d1e1902">The frequency of strikes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th pixel corresponds to the
number of times that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th pixel has changed from white (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to black (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) between consecutive images (im) divided by the
total number of images (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the series (Eq. 7). We use this approach (Sect. 3.6) to assess the erosion potential based on alluvial cover fluctuations
for the seven experimental runs containing alluvium.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>7</label><mml:math id="M77" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">im</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Relation between alluvial cover and sediment supply</title>
      <p id="d1e2047">Figure 5 shows the relation between alluvial cover and sediment supply
measured on the bedrock slab and in the Kinoshita flume. Specifically,
Fig. 5a shows the relation between areal alluvial cover and cumulative
sediment mass fraction measured on the bedrock slab. Figure 5b shows the
relation between areal alluvial cover and the ratio of alluvial cover
thickness to bedrock macro-roughness measured on the bedrock slab. The thin
dashed lines with circle and square markers show the average results of the
measurements; the thick dashed lines correspond to a best-fit line, and the
dotted lines show the linear relation between variables that has been used
by previous authors (e.g., Zhang et al., 2018, 2015; Inoue et al., 2016,
2014; Chatanantavet and Parker, 2009, 2008; Sklar and Dietrich, 2006, 2004).
Figure 5c shows the relation between reach-averaged alluvial cover (spatial
average measured over one wavelength) and the sediment supply ratio measured in
the Kinoshita flume.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e2052"><bold>(a)</bold> Relation between the areal fraction of alluvial cover and cumulative
sediment mass fraction for bedrock slab; the total mass added to the slab was
646 g and all increments are shown in Supplement S1. <bold>(b)</bold> Relation between the
areal fraction of alluvial cover and the ratio between alluvial thickness
and bedrock macro-roughness for bedrock slab. <bold>(c)</bold> Relation between
the reach-averaged areal fraction of alluvial cover and sediment supply ratio
for the Kinoshita flume and corresponding water surface slopes as a function of
sediment supply ratio.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2069">The relations between alluvial cover and sediment mass fraction in the
bedrock slab (Fig. 5a) and the Kinoshita flume (Fig. 5c) are logarithmic
(Eq. 8). The value of the constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (8) below is different between
the bedrock slab (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.23</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the Kinoshita flume (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.14</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), but the
shape of the relation is the same. Previous research has shown that
different relations between the percent of cover and sediment supply ratio are
valid under certain circumstances (e.g., Turowski and Hodge, 2017; Inoue et
al., 2014; Chatanantavet and Parker, 2008), and our results suggest that the
relation below is also possible:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><label>8</label><mml:math id="M81" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          This relation diverges as the sediment supply ratio (term in parentheses)
tends towards zero and, as such, does not describe the small sediment flux
limit. The relation is similar to those derived by Turowski and Hodge (2017;
Eqs. 27 and 31) when the exponential term in their relation is small. Aubert
et al. (2016) predict a similar relation to describe the alluvial cover
based on direct numerical simulations. In the case of the bedrock slab, the
logarithmic relation suggests that, initially, the areal cover increases
rapidly with the sediment supply ratio. Once the smaller voids in the bed are
filled, more and more alluvium is needed to fully cover the largest
roughness elements and further increase <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e2155">In the case of the Kinoshita flume, the logarithmic relation between
alluvial cover and the sediment supply ratio is believed to be due in large part
to the formation of point bars and transient alluvial deposits. Initially, a
small amount<?pagebreak page957?> of alluvium covers a proportionately larger area of the bed,
but as sediment supply increases, alluvial thickness growth is favored over
the areal extent of alluvial cover. As more alluvium accumulates over regions
previously covered, additional sediment supplied to the reach tends to
deposit at the edge of the existing deposits, thus increasing alluvial
cover but at an ever smaller rate.</p>
      <p id="d1e2158">Figure 5b shows the relation between areal alluvial cover and the alluvial
thickness to bedrock macro-roughness ratio. Zhang et al. (2018, 2015) and
Inoue et al. (2014) used the assumption that the relation is linear but the
results obtained for the bedrock slab suggest that an “S-shaped” (sigmoid
curve) relation is more appropriate. A logistic curve, which is a type of
sigmoid curve, was fit to the measurements in this study. Equation (9) shows the
general logistic function and Eq. (10) shows the one used here. Comparing the
two, it may be seen that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum value of the
curve corresponding to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the steepness of the
curve, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of the sigmoid curve's midpoint. As
shown in Fig. 5b and Eq. (10), the steepness used to fit the sigmoid curve
to the measured values was 8 and the midpoint was defined at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>

                <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M91" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E9"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>9</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E10"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>10</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            The function in Eq. (10) is valid between a characteristically low (e.g., 0.05)
and a characteristically high (e.g., 0.95) value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to avoid unrealistic cover values (Zhang
et al., 2018). It is likely that the steepness and midpoint value are
associated with some measure of the grain size distribution of the alluvium
and the macro-roughness height of the bedrock. In the case of the bedrock
and alluvium (Fig. 3a) used in this study, the steepness value corresponds
to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the midpoint value corresponds
to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.1</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">84</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This issue merits further
investigation so as to define appropriate relations to calculate the
steepness and midpoint value of the sigmoid curve for implementation in
numerical models. We discuss the issue of alluvial thickness and alluvial
cover further in Sect. 4.4.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e2481">Images of the middle bend of the Kinoshita flume corresponding to
an instant during each of the eight different areal alluvial cover
conditions. The volume of sediment in the system grows from top to bottom and
left to right. <bold>(a)</bold> Diagram showing the flow direction with
cross sections indicating the streamwise locations along the middle
bend of the flume.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2493">Figure 6 shows a snapshot of the middle bend of the Kinoshita flume
corresponding to each one of the eight reach-averaged alluvial cover
conditions. Similar images for the bedrock slab experiment are included in
the Supplement (S1). Links to the videos showing the bed
evolution for the different experimental conditions are included in the
“Video supplement” section at the end of the paper.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Reach averages of alluvial cover fraction</title>
      <p id="d1e2504">Figure 7 shows the temporal evolution of reach-averaged alluvial cover for
all experimental runs. Larger fractions of alluvial cover are associated
with fluctuations about the mean value due to the appearance of
freely migrating bars as sediment supply increases. Figure 8 shows the maps
of alluvial cover for all experimental runs. Darker shades of blue
correspond to areas that were covered with alluvium for more than 70 % of
the time, and shades of yellow correspond to areas that were covered with
alluvium less than 30 % of the time. In regards to the tools and cover
effects, the white and black regions in those alluvial cover maps would not
experience erosion. No tools (alluvium) are available to erode the bed in
the white regions, whereas alluvium completely covered the bed in the black
regions, thus protecting it from erosion.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e2509">Temporal evolution of the reach-averaged areal fraction of alluvial
cover for all experimental conditions that had alluvium.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e2520">Maps of spatiotemporal averages of the areal fraction of alluvial cover
for all experimental conditions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2530">The areal alluvial cover definition in Fig. 1a is based on the assumption
that alluvial deposits are transient; i.e., no portions of the bed in the
reach remain persistently covered with alluvium or fully exposed. This
assumption is not met in meandering channels where persistent alluvial cover
deposits form and grow as sediment supply increases, and erosion may only
occur in regions where alluvial cover is changing in time, i.e.,
regions with transient cover.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page958?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Regions with transient alluvial cover</title>
      <p id="d1e2541">The alluvial cover maps in Fig. 8 show different percentages of
persistently covered or exposed bedrock, as well as regions with transient
alluvial cover. The regions with transient alluvial deposits are those over
which alluvial cover is changing in time (colored regions in Fig. 8). To
delineate and quantify these areas, the following criteria were used:
regions with persistent alluvial cover are those in which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.975</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>;
regions with persistent exposed bedrock are those in which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.025</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>;
and regions with transient alluvial cover are those in which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.025</mml:mn><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.975</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Using these criteria, maps of transient alluvial cover were
prepared. Figure 9 shows the regions of transient cover (gray), persistent
cover (black), and persistently exposed bedrock (white) for each of the eight
experimental conditions. The area of the former two regions increases with
sediment supply, whereas the area of the latter decreases as sediment supply
increases.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e2595">Maps showing regions with persistent alluvial cover, transient
alluvial cover, and persistently exposed bedrock for all experimental
conditions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page959?><p id="d1e2604">Figure 10 shows the reach-averaged percentages of these three regions for
all eight experimental conditions. Therein, the yellow dashed line
corresponds to the reach-averaged fraction of persistently exposed bedrock,
the blue line corresponds to the reach-averaged fraction of persistently
covered bedrock, the light blue line corresponds to the reach-averaged
fraction of the bed with transient cover, the thick black line corresponds
to the sum of the transient and persistent cover fractions, and the black
