Discriminating fluvial fans and deltas: Channel network morphometrics reflect distinct formative processes

Gezovich, Luke Joseph; Plink-Björklund, Piret; Henry, Jack

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497

Preprints

10 Jul 2025

| 10 Jul 2025

Discriminating fluvial fans and deltas: Channel network morphometrics reflect distinct formative processes

Luke Joseph Gezovich, Piret Plink-Björklund, and Jack Henry

Abstract. Recent recognition of a new type of fluvial system – fluvial fans – introduces a fan-shaped channel network that appears similar to that of river-dominated deltas. Deltas form where rivers enter lakes and oceans, while fluvial fans are terrestrial landforms. However, fluvial fans can reach the shorelines of oceans or lakes, and in such cases the distinction between fluvial fan and river-dominated delta channel networks become ambiguous. We currently lack fundamental of these two landforms’ morphometric differences, despite their high socioeconomic significance, vulnerability to natural hazards, and key differences in how these landforms respond to global climate change and urbanization. Here we review the relevant conceptual differences in delta and fluvial fan network morphodynamics, propose a set of quantitative morphometric criteria to distinguish fluvial fan and delta channel networks, and test these criteria on 40 deltas and 40 fluvial fans from across the world. This initial attempt to distinguish deltas and fluvial fans demonstrates that quantifying channel network angles, and trends in normalized channel widths and lengths provides efficient criteria, but some ambiguities remain that need to be resolved in future work. This research advances our mechanistic understanding of fluvial fan and delta channel networks and the recognition of modern and ancient landforms on Earth and other planetary bodies, such as Mars and Saturn’s moon Titan.

Received: 28 May 2025 – Discussion started: 10 Jul 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1879 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (1879 KB)

Supplement (370 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

17 Mar 2026

Discriminating fluvial fans and deltas: channel network morphometrics reflect distinct formative processes

Luke Gezovich, Piret Plink-Björklund, and Jack Henry

Earth Surf. Dynam., 14, 211–231, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-14-211-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-14-211-2026, 2026

Short summary

Luke Joseph Gezovich, Piret Plink-Björklund, and Jack Henry

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2497', John Shaw, 11 Aug 2025

This manuscript describes an empirical analysis of channel networks on modern river deltas and fluvial fans. Bifurcation angles, widths, and lengths were measured on 80 systems. Bifurcation angles were found to be similar to a theoretical angle for deltas and significantly smaller on fans. Lengths and widths decreased with channel order. These findings are new, and could significantly improve the interpretation of ancient and planetary landscapes. I have several comments that I think will improve the manuscript, but I think that at its core this is significant work that is worthy of ESURF.
Major comments
The treatment of river and tide dominated deltas is confusing. On L186 you say that we neglect W- and T- dominated, but then you do treat them in Fig. 7a. You state that you looked at quantitative metrics for process dominance (L300), but don’t give details of any cutoff (e.g. 50% river dominated). I don’t mind if you didn’t go this specific: one of my key takeaways is that the process regime doesn’t particularly influence the angle, which is nice and a worthy paper conclusion. Then in L371 it sounds like wave dominated deltas were omitted from the statistics.
L253, Several aspects of network mapping need to be described better. Particularly, is there a lower limit of channel width that you stop measuring at? Do short side branches or tie channels count as channels? I don’t mean for you to be endlessly bogged down in these choices, but it would be good to include your choices and shapefiles as a supplement so that your work can be introduced.
L393 I don’t believe that Normalized Channel Length is defined anywhere. Is it a channel length divided by apex channel width? Average channel width of the reach? It might be interesting to cite Jerolmack (2009), which does the same normalization.
In section 5.1 you discuss how small angles are more likely to be from a fan than a delta. Are you arguing that 60 or 64 degree average angle is a good cutoff for fans vs deltas? A number like this would be really helpful, but I think it requires some statistical modeling beyond what is here. For example, if you had just 2 measurements on an ancient system and their average was 66 degrees, you wouldn’t have much confidence. I’m not requiring more analysis, but this is an important passage and as yet we don’t have good guidelines for applying this work.

