This site is divided into geometrical data on terrace and pediment heights; and tabular data on the same heights correlated with previous maps
|
| Geometric Data |
Colorado Rockies Map: links to a JPG of a map of the study area moslty in the Colorado Rockies. The map shows locations of 61 detailed maps as grey boxes. Clicking boxes links to detailed maps, futher linked to profiles. This map has links to 16x enlargement of the map so labels can be read. A third format is an alphabetical list of detailed maps. The detailed maps show associated profiles. Clicking profiles on detailed maps links to a full screen version of profiles. Profiles often obscure map features. Turn-off profiles by clicking anywhere on maps but the profiles, turn back on profiles by clicking anywhere on the profile-free map. Profiles show red "Representative Distances" above floodplains interpreted for appropriate levels. These data are collected in table form (Surfaces from this Study) and used to define “Representative Value” for heights of terraces and pediments. Profiles also show associated control point coordinates. This Menu item serves as graphical data for any conclusions on this site.
| | Tabular Data |
Surfaces from This Study: links to a PDF table of control points that includes “Representative Values” of floodplain elevations (CE) and heights of terraces and pediments above CE. These data are based on "Representative Distance" for each surface as recorded on profiles and transferred to this table as terrace and pediment heights for 5 levels. Seventy-three control point (CP) locations are plotted and labeled on 61 detailed maps (Colorado Rockies Map). Most maps have only one CP, several two, and a few three. Latitude and Longitude coordinates are from GIS. CP’s are numbered according to the major 10 rivers draining the Colorado Rockies. Only floodplains have 73 data points: t1 has 71; t2 has 68; t3 has 64; t4 has 58; t5 has only 7 (insufficient for either maps or statistics). The first four pediments have insufficient data for maps, but 30 or so points is barely sufficient for statistics. p5 has only 2 points. Statistics and terraces heights in the Summary Report are based on control points shown in this table, which, in turn is based on interpretation of terrace geometry from profiles on detailed maps (Colorado Rockies Map).
Surfaces from the Literature: links a PDF table of 150 published maps and 22 particularly relevant general reports, including all geologic maps found covering areas in and around control points (Surfaces from this Study). Selected information about Pleistocene deposits was extracted from all references: units, ages, dates, methods used to date deposits (Izett and Wilcox (1981) sample number, if available), and two columns of glacial terms. The entries were transferred to this table. The table is organized by senior author, and the Correlations table is arranged by reference number. The heading links to a translation between reference number and author.
Correlations: links to a PDF table of heights above CE (floodplains) for terraces and pediments from references maps and this report for all maps that estimate heights. Percent differences were calculated by matching heights independent of level classification. Differences are discussed in Summary Report. Data show previous maps and this report identify the same set of five surfaces, though assigning different ages. This table is organized by reference number. The heading links to a translation between reference number and author.
Correlation Chart: links to a PDF chart plotting unconsolidated deposits or surfaces from 172 maps and reports along a scaled time line. The time line also show Marine Isotope Stages (MIS), Pleistocene time-terms, and a graph of estimated glacial length in the Colorado Rockies based on MIS data. The earliest unconsolidated deposits are dated as late Pliocene to middle Pleistocene. This chart presents a problem about ages assigned to unconsolidated deposits in the Rocky Mountains. I offer this site based on terrace geometry as a solution to the problem, perhaps only exacerbating it by adding one more line to the chart.
|
|