Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5955
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5955
10 Nov 2026
 | 10 Nov 2026

Quantifying Erodibility in Stream Power Incision Models: Practical Guidance and Model Response Dynamics

Vinuri Piyathilake, Matthew W. Hughes, and Matthew Wilson

Abstract. Bedrock river incision models rely on an erodibility coefficient, K, that aggregates lithology, climate, sediment supply, and channel hydraulics into a single term, yet is typically the least constrained parameter in the stream power incision model and its derivatives. This paper has two aims: to give researchers practical guidance on how to estimate and report K, and to demonstrate quantitatively why residual uncertainty in K matters for the landscape evolution models using it. First, we systematically review 25 studies that estimate bedrock erodibility using geomorphic, geochemical and geophysical, or model-calibration and inverse methods. From this review we synthesise a decision framework that directs a prospective user to a method suited to their scientific objective and available data, five cross-cutting caveats that must be considered regardless of method, and four reporting practices that would improve the comparability and reusability of K estimates. Second, we propagate a tightly constrained, single-lithology erodibility range through detachment-limited and sediment-coupled landscape evolution simulations of a real catchment, to test how much this residual uncertainty changes model predictions. Even within a short modelled timeframe in which no configuration approaches long-term equilibrium, this range produces a real, monotonic, and in places mass-conserved divergence in predicted erosion rate, slope, and eroded volume. Switching model formulation at fixed erodibility shifts the predicted response systematically and in a direction that was not anticipated in advance: the sediment-coupled model erodes less than the detachment-limited model, via transient sediment shielding of the bed. Together, these results give researchers both a practical framework for choosing and reporting an erodibility estimate, and quantitative evidence that the method, exponent convention, and model formulation behind that estimate cannot be separated from the value itself.

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.
Share
Vinuri Piyathilake, Matthew W. Hughes, and Matthew Wilson

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Vinuri Piyathilake, Matthew W. Hughes, and Matthew Wilson

Model code and software

Native 1 m Resolution Sensitivity Analysis for Stream Power Incision Models V. Piyathilake et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23050099

Vinuri Piyathilake, Matthew W. Hughes, and Matthew Wilson
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 10 Nov 2026
Download
Short summary
Computer models of how landscapes change over time rely on erodibility, a measure of how easily bedrock is worn away. This value is difficult to estimate and is often borrowed from earlier studies without a clear source. We therefore reviewed how it is estimated and developed guidance for choosing and reporting it. Simulations of a real catchment showed that even small differences change predictions, making transparent reporting essential for reliable forecasts.
Share