Minor comments
L22, fluvial fans and deltas have distinguished before (Van Dijk et al., 2009). Perhaps specify that you are looking at quantitative differences in channel network morphometrics.
L144 “Deltas always form where the mouth of a river enters a body of water.” This is not an essential point to the paper, but it is easy to find counterexamples to this, such as the Amazon. Perhaps change always to generally.
L179-182 While E&S did propose this reason for channel length reduction, I do not think that it is broadly confirmed. I find that your empirical results are interesting, but that normalized channel lengths of 100s and 1000s are far too long to be explained by momentum. My point here is to just state that the proposed mechanisms have not been firmly established yet, and your certainty overstates the case.
L245 remove existing
L262 By “not considering channels” I think you mean that you measure them but don’t have them influence the channel ordering, right?
L287-288 branching into three channels is sometimes called a “furcation” (Shaw et al., 2018) or a polyfurcation (Chamberlain et al., 2018).
L308, confusing sentence structure.
L321, Python- and Pandas- readable
L451-452 this observation is consistent with Coffey and Shaw
L459, I think “diffusion in unchannelized flow” could be improved. Perhaps, “flow patterns at channel tips well-explained by diffusive processes.
Our recent paper (Shaw et al., 2025) shows that many large systems have both proximal fan and distal delta platform components. Could this possibly explain why angles tend to be larger at the higher order channels at the distal end of fans?

Chamberlain, E. L., Törnqvist, T. E., Shen, Z., Mauz, B., & Wallinga, J. (2018). Anatomy of Mississippi Delta growth and its implications for coastal restoration. Science Advances, 4(4), eaar4740. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar4740
Jerolmack, D. J. (2009). Conceptual framework for assessing the response of delta channel networks to Holocene sea level rise. Quaternary Science Reviews, 28(17–18), 1786–1800.
Shaw, J. B., Miller, K., & McElroy, B. (2018). Island Formation Resulting from Radially Symmetric Flow Expansion. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 2017JF004464. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JF004464
Shaw, J. B., Sanks, K. M., & Piliouras, A. (2025). Basin confinement influences river delta elevation profiles. GSA Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1130/B38386.1
Van Dijk, M., Postma, G., & Kleinhans, M. G. (2009). Autocyclic behaviour of fan deltas: an analogue experimental study. Sedimentology, 56(5), 1569–1589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2008.01047.x

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Luke Gezovich, 16 Sep 2025
  
  Please refer to the attached PDF containing our point-by-point responses to the reviewer comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2497', Ellen Chamberlin, 20 Aug 2025

Please see attached review.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Luke Gezovich, 16 Sep 2025
  
  Please refer to the attached PDF containing our point-by-point responses to the reviewer comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2497', Anonymous Referee #3, 03 Sep 2025
This paper uses two morphometrics, bifurcation angle and the relationship between channel width, channel length, and channel order, derived from satellite imagery, to distinguish between fluvial fans and deltas. The topic is within the scope of Earth Surface Dynamics and has the potential to contribute to ongoing conversations about how we classify and interpret depositional systems. At present, however, the analysis and framing feel limited. With significant revision, especially in the choice of metrics, the engagement with existing literature, and the way the classification is presented, I think the paper could be suitable for publication.
Major considerations

The choice of metrics is my main concern. Restricting the analysis to bifurcation angle and downstream channel width/order feels too narrow. Other metrics such as lateral channel mobility or avulsion frequency would provide a richer basis for comparison and may lead to more meaningful separation. When a fan or delta terminates in standing water, downstream boundary effects become critical, and prior work (e.g., Carlson et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019) shows that boundary conditions strongly influence channel number, lateral migration rate, and sediment bypass. These findings should inform the interpretation here. Even if channel depth cannot be measured from imagery, alternatives such as migration rates or wetted frequency maps (e.g., Piliouras et al., 2017) could help test whether channel dynamics differ between deltas and fluvial fans. This would require using data from more than a single snapshot in time. The authors are working on scales where existing channel metric tools could be applied, and doing so would provide a clearer picture of system dynamics across time and discharge conditions.
In general, the paper would be stronger if the classification were less prescriptive. Rather than setting a framework in advance, I would like to see populations emerge from the data, and then understand when a fluvial fan behaves like a delta and when it does not. That approach would make for a more compelling contribution.
Minor considerations
The selection of case studies is unclear. How is the threshold for fluvially dominated deltas quantified?

Should confinement be considered as a control?

Figure 2 needs clearer labeling (e.g., upstream/downstream).

Several figures would benefit from improved color schemes and alternative presentation. Scatter plots, for example, could more clearly show whether two populations emerge.

