the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 11 Feb 2026
Channel Dynamics in an Experimental Alluvial Fan Under Constant Boundary Conditions: A Classification of Avulsion and Lateral Migration Events
Abstract. Alluvial fans exhibit complex channel dynamics, spanning gradual lateral migration to sudden avulsions. Although allogenic processes are recognized as key drivers of these behaviors, the autogenic mechanisms regulating channel change remain poorly understood. In this study, we present a quantitative analysis of the main channel kinematics on a widely graded, non-cohesive experimental alluvial fan, utilizing high-temporal-resolution RGB imagery and main channel centerline tracking. By employing two key metrics – displacement magnitude (normalized by channel width) and flow continuity, defined as the degree of overlap in the active channel footprint from one image to the next – we move beyond qualitative assessments, which are often subject to researcher bias, and establish a clear framework for distinguishing between migratory (continuous) and avulsive (discrete) channel behaviours. Our findings reveal that the fan alternates between supply-limited phases, when a small number of efficient channels route sediment to the toe with only localized reworking, and transport-limited phases, when a more complex, inefficient channel network traps sediment mid-fan, favoring abrupt reorganizations (i.e., avulsions). Contrary to the conventional assumption that systematic aggradation from toe to apex triggers large-scale channel abandonment, we demonstrate that lateral sediment redistribution often prevents fan-wide sediment buildup, thereby delaying or even preventing major avulsions. These results highlight the critical role of self-regulating autogenic processes, particularly the lateral reworking of coarse sediment, in controlling both the timing and scale of channel adjustments, emphasizing the need to incorporate localized feedback mechanisms into predictive models to improve our understanding of alluvial fan dynamics.
- Preprint
(7229 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1635 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5934', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Mar 2026
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5934', Safiya Alpheus, 14 Apr 2026
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of RC2 and its content was therefore removed on 21 April 2026.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5934-CC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5934', Safiya Alpheus, 20 Apr 2026
In this manuscript, the authors present findings from their experimental study characterising different channel reorganisation regimes across an unperturbed, widely-graded alluvial fan. I believe their findings are both interesting and pertinent to this journal’s audience and the broader scientific community. The authors quantify—in extremely high resolution—channel migration and reworking across an experimental fan, and use these data to place quantitative constraints on different channel behaviours, differentiating between continuous events (lateral migration) and discrete events (avulsion). The framework that the authors propose classifies discrete vs. continuous events using displacement magnitude and continuity of channel overlap.
In their manuscript, the authors importantly show that cumulatively, lateral migration events can lead to as much channel displacement across fan surfaces as avulsion events, and can lead to comparable amounts of reworking. From the experimental observations, the authors also discuss how supply-limited and transport-limited flow regimes influence deposition and reworking across channel networks, where supply-limited regimes facilitate channel-coupling across the fan surface, efficiently transporting sediment through the network, while in transport-limited stages sediment accumulates more frequently in channels, triggering channel avulsions.Generally, I think this manuscript is well-written and the author’s have clearly documented the motivation, methodology and key findings of this study. I have highlighted 5 thoughts on how the authors could provide more clarity to the reader, particularly on contextualising this work and adding some clarity to the figures and results.
Major comments:
- The authors use high-resolution imagery of their experimental system to quantify migration and reworking across the alluvial fan, however I believe that the reader would have a greater appreciation for the utility of these methods and the boundaries that the authors propose if they were placed in context with existing methods for characterising channel reworking and migration from channel imagery (e.g., from Particle-Image Velocimetry e.g. Jarriel et al., 2021 and CHadwick et al., 2024; Centerline measurements e.g., Schwenk et al., 2015; Area-Based Metrics e.g., Wickert et al., 2013, Greenberg et al., 2024).
- Similarly, I think it would be helpful for the discussion if the authors touched on how these findings or the classification criteria could be translated to natural systems where, in the best case, repeat satellite imagery is available on daily to weekly timescales.
- The authors use supply-limited and transport-limited flow regimes to frame some of the discussion around avulsion, however they do not define these regimes for the reader. I think the main text would benefit from some discussion on how the authors are defining these different flow regimes in their model, especially as the system is under constant conditions.
- The figures, tables and captions could be made clearer for the reader. For example, there aren’t any details in the Figure 4 caption for panels 4e and 4f and it is unclear what these plots show from the legend. Also, Table 2 and Figure 7 are a bit difficult to follow—it is not clear from the caption in Table 2 that the numbers in the ‘Channel Behavior’ column map to the behaviours listed in Figure 7, this makes this section of the manuscript slightly difficult to follow. Furthermore, Line 220 says that the behaviours in Table 2 are listed in order of increasing mean displacement but in Table 2 they are increasing. This language should be made clearer.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5934-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 856 | 464 | 80 | 1,400 | 207 | 166 | 187 |
- HTML: 856
- PDF: 464
- XML: 80
- Total: 1,400
- Supplement: 207
- BibTeX: 166
- EndNote: 187
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Review of “Channel Dynamics in an Experimental Alluvial Fan Under Constant Boundary Conditions: A Classification of Avulsion and Lateral Migration Events”
This manuscript presents an experimental investigation of channel dynamics on a widely graded alluvial fan. The active flow area is identified using high-frequency imagery and optical flow analysis. Active channel centerlines were extracted from these areas, and a quantitative framework was developed to classify channel displacement into continuous lateral migration and discrete avulsion based on channel displacement magnitude and flow overlapping. The study demonstrates that cumulative lateral migration can produce net channel displacement comparable to avulsions and discusses the alternation of the fan between supply-limited and transport-limited states under constant boundary conditions. Overall, the manuscript is well written and addresses an important problem in fluvial geomorphology: how to distinguish between gradual channel migration and discrete avulsion. The use of high temporal resolution imagery and a classification scheme combining channel displacement magnitude and flow-path overlap is a valuable contribution. The results highlight the role of repeated lateral migration in redistributing sediment in alluvial fans.
However, the methodology and interpretation require further improvement and clarification before the manuscript can be considered for publication. In particular, the novelty of the proposed method relative to existing techniques needs to be discussed, the classification thresholds needs to be improved, and the implications and broader applicability of the method to natural systems require further discussion. Some figures need further refinement. Therefore, I recommend major revisions to the manuscript.
Major comments:
Minor comments:
Line 109: Suggest adding the spatial resolution of the imagery
Figure 3: It would be better if adding a colorbar and a description of “flow motion values” regarding whether it represents the magnitude or direction of the motion.
Figure 4: Panels e and f don’t have captions. Also, there seems to be no citation of Fig. 4d and e in the main text.
Line 155: “position of a point at two time steps” – How were points between the two time steps matched? For example, in Fig. 5a, there are several points at the end of the down fan in blue that do not have a corresponding point on the down fan that is colored in orange. Is there a reason why these points are removed from the angular displacement analysis?
Figure 5: There is no citation of Fig. 5 in the main text.
Line 212: “between consecutive images” – suggest reinforce the temporal resolution here
Figure 8: Section 3.4 is describing Fig. 8 but there is no citation of it in the main text.
Line 318-319: “Beyond distinguishing lateral migrations from avulsions, our data illustrate how sediment connectivity exerts a first-order control on fan dynamics” - Suggest rewrite this sentence as more data might be needed to support this statement.
Line 319-322: References might be needed for these sentences.
Line 329: “which, in turn, determine the preferred locations of avulsion nodes and ultimately drive shifts in alluvial style.” – The data here did not show anything about the location of avulsion nodes.