Science - USA (2021-07-09)

the period in which Mars had surface liquid
water.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. C. E. Weaver,Clays, Muds, and Shales(Elsevier, 1989), p. 819.


2. R. E. Summonset al.,Astrobiology 11 , 157–181 (2011).


3. J. P. Grotzinger, R. E. Milliken, The sedimentary rock record of
   Mars: Distribution, origins, and global stratigraphy, in
   Sedimentary Geology of Mars,J. P. Grotzinger, R. E. Milliken,
   Eds. (SEPM Special Publication, Tulsa, OK, 2012), vol. 102.


4. D. T. Vanimanet al.,Science 343 , 1243480 (2014).


5. T. F. Bristowet al.,Sci. Adv. 4 , eaar3330 (2018).


6. J. L. Eigenbrodeet al.,Science 360 , 1096–1101 (2018).


7. N. Mangoldet al.,Icarus 321 , 619–631 (2019).


8. J. P. Grotzingeret al.,Science 350 , aac7575 (2015).


9. J. A. Hurowitzet al.,Science 356 , eaah6849 (2017).


10. D. T. Vanimanet al.,Am. Mineral. 103 , 1011–1020 (2018).


11. A. S. Yenet al.,Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 471 , 186–198 (2017).


12. E. B. Rampeet al.,Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 471 , 172–185 (2017).


13. C. N. Achilleset al.,J. Geophys. Res. Planets 125 , JE006295
    (2020).


14. E. B. Rampeet al.,J. Geophys. Res. Planets 125 ,
    e2019JE006306 (2020).


15. A. A. Fraemanet al.,J. Geophys. Res. Planets 125 , JE006527
    (2020).


16. J. L’Haridonet al.,J. Geophys. Res. Planets 125 ,
    e2019JE006299 (2020).


17. R. J. Smithet al.,J. Geophys. Res. Planets 126 ,
    e2020JE006782 (2021).


18. P. E. Martinet al.,J. Geophys. Res. 122 , 2803–2818 (2017).


19. R. E. Milliken, J. P. Grotzinger, B. J. Thomson,Geophys. Res.
    Lett. 37 , L04201 (2010).


20. R. Y. Sheppard, R. E. Milliken, M. Parente, Y. Itoh,J. Geophys.
    Res. Planets 126 , e2020JE006372 (2021).


21. J. P. Bibringet al.,Science 312 , 400–404 (2006).


22. K. M. Stacket al.,Sedimentology 66 , 1768–1802 (2019).


23. L. A. Edgaret al.,J. Geophys. Res. Planets 125 ,
    e2019JE006307 (2020).


24. N. T. Steinet al.,Geophys. Res. Planets 125 , e2019JE006298
    (2020).


25. Materials and methods are available as supplementary materials.


26. B. Sutteret al.,J. Geophys. Res. 122 , 2574–2609 (2017).


27. T. F. Bristowet al.,Am. Mineral. 100 , 824–836 (2015).


28. A. C. McAdamet al.,J. Geophys. Res. Planets 125 ,
    e2019JE006309 (2020).


29. M. Heuser, P. Andrieux, S. Petit, H. Stanjek,Clay Miner. 48 ,
    97 – 103 (2013).


30. B. W. Evans, S. Guggenheim,Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 19 ,
    225 – 294 (1988).


31. H. Y. McSween Jr., T. C. Labotka, C. E. Viviano-Beck,Meteorit.
    Planet. Sci. 50 , 590–603 (2015).


32. M. J. Wilson,Clay Miner. 39 , 233–266 (2004).


33. D. R. Veblen, P. R. Buseck,Science 206 , 1398–1400 (1979).


34. P. C. Ryan, F. J. Huertas, L. N. Pincus, W. Painter,Clays Clay
    Miner. 67 , 488–506 (2019).


35. E. S. Amador, J. L. Bandfield, N. H. Thomas,Icarus 311 ,
    113 – 134 (2018).


36. F. Klein, W. Bach, T. M. McCollom,Lithos 178 , 55–69 (2013).


37. S. Q. Lang, W. J. Brazelton,Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng.
    Sci. 378 , 20180429 (2020).


38. L. L. Baker, O. K. Neill,Am. Mineral. 102 , 1632–1645 (2017).


39. J. F. Banfield, B. F. Jones, D. R. Veblen,Geochim. Cosmochim.
    Acta 55 , 2795–2810 (1991).


40. J. Frydenvanget al.,Geophys. Res. Planets 125 ,
    e2019JE006320 (2020).


41. S. M. McLennan,Geology 31 , 315–318 (2003).


42. N. J. Tosca, S. M. McLennan, M. P. Lamb, J. P. Grotzinger,
    J. Geophys. Res. 116 , E05004 (2011).


43. D. Larsen,Geosphere 4 , 612–639 (2008).


44. P. G. Macumber,Chem. Geol. 96 ,1–18 (1992).


45. D. M. Deocampo, B. F. Jones, inTreatise on Geochemistry,
    H. D. Holland, K. K. Turekian, Eds. (Elsevier, 2014), vol. 7,
    pp. 437–469.