The GitHub link provided does not work.

References for consideration
Wang, J., Muto, T., Urata, K., Sato, T., & Naruse, H. (2019). Morphodynamics of River Deltas in Response to Different Basin Water Depths: An Experimental Examination of the Grade Index Model. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(10), 5265–5273. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082483

Carlson, B., Piliouras, A., Muto, T., & Kim, W. (2018). Control of Basin Water Depth on Channel Morphology and Autogenic Timescales in Deltaic Systems. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 88(9), 1026–1039. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2018.52

Piliouras, A., Kim, W., & Carlson, B. (2017). Balancing Aggradation and Progradation on a Vegetated Delta: The Importance of Fluctuating Discharge in Depositional Systems. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 122(10). https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JF004378
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Luke Gezovich, 16 Sep 2025
  
  Please refer to the attached PDF containing our point-by-point responses to the reviewer comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2497', John Shaw, 11 Aug 2025

This manuscript describes an empirical analysis of channel networks on modern river deltas and fluvial fans. Bifurcation angles, widths, and lengths were measured on 80 systems. Bifurcation angles were found to be similar to a theoretical angle for deltas and significantly smaller on fans. Lengths and widths decreased with channel order. These findings are new, and could significantly improve the interpretation of ancient and planetary landscapes. I have several comments that I think will improve the manuscript, but I think that at its core this is significant work that is worthy of ESURF.
Major comments
The treatment of river and tide dominated deltas is confusing. On L186 you say that we neglect W- and T- dominated, but then you do treat them in Fig. 7a. You state that you looked at quantitative metrics for process dominance (L300), but don’t give details of any cutoff (e.g. 50% river dominated). I don’t mind if you didn’t go this specific: one of my key takeaways is that the process regime doesn’t particularly influence the angle, which is nice and a worthy paper conclusion. Then in L371 it sounds like wave dominated deltas were omitted from the statistics.
L253, Several aspects of network mapping need to be described better. Particularly, is there a lower limit of channel width that you stop measuring at? Do short side branches or tie channels count as channels? I don’t mean for you to be endlessly bogged down in these choices, but it would be good to include your choices and shapefiles as a supplement so that your work can be introduced.
L393 I don’t believe that Normalized Channel Length is defined anywhere. Is it a channel length divided by apex channel width? Average channel width of the reach? It might be interesting to cite Jerolmack (2009), which does the same normalization.
In section 5.1 you discuss how small angles are more likely to be from a fan than a delta. Are you arguing that 60 or 64 degree average angle is a good cutoff for fans vs deltas? A number like this would be really helpful, but I think it requires some statistical modeling beyond what is here. For example, if you had just 2 measurements on an ancient system and their average was 66 degrees, you wouldn’t have much confidence. I’m not requiring more analysis, but this is an important passage and as yet we don’t have good guidelines for applying this work.

Minor comments
L22, fluvial fans and deltas have distinguished before (Van Dijk et al., 2009). Perhaps specify that you are looking at quantitative differences in channel network morphometrics.
L144 “Deltas always form where the mouth of a river enters a body of water.” This is not an essential point to the paper, but it is easy to find counterexamples to this, such as the Amazon. Perhaps change always to generally.
L179-182 While E&S did propose this reason for channel length reduction, I do not think that it is broadly confirmed. I find that your empirical results are interesting, but that normalized channel lengths of 100s and 1000s are far too long to be explained by momentum. My point here is to just state that the proposed mechanisms have not been firmly established yet, and your certainty overstates the case.
L245 remove existing
L262 By “not considering channels” I think you mean that you measure them but don’t have them influence the channel ordering, right?
L287-288 branching into three channels is sometimes called a “furcation” (Shaw et al., 2018) or a polyfurcation (Chamberlain et al., 2018).
L308, confusing sentence structure.
L321, Python- and Pandas- readable
L451-452 this observation is consistent with Coffey and Shaw
L459, I think “diffusion in unchannelized flow” could be improved. Perhaps, “flow patterns at channel tips well-explained by diffusive processes.
Our recent paper (Shaw et al., 2025) shows that many large systems have both proximal fan and distal delta platform components. Could this possibly explain why angles tend to be larger at the higher order channels at the distal end of fans?

