1
Auxiliary material for
2
“Quantifying temporal variations in landslide-driven sediment production by
3
reconstructing paleolandscapes using tephrochronology and lidar: Waipaoa River, New
4
Zealand”
5
6
Corina Cerovski-Darriau*1
7
Joshua J. Roering1
8
Michael Marden2
9
Alan S. Palmer3
10
Eric L. Bilderback4
11
12
1. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR USA 97403-1272
13
2. Landcare Research, Gisborne 4040, New Zealand
14
3. Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
15
4. Geologic Resources Division, National Park Service, Lakewood, CO USA 80228
16
17
18
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems (G-Cubed)
19
1. Introduction
20
The supplemental information contains extended methods descriptions (Text S1), 5 supplemental
21
figures (Figure S1-S5), and 4 supplemental tables (Table S1-S4).
22
1.
text01.docx: Supplemental methodological descriptions of the electron microprobe
23
analysis, roughness calculations, determination of the modified Hack’s constant,
24
reconstruction trials set-up, and error analysis.
25
2.
fs01.pdf: Binary plots of tephra composition comparing K2O to (a) MgO, (b) FeO, (c)
26
MnO, and (d) TiO2 for all probed basal tephra samples. Circles represent resulting
27
compositions from microprobe analysis completed for this study, and crosses represent
28
control sample composition from Lowe et al. [2008] (Kh=Kaharoa, Op=Opepe,
29
Om=Omataroa, Ro=Rotoma, Re=Rerewhakaaitu, Tp=Taupo, Wm=Waimihia,
30
Wk=Whakatane). Sample numbers correspond to sample locations (Figure 1c). Full
31
major oxide composition of all probed samples is included in the Table S1.
32
3.
fs02.pdf: Roughness ratio for each sample pit location averaged over a 15 m window.
33
These results were then binned by tephra (except Opepe) and averaged to determine the
34
mean roughness used for each timestep in Figures 2c & S3. Sample numbers correspond
35
to sample locations on Figure 1c.
36
4.
fs03.pdf: Power law regression fit of mean roughness for binned samples with 15 m
37
smoothing of Rotoma (9.5 ka), Whakatane (5.5 ka), Waimihia (3.4 ka), Taupo (1.7 ka),
38
and no tephra. Compared to linear regression fit in Figure 2c.
39
5.
fs04.pdf: (a) Outlines of active earthflows in the Mangataikapua, mapped in ArcGIS
40
from the 2010 lidar hillshade and corresponding orthophoto. (b) Earthflows in the upper
41
watershed are predominantly narrower and do not intersect the Mangataikapua stream.
42
(c) Earthflows in the lower watershed often encompass their entire source catchment and
43
are directly coupled with the Mangataikapua stream, forming large toes that displace the
44
channel.
45
6.
46
47
48
fs05.tif: Resulting fit from MATLAB’s cubic spline interpolation for each timestep: (a)
LGM, (b) Rotoma, (c) Whaktane, and (d) Waimihia.
7.
ts01.xlsx: EMPA results (average composition), roughness, and predicted tephra. Data
used for Figure 2.
