Geomorphology and Vegetation on Hillslopes: Interactions, Dependencies, and Feedback Loops. Marston, R. A. 116(3-4):206–217. ![Geomorphology and Vegetation on Hillslopes: Interactions, Dependencies, and Feedback Loops [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex The linkages between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology have been the subject of serious study for years, but traditionally, ecologists and geomorphologists have viewed these interactions as unidirectional. On the one hand, botanists and landscape ecologists have examined the effects of hillslope features, processes, and materials on vegetation structure, composition, and dynamics. Focus has been placed on the effects of topography (elevation, slope angle, slope aspect), edaphic factors, rock type, and geomorphic disturbance (mass movement, snow avalanches, land surface erosion). On the other hand, geomorphologists have traditionally treated vegetation as an independent variable that affects landforms and sediment routing at limited spatial-temporal scales. Hillslope vegetation and landforms, however, co-evolve. One key is to understand the role of time, disturbances, and feedbacks that link vegetation and geomorphology on hillslopes. The effects of vegetation on mass movement and landscape evolution are being studied in new ways. Many regional studies claim that vegetation becomes less relevant as one moves to larger and larger watershed scales, but ecoregion analysis offers a contrasting view. Whereas these efforts have produced vehicles of understanding that are simple, ordered, unified, and harmonious, they often do not reflect the complexity that leads to multiple possible outcomes – place-dependent results. Recent perspectives focus on the two-way interplay between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology, where establishing cause-and-effect linkages is made difficult by confounding factors (spatial-temporal scale, location, convergence, divergence, nonlinearity, thresholds, feedbacks). Vegetation and geomorphology interactions are controlled by a combination of global factors (independent of time and place) and the local environmental history. Continued refinement of fine-scale deterministic models should be encouraged, but the ability to translate these results to larger scales needs to be explored. At large scales, future research, especially those with predictive modeling as the goal, should concentrate on how to increase the generality of concepts and models and should seek to reduce the number of variables and factors considered. [Excerpt: Summary and conclusions] Scientific discourse on the linkages between vegetation and geomorphology focused on mere description before 1950. Important conceptual advances began about 1950, thanks to the emergence of landscape ecology and field measurement of geomorphic processes. Much excitement has been generated in the last two decades by recent advances in measurement/explanation and now prediction. The strategies for prediction of land surface erosion on hillslopes, mass movement, and landscape evolution range from empirical studies to physically based mechanistic models. Research on the full range of techniques should be encouraged until we reach the day when we can successfully upscale the linkages from mechanistic modeling on small plots and individual organisms to the landscape scale. Our understanding of the feedbacks between geomorphology and vegetation is incomplete. Linkages abound between vegetation and geomorphology on the scale of hillslopes, but the link between cause-and-effect is confounded by many factors. A need exists, however, to construct, calibrate, and test the relationships over the full range of geographic conditions. Place matters…on an individual hillslope (ridge top vs. colluvial hollow), from hillslope to hillslope in the same watershed when vegetation differs, and when comparing linkages among different ecoregions. Vegetation and landforms co-evolve, but the feedbacks are just beginning to be understood and quantified. We are looking for new metrics to characterize these interactions and model them at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. The need exists to build stronger linkages between spatial analysis and GIS in the study of hillslope systems. For instance, GIS can be used to study connectivity, distance-decay functions, shape analysis, edge roughness, and the association between patterns. The impact of human activities on these linkages will continue to garner attention as a result of accelerated rates of direct and indirect vegetation change, including the effects of climate change on biogeomorphic form and processes. [] Whereas these efforts have produced vehicles of understanding that are simple, ordered, unified, and harmonious, they often do not reflect the complexity that leads to multiple possible outcomes – place-dependent results. Recent perspectives focus on the two-way interplay between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology, where establishing cause-and-effect linkages is made difficult by confounding factors (spatial-temporal scale, location, convergence, divergence, nonlinearity, thresholds, feedbacks). Vegetation and geomorphology interactions are controlled by a combination of global factors (independent of time and place) and the local environmental history – the perfect landscape of Phillips (2007). Each landscape has an inherited history…from biophysical and human influences…which will almost certainly vary from place to place. Perhaps no clear time scale exists for understanding the linkages between vegetation and geomorphology on hillslopes because of the inherent coupling of biological and physical processes. The historical legacy of local disturbances leads to increased divergence, while global controls lead to convergence. The key, therefore, is to increase the generality of our models, concepts, and research and to reduce the number of variables and factors considered, rather than seek deterministic models to describe landscapes in all of their complexity. Continued refinement of fine-scale deterministic models should be encouraged, but the obstacles to translating these results to different scales need to be explored. At coarse scales, future research, especially those with predictive modeling as the goal, should concentrate on how to increase the generality of concepts and models and should seek to reduce the number of variables and factors considered.
