Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The need for field evidence in modelling landform evolution

  • Part I Terrain Representation And Analysis
  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Process Modelling and Landform Evolution

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences ((LNEARTH,volume 78))

Abstract

A recent debate within the international geomorphological community is related to a divergence between present process studies and landform evolution modelling. The paper argues that these models have to be based on some fundamental characteristics of landforms derived from field observations, including the spatial hierarchy of nested landform assemblages, the lifetime and temporal persistence of landforms, the 3-D sediment body of landforms, the 2-D surface of paleo landforms, and the spatial heterogenity of geomorphological process domains. It is suggested that different model types should be considered as requirements to modelling landforms and landform change in time including sediment storages, sediment budgets and event sequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ahnert, F. (1988): Modelling landform change. In: Anderson, M.G. (ed.): Modelling Geomorphological Systems, 375–400, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bak, P. (1996): How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsch, D. (1995): Gedanken über die Zukunft der Geomorphologie. Quaestiones Geographicae, 4:37–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckinsale, R.P., and R.J. Chorley (1991): The History of Landforms Vol.3: Historical and Regional Geomorphology 1890–1950. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beven, K. (1996): Equifinality and uncertainty in geomorphological modeling. In: Rhoads, B.L., and C.E. Thorn (eds.): The Scientific Nature of Geomorphology, 289–313, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsden, D. (1993): The persistence of landforms. Z. Geomorph., N.F., Suppl.-Bd. 93:13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsden, D. (1996): Geomorphological events and landform change. Z. Geomorph., N.F., 40:273–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büdel, J. (1982): Climatic Geomorphology. Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chorley, R.J. (1972): Spatial analysis in geomorphology. In: Chorley, R.J. (ed.): Spatial Analysis in Geomorphology, 3–16, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chorley, R.J., S.A. Schumm, and D.E. Sugden (1984): Geomorphology. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crozier, M. (1996): Magnitude/Frequency issues in landslide hazard assessment. Heidelberger Geogr. Arbeiten, 104:221–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crozier, M. (1997): Concepts and issues in the study of the frequency and magnitude of geomorphic processes and landform behaviour. International Association of Geomorphologists Conference, 1997, Bologna (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, D.H. (1991): Hierarchies and spatial scale in process geomorphology. A review. Geomorphology, 4(5):303–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dikau, R. (1989): The application of a digital relief model to landform analysis in geomorphology. In: Raper, J. (ed.): Three Dimensional Application in Geographic Information Systems, 51–77, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dikau, R. (1990): Geomorphic landform modelling based on Hierarchy Theorie. Proc. 4th Intern. Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, 23.–27. July, Zürich, 230–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, I. (1982): The unfulfilled promise: Earth surface processes as a key to landform evolution. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 7:101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haff, P.K. (1996): Limitations on predictive modeling in geomorphology. In: Rhoads, B.L., and C.E. THORN (eds.): The Scientific Nature of Geomorphology, 337–358, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hergarten, S., and H.J. Neugebauer (1998): Self-organized criticality in a landslide model. Geophys. Res. Letters, 25(6):801–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovius, N., C.P. Stark, and P.A. Allen (1997): Sediment flux from a mountain belt derived by landslide mapping. Geology, 25:231–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • IAG (1995): International Association of Geomorphologists, Newsletter No. 12 (2/1995). Z. Geomorph. N. F., 39:265–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefremow, J.K. (1949): Versuch einer morphographischen Klassifikation der Elemente und einfachen Formen des Reliefs (russ.). Woprosy Geografii, Bd. 11, Moskau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkby, M.J. (1996): A role for theoretical models in geomorphology. In: Rhoads, B.L., and C.E. Thorn (eds.): The Scientific Nature of Geomorphology, 257–272, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kugler, H. (1974): Das Georelief und seine kartographische Modellierung. Diss. B, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle, Wittenberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penck, A. (1894): Morphologie der Erdoberfläche. Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penck, A. (1896): Die Geomorphologie als genetische Wissenschaft: eine Einleitung zur Diskussion über geomorphologische Nomenklatur. Comptes Rendas, 6. Int. Geogr. Kongress, London, Sektion C, 735–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, R., and R. Dikau (1995, eds.): Advances in Geomorphometry. Z. Geomorph., N.F., Suppl.-Bd., 101, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoads, B.L., and C.E. Thorn (1996, eds.): The Scientific Nature of Geomorphology. Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, K., N. Arnold, S. Lane, S. Chandra, A. El-Hames, and N. Mattikalli (1995): Numerical landscapes: static, kinematic and dynamic process-form relations. In: Pike, R., and R. Dikau (eds.): Advances in Geomorphometry, Z. Geomorph., N.F., Suppl.-Bd., 101:201–220, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, D.F. (1988): Landscape analysis and the search for geomorphic unity. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 100:160–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohdenburg, H. (1970): Morphodynamische Aktivitäts— und Stabilitätszeiten statt Pluvial— und Interpluvialzeiten. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart, 21:81–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumm, S.A. (1991): To Interpret the Earth — Ten ways to be wrong. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumm, S.A., and R.W. Lichty (1965): Time, space and causality in geomorphology. Am. J. Sci., 263:110–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semmel, A. (1989): The importance of loess in the interpretation of geomorphological process and for dating in the Federal Republic of Germany. Catena, Suppl., 15:179–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaymaker; O. (1991): Mountain geomorphology: a theoretical framework for measurement programmes. Catena, 18:427–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaymaker, O. (1997): A pluralist, problem-focused geomorphology. In: Stoddart, D.R.: (ed.): Process and Form in Geomorphology, 328–339, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speight, J.G. (1988): Landform classification. In: Gunn, R.H., Beattie, J.A., R.E. Reid, and R.H.M. van de Graaff (eds.): Australian Soil and Land Survey Handbook, 38–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoddart, D.R: (1997, ed.): Process and Form in Geomorphology. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornes, J. (1987): Environmental systems — patterns, processes and evolution. In: Clark, M.J., K.J. Gregory, and A.M. Gurnell (eds.): Horizons in Physical Geography, 27–46, Totowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whalley, W.B. (1984): Rockfalls. In: Brunsden, D., and D.B. Prior (eds.): Slope Instability, 217–256, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiting, P.J., and D.J. Furbish (1995, eds.): Predicting Process from Form. Geomorphology, 13(3), Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willgoose, G.R. (1994): A statistic for testing the elevation characteristics of landscape simulation models. J. Geophys. Res., 99(13):987–996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolman, M.G., and J.P. Miller (1960): Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes. J. Geol., 68:54–74.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, University of Bonn, Germany

    R. Dikau

Authors
  1. R. Dikau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Stefan Hergarten Horst J. Neugebauer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dikau, R. (1999). The need for field evidence in modelling landform evolution. In: Hergarten, S., Neugebauer, H.J. (eds) Process Modelling and Landform Evolution. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, vol 78. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0009717

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0009717

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64932-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68307-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation