{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015209125475285171, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3517241379310345, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Predicting gully erosion using landform evolution models: Insights from mining landforms

Incision as a result of fluvial erosion is an important process to model when simulating landform evolution. For gullies, it is apparent that coupled with the processes that cause incision there must be a range of processes that stop incision. Once started, rills and gullies will grow infinitely without a reduction in support area and/or being arrested by deposition and armouring. Some of these processes have been well studied under the heading of inter‐rill erosion. Other limiting processes are related to the shape of the landform and how downstream deposition areas are linked geomorphically to the upstream gullies. Armouring is also an important process that reduces gully incision and extension, where the gully erodes to bedrock and the resistant base limits further development. Post‐mining landscapes are new surfaces with new materials and provide the opportunity to examine gully initiation, extension and stabilization. The work presented here has largely been driven by the mining industry, where there has been a need to assess erosion over hazardous wastes like mine tailings and low‐level nuclear waste. We demonstrate the usefulness of computer‐based landscape evolution models and the more recent soilscape models (that include both surface and subsurface processes) to understand both fluvial and diffusive processes as well as armouring in a digital elevation model framework (as well as landscape evolution). Landscape evolution models provide insights into complex non‐linear systems such as gullies. A key need is that of field data to parameterize and validate the models. It is argued that current models have more capability than field data available for parameterization and importantly the validation of model outputs.