ELSEVIER Geomorphology 14 (1995) 255-265

Drainage and valley asymmetry

in the Tertiary Hills of Lower Bavaria, Germany
Rainer Wende
School of Geosciences, The University of Wollongong, Wollongong, N.S. W. 2522, Australia

Received 17 May 1994; revised 1 April 1995; accepted 12 May 1995

Abstract

Valley asymmetry with steeper west-facing valley sides is a common feature in the Tertiary Hills of Lower Bavaria. Several
previous studies have altributed these forms to microclimatic differences under periglacial conditions during the Pleistocene
glacials. However, little attention has been given to the pattern of drainage networks in this area as a means of explaining valley
asymmetry. Drainage networks show asymmetry both in length and number of tributaries on either side of the main stream.
Drainage asymmetry is very likely primarily the reason of a drainage development in competitive situations. Four possible
causes have been identifed: ( 1) the position of an initial channel in relation to its adjacent parallel or subparallel drainage lines,
(2) different rates of headward erosion of tributaries on either side of an inter-stream divide, (3) drainage development oblique
to an initial terrain slope and (4) tilting of a landsurface and the resulting preferential headward erosion of consequent running
streams. Thus, asymmetric drainage development causes differences in slope dimensions and an imbalance in run-off and
sediment yield on opposite valley sides leading to the development of asymmetric valleys.

1. Introduction Due to a supposed lack of other explanations, most

Asymmetric valleys are a characteristic feature of
the Tertiary Hills of Lower Bavaria. Generally, valley
sides facing west are relatively steeper, but valley
asymmetry is not limited to north-south trending val-
leys as relatively steelper valley sides occur facing in
every direction (e.g. F’oser and Miiller, 1951).
A general lithological or structural control of valley
asymmetry in the study area is not evident (Helbig,
1965; Karrasch, 1970). The frequent facies changes in
horizontal as well as vertical directions (Figs. 1, 2A,
B), the general weakness of the exposed rocks, and the
lack of substantial faulting and folding or other well
developed geological structures, all rule out variable
lithology, structure or warping as general causes for
the valley asymmetry i.n the Tertiary Hills.
previous studies have attributed the differences in slope
angles on opposite valley sides of this region to micro-
climatic differences under periglacial conditions during
the Pleistocene glacials (e.g. Poser and Miiller, 195 1;
Helbig, 1965; Karrasch, 1970). It is implied in these
theories that a more or less symmetrical valley has
evolved into an asymmetric valley due to differences
in the slope processes operating on opposing hill slopes
and unilateral stream erosion causing a shift of the
valley axis towards one side of the valley (Fig. 6A).
Any shift of the divides in respect to the streams is not
explicitly mentioned.
The major reasons for this variation in slope proc-
esses and differential fluvial attack has been the subject
of persistent disagreement between researchers. Some
authors (Biidel, 1944; Helbig, 1965) have suggested