dotted line corresponds to the 1 : 1 line.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e2610">Reach-averaged area ratios of persistently exposed bedrock,
transient alluvial cover, persistent alluvial cover, and persistent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>
transient alluvial cover as a function of reach-averaged areal cover
fraction.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2626">The regions of persistent and transient cover increase as a function of
reach-averaged alluvial cover. The regions of persistently exposed bedrock
decrease concomitantly. In general, both the fraction of the total area with
persistent and transient cover grow at a similar rate with increasing
reach-averaged <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The reach-averaged conditions for which transient
and persistent cover have similar area ratios are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.27</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 0.46,
0.54, and 0.72. The largest differences between persistent and transient
cover are observed at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 0.38, and 0.79.</p>
      <p id="d1e2670">The case <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is likely due to the typical sedimentation
patterns observed in meandering bedrock channels when alluvial point bars
first form. Immediately downstream of the bend apices, i.e., the points of
highest curvature, sediment is deposited. In the Kinoshita flume, the apices
of bends are located at streamwise locations 9.5, 14.5, and 19.5 m (Fig. 13). Initially, these locations become the upstream-most points of the point
bars. Once these deposits have been established and as long as sediment
continues to be supplied from upstream, the incoming particles travel above
the existing deposit due to decreased resistance from the bed. Under such
conditions, persistent alluvial cover is favored over transient alluvial
cover.</p>
      <p id="d1e2688">The case <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.38</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has a larger portion of the total area with
transient cover than with persistent cover. As more sediment was supplied to
the system while keeping the initial (no flow) water depth constant (Table 1), the alluvial thickness could not continue to grow indefinitely;
rather, the areal extent of alluvial cover grew instead and the
water surface slope also increased (Table 2). Sediment particles could no
longer be preferentially transported over the alluvial deposits and began
to be transported closer to the edge of the existing deposits.</p>
      <p id="d1e2706">The case <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.79</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> shows a dip in the ratio of transient cover, while
the area with persistent cover continues to increase. Although there are no
runs with a larger reach-averaged fraction of alluvial cover, it is likely
that this trend would be maintained until the bed is completely covered with
alluvium. As <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> grows, the area ratio of persistently covered regions
should increase at a faster rate, and the area ratio of regions with
transient cover should decrease rapidly towards zero. Eventually, the
channel will not have any area left for<?pagebreak page960?> the areal extent of alluvial cover
to grow so that further deposition promotes increased alluvial thickness
instead. Erosion by abrasion would promote the lateral migration of the bedrock
river (e.g., Inoue et al., 2017; Shepherd, 1972).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Cross-sectional averages of alluvial cover</title>
      <p id="d1e2743">Figure 11 shows the cross-sectional alluvial cover averages for the seven
experimental conditions with alluvium. Values were extracted every meter
between streamwise locations 10 and 20 m. Therefore, 11 local alluvial
cover values were obtained for each experiment. As in the case of the
reach-averaged values, these results include persistently covered and
exposed portions of the cross section as well as a fraction with transient
alluvial cover.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e2748">Cross-sectional averages of the areal fraction of alluvial cover for
all experimental runs. Local values were extracted every meter between
streamwise locations 10 and 20 m. The legend indicates the corresponding
reach-averaged values.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2757">In general, all conditions exhibit similar trends, with local lows in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at streamwise locations 15 and 19 m and local highs at streamwise
locations 11 and 16 m. The regions showing higher local percentages of
alluvial cover are located 1.5 m downstream of the bend apices. Point bar
deposits are responsible for the higher local value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at these
locations. On the other hand, the local lows in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are associated with
the points of highest curvature in the reach. Both local lows are within 0.5 m of the bend apices.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e2796">Cross-sectionally averaged ratios of persistently exposed bedrock,
transient alluvial cover, persistent alluvial cover, and persistent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>
transient alluvial cover for all experimental conditions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page961?><p id="d1e2812">Figure 12 shows the ratios of the cross sections that had persistently
exposed bedrock (dashed yellow line), persistently covered bedrock (blue
line), transient alluvial cover (light blue line), and the ratio
corresponding to the sum of persistent plus transient cover (black line) for
all experimental conditions but pc00. The ratio of exposed bedrock peaks in
the vicinity of the bend apices. Even in the case of reach-averaged <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.79</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, portions of the bed in these areas remain exposed due to high
curvature. Except for the cases with reach-averaged <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.38</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
0.54, no cross sections have fractions with transient alluvial cover greater
than 60 %.</p>
      <p id="d1e2845">The average fractions of transient alluvial cover at the cross-sectional
level have values of 0.10 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 0.21 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.27</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
and between 0.31 and 0.34 for the other experimental conditions. In spite of
the local variations in transient alluvial cover, potential erosion is, on
average, limited to a rather small portion of the cross section. This is
likely due to the combined effects of the sediment supply ratio and local
curvature.</p>
      <p id="d1e2878">Figure 13 shows box plots of cross-sectionally averaged <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> normalized
with the reach-averaged value. The figure also shows the dimensionless
curvature of the Kinoshita flume (black dashed line), the negative value of
the curvature (gray dotted line), and the median normalized values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(red line). The true (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and negative (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) centerline
curvature signals are shown to better highlight the trend of normalized
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with curvature.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e2933">Box plots of the normalized cross-sectionally averaged areal fraction
of alluvial cover in the middle bend of the Kinoshita flume. The
dimensionless curvature of the flume <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and its negative value <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are plotted to better show the salient trends.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2960">The boxes include information from the seven experiments at each cross
section. The median value is indicated by the red line inside the box; the
bottom line on each box corresponds to the first quartile (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>); the top
line on each box corresponds to the third quartile (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>); whiskers
extend to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at the bottom and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at the top; and values lying outside this range are
considered outliers and are indicated with a red cross. The cross sections
located close to the bend apices, i.e., regions with local high curvature,
show normalized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values below unity, whereas the regions with smaller
curvature values show normalized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values above unity. Normalized,
local <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values follow the overall trend of local curvature.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page962?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <label>3.5</label><title>Erosion potential based on alluvial cover averages</title>
      <p id="d1e3090">Figure 14 shows the erosion potential (Eq. 6) for all experimental
conditions. Regions with higher erosion potential are those for which
alluvial cover averages were close to 0.5, in accordance with the parabolic
form of Eq. (6). These regions are shown in dark blue in Fig. 13. White
regions have no erosion potential due to a lack of tools or the presence of
alluvial cover protecting the bed from abrasion. The regions of potential
erosion are limited to the areas with transient alluvial cover. In general,
their width is a function of sediment supply ratio, with narrower regions
associated with smaller sediment supply ratios. Locally, the width of these
regions is affected by curvature as well, with narrower regions in areas of
high curvature and wider regions in areas of lower curvature.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14"><?xmltex \currentcnt{14}?><label>Figure 14</label><caption><p id="d1e3095">Maps of spatiotemporally averaged erosion potential for all
experimental conditions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3104">The region of potential erosion is located closer to the inner bank for
lower sediment supply ratios and moves outward as sediment supply
increases. Focusing on the region of potential erosion located at the bend
apex at streamwise location 14.5 m (see Fig. 2c for location on plots), it
is seen that for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.27</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the region is located right next to the
inside bank, whereas for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.79</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the region is much closer to the
outer bank.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS6">
  <label>3.6</label><title>Erosion potential based on alluvial cover fluctuations</title>
      <p id="d1e3145">The results of alluvial cover shown and discussed up to this point
correspond to spatial or temporal averages. Nonetheless,
Fig. 15 shows the frequency of strikes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for all experimental
conditions (Eq. 7). In general, the areas in color in the figure are similar
to the areas with transient alluvial cover shown in Fig. 9 and the areas
with erosion potential in Fig. 14. Picking out differences in these
particular figures is not straightforward, but the videos included in the
Supplement illustrate the migrating erosion fronts and suggest
that erosion is likely to be driven predominantly by the movement of
freely migrating bars. The use of the frequency of strikes associated with
fluctuations in alluvial cover provides an improved approach for computing
bedrock erosion by abrasion, as discussed below.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15"><?xmltex \currentcnt{15}?><label>Figure 15</label><caption><p id="d1e3161">Maps of the frequency of strikes for all experimental conditions.
The frequency shown is based on the number of images. Dividing the values by 10 s,
which is the time between images, will give the actual frequency (Hz).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f15.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Transient alluvial cover: an issue of timescales</title>
      <p id="d1e3187">Alluvial deposits on the bed of a bedrock river cover it and protect it from
abrasion (Gilbert, 1877; Sklar and Dietrich, 1998, 2004). At the microscopic
level, a portion of the riverbed can only be covered (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) or
exposed (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in any given instant. Therefore, a notion of
transient alluvial deposits becomes necessary to guarantee that in time,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fluctuates between those end-members and erosion caused by saltating
bedload particles is possible (Eq. 2). In the original<?pagebreak page963?> saltation–abrasion
framework of Sklar and Dietrich (2004), transient alluvial deposits were an
underlying assumption (Fig. 1a). No temporal averaging window was needed
since all portions of the bed had the same probability of being eroded in
time.</p>
      <p id="d1e3231">Turowski et al. (2007), working under the assumption that sediment transport
capacity is uniform across a control area of unspecified dimensions,
described the cover effect as static or dynamic. Static cover occurs when
the amount of sediment supplied to the reach is larger than the transport
capacity, and therefore some particles remain immobile on the bed. Dynamic
cover occurs when the amount of sediment supplied is smaller than the
transport capacity. Sediment particles cover portions of the bed but are
mobile. As sediment supply increases, erosion is limited due to more
grain–grain collisions than grain–bed interactions. In this framework, the
dynamic cover effect reduces erosion by decreasing the impact energy
experienced by the bed due to the interactions between grains. Nonetheless,
the notion of transient alluvial cover over an unspecified time window is
required, and in the long term, all areas of the bed have the same
likelihood of being eroded as long as sediment supply is below the transport
capacity of the reach.</p>
      <p id="d1e3234">Chatanantavet and Parker (2008), Inoue et al. (2014), Hodge and Hoey (2016b), and Ferguson et al. (2017) present cases in which sediment
particles are being transported over the bed as throughput bedload. These
cases challenge the notion of a cover effect because alluvial deposits do
not exist at all. They could still be treated as having transient alluvial
cover for modeling purposes, but what would be the relevant timescale to
characterize it? Chatanantavet and Parker (2008) and Hodge and Hoey (2016b)
also observed that throughput load may be unstable; as soon as hydraulic
conditions change, runaway alluviation occurred and the same portion of the
bed changed from a state of being continuously struck by sediment particles
(undergoing erosion) to being protected from further erosion.</p>
      <p id="d1e3237">The examples above suggest that areas with persistent or transient alluvial
cover in a mixed bedrock–alluvial river can only be categorized as such
given a specified timescale. The reach-averaged results shown in Figs. 8,
9, and 10 suggest that the areas subject to erosion in mixed
bedrock–alluvial meandering rivers are a fraction of the total reach area.
In this study, we defined transient alluvial cover as portions of the
bed on which the temporal averages of local alluvial cover had values  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.025</mml:mn><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.975</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during the time of the experiment (Fig. 8). Based on this definition, areas with persistent alluvial cover or
exposed bedrock were also delimited (Fig. 9). In the case of the Kinoshita
flume experiments, the areas with transient alluvial deposits occupied less
than 50 % of the total reach area, and hence erosion could only occur within a
restricted portion of total bed area.</p>
      <p id="d1e3260">The problem remains in regards to generalizing appropriate timescales for
modeling purposes. Our results are based on a constant discharge, but in real
rivers, a flood could mobilize all alluvium on the bed of the channel, and
within the timescale of the flood, alluvial cover would also be transient
(e.g., Turowski and Rickenmann, 2009). The use of temporal averages of
alluvial cover has limitations, and our results suggest that characterizing
the fluctuations of alluvial cover may be a better approach.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Alluvial cover fluctuations vs. averages</title>
      <p id="d1e3271">Figure 16 shows a hypothetical example of two cases in which the long-term
average of alluvial cover is equal, but the fluctuations in alluvial cover
between them are different. Given that erosion by abrasion is driven by the
number of times the bed is struck by particles, erosion would only occur in
the first case. Erosion would only occur each time the area changes from
white to black, i.e., every time a particle moves into the area and strikes
the bed upon arrival. This simple example suggests that the use of temporal
averages of alluvial cover to calculate erosion may lead to inaccurate
results.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F16"><?xmltex \currentcnt{16}?><label>Figure 16</label><caption><p id="d1e3276">Simple example showing that temporal averages of the areal cover fraction of alluvium alone are insufficient to quantify bedrock incision. The bed conditions shown in panels <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold> have the same average cover, but that in <bold>(a)</bold>
would experience more erosion than that in <bold>(b)</bold> due to a greater frequency of
fluctuations in alluvial cover.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f16.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3297">The use of a relation such as Eq. 2 with spatiotemporal averages of alluvial
cover also has limitations. According to it, the experiment pairs
(i) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.79</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, (ii) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.27</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.72</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and (iii) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.46</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> should have very
similar, or equal, erosion potentials (Eq. 6) as shown below.
<list list-type="custom"><list-item><label>i</label>
      <p id="d1e3393"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sp</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.19</mml:mn><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.19</mml:mn><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.81</mml:mn></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.154</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <?xmltex \hack{\\}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sp</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.79</mml:mn><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.79</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.79</mml:mn><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.21</mml:mn></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.166</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></p></list-item><list-item><label>ii.</label>
      <p id="d1e3464"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sp</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.27</mml:mn><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.27</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.27</mml:mn><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.73</mml:mn></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.197</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <?xmltex \hack{\\}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sp</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.72</mml:mn><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.72</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.72</mml:mn><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.28</mml:mn></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.202</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></p></list-item><list-item><label>iii.</label>
      <p id="d1e3535"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sp</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.46</mml:mn><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.46</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.46</mml:mn><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.248</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <?xmltex \hack{\\}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sp</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.46</mml:mn></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.248</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></p></list-item></list>
Figure 14 and the videos in the Supplement show that the erosion potential
in all cases is different, thus suggesting that spatial averaging may also
lead to inaccurate results. For these reasons, temporal and spatial averages
of alluvial cover are not appropriate to quantify erosion in mixed
bedrock–alluvial rivers. The computational method of Inoue et al. (2016,
2017) both tracks the migration of cover fronts and bars and calculates
cover at a spatiotemporally local level, thus approaching the methodology
suggested here.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page964?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Regions of preferential erosion in mixed bedrock–alluvial meandering
rivers</title>
      <p id="d1e3614">In spite of characterizing erosion potential with spatiotemporal averages
(Fig. 14) or fluctuations (Fig. 15) of alluvial cover, the regions of
preferential erosion in our experiments show some characteristics that are
worth discussing. In all experiments, the regions of preferential erosion
are located at the edges of persistent alluvial cover deposits. Their
precise location and width are a function of sediment supply and local
curvature.</p>
      <p id="d1e3617">In general, as sediment supply increases, the areas of preferential erosion
moved outwards. Our results suggest that in all cases, inset channels would
have been formed at the edge of alluvial deposits, and bank erosion would
have only occurred beginning at CS11 (Figs. 2c, 15) for pc54, pc72, and pc79.
Downstream of CS15, outer bank erosion would only occur for the cases with
pc72 and pc79. Therefore, higher sediment supply is needed for bank erosion
to occur, and under low sediment supply, inset channels and outer bedrock
benches are likely to form. Figure 17 shows an image of the mixed
bedrock–alluvial Shimanto River in Shikoku, Japan, and a sketch of what the
cross section might look like with the areas of erosion and no erosion
indicated. The reach shown in the image has an alluvial point bar on the
inside of the bend, a narrow inset channel at the edge of the point bar, and
an exposed bedrock bench on the outside of the bend. The same morphologies
have been observed in a smaller-scale stream called Pescadero Creek in
California, USA (Fig. 6B in Johnson and Finnegan, 2015). The experiments of
Mishra et al. (2018) also show that when sediment supply is low, the
alluvial point bar is narrow and an inset channel is eroded at the toe of
the point bar, leaving an exposed bedrock bench on the outer part of the
bend.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F17"><?xmltex \currentcnt{17}?><label>Figure 17</label><caption><p id="d1e3622"><bold>(a)</bold> Image of a reach of the Shimanto River, Shikoku, Japan, showing
partial cover with alluvium. <bold>(b)</bold> Sketch of cross section A–A' (with strong
vertical exaggeration) indicating inferred regions of erosion and no
erosion.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/7/949/2019/esurf-7-949-2019-f17.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3637">The typical geometry of an alluvial meandering channel cross section is
shallow on the inside and deep on the outside. The reach of the Shimanto
River shown in Fig. 17 has a different geometry. The deepest portion of
the channel is not located on the outer bank. Instead, it is located at the
toe of the point bar, which happens to be approximately at the middle of the
cross section. It is likely that the narrow inset channel was formed during
a long period of decreased sediment supply. During this period, the region
of transient alluvial cover was confined to the current width of the channel
shown in the image. The outer bedrock bench could potentially be eroded if
sediment supplied to the reach from upstream were<?pagebreak page965?> to be increased and
maintained at this increased value for an extended period of time. If this
occurred, the point bar would likely extend toward the outer part of the
bend, thus moving the area of transient alluvial cover farther into this
region. Finnegan et al. (2007) observed similar trends in experiments
conducted in a straight flume over an erodible bed, wherein erosion began at
the edges of sediment patches and formed longitudinal grooves in the
channel. Shepherd and Schumm (1974) also observed that outward bank erosion
was possible when bed material was transported at capacity, but when the
amount of material in transport was less than the transport capacity, inset
channels formed. Similar observations have been made experimentally by
Mishra et al. (2018) and numerically by Inoue et al. (2017) and Nelson and
Seminara (2011). Even though we did not measure velocities, our observations
suggest that the areas with very narrow regions of erosion potential, e.g.,
between CS14 and CS15, are located at regions of topographically induced
high flow velocities in accordance with observations made by Hodge and Hoey (2016b).</p>
      <p id="d1e3640">The specific links between sediment supply and local curvature, even though
suggested by our results, need further investigation to properly
parameterize them. It is likely that antecedent curvature and curvature sign
also play a role (Fig. 13). Moreover, the use of denser material, e.g., sand,
would likely affect the specific locations of the alluvial deposits.
However, the main trends observed herein are likely to be general.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <label>4.4</label><title>Alluvial thickness and alluvial cover</title>
      <p id="d1e3651">The results corresponding to the Kinoshita flume are based on the areal cover of
alluvial sediment captured with a camera located above the flume. These
observations are related to the framework of Sklar and Dietrich (2004)
described in Fig. 1a. The framework proposed by Zhang et al. (2018, 2015)
and shown in Fig. 2b relates to the experiment conducted in the small
bedrock slab (Supplement S1, Fig. 5) for which the cover is quantified as in Eq. (4). That
experiment allowed us to relate the areal cover fraction to the ratio of
alluvial thickness to bedrock macro-roughness (Fig. 5b). We obtained an
S-shaped relation between these two variables.</p>
      <p id="d1e3654">This result provides a useful link between the two models (Fig. 1a and b)
but is only constrained by geometric variables, specifically the alluvium
grain size and the bedrock macro-roughness. Other factors that affect the
distribution and size of alluvial deposits are local topography and
hydraulic conditions (e.g., Hodge and Hoey, 2016b; Chatanantavet and Parker,
2008; Finnegan et al., 2007; Johnson and Whipple, 2007), grain size and
the ratio between grain and bedrock roughness (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2017;
Nelson et al., 2014; Johnson 2014; Inoue et al., 2014; Chatanantavet and
Parker, 2008), feedbacks between bedrock erosion, sediment deposition, and
its effects on hydraulic resistance (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2017; Nelson et
al., 2014; Johnson, 2014; Inoue et al., 2014), and channel sinuosity (Shepherd
and Schumm 1974; Shepherd, 1972).</p>
      <p id="d1e3657">The relations between the amount of sediment in the system and alluvial cover in
Fig. 5a and c are similar but are not equivalent. Figure 5a is based
on the cumulative mass of sediment added to the bedrock slab, whereas Fig. 5c is based on the sediment supply ratio (Eq. 3). Turowski and Hodge (2017)
developed an equation to relate the sediment mass on the bed and sediment
supply. Their model differentiates between the mass of mobile and stationary
bed material and relates them to sediment flux via an entrainment–deposition
equation. Their framework could be tested with our dataset. Two particular
issues of interest are the following.
<list list-type="custom"><list-item><label>i.</label>
      <p id="d1e3662">The area of exposed bedrock is a function of the sediment mass in the system
and the probability of incoming particles striking open bed areas. Turowski
and Bloem (2015) showed that particle impact energy can be transferred to
the bed if the thickness of the alluvial layer, even if static, is small.
