Erosion, isostatic response, and the missing peneplains

The peneplain—a low-relief erosional plain worn to near base level—is a venerable concept in geomorphology, geology, and geography. Yet despite more than a century of effort, no convincing example of a contemporary peneplain has been identified, and the identification of relict peneplains is uncertain and controversial. As a peneplain is a logical outcome during a period of long tectonic stability, the paucity or absence of peneplains is problematic. Most explanations are based on the notion that the periods of tectonic stability required for peneplain formation are too long to allow the features to fully develop, or that Neogene tectonics has precluded recent peneplanation. This paper proposes an alternative explanation, generally consistent with those given above, which can also explain the absence of peneplains in regions experiencing long tectonic stability. If erosion or deposition rates are related to elevation and if isostatic response (uplift or subsidence) is related to erosional unloading or depositional loading, the relationship between these components is dynamically unstable. This is demonstrated mathematically. This instability implies that no particular state or mode of topographic evolution, including peneplanation, is likely to persist in the face of variations or perturbations that influence any system component. Thus, formation of a peneplain would require tectonic stability and also relative constancy in sea level (or rates and direction of sea level change), climate, biotic influences on erosion or deposition, and any other factors that modify erosion, deposition, elevation fields, or isostatic responses. This would explain an absence of geologically contemporary peneplains and a rarity of well-developed peneplains in the geologic record.