@article{marstonGeomorphologyVegetationHillslopes2010,
title = {Geomorphology and Vegetation on Hillslopes: {{Interactions}}, Dependencies, and Feedback Loops},
author = {Marston, Richard A.},
date = {2010-04},
journaltitle = {Geomorphology},
volume = {116},
pages = {206--217},
issn = {0169-555X},
doi = {10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.09.028},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.09.028},
abstract = {The linkages between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology have been the subject of serious study for years, but traditionally, ecologists and geomorphologists have viewed these interactions as unidirectional. On the one hand, botanists and landscape ecologists have examined the effects of hillslope features, processes, and materials on vegetation structure, composition, and dynamics. Focus has been placed on the effects of topography (elevation, slope angle, slope aspect), edaphic factors, rock type, and geomorphic disturbance (mass movement, snow avalanches, land surface erosion). On the other hand, geomorphologists have traditionally treated vegetation as an independent variable that affects landforms and sediment routing at limited spatial-temporal scales. Hillslope vegetation and landforms, however, co-evolve. One key is to understand the role of time, disturbances, and feedbacks that link vegetation and geomorphology on hillslopes. The effects of vegetation on mass movement and landscape evolution are being studied in new ways. Many regional studies claim that vegetation becomes less relevant as one moves to larger and larger watershed scales, but ecoregion analysis offers a contrasting view. Whereas these efforts have produced vehicles of understanding that are simple, ordered, unified, and harmonious, they often do not reflect the complexity that leads to multiple possible outcomes -- place-dependent results. Recent perspectives focus on the two-way interplay between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology, where establishing cause-and-effect linkages is made difficult by confounding factors (spatial-temporal scale, location, convergence, divergence, nonlinearity, thresholds, feedbacks). Vegetation and geomorphology interactions are controlled by a combination of global factors (independent of time and place) and the local environmental history. Continued refinement of fine-scale deterministic models should be encouraged, but the ability to translate these results to larger scales needs to be explored. At large scales, future research, especially those with predictive modeling as the goal, should concentrate on how to increase the generality of concepts and models and should seek to reduce the number of variables and factors considered.
[Excerpt: Summary and conclusions]
Scientific discourse on the linkages between vegetation and geomorphology focused on mere description before 1950. Important conceptual advances began about 1950, thanks to the emergence of landscape ecology and field measurement of geomorphic processes. Much excitement has been generated in the last two decades by recent advances in measurement/explanation and now prediction. The strategies for prediction of land surface erosion on hillslopes, mass movement, and landscape evolution range from empirical studies to physically based mechanistic models. Research on the full range of techniques should be encouraged until we reach the day when we can successfully upscale the linkages from mechanistic modeling on small plots and individual organisms to the landscape scale. Our understanding of the feedbacks between geomorphology and vegetation is incomplete. Linkages abound between vegetation and geomorphology on the scale of hillslopes, but the link between cause-and-effect is confounded by many factors. A need exists, however, to construct, calibrate, and test the relationships over the full range of geographic conditions. Place matters…on an individual hillslope (ridge top vs. colluvial hollow), from hillslope to hillslope in the same watershed when vegetation differs, and when comparing linkages among different ecoregions. Vegetation and landforms co-evolve, but the feedbacks are just beginning to be understood and quantified. We are looking for new metrics to characterize these interactions and model them at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. The need exists to build stronger linkages between spatial analysis and GIS in the study of hillslope systems. For instance, GIS can be used to study connectivity, distance-decay functions, shape analysis, edge roughness, and the association between patterns. The impact of human activities on these linkages will continue to garner attention as a result of accelerated rates of direct and indirect vegetation change, including the effects of climate change on biogeomorphic form and processes.