However, they concluded that the amount of energy transferred to the bed is
negligible in comparison to areas where a sediment particle impacts
the bed directly; in the long term direct impacts are likely to dominate bed
erosion. Therefore, parameterizing these open areas is very important to
better model bedrock erosion. Our results show that different areas of the
bed have different likelihoods of being eroded. Our dataset could be used to
develop a probability function that takes into account the effects of local
curvature.</p></list-item><list-item><label>ii.</label>
      <p id="d1e3666">In the model of Turowski and Hodge (2017), steady-state cover is controlled
by a characteristic dimensionless mass of sediment, which is equal to the
ratio between dimensionless transport capacity and particle speed. This mass
is converted to dimensional variables with the help of a characteristic
mass, defined by the authors as the minimum mass of sediment required to
completely cover the bed per unit area. This minimum mass is likely to be
dependent on the ratio between grain size and bedrock macro-roughness.</p>
      <p id="d1e3669">Generally speaking, two scenarios are possible: if the grain roughness is
larger than the bedrock macro-roughness, the minimum mass of sediment can be
determined as proposed by the authors (Turowski and Hodge, 2017; Eq. 34). If
the bedrock macro-roughness is larger than the grain roughness, the equation
could be adapted by multiplying it by, e.g., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">84</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to account
for the fact that more grains are needed to fill the holes in the bedrock
surface. The ratio suggested is based on the value obtained for the sigmoid
function relating areal cover and alluvial thickness in the bedrock slab
(Eq. 10). The specific grain size chosen and the definition of the
macro-roughness length are issues that need further<?pagebreak page966?> investigation. The
latter issue in particular is still unresolved in the bedrock river
literature, wherein some authors characterize macro-roughness as the standard
deviation of the bed elevation signal (e.g., Hodge and Hoey, 2016a, b), but
others, such as us, use a characteristic length based on the bed hypsometry
(e.g., Zhang et al., 2018, 2015).</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e3699">The results of this study lead to the following conclusions.
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e3704">The percent of areal alluvial cover (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) initially grows rapidly with
an increasing sediment supply ratio (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">st</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in
meandering channels. Rapid initial growth is likely due to the formation of
point bars. Following the formation of these initial deposits, the addition of
more sediment into the system first promotes the growth of alluvial
thickness and later promotes the growth of the areal extent of alluvial
cover. Therefore, a logarithmic relation between these variables reflects
their relation better than a linear one. A logarithmic relation allows for
rapid initial growth of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with an increasing sediment supply ratio, but
as the sediment supply ratio increases, growth in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> slows down.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e3759">The percent of areal alluvial cover (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as a function of the ratio
between alluvial thickness and bedrock macro-roughness (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) follows an S-shaped (sigmoid) curve. A logistic curve is
recommended for models of bedrock erosion that use this framework.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e3792">The steepness and intersection parameters needed in the logistic curve are
likely functions of a characteristic grain size of the alluvium and the
bedrock macro-roughness. In this study, the steepness and intersection
values used were given by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.1</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">84</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e3845">Mixed bedrock–alluvial meandering channels may have areas with persistent
and transient alluvial cover as well as areas of persistently exposed
bedrock. Erosion by abrasion is possible only in the areas with transient
alluvial cover. Local normalized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values are smaller than
reach-averaged values at regions with high curvature and higher at regions
with lower curvature.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e3860">The size and location of the areas of preferential erosion in mixed
bedrock–alluvial meandering rivers are a function of the sediment supply ratio
and local curvature. Low sediment supply ratios are associated with regions
of potential erosion located closer to the inner bank. This region moves
toward the outer bank as sediment supply increases. High local curvature
values are associated with narrow regions of potential erosion, whereas lower
curvature values are associated with wider regions of potential erosion.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e3864">The use of either spatially or temporally averaged values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, or a
combination of both, is not necessarily an appropriate approach to model
bedrock erosion by abrasion of bedload. The largest spatial window
recommended should be as small as possible so as to capture the local
spatiotemporal fluctuations in alluvial cover. The longest temporal window
recommended should be quasi-instantaneous so as to capture the temporal
fluctuations in alluvial cover.</p></list-item></list></p>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Future research directions</title>
      <p id="d1e3883">Based on the results of this study, the following two research directions
are proposed.
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e3888">Conduct experiments with the objective of determining appropriate relations
to define the steepness and intersection of the sigmoid function for use in
numerical models of bedrock erosion based on a framework using the ratio of
alluvial thickness to bedrock macro-roughness.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e3892">Develop a model of bedrock erosion by abrasion based on the fluctuations of
areal alluvial cover. The model must take into consideration the role of
freely migrating bars and their celerity. The numerical formulation of Inoue
et al. (2017, 2016) offers an important advance in this regard.</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d1e3900">The MATLAB routines developed to process the time-lapse images and eTape
data are available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.13012/B2-3044828_V1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.13012/B2-3044828_V1</ext-link> (Fernández et al., 2019).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e3909">All data used in the preparation of this paper are available at
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.13012/B2-3044828_V1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.13012/B2-3044828_V1</ext-link> (Fernández et al., 2019).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="videosupplement"><title>Video supplement</title>

      <p id="d1e3918">Videos showing the evolution of the bed and the erosion fronts are available
at
<uri>https://av.tib.eu/series/606/experiments+on+patterns+of+alluvial+cover+and+bedrock+erosion+in+a+meandering+channel</uri> (last access: 4 October 2019).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e3924">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-7-949-2019-supplement" xlink:title="zip">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-7-949-2019-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e3933">Experiments were designed by all authors. RF conducted the experiments, data analysis, and post-processing. The initial paper was
prepared by RF and GP. All authors worked on the final
version submitted.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e3939">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e3945">We would like to thank the associate editor, Eric Lajeunesse, for his patience
and feedback during the open discussion and review process. We would also
like to thank Jens Turowski and Christian Braudrick for their constructive
reviews and very valuable feedback.   The authors would like to thank Alejandro Vitale, PhD, for his help building the eTape system, assistance with Arduino
code development, and preparation of the wiring diagram.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e3951">This research has been supported by the United States National Science Foundation (grant no. EAR1124482).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e3957">This paper was edited by Eric Lajeunesse and reviewed by Jens Turowski and Christian Braudrick.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Abad, J. D. and Garcia, M. H.: Experiments in a high-amplitude Kinoshita
meandering channel:
1. Implications of bend orientation on mean and turbulent flow structure,
Water Resour. Res., 45,
W02401, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008WR007016</ext-link>, 2009a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Abad, J. D. and Garcia, M. H.: Experiments in a high-amplitude Kinoshita
meandering channel: 2. Implications of bend orientation on bed
morphodynamics, Water Resour. Res., 45, W02402,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008WR007017</ext-link>, 2009b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Aubert, G., Langlois, V. J., and Allemand, P.: Bedrock incision by bedload: insights from direct numerical simulations, Earth Surf. Dynam., 4, 327–342, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-327-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-4-327-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Beer, A. R. and Turowski, J. M.: Bedload transport controls bedrock erosion under sediment-starved conditions, Earth Surf. Dynam., 3, 291–309, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-291-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-3-291-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Beer, A. R., Kirchner, J. W., and Turowski, J. M.: Graffiti for science – erosion painting reveals spatially variable erosivity of sediment-laden flows, Earth Surf. Dynam., 4, 885–894, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-885-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-4-885-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Beer, A. R., Turowski, J. M., and Kirchner, J. W.: Spatial patterns of erosion
in a bedrock gorge, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 122, 191–214,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF003850" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JF003850</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chatanantavet, P. and Parker, G.: Experimental study of bedrock channel
alluviation under varied sediment supply and hydraulic conditions, Water
Resour. Res., 44, W12,446, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006581" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007WR006581</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chatanantavet, P. and Parker, G.: Physically based modeling of bedrock
incision by abrasion, plucking, and macroabrasion, J. Geophys. Res., 114,
F04018, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JF001044" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JF001044</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cook, K. L., Whipple, K. X., Heimsath, A. M., and Hanks, T. C.: Rapid incision of
the Colorado River in Glen Canyon – insights from channel profiles, local
incision rates, and modelling of lithologic controls, Earth Surf. Proc.
Land., 34,  994–1010, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1790" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/esp.1790</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cook, K. L., Turowski, J. M., and Hovius, N.: A demonstration of the importance
of bedload transport for fluvial bedrock erosion and knickpoint propagation,
Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 38, 683–695, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3313" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/esp.3313</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Czapiga, M.: Systematic Connectivity in Single Thread Meandering Alluvial
Rivers: Statistical Generalization of Hydraulic Geometry, MSc thesis,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, available at:
<uri>http://hdl.handle.net/2142/44498</uri> (last access: 4 October 2019), 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ferguson, R. I., Sharma, B. P., Hodge, R. A., Hardy, R. J., and Warburton, J.:
Bed load tracer mobility in a mixed bedrock/alluvial channel, J. Geophys.
Res.-Earth, 122, 807–822, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF003946" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JF003946</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fernández, R.: Laboratory experiments on alluvial cover in mixed
bedrock-alluvial meandering channels and on the formation and evolution of
supraglacial meltwater meandering streams, PhD Thesis, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, available at: <uri>http://hdl.handle.net/2142/101494</uri> (last access: 4 October 2019), 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fernández, R., Parker, G., and Stark, C.: Experiments on patterns of
alluvial cover and bedrock erosion in a meandering channel, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.13012/B2-3044828_V1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.13012/B2-3044828_V1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Finnegan, N. J., Sklar, L. S., and Fuller, T. K.: Interplay of sediment
supply, river incision, and channel morphology revealed by the transient
evolution of an experimental bedrock channel, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth,
112, 1–17, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000569" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JF000569</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gasparini, N. M., Whipple, K. X., and Bras, R. L.: Predictions of steady
state and transient landscape morphology using sediment-flux-dependent river
incision models, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 112, 1–20, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000567" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JF000567</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gilbert, G.: Geology of the Henry Mountains. Technical report, U.S.
Department of the Interior, USA, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3133/70038096" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3133/70038096</ext-link>, 1877.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hodge, R.  and Hoey, T. B.: Upscaling from grain-scale processes to alluviation in bedrock channels using a cellular automaton model,  J. Geophys. Res.,  117, F01017, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002145" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JF002145</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hodge, R. and Hoey, T. B.: A Froude-scaled model of a bedrock-alluvial channel reach: 1. Hydraulics,  J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 121, 1578–1596, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003706" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JF003706</ext-link>, 2016a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hodge, R. and Hoey, T. B.: A Froude-scaled model of a bedrock-alluvial
channel reach: 2. Sediment cover, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 121, 1597–1618,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003709" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JF003709</ext-link>, 2016b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hodge, R., Hoey, T. B., and Sklar, L.: Bed load transport in bedrock rivers:
The role of sediment cover in grain entrainment, translation, and
deposition, J. Geophys. Res., 116, F04028,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002032" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JF002032</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hodge, R., Hoey, T., Maniatis, T., and Lepretre, E.: Formation and erosion
of sediment cover in an experimental bedrock-alluvial channel, Earth Surf.
Proc. Land., 41, 1409–1420, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3924" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/esp.3924</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Inoue, T., Izumi, N., Shimizu, Y., and Parker, G.: Interactions among
alluvial cover, bed roughness, and incision rate in purel<?pagebreak page968?>y bedrock and
alluvial-bedrock channel, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 119, 2123–2146
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JF003133" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JF003133</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Inoue, T., Iwasaki, T., Parker, G., Shimizu, Y., Izumi, N., Stark, C. P., and
Funaki, J.: Numerical simulation of effects of sediment supply on bedrock
channel morphology, J. Hydraul. Eng., 142, 04016014, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001124" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001124</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Inoue, T., Parker, G., and Stark, C. P.: Morphodynamics of a bedrock-alluvial
meander bend that incises as it migrates outward: Approximate solution of
permanent form, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 42, 1342–1354,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4094" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/esp.4094</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Johnson, J. P.: A surface roughness model for predicting alluvial cover and
bed load transport rate in bedrock channels, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 119,
2147–2173, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JF003000" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JF003000</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Johnson, J. P. and Whipple, K. X.: Feedbacks between erosion and sediment
transport in experimental bedrock channels, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 32,
1048–1062, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1471" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/esp.1471</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Johnson, J. P. and Whipple, K. X.: Evaluating the controls of shear stress,
sediment supply, alluvial cover, and channel morphology on experimental
bedrock incision rate, J. Geophys. Res., 115, F02018, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001335" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JF001335</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Johnson, K. N. and Finnegan, N. J.: A lithologic control on active
meandering in bedrock channels, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 127, 1766–1776,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1130/B31184.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1130/B31184.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Keyence Corporation: Laser Displacement Sensors, Instruction Manual,
LB-1000(W) Series, Osaka, Japan, 24 pp., 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lague, D.: Reduction of Long-Term Bedrock Incision Efficiency by Short-Term
Alluvial Cover Intermittency, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 115,  F02011,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JF001210" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JF001210</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lamb, M. P., Dietrich, W. E., and Sklar, L. S.: A model for fluvial bedrock
incision by impacting suspended and bedload sediment, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
F03025, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JF000915" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JF000915</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mishra, J., Inoue, T., Shimizu, Y., Sumner, T., and Nelson, J. M.:
Consequences of abrading bed load on vertical and lateral erosion in a
curved experimental channel, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 123, 3147–3161,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004387" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2017JF004387</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nelson, P. A. and Seminara, G.: Modeling the evolution of bedrock channel
shape with erosion from saltating bedload, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L17406,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048628" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011GL048628</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nelson, P. A. and Seminara, G.: A theoretical framework for the
morphodynamics of bedrock channels, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L06408,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050806" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011GL050806</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nelson, P. A., Bolla Pittaluga, M., and Seminara, G.: Finite amplitude bars
in mixed bedrock-alluvial channels, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 119, 566–587,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JF002957" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JF002957</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Otsu, N.: A Threshold Selection Method from Gray-Level Histograms, IEEE T.
