Interpretation of Whether Incision Rates in Appalachian Karst Reflect Long-Term
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Interpretation of Whether Incision Rates in Appalachian Karst Reflect Long-term Downcutting toward a Surface Versus Subsurface Base Level A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Holly A. Fitzgibbon November 2010 © 2010 Holly A Fitzgibbon. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis entitled Interpretation of Whether Incision Rates in Appalachian Karst Reflect Long-term Downcutting toward a Surface Versus Subsurface Base Level by HOLLY A. FITZGIBBON has been approved for the Department of Geological Sciences and the College of Arts and Sciences by Gregory S. Springer Associate Professor of Geological Sciences Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 Abstract FITZGIBBON, HOLLY A., M.S., November 2010, Geological Sciences Interpretation of Whether Incision Rates in Appalachian Karst Reflect Long-term Downcutting toward a Surface Versus Subsurface Base Level (154 pp). Director of Thesis: Gregory S. Springer Evidence of Pleistocene landscape evolution is recorded in sediment packages and cave passage morphologies found in Buckeye Creek Cave (BCC), West Virginia. Sediments and cave passages have been age-dated using U/Th and paleomagnetism so that long-term stream incision rates could be determined. The oldest cave passages are >773000 years old and the youngest passage is still forming. Incision rates calculated for higher, older cave passages are between ≤27 and ≤71 meters/million years, which is consistent with rates elsewhere in Appalachia. However, whether BCC incision rates reflect long-term valley incision or karst processes is ambiguous because passages may have been adjusted to a subsurface base level as opposed to a surface channel and valley. This would explain a low incision rate (≤27m/Ma) obtained from atop thick sediments in the second lowest passage, 16.3m above the modern stream, and why comparatively little incision has occurred since the original passage floor was excavated. Keywords: Aggradation, Climate, Incision, Karst, Paleomagnetism, Cave, Speleothem Approved: Gregory S. Springer Associate Professor of Geological Sciences 4 Acknowledgements I wish to thank the entire Department of Geological Sciences here at Ohio University, but especially I wish to thank my advisor and committee members, Dr. Springer, Dr. Lee, and Dr. Nadon. Each provided me with help and insight when I needed it. Especially Dr. Springer, who spent a cold, wet night with me in Buckeye Creek Cave when it flooded. I would also like to thank Cheri Sheets and Tim Grubb for everything. I would also like to thank the other graduate students in our department, my friends who helped me stay motivated. Of course I am eternally grateful for the Geological Sciences ALUMNI research grant I received. I would like to thank Deanna Potkanowicz, Ph.D., for your wonderful insights. I would also like to thank Thomas Carney, my high school Earth Sciences professor. I owe him everything because without him I never would have chosen this field. Finally, I would like to thank my family and my fiancé Patrick. Mom, Dad, you gave me a wonderful childhood and early adulthood. You paid for all of my schooling. I hope I’ve made you proud. Patrick, there aren’t enough words to express how thankful I am, you were here, you kept me sane, worked a job you disliked, and were always there to take me in early or pick me up late. Thank you so much. Thank you all. 5 Page Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................4 List of Tables .......................................................................................................................8 List of Figures .....................................................................................................................9 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................10 1.1 Previous studies in Buckeye Creek Cave ................................................................ 10 1.2 Local Climate Changes ........................................................................................... 12 1.3 Landform Responses to Climate Changes .............................................................. 16 1.4 Cave Sediment and Speleothems ............................................................................. 17 1.5 Denudation .............................................................................................................. 19 1.5.1 Chemical Weathering ....................................................................................... 19 1.5.2 Physical Weathering and Incision ................................................................... 22 1.5.3 Sediment Transport .......................................................................................... 24 1.5.3.1 Stream Power ............................................................................................ 24 1.5.3.2 Shear Stress ............................................................................................... 26 1.6 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 28 1.7 Research Questions and Hypothesis ....................................................................... 29 2.0 Study Area ...................................................................................................................33 2.1 Geology ................................................................................................................... 33 2.2 Landforms ............................................................................................................... 39 2.2.1 Drainage Boundaries ....................................................................................... 39 6 2.2.2 Base Level Position .......................................................................................... 39 2.2.2.1 Spring Creek ............................................................................................. 41 2.2.3 Passage Morphologies ..................................................................................... 45 2.2.4 Sediment Packages and Speleothems ............................................................... 46 3.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................47 3.1 Surveying ................................................................................................................ 47 3.2 Sieving ..................................................................................................................... 48 3.3 Paleomagnetism ...................................................................................................... 49 3.4 Uranium-thorium .................................................................................................... 54 3.5 Carbon .................................................................................................................... 59 4.0 Results .........................................................................................................................64 4.1 Elevation Data ........................................................................................................ 65 4.2 Age Data ................................................................................................................. 65 4.3 Incision Rates .......................................................................................................... 66 4.4 Stope’s Top Sediments ............................................................................................ 66 4.5 Snail Shell Site ........................................................................................................ 67 4.6 Sieving Results ........................................................................................................ 68 4.7 Wolman Count ........................................................................................................ 69 5.0 Discussion ...................................................................................................................74 5.1 Comparison of incision rates .................................................................................. 74 5.2 Spring Creek ........................................................................................................... 81 6.0 Conclusions .................................................................................................................85 7.0 References ...................................................................................................................86 7 8.0 Appendix ....................................................................................................................101 8.1 Appendix A: Survey Data ...................................................................................... 101 8.2 Appendix B: Sieving Results ................................................................................. 117 8.3 Appendix C: Graphs of grain size (mm) vs. % finer ............................................. 141 8.4 Appendix D: Sieving Statistics .............................................................................