As the Kentucky River in central Kentucky continues to downcut through Ordovician limestones in the Kentucky River gorge area, entrenched meanders grow. On the outside of these bends tributary streams are truncated, their slopes accordingly steepen, and fluvial dissection becomes more dominant. On the inner part of the bends, slip-off slopes develop that are far less steep than valley walls on the outer bends, but steeper on average than the adjacent uplands. These inner bend areas are hotspots for karstification, and are pockmarked with numerous dolines (karst sinkholes). Streams are few and small; larger tributary streams are apparently diverted away from the inner bends; in any case no tributaries with a surface drainage area of more than a few km² join the river on the inside of a meander (at least in the gorge area). This article includes a section on the "Badass Bends" and their diverging karst vs. fluvial dynamics. This previous post discusses the expansion of the Polly's Bend compound meander.

Last year, my fluvial geomorphology class investigated the origin of an unusual overhanging bedrock stream bank on Shawnee Run, Kentucky. Because on our first field visit the cliff above was festooned with large (up to 2 m long) icicles, we named it Icicle Bend. In the course of our fieldwork, we discovered what we eventually determined to be higher level paleovalley of Shawnee Run nearby. Stream channel changes by cutoffs, avulsions, and capture happen all the time. But, invariably, the new, "winning" channel represents a more efficient (i.e., more direct and steeper) path. In this case, however, the opposite appeared to have happened--a shorter, steeper path represented by the paleovalley was abandoned during general downcutting of the stream for the modern path via Icicle Bend. PhD student Tasnuba Jerin and I decided to further investigate this anomaly.

Generalized Darwinism holds, in essence, that the principles of variation, selection, and retention (preservation) and replication that are the cornerstone of Darwinian biological evolution are applicable to development and evolution of (to exaggerate only slightly) damn near anything. This perspective, most actively debated in evolutionary economics, is detectable (though sometimes without the specific label) in many science and social science fields.

Generalized Darwinism has many critics, but most critiques I've seen fall into two categories (to simplify and generalize wildly): (1) a lack of fidelity to biological evolution; or (2) an inability to solve every problem in evolutionary economics, system theory, etc.  Those criticisms are accurate, but not valid (in my estimation), as the "generalized" clearly implies a move beyond biological evolution, and no conceptual or analytical framework is ever the answer to everything, even in a relatively small subdiscipline.

The journal Hydrological Processes has recently been publishing a series of articles and commentaries in tribute to the estimable Keith Beven, the recently retired hydrologist from the University of Lancaster. One of his many fundamental contributions has consisted of drawing attention to the importance of, and making fundamental insight into, the phenomenon of macropores and preferential flows. One of those commentaries, by Markus Weiler, addressed these contributions as well as unresolved issues in understanding and simulating preferential flow.

No hillslope hydrologist, geomorphologist or pedologist would dispute the existence or frequent occurrence of preferential water flux in soils, or its importance in many cases at the scales of soil physics to hillslopes. However, Weiler points out that the observed differences in flow pathways at the pedon or hillslope scale are not necessarily detectable at the watershed scale. Does macropore flow matter at the catchment scale? Weiler's answer is yes, though he points out that many scientists believe otherwise.

From my student days onward, the aspects of nature that interested me most were the apparent anomalies--the things that were uncertain and unpredicted; that weren't like they were supposed to be. Nature contains both regular, ordered, predictable aspects, and irregular, disordered and unpredictable facets. As scientists we are taught to focus on the former and eliminate, ignore, or circumvent the latter.  But anyone who spends much time in the field knows that our planet is a source of infinite variety and ever-increasing uncertainty (because the more you learn, the more you realize that you don't know). But what always fascinated me was not that (for instance) the soils or streams or eastern North Carolina or central Kentucky fit, and can be predicted by, some broad pattern. It was the fact that you can often auger the ground at two spots less than a meter apart and find completely different soils, or walk or canoe a stream channel and easily find features not explained or predicted by the conventional scientific wisdom.

Axiomatic approaches to science and mathematics depend on an underlying set of statements, principles, or propositions that apply to all situations within the domain of study. The axioms run the gamut from undisputed universal laws to widely or even universally accepted but unproved or unprovable generalizations, to propositional stipulations adopted for analytical convenience or because they raise interesting questions.

Examples abound in mathematics and formal logic, and in science, engineering and technological applications of math and logic. Although it is only occasionally referred to as such, the laws of stratigraphy (details in any geology textbook) form an axiomatic approach to sedimentology, sedimentary geology, and related palaeoenvironmental studies. The laws of original horizontality, lateral continuity, superposition, and cross-cutting relationships are assumed in this approach to apply to all sedimentary deposits, and therefore form an axiomatic system for interpretation.