Journal of Sedimentary Research, 2007, v.

77, 693–701
Research Article
DOI: 10.2110/jsr.2007.072

FLUVIAL FANS: MYTHS, MISCONCEPTIONS, AND THE END OF THE TERMINAL-FAN MODEL

COLIN P. NORTH AND GAIL L. WARWICK

Department of Geology & Petroleum Geology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, Scotland, U.K.
e-mail: c.p.north@abdn.ac.uk

ABSTRACT: We propose that the so-called ‘‘terminal fan’’ facies model should be abandoned since it is flawed on several counts
and it is leading to misunderstanding and poor communication. Rivers in drylands may experience excessive downstream
discharge reduction such that they terminate subaerially rather than reach the sea or a lake. The facies model predicts that the
distal reaches of such rivers form a network of bifurcating distributary channels producing a fan-shaped sediment body, with
downstream thinning and fining of sedimentary units, ending in sand-filled ribbons encased in mud.
Extensive review of modern rivers has failed to turn up convincing examples that fit the model. Rivers in drylands do not
ubiquitously end in fans. Fan-shaped fluvial bodies are common wherever rivers are released from confinement and the
discharge conditions promote frequent avulsion. Channels on such fans generally do not repeatedly bifurcate downstream.
Where they are seen to do so, it can usually be shown they are lacustrine deltas inherited from wetter times. The term
‘‘distributary’’ is being used carelessly and is conveying incorrect understanding of sediment geometry and architecture. The
proposed synonym of ‘‘fluvial distributary systems’’ is unsatisfactory as it perpetuates the same misunderstandings. Reliance on
planform alone in analogue selection is highly risky.
The fluvial fan is a composite sediment body resulting from frequent nodal avulsions in a setting without horizontal
constraints. Channels on fans range in planform as much as any other river. The resultant sedimentary record differs little from
that expected from non-fan fluvial systems except having a regionally radiating orientation when viewed over geological time
scales. Contrary to the implications of the facies model, there is no distinctive ‘‘terminal fan’’ sedimentary succession.

INTRODUCTION that the ‘‘decay down-slope into muddy floodbasins’’ he observed

Friend (1978) brought the concept of a ‘‘terminal fan’’ to the
widespread attention of the sedimentology community when he invoked
it to explain features of some ancient fluvial successions that he felt made
them distinctive from many modern river systems, as understood at that
time. Each of his four examples displays a regional trend of downstream
decreasing sandstone grain size, decreasing thickness of sandstone bodies
(interpreted as decreasing river depth), and increasing proportions of
siltstone, small-scale cross-stratification, and flat bedding. Explicitly
introducing a terminal-fan model (TFM), Friend (1978, p. 539) compared
these ancient examples to the ‘‘terminal fans’’ described by Mukerji
(1976) on the Indo-Gangetic Plains, notably that of the Markanda River.
Each of these modern rivers appears today to end in a network of
distributary channels without reaching the sea or a lake. Both authors
speculated this morphology is the result of discharge losses due to
a combination of a drier climate at the terminus than in the headwaters
and a permeable substrate.
Subsequent workers have latched onto the TFM as a feature to be
expected in arid and semiarid areas (collectively referred to as drylands),
because of the present-day semiarid climatic setting of the Markanda
River, and the inclusion of the supposedly dryland Oligo-Miocene
succession of the Ebro Basin, Spain, as one of Friend’s examples. Parkash
et al. (1983) produced some lithofacies descriptions for the Markanda
River example by sampling the topmost sediment over the terminal few
kilometers. From a study of Middle Devonian strata exposed along the
northern coast of Devon, SW Britain, Tunbridge (1984, p. 713) thought
matched well to the TFM of Friend. This has to have been more by
way of speculation than firm conclusion since he demonstrated neither
a distributary network of channels nor a radial pattern of paleocurrents.
His conjectures were based on interpreted indicators of ephemerality in
the depositing flows, implying dryland climate, and some similarity of
lithofacies in vertical profile to those described from the Markanda River
by Parkash et al. (1983). But as a result of these speculations, the
lithofacies packages Tunbridge described have implicitly become in-
corporated into the model as representative, and Tunbridge (1984) is
typically cited along with Kelly and Olsen (1993) by those invoking the
TFM for their own studies.
The model was given added impetus by the review paper by Kelly and
Olsen (1993), in which they evolved Friend’s hypothetical morphological
model more fully into one that also predicts lithofacies character (Fig. 1).
This they did through drawing at length on Devonian-age examples,
including those of Tunbridge (1984), by reference again to the Markanda
River example and the lithofacies described by Parkash et al. (1983), and
by inclusion of another supposed modern analogue, the Gash River in
Sudan as described by Abdullatif (1989).
In this latest form of the model (Fig. 1), ‘‘terminal fans’’ are predicted
to occur where rivers have no outlet and lose their entire discharge due to
percolation and evapotranspiration (implying dryland conditions).
Explicit in the model is a network of coeval distributary channels that
become more widely distributed but simpler in form (straighter),
reflecting down-fan bifurcation. Kelly and Olsen (1993) amplified the

Copyright E 2007, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 1527-1404/07/077-693/$03.00

694 C.P. NORTH AND G.L. WARWICK
FIG. 1.— The facies model for terminal fans as proposed by Kelly and Olsen
(1993, modified from their figure 23), but which we recommend should be
abandoned. 1 5 feeder zone; 2 to 4 5 distributary zone; 5 5 basinal zone.
linkage to drylands by postulating the interbedding distally of wind-
reworked sediments with the alluvium. They included this aspect because
in their own Devonian-age examples (e.g., Sadler and Kelly 1993) they
had observed eolian deposits sandwiched between alluvial strata.
Inclusion of the Kelly and Olsen (1993) form of the model in reviews of
fluvial depositional environments and widely consulted training texts
(e.g., Miall 1996, p. 249; Collinson 1996, p. 82) has given the model
a stature and momentum that implies widespread acceptance. It is our
experience that interpretations of ‘‘terminal fans’’ are increasingly being
invoked, both formally in publications and informally by those in
industry interpreting the subsurface. It has been suggested (Nichols 1987;
Nichols and Hirst 1998; Nichols and Fisher 2007) that these ‘‘fans’’
should be referred to as ‘‘fluvial distributary systems,’’ though that term
would additionally embrace non-terminal alluvial and fluvial fans.
The aim of this article is to justify our contention that the terminal fan
model should be abandoned. The TFM was a hypothetical model put
together by sedimentologists to explain features observed in poorly
correlated rock outcrops. Though intuitively appealing, the evidence is
circumstantial. It is telling that geomorphologists do not recognize such
a landform. The model does not stand up to hard scrutiny.
Our view is based on critical reevaluation of the literature, and an
extensive search for additional modern analogues, using satellite imagery,
maps, literature, fieldwork in the western USA, and involving detailed
review of 80 fluvial fan landforms (Warwick 2006). We believe Friend’s
interesting speculations have been stretched by others unreasonably far,
ignoring even Friend’s own explanations. The model has become like an
urban myth, taking on a life of its own. We will illustrate how it is leading
to poor communication and over-interpretation of past continental
JSR
environments, resulting in unsafe paleogeographic and sediment-archi-
tecture reconstructions. Our analysis shows previous workers have failed
to understand fully the causes of fluvial fans and the processes acting on
them. Rock-record interpretations have been put forward with a certainty
that fails to take account of the natural variability and ambiguity of
fluvial systems. These interpretations are model-driven instead of
evidence-led. We conclude the analysis by outlining what we believe to
be the true picture for fluvial fan processes and their sedimentary record.
RELEVANCE OF MODERN ANALOGUES
Two modern examples are usually cited to support the terminal fan
model (TFM) hypothesis, yet neither provides a strong foundation. The
first of these, the terminus of the Markanda River in northern India, was
first invoked by Friend in his 1978 paper, picking up on the first
description of it by Mukerji (1975; 1976). Additional sedimentological
descriptions were provided in 1983 by Parkash and others. The second
analogue is the apparent terminus of the Gash River, in Sudan. An
account of this region was published by Abdullatif (1989), who made
brief comparison to the Markanda River example. This was then picked
up by Kelly and Olsen in their 1993 synthesis paper.
Markanda River
The Markanda River originates in the outer Himalayan ranges (the
Siwalik Ranges), and flows 112 km southwest to terminate subaerially
just past the village of Jalbehpa, in the Kurukshetra district of Haryana
State, India. About 10 km upstream from Jalbehpa the river is about
100 m wide, but it progressively narrows after this point. Flow is highly
variable over the year, with peak rainfall in the summer months, and for
much of the year the river channels are dry.
Whilst the Markanda River terminus is currently in a semiarid setting
(Parkash et al. 1983), its small ‘‘terminal fan’’ is not a primary
phenomenon of such climates but is probably a relic of a wetter time,
such as the mid-Holocene wet monsoonal period, when the Markanda
was a tributary of a larger river, the Saraswati (Mukerji 1976, p. 202). It
can hardly, therefore, be classed as a feature typical of dryland regions, as
is implicit in the synthesis of the TFM by Kelly and Olsen.
Furthermore, human abstraction of water, cultivation, and channel
modification are clearly evident (Parkash et al. 1983, p. 338), so it is
difficult to deconvolve human from natural processes when considering
what produced the present planform. The large degree of impact caused
by all of this disturbance is reflected in the absence of any fan feature on
modern satellite imagery.
Since Mukerji relied heavily on old maps and aerial photographs,
which lack reliable temporal relationship information, there is consider-
able uncertainty about the claimed distributary nature of the channels
(are they truly bifurcating and simultaneously active?). It is also
important to keep in mind the fairly small scale of the Markanda
‘‘fan,’’ which is at the most 10.5 km from apex to toe (Mukerji 1976, p.
197).
In addition to these local uncertainties it must also be remembered that
the Indo-Gangetic plains have undergone a complex history of incision
and aggradation due to climate change (Gibling et al. 2005), compounded
by multifarious tectonic influences. The full implications of these are still
not fully understood. Therefore, the current ‘‘stranded’’ Markanda River
terminus is an unreliable analogue for interpreting the rock record,
especially when claimed to form a basis for interpretations of fans ten
times as large as this example.
Gash River
The ephemeral Gash River rises in southern Eritrea, near Asmara.
After flowing southward, it turns west and forms the border between
JSR END OF THE TERMINAL-FAN MODEL 695

Eritrea and Ethiopia along its middle course. It then continues into
northeastern Sudan, turning northwards to pass through the town of
Kassala. In most years, flow along the Gash River terminates in the
region immediately north of Kassala (Fig. 2A), where natural and
human-induced water losses become excessive. Rare major floods may
pass beyond this region to reach and join with the Atbara River, itself an
ephemeral tributary of the Nile. The Gash River has a total course of
about 480 km. At Kassala it is about 100 m wide, but varies locally up to
500 m wide. Flow is usually restricted to the summer months of July to
September, but even then discharge is highly variable. The Kassala region
is in an arid climate, and evaporation losses from the river are high,
though it is still a significant source for irrigation around the town.
The Gash River terminus north of Kassala in Sudan (Fig. 2A) was
described by Abdullatif (1989). As it passes through Kassala, the river is
a typical sandy braided river. It is in this region, within a few hundred
meters of the town, and clearly still within the apex of the ‘‘fan,’’ that
Abdullatif described the river sediments, from a series of sections parallel
to and across the flow. It is important to note that the lithofacies he
observed are typical of the channel fill and migrating bars for many sandy
braided rivers, and are in no way special.
The detailed logs of Abdullatif (1989) actually tell us little to nothing
about sedimentation on the ‘‘fan’’ itself, because of their location and the
small size of the sampled area. It is perhaps surprising, therefore, that so
much is made of this example by Kelly and Olsen (1993). They seem to be
relying mostly on the regional maps and photos, and the superficial
descriptions of the channel network in the introduction to the paper. But
such superficial analysis is, we contend, likely to mislead.
Though about 30 times larger in area, the Gash River ‘‘fan’’ suffers
from limitations similar to those of the terminus of the Markanda River.
A previous permanent connection to the Atbara River, which is nearby to
the west, has long been seen as likely (Whiteman 1971). Records show
that, in exceptional floods, discharge from the Gash still flows into the
Atbara. There is strong evidence, therefore, that this feature is far from
being terminal.
Also in doubt is the apparent ‘‘fan’’ morphology and distributary
character. Striking in planform, and easily seen in satellite and aerial
imagery, is the trellis pattern of the channels (Fig. 2): almost straight
segments of channel diverge westwards at just less than right angles (i.e.,
across the slope); shorter channel segments then flow back down the
slope, at right angles to these first branches. This sort of trellis pattern is
a logical irrigation morphology employed by many ancient civilizations
struggling with marginal water supplies (e.g., Waters and Ravesloot 2001;
Baeteman et al. 2004). Many examples can be seen across North Africa
and the Middle East. All that is needed is to dig a shallow channel away
from the river, with just a slight slope on it, and then at regular intervals
along this channel to breach the downslope bank to allow the water to
spread out and irrigate a large area of crops.
Close-up aerial views (Fig. 2B) show the intimate relationship between
the channels and the agricultural landscaping by humans. Furthermore,
along the east side of the ‘‘fan’’ the Gash River appears to be a single-
thread meandering system rather than having the braided character seen

FIG. 2.—A) Landsat 7 satellite image of the Gash River ‘‘fan’’ to the north of the
town of Kassala in Sudan in 2000, processed such that vegetation is bright green.
B) Closer view of the central part of the ‘‘fan,’’ in which can be seen the strongly
linear and trellis-like pattern of the channels and evidence of agricultural
interference (e.g., the systems of fields bounded by channels near the top of the
image). Clearly visible on the right side of the view is a primary river flowing from
bottom to top—about one-quarter up the view, the river changes from braided to
single-thread and meandering, which runs completely against the TFM predic-
tions. Imagery from NASA Applied Sciences Directorate.
696 C.P. NORTH AND G.L. WARWICK
upstream towards Kassala. The possibility cannot be ruled out that there
was a small fluvial fan already here, and that humans merely elaborated
on the natural morphology. But with the clearly evident extensive amount
of human interference, going back probably over centuries, and the
mismatching planform of the main channel, combined with the likely
non-terminal origin, this is hardly a reliable analogue with which to
construct a generic facies model. Reliance on planform alone in analogue
selection is fraught with danger.
DISTRIBUTARY NETWORK
Received wisdom has it that a branching distributary pattern of
channels is the norm on all fluvial fans (e.g., Leier et al. 2005). Indeed, in
a well-regarded training text, Miall (1992) deliberately added this as an
essential character to his definition of alluvial fans, consciously tightening
up his own definitions from previous publications. The point is repeated
in his much-referenced textbook on fluvial systems (Miall 1996), so
further proliferating the idea. That this is still a prevalent concept is
shown by Moscariello explicitly incorporating this feature into his
definition of fluvial fans (Moscariello 2005, p. 599 and his figure 1),
though intriguingly, and in contradiction to Miall, he chooses to omit this
from his definition of alluvial fans.
We believe this unqualified use of the term distributary is an
unacceptably loose description of the channel network that derives from
superficial planform appearance, such as from aerial or satellite imagery,
or uninformed map making. It incorrectly represents causative processes,
fails to take proper account of the amount of time over which the fan has
been forming, and is not borne out by closer observation. On
a topographic map, fan channels commonly do have a radiating form,
but maps can be deceptive. Cartographers were not trained to consider
age relationships, yet many studies, including those of Mukerji
instrumental in the early formulation of the terminal-fan model, rely
heavily on old maps.
Geomorphology and Earth Science dictionaries (e.g., Allaby and
Allaby 1999) are consistent in defining distributary as meaning branches
from a trunk stream that distribute the water and sediment load of the
main channel among many small channels that do not rejoin the trunk
conduit (Fig. 3A). A straw poll of geomorphologist contacts produced an
unvarying and matching definition. Critical in this definition is flow in all
the branching channels at about the same time, though some branches
may be inactive if the trunk channel is flowing substantially below
bankfull discharge. We believe this geomorphic definition is the most
relevant one, since it precisely embraces the formative physical processes
responsible for sediment dispersal and deposition, and it yields the most
accurate information on resultant sediment architecture.
Some sedimentologists, on the other hand, take their meaning of the
term directly from the more literal definitions of the verb distribute in
standard English-language dictionaries. They thus use it to refer more
loosely to the spreading of sediment throughout a space or area over
much longer time periods than implied by the tighter geomorphic
definition above. It is likely this is why the term was used for fans by
Miall (1992; 1996), Leier et al. (2005), Moscariello (2005), and Nichols
and Fisher (2007). In this sense, the term ‘‘distributary’’ is not being used
to describe the geomorphological channel network over the timescales
that the rivers locally operate (annual to decadal events), but instead is
being used to refer to the accumulation of sediment over geological
timescales (centuries to millennia) and at spatial scales larger than an
individual channel belt.
Given there are at least two different ways of understanding the
meaning of the term ‘‘distributary,’’ the more specific geomorphic one
and a looser sedimentological one, there is a high potential for
misunderstanding when the term is used in an unqualified way. The
way the channels are shown on the Kelly and Olsen (1993) TFM facies-
JSR
model diagram (Fig. 1), which is consistent with the original description
by Friend (1978, his figure 6), clearly suggests that the geomorphic sense
was meant. The manner of use by other workers (e.g., Moscariello 2005;
Nichols and Fisher 2007) suggests they had in mind the looser
sedimentological meaning, or were trying to bracket both senses with
a single term (e.g., as in the Distributary Systems grouping of Gibling
2006). As we will now show, the differences between these two senses have
profound implications for understanding the formation of fans and
predicting detailed sediment architecture.
Close inspection of the channel network on fluvial fans shows such
a truly distributary channel system, in the geomorphic rather then the
sedimentological sense, is the exception rather than the rule. Our survey
consistently revealed evidence such as channel crosscutting, desert
varnish, and soils that demonstrate the majority of channels are from
different generations and were never active simultaneously (Fig. 3B). The
superposition of new channels over a pattern of older ones can create the
map-view impression of apparent bifurcation (e.g., points X and Y in
Figure 3B). But we recommend that this should not be termed
distributary, even in a looser sedimentological sense, because of the time
gap between the channel generations, a time gap which can have
profound implications for the lithofacies architecture.
Our survey and analysis is consistent with flume studies (e.g., Schumm
et al. 1987; Bryant et al. 1995) which show that fluvial fans evolve as
a result of multiple channel avulsions (Fig. 3B), not channel bifurcations.
This is in marked contrast to the truly bifurcating character of
distributaries of river-dominated deltas (Fig. 3A). The flow of a river
into a body of water produces a distinctive pattern of channel
bifurcations (Olariu and Bhattacharya 2006) that scale directly with the
width and depth of the channel entry point and can be modeled
accurately from the theory of turbulent jets (Slingerland and Edmonds
2006). Reduction in velocity of the river flow, caused by interaction with
a lake or sea, stimulates deposition of in-channel mouth bars. Eventually,
such mouth bars become emergent and the flow splits to either side, so
marking the completion of a bifurcation. This is an entirely different set
of physical processes than the avulsions that build fans. Avulsions on fans
are dominantly nodal and focused on the current fan-head trench, though
local irregularities and external factors can trigger occasional down-fan
avulsion.
Truly distributary character on fluvial fans, in the geomorphic sense
of coeval flow in multiple branches, is a localized and small-scale
phenomenon unrelated to the primary drivers of fan creation. Localized
distributary behavior that does occur is of two forms. One is where the
channels in fact are anabranches of a braid complex or a channel
network created through avulsion by annexation (Slingerland and
Smith 2004, p. 262). The other is a transitory style representing
imbalance between form and discharge in the channel that causes flow
to spill out onto the floodplain, initially as sheetflow but over time
evolving its own channel network. These latter cases are analogous in
process to small-scale splays on rivers (Bristow et al. 1999; Tooth 2005).
They scale with the feeder channel, and cannot in themselves be
considered fluvial fans.
Precise use of the term distributary is not merely semantic nit-picking.
The temporal aspect must not be ignored if we are to understand fully the
process-product linkage in fluvial systems. Fans are composite sedimen-
tary bodies built over substantial time. In a network built by successive
avulsions, it is highly probable that mud will have been deposited over
earlier channel sands, when the older channel was in effect part of the
floodplain of a newer channel. This creates a vertical separation between
generations of channel-belt sand bodies. In the subsurface, fluvial-fan
channel bodies are much less likely to be laterally connected than some
might understand by the use of the distributary description in the TFM.
And finally, a truly distributary network produces a systematic down-
stream reduction in channel width and depth (Fig. 3A), whereas no
JSR END OF THE TERMINAL-FAN MODEL
FIG. 3.—The distinction between A) truly distributary channels which are active
simultaneously (the geomorphic definition), and B) a radiating set of channels
produced by successive nodal avulsions, but in which generally only one channel is
active at any one time (T1 then T2 then T3). The former (A) produces a systematic
downstream reduction in channel depth and width, because discharge is divided,
and thus reduced, between channels at each bifurcation. No such systematic
variation is to be expected from an avulsing channel system (B). Apparent channel
bifurcations appear at the points of avulsion such as that labeled X, and at
locations such as Y caused by the superposition of a channel over an older one.
Both such cases might be mistaken for the true (contemporary) bifurcation of
distributary channels. Multiple occurrence of crossovers such as point Y would
also lead to the false impression of an anabranching channel pattern.
systematic downstream trend should be expected from an avulsing
channel system on a fan (Fig. 3B).
If our analysis is accurate, then a central tenet of the original TFM—
a distributary breakdown of channels (Mukerji 1976 p.191; fig. 6 of Friend
1978)—is unsustainable, so undermining the entire TFM concept. This also
makes invalid use of the synonym ‘‘fluvial distributary systems’’ proposed
by Nichols and co-workers (e.g., Nichols and Fisher 2007). To avoid
misunderstanding in future when referring to fluvial fans, we strongly
recommend that use of the term distributary should either be heavily
qualified, to indicate the tighter geomorphic or the looser sedimentological
senses, or avoided completely and replaced with terms that communicate
the intended meaning more precisely. Surely it is in the interests of all of us
for geomorphologists and sedimentologists to use terms in a like and
consistent manner, since these disciplines significantly overlap?
697
INHERITANCE OF FORM
Our review of modern rivers that terminate subaerially did reveal
several apparent contradictions to the conclusion that truly distributary
patterns of channels are not a characteristic of fluvial fans. But here again
planform appearance can be misleading. For every case we could
investigate, across a wide range of scales, there is strong evidence to show
that these fan-shaped features are intimately related to previous lake
highstands (e.g., Fig. 4). The occurrence nearby of playa-type environ-
ments immediately throws up suspicion. The clinching evidence is usually
the fan crossing abandoned lake shoreline features such as beach ridges
(e.g., Adams and Wesnousky 1998). In other cases, fan sediments are
intimately interbedded with extensive lacustrine mud, as is the case for the
terminus of the Neales River to the west of Lake Eyre, Australia (Lang et
al. 2004).
In other words, such cases were initiated as lacustrine deltas, and have
retained (inherited) their form from a previously wetter period, though
there may now be no lake at all. In drylands especially, annual discharge
is low and floods infrequent, so it takes a long time for a river to reform
such a delta, and it may not do so before the climate again turns wetter.
The result is deltas marooned in totally subaerial settings.
Misunderstanding of the differences in process between fluvial fans and
lacustrine deltas is disturbing, as is failure to take account of form
inheritance, whereby an observed geomorphic feature was created under
different conditions than prevail today. Together, these are leading to
interpretations being published for the rock record that include such
oxymorons as ‘‘lake plain terminal fans’’ (Pusca 2003) and ‘‘lacustrine
terminal fan’’ (Abbate et al. 1991), both of which are most likely
lacustrine deltas, not fluvial fans. Correct recognition of these features as
lake deltas provides significant insight into past lake levels and
hydrological conditions, and hence paleoclimate. But no such significance
can (should) be read into them if they are sub-aerial fluvial fans as
implicit in the TFM, since the presence of a lake was not required for their
construction.
NOT TERMINAL, NOT STRAIGHT?
There are many well-documented examples of rivers in drylands which
demonstrate that natural water losses due to infiltration and evapotrans-
piration can be so large that all discharge is lost before the river intersects
another environment such as the sea or a permanent lake. This is
common for ephemeral streams with small catchments fed mainly by local
convective storms. It is also a feature of many much larger river systems
fed by seasonal or cyclonic precipitation, such as Cooper Creek in
Australia (Knighton and Nanson 1994) and the Okavango in Botswana
(Stanistreet et al. 1993; Stanistreet and McCarthy 1993).
But contrary to the impression some seem to have taken from the
TFM, fans are not the omnipresent morphology for such subaerial, non-
deltaic river termination. The exact morphology is much more variable
than the TFM predicts, because of the dramatic effect even subtle local
controls may have in drylands.
On the Northern Plains of Australia, rivers carrying dominantly sand
bedload may be relatively wide and shallow, almost braided, or become
narrow, straight, and split into parallel anabranches where bank-lining
vegetation stimulated by groundwater or local tributary input makes
banks stronger (Tooth 2000; Tooth and Nanson 2004). Both types may
lose definition downstream and transition rapidly through splays into
sheetflow (a ‘‘floodout’’) that scales in width directly to the source
channel (Tooth 2005). Neither type produce anything resembling a fluvial
fan.
Conversely, in the western USA, the very low gradient of streams
terminating on old lake floors means that they are prone to frequent
avulsion, so they do form fluvial fans. These evolve not from deposition
from straight channels, as stated in the TFM, but from avulsive switching
698 C.P. NORTH AND G.L. WARWICK
FIG. 4.— An example of geomorphic distributary channel character that
originated as a lacustrine delta but which is now entirely subaerial: the terminus
of the Ruo Shui, which is at the western end of Inner Mongolia, in a Landsat 7
satellite image circa 2000. The image processing causes vegetation to appear bright
green, damp playa surfaces appear light blue, lakes appear dark blue to black. A)
This close-up view shows, at the left, the east end of the dry playa lake called
Gaxun Nur (101u E, 42u N), with multiple abandoned shorelines, and in the lower
right corner, picked out by vegetation, a distributary river termination. B) This
shows the context of the example, with the lacustrine delta (in white box) occurring
at the toe of the immense fluvial fan of the Ruo Shui, which displays classic nodal
avulsion and many abandoned braid channels.
of highly sinuous, progressively narrower and shallower channels, often
eroded into and filled by mud (Warwick 2006). These examples lack
obvious splay landforms of the type seen in northern Australia. Flow
does extend beyond the channels as sheetflow, but by this point it is
usually carrying so little bedload sediment that no discrete depositional
body results.
JSR
Locally, a fluvial fan may be present at what appears to be the present
limit of a dryland river, but detailed investigation shows it was not the
terminus of that river when the fan formed. In drylands, fans are common
at tributary junctions, sometimes even blocking the main channel, when
the flow in a tributary is out of phase with the trunk river (Hooke and
Mant 2001, p. 180; Meyer et al. 2001; Florsheim 2004). These are
tributary-junction fans, well known to geomorphologists but seemingly
ignored by sedimentologists working the rock record. Avulsion of the
trunk above the junction and increasing aridity may leave such fans
stranded in the landscape as apparently terminal features, which may
explain the Markanda River fan.
The situation is made even more complex because it is common for
flood discharge in drylands to be insufficiently large, compared to the
transmission losses, for the flow always to reach the same place in the
system. Especially for larger dryland rivers, floods may terminate at many
different positions and only rarely reach the most distal locations. This is
the case for Cooper Creek, Australia, where it is only the largest and
infrequent floods that lead to flow downstream of Innamincka, which
itself is still several hundred kilometers from the ultimate terminus at
Lake Eyre. When water discharge is dramatically reduced, then sediment
is deposited. What looks on maps and imagery as the apparent terminus
of a river is in practice only one of several places along the system that
‘‘terminal’’ depositional features are present. The most distal feature is
the result of just the largest flows, which may be very infrequent. As
a result, the lower reaches of dryland rivers commonly display
geomorphic evidence of disequilibrium (Bourke and Pickup 1999; Tooth
and Nanson 2000), so it is highly unlikely they would produce a simple or
characteristic sedimentological signature of the kind portrayed in the
TFM.
LITHOFACIES DISTINCTIVENESS
One of the most worrying aspects of the TFM is that implicit in the
model is a presumption that there is a distinctive lithofacies suite that is
diagnostic of ‘‘terminal fans.’’ In fact nothing has been proved but a lot
has been assumed. The huge diversity of lithofacies types and scales in
Friend’s (1978) original four examples is completely ignored. Instead,
a facies pattern-matching approach is commonly taken, usually to the
descriptions from Parkash et al. (1983) of the uppermost meter or so of
the Markanda River ‘‘fan,’’ or to Tunbridge (1984), who himself had
drawn a comparison to Parkash et al. (1983). The outcome is that
a terminal fan may be interpreted (e.g., Davila and Astini 2003) solely due
to superficial similarity to the thin-bedded and heterolithic successions
described by Tunbridge (1984), even when both the area under
investigation and Tunbridge’s analogue show clearly nonradial paleoflow
indicators.
In the time since Parkash et al. and Tunbridge published their studies,
many more detailed accounts of the sedimentology of sandy braided
rivers have appeared. It should now be evident to all that the lithofacies
originally attributed to ‘‘terminal fans’’ can be found in the channels or
on the floodplains of many rivers, in a wide range of climatic settings. The
lithofacies observed in all cases cited to support the TFM possess no
features which could not equally be produced by a non-fan dryland river,
especially braided and ephemeral ones, as a perusal of any major fluvial
review such as Miall (1996) would quickly show. For example, there is
striking similarity between these descriptions and the lithofacies described
in the frequently referenced article by McKee et al. (1967) from the valley
of the modern Bijou Creek, in Colorado, USA, yet this stream is neither
at its terminus nor is it part of a fan.
Although not always stated explicitly, the argument in favor of a TFM
interpretation seems to hinge solely on downstream fining and thinning
(e.g., Kelly and Olsen 1993, p. 360), sometimes coupled to interbedding
with indicators of ephemerality such as evaporites (Ciner et al. 2002), or
JSR END OF THE TERMINAL-FAN MODEL
sometimes just a general ‘‘distal’’ nature such as thinly interbedded clay
and mud (Pérez-López 1996). Parkash et al. claim to have detected in ‘‘the
lowermost sandy bed’’ of their sections a downstream fining of about one
phi unit in grain size (Parkash et al. 1983, p. 343 and their figure 10). But
closer inspection of the data suggests this may be over-interpretation of
the available information. The trend is not obvious in the vertical section
as a whole (Parkash et al. 1983, their figure 3). The downstream end is
constrained by few data points, which probably accounts for the standard
deviation of 0.8 phi units in this region. It would be difficult to be sure if
the sampled bed, which varies in depth below the surface, is from
a channel or an overbank context, and the channel sands are typically one
phi unit coarser grained than the overbank deposits (Parkash et al. 1983,
their figs. 8 and 9). Downstream fining is, in any case, a well-known
fluvial phenomenon, and channel thinning is also now being recognized
as a feature of some humid-region river systems (Makaske et al. 2007;
Gouw and Berendsen 2007). Nothing in this kind of evidence leads
conclusively to even a fan origin, let alone the special case of the TFM,
yet from comparison to this example paleogeography is being recon-
structed including radiating fans.
Such model-driven interpretation ignores the trap of convergence
(Schumm 1991, p. 58) whereby the same outcome (lithofacies) can be
produced by completely different sets of processes. The TFM is an
inductive model arrived at through reductivist argument from a severely
limited database.
SCALE
Another aspect that concerns us is the pick-and-mix approach taken to
scale. Generally overlooked is the admission from Friend (1978, p. 533)
that it is not possible to correlate between outcrops for each of his
examples, meaning that the model is a deduction not an observation. A
great deal is being argued solely from large-scale regional trends in thick
successions without being able to tell if the sediments are from single or
multiple drainages.
To build their hypothetical model (Fig.1), Kelly and Olsen (1993, p.
342–344) used the limited available lithofacies descriptions of the topmost
few meters of the 10-km-scale Markanda and Gash rivers fan-shaped
features, convolved with descriptions of ephemeral stream alluvium from
several non-fan cases (McKee et al. 1967; Williams 1970; Langford 1989).
They then applied this model to interpretation of disjointed rock-record
examples 100 km in lateral extent and many tens to hundreds of meters
thick, to show they also were terminal fans and thus build support for the
model.
This hypothesis construction relies on dramatic extrapolations of scale.
For the Markanda case, the lithofacies descriptions record only the top ,
2 m of sediment over a , 10 km traverse (Parkash et al. 1983). Kelly and
Olsen (1993, p. 344) claim that the Gash River case (Fig. 2) reveals the
lithofacies of the distributary zone of the TFM (Fig. 1), but this is not so
in our view, as explained above. Although some Gash River sections were
as much as 3 m thick, all were taken in an area , 400 m across within the
main channel feeding the fan (Fig. 2) in a location upstream from where
the supposed distributary-channel-network system starts (Abdullatif
1989, his figures 3 and 7). The lithofacies at the apex of the fan can
hardly be considered conclusively representative of the main body of the
‘‘fan’’ many tens of kilometers away.
PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS OF FLUVIAL FANS
Disturbing evidence that the TFM is creating misunderstanding and
unsound interpretation is the tendency for workers to argue that terminal
fans must be present because the climate was arid to semiarid (e.g., Davila
and Astini 2003). This clearly demonstrates the need to abandon the
model and pattern-matching analysis in favor of careful process-based
699
thinking. Fluvial fans occur in all climates, not just drylands. In drylands,
fluvial fans are not mandatory at river terminations.
Provided sufficient horizontal space is available, fluvial fans can form
anywhere along the course of a river where two criteria are met: release
from confinement, together with discharge or environment conditions
that promote avulsion. The same river may have more than one fluvial
fan along its course. Large fluvial fans are common wherever there is
strong seasonality to the river discharge, because of the instability of
channels subject to large fluctuations in discharge (Leier et al. 2005).
Drylands also experience wide fluctuations in discharge (McMahon et al.
1987), so it is not surprising fans are common there. Friend (1978, p. 541)
suggested that a major reason his stratigraphically thick examples differ
from many Quaternary fluvial successions is that they formed ‘‘under
orogenic conditions.’’ Avulsion frequency is a function of sedimentation
rate (Bryant et al. 1995), which increases towards orogenic belts.
Avulsion is also encouraged by shallow gradients and in-channel
deposition triggered by discharge loss (Jones and Schumm 1999).
Wherever avulsion frequency is increased there is increased likelihood
of a fluvial fan developing, provided there is sufficient lateral space
available to fit it in.
The sedimentary record left by fluvial fans depends primarily on the
behavior of the rivers crossing the fan. Rivers do not leave distinctive
deposits just because they are traversing a fan. Fluvial fans display rivers
of all planform types, and planform varies both downstream and with
time, as well shown by the Kosi River fan (Wells and Dorr 1987). Rivers
in drylands may terminate in a fluvial fan, if the conditions are
appropriate, but even where they do the lithofacies record will be little
different from a non-fan river in the same climatic and tectonic setting.
CONCLUSIONS
The terminal-fan model (TFM) is a hypothetical model created by
sedimentologists for a depositional sedimentary environment not
recognized in the modern day by geomorphologists. The limited modern
analogues used to support the TFM are at best equivocal, and provide
poor support for a generic facies model. The concept implicit in the model
of widespread coeval distributary channels is erroneous and is leading to
confusion about sandstone connectivity and geometry. The model
predicts down-fan systematic decrease in channel width and depth, with
connection between all the anabranches. The reality is that there is no
systematic variation in channel dimensions: they may even increase down-
fan. Different channel generations may not act as connected subsurface
fluid-flow pathways, there is a high potential for mud to occur between
channel bodies, and a channel may not be linked laterally to any other
channel. Unqualified use of the term distributary is resulting in
misunderstanding because of different uses by the geomorphological
and sedimentological communities. The proposed synonym of ‘‘fluvial
distributary systems’’ is unsatisfactory because it perpetuates the same
misunderstandings.
Inheritance of geomorphic form and the impact of climate change have
been ignored. Relict lacustrine deltas, influenced by non-fluvial processes
and producing distinctly different sedimentary products, are being mistaken
for purely alluvial, subaerial settings. Scale has been overlooked in a cavalier
fashion. Disconnected outcrops have been used to support the model
without taking into account whether the deposits are the result of a single
river or multiple rivers, which is similar to the problem of telling apart a single
alluvial fan from a fan bajada. Where fan-shaped sediment bodies do occur,
the processes and products are no different to any other fluvial fan in that
climatic setting, and such fans are not exclusive to dryland regions, nor are
they always terminal. There is no diagnostic assemblage of lithofacies.
We strongly recommend that the TFM should be abandoned.
Superficial analysis of present-day planform without incorporating
temporal relationships can be highly misleading, a point we urgently
700 C.P. NORTH AND G.L. WARWICK
wish to impress on those who draw solely on satellite and aerial imagery
when constructing subsurface geological models.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this study from the
consortium members of Phase 1 of the AUDRI Project (Aberdeen University
Dryland Rivers Initiative), namely Anadarko Algeria, BP, ConocoPhillips,
Shell, and Total. We thank Stephen Tooth for helpful criticism of an earlier
draft, and we thank Ken Adams, Stuart Archer, Simon Fagan, Alex
Fordham, Adrian Hartley, Carmen Krapf, Simon Lang, and Gerald Nanson
for discussions on rivers in dryland regions. Constructive reviews on behalf of
JSR by S.K. Tandon, Brian G. Jones, and Martin Gibling led to significant
improvements to this article.
REFERENCES
ABBATE, E., BRUNI, P., AND SAGRI, M., 1991, Development of a lacustrine terminal fan
and a coarse grained delta in the Tertiary Daban Basin (northern Somalia):
Cuadernos de Geologı́a Ibérica, v. 15, p. 279–298.
ABDULLATIF, O.M., 1989, Channel-fill and sheet-flood facies sequences in the ephemeral
terminal River Gash, Kassala, Sudan: Sedimentary Geology, v. 63, p. 171–184.
ADAMS, K.D., AND WESNOUSKY, S.G., 1998, Shoreline processes and the age of the Lake
Lahontan highstand in the Jessup embayment, Nevada: Geological Society of
America, Bulletin, v. 110, p. 1318–1332.
ALLABY, A., AND ALLABY, M., 1999. Oxford Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Second
Edition: Oxford, U.K., Oxford University Press, 619 p.
BAETEMAN, C., DUPIN, L., AND HEYVAERT, V., 2004, The Persian Gulf shoreline and the
Karkeh, Karun, and Jarrahi Rivers: Akkadica, v. 125, p. 141–215.
BOURKE, M.C., AND PICKUP, G., 1999, Fluvial form variability in arid Central Australia,
in Miller, A.J., and Gupta, A., eds., Varieties of Fluvial Form: Chichester, U.K., John
Wiley & Sons, p. 249–271.
BRISTOW, C.S., SKELLY, R.L., AND ETHRIDGE, F.G., 1999, Crevasse splays from the
rapidly aggrading, sand-bed, braided Niobrara River, Nebraska: effect of base-level
rise: Sedimentology, v. 46, p. 1029–1047.
BRYANT, M., FALK, P., AND PAOLA, C., 1995, Experimental study of avulsion frequency
and rate of deposition: Geology, v. 23, p. 365–368.
CINER, A., KOSUN, E., AND DEYNOUX, M., 2002, Fluvial, evaporitic and shallow-marine
facies architecture, depositional evolution and cyclicity in the Sivas Basin (lower to
middle Miocene), Central Turkey: Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v. 21, p. 147–165.
COLLINSON, J.D., 1996, Alluvial sediments, in Reading, H.G., ed., Sedimentary
Environments: Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy, Third Edition: Oxford, U.K.,
Blackwell Science, p. 37–82.
DAVILA, F.M., AND ASTINI, R.A., 2003, Early middle Miocene broken foreland
development in the southern Central Andes: evidence for extension prior to regional
shortening: Basin Research, v. 15, p. 379–396.
FLORSHEIM, J.L., 2004, Side-valley tributary fans in high-energy river floodplain
environments: Sediment sources and depositional processes, Navarro River basin,
California: Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 116, p. 923–937.
FRIEND, P.F., 1978, Distinctive features of some ancient river systems, in Miall, A.D.,
ed., Fluvial Sedimentology, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 5, p.
531–542.
GIBLING, M.R., 2006, Width and thickness of fluvial channel bodies and valley fills in
the geological record: a literature compilation and classification: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 76, p. 731–770.
GIBLING, M.R., TANDON, S.K., SINHA, R., AND JAIN, M., 2005, Discontinuity-bounded
alluvial sequences of the southern Gangetic Plains, India: aggradation and
degradation in response to monsoonal strength: Journal of Sedimentary Research,
v. 75, p. 369–385.
GOUW, M.J.P., AND BERENDSEN, H.J.A., 2007, Variability of channel-belt dimensions
and the consequences for alluvial architecture: observations from the Holocene
Rhine–Meuse Delta (The Netherlands) and lower Mississippi Valley (U.S.A.): Journal
of Sedimentary Research, v. 77, p. 124–138.
HOOKE, J., AND MANT, J., 2001, Morpho-dynamics of ephemeral streams, in Bull, L.J.,
and Kirkby, M.J., eds., Dryland Rivers: Processes and Management in Mediterranean
Climates: Chichester, U.K., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, p. 173–204.
JONES, L.S., AND SCHUMM, S.A., 1999, Causes of avulsion: an overview, in Smith, N.D.,
and Rogers, J., eds., Fluvial Sedimentology VI: International Association of
Sedimentologists, Special Publication 28, p. 171–178.
KELLY, S.B., AND OLSEN, H., 1993, Terminal fans—a review with reference to Devonian
examples: Sedimentary Geology, v. 85, p. 339–374.
KNIGHTON, A.D., AND NANSON, G.C., 1994, Flow transmission along an arid zone
anastomosing river, Cooper Creek, Australia: Hydrological Processes, v. 8, p.
137–154.
LANG, S.C., PAYENBERG, T.H.D., REILLY, M.R.W., HICKS, T., BENSON, J., AND KASSAN,
J., 2004, Modern analogues for dryland sandy fluvial–lacustrine deltas and terminal
splay reservoirs: Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association
(APPEA), Journal, p. 329–356.
JSR
LANGFORD, R.P., 1989, Fluvial–aeolian interactions: part I, modern systems: Sedimen-
tology, v. 36, p. 1023–1035.
LEIER, A.L., DECELLES, P.G., AND PELLETIER, J.D., 2005, Mountains, monsoons, and
megafans: Geology, v. 33, p. 289–292.
MAKASKE, B., BERENDSEN, H.J.A., AND VAN REE, M.H.M., 2007, Middle Holocene
avulsion-belt deposits in the central Rhine–Meuse Delta, The Netherlands: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 77, p. 110–123.
MCKEE, E.D., CROSBY, E.J., AND BERRYHILL, H.L., 1967, Flood deposits, Bijou Creek,
Colorado, June 1965: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 37, p. 829–851.
MCMAHON, T.A., FINLAYSON, B.L., AND SRIKANTHAN, R., 1987, Runoff variability:
a global perspective, in Solomon, S.I., Beran, M., and Hogg, W., eds., The Influence
of Climate Change and Climate Variability on the Hydrologic Regime and Water
Resources: Wallingford, England, International Association of Hydrological Sciences,
Publication 168, p. 3–12.
MEYER, G.A., PIERCE, J.L., WOOD, S.H., AND JULL, A.J.T., 2001, Fire, storms, and
erosional events in the Idaho batholith: Hydrological Processes, v. 15, p. 3025–3038.
MIALL, A.D., 1992, Alluvial deposits, in Walker, R.G., and James, N.P., eds., Facies
Models: Response to Sea-Level Change: St. John’s Newfoundland, Geological
Association of Canada, p. 119–142.
MIALL, A.D., 1996, The Geology of Fluvial Deposits; Sedimentary Facies, Basin
Analysis, and Petroleum Geology: New York, Springer-Verlag, 582 p.
MOSCARIELLO, A., 2005, Exploration potential of the mature southern North Sea basin
margins: some unconventional plays based on alluvial and fluvial fan sedimentation
models, in Doré, A.G., and Vining, B.A., eds., Petroleum Geology: North-West
Europe and Global Perspectives: London, Geological Society of London, p. 595–605.
MUKERJI, A.B., 1975, Geomorphic patterns and processes in the terminal tract of inland
streams in Sutlej–Yamuna plain: Journal of the Geological Society of India, v. 16, p.
450–459.
MUKERJI, A.B., 1976, Terminal fans of inland streams in Sutlej–Yamuna Plain, India:
Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Neue Folge, v. 20, p. 190–204.
NICHOLS, G.J., 1987, Structural controls on fluvial distributary systems—the Luna
system, northern Spain, in Ethridge, F.G., Flores, R.M., and Harvey, M.D., eds.,
Recent Developments in Fluvial Sedimentology: SEPM, Special Publication 39, p.
269–277.
NICHOLS, G.J., AND FISHER, J.A., 2007, Processes, facies and architecture of fluvial
distributary system deposits: Sedimentary Geology, v. 195, p. 75–90.
NICHOLS, G.J., AND HIRST, J.P., 1998, Alluvial fans and fluvial distributary systems,
Oligo-Miocene, northern Spain: Contrasting processes and products: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 68, p. 879–889.
OLARIU, C., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2006, Terminal distributary channels and delta
front architecture of river-dominated delta systems: Journal of Sedimentary Research,
v. 76, p. 212–233.
PARKASH, B., AWASTHI, A.K., AND GOHAIN, K., 1983, Lithofacies of the Markanda
terminal fan, Kurukshetra district, Haryana, India, in Collinson, J.D., and Lewin, J.,
eds., Modern and Ancient Fluvial Systems: International Association of Sedimentol-
ogists, Special Publication 6, p. 337–344.
PÉREZ-LÓPEZ, A., 1996, Sequence model for coastal-plain depositional systems of the
Upper Triassic (Betic Cordillera, southern Spain): Sedimentary Geology, v. 101, p.
99–117.
PUSCA, V.A., 2003, Wet–dry, terminal fan-dominated depositional sequences on the lake
plain; a case study in the lower Green River Formation of southern Uinta Basin
[abstract]: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Annual Meeting Expanded
Abstracts, v. 12, 141 p.
SADLER, S.P., AND KELLY, S.B., 1993, Fluvial processes and cyclicity in terminal fan
deposits: an example from the Late Devonian of southwest Ireland: Sedimentary
Geology, v. 85, p. 375–386.
SCHUMM, S.A., 1991, To Interpret the Earth: Ten Ways to Be Wrong: Cambridge, U.K.,
Cambridge University Press, 133 p.
SCHUMM, S.A., MOSLEY, M.P., AND WEAVER, W.E., 1987, Experimental Fluvial
Geomorphology: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 413 p.
SLINGERLAND, R.L., AND EDMONDS, D.A., 2006, Genesis and shapes of delta distributary
networks (abstract):, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 2006 Annual
Convention, Abstracts Volume, p. 99.
SLINGERLAND, R.L., AND SMITH, N.D., 2004, River avulsions and their deposits: Annual
Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 32, p. 257–285.
STANISTREET, I.G., AND MCCARTHY, T.S., 1993, The Okavango Fan and the classification
of subaerial fan systems: Sedimentary Geology, v. 85, p. 115–133.
STANISTREET, I.G., CAIRNCROSS, B., AND MCCARTHY, T.S., 1993, Low sinuosity and
meandering bedload rivers of the Okavango Fan: channel confinement by vegetated
levees without fine sediment: Sedimentary Geology, v. 85, p. 135–156.
TOOTH, S., 2000, Downstream changes in dryland river channels: the Northern Plains of
arid central Australia: Geomorphology, v. 34, p. 33–54.
TOOTH, S., 2005, Splay formation along the lower reaches of ephemeral rivers on the
Northern Plains of arid central Australia: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 75, p.
636–649.
TOOTH, S., AND NANSON, G.C., 2000, Equilibrium and nonequilibrium conditions in
dryland rivers: Physical Geography, v. 21, p. 183–211.
TOOTH, S., AND NANSON, G.C., 2004, Forms and processes of two highly contrasting
rivers in arid central Australia, and the implications for channel-pattern discrimina-
tion and prediction: Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 116, p. 802–816.
TUNBRIDGE, I.P., 1984, Facies model for a sandy ephemeral stream and clay playa
complex; the Middle Devonian Trentishoe Formation of North Devon, U.K.:
Sedimentology, v. 31, p. 697–715.
JSR END OF THE TERMINAL-FAN MODEL 701

WARWICK, G.L., 2006, The geomorphology and sedimentology of terminal fluvial
systems [Unpublished Ph.D. thesis]: University of Aberdeen: Aberdeen, U.K.
WATERS, M.R., AND RAVESLOOT, J.C., 2001, Landscape change and the cultural
evolution of the Hohokam along the middle Gila River and other river valleys in
south-central Arizona: American Antiquity, v. 66, p. 285–299.
WELLS, N.A., AND DORR, J.A., 1987, Shifting of the Kosi River, northern India:
Geology, v. 15, p. 204–207.
WHITEMAN, A.J., 1971, Geology of the Sudan Republic: Oxford, U.K., Clarendon,
290 p.
WILLIAMS, G.E., 1970, The central Australian stream floods of February–March 1967:
Journal of Hydrology, v. 11, p. 185–200.
Received 1 December 2006; accepted 23 March 2007.