49
7.1 Column “Pit #”, sample number, corresponds to pits shown on Figure 1c
50
7.2 Column “Puck”, EMPA puck number, corresponds to physical sample probed
51
7.3 Column “Type”, pit/auger, describes sampling method
52
7.4 Column “Sample Depth”, m, depth of probed sample
53
7.5 Column “EMPA Tephra”, tephra based on EMPA analysis
54
7.6 Column “Alt”, possible alternative tephra
55
7.7 Column “Predicted Fit”, predicted tephra based on linear regression of roughness
56
vs. age
57
7.8 Column “Age (ky)”, ky, eruption age of corresponding EMPA tephra
58
7.9 Column “n (shards)”, number of shards, total useable shards corresponding to the
59
60
61
62
63
reported EMPA tephra
7.10 Column “Raw”, roughness ratio, based on raw surface area:planar area ratio from
Jenness DEM Surface Tools
7.11 Column “Smooth (15m)”, roughness ratio, based on values from a smoothed DEM
(produced using a 15m averaging window)
64
65
7.12 Column “Buffered (15m)”, roughness ratio, based on values determined from a 15m
buffering window centered on each sample point
66
7.13 Column “Latitude”, deg, latitude of the sample location
67
7.14 Column “Longitude”, deg, longitude of the sample location
68
7.15 Column “Na2O”, avg wt. % (normalized to 100% with H2O representing the
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
difference), resulting oxide composition of the corresponding sample from EMPA
7.16 Column “SiO2”, avg wt. % (normalized to 100% with H2O representing the
difference), resulting oxide composition of the corresponding sample from EMPA
7.17 Column “K2O”, avg wt. % (normalized to 100% with H2O representing the
difference), resulting oxide composition of the corresponding sample from EMPA
7.18 Column “Al2O3”, avg wt. % (normalized to 100% with H2O representing the
difference), resulting oxide composition of the corresponding sample from EMPA
7.19 Column “MgO”, avg wt. % (normalized to 100% with H2O representing the
difference), resulting oxide composition of the corresponding sample from EMPA
7.20 Column “FeO”, avg wt. % (normalized to 100% with H2O representing the
difference), resulting oxide composition of the corresponding sample from EMPA
7.21 Column “CaO”, avg wt. % (normalized to 100% with H2O representing the
difference), resulting oxide composition of the corresponding sample from EMPA
7.22 Column “MnO”, avg wt. % (normalized to 100% with H2O representing the
difference), resulting oxide composition of the corresponding sample from EMPA
7.23 Column “TiO”, avg wt. % (normalized to 100% with H2O representing the
difference), resulting oxide composition of the corresponding sample from EMPA
7.24 Column “Na2O”, wt %, standard deviation (±1 σ) of corresponding reported oxide
86
87
composition from EMPA
7.25 Column “SiO2”, wt %, standard deviation (±1 σ) of corresponding reported oxide
88
89
composition from EMPA
7.26 Column “K2O”, wt %, standard deviation (±1 σ) of corresponding reported oxide
90
91
composition from EMPA
7.27 Column “Al2O3”, wt %, standard deviation (±1 σ) of corresponding reported oxide
92
93
composition from EMPA
7.28 Column “MgO”, wt %, standard deviation (±1 σ) of corresponding reported oxide
94
95
composition from EMPA
7.29 Column “FeO”, wt %, standard deviation (±1 σ) of corresponding reported oxide
96
97
composition from EMPA
7.30 Column “CaO”, wt %, standard deviation (±1 σ) of corresponding reported oxide
98
99
composition from EMPA
7.31 Column “MnO”, wt %, standard deviation (±1 σ) of corresponding reported oxide
100
101
composition from EMPA
7.32 Column “TiO”, wt %, standard deviation (±1 σ) of corresponding reported oxide
102
103
104
105
106
composition from EMPA
8.
ts02.xlsx: Field identified tephra
8.1 Column “Pit #”, sample number, corresponds to unlabeled, non-EMPA pits (smaller
circles) shown on Figure 1c
107
8.2 Column “Type”, pit/auger, describes sampling method
108
8.3 Column “Depth”, m, depth of collected sample
109
8.4 Column “Field Tephra”, tephra determined based on field characteristics
110
8.5 Column “Predicted Fit”, predicted tephra based on linear regression of roughness
111
vs. age
112
8.6 Column “Age (ky)”, ky, eruption age of corresponding field identified tephra
113
8.7 Column “Latitude”, deg, latitude of the sample location
114
8.8 Column “Longitude”, deg, longitude of the sample location
115
8.9 Column “Smooth (15m)”, roughness ratio, based on values from a smoothed DEM
116
(produced using a 15m averaging window)
8.10 Column “Buffered (15m)”, roughness ratio, based on values determined from a 15m
117
118
119
120
buffering window centered on each sample point
9.
