Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Rejuvenation of Appalachian topography caused by subsidence-induced differential erosion

Nature Geoscience volume 7, pages 518–523 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

In ancient orogens, such as the Appalachian Mountains in the eastern United States, the difference between the high and low points—topographic relief—can continue to increase long after the tectonic forces that created the range have become inactive. Climatic forcing1 and mantle-induced dynamic uplift2,3 could drive formation of relief, but clear evidence is lacking in the Appalachian Mountains. Here I use a numerical simulation of dynamic topography in North America, combined with reconstructions of the sedimentation history from the Gulf of Mexico4, to show that rejuvenation of topographic relief in the Appalachian Mountains since the Palaeogene period could have been caused by mantle-induced dynamic subsidence associated with sinking of the subducted Farallon slab. Specifically, I show that patterns of continental erosion and the eastward migration of sediment deposition centres in the Gulf of Mexico closely follow the locus of predicted dynamic subsidence. Furthermore, pulses of rapid sediment deposition in the Gulf of Mexico4 and western Atlantic5 correlate with enhanced erosion in the Appalachian Mountains during the Miocene epoch, caused by dynamic tilting of the continent. The model predicts that such subsidence-induced differential erosion caused flexural-isostatic adjustments of Appalachian topography that led to the development of 400 m of relief and more than 200 m of elevation. I propose that dynamically induced continental tilting may provide a mechanism for topographic rejuvenation in ancient orogens.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Changes of dynamic topography since 10 Ma using tomography-converted buoyancy structures.
Figure 2: Temporal and spatial variations of Gulf of Mexico sedimentation.
Figure 3: Palaeotopography maps of the eastern United States.
Figure 4: Surface elevation changes caused by dynamic topography and flexural-isostatic adjustment.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boettcher, S. S. & Milliken, K. L. Mesozoic–Cenozoic unroofing of the Southern Appalachian Basin: Apatite fission track evidence from middle Pennsylvanian sandstones. J. Geol. 102, 655–663 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Miller, S. R., Sak, P. B., Kirby, E. & Bierman, P. R. Neogene rejuvenation of central Appalachian topography: Evidence for differential rock uplift from stream profiles and erosion rates. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 369–370, 1–12 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gallen, S. F., Wegmann, K. W. & Bohnenstiehl, D. R. Miocene rejuvenation of topographic relief in the southern Appalachians. GSA Today 23, 4–10 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Galloway, W. E., Whiteaker, T. L. & Ganey-Curry, P. History of Cenozoic North American drainage basin evolution, sediment yield, and accumulation in the Gulf of Mexico basin. Geosphere 7, 938–973 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Poag, C. W. & Sevon, W. D. A record of Appalachian denudation in postrift Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary deposits of the US middle Atlantic continental margin. Geomorphology 2, 119–157 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Molnar, P. & Lyon-Caen, H. Some simple physical aspects of the support, structure, and evolution of mountain belts. GSA Spec. 218, 179–207 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Whipple, K. X. The influence of climate on the tectonic evolution of mountain belts. Nature Geosci. 2, 97–104 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang, P., Molnar, P. & Downs, W. R. Increased sedimentation rates and grain sizes 2-4 Myr ago due to the influence of climate change and erosion rates. Nature 410, 891–897 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. & Richards, M. A. The dynamics of Cenozoic and Mesozoic plate motions. Rev. Geophys. 36, 27–78 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Heine, C., Müller, R. D., Sterinberger, B. & Torsvik, T. H. Subsidence in intracontinental basins due to dynamic topography. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 171, 252–264 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Spasojevi, S., Liu, L., Gurnis, M. & Muller, R. D. The case for dynamic subsidence of the United States east coast since the Eocene. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L08305 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moucha, R. et al. Dynamic topography and long-term sea-level variations: There is no such thing as a stable continental platform. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 271, 101–108 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu, L., Spasojević, S. & Gurnis, M. Reconstructing Farallon plate subduction beneath North America back to the Late Cretaceous. Science 322, 934–938 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Steinberger, B. & Calderwood, A. R. Models of large-scale viscous flow in the Earth’s mantle with constraints from mineral physics and surface observations. Geophys. J. Int. 167, 1461–1481 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Simmons, N. A., Forte, A. M. & Grand, S. P. Joint seismic, geodynamic and mineral physical constraints on three-dimensional mantle heterogeneity: Implications for the relative importance of thermal versus compositional heterogeneity. Geophys. J. Int. 177, 1284–1304 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Paulson, A., Zhong, S. & Wahr, J. Inference of mantle viscosity from GRACE and relative sea level data. Geophys. J. Int. 171, 497–508 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Steckler, M. S. & Watts, A. B. Subsidence of Atlantic-type continental margin off New York. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 41, 1–13 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Galloway, W. E., Whiteaker, T. L. & Ganey-Curry, P. History of Cenozoic North American drainage basin evolution, sediment yield, and accumulation in the Gulf of Mexico basin. Geosphere 7, 938–973 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Feng, J., Buffler, R. T. & Kominz, M. A. Laramide orogenic influence on late Mesozoic–Cenozoic subsidence history, western deep Gulf of Mexico basin. Geology 22, 359–362 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Peel, F. J., Travis, C. J. & Hossack, J. R. Genetic structural provinces and salt tectonics of the Cenozoic offshore US Gulf of Mexico: A preliminary analysis. AAPG Mem. 65, 153–175 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Galloway, W. E. Sedimentary Basins of the WorldCh. 15, (Elsevier, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Spasojevic, S., Liu, L. & Gurnis, M. Adjoint models of mantle convection with seismic, plate motion, and stratigraphic constraints: North America since the Late Cretaceous. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 10, Q05W02 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu, S., Nummendal, D. & Liu, L. Migration of dynamic subsidence across the Late Cretaceous United States Western Interior Basin in response to Farallon plate subduction. Geology 39, 555–558 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Galloway, W. E., Ganey-Curry, P. E., Li, X. & Buffler, R. T. Cenozoic depositional history of the Gulf of Mexico basin. AAPG Bull. 84, 1743–1774 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Duvall, A., Kirby, E. & Burbank, D. Tectonic and lithologic controls on bedrock channel profiles and processes in coastal California. J. Geophys. Res. 109, F03002 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Willett, S. D. Orogeny and orography: The effects of erosion on the structure of mountain belts. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 28957–28981 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Reinhardt, L. J., Bishop, P., Hoey, T. B., Dempster, T. J. & Sanderson, D. C. W. Quantification of the transient response to base-level fall in a small mountain catchment: Sierra Nevada, southern Spain. J. Geophys. Res. 112, F03S05 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hay, W. W., Shaw, C. A. & Wold, C. N. Mass-balanced paleogeographic reconstructions. Geol. Rundsch. 78, 207–242 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Karner, G. D. & Watts, A. B. Gravity anomalies and flexure of the lithosphere at mountain ranges. J. Geophys. Res. 88, 10419–10477 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Angevine, C. L., Heller, P. L. & Paola, C. Quantitative Sedimentary Basin Modeling 36–58 (Continuing Education Course Notes No. 32, AAPG, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank J. Bennett for helping to collect data on the GOM sedimentary strata. This paper benefits from discussions with S. Marshak, W. Guenthner, W. Galloway, P. Heller and W. Hay. The calculations are performed on the TACC supercomputer Stampede under the XSEDE allocation EAR130036.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA

    Lijun Liu

Authors
  1. Lijun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lijun Liu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, L. Rejuvenation of Appalachian topography caused by subsidence-induced differential erosion. Nature Geosci 7, 518–523 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2187

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2187

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing