The changing landscape of geomorphology 779
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 30, 779–781 (2005)
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 30, 779–781 (2005)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/esp.1250
ESEX Commentary
The changing landscape of geomorphology
Michael A. Summerfield
Institute of Geography, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK
*Correspondence to: M. A. Summerfield, Institute of Geography, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK. E-mail: mas@geo.ed.ac.uk
Mike Church has provided a view of recent changes in geomorphology, especially regarding the growing role of
geophysicists and the diminishing role of ‘geographical geomorphologists’ in the discipline (Church, 2005). Here I
offer a different diagnosis and prognosis based both on my interpretation of the changing research priorities in
geomorphology, and on experience of having collaborated on geomorphological research programmes with geophysicists
and geologists over the past two decades.
These are certainly interesting times for geomorphology: from a discipline regarded by the great majority of Earth
scientists as being, at best, of peripheral interest and having as its subject matter the understanding of a trivial property
of the Earth (the morphology of its landsurface), geomorphology has now become a prominent focus of research for
those concerned with how the Earth works. This is evident in numerous recent meetings involving ‘geographical
geomorphologists’ along with geologists, geochemists and geophysicists, as well as the rapid increase in the number of
geomorphological papers appearing in interdisciplinary and general Earth science journals – a few years back it would
have been difficult to imagine Nature publishing three geomorphological papers in a single issue (Burbank et al., 2003;
Dadson et al., 2003; Reiners et al., 2003). This growing prominence of geomorphology is also well captured in Peter
Koons’ observation about the traditional approach of geophysicists and structural geologists to the understanding
of orogenesis: ‘In retrospect, it is difficult to understand how models of collision zones could be constructed without
reference to the inevitable topography but somehow we managed’ (Koons, 1995). In short, earth scientists, and particularly
geophysicists, have decided that geomorphology matters: so how has this ‘geomorphological turn’ come about?
My own interpretation has already been summarized (Summerfield, 1996, 2000), so here I will just highlight some
of the points where I differ from Mike Church. Although the ready availability of the computing power necessary for
numerical simulations of coupled tectonic–surface process models of landscape evolution has certainly been important
(Beaumont et al., 2000), two other developments have been critical. One was the arrival of digital elevation models
(DEMs) at ever-increasing resolutions and growing coverage which now enables the rapid quantitative analysis of
topography up to continental scales (Montgomery, 2001; Montgomery et al., 2001). Geophysicists were not much
interested in the labour-intensive construction of DEMs from existing topographic maps, but have avidly employed
the digital elevation datasets now widely available. The second key development was the appearance of techniques
that allowed long-term rates of denudation (and therefore crustal mass redistribution) to be quantified. The most
significant of these has been low-temperature thermochronology (Ehlers and Farley, 2003; Gleadow and Brown,
2000), and in spite of the initial confusion as to whether the information provided referred to ‘uplift’ or denudation
(Summerfield and Brown, 1998), the cooling history of rocks moving towards the Earth’s surface as a record of
regional-scale spatial and temporal patterns of denudation has now become the primary basis for empirically constraining
numerical models of long-term landscape development (Brown et al., 2002; van der Beek et al., 2002;
Willett et al., 2003). More recently, cosmogenic isotope analysis has assumed increasing importance as a means of
refining the coarse resolution of thermochronology by providing denudation rate estimates at shorter temporal and
smaller spatial scales, but still over time scales sufficiently long to be of relevance to models of long-term landscape
development (Cockburn and Summerfield, 2004). Techniques applicable to different time scales are now being combined
to address the long-standing issue of the long-term temporal variability of denudation rates (Burbank et al.,
1996; Cockburn et al., 2000), and cosmogenic isotope analysis is providing the missing link between modern denudation
rate studies and the geological time scale perspective.
Although quantitative denudation histories are crucial as constraints on numerical landscape development models, a
further key variable is elevation since this must be predicted if the change in topography through time is to be defined.
Whilst some geophysicists have flirted with the notion (long-abandoned by most geomorphologists) of ‘erosion
780 M. A. Summerfield
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 30, 779–781 (2005)
surfaces’ being a basis for empirically constraining the vertical displacement of the landsurface relative to sea level
(Gurnis et al., 2000), a range of palaeobotanical, isotopic and other palaeoaltimetric techniques have been developed
that can provide useful elevation constraints on palaeotopography in some situations (Chamberlain and Poage, 2000;
Gregory-Wodzicki, 2000; Sahagian et al., 2002; Spicer et al., 2003).