0169-555X/95/$09.50 8 1095 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDIO169-555X(95)00114-X
256 R. Wende / Geomorphology 14 (1995) 25.5-265
that solifluction and slope flattening was most active
on east-facing slopes during the Pleistocene due to pref-
erential snow accumulation and the resulting soil sat-
uration on valley sides leewards to the prevailing
westerly to northwesterly winds. Furthermore, the
increased sediment supply from the declining valley
sides would push the streams against the western valley
sides, causing undercutting and steepening there. Oth-
ers (e.g. Poser and Mtiller, 195 1) concluded that soli-
fluction must in fact have been more active on west to
south-facing slopes causing a “primary valley asym-
metry” restricted to the valley headwaters with steeper
slopes facing in northerly and easterly directions. Fur-
ther downvalley unilateral stream erosion and slope
steepening on these west- to south-facing slopes would
then have been more effective than the slope flattening
by solifluction, resulting in a “secondary asymmetry”.
The trigger for this lateral shift of the channels was seen
in rapid and prolonged thawing of the slope base upon
favourable exposure to sunlight. Karrasch ( 1970) sup-
ported this proposal of Poser and Miiller ( 195 1) , add-
ing that in valleys with a length of more than
approximately 10 km the stream’s capacity to laterally
erode must have been high enough to erode both valley
sides despite any differences in resistance due to vari-
ations in thawing. In larger valleys, relatively steeper
slopes could therefore occur on either side of the valley,
but still more frequently orientated in southerly to west-
erly directions.
These views have been important in interpretations
of fossil valley asymmetries for the entire Pleistocene
periglacial area of Middle Europe. However, these the-
ories, although based on evidence from the same
region, are contradictory in many major aspects. Even
more problematically, Helbig ( 1965) has critically
examined the principal hypothesis suggested by Poser
and Mtiller ( 195 1) and found it to be not conclusive,
but saw the ideas of Biidel ( 1944) confirmed. Karrasch
( 1970) on the other hand, supported Poser and Mill-
ler’s theory and rejected Biidel’s and Helbig’s.
In contrast to detailed studies of asymmetric valleys
in Lower Bavaria, little attention has been given to the
drainage networks in this area. It is well known that
network evolution and valley development are closely
connected and drainage evolution in general is a pos-
sible cause of valley asymmetry (Kennedy, 1976).
This is especially important in fluvially dissected land-
scapes where the topography is determined by valleys
and interfluves which are related to each other by the
interaction between streams and adjacent hillslopes.
During the development of such erosional topography,
asymmetric transverse valley profiles have been seen
to result from a lateral migration of streams and asso-
ciated changes of drainage pattern (Schumm, 1956).
In early studies, like those of Siilch ( 1918) and Krebs
( 1937), basic causal relations between drainage and
valley asymmetry were suggested for the Tertiary Hills
and other regions, but as noted, these ideas were dis-
regarded by later authors working on the question of
valley asymmetry. Sijlch and Krebs saw the link
between drainage and valley asymmetry in unilateral
stream erosion caused by variations in sediment supply
due to drainage asymmetry. Various possible factors
causing asymmetric drainage development were pro-
posed, including deferment of tributary junctions,
existing terrain slopes prior to dissection (e.g. large
alluvial fans), and tilting of an existing landscape.
Underlying geological trends have traditionally been
seen as a major reason for the development of certain
drainage patterns elsewhere, and a number of studies
support this assumption (e.g. Abrahams and Flint,
1983; cf. Mock, 1976). In regions without a geological
control on drainage or valley development, other causes
such as variations in microclimate (Beaty, 1962), or a
forced lateral shift of a trunk stream due to a deflection
of the river mouth (White, 1966)) have been suggested.
And studies on tributary arrangements and topological
properties of channel networks indicate that the spatial
requirements of subbasins, available relief and valley
winding have a considerable affect on the topological
and length properties of drainage networks as well
(Abrahams, 1984).
In situations where adjacent basins have common
divides, the growth rates of these basins will differ due
to differing degrees of competition between the basin
(Faulkner, 1974), and such network growth in com-
petitive situations can result in drainage asymmetry
where tributary development is influenced by the con-
straint of available area. For example, the development
of new streams along major tributaries which enter the
parent stream at high angles can be favoured on the
obtuse side (upslope side with reference to the parent
stream) of the joining tributary (Horton, 1945) or, if
the angle is relatively small, on the acute (downslope)
side (Flint, 1980), depending upon which side of the
tributary area is more limited. Variations in the distance
 R. Wende / Geomorphology 14 (1995) 255-265
between the trunk channel and the divides in general
creates an imbalancle of drainage which can result in
the asymmetric development of tributaries (Flint,
1980). Moreover, drainage asymmetry as a cause of
lateral stream migration and resulting valley asymme-
try has been theoretically modelled and simulated by
Band ( 1987).
In the Isar-Inn Hill Country, a part of the Tertiary
Hills of Lower Bavaria, many drainage networks have
an asymmetric arrangement of tributaries in relation to
the parent stream. ‘This coincides well with valley
asymmetry and appears to be a simple explanation for
the asymmetry of larger valleys in the area. These drain-
age asymmetries are probably the result of drainage
evolution under various competitive situations, and the
purpose of this study is to examine the relation between
this drainage and valley asymmetry and to review the
possible causes of drainage asymmetry.
2. Regional setting
The study area is located in the Isar-Inn Hill Coun-
try, a part of the Tertiary Hills of Bavaria in the northern
Alpine Foreland (Fig. 1). Here the outcropping
unfolded Tertiary sediments of the Upper Freshwater
Molasse are unconsolidated and large quantities of
material are available for transport. In the southwest of
257
this area sands, marls, and clays of the Hangendserie
are exposed, while further to the east and north the
older coarse elastic sediments of the Northern and
Southern Main Gravel dominate (Fig. 1) . The facies
change frequently in horizontal as well as vertical direc-
tion (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2A, B) . The youngest documented
faulting predates the deposition of the uppermost sed-
iments of the Upper Freshwater Molasse (Unger,
1987). During most of the deposition of the Molasse
drainage was mainly to the west, but in the east a rever-
sal of the drainage probably began with the termination
of the Molasse sedimentation at the end of the Upper
Miocene (Unger, 1989). Uplift of the Alpine Foreland
in the Pliocene, with a higher rate in the west, resulted
in an eastward descending surface on which the drain-
age of the Danube developed (Fischer, 1989). As a
consequence, the evolution of contemporary landforms
began with the development of the present day drainage
system, probably some 5-7 million years ago.
During the Pleistocene glacials the Isar-Inn Hill
Country was characterized by periglacial conditions
and loess accumulated preferentially on northeast- to
east-facing slopes. Underneath the loess, asymmetric
valley cross profiles can generally be found which indi-
cate that asymmetric valley development had com-
menced prior to loess deposition (Karrasch, 1970).
Long lasting fluvial erosion in combination with
weathering and denudation has resulted in dissection
258 R. Wende / Geomorphology 14 (1995) 255-265