[] Whereas these efforts have produced vehicles of understanding that are simple, ordered, unified, and harmonious, they often do not reflect the complexity that leads to multiple possible outcomes -- place-dependent results. Recent perspectives focus on the two-way interplay between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology, where establishing cause-and-effect linkages is made difficult by confounding factors (spatial-temporal scale, location, convergence, divergence, nonlinearity, thresholds, feedbacks). Vegetation and geomorphology interactions are controlled by a combination of global factors (independent of time and place) and the local environmental history -- the perfect landscape of Phillips (2007). Each landscape has an inherited history…from biophysical and human influences…which will almost certainly vary from place to place. Perhaps no clear time scale exists for understanding the linkages between vegetation and geomorphology on hillslopes because of the inherent coupling of biological and physical processes. The historical legacy of local disturbances leads to increased divergence, while global controls lead to convergence. The key, therefore, is to increase the generality of our models, concepts, and research and to reduce the number of variables and factors considered, rather than seek deterministic models to describe landscapes in all of their complexity. Continued refinement of fine-scale deterministic models should be encouraged, but the obstacles to translating these results to different scales need to be explored. At coarse scales, future research, especially those with predictive modeling as the goal, should concentrate on how to increase the generality of concepts and models and should seek to reduce the number of variables and factors considered.},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-5913781,complexity,feedback,forest-resources,geomorphology,integration-techniques,non-linearity,precipitation,runoff,soil-resources,vegetation,water-resources},
number = {3-4}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"8DgfcT8qCQfsH8DKA","bibbaseid":"marston-geomorphologyandvegetationonhillslopesinteractionsdependenciesandfeedbackloops","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Marston, R. A."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Geomorphology and Vegetation on Hillslopes: Interactions, Dependencies, and Feedback Loops","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Marston"],"firstnames":["Richard","A."],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2010-04","journaltitle":"Geomorphology","volume":"116","pages":"206–217","issn":"0169-555X","doi":"10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.09.028","url":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.09.028","abstract":"The linkages between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology have been the subject of serious study for years, but traditionally, ecologists and geomorphologists have viewed these interactions as unidirectional. On the one hand, botanists and landscape ecologists have examined the effects of hillslope features, processes, and materials on vegetation structure, composition, and dynamics. Focus has been placed on the effects of topography (elevation, slope angle, slope aspect), edaphic factors, rock type, and geomorphic disturbance (mass movement, snow avalanches, land surface erosion). On the other hand, geomorphologists have traditionally treated vegetation as an independent variable that affects landforms and sediment routing at limited spatial-temporal scales. Hillslope vegetation and landforms, however, co-evolve. One key is to understand the role of time, disturbances, and feedbacks that link vegetation and geomorphology on hillslopes. The effects of vegetation on mass movement and landscape evolution are being studied in new ways. Many regional studies claim that vegetation becomes less relevant as one moves to larger and larger watershed scales, but ecoregion analysis offers a contrasting view. Whereas these efforts have produced vehicles of understanding that are simple, ordered, unified, and harmonious, they often do not reflect the complexity that leads to multiple possible outcomes – place-dependent results. Recent perspectives focus on the two-way interplay between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology, where establishing cause-and-effect linkages is made difficult by confounding factors (spatial-temporal scale, location, convergence, divergence, nonlinearity, thresholds, feedbacks). Vegetation and geomorphology interactions are controlled by a combination of global factors (independent of time and place) and the local environmental history. Continued refinement of fine-scale deterministic models should be encouraged, but the ability to translate these results to larger scales needs to be explored. At large scales, future research, especially those with predictive modeling as the goal, should concentrate on how to increase the generality of concepts and models and should seek to reduce the number of variables and factors considered. [Excerpt: Summary and conclusions] Scientific discourse on the linkages between vegetation and geomorphology focused on mere description before 1950. Important conceptual advances began about 1950, thanks to the emergence of landscape ecology and field measurement of geomorphic processes. Much excitement has been generated in the last two decades by recent advances in measurement/explanation and now prediction. The strategies for prediction of land surface erosion on hillslopes, mass movement, and landscape evolution range from empirical studies to physically based mechanistic models. Research on the full range of techniques should be encouraged until we reach the day when we can successfully upscale the linkages from mechanistic modeling on small plots and individual organisms to the landscape scale. Our understanding of the feedbacks between geomorphology and vegetation is incomplete. Linkages abound between vegetation and geomorphology on the scale of hillslopes, but the link between cause-and-effect is confounded by many factors. A need exists, however, to construct, calibrate, and test the relationships over the full range of geographic conditions. Place matters…on an individual hillslope (ridge top vs. colluvial hollow), from hillslope to hillslope in the same watershed when vegetation differs, and when comparing linkages among different ecoregions. Vegetation and landforms co-evolve, but the feedbacks are just beginning to be understood and quantified. We are looking for new metrics to characterize these interactions and model them at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. The need exists to build stronger linkages between spatial analysis and GIS in the study of hillslope systems. For instance, GIS can be used to study connectivity, distance-decay functions, shape analysis, edge roughness, and the association between patterns. The impact of human activities on these linkages will continue to garner attention as a result of accelerated rates of direct and indirect vegetation change, including the effects of climate change on biogeomorphic form and processes. [] Whereas these efforts have produced vehicles of understanding that are simple, ordered, unified, and harmonious, they often do not reflect the complexity that leads to multiple possible outcomes – place-dependent results. Recent perspectives focus on the two-way interplay between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology, where establishing cause-and-effect linkages is made difficult by confounding factors (spatial-temporal scale, location, convergence, divergence, nonlinearity, thresholds, feedbacks). Vegetation and geomorphology interactions are controlled by a combination of global factors (independent of time and place) and the local environmental history – the perfect landscape of Phillips (2007). Each landscape has an inherited history…from biophysical and human influences…which will almost certainly vary from place to place. Perhaps no clear time scale exists for understanding the linkages between vegetation and geomorphology on hillslopes because of the inherent coupling of biological and physical processes. The historical legacy of local disturbances leads to increased divergence, while global controls lead to convergence. The key, therefore, is to increase the generality of our models, concepts, and research and to reduce the number of variables and factors considered, rather than seek deterministic models to describe landscapes in all of their complexity. Continued refinement of fine-scale deterministic models should be encouraged, but the obstacles to translating these results to different scales need to be explored. At coarse scales, future research, especially those with predictive modeling as the goal, should concentrate on how to increase the generality of concepts and models and should seek to reduce the number of variables and factors considered.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-5913781,complexity,feedback,forest-resources,geomorphology,integration-techniques,non-linearity,precipitation,runoff,soil-resources,vegetation,water-resources","number":"3-4","bibtex":"@article{marstonGeomorphologyVegetationHillslopes2010,\n title = {Geomorphology and Vegetation on Hillslopes: {{Interactions}}, Dependencies, and Feedback Loops},\n author = {Marston, Richard A.},\n date = {2010-04},\n journaltitle = {Geomorphology},\n volume = {116},\n pages = {206--217},\n issn = {0169-555X},\n doi = {10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.09.028},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.09.028},\n abstract = {The linkages between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology have been the subject of serious study for years, but traditionally, ecologists and geomorphologists have viewed these interactions as unidirectional. On the one hand, botanists and landscape ecologists have examined the effects of hillslope features, processes, and materials on vegetation structure, composition, and dynamics. Focus has been placed on the effects of topography (elevation, slope angle, slope aspect), edaphic factors, rock type, and geomorphic disturbance (mass movement, snow avalanches, land surface erosion). On the other hand, geomorphologists have traditionally treated vegetation as an independent variable that affects landforms and sediment routing at limited spatial-temporal scales. Hillslope vegetation and landforms, however, co-evolve. One key is to understand the role of time, disturbances, and feedbacks that link vegetation and geomorphology on hillslopes. The effects of vegetation on mass movement and landscape evolution are being studied in new ways. Many regional studies claim that vegetation becomes less relevant as one moves to larger and larger watershed scales, but ecoregion analysis offers a contrasting view. Whereas these efforts have produced vehicles of understanding that are simple, ordered, unified, and harmonious, they often do not reflect the complexity that leads to multiple possible outcomes -- place-dependent results. Recent perspectives focus on the two-way interplay between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology, where establishing cause-and-effect linkages is made difficult by confounding factors (spatial-temporal scale, location, convergence, divergence, nonlinearity, thresholds, feedbacks). Vegetation and geomorphology interactions are controlled by a combination of global factors (independent of time and place) and the local environmental history. Continued refinement of fine-scale deterministic models should be encouraged, but the ability to translate these results to larger scales needs to be explored. At large scales, future research, especially those with predictive modeling as the goal, should concentrate on how to increase the generality of concepts and models and should seek to reduce the number of variables and factors considered.