Chamberlain, E. L., Törnqvist, T. E., Shen, Z., Mauz, B., & Wallinga, J. (2018). Anatomy of Mississippi Delta growth and its implications for coastal restoration. Science Advances, 4(4), eaar4740. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar4740
Jerolmack, D. J. (2009). Conceptual framework for assessing the response of delta channel networks to Holocene sea level rise. Quaternary Science Reviews, 28(17–18), 1786–1800.
Shaw, J. B., Miller, K., & McElroy, B. (2018). Island Formation Resulting from Radially Symmetric Flow Expansion. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 2017JF004464. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JF004464
Shaw, J. B., Sanks, K. M., & Piliouras, A. (2025). Basin confinement influences river delta elevation profiles. GSA Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1130/B38386.1
Van Dijk, M., Postma, G., & Kleinhans, M. G. (2009). Autocyclic behaviour of fan deltas: an analogue experimental study. Sedimentology, 56(5), 1569–1589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2008.01047.x

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Luke Gezovich, 16 Sep 2025
  
  Please refer to the attached PDF containing our point-by-point responses to the reviewer comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2497', Ellen Chamberlin, 20 Aug 2025

Please see attached review.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Luke Gezovich, 16 Sep 2025
  
  Please refer to the attached PDF containing our point-by-point responses to the reviewer comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2497', Anonymous Referee #3, 03 Sep 2025
This paper uses two morphometrics, bifurcation angle and the relationship between channel width, channel length, and channel order, derived from satellite imagery, to distinguish between fluvial fans and deltas. The topic is within the scope of Earth Surface Dynamics and has the potential to contribute to ongoing conversations about how we classify and interpret depositional systems. At present, however, the analysis and framing feel limited. With significant revision, especially in the choice of metrics, the engagement with existing literature, and the way the classification is presented, I think the paper could be suitable for publication.
Major considerations

The choice of metrics is my main concern. Restricting the analysis to bifurcation angle and downstream channel width/order feels too narrow. Other metrics such as lateral channel mobility or avulsion frequency would provide a richer basis for comparison and may lead to more meaningful separation. When a fan or delta terminates in standing water, downstream boundary effects become critical, and prior work (e.g., Carlson et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019) shows that boundary conditions strongly influence channel number, lateral migration rate, and sediment bypass. These findings should inform the interpretation here. Even if channel depth cannot be measured from imagery, alternatives such as migration rates or wetted frequency maps (e.g., Piliouras et al., 2017) could help test whether channel dynamics differ between deltas and fluvial fans. This would require using data from more than a single snapshot in time. The authors are working on scales where existing channel metric tools could be applied, and doing so would provide a clearer picture of system dynamics across time and discharge conditions.
In general, the paper would be stronger if the classification were less prescriptive. Rather than setting a framework in advance, I would like to see populations emerge from the data, and then understand when a fluvial fan behaves like a delta and when it does not. That approach would make for a more compelling contribution.
Minor considerations
The selection of case studies is unclear. How is the threshold for fluvially dominated deltas quantified?

Should confinement be considered as a control?

Figure 2 needs clearer labeling (e.g., upstream/downstream).

Several figures would benefit from improved color schemes and alternative presentation. Scatter plots, for example, could more clearly show whether two populations emerge.

The GitHub link provided does not work.

References for consideration
Wang, J., Muto, T., Urata, K., Sato, T., & Naruse, H. (2019). Morphodynamics of River Deltas in Response to Different Basin Water Depths: An Experimental Examination of the Grade Index Model. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(10), 5265–5273. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082483

Carlson, B., Piliouras, A., Muto, T., & Kim, W. (2018). Control of Basin Water Depth on Channel Morphology and Autogenic Timescales in Deltaic Systems. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 88(9), 1026–1039. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2018.52

Piliouras, A., Kim, W., & Carlson, B. (2017). Balancing Aggradation and Progradation on a Vegetated Delta: The Importance of Fluctuating Discharge in Depositional Systems. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 122(10). https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JF004378
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Luke Gezovich, 16 Sep 2025
  
  Please refer to the attached PDF containing our point-by-point responses to the reviewer comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-AC3

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Luke Gezovich on behalf of the Authors (16 Sep 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (24 Sep 2025) by Anastasia Piliouras

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and the reports provided by three reviewers. I find that the authors addressed many of the concerns raised by the reviewers, but the following points require additional thought and modifications by the authors.