0 25 5mm
I 1

C C’

Fig. 2. (A, B) Generalized geological profiles. (C) Simplified profile through the western part of the study area. Note the different extent of
incision of adjacent major drainage lines.

Fig. 3. Drainage network of the study area based on the blue-line network of the topographic maps 1:2CO,OOO. Boxes highlight networks shown
in Fig. 4.
 R. Wende / Geomorphology 14 (1995) 255-265 259

crenulation n e t w o r k “...“’

stream order: 1st e-.__

snd __I

. . -._bi.;/

Fig. 4. Selected asymmetric drainage networks. Blue-line networks, topographic map 1:25,000. Lines indicate the location of the profiles in Fig.

of the landscape into a dense network of branching
valleys and chains of rounded hills of low relief. In
general, the slopes are gentle with maximum angles
often below 10 degrees, but locally steepened slope
sections can be as steep as 30 degrees. The crests of the
interlluves and major divides are well rounded and the
average maximum relief within an area of 25 square
kilometres is 80 m.
3. Asymmetry of the drainage networks
Fig. 3 shows the general drainage pattern of the study
area based on 1:200,000 topographic maps. The main
streams flow roughly parallel in north to northeasterly
directions and their tributaries generally enter at large
angles. These tributaries are often parallel, and in the
western part of the s#tudy area northwest-southeast
trending tributaries dominate (Fig. 3). The distribution
of the tributaries along the northeast to east trending
main streams is not symmetric and more numerous and
longer tributaries enter the GroRe Vils, for example,
from the northwest than from the southeast. The same
is true for the Kleine Vils, Bina and Rott. Further down-
stream the larger tributaries of the Vils are south of the
principal watercourse and the distance between the
main channel and the right or left watershed of the basin
is therefore unequal. On that side of the stream with the
shorter distance to the watershed, the tributary catch-
ments of low order are characterized by shorter basins,
a similar basin relief, and resulting higher relief ratios,
compared with the tributary basins on the other side of
the parent stream.
In a more detailed observation (blue-line network of
1:25,000 topographic maps) these tributary catchments
of low order themselves show a basin asymmetry sim-
ilar to that of the larger basins. A good example is the
Kirchlemerbach (Fig. 4B) where the larger part of this
basin’s area, with the longer tributaries, is north of the
trunk stream. Along the Eibach (Fig. 4C) and Gassauer
Mtihlbach (Fig. 4A), however, the longer tributaries
enter from the west. The most eastern and northern
second order tributary of the Kirchlemerbach also has
an asymmetric drainage network (Fig. 4B).
In the north-south trending tributaries of the north
to northeast running main rivers, extension of the drain-
260 R. Wende/Geomorphology 14 (1995) 255-265