That geophysicists and geochronologists rather than (with some exceptions) ‘geographical geomorphologists’ have
seen the value of these techniques as a means of re-examining long-standing models of landscape evolution is largely
a matter of scale; the ‘quantitative’ shift of geomorphology from the 1950s led to a progressive abandonment of
questions about landscapes at the large scale and over the long term (since the techniques to provide the required
quantification were not then available), and the effective re-definition of the discipline as the study of surface processes
at small spatial and temporal scales. The naming of this journal squarely reflected this realignment (the later
addition of ‘landforms’ to the title being somewhat cosmetic). With this focus on the small scale and the pervasive
view that process in ‘process geomorphology’ excluded endogenic mechanisms (Embleton and Thornes, 1979), ‘geographical
geomorphologists’ were poorly prepared to engage with the technical developments from the 1980s that
have revolutionized our ability to address quantitatively questions about landscape evolution. Such questions have to
include an understanding of tectonic as well as surface processes, and the dominant theme that is now emerging in
landscape evolution is the relative roles of tectonics and climate, a debate that has intensified with the idea that
denudation can be a significant driving mechanism of deformation in orogens (Beaumont et al., 2001; Lamb and
Davis, 2003; Zeitler et al., 2001).
Rather than focusing on the physics underlying the relevant processes, the primary aim in such studies is to apply
basic physical principles in order to understand the temporal and spatial characteristics of specific cases of landscape
evolution. Geophysicists are not interested in the Himalayan–Tibetan Plateau orogen simply as an example of
‘Himalayan-type deformation’; rather they have focused on the specific space and time contingencies involved and
how these have expressed the underlying mechanisms of continental convergence. Certainly there are attempts to
create general models (such as critical wedge models for simple orogens), but the real challenge is applying these
successfully to individual cases which can be adequately constrained by empirical data. Hence the plethora of models
to explain the uplift of the Tibetan Plateau that are extant because we still do not have sound empirical data recording
its change in elevation through time.
So where can ‘geographical geomorphologists’ fit in here? First, they could provide a health check on some of the
geophysics-based modelling studies that are being undertaken. With their field experience and feel for the variables
likely to be important in landscape development, if not their high-level mathematical or modelling skills, they could
be more prominent in questioning some of the assumptions employed – for instance, in modelling the effects of glacial
erosion (Tomkin and Braun, 2002) or proposed links between mantle plume uplift and increased erosion rates and
sediment delivery (White and Lovell, 1997). By interacting more energetically with those outside the traditional
geomorphological community who are now ‘doing geomorphology’, they could also assist the efficiency of the overall
research effort by minimizing instances of re-inventing the wheel; in a recent example, a discussion of the response of
landscapes to perturbations (Allen, 2005) bears some remarkable similarities to the ideas of Brunsden and Thornes
(1979) and others presented more than a quarter of a century earlier. Second, ‘geographical geomorphologists’ could
also explore much more actively the border territory between ‘field-scale’ processes and landscape-scale aggregate
process relationships – for instance, between the details of sediment entrainment in a river, and the generalized
representation of fluvial erosion in large-scale models that usually depend on some formulation of the stream power
law. Third, there could be a contribution through providing a much better understanding of landform elements whose
behaviour is key to the overall development of the landscape; hillslope–channel linkage, knickpoint behaviour, escarpment
retreat and bedrock channel erosion are examples. This research agenda will require the application of the range
of geochronological techniques now available that can provide estimates of process rates and landform behaviour over
time scales that are actually relevant to numerical models of long-term landscape evolution. No longer do we always
need to make untenable temporal and spatial extrapolations from short-term, small-scale measurements.
Such an engagement is only feasible in research teams where complementary skills enable the appropriate techniques
and modelling to be deployed. This is becoming more and more evident in the published literature where
multidisciplinary teams involving ‘geographical geomorphologists’, geochronologists, geologists, geophysicists (and
even occasionally nuclear physicists) are tackling geomorphological problems. In short, those undertaking
geomorphological research from a background in physical geography (and therefore presumably with a reasonable
knowledge of related aspects of, for instance, hydrology, pedology and biogeography) can play a valuable role as part
of a multi-disciplinary team. This, of course, does not exclude the contribution by geomorphologists to environmental
issues envisaged by Mike Church, but there is enormous scope to advance geomorphology as a whole at probably its
most exciting time since it emerged as a distinct discipline – and I have not even mentioned the dazzling research
frontier in planetary geomorphology.
The changing landscape of geomorphology 781
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 30, 779–781 (2005)
References
Allen P. 2005. Striking a chord. Landscapes: when perturbed by climatic and tectonic changes, landscapes resonate with a range of
frequencies. Nature 434: 961.
Beaumont C, Kooi H, Willett S. 2000. Coupled tectonic-surface process models with applications to rifted margins and collisional orogens.
In Geomorphology and Global Tectonics, Summerfield MA (ed.). Wiley: Chichester; 29–55.
Beaumont C, Jamieson RA, Nguyen MH, Lee B. 2001. Himalayan tectonics explained by extrusion of a low-viscosity crustal channel
coupled to focused surface denudation. Nature 414: 738–742.
Brown RW, Summerfield MA, Gleadow AJW. 2002. Denudational history along a transect across the Drakensberg Escarpment of southern
Africa derived from apatite fission track thermochronology. Journal of Geophysical Research 107(B12): 2350. DOI: 10.1029/2001JB000745
Brunsden D, Thornes J. 1979. Landscape sensitivity and change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS4: 463–484.
Burbank DW, Leland J, Fielding E, Anderson RS, Brozovic N, Reid MR, Duncan C. 1996. Bedrock incision, rock uplift, and threshold
hillsloopes in the northwestern Himalaya. Nature 379: 505–510.
Burbank DW, Blythe AE, Putkonen J, Pratt-Sitaula B, Gabet E, Oskin M, Barros A, Ojha TP. 2003. Decoupling of erosion and precipitation
in the Himalayas. Nature 426: 652–655.
Chamberlain CP, Poage MA. 2000. Reconstructing the paleotopography of mountain belts from the isotopic composition of authigenic
minerals. Geology 28: 115–118.
Church M. 2005. Continental drift. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 30: 129–130.
Cockburn HAP, Summerfield MA. 2004. Geomorphological applications of cosmogenic isotope analysis. Progress in Physical Geography
28: 1–42.
Cockburn HAP, Brown RW, Summerfield MA, Seidl MA. 2000. Quantifying passive margin denudation and landscape development using a
combined fission-track thermochronology and cosmogenic isotope approach. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 179: 429–435.
Dadson SJ, Hovius N, Chen H, Dade WB, Meng-Long H, Willett SD, Jyr-Ching H, Ming-Jame H, Meng-Chiang C, Stark CP, Lague D,
Jiun-Chuan L. 2003. Links between erosion, runoff variability and seismicity in the Taiwan orogen. Nature 426: 648–651.
Ehlers TA, Farley KA. 2003. Apatite (U-Th)/He thermochronometry: methods and applications to problems in tectonic and surface processes.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 206: 1–14.
Embleton C, Thornes J. (ed.) 1979. Process in Geomorphology. Arnold: London.
Gleadow AJW, Brown RW. 2000. Fission-track thermochronology and the long-term denudational response to tectonics. In Geomorphology
and Global Tectonics, Summerfield MA (ed.). Wiley: Chichester; 57–75.
Gregory-Wodzicki KM. 2000. Uplift history of the central and northern Andes: A review. Geological Society of America Bulletin 112: 1091–
1105.
Gurnis M, Mitrovica JX, Ritsema J, van Heijst H-J. 2000. Constraining mantle density structure using geological evidence of surface uplift
rates: The case of the African Superplume. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 1, 1999GC00035[26963].
Koons PO. 1995. Modeling the topographic evolution of collisional belts. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 23: 375–408.
Lamb S, Davis P. 2003. Cenozoic climate change as a possible cause for the rise of the Andes. Nature 425: 792–797.
Montgomery DR. 2001. Slope distributions, threshold hillslopes, and steady-state topography. American Journal of Science 301: 432–454.
Montgomery DR, Balco G, Willett SD. 2001. Climate, tectonics, and the morphology of the Andes. Geology 29: 579–582.
Reiners PW, Ehlers TA, Mitchell SG, Montgomery DR. 2003. Coupled spatial variations in precipitation and long-term erosion rates across
the Washington Cascades. Nature 426: 645–647.
Sahagian DL, Proussevitch AA, Carlson WD. 2002. Analysis of vesicular basalts and lava emplacement processes for application as a
paleobarometer/paleoaltimeter. Journal of Geology 110: 671–685.
Spicer RA, Harris NBW, Widdowson M, Herman AB, Shuangxing G, Valdes PJ, Wolfe JA, Kelley SP. 2003. Constant elevation of southern
Tibet over the past 15 million years. Nature 421: 622–624.
Summerfield MA. 1996. Understanding landscape development: the evolving interface between geomorphology and other earth sciences.
Area 28: 211–220.
Summerfield MA. 2000. Geomorphology and global tectonics: introduction. In Geomorphology and Global Tectonics, Summerfield MA
(ed.). Wiley: Chichester; 3–12.
Summerfield MA, Brown RW. 1998. Geomorphic factors in the interpretation of fission-track data. In Advances in Fission-Track Geochronology
Van den Haute P, De Corte F. (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht; 269–284.
Tomkin, JH, Braun J. 2002. The influence of alpine glaciation on the relief of tectonically active mountain belts. American Journal of
Science 302: 169–190.
van der Beek P, Summerfield MA, Braun J, Brown RW, Fleming A. 2002. Modeling postbreakup landscape development and denudational
history across the southeast African (Drakensberg Escarpment) margin. Journal of Geophysical Research 107(B12): 2350. DOI: 10.1029/
2001JB000744
White N, Lovell B. 1997. Measuring the pulse of a plume with the sedimentary record. Nature 387: 888–891.
Willett SD, Fisher D, Fuller C, Yeh EC, Lu CY. 2003. Erosion rates and orogenic wedge kinematics in Taiwan inferred from apatite fission
track thermochronometry. Geology 31: 945–948.
Zeitler PK, Meltzer AS, Koons PO, Craw D, Hallet B, Chamberlain CP, Kidd WSF, Park SK, Seeber L, Bishop M, Shroder J. 2001. Erosion,
Himalayan geodynamics, and the geomorphology of metamorphism. GSA Today January: 4–9.