Sys. Man Cyb., 9, 62–66, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shepherd, R. G.: Incised river meanders: Evolution in simulated bedrock,
Science, 178, 409–411, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4059.409" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.178.4059.409</ext-link>
1972.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shepherd, R. G. and Schumm, S. A.: Experimental study or river incision,
Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 85, 257–268,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1974)85&lt;257:ESORI&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1130/0016-7606(1974)85&lt;257:ESORI&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sklar, L. S. and Dietrich, W. E.: River longitudinal profiles and bedrock
incision models: stream power and the influence of sediment supply. Rivers
over rock: Fluvial processes in bedrock channels,
American Geophysical Union, Geophys. Monogr., 107, 237–260,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/GM107p0237" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/GM107p0237</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sklar, L. S. and Dietrich, W. E.: Sediment and rock strength controls on
river incision into bedrock, Geology, 29, 1087–1090,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029&lt;1087:SARSCO&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029&lt;1087:SARSCO&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sklar, L. S. and Dietrich, W. E.: A mechanistic model for river incision
into bedrock by saltating bedload, Water Resour. Res., 40, W06301,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002496" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003WR002496</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sklar, L. S. and Dietrich, W. E.: The role of sediment in controlling
steady-state bedrock channel slope: Implications of the saltation abrasion
incision model, Geomorphology, 82, 58–83,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.08.019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.08.019</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Turowski, J. M.: Stochastic modeling of the cover effect and bedrock erosion, Water Resour. Res., 45, W03422, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007262" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008WR007262</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Turowski, J. M.: Alluvial cover controlling the width, slope and sinuosity of bedrock channels, Earth Surf. Dynam., 6, 29–48, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-29-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-6-29-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Turowski, J. M. and Bloem, J. P.: The influence of sediment thickness on
energy delivery to the bed by bedload impacts, Geodim. Acta, 28, 199–208,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09853111.2015.1047195" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/09853111.2015.1047195</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Turowski, J. M. and Hodge, R.: A probabilistic framework for the cover effect in bedrock erosion, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 311–330, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-311-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-5-311-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Turowski, J. M. and Rickenmann, D.: Tools and cover effects in bedload
transport observations in the Pitzbach, Austria, Earth Surf. Proc. Land.,
34, 26–37, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1686" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/esp.1686</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Turowski, J. M., Lague, D., and Hovius, N.: Cover effect in bedrock
abrasion: A new derivation and its implications for the modeling of bedrock
channel morphology, J. Geophys. Res., 112, F04006,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000697" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JF000697</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Turowski, J. M., Hovius, N., Meng-Long, H., Lague, D., and Men-Chiang, C.:
Distribution of erosion across bedrock channels, Earth Surf. Proc. Land.,
33, 353–363, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1559" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/esp.1559</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Whipple, K. X., Hancock, G. S., and Anderson, R. S.: River incision into
bedrock: Mechanics and relative efficacy of plucking, abrasion, and
cavitation, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 112, 490–503,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(2000)112&lt;490:RIIBMA&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1130/0016-7606(2000)112&lt;490:RIIBMA&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, L., Parker, G., Stark, C. P., Inoue, T., Viparelli, E., Fu, X., and Izumi, N.: Macro-roughness model of bedrock–alluvial river morphodynamics, Earth Surf. Dynam., 3, 113–138, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-113-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-3-113-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, L., Stark, C., Schumer, R., Kwang, J., Li, T., Fu, X., Wang, G., and Parker, G.: The
advective-diffusive morphodynamics of mixed bedrock-alluvial rivers
subjected to spatiotemporally varying sediment supply, J. Geophys.
Res.-Earth, 123, 1731–1755, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004431" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2017JF004431</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Experiments on patterns of alluvial cover and bedrock erosion in a meandering channel</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>In bedrock rivers, erosion by abrasion is driven by sediment particles that
strike bare bedrock while traveling downstream with the flow. If the
sediment particles settle and form an alluvial cover, this mode of erosion
is impeded by the protection offered by the grains themselves. Channel
erosion by abrasion is therefore related to the amount and pattern of
alluvial cover; these are functions of sediment load and hydraulic
conditions, which in turn are functions of channel geometry, slope, and
sinuosity. This study presents the results of alluvial cover experiments
conducted in a meandering channel flume of high fixed sinuosity. Maps of
quasi-instantaneous alluvial cover were generated from time-lapse imaging of
flows under a range of below-capacity bedload conditions. These maps were
used to infer patterns of particle impact frequency and likely abrasion
rates. Results from eight such experiments suggest the following: (i) abrasion
through sediment particle impacts is driven by fluctuations in alluvial
cover due to the movement of freely migrating bars; (ii) patterns of
potential erosion are functions of sediment load and local curvature; (iii) low sediment supply ratios are associated with regions of potential erosion
located closer to the inner bank, but this region moves toward the outer
bank as sediment supply increases; and (iv) the threads of high erosion
rates are located at the toe of the alluvial bars, just where the alluvial
cover reaches an optimum for abrasion.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Abad, J. D. and Garcia, M. H.: Experiments in a high-amplitude Kinoshita
meandering channel:
1. Implications of bend orientation on mean and turbulent flow structure,
Water Resour. Res., 45,
W02401, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007016</a>, 2009a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Abad, J. D. and Garcia, M. H.: Experiments in a high-amplitude Kinoshita
meandering channel: 2. Implications of bend orientation on bed
morphodynamics, Water Resour. Res., 45, W02402,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007017</a>, 2009b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Aubert, G., Langlois, V. J., and Allemand, P.: Bedrock incision by bedload: insights from direct numerical simulations, Earth Surf. Dynam., 4, 327–342, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-327-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-327-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Beer, A. R. and Turowski, J. M.: Bedload transport controls bedrock erosion under sediment-starved conditions, Earth Surf. Dynam., 3, 291–309, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-291-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-291-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Beer, A. R., Kirchner, J. W., and Turowski, J. M.: Graffiti for science – erosion painting reveals spatially variable erosivity of sediment-laden flows, Earth Surf. Dynam., 4, 885–894, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-885-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-885-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Beer, A. R., Turowski, J. M., and Kirchner, J. W.: Spatial patterns of erosion
in a bedrock gorge, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 122, 191–214,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF003850" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF003850</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Chatanantavet, P. and Parker, G.: Experimental study of bedrock channel
alluviation under varied sediment supply and hydraulic conditions, Water
Resour. Res., 44, W12,446, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006581" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006581</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Chatanantavet, P. and Parker, G.: Physically based modeling of bedrock
incision by abrasion, plucking, and macroabrasion, J. Geophys. Res., 114,
F04018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JF001044" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JF001044</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Cook, K. L., Whipple, K. X., Heimsath, A. M., and Hanks, T. C.: Rapid incision of
the Colorado River in Glen Canyon – insights from channel profiles, local
incision rates, and modelling of lithologic controls, Earth Surf. Proc.
Land., 34,  994–1010, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1790" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1790</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Cook, K. L., Turowski, J. M., and Hovius, N.: A demonstration of the importance
of bedload transport for fluvial bedrock erosion and knickpoint propagation,
Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 38, 683–695, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3313" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3313</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Czapiga, M.: Systematic Connectivity in Single Thread Meandering Alluvial
Rivers: Statistical Generalization of Hydraulic Geometry, MSc thesis,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, available at:
<a href="http://hdl.handle.net/2142/44498" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/2142/44498</a> (last access: 4 October 2019), 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Ferguson, R. I., Sharma, B. P., Hodge, R. A., Hardy, R. J., and Warburton, J.:
Bed load tracer mobility in a mixed bedrock/alluvial channel, J. Geophys.
Res.-Earth, 122, 807–822, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF003946" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF003946</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Fernández, R.: Laboratory experiments on alluvial cover in mixed
bedrock-alluvial meandering channels and on the formation and evolution of
supraglacial meltwater meandering streams, PhD Thesis, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, available at: <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/2142/101494" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/2142/101494</a> (last access: 4 October 2019), 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Fernández, R., Parker, G., and Stark, C.: Experiments on patterns of
alluvial cover and bedrock erosion in a meandering channel, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.13012/B2-3044828_V1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.13012/B2-3044828_V1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Finnegan, N. J., Sklar, L. S., and Fuller, T. K.: Interplay of sediment
supply, river incision, and channel morphology revealed by the transient
evolution of an experimental bedrock channel, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth,
112, 1–17, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000569" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000569</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Gasparini, N. M., Whipple, K. X., and Bras, R. L.: Predictions of steady
state and transient landscape morphology using sediment-flux-dependent river
incision models, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 112, 1–20, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000567" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000567</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Gilbert, G.: Geology of the Henry Mountains. Technical report, U.S.
Department of the Interior, USA, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3133/70038096" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3133/70038096</a>, 1877.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Hodge, R.  and Hoey, T. B.: Upscaling from grain-scale processes to alluviation in bedrock channels using a cellular automaton model,  J. Geophys. Res.,  117, F01017, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002145" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002145</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hodge, R. and Hoey, T. B.: A Froude-scaled model of a bedrock-alluvial channel reach: 1. Hydraulics,  J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 121, 1578–1596, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003706" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003706</a>, 2016a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Hodge, R. and Hoey, T. B.: A Froude-scaled model of a bedrock-alluvial
channel reach: 2. Sediment cover, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 121, 1597–1618,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003709" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003709</a>, 2016b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Hodge, R., Hoey, T. B., and Sklar, L.: Bed load transport in bedrock rivers:
The role of sediment cover in grain entrainment, translation, and
deposition, J. Geophys. Res., 116, F04028,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002032" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002032</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Hodge, R., Hoey, T., Maniatis, T., and Lepretre, E.: Formation and erosion
of sediment cover in an experimental bedrock-alluvial channel, Earth Surf.
Proc. Land., 41, 1409–1420, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3924" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3924</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Inoue, T., Izumi, N., Shimizu, Y., and Parker, G.: Interactions among
alluvial cover, bed roughness, and incision rate in purely bedrock and
alluvial-bedrock channel, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 119, 2123–2146
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JF003133" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JF003133</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Inoue, T., Iwasaki, T., Parker, G., Shimizu, Y., Izumi, N., Stark, C. P., and
Funaki, J.: Numerical simulation of effects of sediment supply on bedrock
channel morphology, J. Hydraul. Eng., 142, 04016014, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001124" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001124</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Inoue, T., Parker, G., and Stark, C. P.: Morphodynamics of a bedrock-alluvial
meander bend that incises as it migrates outward: Approximate solution of
permanent form, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 42, 1342–1354,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4094" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4094</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, J. P.: A surface roughness model for predicting alluvial cover and
bed load transport rate in bedrock channels, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 119,
2147–2173, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JF003000" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JF003000</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, J. P. and Whipple, K. X.: Feedbacks between erosion and sediment
transport in experimental bedrock channels, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 32,
1048–1062, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1471" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1471</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, J. P. and Whipple, K. X.: Evaluating the controls of shear stress,
sediment supply, alluvial cover, and channel morphology on experimental
bedrock incision rate, J. Geophys. Res., 115, F02018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001335" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001335</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, K. N. and Finnegan, N. J.: A lithologic control on active
meandering in bedrock channels, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 127, 1766–1776,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1130/B31184.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1130/B31184.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Keyence Corporation: Laser Displacement Sensors, Instruction Manual,
LB-1000(W) Series, Osaka, Japan, 24 pp., 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Lague, D.: Reduction of Long-Term Bedrock Incision Efficiency by Short-Term
Alluvial Cover Intermittency, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 115,  F02011,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JF001210" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JF001210</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Lamb, M. P., Dietrich, W. E., and Sklar, L. S.: A model for fluvial bedrock
incision by impacting suspended and bedload sediment, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
F03025, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JF000915" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JF000915</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Mishra, J., Inoue, T., Shimizu, Y., Sumner, T., and Nelson, J. M.:
Consequences of abrading bed load on vertical and lateral erosion in a
curved experimental channel, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 123, 3147–3161,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004387" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004387</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Nelson, P. A. and Seminara, G.: Modeling the evolution of bedrock channel
shape with erosion from saltating bedload, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L17406,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048628" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048628</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Nelson, P. A. and Seminara, G.: A theoretical framework for the
morphodynamics of bedrock channels, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L06408,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050806" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050806</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Nelson, P. A., Bolla Pittaluga, M., and Seminara, G.: Finite amplitude bars
in mixed bedrock-alluvial channels, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 119, 566–587,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JF002957" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JF002957</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Otsu, N.: A Threshold Selection Method from Gray-Level Histograms, IEEE T.
Sys. Man Cyb., 9, 62–66, 1979.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Shepherd, R. G.: Incised river meanders: Evolution in simulated bedrock,
Science, 178, 409–411, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4059.409" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4059.409</a>
1972.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Shepherd, R. G. and Schumm, S. A.: Experimental study or river incision,
Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 85, 257–268,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1974)85&lt;257:ESORI&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1974)85&lt;257:ESORI&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Sklar, L. S. and Dietrich, W. E.: River longitudinal profiles and bedrock
incision models: stream power and the influence of sediment supply. Rivers
over rock: Fluvial processes in bedrock channels,
American Geophysical Union, Geophys. Monogr., 107, 237–260,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/GM107p0237" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/GM107p0237</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Sklar, L. S. and Dietrich, W. E.: Sediment and rock strength controls on
river incision into bedrock, Geology, 29, 1087–1090,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029&lt;1087:SARSCO&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029&lt;1087:SARSCO&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Sklar, L. S. and Dietrich, W. E.: A mechanistic model for river incision
into bedrock by saltating bedload, Water Resour. Res., 40, W06301,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002496" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002496</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Sklar, L. S. and Dietrich, W. E.: The role of sediment in controlling
steady-state bedrock channel slope: Implications of the saltation abrasion
incision model, Geomorphology, 82, 58–83,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.08.019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.08.019</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Turowski, J. M.: Stochastic modeling of the cover effect and bedrock erosion, Water Resour. Res., 45, W03422, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007262" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007262</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Turowski, J. M.: Alluvial cover controlling the width, slope and sinuosity of bedrock channels, Earth Surf. Dynam., 6, 29–48, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-29-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-29-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Turowski, J. M. and Bloem, J. P.: The influence of sediment thickness on
energy delivery to the bed by bedload impacts, Geodim. Acta, 28, 199–208,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09853111.2015.1047195" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/09853111.2015.1047195</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Turowski, J. M. and Hodge, R.: A probabilistic framework for the cover effect in bedrock erosion, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 311–330, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-311-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-311-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Turowski, J. M. and Rickenmann, D.: Tools and cover effects in bedload
transport observations in the Pitzbach, Austria, Earth Surf. Proc. Land.,
34, 26–37, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1686" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1686</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Turowski, J. M., Lague, D., and Hovius, N.: Cover effect in bedrock
abrasion: A new derivation and its implications for the modeling of bedrock
channel morphology, J. Geophys. Res., 112, F04006,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000697" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000697</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Turowski, J. M., Hovius, N., Meng-Long, H., Lague, D., and Men-Chiang, C.:
Distribution of erosion across bedrock channels, Earth Surf. Proc. Land.,
33, 353–363, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1559" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1559</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Whipple, K. X., Hancock, G. S., and Anderson, R. S.: River incision into
bedrock: Mechanics and relative efficacy of plucking, abrasion, and
cavitation, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 112, 490–503,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(2000)112&lt;490:RIIBMA&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(2000)112&lt;490:RIIBMA&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, L., Parker, G., Stark, C. P., Inoue, T., Viparelli, E., Fu, X., and Izumi, N.: Macro-roughness model of bedrock–alluvial river morphodynamics, Earth Surf. Dynam., 3, 113–138, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-113-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-113-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, L., Stark, C., Schumer, R., Kwang, J., Li, T., Fu, X., Wang, G., and Parker, G.: The
advective-diffusive morphodynamics of mixed bedrock-alluvial rivers
subjected to spatiotemporally varying sediment supply, J. Geophys.
Res.-Earth, 123, 1731–1755, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004431" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004431</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