age networks was apparently favoured in westerly
directions. This is readily recognisable on the 1:25,000
topographic maps of the area. Helbig ( 1965) described
basin asymmetry as being a common feature for the
tributary valleys of the Rott in the Isar-Inn Hill Coun-
try, and similarly for other parts of southern Germany
and Austria. He stated that in these regions, the north-
west-southeast, north-south and northeast-southwest
trending valleys receive more frequent and longer dells
(elongated denudational slope hollows) from the
southwest to northwest than from the southeast to
northeast. But the catchments and valleys he studied in
the Tsar-Inn Hill Country receive not only more large
dells from westerly directions, but also a greater num-
ber of longer perennial watercourses.
4. Geometric characteristics of the valleys
In catchments of low order, especially first order
catchments, there is an obvious geometric relationship
between an asymmetric position of the stream and slope
asymmetry. Since the valley slopes end at the divides,
Table 1
Slope dimensions of valley cross profiles
the horizontal distance between slope base and slope
end is not equal for both valley sides. But for catch-
ments of higher order the slope profiles end at isolated
hills along the interfluves and the asymmetric location
of the stream is not necessarily directly geometrically
related to the horizontal slope length or to any other
morphometric slope property.
To identify the geometric characteristics of the asym-
metric valleys higher than first order in the Isat-Inn hill
country, valley cross sections at random locations were
examined. A random sample has been used to avoid
personal bias. The slopes were determined from the
slope base to the slope crest. The maximum slope angle,
slope length (horizontal), slope height and slope form
were measured from 1:25,000 topographic maps, the
accuracy of which for the purpose of this study, was
found to be satisfactory, since the general slope char-
acteristics were of more interest than absolute values.
Generally, the valleys are characterized by sides with
distinctly different slopes. The slopes with the higher
maximum slope angle are also significantly shorter than
the slopes on the opposite valley sides (Table 1).
Slope heights on opposite valley sides are similar, and

Valleys with streams of 2nd or 3rd order Valleys with streams of 4th or higher order

Relatively steeper Relatively gentler Relatively steeper Relatively gentler

N= 32 N=32 N=4 N=4

Height H (m)
Mean 33.4 34.2 33.3 36.5
Standard deviation 9.3 12.9 9.3 6.2
Standard error 1.6 2.3 4.7 3.1
f-test significance level n.s. ns.
Length (horizontal) L (m)
Mean 515 851 538 1663
Standard deviation 223.4 398.8 168.9 595.3
Standard error 39.5 70.5 84.5 297.7
t-test significance level CO.01 0.05
Mean slope angle HIL
Mean 0.07 0.044 0.064 0.025
Standard deviation 0.027 0.016 0.013 0.011
Standard error 0.005 0.003 0.006 0.006
t-test significance level CO.01 0.05

Profiles are grouped into relatively steeper and gentler slopes based on the observed maximum slope angles. The mean, standard deviation and
standard error were determined for each group. The significance of the observed differences between the means is given as a t-test significance
level.
N = No. of observations.
 R. Wende IGeomorphology 14 (1995) 255-265
the shorter slope with the higher maximum slope angle
is, therefore, the slope with the higher average slope
angle as well. The geometric properties of the northeast
to east trending valle:ys of higher order are found to be
the same as for their tributary valleys of lower order
(Table 1). The form of the slopes are most often
straight to slightly convex, although many complex
slope forms do occur. Concave segments at the foot of
the slopes are, if present, only short. Convex breaks in
slope are prominent in the lower parts of the slopes and
are common on slopes located opposite to where larger
tributaries enter, or near the mouth of tributary catch-
ments on the downstream side of the valley with ref-
erence to the parent stream. In the field these steepened
lower slope segments show signs of recent earth slides
and the channels are frequently located at the imme-
diate base of these slopes.
Valley side slopes are commonly segmented later-
ally into alternating spurs and hollows and areas with
straight contours are rare, seeming to occur more often
on the steeper valley side where the divide is closer to
the main channel. Presumably, slope length is below
critical distance required for erosion and channel devel-
opment (cf. Horton, 1945; Dunne, 1980). Along the
sides of valleys of higher order, slopes that drain
directly into these valleys are often restricted to the
mouths of the catchments or the inter-basin areas which
are generally the lower parts of interfluves with laterally
convex extending slopes.
5. Drainage asymmetry and valley asymmetry
Asymmetry in greater than first order valleys in the
Isar-Inn Hill Country is easily identifiable in the
1:25,000 topographic maps. A relation between drain-
age asymmetry and v,alley asymmetry is also obvious.
The shorter and steeper slopes are on the side of the
valley with the fewer and shorter feeder streams and
shorter distances to the watershed. The relatively
steeper valley side of the Kleine (Kl.) Vils, GroBe
(Gr.) Vils and Rott is south of these rivers (Fig. 3).
Downstream of the confluence of Kl. Vils and Gr. Vils
the steeper valley sidle of the Vils switches with the
decreasing distance between northern watershed and
channel to the northern side. The steeper valley sides
along the Bina in a downstream direction face west
then northwest, north and finally northeast, always
261
being on the southern side of the stream with a shorter
distance to the watershed. Just before its confluence
with the Rott, the steeper slopes switch to the northern
side of the valley, facing southwest.
Basins of lower order show the same coincidence
between drainage network or basin asymmetry and val-
ley asymmetry as do basins of high order (Fig. 4).
Along the valley of the Eibach, the steeper valley side
is facing generally westward (Fig. 5C); along the Kir-
chlemerbach it is facing to the north (Fig. 5B). On the
upper Gassauer Mtihlbach the steeper valley side of the
second order segment faces to the west (Fig. 5A), but,
after the valley’s distinctive change of direction, it faces
to the south. In the westernmost second order tributary
of the Kirchlemerbach, the steeper valley side faces to
the southeast (Fig. 4B).
Beside valley-wide asymmetries characterized by
different maximum and average slope angles and dif-
ferent slope lengths on opposite valley sides, there are
also localized asymmetries. These occur when the
shorter valley side with the smaller mean slope angle
is locally steepened at the lower parts of the slope,
resulting in a higher maximum slope angle than on the
opposite valley side.
6. Discussion
Differences in slope length in valleys with a similar
slope height on opposite sides are a characteristic of
the study area. Within the asymmetric valleys, the
shorter slopes are also generally steeper. Although
these differences in slope dimensions can cause “auto-
asymmetry”, they are not an explanation for valley
asymmetries since they are themselves the result of
other factors (Kennedy, 1976).
Because of the remarkable coincidence between
drainage asymmetry and valley asymmetry throughout
the region it seems very likely that the evolution of the
asymmetric valleys is related to the evolution of the
drainage networks. The most obvious and best docu-
mented controls on specific drainage patterns are lithol-
ogy and geological structure. In the study area, tributary
basins and their parent basins are often further extended
into directions transverse to each other. This can hardly
be explained by a variation in lithology or tilted strata
in the presence of frequently changing facies and the
absence of dipping beds extending over areas suffi-
262 R. Wende/Geomorphology 14 (1995) 255-265

s 5 0 0 --

r
% 4 6 0 --
P
d
Y
4 6 0 --

500
T
,460 --
&

s
g 460 --

h
Y
440..

420 1
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000 -2000

Dirhnee [ml
Fig. 5. Opposite interfluve (solid boxes) and adjacent tributary valley profiles (unfilled boxes) for a 2nd, 3rd and 4th order valley (Fig. 4). The
broken line (diamonds) is the inverted mirror image of the valley profile. Note the remarkable line fit along the lower parts of the intertluves.

ciently large enough to enhance a systematic uniclinal
shifting of strike streams (Figs. 1, 2A, B). However,
as for the asymmetric valleys (e.g. Karrasch, 1970)) a
general structural or lithological control of the drainage
pattern in the study area seems to be very unlikely.
A microclimatic influence on drainage evolution has
been suggested in studies from other places (e.g. Beaty,
1962). In the Tertiary Hills, under periglacial condi-
tions the microclimatic variations on slopes of different
orientation, a somewhat controversial issue (e.g. Poser
and Mtiller, 1951; Helbig, 1965), might have been
sufficiently strong enough to influence the development
of drainage in smaller basins, but the disagreement
about the nature and rate of processes on slopes of
different exposure within the area (c.f. Poser and
Miiller, 195 1; Helbig, 1965) seems to indicate that
local variations in intensity were high and differences
due to variation in exposure not very pronounced. Fur-
thermore, drainage and associated valley asymmetries
like those of the Kirchlemer Bach (Fig. 4B), or the
larger northeast to east running streams (Fig. 3), are
clearly not a result of preferential lateral erosion due to
 R. Wende /Geomorphology 14 (1995) 255-265
favourable exposure to sunlight since their steeper and
shorter valley sides face in northerly directions. Also
the changing location of the larger part of the drainage
area of the Gr. Vils and Rott Rivers in a downstream
direction from the northern side of the channel to south-
ern side (Fig. 3) contradicts the idea that prevailing
northwesterly to westerly winds had considerable influ-
ence on their drainage evolution.
If drainage asymmetry is assumed to be the result of
a lateral shift of the main channel to one side of the
basin then streams like the Rott upstreamof the junction
with the Bina (Fig. 3) would have shifted some 5 to 6
km to one side without leaving any evidence for this
evolution, except for the asymmetry of the drainage
itself. Any variations, in microclimate powerful enough
to trigger a process like this should have resulted in a
similar shift of the Kollbach, located just a few kilo-
meters northeast of the Rott. The same line of reasoning
can be applied to question an assumed “climatically”
triggered differential headward extension of the tribu-
taries instead of a lateral shift of the main channel. As
neither lithological variability and geological structure,
nor variations in microclimate appear to be plausible
explanations for drainage asymmetries in the study
area, the cause of the asymmetry especially of the larger
valleys remains questionable. An alternative explana-
tion is thus required.
In the Isa-Inn Hill Country, the differences in slope
dimensions are closely related to the arrangement of
the drainage networks. In valleys where the slopes
extend from the valley floor to the watershed, the slope
height and slope length is directly restricted by the
distance between the valley floor and adjacent water-
shed. In valleys of higher order the slopes end fre-
quently on isolated hills along interior watersheds. The
profiles are located in the inter-basin areas between
adjacent tributary basins and are the lower parts of
interfluves. Slope height and slope length are therefore
determined by the profiles of the latter. The interfluves
themselves are functionally related to the adjacent val-
leys, and in fluvially dissected regions their longitudi-
nal profiles are an approximate inverted mirror image
of the valley profiles (Ahnert, 1984). Since opposite
tributary basins in the study area have approximately
the same relief but a different length on either side of
the parent stream, the logarithmic profiles of the valleys
and the related profiles of the interfluves are steeper on
that side of the parent stream where the distance to the
263
Fig. 6. Asymmetric valley development assuming: (A) a lateral shift
of the valley axis, (B) asymmetric extension of tributary valleys on
opposite sides of the main valley. Resulting tributary valley profiles
(dashed lines) and interlluve profiles (solid lines) have different
gradients on opposite sides of the main valley. Interfluve profiles
coincide with the slopes of the main valley.
watershed is shorter (Fig. 5). Furthermore, the slopes
of the larger valleys are laterally dissected into alter-
nating spurs and hollows, or interfluves and valleys,
and as a consequence the valley sides with the steeper
interfluve profiles also have the steeper slope profiles.
In other words, shorter and therefore steeper tributary
valleys have steeper intefluves associated with them.
Therefore, a differential extension of the tributary val-
leys on either side of the main valley generates an
asymmetric main valley (Fig. 6B).
Drainage and main valley asymmetry are not only
linked through a functional relation between interfluves
and adjacent valleys, but also through the influence of
the tributary stream on the lateral position of the main
stream. In catchments or valleys with closely spaced
tributaries which are relatively large in respect with the
parent stream, drainage asymmetry is a simple expla-
nation for the maintenance of valley asymmetries. Mel-
ton ( 1960) found that the position and activity of the
channel in respect to the valley-side slopes is one direct
cause of valley asymmetry. In many valleys of the Isar-
Inn Hill Country the principal stream receives longer
and more numerous tributaries from one valley side.
Alluvial fans at the mouths of larger tributaries, the
position of the larger channels at the base of the oppo-
site slope, and the frequent local steepening of this side
of the valley indicate that the entering tributaries fre-
quently divert the main stream to the opposite valley
264 R. Wende / Geomorphology 14 (I 995) 255-265