\n\n[Excerpt: Summary and conclusions]\n\nScientific discourse on the linkages between vegetation and geomorphology focused on mere description before 1950. Important conceptual advances began about 1950, thanks to the emergence of landscape ecology and field measurement of geomorphic processes. Much excitement has been generated in the last two decades by recent advances in measurement/explanation and now prediction. The strategies for prediction of land surface erosion on hillslopes, mass movement, and landscape evolution range from empirical studies to physically based mechanistic models. Research on the full range of techniques should be encouraged until we reach the day when we can successfully upscale the linkages from mechanistic modeling on small plots and individual organisms to the landscape scale. Our understanding of the feedbacks between geomorphology and vegetation is incomplete. Linkages abound between vegetation and geomorphology on the scale of hillslopes, but the link between cause-and-effect is confounded by many factors. A need exists, however, to construct, calibrate, and test the relationships over the full range of geographic conditions. Place matters…on an individual hillslope (ridge top vs. colluvial hollow), from hillslope to hillslope in the same watershed when vegetation differs, and when comparing linkages among different ecoregions. Vegetation and landforms co-evolve, but the feedbacks are just beginning to be understood and quantified. We are looking for new metrics to characterize these interactions and model them at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. The need exists to build stronger linkages between spatial analysis and GIS in the study of hillslope systems. For instance, GIS can be used to study connectivity, distance-decay functions, shape analysis, edge roughness, and the association between patterns. The impact of human activities on these linkages will continue to garner attention as a result of accelerated rates of direct and indirect vegetation change, including the effects of climate change on biogeomorphic form and processes.\n\n[] Whereas these efforts have produced vehicles of understanding that are simple, ordered, unified, and harmonious, they often do not reflect the complexity that leads to multiple possible outcomes -- place-dependent results. Recent perspectives focus on the two-way interplay between vegetation and hillslope geomorphology, where establishing cause-and-effect linkages is made difficult by confounding factors (spatial-temporal scale, location, convergence, divergence, nonlinearity, thresholds, feedbacks). Vegetation and geomorphology interactions are controlled by a combination of global factors (independent of time and place) and the local environmental history -- the perfect landscape of Phillips (2007). Each landscape has an inherited history…from biophysical and human influences…which will almost certainly vary from place to place. Perhaps no clear time scale exists for understanding the linkages between vegetation and geomorphology on hillslopes because of the inherent coupling of biological and physical processes. The historical legacy of local disturbances leads to increased divergence, while global controls lead to convergence. The key, therefore, is to increase the generality of our models, concepts, and research and to reduce the number of variables and factors considered, rather than seek deterministic models to describe landscapes in all of their complexity. Continued refinement of fine-scale deterministic models should be encouraged, but the obstacles to translating these results to different scales need to be explored. At coarse scales, future research, especially those with predictive modeling as the goal, should concentrate on how to increase the generality of concepts and models and should seek to reduce the number of variables and factors considered.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-5913781,complexity,feedback,forest-resources,geomorphology,integration-techniques,non-linearity,precipitation,runoff,soil-resources,vegetation,water-resources},\n number = {3-4}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Marston, R. A."],"key":"marstonGeomorphologyVegetationHillslopes2010","id":"marstonGeomorphologyVegetationHillslopes2010","bibbaseid":"marston-geomorphologyandvegetationonhillslopesinteractionsdependenciesandfeedbackloops","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.09.028"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-5913781","complexity","feedback","forest-resources","geomorphology","integration-techniques","non-linearity","precipitation","runoff","soil-resources","vegetation","water-resources"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:13.986Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-5913781","complexity","feedback","forest-resources","geomorphology","integration-techniques","non-linearity","precipitation","runoff","soil-resources","vegetation","water-resources"],"search_terms":["geomorphology","vegetation","hillslopes","interactions","dependencies","feedback","loops","marston"],"title":"Geomorphology and Vegetation on Hillslopes: Interactions, Dependencies, and Feedback Loops","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}