A general model of autochthonous blockfield evolution

Two competing models have been invoked to explain the evolution of autochthonous blockfields: the Neogene model, which envisages that blockfield debris was produced by pre‐Quaternary chemical weathering; and the periglacial model, which explains autochthonous blockfields as the product of weathering...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Permafrost and Periglacial Processes
Main Author: Colin K. Ballantyne
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.700
id ftrepec:oai:RePEc:wly:perpro:v:21:y:2010:i:4:p:289-300
record_format openpolar
spelling ftrepec:oai:RePEc:wly:perpro:v:21:y:2010:i:4:p:289-300 2023-05-15T17:57:54+02:00 A general model of autochthonous blockfield evolution Colin K. Ballantyne https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.700 unknown https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.700 article ftrepec https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.700 2020-12-04T13:31:03Z Two competing models have been invoked to explain the evolution of autochthonous blockfields: the Neogene model, which envisages that blockfield debris was produced by pre‐Quaternary chemical weathering; and the periglacial model, which explains autochthonous blockfields as the product of weathering and frost sorting under cold conditions during the Quaternary. This paper proposes that the evidence favouring both models can be accommodated within a single evolutionary framework. Research demonstrating tor emergence during the Pleistocene and rates of long‐term regolith production indicate lowering of blockfield‐mantled surfaces by at least several metres during the Quaternary. Such lowering implies that regolith covers have undergone continuous or intermittent renewal as surface losses are offset by lowering of the weathering front at the regolith‐rockhead boundary. Depending on initial (pre‐Quaternary) regolith depth and the surface lowering rate, some blockfields may retain inherited Neogene characteristics, but if lowering exceeds pre‐Quaternary regolith depth, a blockfield dominated by the products of mechanical weathering develops. It is proposed that the dominant mechanism operating in the later stages of blockfield evolution has been frost wedging of jointed bedrock at the base of the active layer, a process favoured by saturation of the lower parts of blockfields during seasonal freezeback and possibly by upwards freezing from ‘cold’ permafrost. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Article in Journal/Newspaper permafrost RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 21 4 289 300
institution Open Polar
collection RePEc (Research Papers in Economics)
op_collection_id ftrepec
language unknown
description Two competing models have been invoked to explain the evolution of autochthonous blockfields: the Neogene model, which envisages that blockfield debris was produced by pre‐Quaternary chemical weathering; and the periglacial model, which explains autochthonous blockfields as the product of weathering and frost sorting under cold conditions during the Quaternary. This paper proposes that the evidence favouring both models can be accommodated within a single evolutionary framework. Research demonstrating tor emergence during the Pleistocene and rates of long‐term regolith production indicate lowering of blockfield‐mantled surfaces by at least several metres during the Quaternary. Such lowering implies that regolith covers have undergone continuous or intermittent renewal as surface losses are offset by lowering of the weathering front at the regolith‐rockhead boundary. Depending on initial (pre‐Quaternary) regolith depth and the surface lowering rate, some blockfields may retain inherited Neogene characteristics, but if lowering exceeds pre‐Quaternary regolith depth, a blockfield dominated by the products of mechanical weathering develops. It is proposed that the dominant mechanism operating in the later stages of blockfield evolution has been frost wedging of jointed bedrock at the base of the active layer, a process favoured by saturation of the lower parts of blockfields during seasonal freezeback and possibly by upwards freezing from ‘cold’ permafrost. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Colin K. Ballantyne
spellingShingle Colin K. Ballantyne
A general model of autochthonous blockfield evolution
author_facet Colin K. Ballantyne
author_sort Colin K. Ballantyne
title A general model of autochthonous blockfield evolution
title_short A general model of autochthonous blockfield evolution
title_full A general model of autochthonous blockfield evolution
title_fullStr A general model of autochthonous blockfield evolution
title_full_unstemmed A general model of autochthonous blockfield evolution
title_sort general model of autochthonous blockfield evolution
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.700
genre permafrost
genre_facet permafrost
op_relation https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.700
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.700
container_title Permafrost and Periglacial Processes
container_volume 21
container_issue 4
container_start_page 289
op_container_end_page 300
_version_ 1766166401910833152