side. Indeed, recent earth slides on the steepened lower

slope segments are evidence of the activity of basal
erosion under present conditions. The characteristic
imbalance of feeder streams in asymmetric drainage
networks probably causes a diversion of the main chan-
nel to the opposite valley side causing a series of locally
steepened slopes there. A similar relation between
drainage and valley asymmetry was suggested by Siilch
(1918).
Drainage asymmetry causing differences in slope
dimensions and an imbalance in run-off and sediment
supply on opposite valley sides appears to be a logical
explanation for the lack of symmetry of valleys in the
Isar-Inn Hill Country. However, the question as to
what causes drainage pattern asymmetry remains.
A major factor influencing drainage patterns is the
spatial arrangement of the drainage networks. Where
this arrangement involves evolution of drainage in cer-
tain competitive situations, asymmetric drainage can
be produced. Four hypotheses are suggested as possible
causes for the drainage asymmetries in the study area:
(1) The position of a channel relative to adjacent
parallel or subparallel drainage lines restricts the exten-
sion of the catchment, particularly in the direction of
its closest neighbour, and may therefore result in drain-
age asymmetry (Fig. 7A). A special case of this situ-
ation is the differential tributary development near the
junction of subparallel basin as described by Flint
(1980).
( 2) Different rates of headward erosion of tributaries
on either side of an inter-stream divide, caused by dif-
ferent rates of downcutting of their parallel or subpar-
allel parent streams, may lead to a gradual shift of the
dividing watershed towards the minor channel (Fig.
7B). The position of the watershed of the upper Rott
is very likely the result of drainage area losses to the
adjacent Isen, which has a considerable erosional
advantage. Other drainage networks in the study area
indicate the same process (Figs. 3 and 2C). Eventually
different rates of downcutting lead to capturing which
can cause not only drainage but also valley asymmetry
(Kennedy, 1976). The sudden change of direction and
its associated valley asymmetry along the Gassauer
Mtihlbach appears to be the product of stream capture
since there is no indication for a lithological or struc-
tural control (Fig. 4A).
The apparently preferred extension of the smaller
north-south trending basins in westerly directions
Fig. 7. Competitive network development and resulting valley asym-
metry. (A) Different spacing of parallel/subparallel major drainage
lines. (B) Different rates of downcutting. (C) Development of trib-
utaries oblique to an initial terrain slope (modified after Horton,
1945).
could be the result of two further special forms of drain-
age development in competitive situations:
(3) Horton ( 1945) argued that on a surface with
low relief and an initial slope, the tributary of a con-
sequent parent stream that runs oblique to the original
terrain slope will extend its catchment further to the
upslope side than to the downslope side because of
enhanced catchment areas and gradients in this direc-
tion. The enlargement of the basin and the development
of a new generation of tributaries on the valley sides of
the parent valley could therefore result in an asymmet-
ric drainage network, with more numerous and longer
tributaries upslope of the parent stream (Fig. 7C).
(4) Tilting of an existing landsurface could also
cause preferential headward erosion of consequent run-
ning tributaries and finally drainage asymmetry (Siilch,
1918)) particularly in the Isar-Inn Hill Country (Krebs
1937). However, there is no direct evidence of tilting,
although the Pliocene uplift of the Alpine Foreland
might have resulted in an initial terrain slope dipping
northeast to east for the area of the Isar-Inn Hill Coun-
try and could have possibly provided the conditions
necessary for the development of asymmetric drainage
networks.
 R. Wende / Geomorphology 14 (1995) 255-265
7. Conclusion
The differences of’ slope dimensions of the asym-
metric valleys in the Isar-Inn Hill Country, and the
striking coincidence with the drainage asymmetry, sup-
ports the hypothesis that drainage development is a
major cause of valley asymmetries. The link between
drainage and valley asymmetry in densely fluvially dis-
sected landscapes is the functional relationship
between valleys and a.djacent interlluves. The slopes of
larger valleys are dissected into alternating valleys and
interlluves and are, therefore, related to the character-