1. Please provide more information in the manuscript on channel mapping and image acquisition. Reviewer #1 (Dr. Shaw) asked for more information on how channels were mapped and for you to provide the shapefiles in your dataset. The information provided is insufficient to understand how this extraction/mapping was done and what its limitations are. What is the resolution of your imagery? What is the lower limit of channel widths you mapped? How were land-water boundaries identified to determine channel widths? These are just some examples of the details needed here. Related, in response to a later comment by reviewer #2, you note that imagery on large systems is often mosaicked. I agree, but in this case we have no information on the imagery you actually used, so no way of knowing if it was mosaicked or composited or not. You need to specify your image source and its details in the manuscript and justify this choice for this application. If the authors simply used a basemap, this requires careful justification, as one of your key metrics involves channel width that is highly dependent on river stage. I would also strongly encourage the authors to include the channel network shapefiles in their dataset to ensure their work is replicable.

2. Please provide additional information in the manuscript to distinguish the processes that form fluvial fans vs deltas and how this was determined a priori in picking sites for this work. Reviewer #2 (Dr. Chamberlin) asked for this clarification, but the description in the text is quite brief. More information is required to convince a reader of these distinct landforms and the processes that form them before your analysis.

3. Please reconsider specifying 'mouth bar bifurcations' instead of just 'bifurcations,' as suggested by Dr. Chamberlin. If you just look at your networks on their own, all of them have bifurcations. A bifurcation is purely a geometry or a part of the topology. All of the bifurcations did not necessarily form via avulsion, but they are all bifurcations, so the terms you have chosen to distinguish these are not equivalent. I find this choice confusing and it distracts from your story.

4. I appreciate your changes to Figure 8, but it now has typos in the caption. Please also label the columns in the actual figure to specify that the left column of plots is for deltas and the right is for fans. I also suggest moving the legends to avoid confusion, as they are currently aligned with the rows.

5. Please revise your network maps. Reviewer #3 asked for some changes to figures to improve clarity. I understand that the network maps have both a color and a line thickness scaling with channel order, but the line thickness changes are far too subtle. I did not notice them until you pointed it out, and this information is not in the figure captions. I suggest making the thickness changes more drastic and also including a color scale to show the changes in channel order. It does not have to be quantitative, it can simply scale from red to purple and go from lower order to higher order.

Hide

AR by Luke Gezovich on behalf of the Authors (28 Sep 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (13 Oct 2025) by Anastasia Piliouras

ED: Publish as is (19 Oct 2025) by Paola Passalacqua (Editor)

AR by Luke Gezovich on behalf of the Authors (28 Nov 2025) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

17 Mar 2026

Discriminating fluvial fans and deltas: channel network morphometrics reflect distinct formative processes

Luke Gezovich, Piret Plink-Björklund, and Jack Henry

Earth Surf. Dynam., 14, 211–231, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-14-211-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-14-211-2026, 2026

Short summary

Luke Joseph Gezovich, Piret Plink-Björklund, and Jack Henry

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2497-supplement

Luke Joseph Gezovich, Piret Plink-Björklund, and Jack Henry

Viewed

Total article views: 1,435 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
1,073	317	45	1,435	74	59	66

HTML: 1,073
PDF: 317
XML: 45
Total: 1,435
Supplement: 74
BibTeX: 59
EndNote: 66

Views and downloads (calculated since 10 Jul 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2025	59	37	6	102
Aug 2025	133	19	9	161
Sep 2025	661	24	14	699
Oct 2025	41	16	1	58
Nov 2025	13	30	1	44
Dec 2025	32	53	4	89
Jan 2026	68	58	7	133
Feb 2026	36	44	3	83
Mar 2026	30	36	0	66

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 10 Jul 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2025	59	37	6	102
Aug 2025	133	19	9	161
Sep 2025	661	24	14	699
Oct 2025	41	16	1	58
Nov 2025	13	30	1	44
Dec 2025	32	53	4	89
Jan 2026	68	58	7	133
Feb 2026	36	44	3	83
Mar 2026	30	36	0	66

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,452 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,452 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 17 Mar 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (1879 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Fluvial fans are a newly recognized type of river system that look like river deltas, especially when they reach lakes or oceans. This study explores how to tell them apart by measuring the size and layout of channels in these fan-shaped landforms. Understanding these differences helps to predict how these landforms respond to climate change and urbanization, and identify them on Mars and other planetary bodies.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0