46. P. M. English,Sediment. Geol. 143 , 219–244 (2001).


47. J. Jankowski, G. Jacobson,J. Hydrol. (Amst.) 108 , 123– 173
    (1989).


48. N. H. Thomaset al.,Geophys. Res. Lett. 46 , 10754–10763 (2019).


49. W. Rapinet al.,Nat. Geosci. 12 , 889–895 (2019).


50. R. dos Santos, M. Patel, J. Cuadros, Z. Martins,Icarus 277 ,
    342 – 353 (2016).


51. T. Bristow, Data from: Brine driven destruction of clay minerals
    in Gale crater, Mars., Dryad, (2021); https://doi.org/10.5061/
    dryad.k3j9kd576.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank R. Kleeberg for help developing the CheMin instrument

profile model for BGMN and A. Derkowski for informative discussion.

J. C. Corona kindly provided XRD data from Fe talc, and P. De Deckker

shared knowledge of Australian lakes. We thank J. Bishop and two

anonymous reviewers for helping improve the manuscript.

We acknowledge the support of the Jet Propulsion Lab engineering

and management teams and MSL science team members who

participated in tactical and strategic operations, without whom

the data presented here could not have been collected.Funding:

Some of this research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion

Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). A.A.F.,

A.C.M., and C.M.F. acknowledge funding by the MSL Participating

Scientist Program, NASA solicitation NNH15ZDA001N. J.F.

acknowledges support from the Carlsberg Foundation. J.P.G. received

additional funding from the Simons Collaboration for the Origin of Life.

Author contributions:T.F.B. wrote the manuscript, with

corrections, discussions, and/or revised text from coauthors. J.C. led

one-dimensional modeling of clay minerals. S.J.C. quantified the

abundances of clay minerals and the x-ray amorphous phase from

CheMin XRD data. G.W.D. led efforts to identify the 9.22-Å phase

from XRD data. C.M.F. led efforts to establish the relationships

between rock strata exposed at VRR and GT, capturing them

in Figs. 1 and 2. J.F. analyzed ChemCam Li data and helped produce

Fig. 2. A.C.M. led the interpretation of SAM EGA data and helped

produce Fig. 4 and fig. S4. A.S.Y. compiled the bulk geochemical

data from the Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer shown in table S1

and used to generate fig. S5. R.V.M. compiled the XRD data

used to determine the angular resolution of the CheMin instrument

(fig. S2). R.E.M. led comparisons of orbital and ground-based

mineral data. C.N.A., T.F.B., D.W.M., S.M.M., E.B.R., M.T.T., V.T.,

and D.T.V. determined the abundances of crystalline phases

in GT samples from XRD data. D.F.B., A.B.B., K.A.B., A.A.F., V.K.F.,

R.G., J.P.G., P.R.M., E.B.R., D.T.V., R.C.W., and A.R.V. designed

the rover instruments and guided the mission. All authors performed

operational roles in data collection.Competing interests:V.K.F. is

also affiliated with the Department of Physics and Astronomy,

Carleton College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA.Data and materials

availability:AllCuriositydata presented in this paper are archived

in NASA’s Planetary Data System; the URLs and file identifications

are listed in table S5. The software written by the authors of

this paper and files needed to replicate the analyses are publicly

available at Dryad ( 51 ).

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6551/198/suppl/DC1

Materials and Methods

Supplementary Text

Figs. S1 to S8

Tables S1 to S5

References ( 52 – 79 )

24 January 2021; accepted 28 May 2021

10.1126/science.abg5449

REPORTS

◥

GEOMORPHOLOGY

The life span of fault-crossing channels

Kelian Dascher-Cousineau*, Noah J. Finnegan, Emily E. Brodsky

Successive earthquakes can drive landscape evolution. However, the mechanism and pace with

which landscapes respond remain poorly understood. Offset channels in the Carrizo Plain, California,

capture the fluvial response to lateral slip on the San Andreas Fault on millennial time scales. We

developed and tested a model that quantifies competition between fault slip, which elongates

channels, and aggradation, which causes channel infilling and, ultimately, abandonment. Validation

of this model supports a transport-limited fluvial response and implies that measurements

derived from present-day channel geometry are sufficient to quantify the rate of bedload transport

relative to slip rate. Extension of the model identifies the threshold for which persistent change

in transport capacity, obliquity in slip, or advected topography results in reorganization of the

drainage network.

T

he recognition in 1908 that ephemeral

streams in the Carrizo Plain in southern

California preserved a passive record of

lateral fault offset transformed the study

of active strike-slip faults ( 1 – 5 ). However,

offset on these stream channels generally does

not exceed tens to hundreds of meters. Flow

eventually overtops channels, typically spilling

straight across the fault and resetting the re-

corded offset (Fig. 1, A to C) ( 2 , 3 , 6 ). Variability

in channel offsets suggests a reset mechanism

that depends primarily on local channel con-

figuration rather than regional climate or

earthquake history. Slip rates on the order of

centimeters per year on the San Andreas Fault

imply that channels reset on millennial time

scales, thereby limiting their utility as record-

ers of fault slip ( 2 ). We instead leveraged this

tectonic-geomorphic interaction to better un-

derstand how the drainage network responds

to perturbation. We developed a quantitative

prediction for the channel life span as a function

of fault slip rate, present-day channel geome-

try, and sediment transport capacity assuming

transport-limited conditions. We validated our

model by testing it against a LiDAR (light de-

tection and ranging)–derived record of fault-

crossing channels in the Carrizo Plain and

explore implications for the long-term evolu-

tion of strike-slip fault landscapes.

Wallace ( 2 ) identified channel sedimentation

as a control on the evolution of fault-crossing

204 9JULY2021•VOL 373 ISSUE 6551 sciencemag.org SCIENCE

Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of

California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

RESEARCH