istics of the drainage network. Furthermore, asymmet-
ric drainage causes asymmetric sediment yield from
opposite valley sides and may result in preferential
lateral erosion on one valley side. There are several
possible causes for drainage asymmetry: the position
of an initial channel to its adjacent parallel or subpar-
allel drainage lines; the different rates of headward
erosion of tributaries on either side of an inter-stream
divide; drainage development oblique to an initial ter-
rain slope; and tilting of a land surface and resulting
preferential headward erosion of consequent running
streams.
The contemporary drainage of densely fluvially dis-
sected landscapes with a long denudational history, is
the likely result of an evolution in competitive situa-
tions, but due to the complexity of this evolution, it is
certainly difficult and often impossible to reconstruct
individual evolutions. Nevertheless, any study on val-
ley asymmetry in these landscapes should investigate
the relation between drainage evolution and valley
development before hypothesised palaeomicroclimatic
differences are considered as a means of explaining
valley asymmetries.
Acknowledgements
The author is especially grateful to F. Ahnert, W.
Romer and G. Nans~on for valuable comments. The
comments of B.A. Kennedy and an anonymous
reviewer helped to improve the manuscript. D. Martin,
University of Wollongong, produced the final dia-
grams. This study was prepared at the Department of
Geography, RWTH Aachen, Germany.
References
Abrahams, A.D., 1984. Ch,mnel networks: a geomorphological per-
spective. Water Resour. Res., 20: 161-168.
265
Abrahams, A.D. and Flint, J.J., 1983. Geological controls on the
topological properties of some trellis channel networks. Geol.
Sot. Am. Bull., 94: 80-91.
Ahnert, F., 1984. Local relief and the height limits of mountain
ranges. Am. _I. Sci., 284: 103.5-1055.
Band, L.E., 1987. Lateral migration of stream channels. Catena
Suppl., 10: 99-l 10.
Beaty, C.B., 1962. Asymmetry of stream patterns and topography in
the Bitterroot Range, Montana. J. Geol., 70: 347-354.
Bildel, J., 1944. Die morphologischen Wirkungen des Eiszeitenkli-
mas im gletscherfreien Gebiet. Geol. Rundsch., 34: 482-5 19.
Dunne, T., 1980. Formation and controls of channel networks. Prog.
Phys. Geogr., 4: 21 l-239.
Faulkner, H., 1974. An allometric growth model for competitive
gullies. Z. Geomorphol. Suppl., 21: 7687.
Fischer, K., 1989. The landforms of the German Alps and the Alpine
Foreland. Catena Suppl., 15: 69-83.
Flint, J.J., 1980. Tributary arrangements in fluvial systems. Am. J.
Sci., 280: 2645.
Helbig, K., 1965. AsymmettischeEiszeittalerin Sttddeutschland und
Gsterreich. W&burger Geographische Arbeiten, 14, Wilrzburg.
Horton, R.E., 1945. Erosional development of streams and their
drainage basins: hydrophysical approach to quantitative mor-
phology. Geol. Sot. Am. Bull., 56: 275-370.
Karrasch, H., 1970. Das Phanomen der klimabedingten Reliefasym-
metrie in Mitteleuropa. Giittinger Geogr. Abh., 56, Gottingen.
Kennedy, B.A., 1976. Valley-side slopes and climate. In: E. Derby-
shire (Editor), Geomorphology and Climate. London, pp. 17 l-
201.
Krebs, N., 1937. Talnetzstudien. Sitzungsberichte der PreuBischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzung der physikalisch-math-
ematischen Klasse, VI.
Melton, M.A., 1960. Intravalley variation in slope angles related to
microclimate and erosional environment. Geol. Sot. Am. Bull.,
71: 133-144.
Mock, S.J., 1976: Topological properties of some trellis pattern chan-
nel networks. U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineer-
ing Laboratory Report 76-46, Hanover, N.H..
Poser, H. and Mtlller, T., 1951. Studien an den asymmetrischen
Talem des Niederbayerischen Htlgellandes. Nachrichten der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Mathematisch-Phy-
sikalische Klasse, Biologisch-Physiologisch-Chemische Abtei-
lung, Nr. 1, Gottingen.
Schumm, S.A., 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in
badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geol. Sot. Am. Bull., 67:
597-646.
Solch, J., 1918. Ungleichseitige FluDgebiete und Talquerschnitte.
Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 64, Gotha.
Unger, H.J., 1987. Bemerkungen zum tektonischen Werdegang
Stldostbayems. Geol. Jahrbuch, A 105: 3-23.
Unger, H.J., 1989. Die Lithozonen der Oberen SttBwassermolasse
Stidostbayems und ibre vermutlichen zeitlichen Aquivalente
gegen Westen und Osten. Geologica Bavarica, 94: 194-237.
White, W.A., 1966. Drainage asymmetry and the Carolina Capes.
Geol. Sot. Am. Bull., 77: 223-240.