ts03.xlsx: DFA reference dataset and results
9.1 Column “Sample Source”, source of reference tephra composition (“Puck XX-X”
121
correspond to control samples from Bilderback [2012] that were re-run as part of
122
this study)
123
9.2 Column “Tephra”, identified tephra published by the sample source
124
9.3 Column “Source”, Taupo/Okataina, TVZ volcanic center that produced the tephra
125
9.4 Column “ DFA Predicted Source”, Taupo/Okataina, predicted TVZ volcanic center
126
127
based on DFA
9.5 Column “Tephra Code”, simplified tephra name (Kh=Kaharoa, Kw=Kawakawa,
128
Ma=Mamaku, Mg=Mangaone, Ok=Okareka, Om=Omataroa, Op=Opepe,
129
P/K=Poronui/Karapiti, Re=Rerewhakaaitu, Rh=Rotoehu, Ro=Rotoma, Ru=Rotorua,
130
Ta=Tarawera, Te=TeRere, Tp=Taupo, Wa=Waiohau, Wk=Whakatane,
131
Wm=Waimihia)
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
9.6 Column “DFA Predicted Tephra”, tephra code, predicted tephra by TVZ source
based on DFA
9.7 Column “Incorrect Source?”, indicates “yes” when DFA predicted source is
different from published source
9.8 Column “Incorrect Tephra?”, indicates “yes” when DFA predicted tephra is
different from published tephra
10. ts04.xlsx: Reconstruction trials separated by timestep (bold-type trial is paleosurface
used for final calculations)
140
10.1 Column “Trial”, reconstruction trial number
141
10.2 Column “Channel”, main/valley, indicates type of channel included (main=modern
142
channel, valley=generalized channel/valley axis)
143
10.3 Column “Interpolation”, linear/cubic, indicates interpolation method used
144
10.4 Column “Break Points”, indicates control points used to define the ground surface
145
10.5 Column “Boundary”, modern/spline, indicates catchment boundary elevations used
146
(modern=DEM elevations, spline=spline-fit elevations)
147
10.6 Column “SSE”, MATLAB’s reported interpolation fit error
148
10.7 Column “Vol (km3)”, km3, calculated volume difference between the corresponding
149
150
151
trial surface and the 2010 lidar DEM
10.8 Column “Erosion (mm/yr)”, mm/yr, erosion rate determined from the corresponding
volume, timestep age, and total sub-catchment area
152
153
2. References
154
Allan, A., J. Baker, L. Carter, and R. J. Wysoczanksi (2008), Reconstructing the Quaternary
155
evolution of the world’s most active silicic volcanic system: insights from an ∼1.65Ma deep
156
ocean tephra record sourced from Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand, Quat. Sci. Rev.,
157
27(25-26), 2341–2360.
158
Bilderback, E. L. (2012), Hillslope response to climate-modulated river incision and the role of
159
deep-seated landslides in post-glacial sediment flux: Waipaoa Sedimentary System, New
160
Zealand, PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury. Geological Sciences.
161
Crosby, B., and K. Whipple (2006), Knickpoint initiation and distribution within fluvial
162
networks: 236 waterfalls in the Waipaoa River, North Island, New Zealand,
163
Geomorphology, 82(1-2), 16–38, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.08.023.
164
165
166
Hack, J. T. (1957), Studies of longitudinal stream profiles in Virginia and Maryland, USGS Prof.
Pap. 249, 97.
Lowe, D. J., P. R. Shane, B. V. Alloway, and R. M. Newnham (2008), Fingerprints and age
167
models for widespread New Zealand tephra marker beds erupted since 30,000 years ago: a
168
framework for NZ-INTIMATE, Quat. Sci. Rev., 27(1-2), 95–126.
169
Smith, V., P. Shane, and I. Nairn (2005), Trends in rhyolite geochemistry, mineralogy, and
170
magma storage during the last 50 kyr at Okataina and Taupo volcanic centres, Taupo
171
Volcanic Zone, New Zealand, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 148, 372–406.
172
Smith, V., P. Shane, and I. Nairn, and C.M. Williams (2006), Geochemistry and magmatic
173
properties of eruption episodes from Haroharo linear vent zone, Okataina Volcanic Centre,
174
New Zealand during the last 10 kyr. Bulletin of Volcanology, 69(1), 57-88.
175
Whipple, K., and G. Tucker (1999), Dynamics of the stream‐power river incision model:
176
Implications for height limits of mountain ranges, landscape response timescales, and
177
research needs, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 104, 661–674.
178
Wright CM (2000) Stratigraphy, volcanology, petrology and geochemistry of the 7.5 ka Mamaku
179
eruptive episode, Okataina Volcanic Centre, North Island, New Zealand, MSc Thesis, The
180
University of Auckland.