Chapter50 - Davis Cycle of Erosion
Chapter50 - Davis Cycle of Erosion
Chapter50 - Davis Cycle of Erosion
Chapter 50
Mortenson, T., 2004. The Great Turning Point: The Churchs Catastrophic Mistake in GeologyBefore
Darwin, Master Books, Green Forest, AR.
2
Davis, W.M., 1954. Geographical essays. In, Johnson D.W. (editor), Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, p. 77.
3
Davis, Ref. 2, p. 272.
4
Chorley, R.J., R.P. Beckinsale, and A.J. Dunn. 1973. The History of the study of Landforms or the Development of
GeomorphologyVolume Two: The Life and Work of William Morris Davis, Methuen & Co LTD, London. U.K.
5
Chorley et al., Ref. 4, p. 135.
6
Crickmay, C.H., 1974. The Work of the River: A Critical Study of the Central Aspects of Geomorphology,
American Elsevier Publishing Co., New York, NY, p. 171.
Although Davis constantly acknowledged his debt to such predecessors as Powell, Jukes,
Dutton and Gilbert, in later life he came to refer to his first notion of the cycle of erosion,
while working on the Northern Pacific Railroad Survey in Montana in 1883, as rather like
the blinding flash of understanding experienced by a prophet in the wilderness. 7
Figure 50.1. Flat planation surface east of Fort Benton showing Missouri River and the railroad tracks that Davis
worked on.
What was so special about the geology of Montana that it would birth the once most popular
hypotheses in geomorphology? Davis recognized the vast erosion of the plains of Montana and
Wyoming based on igneous mesas and dikes that stand out in bold relief. 8 Devils Tower,
Wyoming, described in Chapter 9 (see Figure 9.1) and Square Butte, about 2,000 feet (600 m)
above the plains east of the Highwood Mountains of central Montana must have figured
prominently in Davis conclusion. He theorized the multiple erosion surfaces on the plains of
Montana (see Chapters 36 and 37) were the work of ancient rivers and streams that snaked across
the land, smoothing it, over millions of years, although observational evidence indicates that
rivers do not plane. He took special note of the comparative smoothness of the eastern Fairfield
Bench (Figure 50.1 and see Figure 37.6) between Fort Benton and Great Falls, Montana. 9 He
7
headed back to Harvard University the next fall and developed his cycle of erosion hypothesis.
From then on, he published extensively on this subject into the mid-1900s and became the chief
geomorphologist of his time.
Davis wrote 80 articles and one book on meteorology. 10 In fact, Davis began his career as a
meteorologist, but soon developed an interest in landforms. 11 Maybe a retired meteorologist from
Montana (myself), who developed an interest in landforms, and lived near the eastern Fairfield
Bench in Great Falls, Montana, for 27 years, can improve Davis understanding of the origin of
erosion and planation surfaces by rejecting uniformitarianism.
Davis Applied Evolution to Landforms
The theory of evolution strongly influenced the development of Davis hypothesis. 12
Summerfield summarized the influence of evolutionary theory on Davis views:
The model of landscape evolution usually known as the cycle of erosion was developed
by W. M. Davis between 1884 and 1899 and owed much to the evolutionary thinking that
had permeated both the natural and social sciences in Britain and North America during
the latter half of the nineteenth century. 13
Davis believed, as in living matter, landscapes evolved through a progressive sequence of stages,
each stage exhibiting characteristic landforms (Figure 50.2). Mimicking the stages of human life,
Davis viewed landscapes as starting from youth, a low relief landscape that tectonically uplifts
(Figure 50.2a to c); progressing into maturity (Figure 50.2d to e), where rivers and streams
strongly dissect the land; and finally stagnating in old age, where the land is subdued to a low
relief peneplain, near sea level (Figure 50.2f). 14 Then cycle begins anew (Figure 50.2g).
The peneplain was the beginning and the ending point in Davis cycle. Uplift was assumed to
be so fast at the beginning of the cycle that little erosion happened until the land came to a
standstill at high altitude and which lasted many millions of years. During middle and late youth
the valleys developed and enlarged as rivers and streams cut deep and wide. The original
peneplain between valleys, called interfluves, shrank with time. By early maturity, the old
peneplain had disappeared. The eroded ridges were greatly reduced during maturity and formed
the new peneplain in old age. There could be renewed uplift at any time, which Davis called
rejuvenation. Rejuvenation would start the cycle all over again. Davis's theory has been dubbed
the punctuated stillstand by Flemal. 15
10
Summerfield, M.A., 2000. Geomorphology and global tectonics: introduction. In, Summerfield, M. A. (editor),
Geomorphology and Global Tectonics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, p. 5.
modern example of a peneplain, but they are not erosion surfaces but instead are depositional
surfaces. 31 Therefore, the final stage of the cycle of erosion is not observed in the landscape
today; it is imaginary:
...the scheme of the cycle is not meant to include any actual examples at all, because it is
by intention a scheme of the imagination and not a matter of observation... 32
Another major problem with the Davis hypothesis is that renewed uplift and rejuvenation
would begin long before the old-age stage would begin. So, peneplains should be rare in nature,
if uniformitarianism is the guiding principle. Although it is possible that Davis hypothesis
hypothetically could form multiple erosion surfaces at different levels in an area, by
rejuvenation, 33 most geomorphologists believe multiple levels are difficult for the
hypothesis. 34,35,36 As the lower peneplains developed, the higher peneplains should be
destroyed by erosion. Multiple levels as observed in northern Montana and southern Canada (see
Chapters 36 and 37), should not exist in Davis hypothesis.
Despite the objections of an increasing number of detractors, Davis did realize that there
were many other variables and complications to his simple sequence. His hypothesis was meant
to be the ideal case that applied in a humid temperate climate on rocks of uniform lithology. He
developed a general, or expected, landform evolution model. Most geomorphologists did not
understand this. He expected the complications would be dealt with in time by other geologists.
Davis later developed a separate cycle of erosion for two special cases, arid and glacial
landscapes.
Table 50.1 presents a summary of the many problems with Davis cycle of erosion. Because
of these problems, several alternative hypotheses have been advanced, as presented in Appendix
19. Out of all these hypotheses, it seems the weathering hypothesis is the only one advocated by
a significant number of geomorphologists today (see Chapter 51).
1. Vague and qualitative
2. Few areas of the world stable long enough to form a peneplain
3. Rapid uplift with no erosion unlikely
4. Could not account for assumed, frequent, and rapid climate change during many ice ages
5. Geological structure ignored
6. Climate ignored
7. Not enough time to form a planation surface
8. Problem accounting for multiple planation surfaces in an area
9. Spasmodic uplift more likely than continuous uplift
10. Base level (sea level) does not remain constant for very long
11. Examples of peneplains usually too flat
12. High monadnocks should not form
Table 50.1. Problems with Davis cycle of erosion.
31
37